William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security: The Man Who Won't Be (But Should Be) King
By William M. Arkin. Published by the Washington Post on August 17, 2007
For all of Sen. Hillary Clinton's nimble posturing and Sen. Barack Obama's rhetorical splendor, on foreign policy they've been bested by a man who doesn't have a prayer of becoming the next president: Gov. Bill Richardson.
The Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms-control group, submitted seven questions about national security to the presidential candidates, garnering some interesting insights from the front-runners. (The questions and responses can be found here; oddly enough, only Democrats responded.)
Clinton made it clear once again that she is a realist and a Washington fixture, demurring on the question of a "world free of nuclear weapons," a notable departure from the other candidates. Clinton supports a "global effort to reduce the terrible dangers of nuclear weapons," but she stops short of rhetorically committing herself to disarmament, preferring "sensible near-term steps."
Obama also stays in character -- he really separates himself from the pack by appearing more hawkish than the others. Obama surrounds himself with a set of liberal advisors who are notable for their support of the military in humanitarian interventions and of more robust and focused counterterrorism efforts.
Obama did not say he's against building a new nuclear warhead; he almost seems to want to prove that he "supports" military and nuclear weapons programs to allay the deadly "dove" label. Intellectually, though, I can't see how one can support a new generation of American nuclear warheads and also be in favor of nuclear disarmament. One has to start the long and difficult process somewhere.
Now read how Bill Richardson handled the question of new nuclear warheads: "We do not need a new generation of nuclear weapons," he says, speaking as a former Energy secretary. "Under my administration, we will lead the world toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals, not their augmentation," he writes.
And then he tied it together with other objectives to make it real: "The Non-Proliferation Treaty commits non-nuclear states to forego nuclear weapons, and it also commits the nuclear weapons states to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Too often, this aspect of the Treaty is forgotten. In order to get others to take the NPT seriously, we need to take it seriously ourselves. We should re-affirm our commitment to the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament, and we should invite the Russians to join us in a moratorium on all new nuclear weapons. And we should negotiate further staged reductions in our arsenals, beyond what has already been agreed, over the next decade."
Richardson also excels at answers on Russia, Iran and North Korea, on Pakistan, and on actual moves he might take to reduce the chance the nuclear weapons or nuclear materials would make their way into the hands of terrorists. "Negotiations to reduce our arsenal also represent our diplomatic ace-in-the-hole," Richardson writes. "We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same -- and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures."
It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."
We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."
And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.
