Defense Statecraft

Sexual Assault Dramatically Increases within the U.S. Army

2012-01-27T21:38:00.003-05:00

On January 19, 2012 Leon Panetta addressed the rising sexual violence within the Army, which has continued its upward swing since 2006. Since 2006, sexual assaults have increased by an uncomprehensible 64%. Incidents of rape, forcible sodomy and sexual assault were the most reported incidents within 2011. These figures are frightening to say the least.

Women, who account for around 14% of the U.S. Army, are the victims 95% of the time. This lopsided representation is not healthy for recruitment or the overall emotional state of service women, who seem to be in somewhat unsafe conditions. Further, this high figure of sexual assault leaves an ugly perception of the U.S. Army and sadly speaks of American culture and its still dominant, and often ugly, male view.

In 2011, just about 4,000 reports were filed. However, Panetta believes the number to be closer to 20,000. These figures are distorted because of the tendency to not report due to shame and possible retribution by the offender. At approximately 20,000 reports, that is about 4% of all service members being sexually assaulted.

Panetta has planned for further training of lawyers prosecuting sex crimes, an emphasis on training for counselors within the U.S. Army, possible reconfiguration of barracks (to diversify them and break up young soldiers, because they are the majority of victimes and offenders) as well as forming an independing body outside of the military to investigate cases.

This development is repugnant. We owe a safer environment to individuals who put their lives on the line to promote our freedom and ensure our safety. The least we can do, is the same for them.

Source:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0119/Pentagon-report-Sexual-assault-in-the-military-up-dramatically

Foreign Policy in the Florida Primary Debate

2012-01-27T02:06:00.001-05:00

The Florida GOP Debate tonight focused mostly on domestic issues; some issues of national security and foreign policy were touched upon. After months of campaigning and debating, the candidates by and large have not expanded on their foreign policy aspirations. This is primarily due to the economic situation of the United States demanding so much attention. Nevertheless, here is what I gathered in the debate tonight.

Rick Santorum, as he has in previous debates, focused on the current administration's dealings with Latin American countries. He claimed that Obama was not supporting pro-democratic countries like Colombia, and instead was strengthening ties with leftist authoritarian "Marxist" countries, i.e. Cuba and Nicaragua. He also stated that he would not try to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba until after Fidel Castro is gone. Under the current administration, not much attention has been paid to Latin America at all, but the region seems to be an area of expertise for Santorum so he will continue criticizing current U.S.-Latin American relations.

Mitt Romney shifted the focus of foreign policy to the Middle East, where he said Obama had "betrayed" America's ally, Israel. Not sticking with Israel 100%, according to Romney, had led Hamas to take more extreme, violent actions against the Israeli state. Romney made it clear that he supports a two-state solution, but will not waver in his support for Israel. He did not, however, mention the difficulties of creating a Palestinian state, such as the demographics of certain areas and boundaries of a Palestinian state (the possibility of a Palestinian state being surrounded by Israel on all its borders).

Newt Gingrich reiterated a previous statement he made- that the Palestinian nationality is an "invention" of the 1960s. He believes that Palestinians are really just a combination of Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. Keep in mind, this was directed at a member of the audience who was a Palestinian-American. He also said that the Israeli state, having been attacked in the fall of last year, should have responded by launching war against Hamas. Of the remaining candidates, Gingrich seems to have the least developed foreign policy ideas. Unless, of course, you include establishing a colony of Americans on the moon.

Ron Paul did not have an opportunity tonight to talk about his foreign policy ideas, but as one might expect, they include an isolationist stance and a refrain from using or deploying U.S. troops abroad.

The domestic issues of the United States (the economy, border control, taxes) are still the center of attention in the political debates. But hopefully if the race between Romney and Gingrich remains close, the two will be forced to expand upon their foreign policy ideas in more detail.

American-Indian Developments

2012-01-26T16:01:00.002-05:00

In order to ensure higher security in Asia, India and the United States are seeking to build a more strategic relationship through discussions about missile defense systems. Last week, in an attempt to help India deter nuclear threats, the American Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia stated that they were willing to examine the sale or joint production of missile shield systems with India. American officials have met with Indian missile experts, and participated in both actual and computerized missile simulations. The U.S. was hoping that India would purchase the Patriot Advanced Capability(PAC)-3 missile defense system, the most advanced air defense missile, but India has shown an interest in building its own systems. This obviously produces contention from Pakistan and China, since these discussions display the shared strategic interests between the United States and India and encourage giving India further technology that would enable them to better defend themselves against Pakistani and Chinese missiles. There’s also the added risk of Indian officials deciding to forego American equipment and build their missile defense system indigenously, thus lessening the amount of transparency and accountability.

Conversation on such things between the two countries is nothing new, since the two countries began discussion about ballistic missile defense shields three years ago. However, the discussions are of particular interest since India is in the midst of a substantial military modernization program and was named the world’s largest weapons importer by the arms watchdog SIPRI. The plans to continue the dialogue are also of particular importance since Pentagon officials have named China as a threat and seek to keep their relationship with India particularly strong as Asia gains increased global power.

Is it Worth the Payoff?

2012-01-21T21:11:00.003-05:00

(AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

With the recent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, theresponsibility of maintaining state security fell into the hands of the Iraqi SecurityForces. In spite of years of military training provided by the United Statesalong with other NATO members, many remain concerned that Iraq’s military maystill be incapable of securing the its border and airspace without outside assistance.A vulnerable security force becomes a major issue considering not domesticchallenges to the military’s authority, but also the tensions that arise withan increasingly-hostile Iranian neighbor.

Although the focus among most pundits and politicians isupon the appropriateness removing U.S. troops from Iraq, few question why Iraqiforces remain largely inept to protect their own state. Though the simpleanswer may be to say that creating a military organization from the ground-uptakes time, it may be the case that no amount of training, money, or time can “fix”the Iraqi military. In his book, “Arabs at War”, Kenneth Pollack notes asimilar phenomenon that occurred when the U.S. trained Egyptian forces. Despitedecades of education, technological infusion, and joint military exercises, theEgyptian military simply did not respond to Western military perspectives andfailed to make adjustments necessary to make its forces tactically viable toexecute complex, modern operations. This too may be the fate for the Iraqi SecurityForces, whom too have been exposed to a Western re-education, but may simplychoose not to adopt these teachings.

This creates an additional question: If there was no guaranteethat the Iraqi military would respond to lengthy military training, why wouldthe United States be willing to expend the time and resources required to workthe Iraqi military? Although, some may suggest that such training was necessaryto prepare Iraq to reclaim its sovereignty, others may contend that suchtraining would create Iraqi dependency upon the U.S. for further military andtechnological support. The latter view gains traction when noting a recent NYTimes article reporting that the Obama administration has approved of nearly$11 billion worth of arms and training for the Iraqi forces, in spite oflimited results of previous military training efforts. Though such a deal wouldbe a mere drop in the bucket considering the enormous cost of blood andtreasure incurred by the United States since 2003, the creation of a new marketfor technology and military expertise may be a way to justify unproductivetraining and arming of foreign forces as worthwhile cause.

Barbie's Dream Drone

2012-01-20T23:44:00.003-05:00

When the American drone crashed in December, Iran bragged about their self proclaimed intelligence coup when an Iranian engineer claimed he “spoofed” the American drone’s navigation system, causing to crash and thus make the intricacies of its technology available. This success has been especially welcomed by Iranians in the midst of several setbacks for the country’s nuclear efforts, including the deaths of nuclear scientists, Stuxnet, and damages done at missile and industrial sites. In an additional effort of celebration, replicas of the American drone that Iran brought down in December will be making their ways onto Iranian toy store shelves this week, with a production goal at 2,000 models a day for $4 each. Although similar toys already exist, this one is special in its availability in various bright colors and features a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini: “We will trample America under our feet.” In response to President Obama’s request for Iran to return the original US drone, toymakers have stated that a pink toy drone has already been set aside to send to the President.

The production of toy drones also makes a cultural statement in Iran, where several toys are not allowed due to their links to Western ideals and lifestyles. A substantial amount of Iranians condemn American toys, such as Barbies, due to claims of encouraging a permissive Western life style. Iranian store owners have reported that the country’s morality police have previously been sent to remove all of the voluptuous dolls from the shelves. The comparison was made years ago that the Barbie is America’s version of Troy, with cultural invading soldiers coming inside the dolls. The recent production of the toy drones renews the debate over the American soft war against Iran, in which Iranians claim the United States is trying to culturally invade Iran in an attempt to erode the religious values of the country.

An Iranian woman spoke in anonymity to reporters and expressed her frustration with the antics of the toy makers. She complained about the substantial amount of money that is being put into the production of the toy drones, while Iran, Israel, and the US are spouting war rhetoric, sanctions are increasing against her country, and the people’s savings have decreased in value by 40% in the past year. However, although she is frustrated with the frivolity of the toy creation efforts, she admitted she would probably buy one in an effort to “take the sting out of reality” and provide a bit of comic relief. It will be interesting to see how the Iranian population reacts to the toy’s production; whether they will rally behind anti-American sentiment or respond negatively to their own government’s efforts to minimize the gravity of the situation at hand. It will also be interesting to follow the American response, or lack thereof, to these actions as well.

Training forces who don't want you there

2012-01-20T17:52:00.000-05:00

One of the mandates of NATO in Afghanistan is to train and develop a strong internal military force comprised of native Afghans. For Afghanistan to be a secure nation, it must eventually rely on itself to supply military strength. NATO forces currently work with army and police units, training them in disciplined reaction to threats, preemptive actions through patrols, combat medical treatment, and other crucial activities. The ultimate mission is for Afghanistan to have a strong, stable military/police force to allow for the maintenance and further development of peace. However, not everyone in Afghanistan wants a centralized military force and insurgents have caused problems for the recruitment of soldiers/police and their training. It appears though that the latest hurdle faced by NATO forces trying to train a competent military is within the military itself. Today, four French servicemen were killed by an Afghan National Army (ANA) member, adding to the number of what is termed "fratricide-murders" committed by Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) members. What is causing this phenomenon?

The infiltration of ANSF troops by insurgents in order to sow discord and attack NATO troops directly continues to be a threat. However, a report released last May concluded that the growing number of this type of killing reflects a systemic threat, caused not so much by the actions of insurgents attempting to disrupt development of an effective army, but of personal clashes between NATO and ANSF troops. According to the report, the root cause of these clashes is cultural in nature - Western and Afghan forces treading heavily on each others' cultural norms, leading to severe misunderstandings and disrespect. A recent well-publicized example is the video of American troops urinating on dead Afghans. While completely reprehensible, such an act may perhaps be understood in terms of war fatigue. Both NATO and ANSF troops are tired. It is hard work, building national security by partnering with people from strange lands who don't speak your language or understand your culture. NATO troops are tired of being in Afghanistan, trying to train people who may or may not want or see the need for the training. ANSF troops might feel that they have enough training and are ready for the foreigners to leave. In all, a tension is growing that is resulting in dangerous ends.

So what should be done? More frequent rotations of troops? More cultural training? Quicker pace of handing over training to ANSF troops? France has chosen the latter route, and announced it will halt all training now and be pulling its troops sooner than 2014. Clearly this is a reactionary announcement, most likely spurred by the upcoming elections in France, in which Sarkozy will run again. Pulling out early will only create a vacuum for other NATO troops to fill, giving France a bad reaction from other nations. France though is no stranger to going its own way, so time will tell. In the long run, however, the bigger issue of how to train people who don't want you there must be solved.

Force Employment in Changing TImes

2012-01-17T18:25:00.004-05:00

Stephen Biddle writes about the importance of force employment, more so how we use the resources we have, not whether we have them or not. For example, are we taking advantage of cover and concealment, do the weapons we have integrate well with other weapons in a combination of superior fighting power and are we efficient in our tactics? Having the best weapons or greatest technology does not guarantee victory if used unwisely in the operational and tactical stages. However, today we see a growing movenment away from ground troops due to budgetary constraints, war fatigue and the general growth in technology. Thus, will this movement lead our military to be weaker due to infamiliarity with force employment?

First, the recent budget proposals have hinted at dropping 70,000 troops from the armed forces. Biddle states that often soldiers are unable to pick up on the nuances of finer force employment due to short-term enlistment. While the U.S. has a respectable average service of 6-8 years (outliers not accounted for), one has to ask if force employment will be as strong in this era of troop cutting and budgetary concerns. Less troops are not an issue, but their ability to serve for longer stints and gain knowledge of strategy is important and may be endangered comparatively to other states.

Secondly, technology is also decreasing the use of manpowered instruments. Will force employment be as strong if war should break out if less individuals are interacting with possible theatres, and will knowledge of proven tactics prove incompetent without longer enlistments and familiarity of the enemy and environment? These are questions I cannot answer, but I think they are important to pose.

Take for example drones. They lessen the need for manpower in the region of concern. Further, U.S. tactical advantages will become less once other states begin to manufacture drones comparable to ours. It seems that will be soon, China's drone will resemble a U.S. drone, thus will force employment be negated by similar weapons and an emphasis on hard targets instead of soft. Overall, progress will continue on drones, but it seems there has become a focus on reducing manpower, which could reduce tact in force employment, not because of reduction in men, but reduction in skills and time to learn the skills.

Thus, in a world where war could be fought without man, how will guaging the likely victor change? It seems force employment can only go so far without the human element. In accordance, new criteria may be needed to improve our chances in victory and this possibility should begin to be analyzed now.

Much Ado About Nothing

2012-01-15T22:48:00.002-05:00

Over the weekend, reports came out that two U.S. Coast Guard ships were "harassed" by Iranian naval craft in the Strait of Hormuz a week before[1]. (A link to the video released) These events certainly warrant some attention considering the heightened tensions between America and Iran and that Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are placed against its oil exports. However, in my opinion, the media and the DoD blew the events far out of proportion.

