The Leon Panetta Is Trying Too Hard Watch Posted by Michael Cohen

At times, I feel a little sorry for Leon Panetta. He just so badly wants everyone to like him! It's so obviously important to Leon that everyone thinks he's tough enough and salty enough to be a Democratic running the American armed forces, well bless his little heart, sometimes he just goes a little overboard.

• There was the time he claimed that Obama was sending troops to Uganda to fight al Qaeda affiliated terrorists
• Or when he said the US was in Iraq because of 9/11 . . .
• . . . at the same time he contradicted the President by saying the US would keep 70,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014
• That was a doozy
• And remember that time he said that cuts to the defense budget would "invite aggression"
• Or when he suggested that returning the DoD to 2007 budget levels would be "catastrophic," "draconian" "doomsday"-inducing and akin to America "shooting itself in the head." 
• Adorable!
• Oh and then there was two times that he intimated that India might be a threat to the United States
• Boy, DoD really had to backtrack from that one
• Of course my favorite Panetta-ism was when he said that no Democratic President could ever afford to go against military advice
• And keep in mind the guy has only had the job since the summer!

But just in case you were concerned that Leon Panetta would stop putting his foot in his mouth or saying deeply inappropriate and wrong things about US national security . . . you can stop your worrying. 

You see this week, Panetta kept it up at a rapid pace. First he said that because Iraq was now stable (HA!) and "stabilizing factor" in the region (HA!) the US effort there had been "worth it." You see in Panetta-land whenever there is an opportunity to pander to the troops - there is always room to pander more.

Then this week he said this about Iran's nuclear program:

“It would be sometime around a year that they would be able to do it,” he said. “Perhaps a little less.”

Turns out that's not actually true. In fact the recent IAEA report on the subject of Iranian nukes said that Iran has suspended its nuclear program. In what has become a regular occurrence for the DoD press office, Pentagon spokesman George Little was forced to walk back the Sec Def's comments

Panetta also said that Iran's ability to become a nuclear-weapons state could be accelerated if there was “a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel” and that an Iranian bomb would be unacceptable and a red line for the United States. Because when there is a chance for Leon Panetta to try to sound as tough as possible - there is always room to sound tougher. 

Robert Gates Channels His Inner David Broder Posted by Michael Cohen

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is apparently unhappy that people in Washington can't get along. Last week in a speech at the Atlantic Council honoring Brent Scowcroft he bemoaned the lack of bipartisanship in Washington and the rise in scorched-earth politics. 

Civility, mutual respect, putting country before self and country before party, listening to and learning from one another, not pretending to have all the answers and not demonizing those with whom we differ: For all the platitudes to the contrary, these virtues, in this town, are – seem to be increasingly quaint, a historic relic to put on display at the Smithsonian next to Mr. Rogers’ sweater or Julia Child’s kitchen. Zero-sum politics and ideological siege warfare are the new order of the day.

So why is this happening? Says Gates it's a result of "structural changes taking root over several decades" including the gerrymandering of congressional districts "to create safe seats for incumbents of both parties, leading to elected representatives totally beholden to their party’s ideological base," and "wave elections" where each party "seized with ideological zeal and the rightness of their agenda" makes compromise impossible, the decline in congressional powerbrokers and finally "a 24/7 digital media environment that provides a forum and wide dissemination for the most extreme and vitriolic views leading, I believe, to a coarsening and a dumbing-down of our national political discourse."

The result says Gates is that at "just at the time this country needs more continuity, more consensus, and, above all, more compromise to deal with our most serious long-term problems, most of the trends are pointing in the opposite direction."

I read things like this and I really wonder what world Bob Gates has been living in for the past several years. What goes unmentioned in this list of woes is the actual reason for dysfunction in Washington - not some made up fantasy world of equal party malfeasance - the unceasing, historic and unprecedented obstructionism of the modern Republican Party.

Any analysis of the problems in Washington that fails to mention this salient factor in DC dysfunction is not an analysis that should be taken seriously at all. Here's a handy chart that I've pilfered from Kevin Drum, which explains this. Virtually this entire increase in use of the filibuster came during periods when Republicans (the one in red) were in the minority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If one looks closely one will note that the unprecedented rise in the use of the filibuster has precisely coincided with the control of the Senate by Democrats and the Republican party being in the minority. Keep in mind, this chart is from November and since then Republicans filibustered a bill to maintain the payroll tax and the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Protection Bureau .  . simply because they don't like the agency.

