By Barry M. Blechman, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Barry Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center and chaired the Defense Advisory Committee, the members of which are listed below and who co-signed this op-ed. The views expressed are those of the authors.
Partisan bickering in Washington has overwhelmed even the discussion of U.S. national security, an area that used to be fenced from Beltway infighting. Yet not only is national security too important to leave to simplistic posturing, it is an area that should prompt a great deal of agreement. As evidence, we – a group of 15 Republican, Democratic, and independent former policymakers, retired military officers, and academics – reached a solid consensus on a new U.S. defense strategy for the future. And even we were surprised how easily we reached it.
U.S. armed forces are now overwhelmingly superior to those of any potential adversary, or combination of adversaries, and will likely remain so for years to come because of the dedication of our uniformed men and women and the high priority U.S. taxpayers have long put on national defense. American space, air, naval, and special operations forces make it possible for the U.S. to reach virtually any spot on the globe in a timely manner, whether to destroy targets or deliver humanitarian goods – and, together with our ground components, to sustain such campaigns for considerable periods of time. These forces have unprecedented flexibility, agility, reach, precision, and lethality, providing capabilities that seemed like distant visions not many years ago. Military superiority, however, does not translate into military omnipotence. U.S. capabilities to fight protracted wars on the ground, to defeat insurgencies, to stabilize governance, and to ensure security for societies in distant regions are limited, at best. This is not because of any deficiencies in, nor malpractices by, the U.S. armed forces. The task of establishing order in undeveloped societies riven by internal conflicts is simply too hard a task, and not one for which military forces are particularly well-suited.
By Fareed Zakaria
I’m not going to second-guess General Petraeus’ decision to resign, nor President’s Obama’s decision to accept his resignation. But it’s a real loss for the administration and the country. Petraeus was a rare general in that he was genuinely reflective – able to think broadly and strategically – while also able to implement big ideas well.
But perhaps most important, Petraeus was able to defy conventional wisdom – even the conventional wisdom of his superiors. Remember, the military is a very hierarchical organization, and there are many incentives to conform and to reaffirm existing orthodoxy. A premium is placed on saluting and executing orders well.
Petraeus was in Iraq right after the invasion, where he was a two star general in charge of a large part of northern Iraq. Headquartered in Mosul, he began to believe that the way we were handling the occupation was wrong, and he started to try to implement a different policy and speak out quietly within the top brass about the possibility of a different approach.
By James Holmes, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Last week, GPS heard from historians who they saw as the most and least successful U.S. presidents. But Naval War College Professor James Holmes has another take: the most and least successful naval presidents. Here’s what he had to say (the views expressed are his own):
My standards for naming a chief executive to either list were simple. Did he compile a sustained record of supporting a robust navy, or one of neglect? If not, did he do something brief but exceptional in the domain of maritime strategy, either for good or for ill?
Let’s start with the worst. It pains me that three of my favorite Americans, including two Founders and one of our greatest generals, were indifferent – at best – stewards of U.S. maritime strategy:
By Urmila Venugopalan, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Urmila Venugopalan is the South Asia manager at Oceans Beyond Piracy. You can follow her on Twitter @Urmila_V and @OBPiracySAsia. The views expressed are her own.
Maritime piracy has long been considered the scourge of commercial shipping in the Indian Ocean. Recently, however, a combination of government- and private sector-led action has seen the number of pirate attacks in the region plunge to their lowest levels in almost five years.
This year’s statistics are unusually encouraging: the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reported in July that Somali piracy activity fell by almost 60 percent, down from 163 incidents in the first half of 2011 to just 69 in the same period of this year. Somali pirates also hijacked only 13 ships, down from 21, according to the IMB.
Robust cooperation among international navies has certainly played a key role in driving this trend. Regular naval patrols – led by NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield, the EU’s Operation Atlanta, and Combined Task Force 151 – have undoubtedly disrupted several pirate attacks. China, India and Japan have also independently contributed to this effort – in a significant move at the start of this year, the three countries agreed to set aside their rivalries and coordinate their escort convoys in the Gulf of Aden.
By Chris Johnson, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Chris Johnson is Freeman Chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The views expressed are the author’s own.
Defense relations between the United States and China have been broken for too long, and a recent spike in regional tensions means the problem can no longer be neglected. Mounting dustups over sovereignty disputes in the East and South China Seas and distracted or weak political leaderships in many of the competing capitals are substantially raising the likelihood of an accidental clash, and U.S. defense commitments make it certain Washington would be drawn in. Yet effective tools are decidedly lacking for properly managing, to say nothing of preventing, such a conflict with China.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s visit to Beijing this week is a welcome contribution to sustaining high-level contact that has been off more than on. But such visits have not translated into sustainable cooperation at the working-level. In fact, the primary vehicle for such discussions, the Defense Consultative Talks, has mostly devolved into a mutual airing of irreconcilable grievances. Emblematic of the lack of substance in the relationship, a bilateral defense hotline established in 2008 has only been used a handful of times, and never to test procedures in a simulated crisis.
By Michael O’Hanlon, Special to CNN
Michael O’Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings and author of The Wounded Giant: America’s Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity. The views expressed are his own.
With the political conventions, Veterans of Foreign Wars speeches, party and campaign platforms all now on the record, what can we conclude about the key question of the differences in defense strategy and spending between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?
This is only one aspect of the foreign policy debate between the two candidates. But it is still hugely important – and about far more than a technical discussion over which fighter jet to buy or how many new ships to build. Indeed, the issue reveals a great deal about the worldviews of the candidates, and also links directly to their fiscal and therefore economic strategies – the top issue in this year's race and itself a matter of national security.