Looking at the situation more closely, three Iranian high-speed boats (approx. 30 ft in length) came within 500 yards of the USS New Orleans (approx. 680 ft in length) and would not respond to efforts to establish contact made by the U.S. ship. It's claimed that men on the Iranian boats were carrying a few AK-47 rifles, yet the USS New Orleans is equipped with two 30 mm Bushmaster II chain guns and two RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles.
Really? A harassment? What could three tiny speed boat possibly do to threaten a ship with such size and attacking capability?

The other U.S. craft reportedly "harassed," the USCGC Adak (pictured below), is equipped with a 25 mm MK 38 machine gun, five .50 caliber machine guns, and a MK 19 40 mm grenade launcher, among other smaller arms. It is also worth noting that the Adak is approx. 110 ft in length, over three times as large as any of the Iranian speed boats that approached it.

Again, I am not saying that these developments aren't slightly concerning, but they certainly should not be deemed a "harassment" to U.S. naval craft. Considering the fact that the U.S. military has admitted to flying drones over Iranian airspace, this action taken by Iran hardly warrants a provocation in my opinion. In a period of extremely elevated high tensions between the U.S. and Iran, any hostile action (or inaction, in this case) by the latter will be perceived as a potential threat and a step closer to war between the two.

Final Exam

2011-05-05T13:47:00.000-04:00

Defense Statecraft Final Exam

May 5, 2011

Please answer one of three questions, and return to Dr. Farley by 4:30pm today.

Under the aegis of NATO, military operations to protect civilians continue in Libya. Please evaluate the costs and benefits of conducting a war under the control of a major international organization relative to a unilateral intervention.
Four days ago, President Obama authorized a Special Operations Force mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. In terms of their utility as tools of military statecraft, compare and contrast SOF with strikes by manned and unmanned aircraft. In what context should a policymaker choose one over the other?
The time frame for developing new advanced weapon systems can now be measured in decades. Many defense analysts, however, have argued that we now live in an age of uncertain and unpredictable threats. What are the implications of this apparent contradiction for military procurement, doctrine, and grand strategy?

2011-05-05T12:55:00.000-04:00

Jail Break and Raid Show Region Not Ready For US Withdrawal

On April 25, 500 prisoners, many of them Taliban, escaped from an Afghan jail via tunnel. The tunnel was dug using tools stolen from a maintenance shed, was reinforced with metal bars from the same place and was strong and deep enough to run under the prison wall and a highway.

On Sunday, Osama bin Laden was killed by Navy Seals in Pakistan. He was living in a larger, well supplied compound with his family and some supporters located not too far from the capital and only a mile or so from the Pakistan Military Academy. It is possible that he had been living there since 2006. Yet, the Pakistani’s apparently had no idea he was there.

With the US planning to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014, these two cases illustrate the continued security threat in the region and how the region is not yet safe. While the media has begun to question whether the death of bin Laden has signaled the end of the operations in Afghanistan, since the goal was to fight Al Qaeda. Now that most Al Qaeda fighters have been expelled from the country and its leader killed shouldn’t the US begin withdrawing troops now? I believe that this shows a lack of critical thinking. Under the Taliban, Al Qaeda was able to use Afghanistan as a safe haven. The invasion was not only meant to remove Al Qaeda and get bin Laden, but to secure the area so that it does not remain a safe haven for terrorist networks.

While Afghans claim that the bin Laden raid has proved that Al Qaeda is now operating from Pakistan, the recent jail break brings great doubt on the Afghan government’s ability to keep them there and to keep a Taliban insurgency at bay. It is not clear whether the Taliban had inside help or whether the Taliban prisoners should be believed and the guards were incompetent (they claim that the guards got high and went to sleep every night). Either way, Afghan forces still need more training in order to prevent another civil war after the Americans withdraw. A civil war would bring complete instability, again, to the region. Al Qaeda, whether it works with the Taliban or not, would be able to freely move weapons and supplies through Afghanistan.

It seems hard to believe that Pakistani ISI had no idea bin Laden was living in Abbhotobad. The question now is how high up did the Pakistani/Al Qaeda collusion go. The US, using the presence of bin Laden as leverage, should bring more pressure on Pakistan to reform, and to publicly allow more drone attacks. US troops cannot leave the region when we know that Al Qaeda is using it as base, and with help from the Pakistani government, at whatever level. Pressure should be put on Pakistan to not only conduct operations in Waziristan and other parts of the countries, but to start producing the capture of high level figures. It is now up to the Pakistani government to prove that they are not working with Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.

Military Spouses Appreciation Day

2011-05-05T12:54:00.000-04:00

Though it is after the final, I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize our military spouses on "Military Spouse Appreciation Day!" Though each of the different branches of service have varying tempos of PCSing (Permanent Change of Station - AKA "Moving"), and varying degrees of danger in each MOS, military spouses endure much when the motto is "Quarters Sweet Quarters" or "Home is Where the Army/Marine Corps/Navy/Air Force Sends Me." Moreover, they endure extended times away from their significant others, including week and month long training exercises before year-long deployments. Meanwhile, they stay strong for the children, each other, and their serving member in order to allow him/her to stay committed to the mission. Anyone who has seen "We Were Soldiers" can scoff at some of the melodrama, but when they understand the role that then LTC Moore's wife endured for her husband, her unit, and her country, her strength and that of her fellow spouses is truly remarkable!

The role of the military spouse is critical in our Defense Statecraft. Our willingness to support our military families has a direct impact on the espirit de corps of our troops, and influences significantly what they are cabaple of producing. In an environment where we ask units to immediately get in the rotation for a deployment after they have just returned, the strain on the trooper and his/her family can break the back of our military projection capability. We ask a lot of our spouses while the troops are gone and they have continually delivered!

God Bless all of our Military Spouses on a day that they truly deserve!

What’s in a Deal?: India and the Connection Between Procurement and Strategy

2011-05-05T12:03:00.002-04:00

Before OBL mania descended on the United States a little story out of India caught my attention. India, which had been entertaining the notion purchasing a combination of 126 F-16s and F/A-18s for roughly 10 billion dollars, has decided to nix that option and focus on either French Rafales or European Typhoons. This has rankled the nerves of some, apparently wondering “with friends like this who needs enemies.” The folks over at Shadow Government kind of throw cold water on this sentiment. In doing so they touch on some good points about the connection between what you buy (and from whom you purchase it) and the pursuit of a national strategy.

The blog post in question simply states what should be an obvious point, that a strategically independent India is a good thing, providing some balance in Asia and the Indian Ocean. Also, it’s not as if this snub is part of a noticeable trend. India participates in military-to-military cooperation and exercises with the US more often than it does any other country, and it buys a LOT of our hardware.

The article provides some other reasonable explanations for India shifting its procurement elsewhere: its more experienced with European and Russian aircraft and, with millions of impoverished citizens (400 million don’t have electricity), buying more expensive American aircraft could have a negative domestic political effect. But I think there are other, more strategic concerns that can be derived from this behavior and it is consistent with a number of large developing nations.

The Indian’s likely wanted to spread their purchases around, much like the Brazilians have been attempting to do for the better part of 2009 and 2010. They also likely wanted a robust agreement to transfer technology, and while Ares is reporting that the U.S. offered just such a thing, the Indian’s likely had reason to move their purchase elsewhere. The combination of spreading procurement around and seeking out tech transfers makes a foreign military beholden to no one provider and facilitates the birth of an indigenous defense industry. This aligns with Shadow Government’s notion of a “strategically autonomous” India. While this might be a short run problem for the U.S. government and its defense industry, I think the Indian desire to stand on its own two feet is a good thing. In some ways, this conclusion differs with FP blog post.

As a side note, a commentator on the blog post quoted a Bloomberg story on this issue, where the outdated nature of the U.S. tech offer was outlined, and then says, “If the US was ready to sell advanced jets, it would have won the contract. Expecting to win a $10 billion contract which will create 30,000 jobs while selling 40 year old jets is delusional.” This sentiment might be prevalent amongst the U.S.'s foreign defense clients, as we continue to offer up much older technology than do rivals, while holding in reserve other flashier planes like the F-22 and F-35. Which are apparently too high tech for even our own pilots to use in Libya.

2011-05-05T01:32:00.001-04:00

Come Together Right Now…

Though until this weekend the Arab Spring, especially Libya, Egypt and Syria have made headlines and have dominated the news cycle. However, while the Palestinian territories have been absent from the headlines, major developments have been occurring there. In early April, the IMF announced that the Palestinian Authority was “fully capable of running the economy of an independent state” (Frome Bid for State of Palestine Gets Support of IMF NYT) Today, Hamas and Fatah have signed an agreement, ending the rift that left Hamas ruling Gaza while Fatah took over the West Bank. This re-united Palestinian Authority, with the support they received from the IMF, plans on asking Israel and the UN for an independent Palestinian state.

This would place Palestine as the newest (and at the same time oldest) movement of the Arab Spring. With international pressure, will the US and Obama support Israel, or peace through a two state solution? While the US has claimed support for Israel, and for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, if the PA makes a serious bid for statehood, will the US support it. If the Palestinians declare independence within the next year, this will have major security implications for the US. Personally, I feel the US should work with both parties to reach two state solution. The major sticking point will be the status of East Jerusalem. However, the time has come for a Palestinian state, and even if East Jerusalem is not included, it seems likely that the Palestinians would try to seize and occupy it by force. Israel should begin dealing with the ultra orthodox who are the most against a Palestinian state for the reality. The US should also begin putting pressure on Israel to start working out plans to deal with a Palestinian state. An all out war between Israel and Palestine would possibly bring major instability to the region. a Israeli/Palestinian war could draw attention away from democracy movements in the Middle East as groups rally to support Palestine. If Syria and Lebanon were to unite with Palestine to fight Israel, would the US need to get involved? Israel would certainly think so. This would also be a chance for Iranian backed Hezbollah to directly attack Israel in way it has not been able to before.

The possible creation of a Palestinian state requires the US to begin its diplomacy working with both parties now to come to a peaceful two state solution so as not to be caught off guard or find itself dealing with a situation for which it has no real strategy 9 as Libya seems to be)

2011-05-05T01:31:00.000-04:00

Intel Source Admits He Through US a Curveball

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi is a name not known to many, yet he is arguably one of the most important figures in the Iraq war. He is instead better known by his CIA code name, Curveball. Curveball was the source that claimed that Saddam had a chemical weapons program and was producing weapons of mass destruction. He even claimed that he had worked on germ warfare trucks in the country. His information formed the basis of the investigation that lead the Bush Whitehouse to declare Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the decision to invade. Now, al-Janabi has admitted publicly that it was all made up. Not a word of it was true. Though he is part of the cause for the Iraq war, he expresses no regret. He says that he hated Saddam Hussein and his regime and is proud that his lies brought down Saddam. Now, the German government, which ironically has anti-warmongering laws, is considering prosecuting. Some have asked whether the US should consider punishing him as well.

While knowingly delivering false intelligence feels like something that should be a crime, I believe that to lay the blame for the Iraq war on Curveball is too give him too much credit. Though they initially believed him, even before the invasion the Germans warned the US that Curveball’s info could not be trusted. As well, there were more causes to the war and Bush had more motivations to invade Iraq than the testimony of one man. As well, since the information was false, there was never any real evidence to back it up and it was believed only because the administration wanted to believe it. To say al-Janabi was the cause of the Iraq invasion is akin to saying the First World War was cause by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a gross oversimplication. Al-Janabi was an excuse, not the cause. While he should be prosecuted, if possible, purely because knowingly giving false intelligence should be discouraged, he should not be granted too much importance.

Russia, UBL, and the Crusades??

2011-05-04T23:04:00.000-04:00

The cover of Moscow News reported the day after the death of Usama Bin Laden how proud they were that President Obama informed The Russian leadership (I would say President Medvedev, but let's get real...he probably called Putin) of the death of the terrorist before his speech to the American People. The article referenced the famous called made by the then-President Putin to President Bush to express condolonces on 9/11. While these chat lines between world leaders make for feel-good stories, and good line-fillers for poor graduate students writing about international relations and diplomacy, some associated themes including the Eagle and the Bear.
Included in the Moscow Times article and further discussed here was some comparison between UBL's death and the deaths of key terrorist leaders associated with the Caucasus situation. One was Shamil Basaev. Basaev made a name for himself after the First Chechen War seemed to be calming down. After the Chechen rebels lost the region's capital, Grozny, the resistence faded into the mountains with the Russian forces believing that the war was coming to an end. In 1996, however, Basaev led a band of rebels back into the city after collected signifant intelligence on Russian psitions and overwhelmed the Interior Ministry forces. This resulted in a stalemate, with Chechnya maintaining an autonomous status within the Russian borders. He also took credit for the deadly and heartbreaking Beslan School massacre. The Russians hunted Basaev with similar zeal as the US did UBL, finally killing him in Ingushetia. The Russian's similarly targeted de facto President of Chechnya Dzhokar Dudayev using SIGINT and capitalizing with a guided missile.
The Russians have made clear that they believe that, like these Chechen characters, that retribution and justice against UBL was well deserved and well served. They further caution that their problems in the Caucasus did not disspate after these individuals were killed. Though our EComCon colleague points out, expertly, that this may provide an opportunity to use this as an excuse to get out of Afghanistan, our rhetoric should not affect how we focus on the strategic threat posed by Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations.
In stark contract to the support quietly put forward by the Russians regarding this fantastic execution of a special raid, former President Putin has been very vocal on his distaste for the ongoing NATO operation in Libya. This is not a surprising siezure by the "future President" as he will take any opportunity he can to stick it to NATO. Some of these tensions come from the ongoing process to induct Georgia into the alliance and the previous efforts to do the same with Ukraine. Early in the implementation of the NATO operation in Libya, Putin controversially likened the military efforts against Qadaffi to another Western Crusade.
If the Obama administration delays for too long before finally releasing the photos of UBL's corpse, I would not be surprised if Putin is the first to make snide remarks about a possible conspiracy by the US. Not to say that their handling of the Basayev operation was all that great. "Basayev's body has been identified through some of the fragments, including his head."
As the Russians have alluded, the US should continue to focus on the Al Qaeda threat, but can consider options that this victory has affored. As for Russia...hopefully we will stop enabling their fantasy that they are a strong state and adjust our policies accordingly. See my previously posting colleague.