It is also worth noting that Gates argument claiming gerrymandering is causing polarization in Washington has been regularly disproven by political scientists. Also, it's pretty rich for Bob Gates to be complaining that political parties come into office on political waves and then seek to impose their agendas on the country. I wonder if Gates is familiar with the Democratic president who hired a Republican whose name rhymes with Shmiil Shmates to run the Defense Department. Finally, Gates must have been asleep or otherwise occupied during the many unsuccessful efforts by President Obama to reach out to Republicans on a host of domestic policy issues. This would be familiar to anyone who has been relatively sentient - and living in DC - over the past three years.

There is a simple, not hard to understand explantion for Washington's fundamental dysfunction - Republicans.

Some will say this is a partisan argument. Meh. Pointing out facts is not partisan, particularly since facts have a long history of possessing non-partisan credibility. Moreover, why should this be considered a political argument - Republicans are not exactly hiding from their unprecedented obstructionism. They argue it is a necessary tool to stop Obama and the Democrats. Fine. Under Senate rules that is certainly their right. But let's call this what it is. One party is pretty much single-handedly responsible for the ills that Robert Gates describes about our current political system. For Gates to lump both parties together in this cavalcade of incapacity not only gives Republicans a pass it furthers their agenda to prove to Americans that Washington is a horribly dysfunctional place where nothing can get done. It's a horribly dysfunctional place because Republicans have made it this way.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge this fact?

Remembering the “There Is No Spoon” Tour Posted by The Editors

This post by Price Floyd, who served at the U.S. Department of State from 1989 until 2007.

Yesterday's passing of DPRK leader Kim Jung Il has brought back memories of Secretary Albright’s visit to North Korea in October of 2000. I was on the advance team that arrived a week before the Secretary and stayed until the day after she left.

The title of this blog refers to a quote from The Matrix movie which had just come out the year before and highlights the fact that nothing we saw was authentic or “real.” (For the film clip, see here.)

We arrived in the capitol of Pyongyang via multiple cars and vans that we drove across the DMZ from South Korea. Each of our vehicles had any South Korean or western writing and/or images covered up with tape. This included the license plates and even the Chevy symbols on the car hoods. 

We saw the massive defensive works put in place by the North to thwart any invasion by South Korea -– huge cement boulders that could be rolled into the road way, giant anti-tank barriers, etc. During the entire drive from the DMZ to the capitol there were thousands of people digging a trench along the road with wooden shovel –- not sure why. Not one of them turned around to look at our motorcade, even though we were the only vehicles on the road.

When we arrived at our hotel and checked in, I met a Russian hotel guest who was grateful for our visit as they now had electricity and hot water for the first time since he had been there –- he noted that the power had been turned on the day before our arrival.

We then began a series of visits to a circus (where they used an electric cattle prod to get a bear to “dance,” a dance performance at a fairly small theater, visit to the Great Leaders Mausoleum and a visit to a kindergarten class. We demurred on the need to bring the Secretary to the bear “dance” and the visit to the mausoleum (but I have to admit the glass sarcophagus was pretty cool looking) and had settled on most of the visit being all business and bilateral meetings.

Here is a list of some of the highlights of what actually happened:

When the Secretary’s plane arrived all the reporters had their satellite phones confiscated since the DPRK officials didn’t want uncontrolled information getting out of the country.  NOTE: These were returned after negotiations.

Bilateral meetings did take place and happened at their own pace and schedule.

After several rounds of meetings a senior staff member emerged from the talks and said that the sides had agreed to attend that nights performance of what was described as a gymnastic exhibition at the local stadium.

I was dispatched along with the other advance officer to reconnoiter the site and make sure there all was as it was supposed to be. What we found was a huge stadium filled with tens of thousands of North Koreans practicing what seemed to be cheers. On one side of the stadium directly across from the official seating area there was an entire section devoted to a massive flip card display that rotated through hydroelectric power images (not sure what the fascination is among pseudo-Marxist with hydroelectric power), launching of their latest missile –- the Taepo-dong I think -- and various other impressive totalitarian images.

We could not communicate back to the Secretary’s party as the North Koreans wouldn’t allow us to have repeaters so they wouldn’t work and at the time there was no cell phone coverage in country. Secretary Albright arrived and we sat through what seemed like hours of precision marching, goose stepping, etc… all set to ear piercing traditional North Korean Marxist music (at least it sounded traditional to me).

I also negotiated the return of a camera from NBC Correspondent Andrea Mitchell’s production team as they had gone walking around town without their “minder” and took pictures of people walking out of a barber shop.  Tisk-tisk.

Then there was the final press conference by Secretary Albright. I was standing outside the location and it was pitch black outside as there were no street lights that I could see.  Suddenly, when the Secretary was about five minutes away the street lights did come on.  Then the outside lights of the building across the street, and finally the traffic lights came on (remember there are no cars on the roads). All of a sudden the entire scene looked like a perfectly normal downtown city anywhere in the world. The only problem is that it hadn’t existed five minutes before then.

