Politics Stops at the Water's Edge Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Foreign Policy is my contribution to recapping last night's national security debate . . . and it's not pretty:

Tuesday night was the tenth Republican presidential debate this year and the second to focus on national security and foreign policy. One would think that after this many discussions among the GOP aspirants, voters would have a clear sense of how a Republican commander-in-chief would deal with the myriad foreign-policy issues he (or she!) will find on his plate in January 2013.

Think again. Maybe this is the penalty one pays for watching too many of these dog-and-pony shows; maybe it was the numerous and occasionally inane questions about foreign-policy topics that seemed more relevant two election cycles ago (TSA patdowns? Really?); or maybe it was the parade of former Bush administration officials asking questions (David Addington and Mark Thiessen both weighed in; apparently John Yoo had made other plans).

In any case, those Americans looking for answers to questions about foreign policy issues the next president will actually be dealing with on foreign policy were likely to be disappointed. China and the Far East in general didn't come up -- and this just after President Barack Obama had returned from a weeklong visit to the region. There was nothing on the boiling Eurozone crisis, the current violence in Egypt, or climate change -- and surprisingly little on defense cuts or the future of the military, despite the recent meltdown of the congressional "supercommittee" charged with carrying out such cuts.

You can read the whole thing here

 

Amb. Pifer to DA: “Door remains open” for future missile defense talks Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Josh Rogin reports today:

The U.S.-Russian talks to cooperate on missile defense have apparently failed, as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced a series of retaliatory measures today aimed at giving Russia the ability to destroy the American-led system in Eastern Europe.

In a statement to the "citizens of Russia" on Wednesday, Medvedev announced that the year-long negotiations between the President Barack Obama's administration and its Russian counterparts to find a way to work together on what's known as the European Phased Adaptive Approach to ballistic missile defense were over. Medvedev said Russia was unable to attain written assurances from the United States that the system would not and could not be used to counter Russia's ballistic missile force.

As Democracy Arsenal readers will remember, there was a contentious debate over missile defense in the Senate while the New START treaty was being considered. Russia has long felt that its strategic offensive capabilities were the target of any and all U.S. backed missile defense systems, despite repeated briefings on the intent of the European system. While Medvedev’s comments aren’t exactly inspiring, his warnings may not be as dire as they sound.

Ambassador Steve Pifer of Brookings tells DA:

Bear in mind the domestic political context for Medvedev’s statement.  Russia holds parliamentary elections in ten days time.  Just as one can rarely go wrong criticizing Russia in American politics, taking a tough line against the United States and NATO plays well with much of the Russian electorate.

Note also that Medvedev said twice – as did Lavrov yesterday – that the door remains open for further discussions with Washington and NATO.

 I know it is hard to believe - a lawmaker saying something for domestic political consumption - but keep this in mind when Congress returns and starts panicking about the Russians threatening to withdraw from New START. There's more to the story here. 

 

Brazil, Welcome to the Club Posted by The Editors

This post by Johanna Mendelson Forman, senior associate in the Americas Program and the William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Stephen Johnson, senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at CSIS.

A recent New York Times article contrasted Brazil’s new regional power status with reactions to its success—the familiar refrain “Yanqui, go home” is quickly being replaced by, “Carioca, keep out.” New infrastructure projects in Bolivia and Guyana are raising tensions. The expansion of Brazil’s huge private sector abroad and the size of Brazil’s $2 trillion economy dwarf successful neighbors such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru combined. Even so, Brazil’s rise is a welcome development.

Brazil’s profile as an emerging petro giant is in plain view. Not only is it poised to be one of the largest oil producers outside of Saudi Arabia, but it is already a leader in developing renewable energy resources. As another oil exporter, Brazil enables some measure of energy independence compared to suppliers that demand political loyalty. And as a green energy leader, its alternative fuels and technology transfers promote energy independence.

Brazil’s influence is spreading—creating a challenge for a government whose last president articulated a foreign policy that strengthened South-South relations. Brazil may talk the talk within the non-aligned movement, but its emergence as the sixth largest global economy forces diplomats in Itamaraty, Brazil’s foreign ministry bureaucracy, to rethink its role in the world. This is actually a good thing for both the United States and for the rest of the Americas.

A rising giant that can direct some of its national power toward the greater good of the planet is a “good neighbor” in the best sense of the word. The United States already has a partnership with Brazil on renewable energy production. But we tend to forget that Brazil long ago renounced the use of weapons of mass destruction when it signed the Treaty of Tlateloco in 1968, a regional agreement that declared the Southern Hemisphere a nuclear-free zone. Its constitution says as much in its carefully drafted words about its role as a peaceful and democratic state.

In confronting today’s threats -- which include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, transnational criminal activities and weak states that need help in governance -- Brazil can be a welcome collaborator. Three years ago it rolled out an innovative plan to protect its borders from the challenges of the Andean drug trade that has taken human and economic tolls on the regional economy. It is now sharing concepts and technology. 

Brazil has also been a leader in addressing the enduring challenge of reducing poverty, helping citizens rise from despair in a short period of time. The Bolsa Familiar, a program that gave poor families resources to keep children in school, is a unique means of attacking the extreme poverty that dragged down Brazil’s modern miracle. During the Lula presidency the country experienced a 27 percent reduction in poverty, thanks, in part, to cash transfers. Further reforms such as making it easier to start legal enterprises and reducing the bureaucratic costs of doing business can help sustain that progress.

Managing success is not an easy task. It has been far simpler for Brazil’s political class to hang on to the familiar concept of the global south, a mindset that still dominates despite the country’s growing  responsibilities and relationships that are beginning to resemble those of countries in the G-20.  But that will change as more Brazilians move to the middle class and enjoy the benefits of democracy and good governance.

While we in the United States might be tempted to say “welcome to the club” to Brazilian counterparts and leave it at that, there are two lessons to note: First, looking out for national interests often means being aware and respectful of others in the region. The other lesson is that there is room for more leaders in the club. Each of the hemisphere’s democracies has unique leadership qualities and capabilities they can contribute. They all deserve encouragement.

Photo: U.S. State Department

A Few Comments on Tonight’s Format Posted by James Lamond

Tonight’s debate had a format that I found a little puzzling. Essentially it was high-level and well-connected conservative wonks asking conservative candidates questions about conservative policy positions. I understand that this is the the GOP primary and conservative voters are the audience. However, many of questioners are individuals that either have worked or are likely to work in a Republican administration. There is inherently a conflict of interest in this relationship. Worse yet the construction of many of the questions provided a clear answer within the question.

For example Ed Meese, the former Republican Attorney General asked: 

At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?

And Danielle Pletka, Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute asked: 

Yesterday the United States and the U.K. slapped new sanctions on Iran. But we haven't bought oil directly from Iran in over 30 years. We've had targeted sanctions on Iran for more than half that time. 

Nonetheless, Iran is probably less than a year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Do you believe that there is any set of sanctions that could be put in place that would stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Admittedly, not all of the questions were quite as leading or as troubling as above. However, there was a general trend and the format does seem a little strange. 

The more important question on process, however, is how did Paul Wolfowitz get to ask a question?

The Iran Questions the Candidates Should Have Been Answering Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Just when it looked like most of the GOP candidates were walking back their support for military action against Iran, Newt Gingrich stepped in and declared that he would support a bombing campaign… but only one that would take out the regime. This is actually a longer way of saying that as commander in chief, he would invade and occupy Iran.  A B-2 can do a lot of things, but it cannot guarantee regime change – such a mission would require boots on the ground.  Left unanswered was how many troops he would send to Iran, for how long and at what cost?

During tonight’s CNN national security debate, the Republican candidates for president continued their search for easy answers and quick solutions for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. Ron Paul cited a recent poll of national security insiders who unanimously agreed that the U.S. should not take unilateral military action against Iran. But this didn’t stop the other candidates from once again talking about military action as if it was a surefire way to stop Iran’s nuclear program. With the exception of Ron Paul, no candidate discussed the consequences of military action. In fact, Mitt Romney announced that there is “no price that is too expensive to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon.”  Blitz should have asked a follow-up: Are you suggesting that you would commit an endless amount of U.S. troops, allow Europe’s market to tank and let U.S. gas prices to soar? The Iraq war has cost nearly 5,000 U.S. lives and an estimated $3 trillion – can the U.S. afford another Iraq?