Missile defense shield is back on the table

2011-05-04T11:55:00.005-04:00

Well, the U.S. missile defense shield is back on the table after the Obama administration scrapped it in 2009 following Russian opposition. Since then, the administration has reworked its scheme. In addressing Russian concerns, the U.S. appears to have “bought” time and “masked” its intentions by distracting Russia with the signing of the nuclear arms treaty in April 2010 to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals by about one-third. Romania and the U.S. have been in negotiations for the past year and as of yesterday, reports indicate that the U.S. and Romania have decided that U.S. ballistic missile interceptors will be deployed at a former Soviet-built airbase in southern Romania and operational by 2015.

And of course, Russia is again expressing its concerns that the shield could be used against them and is asking the U.S. legal guarantees on their intention not to deploy a missile defense system aimed at the strategic nuclear forces in Russia. The U.S. insists that the new smaller system is part of its new missile defense plan intended to protect U.S. forward-deployed troops and NATO allies against emerging Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

Phase I was initiated in March with the deployment of the U.S. European-based, guided missile cruiser equipped with Aegis radar (the USS Monterey), allowing for an Adaptive Approach for Missile Defense (EPAA) system’s presence in the Mediterranean. Phase II is to include the deployment of 24 SM3-type interceptors in Romania, followed in 2018 by a similar deployment in Poland.

As can be expected, Russia made the statement saying it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if Washington presses ahead with missile defense systems in Eastern Europe in a way that Moscow opposes.

It will be interesting to watch how this development unfolds, given the outcome of the U.S.’s last attempt to build a defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, where Russia threatened to train their nuclear warheads on Poland and Czech Republic.

So, can the exact same playbook be expected this time around? You would hope that the U.S. came prepared with a new strategy in-hand before it decided to go “all in”. Or, have these defense shield negotiations merely been an attempt to deter Iranian ill-willed intentions, while simultaneously assessing Russian engagements with Iran without an actual intent to follow through on building a defense shield?

Responses to bin-Laden's Death

2011-05-03T22:55:00.009-04:00

Unless you've been sleeping under a rock for the last couple days, you'll know that U.S. Navy SEALs staged a raid on a heavily fortified Pakistan compound and killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. His death is definitely a good thing, but the way the media is talking about his death may be sending the wrong message. When President Obama gave his speech announcing bin Laden's assassination, he was careful to avoid putting the focus on the terrorist leader himself, instead focusing on how this brings closure to 9/11 victims, yet is only a small drop in the bucket compared to what has to be done to stabilize Afghanistan and deal with fundamentalist muslim terror groups, including al-Qaeda.

Depending on the news source you watch, however, you don't necessarily get that same message. Some news sources, such as CNN, are trying to play up the moment of bin-Laden's death as a huge victory for the United States. While it is certainly something to be happy about, it should not be treated the same way as a war victory. There was no "mission accomplished" in the same sense that occured when Bush declared combat operations over in Iraq (though most liberals would say otherwise on Bush's declaration). Bragging about this kind of thing just gives bin-Laden more exposure to the world, which means that more terrorist groups can use him as a martyr, and possibly launch retaliatory attacks against Americans globally . Likewise, if we keep stressing how great it was that we raided the compound, other Middle-Eastern countries may start thinking that we're going to carry out such unilateral interventions on other people we don't like. Killing bin-Laden is a major intelligence success, but in this case, attention is not necessarily a good thing.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have taken out bin-Laden. We acquired useful intelligence on bin-Laden's location and acted when we had the opportunity to get the job done. Personally, I'm glad that bastard's dead. However, people shouldn't treat this like it's a game-changing, turning point in American history. We assassinated the central leader and founder of al-Qaeda, but the organization still remains at large around the world. The various al-Qaeda groups around the world can still act independently. Save the "America, f*** yeah!!!!" for when we've really accomplished something of that magnitude, like fully stabilizing Afghanistan and leaving it in the hands of a capable, democratic government.

Flying Sharks Threaten to Take a Bite out of US East-Asian Security…Or do They?

2011-05-02T23:02:00.000-04:00

A recent report indicated that China’s first Aircraft Carrier, reportedly to be named the Shi Lang is set to make its maiden voyage later this year. This new news, coupled with information coming out China’s first carrier-based aircraft, the J-15 Flying Shark is set to enter operation in 2015 has brought into question the sustainability of the US defense posture in the straights of Taiwan. Manner of these concerns are overly alarmist, as the Chinese PLAN as of now is far from a worthy adversary of the US Navy.

The Shi Lang, formerly known as the Varyag, was purchased from Ukraine in 1998. Effectively, the Chinese purchased nothing more than the hull of a future carrier, as international political pressure had pushed the Ukrainians to remove the engine components. Over a decade later, the new vessel is new completion, and is set to be launched in the near future. Despite the introduction of a new vessel to the growing East-Asian arms race, it will take years for the PLAN to learn how to operate the carrier efficiently, and even longer perhaps to develop the doctrine necessary to use the vessel effectively.

An Aircraft carrier is of little effectiveness without its aircraft, and the model designated to line the flight deck of the Shi Lang, the J-15 Flying Shark is a long way off from being ready for operations. Questions regarding its engine’s serviceability aside, crews of the J-25, like the future crew of the Shi Lang will take time to learn how to use their new weapons of war. China has no tradition or knowledge of landing and operating aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier, and will take additional years in order to learn how to. Even after PLAN sailors know how to operate the Shi Lang, and even after the J-15 pilots learn how to land their planes aboard said vessel, it will take even longer for the Chinese Navy as a whole to learn how to operate in unison, and to decide on which ship designs best work for their operational goals.

Given the long-term nature of this development, it is entirely likely that the Shi Lang will end up being used soley for training purchases. Current estimates place China’s development of its own nuclear-powered Aircraft carriers as beginning production as early as 2020. Rising economic trouble within China is likely to delay this progress. Even then, it will take several more years to complete contruction, buying additional time for the United States and Taiwan.

What should US policy be regarding the PLAN build up? As of now, a wait and see approach is the most viable. It will take years for the PLAN to construct a force capable of projecting sustained power in the straight of Taiwan. Even with its global commitments, the US Navy, in a time of crisis, would be able to outmatch any force the Chinese could muster in the foreseeable future. Instead of focusing on the military hardware of the growing Chinese threat, it would be better for US policy makers to work on building its regional alliances with the ASEAN nations. Just as a geographical ring was drawn around the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so too can a ring of friendly nations circling China play in favor of US policy objectives. Let us continue to keep our own military and political situation strong in the Western Pacific, and the outcome of the PLAN’s contruction program will be of little import.

The Case for Staying

2011-05-02T22:00:00.002-04:00

Osama Bin Laden is dead. With his expiration, Al Qaeda has lost its figurehead, and one of the early objectives for American involvement in Afghanistan has finally been met. Bin Laden’s bullet ridden corpse had barely begun to cool when pundits began discussion the ramifications his death would have on the United States’ presence in Iraq. Many speculate that the President will now push forward with his promise of withdrawing from the Af/Pak theater, while others argue that our job is far from done in Afghanistan, and that the battle against Al Qaeda is only a small part of our efforts there. On the other side of the battle-line, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are also weighing in, "With Bin Laden's death, one of the reasons for which violence has been practiced in the world has been removed," Essam al-Erian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's governing body, told Reuters. "It is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries," he went on to say. It is apparent that the rhetoric of the current administration, which has described our mission in Afghanistan in limited terms, will now likely be used as the rope to pull the US out of the Central Asian nation.

The withdrawal would be politically logical for the Obama administration. It would fulfill a campaign promise, it could be sold as being economically expedient, and it would show the world that the President is perhaps slightly less undeserving of his woefully premature Nobel Peace Prize. But would it be the right thing to do?

Only a fraction of the battle in Afghanistan in recent years has been directed against Al Qaeda. Limiting the influence of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network has taken up a large portion of US efforts. While these organizations are linked with AQ, they are not formally part of the network. They are instead part of the larger militant Islamic movement that remains a viable threat to American interests. A clear case can be made that it is better to combat this movement where it lives as opposed to letting it spread to other parts of the world. The battle against militant Islam is an important one for the US, and leaving Afghanistan would embolden our enemies, while weakening our position in the region.

The debate as to whether or not we should devote billions to nation-building in Afghanistan remains, however an American presence in the region, so long as it is long enough to carry the fight to militant Islamic groups in the region, is vital to US interests. Though Bin Laden is dead, the ideas he stood for are alive and well, and it is those ideas with which we are engaged in the War on Terror. Leaving Afghanistan would be a step backwards in the war against militant Islam, therefore we should maintain an offensively capable presence there.

JSOC Shows the Way

2011-05-02T17:16:00.001-04:00

On May 1^st, 2011 Navy Seal Team 6, part of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted a raid in the town of Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al Qaeda figurehead Osama Bin Laden. Carried into battle by the UH-60s of the 160^th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the Seals took 40 minutes to achieve the mission objective and get out. This raid is just one more in a long line of operations conducted by the Seals and their comrades of JSOC such as the 75^th Ranger Regiment, and Delta Force, but unlike many of those actions, this raid will receive worldwide publicity.

JSOC has been a vital asset in the American War on Terror of the past decade. The unit has seen extensive combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years, with much of their work unacknowledged by US officials. The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the taking of a host of Al Qaeda officials notwithstanding, this units actions were criticized by some during the Bush Administration as being nothing more than an ‘assassination squad’ for the President and Vice President Cheney. What a difference an election makes, however, as this unit’s efforts will now undoubtedly become a focal point of praise towards the current administration’s foreign policy. President Obama certainly deserves credit for allowing this unit to continue its effective operations from the war on terror, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

With American involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan seemingly winding down, perhaps it would be wise to expand the numbers and resources of JSOC, effectively creating a force that could continue to fight the long, protracted struggle against Islamic terrorism that will undoubtedly go on even after US troops leave the Baghdad and Kandahar. With economic necessity and the dwindling hope for an acceptable endgame in Afghanistan, the US could secure its long-term national policy objectives in the region by relying solely on units within JSOC to keep a lid on terrorist activity in the area. Afghanistan and Pakistan and their respective populations are certainly never going to become stauch supporters of the American way of government, so why not pull out, and rely on a counter-terrorism approach to achieving our policies in the region?

Such a plan would be uneasy to swallow for many Americans, who would likely see a withdrawal from Afghanistan as a retreat. The death of Bin Laden, however, provides an opportunity to claim victory in our efforts there. Future actions in the region can be the sole purview of JSOC, while the rank and file of the American military can come home, rest, rearm, and prepare for the future strategic threats facing the United States. Forget nation-building, forget drinking three cups of tea and winning hearts and minds. Let us instead focus on keeping the enemies of the United States at arm’s length if not six-feet-under. JSOC is a tool that could be used to achieve a more cost-effective US policy in the region that still maintains the safety of the American populace.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

2011-05-02T17:14:00.002-04:00

Despite the political back-and-forth that has dominated foreign policy discussion over the last decade, administrations from both sides of the aisle have maintained largely the same policy objectives, with only slight variation around the edges. Wars fought for the sake of spreading democracy under George W. Bush are now wars to protect human rights under the Obama administration. Engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, once called ‘dumb wars’ by the current President, have been continued with deference to the previous administration’s policy (as in Iraq) or with increased vigor (the case with Afghanistan). The newest battle joined by US forces, this time in Libya, faces a potential mission creep that could bring our involvement there on a level with that of Iraq or Afghanistan. Libya is only the most pressing example of the developing trend of populist Middle Eastern uprisings, with Egypt, Syria, and Yemen all being considered for American action. Our current administration must resist these urges, the Arab spring is not our fight.

Afghanistan was our fight because of 9-11. Iraq was our fight due to the necessity to finish the job from a decade previous. The uprisings that constitute the ‘Arab Spring’ are the internal affairs of those sovereign nations. Though the United States certainly has a vested interest in the outcome of these uprisings (as well as in Iran), and would welcome a wave of secular democracies within the Middle East, the, US policy makers must recognize that the ideal outcome is far from the most likely outcome in this scenario. There is a great difference between Islamic populism, the force that appears to be carrying the day in the Arab Spring, and a democracy that respects the rights of all its citizens to life, liberty, and religious freedom. Violence in Egypt against women and other minorities after the so-called liberation of the Egyptian people shows that while the US is now contending with a new leadership (or soon will be) in a host of Middle Eastern countries, the new leadership in the Middle East is far from likely to be amenable to American interests.

The Middle East will likely be in convulsion for months and years to come, and the United States must let the uprisings run their course. Many will argue, be they Neoconservatives or Progressives, that we have the responsibility to protect the people of the Arab world from potential genocides and civil wars, or that we have a responsibility to spread democracy, or civilization to the world. While these intentions are certainly noble, US policy makers must remember that their first responsibility to the American citizenry, and the defense thereof. In a time of grave economic crisis, spending copious sums of taxpayer dollars attempting to affect positive change in a region of the world that will always be a problem for the United States is not sound policy. The United States in 2001 and 2003 could afford, both geopolitically and economically, to launch sustained efforts in the Middle East. We now face a different reality.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our policy regarding the Middle East has remained the same under administrations claiming to be from polar opposite ends of the American political spectrum. This is far from the truth. A new course in the Middle East is needed, however, as the situation on the ground in the Arab world is increasingly fluid. American policy makers must reevaluate our policies and ongoing operations in the Middle East, and continually weigh if they are in the best interests of the American people.