And the highlight: I was asked to be the protocol person since we had not brought someone to perform those duties. I stood between Secretary Albright and Kim Jung Il as our interpreter explained to the Dear Leader what our gift -– a basketball signed by all of the Chicago Bulls. The Dear Leader seemed appropriately impressed. I can’t remember what his gift was to Secretary Albright as I was intent on not dropping the basketball.

In short while I have no idea what will happen next in North Korea, if past is prologue, what that regime wants to have happen will play a large role.

Photo: Flickr

To Fix the OAS, Threats Are Not the Answer 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.

As if the House of Representatives had nothing else to do this week, the Sub Committee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will mark up a bill introduced by Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) that seeks a reduction in U.S. contributions to the Organization of the American States (OAS). Specifically, the bill would seek a 20 percent cut in OAS funding (the U.S. contribution is $48.5 million a year) each time the Permanent Council of the OAS, when in session, failed to condemn Venezuela for breach of the Inter-America Charter. This treaty, signed by member states in September 2001, addresses the principles of democratic governance and what must be done in the event of a coup, or other interruption of the democratic process. Mack specifically references Article 20 of the Charter which states:

In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a member state, any member state or the Secretary General may request the immediate convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate.  The Permanent Council, depending on the situation, may undertake the necessary diplomatic initiatives, including good offices, to foster the restoration of democracy.

This is not the first time that Mack has attacked the OAS. In July he proposed to shut down the institution when the Sub-Committee was reviewing the FY 2012 State Department authorization bill. While unsuccessful in that attempt to defund the institution where the U.S. can engage with all the nations of the hemisphere, save Cuba, Mack is now going for the cudgel by seeking to end the OAS by a thousand cuts.

OAS bashing is not a new sport in this Republican dominated House. It mirrors the deeper distaste that exists for any multilateral institution. There is no doubt that the OAS has its problems. There is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be trimmed. It also could benefit from better oversight and administration. But we are bound to membership by treaty. And since 1948 when Secretary of State George Marshall signed the founding Charter, it has been part of a uniquely American international legal regime to which our government and 34 others subscribe. Cutting off U.S. support would send a powerful signal to countries in the region that already have doubts about our nation’s commitment to supporting them except for counter-narcotics efforts. At a time when the our neighbors are joining other multilateral organizations that specifically exclude the U.S., why would we want to close the door on a forum that can provide an important diplomatic tool in a region that is still our most important trading zone, and from which our energy security depend and has remained democratic and at peace?

Photo: Mack.house.gov

How Crucial is a Climate Change Treaty? Posted by David Shorr

Reading assessments of the recent Durban conference by leading climate wonks, many of them argue that the issue of a binding treaty -- to eventually take the place of the Kyoto Protocol -- must be viewed against a broader backdrop. In other words, the push to eventually enact global obligations for emission cuts is a fraught endeavor, and other tracks are just as important.

Which raises interesting general questions about treaties as a focus of multilateral effort and public hopes. Are binding treaties always good litmus tests of seriousness in addressing international problems? Are there cases in which the quest to codify and ratify is Quixotic, when the best is truly enemy of the good?

Not that I have anything against treaties; some of my best advocacy has been around treaties. For some issues they're essential -- last year's New START agreement on strategic nuclear arms, for one. It's important, however, to remember that international accords are not ends unto themselves, but instead are means to address real-world problems. The essence of multilateral cooperation is to induce sovereign governments to take steps on behalf of the common good that they'd shirk if left completely to their own devices. It's like the idea that no one is an island, but then, some nations actually are islands, and they're the ones most threatened by global warming.

The Durban meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drove home the points that a) treaties are not the only way to spur this kind of virtuous dynamic, but beyond that b) they can actually backfire. The Council on Foreign Relation's Michael Levi explained the perverse incentives in a pre-Durban Financial Times piece, looking back at the progress achieved at the last two UN climate conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun:

Countries enter binding international agreements with an eye to ensuring that they will be able to comply with their commitments. The legally binding nature of an international deal can thus deter national ambition in the first place. It is near-certain, for example, that China would not have pledged in Copenhagen to cut its emissions intensity to well below current levels had it been required to embed that in a treaty. The same is true for the absolute emissions’ cuts pledged by the US. It is similarly unlikely that India, China and others would have accepted formal international scrutiny of their emissions cutting efforts had that been made part of a system for enforcing legal obligations. 

The question of committing to a timeline for reaching some sort of binding global agreement was the subject of intense diplomatic brinksmanship in Durban and almost tore the process apart, the Europeans having pressed the issue as an ultimatum. As Michael explained in a post-conference piece over at TheAtlantic.com, the resolution was a classic fudge that leaves itself open to multiple interpretations and hardly supports claims about putting the UNFCCC on a clear path to a treaty.

