Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously noted that “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities,” and the recent debt debate was no different. Proving true to form, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 at the zero-hour. The bill raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, cuts spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, and establishes a 12-member bipartisan House-Senate “supercommittee” to recommend up to an additional $1.5 trillion in long-term savings before the end of the year.

The rest of the world, though, didn’t like the soap opera we just went through. Foreign reaction was less than congratulatory after the last-minute agreement and focused on the intractable American political process. Following the passage of the bill, the Economist criticized all sides, calling the debt debate “kabuki-like.” Chinese credit ratings agency Dagong Global “blamed a shaky and untrustworthy political system” as it downgraded US debt. And the Russian press noted that “the obvious inability to reach an agreement that was demonstrated by political forces in the US has had an equally damaging effect on the country… The image of the country as a responsible borrower has suffered most.”

Now that the US has been on the brink of default, an unthinkable proposition until recently, it has changed the way that the rest of the world views us. There is, of course, griping that to some extent has allowed others to take a break from dealing with their own problems to criticize ours. Yet, dismissing foreign viewpoints entirely ignores the importance of taking these viewpoints into account as we burnish our global image, especially if how we go about finding solutions to our long-term challenges is starting to affect the American brand nearly as much as what solutions we find. (more…)

Dr. Peter Jones, Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, briefed Senate and House staff July 14-15, 2011 on the current political dynamics in Iran, Iranian influence within the region, and the implications for U.S. policy. Dr. Jones presented a policy briefing paper outlining the political institutions and power structures in Iran and the consequences for U.S. policymakers, a copy of which can be accessed here.

President Obama’s address Wednesday night regarding U.S. troop withdrawals in Afghanistan will make few people happy. Many in the military wanted a smaller withdrawal than the 10,000 he announced will come out this year, with another 23,000 out by the end 2012, and all troops gone by 2014. For the far left and increasingly some on the right, who want nothing short of a full scale withdrawal now, the President’s announcement disappointed at best and represented a betrayal at worst. For many Americans, 56% according to a recent Pew poll, the war’s cost no longer seems worth the effort, where every service member deployed in Afghanistan costs U.S. taxpayers $1 million per year. Many have said it is time to stop rebuilding Afghanistan and start rebuilding America.

One can understand the frustration on all sides of this, the longest war in America’s history. However, the United States cannot afford to turn its back on what is right – either in terms of national security or our values. And on both counts, President Obama’s modest withdrawal is the right call.

In terms of national security, Osama bin Laden’s assassination scored a huge foreign policy victory for the Obama administration as well for all peoples who oppose the hatred and violence that bin Laden espoused. Yet the sole justification for the Afghan campaign was not bin Laden’s death or capture. It is true that only about 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan. Recall, however, that only 19 hijackers were needed for the September 11th attacks. Furthermore, so few al Qaeda remain in Afghanistan, in part, because many have fled to the ungoverned tribal areas in Pakistan. If the United States leaves Afghanistan an ungoverned mess, al Qaeda will have more places from which to train to kill Americans and our allies. (more…)

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut the President’s 2012 Department of Energy (DoE) budget request by $5.9 billion.  One particular victim was the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy – better known by its acronym “ARPA-E” – which supports and sustains many high-risk, high reward projects that the private sector cannot or will not fund on its own.  It is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the agency that helped develop things like the precursor to the Internet, GPS, and predator drones.  Yet the House proposal includes only $100 million for ARPA-E, $450 million less than the President’s request and nearly $80 million less than current funding.

Unfortunately, ARPA-E may now also become known as the acronym for “A Reckless and Paltry Approach Endangers” when it comes to our national security. (more…)

PSA Advisory Board Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton and former Secretary of State James Baker III authored the following Washington Post op-ed calling on lawmakers to resolve the Executive and Legislative branch conflict over war-making authorities, an issue most recently highlighted by US involvement in Libya, and propose the War Powers Consultation Act as a possible means to do so.

With our country engaged in three critical military conflicts, the last thing that Congress and the White House should be doing is squabbling over which branch of government has the final authority to send American troops to war. But that is exactly what has been happening, culminating with the House’s rebuke of the Obama administration last Friday for the way it has gone about the war in Libya.

On one hand is a bipartisan group of House members who argue that President Obama overreached because he failed to seek congressional approval for the military action in Libya within 60 days of the time the war started, as required by the War Powers Resolution. The lawmakers are particularly upset because the administration sought, and received, support from the United Nations — but not from them.

On the other hand is the White House, which argues that history is on its side. The 1999 NATO-led bombing over Kosovo lasted 18 days longer than the resolution’s 60-day requirement before the Serbian regime relented.

Stuck in the middle are the American people, particularly our soldiers in arms. They would be best served if our leaders debated the substantive issues regarding the conflict in Libya — and those of Afghanistan and Iraq — rather than engaging in turf battles about who has ultimate authority concerning the nation’s war powers.