Boeing, the Obama Administration, and the future of the Defense Industry

2011-05-02T17:11:00.002-04:00

In April, a controversy developed between the Obama Administration and Boeing, the United States’ sole mass producer of wide-bodied civil aviation aircraft, and one of its largest defense contractors. The National Labor Relations Board, headed by Obama appointee Lafe Solomon, decreed that Boeing must halt its plans to produce the new 787 Dream Liner aircraft in South Carolina and instead shift production, set to begin next year, to Washington state. The change was made due to South Carolina being a right-to-work state, and the NLRB’s desire to have the 787 Dream Liner produced by union labor.

Though this action the part of the NLRB is a clear affront to Boeing’s rights as a private business entity, Boeing does not cut a sympathetic figure when one takes into account the government protection the aerospace giant has received from the government in recent years. In the realm of civilian and military contracts, Boeing has been the beneficiary of the current administration’s protectionist policies. Since President Obama entered office, Boeing has been given over 45 million dollars in government contracts, in addition to over 14 billion dollars in guaranteed loans from the Ex-Im bank as part of the administration’s efforts to boost US exports. Boeing’s ties with the current administration run deep, and it appears that this case of the NLRB’s ruling is nothing less than the administration cashing in on an IOU.

While the current battle pertains to the construction of a civilian aircraft, its potential effect on the defense industry is great. Boeing’s ties with the government, and our current government’s ties with Big Labor has created a conflict of interests which will continue to stifle the US defense industry. While the trend of meting out defense contracts to key congressional districts is nothing new, technology is reaching a crossroads that could make government corruption with the defense industry a long-term security threat.

If Unions are going to continue to be catered to by defense contractors, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility to see the once-great companies of Boeing or Lockeed Martin to go the way of general motors. One could argue, that given their ties with the government, Boeing may already be the aerospace equivalent of ‘Government Motors’.

Though the government has clearly overstepped its bounds in the case of the NLRB’s ruling, the bulk of the blame needs to be placed at the feet of Boeing. The Aerospace giant has behaved in a manner that first allowed such a crime to take place, and second severely limited any potential response to the ruling, as such a response could result in the government gravy-train grinding to a halt. For decades Boeing has sought to limit competition by courting pro-Union Democrat politicians in order to gain favorable treatment. Now the latter is simply seeking a return on its ‘investment’. To their dismay, Boeing is only now seeing the pitfalls of its selling-out, and will perhaps in the future will rethink which political forces it chooses to ally itself with.

What Now?

2011-05-02T09:37:00.003-04:00

Now that Bin Laden is dead, one starts to wonder where the United States and its allies go from here. An article in the New York Times this morning suggests that there is concern among Afghans that the West may view his death as the end of its mission. In a sense, there is fear that the U.S. and its allies will now pack up and head home.

However, it is hard to imagine that this will be the case. If anything, the United States has more of an incentive to follow through with its undertaking. The top dog has been caught, but there are still plenty of others worth pursuing. There is also hope that the capture and death of Bin Laden will drive the Taliban to stop fighting and consider entering Afghanistan’s political realm. Arsala Rahmani, once a member of the Taliban and now on the High Peace Council, suggests that he doesn’t “think this will affect the Taliban fight in Afghanistan in the short term, but in the long term it will because Al Qaeda helped the Taliban in fighting and other activities” (Rubin). He went on to “[add] that he thought it would drive the Taliban toward negotiations and making peace with the government ‘because they don’t have any other way’ “ (Rubin).

There is still a long fight ahead, and it will be interesting to see exactly how much or how little U.S. allies were involved in the operation to snatch Bin Laden. This is especially pertinent when considering Pakistan. One begins to contemplate how much the government of Pakistan was actually doing to fight terrorists within its own borders. What’s even more striking is the fact that Abbottabad, where bin Laden was captured, is less than 100 miles away from the capital and is known to have a large Pakistani military presence:

“Bin Laden was not killed in the remote and relatively lawless tribal regions, where the United States has run a campaign of drone attacks aimed at Qaeda militants, where he was long rumored to have taken refuge, and where the reach of the Pakistani government is limited.

Rather, he was killed in Abbottabad, a city of about 500,000, in a large and highly secured compound that, a resident of the city said, sits virtually adjacent to the grounds of a military academy. In an ironic twist, the academy was visited just last month by the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, where he proclaimed that Pakistan had “cracked” the forces of terrorism, an assessment that was greeted with skepticism in Washington” (Perlez).

In the end, the coming days and months will bring about new details. The world will have to sit back and wait to see what this all means for Washington’s relationship with Pakistan and for the international community as a whole.

Image from: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/map-bin-laden-killed-0502_rdax_676x456.jpg

Osama bin laden is DEAD!!!!

2011-05-01T23:18:00.001-04:00

I honestly believe we should drag his body from ground zero in NYC to the steps of the White House in Washington DC. He was reportedly killed by a bomb or missile about a week ago in a mansion in Pakistan. We waited to confirm DNA evidence before making the announcement. Familial DNA was used to ID him.
See stories here here here and here .

UPDATE. Conflicting reports indicate that he may have been killed in a ground attack. May just be speculation based on the fact that we recovered remains.

The Son Apparently Will Be Punished For His Father's Sins

2011-04-30T22:57:00.002-04:00

And this is the reason I waited so late for my last blog post. According to multiple reports (video!), NATO planes bombed a house belonging to Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, a son of leader Moammar Gaddafi. Saif al-Arab and at least three of Moammar Gaddafi's grandchildren are reported to have been killed. Oh by the way, Moammar Gaddafi was reported to have been in the house at the time of the bombing!

Lt. General Charles Bouchard, the commander of NATO military forces, said that all targets that are bombed, "are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the [Gaddafi] regime's systemic attacks on the Libyan population...We do not target individuals." Not to call foul on the good general, but apparently yes, we do target individuals. I think this touches on what we mentioned in class this week regarding the targeting of "command and control" elements of the Libyan government. This of course is a nice way of saying that we are going after the position, not the man. In other words, NATO isn't bombing Gaddafi because he's a bad man that we don't like; NATO is bombing Gaddafi because he is the leader a hostile regime.

This bombing, and the previous one of Moammar Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, show fairly clearly that the removal of Gaddafi by force is something that NATO forces have decided will be accomplished sooner or later. What remains to be seen is if this is a good idea, and if anyone is prepared for Libya without Gaddafi. Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya, recently said, "I don't believe that any credible group or individual sees the solution to the Libyan problem without the removal of Moammar Gaddafi, one way or the other." To be clear, this is not Iraq; no one thinks that the removal of a dictator will automatically set up Libya as a flourishing democracy. However, I have yet to see a solid plan regarding what will actually happen if and when NATO forces are successful in killing Moammar Gaddafi, and I'm not sure that any of the NATO forces that are currently responsible for keeping the rebels afloat have any commitment to that cause once Gaddafi is dead. That is, until those French forces finally move in...

The Importance of Making Good Sub-Optimal Decisions

2011-04-30T21:58:00.002-04:00

David Rothkopf has an interesting blog post up right now about the reshuffling of deck chairs on the Obama national security cruise ship. He seems to like the decision and goes to some length about a quote from the ubiquitous unnamed source, breaking it down piece by piece. The quote in question is, “the strongest possible team to exercise our strategies and policies. I stress the word team.”

Rothkopf makes the observation that the important word, the really important word isn’t strongest or team, but instead possible. In doing so, he opens up a conversation on an important aspect of formulating any kind of policy, but particularly those having to do with international affairs. I agree with Rothkopf’s general idea that an important aspect of any president’s decision-making—whether it concern staffing, plotting a new course in an ongoing conflict, or evaluating other foreign leaders—is the need to make really good suboptimal decisions. By that I mean, having to look at your preference ordering (i.e. the way you’d really like things to unfold) and immediately have to jettison option one or maybe even option two for something lesser because any number of externalities interfere with the ideal.

Doing this effectively can be hard work. Just think about recent history of appointees, whether they are related to domestic or international policy, and a number of stinkers from both Bush and Obama come to mind.

Rothkopf really goes into detail about this, but what I got from it was an emphasis on the notion that preferences cannot be formed in a vacuum. Once allowed to “burn in the sun or rot in the humidity,” a policy or appointment that looked great in optimal conditions doesn’t respond well to crosscutting interests/policies or domestic political conditions. Thinking about your ideal fix to any problem isn’t difficult; most savvy international policy observers could do that. The challenge is actually two fold: first, one must line-up good “least bad” options, and second, the decision maker must know what external considerations are truly important and grounds for disqualifying one policy in favor of a another.

Take the always-treacherous subject of U.S. policy towards Pakistan for example. I struggle to think that our Pakistan policy is exactly what we’d like it to be…no regrets. Clearly we are forced to work a sub-optimal policy but deciding how far down the order of preferences to slide is the true challenge. One important question is actually how badly will the Pakistanis react if we favor India on more substantive issues? Answering that incorrectly could stymie future relations with India or It could create a truly violent backlash from Pakistan’s proxies.

Presidents never have perfect records on these things. I think I agree with Rothkopf that Obama got the most possible out of these appointments, given all of the externalities. I don’t however believe we worked the synergy between interests, strategies, and preferences very well in crafting our Libya policy. But both decisions highlight the importance of maximizing possibility and not dreaming about perfect solutions.

Okay, Let's NOT Get Technical

2011-04-30T14:58:00.003-04:00

In my prior post, I was going to try and craft my final blogpost entirely on an iPad. Research, links, composition, everything. Well, it let me write a title, but then I couldn't type in the white box where blogposts happen. Oh Steve Jobs, you minx.

Anyway, we can get technical in another way. Let's talk weaponry. And none of this hoity toity "less than lethal" stuff. I'm talking stuff that goes kaboom. And better yet, it goes kaboom when you want it to.

Let's say you're in Afghanistan and some BG (read: Bad Guy) starts shooting you from behind a large rock. You shoot back, but he's too well protected. You have grenades, but the target is too far away to hit with a handheld object. You have a standard grenade launcher, but if the projectile falls in front of the rock, the BG will still be shielded. If you aim higher to get over the rock, the projectile will overshoot the target and land well behind him, causing no damage to him at all. If only there was a way to aim RIGHT over the boulder and then have the projectile explode JUST as it sails over the BG's head. Oh wait, there is and it's been called the Punisher. Okay, the formal name is the XM-25, but come on! THE PUNISHER!

The fancy new grenade rifle system takes something vital away from the enemy: cover. With a state-of-the-art aiming capability incorporating lasers and math, the XM-25 allows a soldier to send a 25mm straight to a BG, all from a safer distance than would be required with a standard grenade launcher.

The Punisher is already being used by Army troops on a trial basis in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense last month signed a $65 million contract with ATK, the munitions contractor responsible for making and testing the weapon. Because it is an experimental weapon at this time, there are only 5 Punishers in existence. But assuming that the weapon continues to deliver in tests, there is reason to believe that another 36 will be available in 2012.

In referring to the XM-25, Brigadier General Peter N. Fuller stated that it "seems to be game-changing. You no longer can shoot at American forces and then hide behind something. We're going to reach out and touch you." What a quote. One sergeant stated, "The XM25 brought the difference to whether they would stay there 15 to 20 minutes shooting [and] taking pot shots or the actual fight ended after using the XM-25." That's a glowing endorsement if I've ever heard one.

If you've seen Restrepo, then you know how the fighting in Afghanistan can take place over incredibly long distances. As awesome as this weapon is, however, I'm curious as to why it's taken this long to be developed.

Let's get technical

2011-04-30T12:55:00.001-04:00

Is U.S. Hegemony being challenged by BRICS?

2011-04-29T22:20:00.007-04:00

In order to elaborate on this headline, I must first ensure that readers understand what is meant by U.S. Hegemony. Today, many consider the United States of America to be a global hegemon. Not as a brute power or dominant leader mind you, but rather that the majority consider the U.S. as being a global leader achieved through consensus from the majority of nations rather than a leader through force. So considering that U.S. hegemony was reached through elements of power -politics, economics, and culture -exerted over other nations, the U.S. requires the consent of the majority of nation-states to keep its status. Accordingly, given today’s media coverage on changes in political, monetary, and cultural trends of regional powers such as BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) , is U.S. hegemony being challenged by BRICS? To see if there is validity in this question, let us look at the monetary and cultural components of power.

Monetary Hegemony
BRICS encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population - and hold a combined GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) of circa $20 trillion. On almost every scale, they have the potential to be and are becoming the largest entity on the global stage. They are among the biggest and fastest growing emerging markets. This rising hegemonic powerhouse has officially held two summits -2009 and 2011- where their focus was oriented toward future collaboration, discussing their roles in global affairs, and most importantly their intentions to reform financial institutions, even suggesting the controversial need for a new global reserve currency. Many Americans view statements such as this as absurd, but is it really that hard to take seriously considering that China alone holds over $1trillion in U.S. treasury securities and the growth and strength in their economy. Looking at U.S. hegemony and arguments of U.S. GDP and military still surpassing China’s –it’s concerning for U.S. National Security and Defense when Chinese foreign reserves now equal over 50% of their GDP and the U.S. has to debate whether or not to increase its debt limit. Makes you wonder how long we can afford the costs associated with simply maintaining the most superior fighting force in the world for the greater good. And, it’s almost sad that the disconnect between domestic politics and global economics is jeopardizing U.S. hegemony, where domestic politics is letting the security of a nation be tied up in the “good faith and trust in the U.S. dollar”. Domestic politics may be the U.S.’s biggest enemy. Its faith rests in the assumption that the U.S. earns enough a year to make a minimum payment on its credit card. Although, when you’ve maxed out all your credit cards, are asking mother may I to your credit card company (members of BRICS) to increase your credit card limit, but then tell your credit card company that you’re actually still the one who makes the decisions and are really the one in control. Many economists share this concern, to include Goldman Sachs’s global economist Jim O’Neill whom has a fascinating and daunting thesis on the rise of BRICS with many statistics to support this concern.