Looking at it another way, the conference's success wasn't setting a glidepath to a Kyoto successor agreement, but building on earlier successes and keeping the entire enterprise from disintegrating. Here's how Joe Romm of Center for American Progress put it in a post on CAP's Climate Progress blog:

It’s worth noting that the alternative was not a binding agreement to stabilize at 2°C ( 3.6°F) warming, but a complete collapse of the international negotiating process.

The Climate Progress team have offered a comprehensive overview of international cooperation on climate, including in other settings than the UNFCC. Perhaps the most important track within the UN process, though, is "climate financing," funds to aid developing countries as they struggle with the challenges and consequences of global warming. This financial commitment from industrial powers like the US is a key test of their credibility and a sensitive issue for poorer nations likely to be affected by climate change. Indeed, as extreme weather intensifies, it's inevitable that those countries will say don't push us when we're hot.

Photo credit: Sheri Jo / tenderliving

Exploring the GOP Id Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Foreign Policy, I have a new piece up on Monday's Huntsman/Gingrich debate in New Hampshire, which besides offering few areas of disagreement between the two candidates, provided a fascinating glimpse into the preferences of GOP primary voters:

Huntsman, to date, has been banking in large measure on his experience as an ambassador to China and his sober and adult approach to policy matters both domestic and international. He's the safe pick; the clean-cut boyfriend you can feel comfortable bringing home to your parents. That serious figure was on display Monday afternoon.

Then there is Newt Gingrich; the bad boy to Huntsman's upright and dependable boyfriend.  While others may couch their words in diplomatic language or achievable policy specifics, Newt doesn't waste his time with such niceties.

. . . For Gingrich, every single government institution, from the State Department to the intel community to the Defense Department's procurement capabilities to NASA's bureaucracy is in need of radical transformation.  It's not enough to come up with a new energy policy; America must wean itself off all foreign oil. Manufacturing capabilities must be completely rebuilt; a national debate and comprehensive strategy on dealing with radical Islam is required. Everything for Gingrich is bigger and fundamentally transformational.

. . . There is no nuance with Newt; no half-measures or mere modifications to what is currently being done. Everything must change. And every story is told with a leading anecdote offered in breathless tone that suggests only a fool would fail to grasp the historic nature of Newt's arguments. After a while, listening to Gingrich feels like a bit like listening to a couple of undergraduates in a dorm room talking about how to fix the world while passing around a joint.

Guess which candidate is the current frontrunner and which one is mired in the single digits. Read the whole thing here

The Chosen People? Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Foreign Policy, I have a new piece up on the toxic manner in which Republican presidential candidates have been talking about the Middle East recently - with unquestioned support for Israel and harsh even racist epithets for the Palestinians:

At times during Saturday, Dec. 10's Republican presidential debate, it was hard to figure out whether the GOP aspirants were running for president of the United States or prime minister of Israel. With the notable exception of Ron Paul, each of the major GOP candidates practically fell over themselves to express solidarity with a country that, in their narrative, appears to not only be the most important U.S. ally in the world, but a country that simply can do no wrong.

. . .  But this is basically par for the course in GOP debates: Any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the United States, and any threat to Israel is a supremely magnified threat to the United States . . . There was a great deal of controversy in Washington last week about the way that some foreign-policy commentators describe the U.S. relationship to Israel -- with some intimating in the pages ofPolitico that those who don't walk in lock step with the current Israeli government are either anti-Israeli or "borderline anti-Semitic."

This is an old game in U.S. foreign-policy debates -- and one that was on full display Saturday night. But perhaps the greater area of inquiry would be to look at how Americans have reached a point in their political discourse where the behavior of Israel can go virtually unquestioned and the national characteristics of the Palestinian people can be described in the most odious -- and borderline racist -- terms imaginable without it raising even a hint of controversy.

You can read the whole thing here

Richard Clarke: Presidents, Not 'Commanders on the Ground,' Decide Posted by Jacob Stokes

Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has a piece in the New York Times today that explains why it’s a core part of the president’s job to exert control over the military. Clarke explains how this imperative is by design: the president is in charge of grand strategy and the intersection of foreign and domestic affairs – and the military understands this:

There’s no doubt that the United States has the most professional military officer corps in the world, and certainly the one with the most combat experience. Part of their training and professionalism is, however, a deep-seated understanding of the American tradition of “civilian control of the military.” They know that Article II of the Constitution says that the elected civilian president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.