Not surprisingly, Herman Cain seemed confused about whether or not Israel could launch a strike against Iran. When asked if he would aid an Israeli attack, he said he would only get involved if “there were clarity of mission and purpose.”  It’s pretty clear of what that mission would look like. People like Anthony Cordesman of CSIS have publicly spelled out exactly how many F-15 and F-16s Israel would need, what payload would be best for each facility and what route the aircraft should take. But at the end of the day, the issue is not whether the United States or Israel could launch a military campaign against Iran – of course we could – the issue is whether or not we should. Is it in America’s national interest to attack Iran?  In order to answer that, the first question the candidates should have discussed was whether or not they believe a strike would actually stop Iran’s program.  Any serious expert will tell you that an attack would only delay Iran’ program, at best.  

Even with two national security debates under their belts, the candidates didn’t even begin to scratch the surface. Serious questions remain and not just on Iran. But perhaps more worrisome is the trendline that has emerged and the direction these candidates are going - because frankly, the questions aren't the problem here. 

What Was Left Unsaid Posted by Jacob Stokes

Tonight’s GOP debate contained much blog fodder, but the most interesting aspect of the discussion was the topics that weren’t covered:

China, Asian security. There were passing mentions of China in the context of trade, debt and Rick Perry’s repeated assertion that China’s communists were headed to the “ash heap of history.” But there were no comments about the importance of Asia more generally in American grand strategy. This is an egregious oversight in the wake of President Obama’s trip there this month, where he announced a new basing agreement with Australia, rolled out a big new trade initiative and chastised China for aggression in the South China Sea and for holding down the value of its currency. The “pivot” to Asia is a quiet but steady and central component of the administration’s national security strategy. Especially given the field’s concern about our allies, this should be front and center. No real engagement on the wisdom of such a "pivot" from the candidates.

Iraq. Although the question about the Middle East was left until the end, it’s pretty clear why the candidates didn’t bring it up or really bite once the question was asked: Seventy-seven percent of Americans support bringing the troops home and the administration was fulfilling the terms of a Bush-era security agreement. Not a lot of room to run there, at least politically.

Arab Spring. The field is split on whether the Arab Spring is a good thing and should be supported, but they didn’t engage any questions on the subject, despite a live feed from Tahrir Square. They should have asked Gingrich about his "anti-Christian Spring" comments directly.

European Financial crisis. The connection between the economy and national security was widely asserted tonight, so it’s a shame nobody discussed the European financial crisis. Here again, not surprising though. Dan Drezner has shown why talk of the euro crisis would end up with allies trying to scrape bus treads off their backs.

Russia. It’s actually rather surprising that this wasn’t talked about, given recent moves by Vladimir Putin to reassert formal power in that country. That said, in general, the reset has been smart policy -- not that such concerns have really mattered in these debates.

Tonight's Discussion on American Muslims Posted by James Lamond

There was a fairly disturbing portion of the debate tonight where most of the GOP contenders for president supported monitoring Muslims closer than other citizens - the obvious dissenter being Ron Paul.  Rick Santorum essentially endorsed treating all Muslims as suspects. This is disappointing as an American who believes in our values, but it is just flat out bad security policy. There are four basic reasons, without getting into the serious first and second order effects, for this: It overloads and already stressed national security apparatus, serves as a distraction to the real problems, hinders cooperation between communities and law enforcement, and can serve terrorists' recruitment process. This is why most homeland security experts endorse policies that focus on actions of individuals, not their religion or race. 

But as Mr. Cain said “ask the professionals”:

The 9/11 Commission Chairmen, on overloading the system: Profiling overloads the "intelligence and law enforcement agencies, already over-stressed and inundated with information and leads." 

Scott Bates, former policy advisor to the House Homeland Security Committee, on distractions from the real probelms: "we have seen with a number of recent cases, there is no single 'profile' of a terrorist or would-be terrorist. Recent cases include individuals as diverse as ‘Jihad Jane,’ a white middle-aged woman who converted to Islam and traveled to Sweden to participate in the murder of Swedish artist Lars Vilks, and James Wenneker von Brunn, the elderly white supremacist who shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2009."

David Schanzer, the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, on hindrance of police cooperation: "Law enforcement officials occasionally receive information about a suspicious person from a fertilizer vendor or some other person in a position to observe potential terrorists. But authorities agree such tips are most likely to come from the community in which the homegrown terrorist lives, which in this day and age is frequently the Muslim-American community." But as he explains, "The rise of such [anti-Islam] intolerance... is particularly dangerous... because it is likely to inhibit intelligence collection from Muslim-Americans and may contribute to the radicalization process." 

Brian Fishman, counterterrorism analyst at the New America Foundation and West Point, on use as a recruitment tactic: “In a March 2010 statement titled "A Call to Jihad," Awlaki argued darkly that ‘yesterday America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and Ku Klux Klan, and tomorrow it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps. Don't be deceived by the promises of preserving your rights from a government that is right now killing your own brothers and sisters… The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens!’”

A Taxonomy of Republican Foreign Policy Nonsense Posted by David Shorr

Democracy Arsenal and National Security Network head into tonight's CNN/Heritage/AEI candidate forum with an awesome array of analysis. So I'll only add from a particular angle -- by offering a diagnostic manual for the recent outbreak of foreign policy dysphasia over at care2. In other words, Republican foreign policy pronouncements have been so bad for so long that we can catalog them by type. I identified five: cribbing from the Colbert Report, promises of omnipotence (I will stop Iran's nukes), falling into the talking point - serious policy gap, reflexive Obama condemnation, and conscientious ignorance. But read the whole thing.

Condemned to Repeat It? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I started writing this blog post and then found something I had either forgotten myself or never knew:  Bud McFarlane attempted suicide in 1987 and subsequently attempted to come to terms with what he had done and be rehabilitated, not very successfully, in 1989.  The point made in this rather sad Times profile, that he acknowledged what he had done and sank into depression and obscurity, while Oliver North built a career on his lack of repentance, is a deep and sobering one.  I'd love to see it discussed in the GOP debate. And goodness knows I'd love to see a Republican envoy sent to Teheran.  Not holding my breath on either count.

Newt Gingrich, history professor, would surely understand my barely-contained rage at an unfortunate colleague who is too young to remember National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane, newly-announced as a key adviser to Gingrich.  Not sure, though, that he would sympathize with my list of Things to Remember:

1.  Iran-Contra Convict: pled guilty to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan Administration's efforts to assist the Nicaraguan contras.  Thumbnail history of Iran-Contra:  McFarlane and others violated US law to make clandestine arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war; NSC staffer Oliver North then violated other laws to divert some of the profits to support the Nicaraguan contras.  For those unclear on Iran-contra -- basically everyone -- longer thumbnail here.  I'm still waiting for Kirsten Dunst to do a movie that does for Iran-Contra what she did for Watergate in Dick.

2.  Cake and Bible.  Yes, McFarlane is the man who went to Teheran carrying a key-shaped cake and a Bible with a handwritten verse as a message from President Reagan to Iranian leaders, spawning a classic State Department no-denial denial:

  Today, a senior State Department official independently confirmed that Mr. McFarlane, a former national security adviser, did carry the Reagan Bible as authentication for the group. But he said he was not sure about the cake and declined to discuss the [fake Irish] passports.

3.  Star Wars.  McFarlane is known for having been an early and ardent champion of the Strategic Defense Initiative.  However, he asserted repeatedly that he saw it as a useful bargaining chip to limit Soviet offensive weapons -- a kind of Kissengerian realism that it is hard to imagine today's GOP, even Newt, endorsing.