In a nutshell, here is where President Obama and Governor Romney stand.
By Dalia Dassa Kaye, Special to CNN
Dalia Dassa Kaye is a senior political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and a 2011-2012 visiting fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations. The views expressed are the author’s own.
As war talk spikes again in Israel, U.S. officials are searching for ways to convince the Israelis to hold off on military action. It could be that the heightened debate in Israel over military options and war preparations in the country aim mainly to elicit even tougher international and American actions against Iran.
But there are leaders in Israel – including, it would seem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – who view the Iranian threat as severe enough to follow through on their threats, particularly now that they have staked their domestic and international reputations on doing so.
In order to stave off such an attack, a number of prominent former Israeli officials are calling for more explicit U.S. threats to use force against Iran. White House officials are reportedly debating whether to publicly announce red lines that might provoke American military action against Iran. The Obama administration can only expect more political pressure during an election year to make more explicit declarations supporting military force as diplomatic efforts and sanctions do not yet appear to be stopping Iran’s nuclear progress.
By Javid Ahmad, Special CNN
Editor’s note: Javid Ahmad, a native of Kabul, is a program coordinator with the Asia Program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own.
As noted by Ahmad Majidyar yesterday, the killing of three Australian troops this week marked the latest in a string of insider, or so-called green-on-blue, attacks by members of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) against Western troops. These attacks have severely eroded NATO’s trust in its local partners and they present a major challenge to the U.S. exit strategy.
There is no shortage of explanations for the attacks. The Afghan government has pointed its finger at Pakistan’s spy agencies for orchestrating the infiltrations. But these accusations directly contradict the Pentagon’s assertion that the vast majority of attacks on American soldiers are triggered by personal grudges, grievances, and cultural clashes from disgruntled individuals, and are not the product of Taliban infiltration. Indeed, U.S. commander General John Allen has blamed shortened tempers on the month-long Ramadan fasting season in the sweltering August heat, although this clearly isn’t the first Ramadan to have been marked in Afghanistan, nor the first hot summer there.
By Ahmad Majidyar, Special to CNN
Editor's note: Ahmad Majidyar is a senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.
A gunman in an Afghan army uniform killed three Australian soldiers in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday night, the latest in an alarming string of so-called “green-on-blue” attacks that have eroded morale and trust at a critical juncture as foreign troops are withdrawing and transitioning security to the Afghan lead. The deaths bring the number of foreign troops killed by Afghan allies, or by Taliban fighters disguised as them, to 45 this year, most of them Americans.
According to General John R. Allen, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban has been responsible for one quarter of these attacks through infiltration, coercion and impersonation. The new threat has been a PR disaster for Kabul and Washington, but a propaganda victory for the Taliban. In his Eid al-Fitr message, the insurgent group’s reclusive leader Mullah Omar claimed his fighters had “cleverly infiltrated in the ranks of the enemy,” and that the Taliban had created the “Call and Guidance, Luring and Integration” department to encourage more defections.
By Brian Katulis, Special to CNN
Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where his work focuses on U.S. national security policy in the Middle East and South Asia. The views expressed are his own
America’s 2012 presidential election has so far generated more heat than light on foreign policy – angry sounding exchanges on “issues” such as the allegations of intelligence leaks by the Obama administration and Mitt Romney’s unforced errors on an overseas trip this summer have garnered more attention than what the next president is going to face in the world. Occasionally, the candidates have found time to make a few substantive points about the Afghanistan war and Iran’s nuclear program, but the major national security questions facing the country have not been high on the agenda.
And, barring an unexpected international crisis, we’re not likely to see much focus on foreign policy through November. With most voters focused on the economy and domestic issues in 2012, the campaigns and independent advocacy groups are spending most of their money and time on that front. The schedule for the Republican National Convention in Tampa next week has very little focus on national security – a sharp shift from the past three conventions.
By Michael O’Hanlon, Special to CNN
Michael O’Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings and author of The Wounded Giant: America’s Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity. The views expressed are his own.
Military strikes against the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, together with other possible targets related to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, could last for a single day and single sortie – or they could last for several days or even weeks. The latter possibility of course implies American participation too, and probably requires the use of air bases in one or more Gulf states as well, given the likely U.S. interest in using stealthy planes that at present don’t fly from aircraft carriers (though B-2 bombers could fly from Diego Garcia, for example).
So what is the likely effectiveness, and what are the likely risks, of each possible approach? I’d argue that there is there is significant unpredictability about how well an air campaign by Israel in particular would work – not least in terms of how much of the existing Iranian nuclear infrastructure it would destroy, and how long it might take Iran to recover (and that’s even leaving aside the huge issue of how Iran might retaliate).
By Fareed Zakaria
If President Obama is looking for high approval ratings, he should travel abroad. The numbers from a recent Pew Survey are astounding: 74 percent of Italians have a positive view of Obama, as do 69 percent of French, 60 percent of Britons and 58 percent of Spanish.
These numbers have actually dipped since 2009 – when they were truly stratospheric. But there are two trends that are particularly noticeable. One is the drop in confidence in Obama in Russia and China. Many Russians and Chinese are recognizing that they have issues with the American president because there are geopolitical differences between their country and the U.S., and that whoever is president, those differences are going to persist. Obama was never going to be able to wave a magic wand and make such divides disappear.
More: Romney, Obama both right. And both wrong
Then there’s the Arab world, where there has been much deeper disappointment (although it’s worth remembering that President Obama wasn’t all that popular there in the first place, contrary to conventional wisdom). In this case, the disappointment stems from hopes in the region that Obama would push harder with Israel over the creation of a Palestinian state. In addition, almost everyone is unhappy with the use of drone attacks.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
