Joe Biden, U.S. Senator for Delaware

September 9, 2003

Two years ago, in a speech at the National Press Club, I argued for the United States to focus on the most urgent threats facing our country.

Not the Star Wars type national missile defense system this Administration was pushing – obsessively.

I argued that the real threat will come in the hold of a ship, the belly of a plane, or will be smuggled over the border in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.

I urged the Administration, to set aside its ideological bias and its determination to build a Maginot line in the sky, and, instead, focus on the real threats to America’s security.

I argued that a national missile defense system was neither the highest priority nor the answer.

The next day was September 11th.

Last Sunday night, the President gave me some hope that he may finally be breaking out of that ideological straight jacket, at least concerning Iraq.

I hope that his commitment to make Iraq the world’s responsibility and not just our own is more than rhetorical.

But, I must say, the Administration’s U-turn, welcome as it is still leaves our foreign policy headed in the wrong direction. That is what I want to talk about today.

Let me be clear: I do not question the motives of either the neo-conservatives in this Administration who discount the value of international institutions we’ve built and put a premium on the use of unilateral military power even if it means alienating the world. Or the knee jerk multilateralists in our own Party who have not yet faced the reality of the post 9-11 world...and believe that we can only exercise power if we get the world’s approval first.

It is my view that we cannot conduct foreign policy at the extremes. The stakes are too high. The choices we make now are critical and will shape the next fifty years just as the consensus behind containment shaped the last fifty years.

This is not a time for political rhetoric. This is a time for hard facts, sober analysis, and decisive action that will make us more secure.

What we need isn’t the death of internationalism or the denial of our stark national interest. What we need is a more enlightened nationalism that understands the benefit of working with others and the value of international institutions, but one that supports the use of military force – without apology or hesitation – when we must.

Are We More Secure Or Less Secure?

The truth is that while lots of analysts and other so-called experts talk about the so-called “bottom line” as they try to convince us about what’s important or what we should think the American people understand very clearly what matters most.

Do our priorities, our policies, our actions make us MORE SECURE OR LESS SECURE?

I believe that this Administration’s priorities, policies, and actions demonstrate much too narrow a definition of national security. As a result, we have missed significant opportunities to make America more secure.

The devastating punch we took on September 11th still reverberates throughout American society.

I’ve spoken many times about the pervasive sense of vulnerability and insecurity we feel, not only collectively as a nation, but in our personal lives, and it has not gotten any better.

We think twice about our travel plans. We think twice about riding elevators in tall buildings. We even think twice about letting our kids go on field trips. Yesterday’s soccer moms truly are today’s security moms.

In the days after 9-11, those moms – and Americans everywhere – looked for a way they could do something to help. It was a time that called for rallying the nation and tapping into the desire all of us had to do something for our country to unite us.

And I believe history will judge President Bush most harshly for squandering that opportunity.

Missed Opportunities Rather than readjusting priorities to meet the new realities we faced the Administration persisted in pursuing policies that were no longer relevant, and even counter productive.

Sadly and dangerously, the squandering of opportunities persists to this day here at home and beyond our borders, driven by a domestic ideological imperative - the Devolution of Government - that limits our options.

Here at home, we have squandered the opportunity to rally Americans to service.

Remember Americans standing in long lines to give blood after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? We should have taken that opportunity to rekindle an American spirit of community, and make service a noble cause again.

We squandered the opportunity to rally Americans to produce a rational policy to achieve energy security, to wean us from dependence on foreign oil, to ask Americans to make significant investments in alternative energy even if in the short term it meant altering our behavior.

We squandered the opportunity to rally Americans to build an effective homeland defense so that “security moms” can sleep more soundly at night.

We squandered the opportunity to make our borders and ports safer, our transportation systems more secure, and our nuclear power plants less vulnerable.

The question is: Why has this happened?

Why has this Administration failed to fully fund Homeland Security?

Why has it taken the President until now to begin to level with the American people about the tremendous cost of winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing to take the fight to the terrorists?

I believe it is because this Administration has another overriding priority: As part of it’s Devolution of Government agenda, their central policy, sometimes their ONLY policy, is another huge tax cut.

I believe we need to cut taxes, especially for the Middle Class, as much as we responsibly can. But never has any Administration summoned Americans to war AND... at the same time... pushed for the biggest tax cut in history.

The result is a mixed message to the American people, who are left to wonder: How can we wage the fight against terrorism without paying any price?

And it reflects a woeful misunderstanding of the character of the American people, all the American people – Rich, Poor, Middle Class, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian – to meet and conquer these new threats.