4.  From Beirut to 9/11. In an op-ed just weeks before the 2008 election, and on the 25th anniversary of the bombing in Lebanon which killed 241 US Marines and 58 French paratroopers, McFarlane wrote that US failure to respond "effectively" showed weakness and set the stage for 9/11 -- and that victories in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary to avoid re-making that mistake.  Wonder if Newt agrees?

The Republican Foreign Policy Debate, by the Issues Posted by The Editors

As the GOP presidential hopefuls prepare to take stage in the second and final debate on national security and foreign policy, they will no doubt go on the attack against the Obama administration. Many of these issues were outlined by Senator Lindsey Graham in a recent article for the National Review. Others have been outlined by candidates in their few speeches and discussions on foreign policy. What you will likely not hear however, is what the experts are saying on the most important issues facing the country and the world:

Iran: Pentagon chiefs continue to warn against the consequences of a military response, say an attack would delay Iran’s program at best. Reuters recenty reported that: “Military action against Iran could have ‘unintended consequences’ in the region, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday, hours after Tehran warned that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met by ‘iron fists.’ Panetta, who took over the Pentagon's top job in July, said he agreed with an assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a strike on Iran would only delay its nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at making an atomic bomb. Gates also warned it could unite the country and deepen its resolve toward pursuing nuclear weapons. ‘You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here,’ Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, when asked about his concerns about a military strike. He acknowledged military action might fail to deter Iran ‘from what they want to do.’ ‘But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region,’ he said. ‘And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered.’” [Reuters, 11/10/11]

Libya: “Low-cost and high-reward.” The removal of Muammar Qaddafi – who Ronald Reagan called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East,” by the Libyan people with American support came a very low-cost to the American people. Many conservatives have criticized the President’s handling of the Libya as “leading from behind,” but as David Rothkopf explains, “‘Leading from behind’ is an important element of this [Obama] doctrine. It is no insult to lead but let others feel they too are architects of a plan, to lead without making others feel you are bullying, to lead but do so in a way in which risks and other burdens are shared. Libya is a test case for this approach … Outcomes matter most and the outcome here has been low-cost and high-reward. More importantly, perhaps, it solidifies an Obama approach to meeting international threats that seems better suited to America's current capabilities, comparative advantages, political mood and the preferences of our allies everywhere than prior approaches which were created in and tailored to far different times.”  [David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy, 10/20/11] 

Arab Spring: Balancing America’s interests and values, not embracing simplistic rhetoric, on the Arab Spring. The uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa mark the most complicated and significant geopolitical shake-up since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the situation in each country remains unique and there is no simple solution. Robert Danin, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, advises that, “The United States should not try to come up with a one-size-fits-all policy for the region. Our interests are too diverse and our influence too uneven.”  Duke Professor and former State Department official Bruce Jentleson, further explains how simplistic and uninformed rhetoric can be harmful to our interests: "Blithe generalizations, binary thinking, and fear-mongering distort both the political dialogue and the analytic capacity needed to pursue policies differentiated according to the particular political dynamics of the various countries of the Arab world and the strategic challenges facing the United States." [Robert Danin, 7/27/11. Bruce Jentleson, Washington Quarterly, 7/11]

Russia: Russian reset has provided concrete security benefits for America. Since the "reset" policy began, Russia has helped the U.S. and our allies to isolate Iran, by both voting for strong sanctions and canceling its long-planned sale of an S-300 air defense system to Iran.  Russia has also provided overflight privileges for our troops and supplies headed to Afghanistan and been a more reliable partner at the UN and on the global economy. While critics point to every bump in the relationship as as evidence of the policy’s failure, Russia specialist at the Center for American Progress Sam Charap puts the policy in a full perspective: “Some of the reset-bashers seem so blinded by their rage that they simply refuse to acknowledge its successes and have conveniently forgotten how disastrous the alternative -- an antagonistic U.S.-Russia relationship -- is for U.S. national interests and Russia's own development Let's first be clear about what the reset is not. It is not a secret weapon to vaporize all those in the Russian security establishment who deeply distrust U.S. intentions and at times act on that mistrust. It is also not a reset of Russia's political system, some sort of magic wand for effecting instantaneous democratization. What it was, and remains, is an effort to work with Russia on key national security priorities where U.S. and Russian interests overlap, while not hesitating to push back on disagreements with the Kremlin at the same time. The idea is that engagement, by opening up channels of communication and diminishing antagonism, should -- over time -- allow Washington to at least influence problematic Russian behavior and open up more space in Russia's tightly orchestrated domestic politics.”  [Samuel Charap, 11/12/11] 

Nuclear Weapons: Reducing the nuclear threat. Since April 2009, when President Obama convened the first-ever nuclear security summit and pledged to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years, the U.S. has secured 3,085 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium, enough nuclear material to make more than 120 nuclear weapons. The U.S. has helped six countries in getting rid of  all of their HEU. Nearly 190 countries agreed to strengthen the global rules against spreading nuclear weapons and technology. And the New START treaty will reduce the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia and reinstate a stringent verification regime to ensure strategic stability between the two countries that hold more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. [NSN, 1/4/11] 

Defense budget: Reducing the rate of growth in military spending in accordance with our national security strategy, with the understanding that economic strength is the foundation for America’s power. Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman of the Center for American Progress explain: "Given the long-term threat that the federal deficit poses to American security, power, and interests… Sensible reductions in the defense budget must be part of the solution [to America’s fiscal problems]. In the decade since 9/11, defense spending has grown by a staggering 56 percent, reaching levels not seen since the end of World War II. Last year, we spent $250 billion more in real terms than what we spent on average during the Cold War. This level of spending is dramatically out of proportion with the threats. Wasteful defense spending does not make our nation safer. It diverts resources away from other key investments in the American economy, the real foundation of U.S. power." [Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman,10/13/11] 

China: Increasing America’s ability to compete with China, working with China where fruitful and pushing back when China’s actions cross the line. As Nina Hachigian of the Center for American Progress explains, “While the U.S.-China relationship is never easy, the administration has avoided major crises and managed to sell Taiwan the largest arm sales packages in any two-year period over the past 30 years without a major breach of relations with Beijing.” Although the policy encourages responsible action by China, it’s not containment. Hachigian notes: “No Asian country would ever sign up to an anti-China alliance—each, in fact, wants to strengthen its relationship with Beijing. But at the same time, they want America to stick close by. Even if containment were possible, America benefits more from a strong, prosperous China than a weak and resentful one.” [Nina Hachigian, 11/9/11] 

Iraq: Rebalancing America’s role in the world and fulfilling a Bush-era security agreement. As George Washington University Professor Marc Lynch explained when the decision was announced, “President Barack Obama's announcement today of a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 should be cause for real celebration. This is the right decision, at the right time. It may have been forced upon the administration by Iraqi political realities. But the end result will be a mutually agreed upon and orderly American withdrawal from Iraq on the timetable which both Bush and Obama promised but which few believed would ever really happen... Iraq still faces many difficult challenges and won't be fully secure or politically stable for a long time. But the U.S. military presence is now largely irrelevant to those problems. Nor would the remaining troops have greatly troubled Iran. Iraqi politics and security institutions have long since adapted to the reduced American role and its impending departure. Disaster did not follow when U.S. troops stopped patrolling, or when 100,000 troops left over the course of a year. Instead, Iraqi Security Forces took over the lead role in internal security under the new conditions, and adapted effectively enough.  Even if an agreement had been reached to keep some U.S. troops after 2011, they would have been almost exclusively involved in training and support. The ongoing terrorist attacks and unresolved instability along the Arab-Kurdish border pose real challenges, but the U.S. troops which might conceivably have stayed behind in 2012 weren't going to be dealing with them.” [Marc Lynch, 10/21/11] 

