Friday, August 1, 2008

Barack Obama and Homeland Security

Who has the candidate’s ear on homeland security issues? A look at the roster of names and faces surrounding the senator from Illinois.

Over the past two years, as presidential campaign 2008 has ground on, the public has been constantly exposed to seemingly nanosecond-by-nanosecond saturation coverage. We’ve been subjected to nearly all aspects of political effluvia and arcana, from analyses of personality quirks and conflicts, image crafting, election tactics, opinion polls, fundraising, advertising spots and fine points of debating style and lapel pins.

Largely lost from view is the fact that political campaigns are primary vehicles for the creation of “brain trusts” which, in the case of winning campaigns, will generate many of the chief advisory posts of a new administration. ...

“Nonetheless,” he added, “if you look not so far beneath the surface, all of these issues are integrally connected to homeland security. So you can say that homeland security is an important subtext. ...

“One key thing that distinguishes Senator Obama’s approach as a candidate both from his Democratic rival[s] and, even more so from Senator McCain,” Michael Ortiz, Senator Obama’s communications director, told HSToday, “is his insistence on a pragmatic, analytical method in defining funding needs based on risk. In theory, everyone is in favor of prioritizing funding according to risk, but in practice homeland security funding has been politicized in a very counter-productive way so that every location, whether it warranted it or not, could get a piece of the pie.”

Obama sought to translate his rhetoric into legislation by co-sponsoring the Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007 (S. 608). Citing the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that “homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general sharing,” Obama’s amendment to the bill called for decreasing the current minimum funding each state received under the state homeland security grant program to .25 percent, with an increase to .45 percent for border states. ...

One outspoken supporter whom Obama and his policy team have enlisted as a national and homeland security guru is Lee Hamilton, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees and vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. ...

Hamilton’s perspectives on the challenges ahead for homeland security can be seen in a commentary—titled “Reckoning with Radical Islam”—published last summer by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

“Our current counter-terror strategy is inadequate,” Hamilton wrote. ...

Another formal senior advisor to Obama and subject of speculation as an Obama vice-presidential running mate, Sam Nunn, former Democratic Georgia senator, has in public addresses and publications over the past year been laying out an agenda that places an emphasis on US diplomatic initiatives and leadership in multilateral projects to stem the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. ...

Former Colorado senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart, an Obama supporter frequently mentioned as a likely high-level Cabinet member in an Obama administration, has described Obama as an ideal leader to forge the kind of multilateral security alliances critical to a truly international counterterror strategy. ...

In a book titled Under the Eagle’s Wing: A National Security Strategy of the United States for 2009 published in April, Hart outlined his current thinking on national and homeland security and on the priorities of a new administration. ...

Richard Clarke, an informal advisor on homeland security and related matters to the Obama campaign, has said he believes Obama “offers a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism, recognizing the importance of stopping repressive police and intelligence activities in countries threatened by Al Qaeda,” while also acknowledging, “that we are not at war with Islam but partners with Muslims threatened by Al Qaeda.” ...

Taken in tandem, these positions signal potentially large differences in policy priorities between the candidates.






No comments: