The More Security You Have, The More You Will Need
Subtitle: A Little Bit About My Research
Here's what I've been doing all night -- a slide on Canadian perceptions of the War on Terror for Dr. Frank Harvey, who presented his CDFAI thesis "The Homeland Security Dilemma: The Imagination of Failure and the Escalating Cost of Perfecting Security" (pdf) in Ottawa this morning. The slide was laboriously constructed as per the directions given in his email, which I received on Wednesday, after I enquired about when he'd need a slide by:
Drum roll:
Explanation: the red line represents support for Canada's operation in Afghanistan (insofar as it pertains to the War on Terror); the blue line represents the "yes" side of a question involving whether or not a terrorist attack in Canada is imminent; and the yellow line represents public opinion regarding our government's preparedness in fighting the War on Terror (this is inclusive of border security) -- i.e., a "positive" response here indicates that we should do more to be prepared.
The timeline begins just after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre towers in New York and ends in September, 2006.
The graph shows that opinion of Afghanistan has been declining while opinion of the seriousness of a terrorist threat has been increasing. If we juxtaposed this graph with Canadian defence spending (counter-terrorism and non), we'd see a four-headed hydra forming: defence spending goes up -- but public support for Afghanistan goes down, public belief that we will be attacked by terrorists goes up, and the number of Canadians who believe we should do more to be prepared remains the same, with some fluctuation.
The question: where do you draw the line on counter-terrorism spending? And what do you do if you draw the line and are attacked afterward?
再见。
Here's what I've been doing all night -- a slide on Canadian perceptions of the War on Terror for Dr. Frank Harvey, who presented his CDFAI thesis "The Homeland Security Dilemma: The Imagination of Failure and the Escalating Cost of Perfecting Security" (pdf) in Ottawa this morning. The slide was laboriously constructed as per the directions given in his email, which I received on Wednesday, after I enquired about when he'd need a slide by:
Hi Chris,Yes, we academics like to live on the edge. *Cough* This is a preliminary slide, even though it took me about ten hours to make.
I'll need the slide by tomorrow if at all possible (I leave for CASIS Thursday
evening). Just need some recent polling trends on terrorism. The Afghanistan
polling can wait for now.
Frank
Drum roll:
Explanation: the red line represents support for Canada's operation in Afghanistan (insofar as it pertains to the War on Terror); the blue line represents the "yes" side of a question involving whether or not a terrorist attack in Canada is imminent; and the yellow line represents public opinion regarding our government's preparedness in fighting the War on Terror (this is inclusive of border security) -- i.e., a "positive" response here indicates that we should do more to be prepared.
The timeline begins just after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre towers in New York and ends in September, 2006.
The graph shows that opinion of Afghanistan has been declining while opinion of the seriousness of a terrorist threat has been increasing. If we juxtaposed this graph with Canadian defence spending (counter-terrorism and non), we'd see a four-headed hydra forming: defence spending goes up -- but public support for Afghanistan goes down, public belief that we will be attacked by terrorists goes up, and the number of Canadians who believe we should do more to be prepared remains the same, with some fluctuation.
The question: where do you draw the line on counter-terrorism spending? And what do you do if you draw the line and are attacked afterward?
再见。
posted by C. LaRoche at
19:14
10...thoughts from my fellow Saturnalians:
Hi Rob, thanks for the comment. How's life?
In any case, if I might correct you, Frank asked the classic risk management question. I'm just the hired help. As such, I have very few answers myself :)
The thesis does raise a point, as do your "non-answers," that is a non-point or non-answer itself.
That is, how can we justifiably do A. without losing seats in Parliament, the Senate, House of Representatives, or the Oval Office?
Especially if B occurs in an election year?
The security dilemma is a lot more acute in the U.S., where public approval of everything security and terrorism-related has slowly gone down as defence spending has slowly gone up. At some point, the incumbent government will have to say "We're spending enough on counter-terrorism."
I wonder where that threshold will be, of course, and what sort of civil liberties, government programs, financial freedoms, and so on we're going to have to give up before we get there, for both operational and financial reasons.