Israel: The U.S. alliance with Israel is fundamental; security ties are closer than they have ever been. Since 2009, President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any other world leader, and the U.S. and Israel held their largest-ever joint military exercise. Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, also notes "an unprecedented increase in U.S. security assistance, stepped up security consultations, support for Israel's new Iron Dome Defensive System, and other initiatives." Following a raid on the Israeli embassy in Egypt, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognized the strong leadership of the United States, saying, "I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I asked for his help. This was a decisive and fateful moment. He said, 'I will do everything I can.' And so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us. We owe him a special measure of gratitude. This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States. This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East." [Andrew Shapiro, 7/16/10. Benjamin Netanyahu, 9/10/11] 

Afghanistan: Right-sizing our presence matches our commitment with our interests, encourages Afghans to take the lead. As the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Stephen Biddle writes, the main goal of the Afghan war has been achieved, and it’s time to right-size our presence to match our commitment with our interests. "Ten years later, Osama bin Laden is dead and his organization is reeling. The prospects of mass casualty attacks on the 9/11 scale are receding as al-Qaeda central weakens, and it may be increasingly possible to contain bin Laden's successors with low-key espionage and standoff attacks by drones or commandos." By insisting that President Obama consider only the most resource-intensive option given to him by his commanders, Sen. Graham misunderstands the role of commander-in-chief, which requires balancing competing priorities to achieve the national interest. As General David Petraeus said last summer when the redeployment was announced, “There are broader considerations beyond those just of a military commander… The commander in chief has decided, and it is then the responsibility, needless to say, of those in uniform to salute smartly and to do everything humanly possible to execute it.” [Stephen Biddle, 8/26/11. David Petraeus via the NYT, 6/23/11] 

Guantanamo Bay: U.S. prisons have safely held terrorists for years. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained his experience imprisoning terrorists from his CIA days in the Reagan administration: “This started 20 years ago when I was at CIA, and we captured a Hezbollah terrorist who had been involved in killing an American sailor on an aircraft that had been taken hostage in Beirut. We brought him to the United States, put him on trial and put him in prison.” In fact, our prison system has held some of the most notorious terrorists for decades, including, the East Africa Embassy bombing perpetrators; Ramzi Yousef, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber; Najibullah Zazi, who plotted the attack on the New York City subway; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, before his execution; and most recently Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber.”  [Robert Gates, 5/22/09] 

Interrogation Policies: Traditional practices have been more effective, without damaging America’s credibility. In his article, Senator Graham complains that, “Our well-trained, professional CIA interrogators are now virtually out of the interrogation business. We now rely on the Army Field Manual, which is online for our enemies to review, as the exclusive resource for interrogation.” In fact, senior terrorism suspects are interrogated by the High-value Interrogation Group (HIG) which is made up of intelligence professionals from the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon, and is run by the National Security Council. But more importantly, as Matthew Alexander, the Air Force interrogator who led the team that found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, through the use of traditional interrogation techniques, recently explained, transparency is on our side: “The Army Field Manual on interrogations should be made public for several reasons. It dispels any rumors that we are using torture. Transparency is our friend in this regard—it prevents our enemies from spinning ‘secretive’ techniques and reassures our allies that we are not using torture.” [Matthew Alexander, 2/4/11] 

Bringing Terrorists to Justice: Civilian courts are more effective than military commissions at delivering justice. In his article, Graham advocates for the use of military commissions to prosecute the 9/11 perpetrators, arguing that they are tougher on terrorists. However, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration explains, the “purported reason for funneling more suspects into the military system is, of course, to be tougher on terrorism. Terrorist attacks are acts of war, the thinking goes, and therefore should be handled solely by the U.S. military. But the respective records of federal courts and military tribunals undermine this rationale. Through domestic law enforcement, most notably the FBI and Department of Justice, the U.S. has successfully prosecuted more than 400 terrorism cases. Military tribunals have convicted only six people in 10 years.” Graham specifically cites Ahmed Ghailani to prove his point because Ghailani was acquitted of all but one charge in the East Africa Embassy Bombings. Yet Ghailani, who was prosecuted in a civilian court, is currently serving out a life sentence. [Lawrence Wilkerson, 10/2/11]

Photo: CBS News

Swing and Miss: Mitt Romney and New START Posted by The Editors

This piece is by Timothy Westmyer, an M.A. candidate at Georgetown University. Views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and not necessarily reflective of the views of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy message centers on his promise to “never, ever apologize.” That is unfortunate, because he owes the American public an apology for his false predictions on New START.

The former Massachusetts governor took to The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page earlier this month to recycle complaints about New START he first aired in a July 2010 op-ed Fred Kaplan called the most “shabby,” “misleading,” and “thoroughly ignorant” editorial he has read in 35 years. Today, we can add one more modifier to that list: proven wrong.

New START entered into force on February 5, 2011 and is already a success. Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, called the treaty a “bright spot in the U.S.-Russian relationship.” Russian cooperation with tougher sanctions on Iran and North Korea, overland transportation routes to Afghanistan, and cancelling the sale of advanced air defense systems to Iran are just some of the national security benefits made possible by the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. 

The U.S. military would beg to differ with Governor Romney’s view that President Obama got “virtually nothing in return” for New START. On-site inspections and data exchanges to verify New START have already begun. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, testified in favor of prompt ratification to restore the ability to monitor the Russian arsenal that was lost with the expiration of START I. A detailed picture of the Russian strategic force has since emerged – including viewing the new Russian RS-24 missile – which lets U.S. defense planners develop plans and budgets with a more accurate threat assessment. 

New START placed no major limitation on U.S. missile defense plans. Romney wrote that the treaty’s preamble was proof that Russian negotiators shackled U.S. flexibility on missile defense. The preamble merely highlights an obvious link between offensive and defense weapon systems. Even if Romney’s reading was correct, a treaty’s preamble is nonbinding. It has about as much legal obligation as a fortune cookie. 

The Obama administration is going full steam ahead with the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe. Initial tests in September successfully demonstrated that the infrastructure would be able to defend America’s allies in Europe from ballistic missile threats in the Middle East. Spain recently joined the Netherlands, Romania, Turkey and Poland as hosts for key elements of the system. This momentum should put to rest any concerns about restrained U.S. flexibility.

Romney speculated that New START’s Bilateral Consultative Commission would use its “broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific references to missile defense.” Unsurprisingly there were no end-runs on missile defense at the commission’s inaugural meeting this spring. On the contrary, Gottemoeller suggests that the Treaty’s implementation has been a “pragmatic, business-like and positive” experience for all parties.

The Russians are wary of future U.S. missile defense plans, but the Obama administration has initiated a dialogue over their concerns. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher visited Moscow earlier this month to reassure Russia that the system is not directed at the Russian nuclear deterrent. The missile defense system, Tauscher said, “would only chase the tail of a Russian ICBM or SLBM.”

The new bipartisan consensus that nuclear weapons play a shrinking role in defense puts Governor Romney outside the foreign policy mainstream. In a 2007 op-ed by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn, these statesmen encourage leaders to eliminate Cold War era nuclear arsenals and prioritize efforts to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. In a major foreign policy speech he delivered last month, Romney remarkably overlooked the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The next president must not turn the “reset” in U.S-Russian relations into a “relapse.” In a White Paper released last month, Romney doubled down on his mistaken predictions and promised, as president, to “review the implementation of New START” to “determine whether [it serves] the best interests and security of the United States.” Abandoning New START and future reductions would only encourage Russia to build new weapons, decreasing American security.

Whether or not Governor Romney becomes the GOP presidential nominee, his disproven claims about New START will continue to resurface, as seen in his recent warnings about the need to “prepare for war” with Iran. Pundits and voters would be wise to remember these false predictions. The next time Mitt Romney tells you it is going to rain, think again before grabbing an umbrella.

Photo: White House

The GOP war on 'Smart Power' Posted by Jacob Stokes

I have a piece up at CNN.com's GPS blog entitled "The GOP war on 'Smart Power.'" Here's a quick excerpt:

On foreign policy, the platform shared by Republican candidates for president can be encapsulated in one phrase: the war on smart power.