(more…)

Former Senator John C. Danforth (R-MO), the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 2004-05 and a signatory of Partnership for a Secure America’s 2008 statement on renewing the U.S.-U.N. relationship, authored the following op-ed in USA Today on how cutting U.N. funding will actually limit U.S. policy options while simultaneously increasing costs.

Congress has been debating United Nations reform and whether to limit U.S. contributions to hasten this reform in line with U.S. wishes. There is no debate over the need for reform. Particularly at a time of serious economic constraints, the United States must be judicious with its funding and maximize its impact. Accountability, transparency, and efficiency are essential requirements for the U.N., and the U.S. must not ease up on pressing for this needed change.

Rather, the real question underlying the debate is how we can best influence the institution to accelerate the adoption of reforms while not shutting down the organization’s work, decreasing U.S. influence, and costing American taxpayers more money.

Recent polling shows that Americans recognize the reality of today’s interconnected world. We can neither turn inward nor deal with the long list of national security challenges alone. Rather, U.S. taxpayers want our national security engagements to be right-sized, rightly timed, and rightly resourced. Policymakers need to have options to share foreign policy and national security challenges, and the U.N. gives us real tools to do so.

Why the U.N. still matters

A truly unique global body, the U.N. offers us the opportunity to communicate and collaborate with nearly 200 countries on a breadth of vital issues. Although imperfect, no other organization can provide the amount of global reach and influence offered by the U.N. (more…)

In a world full of national security challenges, none demands more urgent focus than the conundrum that is Pakistan. For at least a decade, Pakistan has consistently been one of the top three national security worries for the United States with issues ranging from being a center of nuclear proliferation to its inability to prevent its territory from serving as a sanctuary for the Taliban/Al Qaeda alliance launching attacks against US troops in Afghanistan.

The recent killing of Osama Bin Ladin revealed at best, a Pakistani regime either unwilling or unable to be an effective ally in our ongoing battle against Al Qaeda. Troubling questions need to be answered. What did Pakistani officials know about Bin Ladin’s presence and when did they know it? How effectively have Pakistani national security officials used $20 Billion in US aid to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why is the main debate in Pakistan today focusing on the US “violation” of their sovereignty in attacking Bin Ladin instead of on their own failure to find him? Is Pakistan worthy of the designation of major non-NATO ally and the steady stream of financial assistance provided by the American people?

To answer these questions and fashion a long term and sustainable approach to relations with Pakistan, Congress should authorize and the President should support the creation of a “Commission on US-Pakistan Relations”. Precedents are available for quickly moving forward with just such an effort. (more…)

Nearly ten years ago, on a clear blue morning in New York City, the beginning acts of the worst terrorist attack on American soil were set in motion.  The air filled with smoke, debris, and the endless sound of sirens as nearly 3,000 were killed.  This past Sunday, with night already descended on the city, the air instead filled with the sounds of crowds cheering upon hearing the news that Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for those attacks, had been killed.  As President Obama summed it up, “Justice has been done.”  The New York Post put it more bluntly:  “the son of a bitch is dead.”

The story behind the death of Osama bin Laden is exciting in itself:  a small team of Navy Seals conducts a daring 40-minute raid, gets the most wanted man in the world, and scores a major victory against al Qaeda.  But we should also be proud of the way our government worked for years, across administrations and agencies, to ultimately carry out this critical mission.  The intelligence community, though much maligned, tirelessly spent six years unraveling OBL’s courier network to track him down.  Once he was found, the military did its job with surgical precision.  And the President exhibited decisive leadership when given the opportunity to take OBL out, choosing, after careful deliberation, a riskier operation than others on the table to make sure the job was finally done. (more…)

While Libya is currently at the center of the debate, Yemen conjures up far more ominous headlines like “Yemen: Trouble in the Most Dangerous Domino.” There, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in power longer than most Yemenis have been alive, is facing an opposition that fails to abate despite his concessions and is tenuously holding on to power.  Meanwhile, the fears surrounding a rapid destabilization require the United States to think creatively about how to change the lens through which it views Yemen as it prepares for a Yemen sans Saleh.

For most Americans, Yemen is only in the news when it is connected to terrorism – and with good reason.  The Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, was behind the failed 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing.  Recently, Defense Secretary Robert Gates referred to the group as the “most active and, at this point, perhaps the most aggressive branch of al Qaeda.” Moreover, there are serious concerns that AQAP could gain a stronger foothold should Yemen fall into further chaos. (more…)

Partnership for a Secure America mourns the passing of Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State during President Bill Clinton’s first term and an esteemed member of PSA’s Advisory Board. From the hostage crisis during the Carter administration to the ethnic conflict in the Balkans during the Clinton administration, Christopher was a major presence in U.S. foreign policy for nearly four decades. Known for his patient and diligent style of diplomacy, President Carter called him “the best public servant I ever knew.”

Mr. Christopher also served as Deputy Attorney General and as Deputy Secretary of State, and he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1981. PSA is honored to have had Mr. Christopher as a signatory on eleven of PSA’s past statements, and joins his family in celebrating his distinguished career in public service.