Policy: Think Tanks

Obama Dips Into Think Tank For Talent, (Wall Street Journal)…Yochi J. Dreazen, Nov 17, 2008.

The Center for a New American Security, a small think tank here with generally middle-of-the-road policy views, is rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration. When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center, which was founded by a pair of former Clinton administration officials in February 2007.

New presidents regularly raid Washington think tanks for experts and policy ideas. The Reagan administration drew heavily from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation after the 1980 election, while the Clinton administration hired from the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

More recently, staffers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute took senior positions in the Bush administration and drafted some of its signature policies, including the “surge” strategy for Iraq.

The success of conservative think tanks sparked the creation of some left-leaning counterparts, most prominently the Center for American Progress. Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta started it in 2003 with tens of millions of dollars from wealthy liberals.

“The success of Brookings begat AEI. The success of AEI begat Heritage. And the success of Heritage begat CAP and CNAS,” said Murray Weidenbaum, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who wrote a book on Washington think tanks.

Mr. Podesta is now running the Obama transition effort. He also serves on the CNAS board of directors of the Center for a New American Security, which Ms. Flournoy founded along with Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton National Security Council and Pentagon official.

The security center remains a relatively small player, with an annual budget of less than $6 million and about 30 employees including support staff. By comparison, Brookings has more than 200 policy experts, while AEI has nearly 100 scholars and fellows.

Iraq: Closer to a Security Agreement: Dec 31, 2011

Iraqi Cabinet Backs U.S. Security Deal(Washington Post)…Mary Beth Sheridan, Nov 17, 2008, pg. A12.

…While the Cabinet vote indicated that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had rounded up the support of most of Iraq’s major parties, final passage of the accord is not guaranteed, politicians said. One issue is timing: The notoriously slow-moving Iraqi parliament is scheduled to adjourn Nov. 25 for a three-week break for hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage. “We have a limited window of time,” warned Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister.

Obama Presidency: Idealism and Realism

WPR Feature: The Obama Presidency, The Editors | U.S. Foreign Policy World Politics Review Exclusive, 14 Nov 2008.

With the U.S. presidential election finally decided, attention has now turned to just how President-elect Barack Obama will handle American foreign policy. In WPR’s latest biweekly feature issue, two prominent foreign policy analysts examine the challenges and opportunities that await The Obama Presidency.

Wilsonian Idealist or Progressive Realist? by Nikolas Gvosdev.

A Grand Strategy Agenda by Thomas P.M. Barnett.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

The Gift Of Freedom — (Letter), (Omaha World-Herald)…Gordon R. England, Nov 11, 2008.

A remarkable thing happened today in Omaha and in each town, city and state across this great nation: Every American woke up free. This was not by accident or chance.

As President Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same.”

Freedom is a gift earned for us by those brave Americans who in the past 230 years have stepped forward to protect and defend liberty and the ideals of this great country.

Every day, I am awed by the service, courage and sacrifices made by the men and women who have worn or now wear the cloth of our nation.

President John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address, “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in the hour of maximum danger.”

We owe them, all veterans and their families a profound debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. This Veterans Day and every day, take time to thank our veterans for the great gift of freedom!

Gordon R. England, Washington, D. C., Deputy secretary of defense

Soft Power: Prevention

U.S. Shows That Soft Power Can Work In A Hard War (Washington Times)…Gary Schaub Jr. Nov 12, 2008.
Soft power is about to come to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) – America’s military command in the Middle East – in a big way. 

By winning friends and influencing people, the idea goes, the United States can defuse potential conflicts before they start and achieve America’s goals without firing a shot.

If the next president is patient and trusts Gen. Petraeus’ judgment, the success of the surge can be replicated across the Middle East and Central Asia, and soft-power approaches will permeate American foreign policy for a generation to come.

Gary Schaub Jr. is an assistant professor in the Leadership and Strategy Department of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, in Montgomery, Ala.

Threats and Challenges: Next Administration

The Real World: Obama, (USA Today)…Ralph Peters, Nov 12, 2008.
…Utterly unexpected events could blindside us, but the following are a few of the looming challenges the Obama administration will face as it seeks its footing: Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan. Israel, Syria and Lebanon. Iran. Russia. Our military.

 Foreign policy promises will quickly bump up against circumstances

By Ralph Peters

On Nov. 4, the American people spoke. In the coming months, our enemies will speak. During this transition period and immediately after our new president’s inauguration, hostile actors around the globe will test a leader they view as untried and naive.