If you add the 87 billion dollars the President has proposed for Iraq to the existing budget deficit, we’re now looking at a 600 billion dollar shortfall – not counting the money borrowed from Social Security. It’s not just the tax cut . The war on terrorism, the recession and other government spending all add up.

But the Administration’s ideological fixation on tax relief for today’s wealthiest Americans means that we’re asking our grandchildren to pay for our security AND for their own which is exactly backwards.

We must have the discipline and the resolve to pay our OWN way and do what we have to do NOW to make sure our children and grandchildren are more secure.

Given the disproportionate amount of money going to the wealthiest Americans in tax cuts there are many things we can do that preserve the tax cut but reduce it enough to recoup the 87 billion dollars the President is asking for.

What if the President had said on Sunday night:

“To all of you who are making a million dollars and getting a 93,000 dollar tax cut, I’m asking you to forego a small part of your tax cut.”

What if he said to the wealthiest Americans:

“I’m asking you to take just 10 times, not 100 times, the tax break we’re giving to the middle class so that we can pay for peace in Iraq, security in Afghanistan, and the war against terrorism.”

Do you think a single wealthy American watching on T.V. would have said: “No way. I want it all.”

Of course not.

Deferring or decreasing the size of the tax cut would not alienate the rich or jeopardize an economic recovery.

But it would restore a sense of national purpose and unity that is our country’s greatest strength.

Wealthy Americans are no less patriotic than anyone else. I have no doubt about how they would respond to such a call from the President.

I’m going to propose legislation to adjust the President’s tax cuts so that we can pay the bill for Iraq.

I have no illusions about it passing, but it needs to be debated.

Those were some of the missed opportunities on the home front.

Beyond our borders, we have squandered the opportunity to rally the world to a common cause – to keep the focus on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

We have squandered the opportunity to build new bridges to our allies, and find common ground with old adversaries so that we do not have to endure in virtual isolation every threat and challenge, every burden and risk, every legitimate fight, all on our own. And finally, we have squandered the opportunity to build an effective national security strategy to meet these new threats without alienating the world.

Fifty or a hundred years from now, historians will write many books about whether this generation rose to the occasion. And one of the things that gives me some hope is the realization that every major world power today has the same interest in achieving a common goal. I’m not sure that has ever been the case before. But it is now.

In the end, we will be judged by how well we marshal the forces of civilization to combat international terrorism. We will be judged by how well we work with others to eliminate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We will be judged by how well we inspire the world to deal with epidemics and pandemics that can kill millions around the world. We will be judged by how well we lead those who side with us as modernity and globalization are assaulted by fundamentalism and intolerance. And we will be judged by how well we help spread economic advancement around the globe and how wisely we manage economic and finite natural resources.

To begin moving this nation in the right direction we need to embrace a foreign policy of enlightened nationalism. Toward Enlightened Nationalism: Projecting Power vs. Staying Power

First, we need to correct the imbalance between projecting power and staying power.

America’s military is second to none. It must and will remain second to none.

President Bush used it well in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein just as he did in Afghanistan to take down the Taliban.

But staying power is just as important as projecting power and, on that account, the administration is running a dangerous deficit. In Afghanistan, our failure to extend security beyond Kabul has handed most of the country back to the warlords, as many of us predicted.

The Taliban is regrouping and, in my view, the failure to win the peace in Afghanistan risks being repeated in Iraq unless we stay the new course the President set last Sunday night.

That failure would condemn both countries to a future as failed states... risking the collapse of Pakistan and enhancing the power and influence of Iran and lead to even wider regional instability.

We know from bitter experience that failed states are breeding grounds for terrorists. We have to show the staying power to write a different future. If we don’t, Americans will be less secure.

A more enlightened approach would be to level with the American people about the importance of staying the course in Afghanistan and Iraq. Explain to them why success is critical and failure is not an option. Tell them – as we’ve known from the outset that success will take years, require billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of troops. I’m pleased the President has finally begun to do that.

A more enlightened approach would be to empower experts in our own government to plan for post-conflict security and reconstruction ahead of time, not on the fly.

It would be a more enlightened approach, for example, if we built up an international police force to handle security after we toppled a tyrant. If we’re not prepared to do the post-conflict, we should think twice about doing the conflict.

Preemption Vs. Prevention Second, we have to move away from the Administration’s fixation on military preemption and focus on a true prevention strategy. I agree with those in the Administration who argue that the nexus of new threats – terrorism, WMD, and rogue states – requires an additional response.