As you know from ol' Winham's class and elsewhere, the American gov's financial model is heading pretty far into the deep-end. Imagine if 5-10 years from now the U.S.'s anti-terrorism spending is double or triple what it is now, and the following statement is no longer true:
"The real "risk management" answer may be that we spend an alarming low amount of money on counter-terrorism."
What would society look like? Would we live in a democracy? Would the Canadian government be able to afford health care? Or reinvest in the provinces?
I think one irony here is that Dr. Harvey, a realist to the core, is asking what seems to be a purely security-related question but is in reality very, very "liberal." How do we reconcile a pragmatic need for counter-terrorism operations with the (perhaps fickle?) will of the demos?
I think we're going to have to head into a cost-benefit toss-up where the "absolute" characteristic that is now given to counter-terrorism suddenly becomes "relative" to everything else -- our freedoms and what our government already does with our money outside of security. It seems that right now those last two haven't been put in real jeopardy by anything in the counter-terrorism realm, nothing that has inspired the voting majorities to be overly concerned (not even the Patriot Act has turned an election). Is there a threshold to be had where security vs. democratic society WILL turn elections?
We might find out ;)
By
C. LaRoche, at Sat Oct 28, 08:43:00 a.m. ADT
Rob: Good to hear that things are good.
"Things are going very well. Kids and I have settled into a decent routine which allows for me to do some late-night blogging! As a tired 'late-night blogger' I have to correct my own sentence from my last post."
Solution: coffee.
Actually, you really shouldn't take any advice from me. For starters, you're far more wise, adult, and so on. But the real crux here is that I can longer really interact with "normal" 9-5 society, because I tend to go to bed at 5 p.m. and get up at 3 now that I have no real work schedule or class. It makes for a half-decent nightlife, though.
By
C. LaRoche, at Mon Oct 30, 04:42:00 a.m. AST
Whoops, sorry Rob, I just realized I didn't answer your comment. I'm surprised the S.O./Jason Green/Riley lot hasn't piped up yet. This is their sort of post.
This:
Really, in a state-centric system, surely the state could take a hit or two and still fully recover and function (in a pre-nuclear scenario). Therefore a large portion of money being spent is to appease the electorate rather than a prudent cost-benefit analysis. (yes, it sounds harsh but if a few hundred/thousand people die in an attack (9/11 type scenario) the state will recover). All bets are off if nukes get in the hands of non-state actors.
Is right on the money. In fact, I would probably guess that more Americans die each year as a result of the unaffordability of medication than have in terrorist attacks, or Iraq, 2001's tally included.
I suppose feeling "insecure" isn't something North Americans have experienced since Peark Harbour or, perhaps, in the heyday of McCarthyism and the "fight" against Communist expansion. In those cases, internal communism may have been just as constructed a threat as Iraq. But you're right. Domestic Security and the War Against Tyrannies and Rogue States has been broached into this "War on Terror," and that has made something like "security spending" very vague and wishy-washy. Do the $500 or what have you that go into each M-16 being used in Iraq have anything to do with "security?"
This is a point I'm going to bring up with Frank. It may simply be that security spending = Iraq (or, in Canada's case, Afghanistan). So the increases really mean we are spending more and more on a mission we like less and less, and not actually "securing" anything. If we spent money on actually "securing" our borders (which I am sure we do), and this was somehow demonstratable (?), perceptions of security might cool off.
By
C. LaRoche, at Mon Oct 30, 04:49:00 a.m. AST
Chris:
I am no expert like you and Rob, but what this slide says to me is that Canadians do not believe the mission in Afghanistan is not an effective counter-terrorist measure. Support for the mission is waning while belief in a domestic attack is growing.
So, to me, the question is not how much we should spend on counter-terrorism but, rather, how we should spend it. In my view, Canadians have lost faith in the Afghanistan mission, not because of the financial cost, because of the human loss and the change in the nature of the mission (from peace keeping to war). Far be it from me to speak for the entire nation, but it seems to me that Canadians believe their money could be better spent on counter-terror measures at home.