Cultural Hegemony
The use of language can serve as a means of creating and applying hegemony. With the U.S. disseminating information through its media to the global public and holding dominance over the internet, the U.S. is, intentionally or not, practicing its influence over other cultures. These influential institutions have subtly used language to frame a message. Now consider the changes in demographics, the rise of the “social media revolution” and BRICS accounting for over 40% of the world’s population -it doesn’t take long to envision how BRICS’ cultural demographics will challenge U.S. cultural hegemony.

If BRICS chooses to embrace the phenomenon of language and media to influence thought not only within their countries, but also across their regional societies and seeing that BRICS is embracing globalization through their own terms, what do you think this will mean for U.S. hegemony, or is the rise of BRICS merely the move to preserve the balance of power in international relations? At first glance, it appears that the U.S. is on a concerning course –where “the ship” is sailing at its flank speed and if the U.S. doesn’t consider new azimuths and doesn’t consider charting a new course, it will reach rough waters and possibly run aground on the shores of BRICS.

Pirates, Unions, and the Need for Naval Collaboration

2011-04-29T22:03:00.002-04:00

What do labor unions and Somali pirates have in common? Well if you’re an Indian, Russia, or Indonesian sailor and a member of a big maritime union, the latter could be the cause for a huge strike brought about by the dangerous working conditions that arise while repeatedly transiting the Indian ocean with some of the world’s most precious cargo.

Two days ago, a representative for such a maritime union told the AFP that, “There is a strong possibility that a collective international boycott by the seafarers coming from the labor-supplying countries like the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Russia, Bangladesh, etc. is round the corner.” The article goes on to suggest that the containment policy pursued by numerous navies in the region is failing. The threat of a strike could further jam up supplies of all things hydrocarbon, including asphalt, petroleum, and coal, potentially driving up prices for commodities that are already viewed as too expensive.

While this is an issue commonly discussed in energy-related publications, it has not gotten much attention in the broader world of international politics and defense news. The ripple effects of a labor strike could bring the story of piracy’s tangential effects front and center. Piracy is not enough of a force to halt shipping on its own, but it need not fully impede shipping in the Indian ocean to adversely affect the world economy—the potentially for a pirate-induced labor strike demonstrate this fact.

A potential work stoppage should raise critical questions about the counter-piracy policies of the U.S. and its allies and the need for more meaningful naval cooperation. India’s navy, the fifth largest in the world, will likely be at the center of this debate. Platt’s blog “The Barrel” has been on the record since February in calling for the Indian navy to step up its efforts in interdicting pirates as they venture further and further from the African littoral. These “blue water” pirates (I know it’s a stretch, but just follow along for now) highlight how asymmetrical conflict should be an emphasis of naval strategic thinkers as much as it is in the Army and Marines.

Furthermore, the specter of international piracy and its pestilent effect on transnational shipping should influence naval procurement both in the U.S. and abroad. Big deck amphibious ships like the ones off the coast of Libya are interesting platforms for effectively challenging the pirates.

Burden sharing will be the likely catch phrase of counter-piracy strategy going forward. Putting together an arrangement between countries like the U.S., India and China is certainly difficult, but this is the kind of interest-based collaboration that should be the emphasis of military-to-military collaboration in the Asian region.

"Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

2011-04-29T17:38:00.005-04:00

France is deploying an ~~new~~ old weapon in Libya this week : concrete filled bombs, remarkably similar to...giant rocks. While earlier press statements falsely noted that the 660-pound “training bombs” were being employed due to a lack of explosive munitions, it turns out in some cases they are actually preferable to traditional explosives, as they can cause massive damage to Qaddafi's forces-especially tanks- without the shrapnel that could harm nearby civilians.

Destroying tanks while avoiding damage to nearby civil infrastructures and civilians certainly seems like a good idea, which may make Americans wonder why we ever departed from the strategy in the first place, as American fighter pilots used similar concrete devices in Iraq in 1999. However, while, damaging a single tank may be easy, one could imagine that destroying a cave or camp would actually be better done with the use of shrapnel devices that work in a wider radius, when the purpose is to cause harm.

Interestingly, in the NYT article linked above, Steven Lee Myers notes that "The concrete bombs are also an apt symbol of a low-level war against Iraq that is dictated as much by political and diplomatic sensitivities as strategic or military concerns." Sounds familiar, eh?

However, this isn't to say that throwing stones should be a strategy we resort to in the budget crisis, as even 600 pound concrete bombs have to be guided by modern technology, whether it be a GPS or lasers. Some estimates put the French GPS kits at around $125k, and US kits at $40k. Then again, $40k bomb bomb kit sounds expensive....until you realize it's destroying tanks that cost 1-2 million dollars.

Now, imagine how devastating they could be if we could launch them from space instead...... oh wait, we're actually researching that. Probably not quite what Einstein imagined when he said "I do not know how the third world war will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the fourth… rocks".

If "Afghanistan" is in the Headline, Expect More Bad News

2011-04-28T22:06:00.007-04:00

Check it:

"Eight American service members and a contractor were shot and killed by an Afghan military officer on Wednesday while they attended a meeting of foreign and Afghan officers on the military side of Kabul International Airport, according to statements from Afghan and NATO spokesmen."

Here is another lovely problem with the war in Afghanistan that has no solution. With the beginning of US troop withdrawal just months away, now is not the time for there to be another shooting of coalition forces by an Afghan soldier. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid was quick to say that the Taliban had orchestrated the attack, something that Afghan officials have been just as quick to deny. On the one hand, the Taliban are willing to claim responsibility for anything that disrupts the war effort. Doing so provides them with a modicum of psychological leverage in the war of ideas. On the other hand, it is unlikely for the Afghan government to willingly advertise to the world that its military is ridden with armed insurgents.

Whether or not the shooter in this (or any other) case was Taliban is mostly irrelevant. From Tony Corn's article in Small Wars Journal, we already know that the Afghanistan government is as corrupt as a stack of Richard Nixons (the recent jailbreak in Kandahar is a great example of such grandiose lawlessness... in all seriousness, Afghanistan needs a Batman).

Like I stated above, there is no real solution to this. We can't disarm Afghan soldiers when they're in the presence of Americans. Despite background checks and interviews, there's no foolproof way to keep dedicated insurgents or mentally unstable soldiers out of the Afghan military. Maybe these attacks will lessen when forces begin to leave the country. Maybe not.

In a barely related story, this guy argues in the Huffington Post that the Obama administration has "quietly instructed the CIA to intensify its efforts to hunt down, capture, or kill Osama bin Laden." The author insists that as soon as the US is out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will invite their "guest" back to the country so that everyone can realize that the past ten years have been for nothing. Now THAT would be a depressing headline.

(For the record, I'm pretty sure this is a doctored photo... I don't think Bert has have ever been in the same room as bin Laden)

---UPDATE---
So Osama is dead and buried at sea. This is a very big deal and also not. The assassination of bin Laden has resulted in a big sigh of relief for everyone who thought he was going to die of old age, but at the same time few have predicted that his death will bring about the end of the war more quickly, or that the enemy will suffer from a lack of morale. Like we always say, the enemy has a vote in war. At this time, there's no telling how al-Qaeda and its allies will react to bin Laden's death. The world will have to wait and see.

In the meantime, isn't it gratifying to know that at this very moment he's likely being picked apart by crabs?

You're not gonna reach my telephone

2011-04-27T10:32:00.002-04:00

The Playstation Network has been down for almost a week now because hackers have penetrated the system and have potentially stolen a bunch of private information.

Isn’t modern technology awesome?

It truly is. It has allowed the world to be connected in ways unimaginable just decades ago. Today, cell phones are popular in places like Afghanistan, where they often serve as the main form of communication for the population. So don’t think for an instant that the Taliban and other insurgents haven’t attempted to exploit such technologies in their efforts against ‘the infidels’.

The proliferation of cheap, instantaneous technologies is both a blessing and a curse to counterinsurgents. Text messages on temporary phones or using disposable SIM cards can convey death threats, or, just as concerning, messages containing plans of a militant operation.

Of course, if hackers can find a way into the Playstation network, the U.S. government can exploit enemy usage of modern information and communication technologies. Undisciplined use of this technology by insurgents can lead the enemy right into our hands. This possibility has led Taliban fighters to order cell phone towers to shut down at night so that NATO forces can’t use signals to track them.

In certain instances, however, tracking such communications is nearly impossible, especially if the senders are careful and take the necessary precautions. Hell, the U.S. government is even teaching democratic dissidents in certain countries how to protect their identities when sending messages across the Internet or with their cell phones. And it doesn’t even take sophisticated measures to overcome detection. As mentioned above, using temporary phones or black-marketed SIM cards allow the users to remain anonymous. It just requires a little ingenuity.

As one of our classmates would say, the enemy also has a voice in what happens in a war. If one side develops a technology or method, it can be expected that the other will respond. So as insurgents begin to use modern communications technologies, the counterinsurgent may develop means to exploit that usage, which lead the insurgents to find ways around that exploitation. It is interesting to watch the progression of move-and-countermove by the opposing sides.

Afghanistan, step yo' game up!

2011-04-26T12:34:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, almost 500 Taliban prisoners escaped from Afghanistan’s largest prison. How did they do it? By digging 1,000 to 1,200 feet of tunnels that emerged underneath the prison.

I believe the Taliban has been watching too many American movies, as this scene could be a modern-day ‘Great Escape’.

But as clever as it may be that the Taliban were able to pull this off, it has enormous implications for the counterinsurgency efforts in the country. Not only does it mean that more Taliban fighters return to their posts to continue their insurgency against our troops, but it also raises concerns regarding the Afghan government’s ability to provide basic functions of governance.

Let me start by recognizing that part of the blame goes on American forces. Apparently they had spent ‘months trying to improve the physical security’ of the prison. Perhaps they should have also considered installing concrete flooring as well. But seriously, their efforts proved to be insufficient. However, there comes a point when Afghan personnel need to step their game up.

Basic COIN doctrine recognizes that it is better to allow the host nation to accomplish a task tolerably than for you to do it perfectly (T.E. Lawrence). FM 3-24 recognizes the importance of this maxim. But the key word is ‘tolerably’. It is not tolerable to allow enemy prisoners to escape. As Mr. Agha Lalai Dastageri, a provincial councilman in Kandahar, noted “This clearly shows the weakness of the government and the security forces, and if this doesn’t change, the prison breaks will happen again and again.”

Is there a point at which a third party involved in a counterinsurgency recognizes that it picked a poor government to support? Until the Afghan government can prove that they are ready to take over control of their country, the U.S. will have to continue to be involved in the country. With events such as this occurring, the situation is not promising for a U.S. withdrawal any time soon.

We Want Out...But We Also Want to Be in Charge

2011-04-25T17:53:00.001-04:00

Today the BBC reported that NATO forces struck Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s compound. This is possibly in response to comments made by John McCain over the weekend, showing support for the rebels and calling for the US to resume its leadership role. “The fact is that it is the United States that is NATO. We ought to recognize that and we ought to continue our leadership role” http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3199583.htm

While I wonder what the other members of NATO would think of these comments, I don’t necessarily disagree with the US resuming a leadership role in NATO’s Libyan actions. However, I seem to remember many disagreeing with US involvement in Libyan when we were in charge and I feel that there was a valid reason. Namely , what is the mission we should be leading? The Obama administration and other European powers have repeatedly called for Gaddafi to step down. However, the Whitehouse has also made claims that regime change is not the goal of US involvement in Libya. Its understandable why there is confusion in the US public.

I respect that the US refrained from immediately sending in troops at the beginning of the uprising (hopefully we have learned that while we are quite good at toppling leaders, we aren’t quite as adept at regime building). We have respected the wishes of the rebel groups in Libya in not putting troops on the ground. However, the administration has failed in informing the American people of or strategy or even a stance on Libya. We began by letting the rebellion take its course. When it looked like the rebels were losing NATO as the UN to issue a no-fly zone, under which the US bombed Libyan tanks, which at the time appeared to be the main obstacle to the rebellion. When the rebels made advances, we pulled back and allowed the Europeans to take over. Now that the rebels and the Libyan Army have seemed to reach a stalemate and as the siege of Misrata continues unabated, US officials have called for the US to re-involve itself while simultaneously resuming its targeting of Gaddaffi’s residence in Tripoli.

I feel it would be better if the US either stated a policy or acted as if it had a policy other than just seeming to do as little as possible and throwing solutions at the problem to see if it works. Instead, the US should either make the decision to let the rebellion take its course (which now seems impossible given our stance that Gaddafi must go) or decide that it will openly work with the rebel government in Benghazi to work with them to help organize troops and provide both advice and assistance that will be beneficial to the rebels, while still allowing them to fight. If we say we want Gaddafi out, we need to back up our policy. Otherwise, let the rebels fight and let our humanitarian involvement not extend to destroying tanks.

See ya, Saleh?

2011-04-24T22:06:00.001-04:00

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been playing the Dictator Game well so far – so let us not jump to the conclusion that he’s a goner just yet. Saleh has been expertly employing the range of tactics available to dictators. He has used the time-tested “bait-and-switch.” By oscillating between conciliatory measures and violence he has kept us guessing. A week prior to poor Mr. Mubarak’s ousting Saleh announced that he would not seek a continuance of his 32-year rule and step down in 2013 meanwhile pro-government supporters continued to clash with protestors – killing some of them in the process. Mr. Saleh also sends in the police, to protect the protestors, who don’t buy it and continue the mission. The back and forth has continued for nearly three complete months… so who on earth really believes this is it?

There are so many reasons this isn’t going to happen.

It’s not written in stone yet

The draft agreement would grant Saleh legal protection from prosecution – something he says he will not leave without and something the youth in the streets refuse to agree to. The political opposition which has tentatively agreed to the deal also has deal-breaking reservations. The proposed deal would call for the formation of a unity government within a week of the signing of the deal – but the opposition leaders want Saleh to step down first and cannot fathom forming a unity government by swearing oaths of Salah as President, who they say has “already lost legitimacy.” This agreement is being touted as a real deal, but it hasn’t been set in stone.