Deterrence got us through the Cold War, and it’s logic still holds in most cases. But it may not work against enemies, armed to the teeth, with no territory or people to defend. That’s why the right to act preemptively must remain, as it has been, a part of our foreign policy tool kit. But this Administration has turned preemption from a necessary option into a one-size-fits-all doctrine and that, too, threatens to make us less secure. It tells our enemies that their only possible insurance policy against regime change is to acquire weapons of mass destruction as quickly as they can. It sends a message to India, Pakistan, China and Taiwan, to Israel and its Arab neighbors, that if the United States can shoot first and ask questions later, so can they.

Instead of a military preemption doctrine, we should focus much more on a prevention doctrine to defuse problems long before they are on the verge of exploding.

What would that require?

It would require better funded programs to secure, and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and beyond in India and Pakistan, for example.

It would require new international laws so we can stop lethal cargoes anywhere on the high seas or in the skies.

It would require new alliances of intelligence agencies, law enforcement officials, and financial experts to uproot terrorists and end their funding. It would require fully funded development programs that demonstrate to those most likely to offer support and sanctuary to terrorists that we offer them a better future.

It would require a sustained public diplomacy strategy to debunk the myths and lies our enemies spin about America’s intentions. And it would require a determined policy of democratization through support – not just for elections – but for good governance the rule of law and transparency, political parties, independent media, secular education, private enterprise, and civil society.

Walking Alone or Working with Others

Finally, we have to put much more energy into working with the world, instead of walking alone.

No one disputes that the first responsibility of our government is to defend the security of this country and the safety of its people. There may be times when we see a threat to our security, when we’re right and the rest of the world is wrong. In those instances, we must retain the right to act alone.

Those cases should be the exception. But this Administration sees them as the rule, initially reinforced by our military success in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan.

Look, there was never any doubt we could take down Saddam alone if we had too. Just as there was no doubt we could topple the Taliban. But here’s the rub: For every Iraq, there are ten North Koreas that require collective, non-military action. Something for which this administration has shown little aptitude.

Consider most of the threats we face – International terrorism; The spread of WMD; International crime and drug trafficking; Infectious diseases like HIV-AIDS; Economic dislocation; Environmental degradation.

Not one of these threats has any respect for borders. Not one is susceptible to a unilateral military response.

In each instance, we benefit from – indeed we need – the help of other countries.

Think about the war on terrorism. The most visible front has been our military intervention in Afghanistan. But to win the war, we must prevail on other, less visible fronts that demand cooperation like intelligence sharing and law enforcement. And it’s just common sense to do everything we can to spread the physical risk and share the financial cost of a pro-active foreign policy.

Unfortunately, this administration’s gratuitous acts of unilateralism have alienated the partners we need to meet most of the challenges we face. We said no thanks to NATO when it offered to help us in Afghanistan. We summarily rejected treaties on climate change, the international criminal court, a nuclear test ban, and so on. That meant a lot to other countries, even if they meant little to the Administration.

Should we sign on the dotted line just because our friends like a treaty and we don’t? Of course not.

Should we roll up our sleeves, sit down at the table with our partners and try to come up with a compromise or an alternative? Of course we should.

This administration’s “our-way-or-the-highway” approach is not a way to win friends and support.

Why should other countries help us with our concerns if we show disdain for theirs?

That’s what has happened, until now, in post-Saddam Iraq and that’s what will happen elsewhere. It’s not leadership if no one follows.

There’s another critical point here. More than any country in the world, the United States benefits from an international system with clear, predictable rules and relationships.

This administration’s approach – play by rules we like, and ignore those we don’t – will destroy that system. In its place, we’ll end up with a law of the jungle – a jungle in which we will be the most powerful animal, but much less secure.

At the same time, those who understand the value and utility of international institutions and international rules must also understand that when they are flouted, they must be enforced.

Enlightened nationalism recognizes that there is a strong link between power and legitimacy. You can’t have one without the other. When we use force, we should go the extra mile to ground it in law and legitimacy. But we must recognize that laws will prove meaningless if we do not summon the will to enforce them.

A Time to Face Reality

I think it’s time for the neo-conservatives in the Administration to look in the mirror and see reality. And it’s long past time that we had a foreign policy and national security agenda that addressed both the urgent threats we face and the long-term priorities we must have the vision and wisdom to see.

Terrorism is the most urgent threat. But if we were to win that war tomorrow, we’d still have to confront a long list of lethal threats coming at us in many different ways.

As my mother always says: “Out of every tragedy, some good will come if you look hard enough.”

If we engage the war on terrorism, in a way that brings the rest of the world with us we can, and we will, build new relationships with old friends and former adversaries, from Russia to China to India.

We can and we will forge new alliances to tackle the threats that target us all.

That is enlightened nationalism.

That is the opportunity before us.

I hope that we demonstrate the wisdom to seize it.