In other words, the war in Afghanistan does little to thwart a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.
By
Anonymous, at Mon Oct 30, 08:36:00 a.m. AST
Rob:
Point taken... Omit "change in the nature of the mission" and insert "escalation of the mission".
By
Anonymous, at Tue Oct 31, 08:38:00 a.m. AST
I'm with Rob on this one, though I'm not sure if Afghanistan is either "just" or "winnable." I think we're into a mode of "war" these days that is hard to characterize, has no clear win/loss or zero-sum elements, and is difficult to consider "just" or not (we end up asking questions like: "well, was the life of the average Afghani worse or better before? And we have to answer this with, "well, it depends...")
What I am sure of is that Canada committed to its CURRENT mission under the Liberals, and that a pullout would do more harm for Canadian foreign policy and international perceptions of our usefulness abroad that is would do "good" for any Canadians (whatever that be). People have died, yes, and there is a lot of debate about the usefulness of the mission.
But let's look at the alternatives -- by leaving, we:
1. Essentially admit that Canada only supports an international mission so long as it does not take casualties;
2. Compromise our reputation as a semi-respected voice in international affairs; and
3. Ignore the reality that our job needs doing, and that someone else with have to do it in our stead (the U.S.?).
What boggles my mind with the NDP position on this issue is that they support a complete and immediate withdrawal. Say what you want about how our mission fails to serve Canadian interests or encourages terrorism, but one thing must be considered: Canadian troops are essentially the last line between the "free" Afghanistan espoused by Kabul and the "non-free" or "anarchic" Afghanistan that would surely result if Talibani forces re-took the country.
Rather than simply thinking about Canadians, perhaps we should think about the average Afghani. Do they benefit from our presence? Yes.
I think there is still a lot of room to debate the specifics of our mission, and, if we feel the mission isn't something we see as positive, propose alternatives and negotiate them with NATO. This unilateral withdrawal stuff has me huffing, though.
By
C. LaRoche, at Tue Oct 31, 04:32:00 p.m. AST
Rob:
I don't have any answers either. What concerns me is that the government does not seem to have any either.
I disagree with you about the escalation of the mission. Whether it is the result of the enemy's resolve or a change in plans, the mission has escalated. I would suggest it has to do with both -- but also a lack of support from the international community. The fact is that this is not the mission that Canada signed on to initially. As you said in your initial response to me, the mission was to focus on stability and reconstruction. Today, our armed forces are engaged in pure combat.
I do not propose that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan and, quite frankly, it pisses me off to no end when people throw "cut and run" accusations at anyone who questions the mission. However, I also think it is dangerous to take the position that this mission should continue in perpetuity no matter what. There are alot of "right and just" actions that Canada could take around the world, but we don't have the resources to do so.
In my view, Canada's presence in Afghanistan is spiralling out of control. We need to re-assess our involvement. We need to define our goals and demand greater international assistance. Our military personnel deserve at least that much.
By
Devin Maxwell, at Tue Oct 31, 04:33:00 p.m. AST
Devin:
I think this is probably the best idea that has come up in discussion of Afghanistan:
"We need to define our goals and demand greater international assistance."
The goals are well-defined -- so is the mission. And, the mission we signed on to IS the current one, if you take mission to mean our paper commitments.
What has changed is not the nature of the mission from our end, but the nature of the "counter-mission" or resistance to it from the other end. The mission involves fighting off Taliban forces and, as we do that, develop Afghanistan behind our own lines. This is exactly what is going on -- we're just fighting the Taliban a lot more than we expected. In other words, resistance from the "other side" has meant that the combat aspect of our mission has been much more prominent (and, I might say, for good reason. You cannot build a nation if it is overrun with anti-West Talibani forces).