The concept of smart power was coined in 2004 to describe the belief that trade, diplomacy, foreign aid and the spread of American values should be employed alongside military force to achieve U.S. goals in the world. It brings together a mix of soft power, the proverbial carrot, with hard power, the stick, in order to achieve aims. The concept is so basic, so elemental as to be almost cliché – it’s foreign policy 101. And yet the Republican field has dedicated itself to rejecting it.

In the first debate focused solely on foreign policy issues, Rick Perry promised to start the foreign aid budget at zero and make receiving nations re-justify their assistance every year; Mitt Romney and others agreed. That view shows a profound misunderstanding of the role aid plays in fighting America’s wars and of the miniscule proportion of the budget it consumes. Without the proper civilian trainers, nations who beat back insurgent forces find it hard to rebuild functioning societies. The U.S. has encountered this problem firsthand in Afghanistan, with tragic consequences.

Read the rest here.

While We're on the Subject of American Exceptionalism - Some Vox Pops Posted by David Shorr

Over at NYTimes.com's Caucus blog, Richard Stevenson wrote on Friday about the Republicans' "Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism" line as potent political weapon. I have written about this before, mainly to emphasize how out of touch and myopic it is. Actually, I suggested the more accurate name for the Republicans' idea would be American Infallibility or American Narcissism. (Within the Times family, op-ed columnist Charles Blow offers his own reply.) 

But with the topic being the supposed political appeal of the Republicans' argument, the best way to respond is to get views from the public. Thank goodness for The Caucus' comments section, where we can find a sampling of popular sentiment.

As you'll see, people realize -- perhaps more than they're given credit for -- that we live in a 21st Century world that demands more than shallow slogans. I only read about half of the nearly 400 comments (and some of the below are excerpts), but they strike me as the sentiments of good stewards of America's example and tradition.  

The Fresser (Forest Hills, NY) understands that America needs the rest of the world's sympathy rather than hostility:

The Republican definition of American Exceptionalism is seen around the world as American Arrogance, wins us no friends and gains us many enemies. 

These clowns think they understand global economics and business, but to compete in today's global economy, we need friends and trading partners, not more angry foreign nationals who refuse to purchase American goods.

Blue Deep in the Red States (Atlanta) knows that it's not exceptional to deny the challenges facing the country:

Exceptionalism is not waving a banner while such critical issues are before us. Rather exceptionalism acknowledges our challenges as well as our strengths. The GOP continues to live in a fanstasy world. 

King Cranky of El Paso calls BS on the GOP economic argument:

By trying to tie "American Exceptionalism" to our military and overseas debacles, the Republicans hope to hide another reality, that cutting government social safety net spending, pushing austerity on the vast majority of the people not already at the top of the financial ladder, and weakening unions has NEVER led to an increase in private sector, middle class jobs, and there's no reason to think that outcome will be any different this time around.

Tommy Tune writes in from Heartland, USA:

Exceptionalism and unilateralism were at the heart of the Bush II presidency, and look how that turned out. And most people haven't forgotten that. The candidates may be making the argument, but that does not mean that anyone is buying it. Voters are much more in tune with what is going on in government and are also more knowlegeable than they were from 2000 to 2008. The republicans have got their work cut out for them, and this exceptionalism argument will not fly. 

Succinctly from oncepermile in Katy, TX:

American exceptionalism, aka, hubris.

bcamarda of NJ:

"American Exceptionalism" is just the usual GOP code for "Anyone who disagrees with me is unpatriotic." I'm going on 56 and I've been hearing that from the GOP all my life. Boy, does it ever get old. And boy is it ever stupid. 

Phil in NY sets the bar:

The label "exceptional" is earned, not just inherited. Saving the world from Hitler: exceptional. Goldman Sachs: not so much.

Leon Panetta Has Officially Lost it Posted by Michael Cohen

Serial exaggerator and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday spoke in Groton, Connecticut to shipyard workers and said this (see if you can pick out the hidden crazy statement):

There are still threats out there. We face threats from Iran; we face threats from North Korea; we face threats from cyber. This is a whole new world in which cyber-warfare is a reality. It's the battlefield of the future. We face the threats from rising powers -- China, India, others -- that we have to always be aware of and try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we're never going anywhere. In addition to that, we've got a Middle East that remains in turmoil. We're always going to have to respond to the challenges in that part of the world as well. So when you look at the world that we're dealing with, we still have a lot of threats.

It wasn't the part where he called cyber warfare the battlefield of the future; or when he suggested that US still faces "a lot" of threats . . . it was the part where he suggested that INDIA IS A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. India!?! In what alternate universe where Leon Panetta apparently has taken up residence is India a "threat" to the United States? 

Now before you ask if perhaps Panetta misspoke or got confused, which is today what his press office is claiming, keep in mind . . . he said basically the same thing a month ago:

From terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from rogue states to cyber attacks; from revolutions in the Middle East, to economic crisis in Europe, to the rise of new powers like China and India. All of these changes represent security, geopolitical, economic and demographic shifts in the international order that make the world more unpredictable, more volatile and, yes, more dangerous.

It's a gaffe when you say it once. It's something else when you say it twice. This all comes on the heels of Panetta's claim that returning the US to its fiscal year 2007 defense budget would "invite aggression." When I wondered at the time who that aggression might come from . . . apparently it's India.

And not only is Leon Panetta continuing to make hyperbolic statements about the US position in the world he is expressing some rather odd budgetary priorities for a liberal Democrat. Here's what else he said yesterday:

The federal budget is roughly about $4 trillion. About a trillion of that is in what's called discretionary funds on the domestic side and on the defense side. Three-fourths of the federal budget is wrapped up in entitlement programs. And I said, you know, you've cut the hell out of the discretionary side of the budget. You've taken steps; I'm going to implement those cuts. But the time has come, if you're serious about deficit reduction, you got to take on the three-fourths of the budget that has grown incredibly over these last few years, and you got to deal with revenues. 

To be clear Panetta is right that the discretionary side of the budget has been cut like hell . . . but not the defense budget, which rose annually by 9% from 2001-2009. Now granted the Pentagon is taking a budgetary fiscal and will be taking a more serious one if sequestration happens, but let's at least acknowledge that the DoD budget has been on quite the upward trajectory for the past decade. 

But that of course isn't the worst part of what Panetta said. That came when in urging the Congress to cut entitlement spending for old people and poor people he told Congress to "lead" on the issue:

I really urge the leaders in the Congress, I urge this committee: Suck it up, do what's right for the country. You know, I think the country wants these people to govern. That's why we elect people, is to govern, not to just survive in office. We elect them to govern. That involves risks, that involves tough choices, but that's what democracy is all about.

After all nothing says political courage like shredding the social safety net so that the US can preserve a bloated DoD budget to fight phantom security threats like India.

Congrats to DA Founder Suzanne Nossel Posted by Jacob Stokes

Suzanne Nossel, founder of this blog, was just named the new executive director of Amnesty International USA. Congratulations, Suzanne!

Josh Rogin has the details:

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) has named State Department official Suzanne Nossel as its new executive director.

Nossel, who most recently served at the State Department as deputy assistant secretary for international organizations, will assume her new role at AIUSA in January. In the meantime, she is working as a visiting senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A long time human rights lawyer and activist, Nossel's portfolio at State included multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, and public diplomacy. She worked on U.N. resolutions related to Iran, Syria, and Libya, and played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council.

She had previously served as Human Rights Watch's chief operating officer, deputy to the ambassador for U.N. management and reform at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, vice president at Bertelsmann Media Worldwide, and as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has also been a fellow and scholar at the Century Foundation, the Center for American Progress, and CFR.

Read the rest here.

Photo: U.S. State Department

Asia Trip Underscores the Need to Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty Posted by Jacob Stokes

While I was reading through the coverage of the president’s big month in Asia, the pressing importance of ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was underscored once again. Reuters reports on comments by Hillary Clinton about ongoing disputes in the South China Sea:

She said disputes in the sea lanes, a possible flashpoint in Asia, should be resolved through the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defined rules on how countries can use the world's oceans and their resources.

That could embolden Southeast Asia's hand against China, which has said it would not submit to international arbitration over competing claims to the area, believed to be rich in natural resources and a major shipping lane…

"The United States does not take a position on any territorial claim, because any nation with a claim has a right to assert it," she said in Manila, while marking the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty. 

"But they do not have a right to pursue it through intimidation or coercion. They should be following international law, the rule of law, the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea." 

Clinton went on to say that the U.S. sees the Law of the Sea Treaty as the framework through which all disputes should be settled. Such a claim would have a lot more resonance if the United States was party to the treaty. With less than a year until the election, it’s highly unlikely – nay, impossible – that the treaty will pass before voters go to the polls. But it should be high priority post-2012.

Members of Congress and senators from both parties should support it. Conservatives should get beyond their narrow concerns about giving up a small slice of sovereignty, as well as their dislike of international organizations broadly, and understand that UNCLOOS is a key treaty for standing behind Asian allies. It’s an important mechanism for ensuring their ability to resolve disputes like the ones in the South China Sea through a law-based process instead of succumbing to, as Clinton put it, intimidation and coercion.

As Adm. Thad Allen, Richard Armitage and John Hamre argued back in April in the New York Times:

Ratification makes sense militarily as well. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the convention “codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces.” In other words, it enhances national security by giving our Navy additional flexibility to operate on the high seas and in foreign exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. This is particularly important in the Asia Pacific region and the South China Sea, where tensions among China, Japan and Southeast Asian nations have increased because of conflicting interpretations of what constitutes territorial and international waters…

…Last July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gained much respect by reassuring the Southeast Asian nations that the United States strongly supported multilateral efforts to address those territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and denounced China’s heavy-handed, unilateral tactics. But strong American positions like that are ultimately undermined by our failure to ratify the convention; it shows we are not really committed to a clear legal regime for the seas.

The Law of the Sea Treaty will help us back our allies in Asia and encourage China to rise responsibly – it should be a commonsense part of America’s pivot back to Asia.

Photo: GlobalSecurity.org

While We're on the Subject of Republican Foreign Policy... Posted by David Shorr

In all honesty, there is a perverse pleasure in watching everyone catch on to the utter inanity of the Republicans' foreign policy pronouncements -- a superficiality that's been our bread and butter at Democracy Arsenal for years. I have long argued that the right wing's talking-point-thin pot shots at President Obama's policy won't constitute a genuine debate until the opposition's arguments draw more scrutiny themselves. Glad we finally got here.

Aside from our own Michael Cohen's excellent (of course) scorecard of the candidates' performances Saturday night, I recommend Max Fisher over at The Atlantic on the GOP hopefuls' nine craziest statements. First off, most commentaries have remarked on the hot flashes of common sense that overcame a number of candidates, and in the lead-in to his piece Fisher noted one that got by me:

Mitt Romney suggested working through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to pressure Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (which sounds an awful lot like "leading from behind")

This rings a bell for me because it's so similar identical to my own response when Shadow Government's Kori Schake slammed Secretary of State Clinton for saying, in Kori's words, "that it mattered more what Turkey and Saudi Arabia said about Syrian repression than the United States." My point was that in any political arena, a stance by any player who moves out of the usual alignment -- i.e. is surprising or newsworthy -- always carries more weight. This is the sad state of our foreign policy discourse, that even a respected expert like Kori cries "DECLINIST" with the flimsiest of pretexts.

But let's get back to the Fisher piece, which puts last Saturday's zero-based foreign aid budgeting boomlet at the top of his worst ideas list. Fisher rightly faults this demagogic craze for a failure to grasp the value and purpose of aid, and he links to this piece in The Economist which explains the folly of the idea at length. To which I only add Michael Magan's post over at Shadow Government, to give you the perspective of an insider who was involved in the George W. Bush administration's push for increased foreign aid.

Oh, and I should also mention James Lindsay's CFR.org post (a digest of his slightly longer piece), which highlights the buzzsaw of reality awaiting these slogans if a Republican president ever tried implementing them. To which I only add that Republicans shouldn't be so sure that will work any better in the election than in government. If we give the American voter any credit for having a BS detector for how the world really works -- and I certainly do -- they'll see through this stuff like the emperor's new clothes.

Photo: IowaPolitics.com

The Not-So-Great Debaters Posted by Michael Cohen

So I'm a little late to the game here (especially after the phenomenal work of my DA colleagues) but my take on each candidate's performance at the GOP national security debate is up at Foreign Policy this morning.

Here's some thoughts on Michele Bachmann's "interesting" performance:

Michele Bachmann -- The Loose Cannon: I've been having a tough time trying to figure out the nuttiest thing that Michele Bachmann said on Saturday night. Was it when she ludicrously argued that if the president had sent a surge force of 40,000, rather than 30,000, troops to Afghanistan, it would have ensured U.S. success in the war there? Was it when she said the Middle East "table is being set for worldwide nuclear war against Israel"? Was it when she said that Obama is allowing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to run the CIA (a comment that will undoubtedly come as a surprise to the ACLU -- and the CIA)? Was it when she praised the Chinese communist government because it doesn't have a modern welfare state and, in particular, "food stamps" or an AFDC federal program that the United States hasn't had for 15 years?

No, the nuttiest moment came when Bachmann said that Obama has decided to "lose" the war on terror (a comment that will undoubtedly come as a surprise to a certain resident at the bottom of the Arabian Sea).

 You can read the whole thing here

Leon Panetta Is Losing It Posted by Michael Cohen

As regular DA readers are no doubt aware Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has been saying some rather outlandish things about the impact of across the board defense cuts on the Pentagon . . . but on Thursday he went completely off the deep end.

Lawmakers, Panetta said, needed to understand that U.S. troops “are willing to put their lives on the line to sacrifice for this country; you sure as hell can sacrifice to provide a little leadership to get the solution we need in order to solve this problem.”

He went even further on Thursday, using arguably the strongest rhetorical weapon in his arsenal. Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S.

“In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July . . .

Panetta said those cuts would leave the military "a hollow force" which "retains its shell but lacks a core." 

“It’s a ship without sailors. It’s a brigade without bullets. It’s an air wing without enough trained pilots,” Panetta said. “It’s a paper tiger.”

There are a few problems with this argument. First of all, cutting defense spending is a form of leadership. it's just not the kind Panetta prefers. Instead he'd rather see cuts in the "two-thirds of the federal budget that still has yet to be considered for deficit reduction" along with some higher taxes. Apparently in Leon Panett's world nothing says leadership like cutting services for older and vulnerable Americans so that the Pentagon doesn't have to make tough choices about spending priorities.

Second, as Ben Armbruster points out, the cuts being considered would not leave the US a hollow force . . . unless one believes that the US military circa FY 2007 was a hollow force because those are the spending levels that the Pentagon would be returned to if budget cuts go into effect (and let's again remember that those cuts wouldn't begin until January 2013 which would give Congress plenty of opportunity to reverse them).

Lastly, the notion that cutting defense spending back to 2007 levels would "invite aggression" is beyond ludicrous. Aggression from who? Al Qaeda; the same organization that Panetta declared over the summer to be practically kaput? How about China, which has shown no inclination to be anything but a regional power and has a defense budget that even after cuts would remain far smaller and less dynamic than the US force? Or maybe Panetta met Russia or Venezuela or the Taliban or North Korea or
who knows what country - after all Panetta doesn't bother mentioning what unspecified country would view US defense spending as a reason for unchecked aggression. He just throws it out there to frighten people into believing that large, but reasonable cuts to a bloated Pentagon budget will "invite aggression."

I understand Panetta's driving impulse to protect his agency from big cuts. I suppose any agency head would do the same thing; but the arguments and language that Panetta is using are completely out-of-bounds; represent the worst sort of national security fear-mongering; are indicative of the overall insecurity on defense matters that defines a generation of Democratic politicians; and are divorced from any sort of larger reality about US defense needs and the threats facing the United States in the 21st century.  In short they are a bunch of bull.

But look, the President was warned.

Republicans on National Security -- Is This the Best You Can Do, Really? Posted by David Shorr

If nothing else, devoting an entire GOP campaign forum to national security and foreign policy -- the CBS News / National Journal organizers called it the "Commander in Chief Debate -- helps accentuate the preparation and seriousness the candidates have devoted to international affairs. Or the lack thereof, since some candidates appeared utterly unserious and unprepared.

First, a quick best and worst. It was no contest for best: Jon Huntsman. Gov. Huntsman's quotient of substance to platitudes / cheap applause lines was way above everyone else. Of course, foreign policy seriousness is a pillar of his candidacy (bless him). And of course his poll numbers have been stuck in the basement. If there are any centrist Republicans among our readers, this man is trying to rescue you from the fire-breathers. (BTW, another very interesting moment was Rick Santorum's answers on Pakistan, where he seemed to employ the same strategy as Huntsman.)

Worst was also an easy call: Herman Cain. The man said almost nothing of substance tonight -- and "almost" might be too generous.  He keeps reaching for the same line about how presidents have plenty of advisors and don't really have to know anything.  "Herman Cain, the candidate who will make up for his ignorance by seeking a lot of advice."  Don't know if that's going to work. At one point, Cain tossed in the word strategically a couple of times because, you know, that sounds commander-in-chiefish.

To the extent that issues were debated (not all that much), the most interesting were Iran and China, which were the subjects of other posts here on DA.  On Iran, Kelsey explains that every idea raised by the candidates either is already an element of President Obama's policy of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program (particularly amusing were all the loud calls for covert action), or would have disastrous unintended consequences. When the debate moderator posed the Iran question, he specifically asked the candidates to name steps the Obama administration wasn't already taking. The moderators (bless them) made a game effort throughout the proceedings to spur the candidates to speak in practical terms.

Then on China, Jacob points out that a full-blown confrontation over their over-valuation of the Chinese currency is unlikely to work and could lead to a counterproductive trade war. Again, big points to Huntsman for calling Mitt Romney out on this. The larger problem for the discussion was indeed the major disconnect between the candidates prescriptions / slogans and the real world challenge of getting other players to comply with America's wishes. (For a similarly downbeat assessment of the debate, see Ron Fournier of debate co-sponsor National Journal.)

Most of the candidates are using the same foreign policy strategy: think of something that sounds tougher than President Obama's policy -- or tougher than what you can get people to believe about current policy -- and never mind whether your recommendation would fly in the real world. Thus we have Rick Perry's idea of taking US foreign aid back to a zero base for all countries and reassess whether the recipients deserve our aid, i.e. whether they support America's every move. Ruling out negotiations with the Taliban was another big idea tonight, which begs the question of whether you believe in the importance of a political solution in Afghanistan.

Then there were the full-throated defenses of American greatness. During one of Mitt Romney's answers I tried to count the number of times he said America. Rick Perry plowed those fields by attempting a hard-to-follow riff on President Reagan's "ash heap of  history line" (Fournier noted the same Perry moment). But seriously does anyone outside the 30% of Americans who make up the hard core of the GOP base believe that America's problem is that we don't throw our weight around enough?? I've been thinking about Teddy Roosevelt lately. These Republicans are only taking half of TR's advice about walking softly and carrying sticks.

Speaking of the Republican base, the debate audience once again proved its maturity aggressive self-righteousness. In past debates, people in the crowd have cheered for the death penalty and depriving people of health care or booed gays in the armed services or moderators pressing Herman Cain on his  problems with women. Tonight the big thing was getting tough with terror suspects, including a few candidates who see no problem with torture. (The candidates' statements on detainee treatment barely qualifies as a debate, but James gamely picks apart their nonsense.)

Debating Torture Posted by James Lamond

Tonight's coverage of terrorism and the legal issues surrounding it was particularly  disappointing. First was Michele Bachmann’s lecture on her view of the issues, where she said that: Water boarding is not torture; There are no prison for terrorism suspects; There are no CIA interrogations; Its as if we are losing the war on terror; and that the ACLU is running the CIA. Sadly, with the exception of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman most of the other candidates agreed. Lets take a look at each of these points of arguments: 

"There are no prisons for terrorists:" 

This is clearly a manufactured GOP talking point. In the National Review yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham writes that “We remain a nation without a viable jail in the War on Terror.” With such terrorists as the East Africa Embassy bombing perpetrator; Ramzi Yousef, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park pipe bomber; Najibullah Zazi, who plotted the attack on the New York City subway; formerly Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and most recently Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, all behind bars, it is not fully understood why it is we don’t have a prison for terrorists. 

“There are no CIA interrogations:”

In 2010 President Obama formed the High-value Interrogation Group (HIG) to interrogate terrorism suspects deemed as “high-value”. The group is made up of intelligence professionals from several branches of the U.S. government including the CIA, as well as the FBI and the Pentagon. It is run under the auspices of the National Security Council.  The HIG is credited with successfully interrogating Faisal Shazad and Mohammed Warsame, gaining actionable intelligence from both cases. 

“It’s as if we are losing the war on terror:”

This is particularly surprising as the successes against al Qaeda under the Obama administration, including the bin Laden raid, are numerous. John Brennan, a career CIA officer who is currently deputy national security advisor for counterterrorism and homeland security recently said: 

"We have affected al-Qa'ida's ability to attract new recruits.  We've made it harder for them to hide and transfer money, and pushed al-Qa'ida's finances to its weakest point in years.  Along with our partners, in Pakistan and Yemen, we've shown al-Qa'ida that it will enjoy no safe haven, and we have made it harder than ever for them to move, to communicate, to train, and to plot. Al-Qa'ida's leadership ranks have been decimated, with more key leaders eliminated in rapid succession than at any time since 9/11.  For example, al-Qa'ida's third-ranking leader, Sheik Saeed al-Masri-killed.  Ilyas Kashmiri, one of al-Qa'ida's most dangerous commanders-reportedly killed.  Operatives of AQAP in Yemen, including Ammar al-Wa'ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan-all killed.  Baitullah Mahsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban-killed.  Harun Fazul, the leader of al-Qa'ida in East Africa and the mastermind of the bombings of our embassies in Africa-killed by Somali security forces.  All told, over the past two and half years, virtually every major al-Qa'ida affiliate has lost its key leader or operational commander, and more than half of al-Qa'ida's top leadership has been eliminated."

“Water boarding is not torture.”

This is perhaps the most outcomes of the debate. Not only did Congresswoman Bachman say so, but going down the line, almost all of the candidates agreed. That waterboarding is not torture and that it is okay to do it. Malcom Nance, a former instructor at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) – where the waterboarding techniques were derived, told congress “The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars and which can be repeatedly used as an intimidation tool. Waterboarding has the ability to make the subject answer any question with the truth, a half-truth or outright lie in order to stop the procedure. Subjects usually resort to all three, often in rapid sequence.” 

This is not without damage to our overall security, Matthew Alexander an former Air Force interrogator who led the team that found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq through the use of traditional interrogation techniques, recently wrote: 

But to understand the question "Does torture work?" one must also define "work." If we include all the long-term negative consequences of torture, that answer becomes very clear. Those consequences include the fact that torture handed al Qaeda its No. 1 recruiting tool, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense's interrogators in Iraq who questioned foreign fighters about why they had come there to fight. (I have first-hand knowledge of this information because I oversaw many of these interrogations and was briefed on the aggregate results.) In addition, future detainees will be unwilling to cooperate from the onset of an interrogation because they view all Americans as torturers. I heard this repeatedly in Iraq, where some detainees accused us of being the same as the guards at Abu Ghraib.

The more you think about, the less sense torture makes. U.S. allies will become unwilling to conduct joint operations if they are concerned about how detainees will be treated in U.S. custody (an argument made by the 9/11 Commission, among others). And future enemies will use our actions as justification to torture American captives. Torture also lowers our ethical standards to those of our enemies, an ugly shift that spreads like a virus throughout the Armed Services; witness the abuses of Abu Ghraib or the recent murders of civilians in Afghanistan.