But civilian control isn’t just a matter of law; it’s also a matter of effectiveness. Being on the ground may provide for an understanding of local circumstances, but it does not necessarily offer insight into what is best in the long run for our nation. We want our president to think about that larger context, and to make decisions that take as much as possible into account. 

Clarke goes on to explain how this concept should inform our choice about who becomes president:

Of course, we choose our presidents in part because of how we think they will handle crises, how they will see the bigger picture, the greater good, the historic moment. We expect them to exercise their own judgment after listening to military and civilian advisers, not just to do what the “commanders on the ground” want. 

In countries like Pakistan the president cannot tell the military what to do. Not so in America. But by offering to cede automatically to the will of military commanders, some presidential candidates are telling voters in advance that there is an important part of the president’s job that they are unwilling to perform. 

The whole thing is worth reading. You can find it here.

Photo: Wikipedia

The Politics of Apologies Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Foreign Policy my new column looks at the false charge that Obama is our Apologist-in-Chief . . . and how it still affects foreign policy decision-making:

There are political lies; and then there are charges that fall squarely in the realm of pants-on-fire untruths. The repeated assertion by conservative politicians, commentators, and pundits that President Barack Obama has consistently apologized for America during his global travels -- the "American Apology Tour" as Mitt Romney calls it -- falls squarely into the latter category. 

It is a lie that has been reiterated so often that it has become conventional wisdom on the right. The fact that Obama has never directly apologized for America; that he has never expressed direct sorrow or regret for U.S. actions; that alleged charges of contrition have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked appears not to matter much at all -- particularly to those such as Romney, who in last month's CNN national security debate repeated the charge again. It's worth mentioning that Romney is so enamored with the topic of presidential apologizing that he titled his recent foreign policy book, you guessed it, No Apologies. 

. . . All of this might sound like the inevitable back and forth of American politics. After all, politicians exaggerate the faults of their opponents all the time -- and it's hard to imagine that the Obama administration would take any of these obvious untruths seriously. But even the most mundane and misleading of political attacks can shape foreign policy decision-making. If, as Clausewitz suggested, "war is the expression of politics by other means," then foreign policy is often the expression of domestic politics by other means -- with often unsettling consequences.

You can read the whole thing here

While you're at it check out me and Robert Farley debating the implications of an Iranian bomb:

 

Just Another Depressing Day At The Office Posted by Michael Cohen

Besides the fact that we're getting a torrential downpour here in New York, scanning today's headlines kind of makes me want to crawl into my happy place and rock back and forth.

First, comes news that General John Allen, commander of US troops in Afghanistan, has been privately telling congressional delegations and others that he disagrees with President Obama's plan for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and wants to maintain higher troop levels into 2013. Its shocking I know that an American general wants to keep US soldiers on a battlefield longer than his civilian overseers. That never happens.

But what is so maddening about this is, 'what part of civil-military relations' is unclear to Allen. It seems to me that there is a chain of command for Allen to make his concerns known; referencing them to congressional delegations and others is a sure-fire way for that news to leak to the media (which I suppose is the point). All that does, of course, is put political pressure on Obama to go along with Allen (also the point) and delay troop withdrawals further (the ultimate point). 

I know this has sort of become par for the course in Afghanistan; with a steady stream of American generals contradicting the president and both privately and publicly trying to undermine his policy decisions - but it doesn't make it any less outrageous or aggravating.

Of course, Obama is hardly blameless here. This is what happens when you fail to maintain tight control over your own military leaders and let them do whatever the hell they want in the field. John Allen is way out of his lane here, but ultimately the failure for the hash that US policy in Afghanistan has become lies with Barack Obama. If you don't want generals doing things like this how about exercising some damn civilian control over them.

Next, Politico discovers that people in Washington occasionally have different views about Israel than AIPAC. It turns out that the folks at CAP and Media Matters refuse to kowtow to AIPAC's party line on US policy toward Israel . . . and as a result they get utterly shameless attacks like this lodged against them:

"Either the inmates are running the asylum or the Center for American Progress has made a decision to be anti-Israel,” said Josh Block, a former spokesman for AIPAC who is now a fellow at the center-left Progressive Policy Institute. “Either they can allow people to say borderline anti-Semitic stuff” – a reference to what he described as conspiracy theorizing in the Alterman column – “and to say things that are antithetical to the fundamental values of the Democratic party, or they can fire them and stop it.”

The Alterman op-ed that is referenced to is here. It's not my cup of tea, but it takes quite a reach to call this even borderline anti-Semitism or Alterman an anti-Semite in general. Of course calling Matt Duss, Ali Ghraib, Eli Clifton or MJ Rosenberg "anti-Israel" or claiming they are expressing views antithetical to the values of the Democratic Party simply because they disagree with Israeli policies that are driving the Jewish state over a cliff is also depressingly par for the course - and additionally a complete load of crap. (That Matt Duss, in particular, is one of the single best DC-based analysts writing about the Middle East today merits mention here as well.) 

