Budget Politics

Dogfight Over F-22 Requirement Reveals DOD Schisms, (Aerospace Daily & Defense Report)…David A. Fulghum, Nov 18, 2008.

The battle over how many F-22 Raptors the U.S. Air Force requires is revealing some nasty infighting as the White House administration change nears. The Defense Secretary staff has told Air Force planners not to talk to congressional staffers and to work only through the offices of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and acquisition chief John Young.

A new study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies — whose CEO, John Hamre, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for President-elect Barack Obama’s defense secretary — contends that war costs, manpower costs, underfunded operations and procurement crises in every service will force the new administration to reshape almost every aspect of current defense plans, programs and budgets.

Securing the Bomb

Report On Nuclear Security Urges Prompt Global Action, (Washington Post)…David E. Hoffman, Nov 18, 2008.

When armed men attacked South Africa’s most closely guarded nuclear facility a year ago, they penetrated the detection systems at the perimeter, cut through an electrified fence and broke into the emergency control center, shooting one worker there in the chest before escaping.

The Pelindaba facility holds hundreds of pounds of weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium. Although the attackers last November did not steal any of it, the assault highlights what a new report describes as the increasingly global challenge of keeping nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.

…The report, “Securing the Bomb 2008,” the seventh annual study from Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is to be released today. The study was commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonproliferation organization co-chaired by former senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

In an agenda for the incoming administration, the report urges “a global campaign to lock down every nuclear weapon and every significant stock of potential nuclear bomb material worldwide as rapidly as that can possibly be done.” The report also calls for the appointment of a senior White House official with daily responsibility for preventing a nuclear terrorist attack.

National Guard Chief Gets 4th Star

History Made As Guard Chief Gets 4th Star, (ArmyTimes.com)…William H. McMichael, Nov 17, 2008.

Hearty cheers filled the Pentagon auditorium Monday afternoon as history was made when a fourth star was pinned on the shoulders of the new chief of the National Guard Bureau — for the first time in its almost four centuries of existence.

nKorea: Info Security

The Information Fortress Known As North Korea(Los Angeles Times)…John M. Glionna, Nov 14, 2008.

Some intelligence is smuggled out by groups and individuals these days, but the main thing outsiders know about the reclusive regime is that they know nothing.

Kim’s approach is, ‘Know thy enemy but don’t let them know us,’ “

These days, much of the information gathering on North Korea comes not from governments but private individuals and human rights groups that have managed to piece together a clandestine network of internal reporters. Some nongovernmental aid organizations return from the country with observations of what goes on there.

“Nobody is too confident about information out of North Korea,” Kang said. “Even the North Korean government isn’t that confident of the statistics they compile.”

“What Kim Jong Il has put together is a counter-intelligence masterpiece,” said Korean historian Andrei Lankov.

“I speak of the CIA’s record in North Korea as the longest running failure in the history of American espionage,” said Donald Gregg, a CIA station chief in South Korea in the 1970s and a former U.S. ambassador to Seoul. “It has always been the toughest of the tough targets. In my day, we truly did not know what was going on there.

“The lines of communication are opening up,” Howard said.

Good Friends publishes regular Internet reports on North Korea. One included such headlines as “Food Shortage Lowers the Attendance of a Munitions Factory in Eunduk County” and “15 People Publicly Executed in Onsung County.”

The group has also broken North Korean news, including an explosion in June involving a petroleum pipeline near Pyongyang.

“Someone threw a cigarette without thinking. There were lots of casualties, even deaths,” Kang said. “South Korean intelligence denied the story. They later came back and said we were right.”

National Security System Redesign

Overhaul Of National Security System Sought(Washington Post)…Walter Pincus, Nov 17, 2008, pg A17.

“The simple truth is that the world for which the [U.S.] national security system was designed in 1947 no longer exists. Today’s challenges require better integration of expertise and capabilities from across the government. . . . Instead, departments and agencies are often working against one another, the White House is unable to make timely and well-informed decisions, and there is an over-reliance on military force.”

…The Project on National Security Reform, financed primarily with $6.4 million from Congress, has employed the talents of 25 former senior national security officials and benefited from the advice of a “guiding coalition” that includes high-ranking officials from past administrations. On Dec. 2, the project will make public its recommendations, including steps that President-elect Barack Obama might take after his Jan. 20 inauguration, and draft legislation to change congressional oversight of national security and amend the 1947 National Security Act.

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.

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.