On the international commitment idea, however -- this is an idea that obviously needs to find a bigger audience and hit more newspapers. Almost everyone involved in the Afghanistan mission has made it clear that more international cooperation would give this thing a much better chance of getting somewhere, and sooner. There are some caveats, though:
1. On a rhetorical level, Canada will either have to keep its current commitments or increase them. Otherwise our plea for help will in effect just get someone else to shoulder some of what we signed on to. Internationally, this ain't gonna fly.
2. On a strategic level, Canada will never convince anyone else to commit anything unless they see that it is in their interest. Considering anti-Afghanistan movement in our country are strong, I have a feeling European governments are sitting about thinking that they will be voted out of office if they suddenly sent a dispatch to Afghanistan. The solution to this is to make this mission as multilateral as possible without having to include all sorts of countries that don't get along, or are hard to organize.
An EU commitment that comes from Brussels and includes bits of troops from all EU countries under one central organization might do the trick.
Or, perhaps, an Asian contingent. Or more commitment from the Japanese and Australians. Something to this extent.
But how do we make it in these countries' interests to commit more, or anything at all?
That's a tough question. I think Canadians need to come up with some ideas here -- trade deals, whatever -- and use those as inducements. I think the point that Afghanistan was clearly a "terrorist" nation and a terrorist-supporting one before we got there, and it isn't now, and it probably will be if we leave again, hold a lot of water. But it isn't watertight insofar as it will inspire nations who have committed little to actually step up. They are going to need some persuation, and I think, being the realist I sometimes pretend to be, that we're going to have to offer other countries major incentives to help us out. In the meantime, we should look out our own country and figure out what sort of international deal might benefit ailing sectors of the Canadian economy. Talking out of my ass: What about something like lower tarrifs on Atlantic imports and exports to EU countries? This could be part of a deal, and could help the ports in Halifax, St. John's, and St. John to recoup losses from the death of the Atlantic as the world's major shipping ocean.
By
C. LaRoche, at Tue Oct 31, 04:47:00 p.m. AST
Well I'm just reading through these comments and MAN devin do I think you have no grasp of international relations. Honestly you're so partisan you have a red Liberal crest shoved up your ass.
Escalation is so simple a term. You say that because more Canadians have died since we moved to Khandahar. Well duh, the mission was always as Rob explains to set up PRT's and route out existing insurgents.
The mission is extremely well defined, there have been several NATO conferences and discussions to properly define every aspect. Please read the London Conference and the Afghan Compact websites ( i won't link them here but google them if you like).
What you and others are saying when you emplore Canada to "redefine" and "reevaluate" the mission is "please make it easier and don't put our own troops in harms way".
What really got me rip roarin mad is your completely inacurate depiction of Canada engaging in "pure combat"..... I'm surprized Rob didn't immediately slap your sorry ass down when you said that. His wife, no doubt an incredible woman, works at the Khandahar Hospital. Not only does she treat our own soldiers but her colleagues have also treated regular Afghan citizens. You and other un-informed folk do disrespect to the many women and men in Afghanistan who ARE building roads, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure. You know that of the 2300 soldiers in Afghanistan, only something like 500-600 are engaged in combat? How's that for "pure combat".
Or your point about the international community needing to help out. There are 36 countries involved in the south, most are TAPPED OUT kinda like Canada is... ya know, cause we ripped our armed forces apart ever since the end of the cold war just like every other European country did. So it's kinda hard to tell them to "step it up" cause they are tapped out.
My favorite line of yours is "our military personnel deserve that much". Yeah, like they deserve the NDP putting forth a motion calling them terrorists, or to listen to Kennedy call their mission a "search and kill" mission. Or to listen to people like you call it a "pure combat mission". Tell that to the engineer corps stationed there, or the military people embedded in the government beaurocracy, or the people going out and engaging the local leaders. You know, the guy that had an axe shoved in his head when he went to meet a village elder for tea.
Boy what we REALLY need is Devin to set them all straight!
By
Forward Looking Canadian, at Thu Nov 02, 03:20:00 p.m. AST
I think I just heard someone's skull cracking.
By
C. LaRoche, at Thu Nov 02, 03:27:00 p.m. AST
Post a Comment
<< Home