Also worth mentioning that Block's comments would be accurate if appropriating land from Palestinians, severely restricting their mobility and preventing them a right to self-determination are reflective of the values of the Democratic Party. Thankfully they are not. 

In the end, the issue here is not that CAP and other progressive groups are breaking with the Administration on Israeli policy (though it's nice to see them do it on this and on a host of other issues. Ben Armbruster for one has been crushing on his coverage of Leon "The Sky Is Falling" Panetta). The issue here is that those in the bizarrely and wrongly named "pro-Israel community" want to police the discourse on what people can and cannot say about Israel and US policy toward it. Diverge from the accepted nomenclature, apparently, at your own peril.

Finally, there is this tidbit from Andrew Exum on the future of COIN. As is now the wont among COIN advocates who have seen their population centric dreams for Afghanistan fizzle out, Exum makes the argument that we can't afford to forget our COIN lessons because, after all, it is the future of war (and also apparently the past):

According to the Correlates of War dataset, roughly 83% of the conflicts fought since the end of the Napoleonic Era have been civil wars or insurgencies. And while scholarship (.pdf) suggets more recent civil wars are less "irregular" than those fought during the Cold War, it's safe to assume irregular wars will continue to be phenomena military organizations will wrestle with . .  it is a mistake to assume the U.S. military will never fight these wars again. We've done that before, with disastrous results

Actually the disaster was that we fought these wars in the first place! And here's why they were disasters -- because the United States is quite ineffective at fighting population centric counter-insurgencies like the kind advocated for in 2009 for Afghanistan. Indeed I was pleased to see that CNAS just released a report recognizing that a COIN mission in the Hindu Kush might not be sustainable. As the old joke goes, better nate than lever.

Still I'll make a deal with the COIN folks; I'll recognize that we should keep COIN knowledge in the cupboard (but way in the back behind the fondue kit and the can of waxed beans) if you loudly acknowledge - indeed even shout to the hills - that every time someone recommends fighting a counter-insurgency this is really, really, really bad idea and that the United States lacks the core competency to do it effectively. In the end, friends don't let friends do population centric COIN. And after all, it wasn't like you were all too shy about saying that it's something we could - and should - do in 2009. 

Deal?

Reading List: Nuclearizing Iran Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Gosh, Foreign Policy, do experts "of all stripes" really think that Iran getting a nuclear weapon -- something no one, conservative or liberal, really wants -- is such a catastrophe that, as it is reported Senator Kirk will say tomorrow:

if Iran gets the bomb -- we, the United States of America and freedom-loving nations around the world, will have failed in what could be our generation's greatest test,

Well, no.  In fact, lots of former intelligence officials and non-ideological types have been in the forefront of urging caution on exactly this topic.  Their reports are good to read with the AEI report...

Brookings' Bruce Reidel, former National Intelligence Officer:

Israel will continue to have military superiority over any and all of its enemies, backed by the support of the world’s only super power, the United States. Iran is backed only by Syria, and that relationship is in deep trouble because Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is in deep trouble. Iran is not an existential threat to either America or Israel.

RAND's James Dobbins, who spent a career at the State Department dealing successfully with bad guys from Iran to Kosovo to Haiti:

It is not inevitable that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons or even that it will gain the capacity to quickly produce them. U.S. and even Israeli analysts continually push their estimates for such an event further into the future. Nevertheless, absent a change in Iranian policy, it is reasonable to assume that, some time in the coming decade, Iran will acquire such a capability.

There's more -- our team will add it as we pull it up.

Weapons Don’t Make War Posted by The Editors

This post by Adam Elkus, an analyst specializing in foreign policy and security studies. He is currently associate editor at Red Team Journal and a contributor to the ThreatsWatch project. He blogs at Rethinking Security.

Observers of global security are growing very concerned about flying robots with guns, more commonly known as unmanned aerial systems or drones. As a remotely piloted, automated, and even autonomous weapons leave the realm of science fiction and enter into grimy reality, some worry that taking humans out of the tactical decision cycle and out of danger, will enable a new age of remote (and frequent) warfare. 

While there are certainly problematic issues with the emerging military robotics revolution, weapons do not make war.  It is likely that future historians will look back on today’s speculations about drones with the same bemusement military historians regard H.G. Wells’ writings about unstoppable strategic bombing today.

Human beings make war. Force—whether executed by a human or a robot—is a function of politics and policy. Drones do not change this reality. Unless one is describing Skynet, there is no taking the human being “out of the loop.”  Human beings still remotely pilot today’s unmanned aerial systems, and even autonomous systems would still be the creation of human designers and programmers. Tactically or even operationally autonomous systems would still be subordinated to a military chain of command.

To be sure, evolution of unmanned aerial systems pose legal and moral problems, such as issues over accountability, compliance with the rules of engagement, and dealing with negative public perceptions. But the introduction of airpower (and other weapons throughout history) caused similar ethical dilemmas—many of which have yet to be resolved. Many critiques of drone targeting are really critiques of airpower writ large that could have been stated with contextual fidelity at many other points in modern military history.

As a certain dead Prussian informed us, war is political intercourse, with the addition of violence. Weapons are used because a given set of political and cultural mores and policy decisions set the stage for their employment. Drones did not fly themselves to Waziristan, but were animated by a domestic political and strategic consensus about the utility of killing enemies of the state with standoff firepower. And in that respect they differ little from the conditions under which we use existing technologies.

Perhaps the most persuasive critique of drones is that they desensitize us to the costs of war by allowing us to target without risk. But such analysis has seemingly forgotten the mid-90s debate over “post-heroic warfare” in the airpower-centric humanitarian interventions of the 1990s. The capability to wage war with minimal risk goes back to the post-WWI British policy of air control, the standoff bombing of those challenging imperial rule in the Crown’s backwater.

Despite the nearly century-long prevalence of airpower, we have not become numb to war. Witness, for example, the powerful desire for retribution after the 9/11 attacks and its impact on domestic and international policy. Airpower—drones included—has not erased emotion from war because war is a complex mixture of irrational forces (emotion, hatred, and enmity), chance (friction and the fog of war) and rational policy. And as long as humans are involved in conflict, these forces will continue to exert themselves on the theory and practice of war. This does not mean that we won’t regret our emotions after the end of hostilities, but placid push-button war is unlikely. Just ask the drone pilots who experience significant emotional turmoil from the consequences of their strikes.

There is also something erroneous in the idea that targeting at a distance itself is somehow alien to war’s true nature. As Lukas Milevski observed, popular ideas of “real” war in the West always seem to focus around the idea of two sides on a field contesting the day. But while battle avoidance may be alien to the History Channel ideal of war, it is not alien to war itself. With very few exceptions, every disruptive technology with military utility is initially decried as cowardly before being integrated into standard operating procedure.

Lastly, it should not be presumed that targeting long range always means targeting without risk of injury or death. The minimization of operational and strategic risk is a function of geopolitical primacy, the benefits of which include being able to project force decisively against enemies with either third-rate industrial armies or bands of militants. But if we are truly entering a more militarily multipolar world in which adversaries assimilate the same precision-strike capabilities we currently possess, the American monopoly on battle network systems—which include drones—will steadily erode.

Such unpleasant realities put the future of drones in a different light. Efforts to heighten drone autonomy will likely begin because current remotely piloted vehicles are vulnerable against opponents with sophisticated integrated air defense systems. And those opponents will likely have the ability to put Americans at risk through their own conventional, irregular, or nuclear capabilities. We have air superiority over Iran, for example, but their capabilities for irregular retaliation give us pause when we consider the utility of a strategic air campaign.

In a world of decreased American military advantage, we might look back nostalgically to our current nightmares about frictionless war regardless of what sophisticated robots we possess.  

Photo: Flickr

Leon Panetta's Follow Friday: @Iran, @Israel, @Tough Love Posted by Heather Hurlburt

The Obama national security team is notorious for its habit of dropping national security news at moments that are unconducive to the news cycle, so Leon Panetta’s 6pm Friday speaking engagement at Brookings’ Saban Forum was tipped to be worth checking out.  And the SecDef did not disappoint, coming loaded for multiple bear:  first, to announce a new, largest-ever joint US-Israeli military exercise next year (superseding 2009’s largest-ever US-Israel exercise), at which new ballistic missile defenses will be tested.  Second, to convey firmly to Iran (the intended audience of the aforementioned missile defense test), but also to Israel, that in the effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, “it is my department’s responsibility to provide the President with a range of military options” and “no option has been taken off the table.”

With that throat-clearing out of the way, Panetta launched into a to-do list for Israel that was impressive in its scope and firmness.  Israel should mend fences with Turkey and Jordan.  Israel should lean into cooperation with Egypt along its border more, rather than pulling away.  Israel should find ways to do more security cooperation with the US-trained Palestinian Authority forces (and Abbas should make that possible).  Israel should see the changes of the last year as an opportunity and work to secure peace for the long term.  Israel “has a responsibility to work toward our common goals” and “build regional support for our shared objectives.”

While we wait for the wailing about the Israeli relationship to start, a few public opinion figures you might've missed in the last week:

% of Americans who believe Iran can be contained by diplomacy:  55.

% of Israelis who support an Israeli strike on Iran: 43.

% of Israeli Jews who have a favorable view of Obama, and of the US:  54 and 80.

In the Q and A, Panetta soberly laid out the problems with the “military option for Iran”  he said, it will only delay, not stop, Iran’s program; it will reverse Iran’s regional isolation; it could spark retaliation against US forces; it would have economic implications; and it could throw the entire region into conflict.

So given all those factors, with which many nonpartisan and military analysts agree, as well as concerns about an unintended slide from heated rhetoric to confrontation and war, why would a sober, thoughtful defense secretary go so far out of the way to insist that force is not ruled out?  Panetta said that the Administration’s goal is to force Iran to choose between a nuclear weapon and re-integration in the region and the world.  He knows that diplomacy and economics are the way to achieve that goal -- and said so. The Secretary also knows that what he called Israel's increasing isolation makes things easier for Iran.  Hence the invitation to Israel to reach out in its region and alter the dynamic. Panetta, who has developed since arriving at the Pentagon a reputation for speaking off the cuff from time to time, seemed highly calibrated throughout, which made the curtness of his last response, to the question of what Israel should do now, all the more striking: “just get to the damn table.”

 

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/1202_saban_forum.aspx

Max Boot's Ridiculous "Bomb Iran" Op-ed Posted by Michael Cohen

Max Boot has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today that shockingly argues the US should bomb Iran to stop its nuclear program. I know . . . who could have seen that coming. 

Since this is such a terrible idea that, in the abstract, is difficult to defend Boot must rely on some rather dubious historical analogies to make his case:

In retrospect, weakness in the face of aggression is almost impossible to understand — or forgive. Why did the West do so little while the Nazis gathered strength in the 1930s? While the Soviet Union enslaved half of Europe and fomented revolution in China in the late 1940s? And, again, while Al Qaeda gathered strength in the 1990s? Those questions will forever haunt the reputations of the responsible statesmen, from Neville Chamberlain to Bill Clinton.

. . . After the failure to stop Hitler and Bin Laden, among others, Westerners were said to have suffered a "failure of imagination." We are suffering that same failure today as we fail to face up to the growing threat from the Islamic Republic.

Just from an historical perspective this is simply wrong. First of all, Bill Clinton did make effort to stop Al Qaeda in the 1990s (albeit unsuccessfully). One can argue that he should have done more, but the notion that he did "so little" is clearly incorrect. Also, there was another presidential adminstration that proceeded followed Clinton's, which did basically nothing to stop Al Qaeda and saw America attacked on their watch. Oddly they go unmentioned.

Second, the US clearly did try to prevent Maoist revolution in China in the 1940s and unless Max is suggesting that the US should have launched a preventive war against the Red Army in 1945 I'm not sure what the thinks should have been done to stop the Soviet Union from enslaving half of Europe. But of course to root around inside the feverish mind of Max Boot is to ignore the fact that even the United States has limitations on what it can accomplish on the global stage.

Third, if my eyes don't deceive me Max is comparing Osama bin Laden and the Iranian mullahs to Adolf Hitler.  It seems relevant to mention here that Iran is isolated diplomatically and politically; can only project power through the use of terrorist proxies; has no real allies in the region; is roiled by serious domestic upheaval; has a weak conventional military force that utilizes obsolete weapons and technology; and is out spent militarily by basically all of its key rivals. The argument that Iran can be compared, historically, to the rise of Nazi Germany is utterly laughable.

Finally, Boot argues that the world has responded with "scarcely believable passivity" to Iran's provocations and that "The only credible option for significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program would be a bombing campaign."  

Notice that Boot doesn't say stop, but rather delay Iran's nuclear program (it goes without saying that Boot fails to address the issue of costs or unintended consequences in using military force against Iran, but of course the first rule of Neo-Con Fight Club is not to talk about the costs of Neo-Con Fight Club).

Nonetheless, the notion that the world has responded with "passivity" to Iranian provocations only makes sense if you believe that every action short of the use of military force is an example of passivity. For Boot, covert action, economic sanctions, diplomacy and a regional containment strategy are the actions of wimps.

Also unmentioned by Boot is the inconvenient fact that according to the most recent IAEA report the Iranian nuclear weapons program has been shuttered since 2003. This isn't to suggest that Iran's nuclear aspirations are not real, but rather that the argument Tehran can't be delayed in its effort to build a bomb is not true.

To be sure, it is certainly important to have a debate about the threat posed by an Iranian bomb, but it is precisely this sort of over-inflated rhetoric that makes the Iranian mullahs into a modern day Third Reich that does precious little to further that discussion.

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