As president, Barack Obama will have to establish a strong identity quickly. Expectations, at home and abroad, are diffuse and contradictory. Just as American voters projected their own convictions onto both candidates, so allies and enemies overseas have constructed their own preferred images of Obama. Wishful thinking will have to be dispelled as our new president puts our interests first.

Utterly unexpected events could blindside us, but the following are a few of the looming challenges the Obama administration will face as it seeks its footing:

Iraq.

The president-elect has pledged prompt troop withdrawals, and his base expects him to act. But he won’t want to be seen as the “man who lost Iraq” and who reversed al-Qaeda’s strategic catastrophe. Obama is fortunate that the improved security situation will, indeed, allow substantial withdrawals. Even so, troops in significant numbers will need to remain for years to guarantee gains.

Even if President Obama ordered an immediate, total withdrawal, dismantling our effort and moving out of Iraq would be a huge logistical undertaking: It will take years to dismantle what it took years to build up. And our actions must be calculated to guarantee the gains made at such great cost.

Afghanistan and Pakistan.

During his presidential campaign, Obama made ambitious claims about this region, vowing to capture Osama bin Laden. Should the arch-terrorist be killed or captured, it will result from an intelligence break, not a campaign promise. Obama also has vowed to do a better job at winning in Afghanistan than President Bush has. But Afghanistan presents even deeper problems than did Iraq: It will take a generational commitment to ameliorate them, and they’ll never be fully solved. You don’t win in Afghanistan — you just make sure your enemies don’t win, either. Although engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan remains essential, the key is to have realistic expectations of what can be achieved.

Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

However incorrectly, Arab radicals and regimes perceive the president-elect as more favorable to their cause and less friendly to Israel. This is a formula for provocations by Hezbollah and Syrian machinations in Lebanon that could precipitate war as soon as next year. As president, Obama will need to be explicit in his commitments. He can no longer seek to be all things to all people.

Iran.

The most complex culture in the region is also the most difficult to deal with. The regime in Tehran faces internal disappointment with its performance, but it views nuclear weapons as an all-purpose answer. As for negotiations, Tehran consistently uses them to buy time. Possessed of nuclear weapons, Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf and the world’s key oil reserves — as well as threaten Israel. And concepts such as mutually assured destruction might not deter religious extremists. Again, there’s no good solution.

Russia.

One day after the U.S. election, President Dmitry Medvedev made a bellicose speech aimed at Obama. Announcing the intention to deploy a new generation of mid-range missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave — behind NATO lines — Medvedev explicitly threatened the U.S. missile-defense system to be deployed on Polish soil, and Poland itself.

With Russia’s economy in a far more fragile state than outsiders realize, the regime of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin might exploit this period of transition in Washington both to further its ambitions in neighboring states — such as Ukraine — and to divert attention from domestic problems by exciting nationalist passions.

Our military.

Obama has promised to strengthen our armed forces. He won’t be able to do it. Facing massive debts and decreased revenues, his budget staff will look for places to cut. Unable to trim entitlement programs — and with vast campaign promises to fulfill before 2012 — Obama almost inevitably will turn to the Pentagon as a source of savings.

The Obama administration will begin by trying to kill Cold War legacy systems of marginal utility, but he will run into bipartisan opposition in Congress. Legislators love to praise our troops, but they vote to preserve defense contracts. Our soldiers have no lobbying clout comparable to that of defense-industry giants. Budget advisers will fall back on cutting people and benefits, while an influential minority of political activists will be delighted to punish the military.

The long list of challenges runs from a crisis of shattered expectations in China, to the antics of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Somalia is lawless, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo is drenched in blood. Even Mexico — the state most vital to our security — faces a disintegrative level of lawlessness. For all the global goodwill toward our next president, additional troop commitments from our allies will be few, while their expectations will be high. Obama, too, will find that there are times when a U.S. president must act because no one else will.

The potential tragedy of our charismatic next president is that he could repeat the patterns of his Democratic predecessors — Johnson, Carter and Clinton — in coming to the White House with a strong domestic agenda, only to be beleaguered by foreign policy.

Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors and the author, most recently, of Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.

Iraq: Kurdistan Model

Kurdistan Is A Model For Iraq, (Wall Street Journal)…Masoud Barzani, Nov 12, 2008.

Iraq’s Kurds have consistently been America’s closest allies in Iraq. Our Peshmerga forces fought alongside the U.S. military to liberate the country, suffering more casualties than any other U.S. ally.

Mr. Barzani is the president of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.