Saleh is not alone – he has his supporters

Even if the deal is signed and Salaeh resigns at the end of 30 days – he wouldn’t really be gone. The Parliament, which the present proposed deal gives the power to approve or reject Saleh’s resignation, is dominated by his own party. But say they let him resign, his political and personal dominance doesn’t necessarily come to an end. The anti-government protestors have been matched in the street by pro-Saleh/pro-government types. Saleh stepping down might not be enough for everyone to just go home – it wasn’t enough for many Egyptians that Mubarak stepped down.

The protestors are not alone either

In the months since protests began, a slow but steady stream of important figures have broken publically with Saleh and joined the popular movement in the streets. In late March top army officials announced support for the protestors and dispatched troops to protect them. Unlike in Egypt, where the entire military switched sides, only a number of Yemeni commanders have switched allegiance further complicating the lines of division. But suffice to say, the protesters are not along in the street and are not happy with a deal allowing Saleh to get away from 30-plus years of oppression and no trial afterwards.

There is more than one source of opposition

Those who have tentatively agreed to the deal drawn up by the Gulf Cooperation Council are a group called the Joint Meeting Parties – a coalition of seven Yemeni opposition political parties. While perhaps powerful as opposition on the elite political level, they are not representative of the young Yemeni in the street. While old political hacks make deals those in the street remain resolute, one of the street-representatives declaring that “Of course, we don’t accept this.”

***

So what does this recent maybe-deal mean? Probably nothing, absolutely nothing actually. It may be accepted by the political opposition, despite their resignations, but then will most definitely be rejected by the protestors in the streets. A wedge could be driven between the opposition groups – elite and street – and Saleh may continue in power because he has successfully divided his opposition. If the deal is rejected, Saleh stays in power and people stay in the streets regardless. But the opposition would stand more closely together, and with a few generals could prompt a deepening conflict and escalating violence.

Yemen could get nasty. Unlike Libya and Egypt – which merely tempt us with the possibility of anti-American terroristic-types taking advantage of turmoil – Yemen is home-base to AQAP. I don’t worry than a post-Saleh regime would in favor AQ, but I do worry that AQ could take advantage of political and social unrest in the country to expand their areas and carry out nefarious plots while the Sanaa is preoccupied.

But what to do, what to do? Nothing. Sadly, our military has already outstretched its capabilities. And we ought not to cheat the end-end game in Iraq or the previous and often-ignored quagmire in Afghanistan by opening another front elsewhere. We’ve succeeded in allowing the Libya buck to mostly pass to the French – who care a tad bit more than we do. But when Yemen goes down, and it probably will, who cares enough to get involved? Or rather, we may care – for the suffering of the Yemeni people among other things – but caring doesn’t give us the will to spend blood and treasure, or the ability to make things right.

Jailtime as Statecraft?

2011-04-24T18:12:00.009-04:00

Defense statecraft is about the application of force to achieve national goals. This year we've learned about the different tools used to apply said force, namely the different branches of the military, the weapons they use, and the standard procedures that they operate by. We haven't, however, talked about the role of military justice as an unconventional tool of defense statecraft. Let's.

Remember Jonathan Pollard? Dude was caught spying for the Israelis in 1985 and has been in prison ever since. During his time in the big house, Pollard has become a low-level celebrity, with multiple politicians in the United States and Israel lobbying for his release. As a matter of fact, Pollard recently wrote a letter to President Obama that was hand-delivered by Shimon Peres, President of Israel. In the letter, Pollard hints that his release would be a boon for U.S./Israeli relations:

"My release in time to celebrate Passover at home in Israel with my beloved wife would be a welcome gesture of friendship to the Israeli people, an act of solidarity with a staunch and long-time ally of the United States, and a deeply compassionate and humane gift of life to my wife and me."

How about Bradley Manning? Wikileaks source extraordinaire has yet to be found guilty for his long list of federal crimes. In the meantime, he is serving a prison sentence that some equate to prolonged, low-grade torture. In this recently shot video, President Obama brushes off someone's comparison of Manning to Daniel Ellsberg, the man responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in the 1970s.

In conclusion,the way that the United States treats prisoners convicted of treason is interesting. As is customary in my blogposts, here are my finishing questions that are more or less rhetorical: How does the continued incarceration of Pollard really affect relations with Israel? Does treating Manning like crap work to dissuade other countries from sending spies to the U.S.? Assuming Manning is found guilty after his trial, will his conditions improve, worsen, or stay the same?

The Clinton Fallacy

2011-04-23T20:21:00.002-04:00

The situation in Libya is not getting any better. According to a recent article in the New York Times, Admiral Mullen says that Libya is likely to become a stalemate. While the NATO led air campaign has destroyed about 30-40% of Qaddafi's ground forces, new tactics adopted by said forces make it difficult for pilots to determine if the targets on the ground are government forces are rebels.

Despite the acknowledgement that air power is becoming less effective, America's only response is to increase the use of air power, specifically by using drones. Even though drones provide a means of delivering precision guided munitions, I think that the U.S. is caught in an air power fallacy. During the Bosnian War, the Clinton administration relied upon an air campaign to lend support against Serbian troops. However in Bosnia, air power was not the only form of Western intervention. There were also NATO troops on the ground, and even in some cases where these troops had limited rules of engagement (such as the Dutch troops that couldn't intervene to stop the Srebrenica Massacre), their involvement helped end the war.

I've said before that the West has already gotten to the level of involvement where this can be considered a full military intervention, so there is no need whatsoever to keep hiding behind the idea that we're "only" supporting the rebels via air power. If the U.S. is holding back out of casualty aversion toward its ground troops, we need to press for NATO to put boots on the ground and finally push against Qaddafi directly (though this may be difficult because the U.N resolution does not yet allow for this). Even if it's just so we don't seem like unilateral interventionists, It's still possible to deploy ground troops legitimately. We should speak with our NATO allies and the UN in order to gain support for such an action. While this course of action may not work, the United States government should at least make an attempt, instead of sticking with a strategy that does nothing to help bring this conflict to a conclusion

The Red Baron and EBO

2011-04-23T19:04:00.006-04:00

The other day was the anniversary of the death of Baron Manfred Von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron. Unlike the History Channel, I do not get wrapped up in romanticizing enemies. I thought it was worth addressing this in conjunction with how the Libya situation is hopefully de-romanticizing the mythical revolution in military affairs, specifically that our country cannot merely rely on airpower as a strategy.

The revolution of military affairs led military strategists to rely on “effects based operations” (EBO) that assumed that precision guided attacks focused on centers of gravity would allow us to force the enemy to do our bidding. This assumed that technological innovation would lift the fog of war by providing a clear picture of the enemy situation. In short, EBO is enticing to the Air Force because of an overwhelming reliance on mathematical analytics…changing warfare from a “an art to a science.” This article is the best I’ve seen that captures the issues with EBO.

The Libya situation makes clear some of the issues with EBO. Namely, strategists and campaigners cannot assume that they know how their actions will “affect” the enemy. Early in fight, when it became clear that the “No Fly Zone” was a little bit more, Qaddafi’s forces began shedding uniforms, using civilian vehicles, and hiding among the population. These actions likely forecast what future enemy forces will do in the face of an American assault, and should accentuate the concept that we must fight for intelligence and develop the situation while in contact with the enemy. The Army seems to have grasped this, as seen in their Army Capstone Concept, in the wake of works like this one by old Army Officers.

The biggest hope should be that we learn the right lessons from this conflict. Hopefully from an ending that involves a Qaddafi-less Libya. Specifically…this war will not have been won by airpower.
It will require aggressive and thrifty maneuvers on the part of the rebels, with secure lines of logistics, and an iron will in urban combat. Given Defense Secretary Gates’ recent remarks at the United States Military Academy at West Point, we should worry that our strategists will attempt (like the Kosovo example) to twist this into a victory for EBO-enthusiasts. Kind of like how historians made The Red Baron into more than just another enemy shot out of the sky. Better him than any more of ours.

Changing of National Security Guard Proves Intriguing

2011-04-23T18:35:00.001-04:00

The time has come for my obligatory, national security musical chairs post. As we’ve discussed somewhat in class, all leaks regarding who will be taking what should be taken with a grain of salt. Some ideas either reflect temperature testing, where a name is floated to gauge the extent to which a candidate might be loved or loathed. Others are merely smoke screens that disguise the real intent of the administration long enough for it to furtively vet a candidate.

The most import issue is the tradeoff between politics and policy. Finding the right intersection between those two different issues is usually the determining factor in a successful cabinet level appointment. Some of the beltway gossip floating around about Obama’s upcoming appointments awakens interesting questions about this tradeoff.

David Ignatius had a column up about a week ago where he ruminates in a number of things that I found pretty interesting. First, he adds fuel to the notion of Leon Panetta moving from CIA to the Pentagon. Ignatius asserts that Panetta has emerged a Gates’ favorite, a fact that if true, could come as some surprise to Michelle Flournoy.

Panetta’s move to defense has both positive and negative aspects. On the good side, he would likely maintain the initiative of taking a scalpel to the defense budget so as to avoid less discriminate hack jobs. My main concern about him at defense is that he might work too well with Sec. Clinton. Panetta has long been a close confidant of the Clinton family, and his allegiance to them could subtract from the level of debate that should occur in the situation room. Imagine the debate about Libya without the suspected skepticism of Gates in the room. Ignatius says that he has done a surprisingly good job at CIA, so perhaps my concerns are unwarranted, but I am still unconvinced that “Uncle Leon” could handle the three aspects of a good DefSec: management, strategic thinking, and military-to-military diplomacy.

The most intriguing job opening will be at the JCS as Adm. Mullen steps down (that’s assuming, the Petraeus to CIA rumor is just that, a rumor). The odds on favorite, because he’s Obama’s apparent favorite, is Gen. Cartwright. Mullen has played a decisive role in most every national security decision in recent history. So Cartwright will immediately step into some high-level thinking that he is apparently well suited to perform, according to Ignatius. Furthermore, a chairman from the Marines will be an interesting change from the current Naval admiral.

…Thoughts?

Can Wikileaks Be Legally Punished? A Boy Can Dream.

2011-04-23T15:39:00.003-04:00

On this past Wednesday, attorney Jon Fleischaker gave a talk at the UK Law School regarding WikiLeaks. Fleischaker has about 40 years of experience in defending journalists and fighting for First Amendment rights. The talk he gave at the Law School centered around the concept of prior restraint. Prior restraint is any type of censorship (such as an injunction) that prevents certain material from being communicated in advance. In this way, the material is never released in the first place. Oh, and it's also pretty illegal.

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court deemed prior restraint unconstitutional, except in cases of national security issues. This issue was dormant until the planned publication of the Pentagon papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Nixon Administration tried to use the national security exception to issue an injunction against the publishing of these documents, but a fragmented Supreme Court struck down the injunctions (though they did issue nine separate opinions in doing so).

I asked Mr. Fleischaker what he thinks would happen if the WikiLeaks situation was put in place of the Pentagon Papers--that is, what would happen if the United States tried to issue an injunction barring WikiLeaks from releasing any more cables (putting aside the logistical issues that would be involved in such an attempt). Fleischaker stated that he thought the Court would issue the same ruling, that the national security exception would not apply. He went on to say that the Supreme Court did not say that the Nixon Administration couldn't try to punish the New York Times or Washington Post if and when they published the Pentagon Papers, just that the government couldn't prohibit the publishing in the first place.

That, as the kids say, ain't enough. If the national security exception does not apply in this case, then where exactly would it apply? Fleischaker's argument is that allowing the government and judges to determine what is and what isn't important to national security is the beginning of a slippery slope to increased censorship. At first glance, I think this argument is a solid one, but if the leaked information is classified, that mean the government has indeed declared the information to be secret. I don't think anyone is decrying the system of classifying information as illegal, and if that's the case then it should be legal for the government to pursue legal measures such as prior restraint to keep the information secret.

Leaving an option to punish publishers after information is released is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. The U.S. government should be legally allowed to go after organizations like WikiLeaks before the information is released in order to minimize potential national security damage.

The Rainbow Disconnection

2011-04-23T02:36:00.004-04:00

Typically, springtime brings the much-anticipated return of color: blooming flowers, blue skies, and those awkward pre-summer sunburns from afternoons at Keeneland. Thanks to the Department of Homeland Security, though, the U.S. terror level is about to get a lot less colorful this spring.

Earlier this week, DHS Secretary Napolitano officially bid adieu to color-coded terrorist threat levels, the often-mocked system that confused the nation (or at least deprived it of exposure to the cool-color palette) for the past ten years. Its successor, the National Terror Advisory System (NTAS), will be operational as of Tuesday, April 26.

Instead of keeping the U.S. on a constant but vague state of alert, NTAS only issues a warning based on specific and credible information. The most severe alert, an imminent threat alert, warns of “a credible, specific, and impending threat” against the United States, while the less extreme elevated threat alert warns of “a credible terrorist threat.” Unlike the former terror alerts, these warnings are only issued for a specified time frame, and will expire unless renewed.

The new system will also be more effective at reaching its intended audience. Many NTAS alerts will only be sent to members of law enforcement or to areas that are directly affected by a particular threat, while others will be shared more broadly. These will be available through public media outlets and a new section of the DHS website, and will also be sent to anyone who registers for updates via Twitter, Facebook or Email. Website developers even have the option of including NTAS RSS feeds and widgets on their pages.

NTAS’s most significant advancements, as well as its potential to succeed where the color-code system failed, lie in its more interactive relationship with the civilian population. Along with the assignation of an “imminent” or “elevated” label, new terror alerts will include guidance on how citizens can prevent or lessen the danger, and how they can protect themselves in the event of a particular emergency. The nationwide “See Something, Say Something” campaign is intended as both a watchdog and feedback mechanism, encouraging concerned citizens to share information on possible threats or suspicious people with their local authorities.

The improved transparency and outreach arms of the NTAS system are a welcome change from the murky color-based model. If it weren’t for the fact that threat levels generally sat at “yellow,” reaching “orange” status five times and “red” status only once, the majority of Americans would have had difficulty naming the day’s alert states under the old system. Even if they could, how many of them could explain why the present level was chosen, beyond referencing the general threat of terrorism? By providing more details on the situation at hand and making that information more easily accessible, DHS makes it easier for average Americans to stay informed about national security news, and to better prepare themselves in the event of a crisis.

The NTAS system is also a welcome antidote to a system that seemed to forever place the U.S. on the brink of disaster. After nearly ten years at the yellow “elevated” threat level, any initial power that the ratings system may have once wielded had long diminished by the time its retirement was first announced in January 2011. By drawing attention to specific threats as they occur, instead of classifying every day as “a day to worry,” DHS increases the likelihood that announcements under their new system will be taken more seriously. Time will tell whether the new NTAS plan will be more effective, but springtime won’t be any less bright without NTAS's rainbow-hued predecessor in the meantime.

You have to give it to them: they are persistent

2011-04-22T12:45:00.004-04:00

Perhaps it was just me, but I was under the impression that the Stuxnet virus set Iran’s nuclear program back years. So it surprised me when I saw this Washington Post article claiming major advances were just around the corner for Iran. I decided to look into it a little further.

First, I want to go over what Stuxnet actually did, mainly because it is pretty freaking cool. In layman’s terms—the only way I could understand it— the virus caused Iranian nuclear centrifuges to spin out of control while also fooling Iranian safety controls to believe that everything was normal, resulting in destruction of this nuclear equipment. However, whatever was broken was apparently quickly replaced. It is still unknown if the virus will do any additional damage in the future.

Now, it appears that Iran is planning new, more advanced centrifuges. The IR-2M and the IR-4 would be able to enrich uranium faster than Iran’s current centrifuges, the IR-1. In fact, the article the new technologies could be a game-changer: “According to the first reliable published estimates, the increase in the production of enriched uranium could be huge — an increase in output of at least 600 percent per machine.”

What is disconcerting is that the West’s options regarding Iran’s nuclear program are running out; we have pretty much ran the policy-options gauntly toward Iran. As discussed in another class, although economic sanctions may have helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons to this point, they have not achieved the main goal in coercing Iran to end its nuclear program. Presuming that Stuxnet originated from the West, it still was not effective in setting back the nuclear program more than a year and today, they appear back on track. Write in ‘fail’ beside the covert action option. At this stage, diplomatic solutions seem unlikely. And military conflict would be disastrous for everyone involved. What is left?

Perhaps more advanced or more stringent sanctions can be agreed upon—and legitimately enforced—by the international community. Or maybe the U.S. and Iran can overcome their differences and return to the negotiation table. And one can only hope that the U.S. will not open a fourth military front in Iran. I’m glad the U.S. government has ‘experts’ whose job it is to come up with creative new approaches to such issues. Think about it, one day soon we could be among this group. It’s a lot of responsibility.

The Making of a Trump Doctrine?

2011-04-21T10:44:00.003-04:00

Everyone has an opinion on what happens after we pull out US troops but it will soon be time for those who may potentially have to make the decision to speak publically about it. As of right now, we know it is politically unsustainable for Iraqi politicians to ask for an extension on US troop presence. The Sadr Coalition will not have it and their strength in Iraq’s Parliament will make sure they have a strong voice. The Iraqi military has stated they will not be able to defend Iraq from external forces for at least several more years and seem to be the only Iraqi voice publicly in support of renegotiating the SOFA. Sec. Gates has made a late push with PM Malaki to try and change his mind but it is unlikely to change for fear of the domestic poison it would produce. We know that Pres. Obama has pursued the Bush SOFA since taking office and that Gates represents his interests. So as long as he remains in office until 2016, we can be relatively certain that the remaining security work will be done by DoD paid contractors.

But what will Obama’s contenders do (or at least say they'll do) if they win in 2012?

Very few have given their in-depth thoughts on the subject as they wait and see if any last minute changes are made to the SOFA before the last US troops depart. But Donald Trump seems to have other plans. Although he is currently undecided about his run at the Presidency, he did make some very strong statements on Iraq (I know Daniel Drezner at ForeignPolicy.com has already partially covered this story, but I want to look at a few specifics). On Fox’s Sean Hannity Show last week and in interviews with several other media outlets, he stated that “if it’s me, we take the oil” when asked to discuss his vision of Iraq’s future. To further clarify, he stated that the plans are already in place for Iran to invade as soon as we leave, so if we don’t take it with us, the US will miss its opportunity to be compensated for all the work we’ve done in Iraq. There was no reference to troop levels, long term relations, stability, or security. Its just good old fashioned mercantilism at work.

Now my first question is, has anyone (Trump or his staff) looked at how long it would take to remove every drop of oil from Iraq? I at least tried. The Council on Foreign Relations stated in 2003 that Iraq has 112.5 billion barrels of proven reserve, or roughly 10% of the worlds remaining supply. Before the Iraq war, Iraq could produce 3.5 million barrels per day. By 2013, it is projected to rise above 4 million barrels per day. Now production plummeted throughout most of the last decade and is back on track now so current estimates are a little harder to discern, so let’s say Iraq still currently has 107 billion barrels. If we started tomorrow with the Trump plan, at the current rate it would take us 73.3 years to dry up the reserves. Again, my math is likely off, but 10-20 years in either direction still makes the point.

Now I sincerely doubt Trump is advocating a prolonged troop presence well beyond 2013 and the Donald certainly has a checkered history of making regretful statements. But running for Commander-in-Chief is a different world and every statement like that is potentially a future POTUS outlining their foreign policy.

To be fair, Trump did offer a more diplomatic option which was for Iraq to pay the US and its allies back $1.5 trillion for our efforts. I’m not sure if one is more likely than the other, but what is certain is that the Don has enough money to keep his name in the campaign for a long time. What it most likely means is that candidates with sound foreign policy thoughts will spend a great deal of time and money responding to Trump as he ignites some of the more radical citizens among us with these irresponsible remarks rather than discussing likely options for a US role after 2013.

New Military Law Enforcement Battalion Proposal

2011-04-20T20:32:00.005-04:00

Using untapped resources serving in the Reserves
During a speech at the 39th IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Jim Amos, briefed that the service is considering standing up a law enforcement Reserve battalion. The intent is to create “on-call” units with specialized skills in police investigative skills drawing upon over eight years of experience gained from disbanding insurgent cells during deployments in Anbar province, Iraq.

Gen. Amos stated: “We were trying to find who the bomb makers were. We were trying to find who the people were funneling people in … across the borders and into Anbar province to cause trouble.” “We didn’t have the investigative kind of forensic skills sets in the Marine Corps to do that. Non-traditional fights against criminals and insurgents require a set of skills akin to those used by civilian officers fighting narcotics organizations in America’s largest cities… We went out to a major metropolitan police department and said, can you help us?” Amos said. “Can you bring in some skills sets to help us do some investigation, networking? The kind of stuff you are doing if you are dealing in counter narcotics investigations. Who’s the kingpin and how’s the network built?”

The Commandant continued to explain that receiving aid from private consultants like the Los Angeles Police Department proved to be a great success. Marine officials then recommended utilizing the Marine Corps Reserve.

Gen Amos again said, “We began to realize we have 39,600 reservists. Out of that, there are a lot of policemen, and there are a lot of cops that are investigators… Now we are building in this Marine Corps … a law enforcement battalion.”

He then put emphasis on the law enforcement battalion being different from a current military police battalion. It would be composed of civilian police officers and investigators currently serving in the Reserve.

It sounds like a great initiative to add a needed force-in-readiness to fight smarter in the current and future counterinsurgency conflicts, but it will be interesting to see if this attempt to reorganize and take advantage of “experience left untapped” will come to fruition after the DoD budget cuts and personnel draw-down are finalized.

R2P and RMA: Strange Bedfellows

2011-04-17T15:41:00.003-04:00

Our talks about the revolution in military affairs that predicted a network-centric battlefield strategy that quite literally paralyzes an enemy before it knew how to react was most closely associated with Admiral Cebrowski and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I am here to contend that equally forceful proponent of the “Afghan model” is the perhaps unlikely Samantha Power.

Power and other adherents to the doctrine of R2P have long advocated that when countries do not have the means or cohesive government to protect innocent citizens from violent crisis, then other governments endowed with that ability must act in their place. In short, imminent threats allow the U.S. and others to act with extraterritorial jurisdiction and enforce law and human rights.

So RMA? What’s the connection you ask? RMA provides some of the means to get the ends desired by R2P advocates. When we fought clumsy, ground-based, pain-in-the-ass wars justifying wars of a humanitarian motivation was difficult if not impossible. But the progress of technology changed things and soon enough, the likes of Madeline Albright were asking, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

But now we can do this, right? We can intervene in a nasty civil war, keep things above-board by using our air superiority, and prevent our reputation from being tarnished, right? In the eyes of primacy advocates and liberal interventionists, technological progress allows our choice of when and why to use military force to be disconnected from pesky issues like vital interests. This intoxicating effect beget “columnist wars” like Iraq and now Libya, that sound really slick in the context of a WaPo column, but don’t pass the smell test of shrewd analysis.

The problem with RMA by-products like the Afghan model is it assumes, rather wrongly, a number of rosy things. First, it assumes perfect execution and ignores the idea that plans usually don’t survive first contact. Along those same lines, it ignores that the enemy has a vote, and winning the back half of a conflict is MUCH more difficult that the first half. Second, it assumes that our intervention could not possibly further complicate things. It sees panaceas where they do not exist.

What I’m attempting to say is that R2P is a compelling argument, one I’ve discussed here, but the tasks it advocates that the U.S. take a vested military interested in are often quagmires where we’d realistically accomplish little. Libya increasingly looks like it fits this bill. As I write this the Colonel is taking it to Misurata the last rebel held city in Western Libya. What lays ahead of NATO are a number really, really difficult questions to answer. That the administration and proponents of the intervention have not really addressed. These unanswered questions tend to revolve around one big one: what are our political objectives and what are we willing to do, militarily, to achieve them. In short, we ignore Clauswitz at our own peril.

The Three Amigos Strike Back...ish

2011-04-16T18:57:00.005-04:00

Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy published an article entitled, "Libya's Pathway to Peace." In this article, the three leaders state that the point of the NATO-led action, "is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power."

How, you ask, can these military actions rid Libya of Qaddafi without removing him by force? According to this New York Times article, the Obama administration is searching for a country that would be willing to take Qaddafi in, should he decide to leave Libya.

I did intentionally use the phrase "should he decide to leave Libya," because it doesn't seem like the NATO airstrikes are in any way meant to (or able to) force Qaddafi out. In fact, there is a disconnect in the goals of the NATO action and what Obama et al. see as the endgame, specifically a Gaddafi-free Libya.

The Times article quotes Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security advisor, who said that the coalition has accomplished three major objectives: saving the rebel capital of Benghazi, setting up an international command to protect civilians, and providing humanitarian assistance. While these are fine objectives to accomplish if the goal is a rebel-held Benghazi, it is debatable if the current operations are helping the rebels anywhere else, much less making it harder for Qaddafi to stay in Libya.

What this boils down to is that the status quo will not work in Libya. Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy state in their article that allowing Qaddafi's rule to continue would be, "an unconscionable betrayal." Without an escalation of force, possibly even ground troops, there doesn't seem any way for the NATO allies to leave Libya without committing that betrayal. Unless, of course, Qaddafi decides to play nice and leave.

President Obama, the Budget, and the DOD

2011-04-16T13:22:00.004-04:00

Kori Schake of Foreign Policy suggests that President Obama’s call for cutbacks in defense spending will do more harm than good for the country. Specifically, he notes that defense is the one area targeted more than any other in the president’s budget proposals. With this in mind, it is his belief that the real purpose and importance of the DOD has been overlooked and underappreciated:

"The White House seems not to realize the Department of Defense does not exist to produce budget reports. It exists to protect and advance our national interests, to fight and win the nation's wars, to deter threats from potential adversaries, to train the military forces of friendly countries so they are better able to control the territory of their countries, to kill terrorists that pose a danger to America and its allies around the world. That the president doesn't seem to realize what DOD actually does really is bad for the country"

Mr. Schake’s points are valid and hold merit, but fail to consider that national security and defense do not solely rest with the DOD. All too often the State Department is overlooked. This is an issue we touched on in class this past week. Diplomats have the ability to improve the security of the United States and President Obama has called for increased funding for the State Department.

Much like the DOD, the State Department exists to further our national interests and even solve international conflicts, although through different means than the military. Even Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have expressed a need for increased State Department funding. I would argue that President Obama does realize what the DOD actually does, but also understands that there are other avenues to explore in the quest for national security.

The Muppets Take Multan

2011-04-15T12:09:00.004-04:00

The Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy have all played integral roles in U.S. counterinsurgency operations. Now, the U.S. is unleashing its latest COIN force: the Muppets.

According to TIME Magazine, the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) has allocated $20 million for the production of a Pakistani version of Sesame Street, intended to air on Pakistan national TV and regional Urdu language channels. While Elmo will make an appearance, the show will focus on a six-year-old puppet named Rami, who will explore the streets of a traditional Pakistani village.

As on the American Sesame Street, the Pakistani version will teach children lessons on literacy, numeracy and healthy eating. However, the show also plans to address local political issues in what the show’s writers call “a gradual journey.” In addition to touching on “what little girls have to go through in [Pakistan’s] gender-biased society,” the program will eventually deal with militancy in Pakistan, possibly including “a gentle treatment” of how children are affected by terrorism and how they can cope with their fear.

The Muppets are used to doing heavy lifting abroad. Between 1983 and 2007, Israel aired five incarnations of Rechov Sumsum, a Sesame Street adaptation featuring an Arab-Israeli Muslim Muppet that discusses religious divisions. South Africa’s Takalani Sesame has tackled post-apartheid issues using Bert and Ernie, who respectively speak with black and white South African accents but maintain a strong friendship. More recently, the HIV-positive Muppet Kami was added to teach kids and their families about the importance of accepting people with AIDS and seeking treatment if needed. Even schools in Afghanistan tested a series of videos that included an Islamic version of Grover in 2004.

As furry and funny educational warriors, the Muppets might be the best troops available for the job. According to World Bank data, approximately 7.3 million Pakistani children between 5 and 9 years old aren’t currently enrolled in school – the third-lowest attendance rate in the world. Through televised Sesame Street episodes and a series of related live shows planned for areas with lower TV ownership, children can learn basic reading and math skills that they might otherwise not encounter in a state where roughly half of the population is illiterate. Since girls in particular are frequently denied the benefits of education, seeing a Muppet girl from their own culture who loves reading and learning may encourage kids to believe that girls really can belong in a classroom.

There are benefits that transcend education, of course. Many of the U.S. TV shows currently aired abroad, from Tom & Jerry cartoons to WWE matches, contain elements of violence that can affect impressionable kids and perpetuate stereotypes of American cultural depravity. An alternative like Sesame Street teaches children to value communication and cooperation over violence, and shows both kids and parents a much more positive set of American values.

While the impact on kids is more of a long-term investment, the effect on parents is intended to be more immediate. The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual notes that, “When women support COIN efforts, families support COIN efforts.” If women watching Sesame Street along with their kids approve of the show’s educational and cultural content, they’ll not only let them continue watching, but may learn right along with them, and might even view U.S. culture with slightly less suspicion.

However, Miss Piggy and friends inevitably bring some baggage along when they travel. Although Pakistan’s Sesame Street will be filled mainly with new “regionally appropriate” puppets, visits from the original cast can cause some interesting cultural dilemmas. In preparing an Afghani version of the show, creators struggled with whether female Muppets should wear headscarves or burqas, whether Bert and Ernie needed beards, and whether the audience would accept women in positions of authority over men, like shopkeeper Maria in the U.S. version. Some of these issues may be relevant for the Pakistani version, too.

There’s also concern that parents might not let their kids tune in at all. The show’s development is currently funded by donors from states like Sweden and the Netherlands in addition to U.S. groups, and local educators and writers will ultimately determine the content. Since Sesame Street is a U.S. concept, though, suspicious parents may classify it more as U.S. propaganda and another example of Western imperialism rather than an educational show. If Pakistanis are upset by inclusion of Western values and views on subjects like militancy, they may be more likely to distrust efforts by other actors like Greg Mortenson, whose school-building and education programs are more strictly academic.

Still, a Muppet with a book is a more desirable teacher than a cat with a mallet or an insurgent with a weapon. At the very least, it’s far more huggable.

Down with Gaddafi? SPIT IT OUT ALREADY

2011-04-15T10:30:00.006-04:00

Since the beginning of the NATO alliance, there has been a question of our reasons for involvement. To avoid the perception that America is unilaterally intervening in the Middle East yet again, Obama has been careful to insist that our role is limited to protecting Libyan civilians while our planes establish a no-fly zone (after waiting for a resolution from the UN security council and international consensus on intervention). The French and British have become the public leaders of this campaign, and this multilateral intervention has allowed the rebels to avoid being outright massacred by Gaddafi's troops.

However, we need to ask the big question, what is our end goal in this intervention? It's obvious that nobody in the West would mind if Gaddafi just happened to be thrown out of power, but we've become so fearful of being seen as interventionists that we aren't willing to go the extra mile to assist the rebels in their ground campaign. Although we've prevented an outright massacre, the rebels are still outmatched when it comes to weaponry, and their forces lack strong leadership.

The struggle over objectives reminds me of a tenet in the Powell Doctrine, specifically "do we have a clear, attainable objective?" The problem, of course, has been that NATO has not been clear on this. If our goal is to help the rebels overthrow Qaddafi, come out and say it, so that we can provide enough ground aid to the rebels and support forces to finish the job. French defense minister Gérard Longuet has already suggested that NATO seek a new UNSC resolution specifying regime change as a goal of this intervention, so it is clear that the West has already chosen sides in this conflict and forefeited its status as a neutral arbiter. Maintaining our current level of commitment (providing close air support against Gaddafi's ground forces but no significant training and weaponry aid to the rebels just prolongs the conflict, wastes financial resources, and does not ensure that the rebels will prevail.

NATO should admit its goals and finish the job.

Enhancing Public-Private Cybersecurity Partnership

2011-04-14T11:17:00.002-04:00

The proliferation of computer technology dependence and subsequent vulnerability to cyber threats has catalyzed the focus on developing defense against cyber attack. Whereas national defense is typically a government provided public good via the military, the incentives and capacity to act in the cyber arena lend broader involvement, not restricted to the government.

In the cyber domain, the asymmetric threat(s) makes any and all information and infrastructure vulnerable, and entities ranging from individuals to firms to member-organizations can and do participate in their own and collective security against cyber threats. This alternative nature of cyber threat and defense fosters cooperation among diverse groups and has produced public-private collaboration and partnership in efforts to enhance security.

A recent white paper explores and advocates for more developed partnerships between the public and private sector. The work of the consortium that produced this paper developed recommendations based on President Obama’s Cyberspace Policy Review and worked to enhance the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

Citing that a majority of infrastructure and communication networks are privately owned or managed, the authors advocate for greater collaboration between the private sector and the government. Another strong argument for partnership among organizations, both public and private, is that no singular agency or firm is capable of responding to the diverse nature of cyber threats. Diverse entities facing risk include those working to secure financial data, communication pathways, and infrastructure operation (to name a few). Each player has unique stakes, and their efforts directed to enhancing cyber security can be combined to enhance broad national security interests. But how should this be coordinated?

One conclusion the paper draws is that “a more government-centric set of [cybersecurity] mandates would be counterproductive to our economic and national security. Rather…government and industry need to continue to develop and enhance the existing [sustainable cybersecurity model].” Furthermore, this paper argues rather than replace individual security efforts by instituting government-umbrella oversight, “the public-private partnership model for cybersecurity also has significant privacy and civil liberties advantages over other, more government-directed models.”

However, some leadership in this venture can and should come from the government. On release of the Cyberspace Policy Review, President Obama declared, “My Administration will not dictate security standards for private companies. On the contrary we will collaborate with industry to find technology solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity.” As the paper describes, government leadership can take the form of fostering research and development, creating innovation incentives via tax breaks and grants, streamlining oversight regulation, and encouraging STEM education: science, technology, engineering, and math.

Ultimately, collaboration effectiveness can be enhanced within a framework. This paper provides concrete recommendations for enhancing, rather than replacing, the framework currently in place. In consideration of cyber security and the national interest, strengthening this private-public partnership is essential.

It's Pakistan's World, We Just Pay to Live in it

2011-04-12T09:36:00.002-04:00

Pakistan’s Frontier Corps (FC) has a unique capability set as it consists of men from the FATA and is led by officers from the Pakistani Army. There are two main headquarters for this 80,000 man unit, one in the Northwest Frontier Province and the other in Balochistan Province. They are tasked with helping local law enforcement in the maintenance of law and order as well as conducting border patrol and anti-smuggling operations.

The US negotiated a deal with Pakistani leadership to equip and train this force for use in border operations but the deal has been plagued from the start due to ISI influence towards carrying out separate agendas. In 2008, the US sent SOF trainers to shape the FC into an effective counterinsurgency force. The FC’s loyalty has been in question for some time, but the fact that it is one of the very few units capable of operating in the FATA where much of the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters live, makes them one of America’s better options for influencing actions from the ground.

Until recently that is. The killing of two Pakistanis in Islamabad by a CIA contractor has led Pakistan to flex its’ ever increasing leverage over US efforts. Gen. Kayani, the Pakistan Military Chief, has now requested (in a demanding fashion) the removal of 40% of US special operators from the country and all CIA contractors. This would include the trainers currently stationed Warshak, where the main FC training compound is located. As if this demand wouldn’t hurt the FATA campaign enough on its own, Pakistan has also demanded that the Obama Administration get the drone campaign under control and scale it back. Kayani was furious a month ago when tribal leaders were killed as a drone strike targeting Taliban leaders was launched and the latest CIA event seemed to be the tipping point.

What is clear from this is the steady reduction of options the US has now in regards to taking the fight into Pakistan. Pakistan is able to protect the Taliban when it wants to and has shown its willingness to stand up to the US without fear of retaliation. Time will tell if US drone strikes decrease, but with fewer US and allied troops on the ground, civilian casualties are more likely to rise. Pakistan has bluntly stated that the CIA must trust the ISI to act on America’s behalf in Pakistan and it now seems we have fewer alternatives but to do so. It will be interesting to see what the Pakistan response is when US drone strikes based on ISI intelligence leads to civilian casualties.

Prevailing in Current Wars or Preparing for Future Conflicts – Can we do both?

2011-04-11T21:43:00.005-04:00

In light of our recent “near-miss” of a government shutdown with its resulting $38 billion in budget cuts, I thought it would be appropriate to reevaluate the DOD’s Fiscal Budget proposal.

Focusing on how the Defense Department evaluated the budgets needed to 1) sustain its capabilities for current conflicts and 2) those needed for future wars, paints a clear picture that the department is focused on keeping its “head above water” with current engagements and fails to fully prepare for future wars. Understandably, the department is forced to prioritize and allocate funds where it can, but the numbers are interesting.

A mere $58 billion are intended for modernization for future conflicts, not including the enormous $35 billion going to the aerial refueling contract. Of the $58 billion, the department is finally allocating $25 billion to a much-needed robust shipbuilding program.

$20 billion is planned for current war efforts and a separate but staggering $117 billion to support troops engaged in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. This prioritization clearly indicates the department is focused on troop support and prevailing in current conflicts. And it must be - fighting wars are costly. Nevertheless, it is troubling that our Defense Department is not comfortable enough to draft a fiscal budget that can both support troops engaged in operations and adequately modernize our defenses to maintain its preeminent status into the next decade.

Of the $117 billion, it is interesting that in order to support our troops $10.1 billion is set aside alone for counter-IED efforts. This is almost as much as what is budgeted for missile defense; more than what is planned for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisition plan; $8 billion more than what is being planned for nuclear modernization; the same amount intended to be used for rotary-wing aircraft modernization and more than the combined funding set aside for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), cyber capabilities, the Chemical and Biological Defense Program, counternarcotics and efforts to train and equip partner nations to conduct counterterrorism operations.

It is almost as if the Department of Defense felt uneasy in its proposal due to cutting funding for certain projects and postponing others pending “successful development.” Thus, in order to justify these cuts to its services and show Congress other aggressive steps to present a sound budget, the department developed its political strategy to implement additional efficiencies and other changes, which add up to $78 billion in top line reduction from the fiscal 2011 budget plan. These savings were achieved through DoD-wide personnel changes, including holding the civilian workforce at or below fiscal 2010 levels and a two-year freeze on civilian salaries, a reduction in the number of contractors, and a cut in both flag and general officer billets and the number of civilian senior executives.

This again seems to draw questions as to why the department is able to make such “significant administrative cuts”, but then fails to appropriate adequate funds to sustain its second principal objective of “Balancing America’s defense posture, between capabilities to prevail in current wars and preparing for future conflicts.”

US Military at a choosier point

2011-04-11T21:18:00.004-04:00

As with most job markets these days, the US military can afford to be choosier, according to Friday's print edition of USAToday.

This is good news for our military, as just four years ago, we were at our lowest numbers in ten years, according to a Boston Globe article: "The percentage of high-quality recruits entering the Army is the lowest in 10 years, an indication that the force is struggling to attract top-grade enlistees -- and a troubling sign for the Pentagon, which is waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and plans to add 90,000 ground troops to its ranks within the next five years." In 2006, a similar NYT article on US military goals had a quote from the top Pentagon personnel officer, David Chu, noting the phenomena occurring just five years ago:

"Opportunities for young people have gotten better and better," he said. "They are choosier."

Unfortunately, young people these days are not the choosy ones, and thus minor matters can make big differences. The 2011 article provides some hard numbers on recruiting statistics for 2010, including:

Last year, 99% of recruits had a high school diploma before entering the service, up from 91% in 2006, when fighting in Iraq was near its peak and the economy was stronger.

The Army granted waivers to 8.7% of the recruits entering the service last fiscal year, down from 15.6% the previous year. Most of those waivers were for medical reasons.The services said waivers allowed recruiters to make exceptions if they thought a recruit deserved a second chance for a youthful indiscretion or minor health issue.

The Army this year also returned the maximum age for enlisting to 35. It had been raised to 42 in 2006. The money available for bonuses has declined in recent years.

This certainly means excellent news for our armed forces, who will certainly take advantage of higher-caliber individuals when having fewer troops in Afghanistan & Iraq.

However, while I know little about the exact process , it also makes me wonder if the 'whole package' is being looked at less and less. Does a college graduate always take precedence over a high school graduate over a non-high school graduate? Does someone with a youthful indiscretion (including marijuana usage) have half the chance of receiving a waiver these days? Or is the military truly looking at the bigger picture with each individual?

For those applying for work national security positions, many agencies have automatic disqualifiers, from marijuana usage to DUIs, which can be overlooked in periods of recruiting hardship. But in periods of higher applications, should these factors-age, HS diploma, waiver applicability- be the first factors we look at in disqualifying people? Or should we treat them on a case-by-case basis? While the differences may be hard to quantify, the article leaves some important points out. However, there tends to be an overall research gap when looking into these sorts of issues, that I think it would make an excellent point of research.