“The ACLU is running the CIA:”

This is my personal favorite. I imagine David Petreaus would be surprised to find out that the ACLU is running his agency. I amagine that since that the ACLU represented Anwar al Awlaki's family in a  lawsuit to remove him from the “kill list,” it too would be suprised to find this out.  

Jon Huntsman actually offered up a good breakdown of how to think aboutthese issues: Our moral leadership is projected by our values around the world. Torture denies this. 

GOP Candidates Spar Over Iran, Think Military Action is a Panacea Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Not surprisingly, the debate kicked off with a question on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Mitt Romney declared that if Barack Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. But, he said, in a Mitt Romney administration Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. This isn’t the first time he’s made such a sweeping proclamation, but he has yet to explain how exactly he’ll ensure this. Everything the candidates said was either a reiteration of the administration’s current Iran policy or a poor attempt to find a quick fix. Military action would have disastrous consequences for the U.S. and is far from a guaranteed way to stop Iran’s nuclear program, yet almost every candidate seemed to think it was a panacea for dealing with Iran. Here’s a break-down of what they got right (by which I mean what the U.S. is already doing) and what they got wrong:

Green Movement: First and foremost, not a single candidate actually referenced the Green Movement. Mitt Romney said he would work with the “insurgents” in the country to bring abour "regime change" while Rick Santorum said he would support the “rebel forces.” The Green Movement is a peaceful movement that is focused on political and economic issues inside Iran and supporting the movement will not be a quick fix for the situation with Iran as the candidates seem to believe.

Covert Action: Covert action, by its very definition, is covert – meaning no one is going to talk about, except maybe the Republican candidates for president. The administration cannot and will not discuss it, for obvious reasons. The Stuxnet malware caused some of Iran’s centrifuges to spin out of control, disrupting and delaying its nuclear program and several nuclear scientists have also been the targets of assassination attacks. As the New York Times noted earlier this month: “The assassination and the sabotage have taken a psychological toll, making scientists wonder if every trip to work may be their last, every line of code the beginning of a new round of destruction. Stuxnet was devilishly ingenious: it infected millions of computers, but did damage only when the code was transferred to special controllers that run centrifuges, which spin at supersonic speed when enriching uranium. When operators looked at their screens, everything looked normal. But downstairs in the plant, the centrifuges suddenly spun out of control and exploded, like small bombs. It took months for the Iranians to figure out what had happened.”

Sanctions: The U.S. is arleady sanctioing Iran and it has rallied our international partners to do the same. Smart, targeted sanctions can be effective, but they're not a silver bullet. Perry admonished the administration and his Republican colleagues for not supporting sanctions against Iran’s central bank. Sanctioning Iran’s central bank would disrupt oil prices and hurt the U.S. economy. It would also devastate Iranian civil society and the “dissidents” each GOP candidate said they supported. Eli Clifton reported last week: “Central bank sanctions may disrupt oil markets and damage U.S. and global economic recoveries; weaken multilateral sanctions efforts if U.S. allies are unwilling to sign on; and extract a shocking humanitarian toll on ordinary Iranian civilians. In fact, central bank sanctions may run counter to U.S. interests and actually strengthen the Iranian regime. Mehdi Karroubi, an influential reformist politician in Iran, warns that “sanctions have given an excuse to the government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation in the country,” and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria writes, “[Sanctions'] basic effect has been to weaken civil society and strengthen the state — the opposite of what we should be trying to do in that country.”

Missile Defense: Herman Cain appeared to be unaware that both the U.S. and Israel already have extensive missile defense systems in place. The administration has worked closely with Israel on the Israel-U.S. Arrow Weapon System the Iron-Dome and the administration’s European missile defense system, the Phased Adaptive Approach is also tailored to help defend against a potential Iranian missile launch.

Military Action: Each candidate characterized military action against Iran as a sure-fire way to stop its nuclear program. Any serious expert will tell you that military action carries with it serious risks and will only delay, at best, Iran’s program. As former CIA Intelligence officer Paul Pillar has explained, “If the saber rattling were ever to lead to the use of military force, among the disastrous consequences for U.S. interests would be to ensure the enmity of future generations of Iranians and to provide the strongest possible incentive for those Iranians to build, or rebuild, a nuclear weapons capability."  And finally, for all of the talk about oil prices, no candidate mentioned what would happen to oil prices should a war break out. It’s also worth noting that The Financial Times reported last week: “In the first hours of the attack prices would surge, on average, by $23 a barrel, according to the survey. Under the worst case scenario, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, prices could increase, on average, by $61 a barrel, lifting Brent crude to an all-time high of $175 a barrel. Some traders warned that the increase could be much bigger, pushing oil prices up by $175 a barrel to a dizzying $290 a barrel.”

In the words of Rick Perry: "Oops."

Note: This post has been updated to include Mitt Romney's pledge to pursue "support of insurgents within the country." Video here.

Amid Real Results, Romney Talks Tough on China Posted by Jacob Stokes

  

In tonight’s foreign policy debate, Romney reiterated his newest stance on China and trade, saying we need to bring China to the WTO on charges of currency manipulation (see video above). Challenger Jon Huntsman, former ambassador to China, quickly responded to Romney that such a policy would not work. Dan Drezner, who teaches international politics and economics at Tufts University, says Huntsman is right. He tweeted, “The WTO will rule against the US for tariffs based on currency manipulation.”

That said, Romney is right the Chinese currency is undervalued. The current administration has been very clear on this point. Just today President Obama called out Chinese currency manipulation with Chinese President Hu Jintao in the room. Where the two diverge is how to go about changing that dynamic.

The best way to get China to appreciate its currency is to work with a coalition of countries who are affected by the manipulation of the yuan. Obama has been pulling together just such a coalition, and last week at the G20 we saw results. The final statement contained strong language pushing for China to move on the currency issues. And in last few days the Chinese agreed at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum that they would begin to appreciate their currency more rapidly. 

The currency issue is one among many issues that animate the Sino-American relationship. While the currency issue needs attention and has been receiving a great deal, unilateral harsh sanctions of the type Romney is suggesting run the risk of derailing the relationship completely and, possibly, starting a trade war. (They would likely also be illegal under international trade law, as noted above.) The current strategy – firm, consistent pressure that works to get results without breaking the broader relationship – is much more effective.

Gingrich's "Anti-Christian" Spring Comments Posted by James Lamond

Tonight Newt Gingrich  once again called the the Arab Spring an "anti-Christan" movement. Last month the former speaker said:

This is why the current strategy in the Middle East is such a total grotesque failure," Gingrich told about 200 people gathered at the Chesterfield Inn. "People say, 'Oh, isn't this great, we're having an Arab spring.' Well, I don't know, I think we may in fact be having an anti-Christian spring. I think people should take this pretty soberly."

Newt has been one of the leaders in the "anti-Sharia" movement, long warning of "creeping sharia," in a speech last summer. This framing of the of the Arab Spring as an attack by Muslims against Christians is an extension of that. However, one questions remains is how much his positioning himself as the defender of Christians is a political calculation to gain support among the portion of the conservative electorate, conservative Christians, that Newt has always had trouble with due to his personal life issues.

As two of my colleagues wrote last year:

to emerge in a crowded field to unseat the commander-in-chief two years from now, it's tempting to try something a bit more daring: a new culture war. Gingrich's soundbite -- "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia" -- gives religious and social conservatives the "Christians under attack" narrative we remember from fights over abortion, gay marriage and Teri Schiavo. This time, the "them" refers to Muslims, not liberals

Romney Disagrees with Petraeus, Gates on Taliban Negotiations Posted by Jacob Stokes

In tonight’s foreign policy debate, Romney said he would not negotiate with the Taliban or “terrorists.” That view goes directly against the advice of Robert Gates and David Petraeus.

Gates: "We have all said all along that a political outcome is the way most wars end."

Petraeus: "This is the way you end insurgencies."

There's no purely military solution in Afghanistan. The military, first and foremost, will tell you that.