Who is Sending Militants to Iraq? Hint, Initials are SA Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Late last year, the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point received over 600 records from the Special Operations Command. This information about foreign fighters entering Iraq via Syria is known as the Sinjar Records, and was captured in the far North of Iraq near Syria. West Point authors Brian Fishman and Joseph Felter have taken the first step in analyzing the data dump from this cache in the report "Al Qaida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq"

The biographical information is jaw dropping in its banality: demographic clues like militant age ranging from 16-54, home phone numbers, job listings from doctors, engineers, students and teachers to massage therapist (!) hometowns in Morocco, Libya and Saudi Arabia. To truly understand the meaning of asymmetric threat is how many filled in the description of "role" as "suicide bomber".

This initial analysis reveals that Saudis made up the largest contingent of foreign fighters entering Iraq. (um, thanks again you guys!) Libyans were second (first if measured in percapita terms) and Syrians a distant third. In fact, after reading the report, Syria seems more like an opportunistic and thuggish travel agent than anything else.

The report highlights some key distinctions that organizations like TRACC have long pointed out, that criminal networks have different motivations, some are led by greed and others by blind ideology. Further, that detecting, monitoring, and probing the nexus of transnational criminal and terrorist operations can provide opportunities to disrupt global criminal activities and pre-empt terrorist operations. So we might be able to pick off the greedy ones and get some good information from them to boot; that the religious fundamentalists linked with Al Qaida can't deliver the practical needs of disgruntled citizens (like Iraqis) and one possible strategic advantage for us is to step in and fill the vacuum in basic services and human security when disllusionment sets in; that dealing with supply chain management is an important part of thwarting violent jihadists--because countries like Libya gladly ship their heavy breathing militants to Iraq just to get rid of them at home. So, we should be working with those countries and cooperating to the extent possible to help them address internal violence and promote rule of law (note: preventive and cooperative aid, including fresh and different kinds of security assistance is a huge albeit unheralded trend in policy circles in the DC defense wonk world..) The other striking result was the prevalence of students, and groups of students from the same hometowns...meaning that they are likely recruited together.

Per my earlier post on the defense budget. To me, this report is just another sign that we need to put everything on the budget table and do a thorough vetting of ends and means for our national security. (The House Armed Services Committee is requiring the armed services to do a roles and missions review this coming year, which is a good start, but don't expect revolutionary change to come from within the Pentagon) Civilians, are you listening? Anybody?....Anybody?

How High is Up? The Defense Budget gets even crazier Posted by Lorelei Kelly

For those of you concerned about the state of US security--levees that don't collapse, for example, or bridges that don't fall into the Mississippi river, sit down before you see these numbers.

Last week, both houses of Congress approved the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1585. The bill includes $506.9 billion for the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes $189.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This funding is NOT counted as part of the $506.9 billion.

Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation has an itemized description of what's in the budget.

The amount of Cold War lard is truly astonishing, especially given the fact that the military itself is hollering from the hilltops that it can't be responsible for all of our national security needs and that today's problems just don't have military (read "Cold War weapons systems") answers.

Keep in mind, today's defense spending is 14% above the height of the Korean War, 33% above the height of the Vietnam War, 25% above the height of the "Reagan Era" buildup and is 76% above the Cold War average

In fact, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the annual defense budget - not including the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - has gone up 34%. Including war costs, defense spending has gone up 86% since 2001.

Even the venerable Council on Foreign Relations has thrown down the glove on defense spending. Check out this very nice piece by Richard Betts in this month's Foreign Affairs. Oh, and even the director of the Congressional Budget Office is commenting on defense spending. (so much for stodgy bureaucracy, this guy has his own blog!!!) He has a good comment up, but I've had enough business school classes to know that all of this means that we are in deep financial trouble when it comes to security finances-- and just digging ourselves deeper.

DOD's Pakistan Aid Spells Trouble Posted by Gordon Adams

I have been warning for some time that authority over our national security policies and programs was slipping away from the foreign policy part of the executive branch and being absorbed in the Pentagon, while Congress stood by and ignored the trend.  Iraq and Afghanistan and counter-terror operations have exacerbated this problem.  Today, the DOD "foreign assistance" programs for Pakistan are in trouble, and it is no surprise.

If you want to save the professional military, read this article. Posted by Lorelei Kelly

One of the best overviews of civil-military relations I've ever seen is at this siteState Department site on Principles of Democracy. Read that for a primer, and then read theoriginal article in Armed Forces Journal that Heather points out below. This is a very, very important statement and will hopefully lead to a ground-breaking discussion about the need for a new grand strategy, including the role of the mililtary in national security since the end of the Cold War. The most memorable line? "As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war"

Why Grow the Army? Posted by Gordon Adams

What do Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Bill Richardson, and Gen. Pete Schoomaker, among others, have in common?  They all think the U.S. military is on the verge of breaking and the solution is to make it bigger.  Yet, none of them have told us why it should grow.  Every one of them has put the expansion cart ahead of the strategic horse.

There is no compelling reason to expand the land forces of the United States; in fact, there may be reasons to make them smaller.  Our national security is not facing and existential risk today, and making sure it does not tomorrow will require a different mix of capabilities, one that relies as much on our statecraft, policing, assistance, and intelligence as it does on our land forces.

"Defense" Spending to Oblivion Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The Senate today voted to keep the timeline in the Iraq bill. Who would have thought it would come down to the wire in Nebraska?Though the congressional debate is getting most of the attention--as it should--we still need to remember the crazy amount of money we're shoveling out the door to support our "defense". I put that in quotations on purpose...because the level of spending is so high and the debate about it so inadequate, and we are so NOT funding the solutions that will keep us safe in the long run.

Last year a Congressional Research Report put the average per troop costs for Iraq are between $355,000 and $360,000 per individual, per year; this dollar amount has been increasing since 2003. The last report came out this month put the cost of the wars so far at around $752 billion. gulp.

But the public is continually mis-educated about defense spending---so it isn't surprising that many people believe a fallacy: the more we spend on defense, the more security we purchase. Continually, we hear how today's defense budget is just over 4% of GDP...far lower than at any point in recent history. NPR repeated this trope yesterday. But journalists almost always fail to mention how gigantic our economy has grown in comparison to the World War II era. Even worse, They don't place this figure in context. The most important fact for taxpaying citizens is that the defense budget now takes up more than half of all the dollars we have available to spend every year. This year, its at 59% for 08 not including war spending. The amount of dollars is getting smaller and smaller for everything else. Here's a fantastic video on the topic.

There's no end to the lameness of the mainstream coverage. Today the New York Times framed this question

The Great Budgetary Opportunity Posted by Gordon Adams

The emergency funding for the Global War on Terror – that $100 b. bill the administration sent Congress in February is growing and mutating before our eyes.  In the House, it is now a $124 b. bill.

As Congress begins to move the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental bill for the global war on terror, it is worth observing the game being played between the Hill and the White House.  There is much to be learned.

The budgetary principal seemed clear: emergency bills should be for emergency needs – things that were not anticipated in advance and are urgently needed.

The administration has violated this principle ever since they began asking for emergency money.  Much of the emergency funding has, understandably, supported the war efforts in Afghanistan and, especially Iraq.   But the opportunity could not be resisted. 

Updating Defense Jargon: Center of Gravity Posted by Lorelei Kelly

It's time for progressive thinkers to jump into the fray of redefining the lexicon of defense. I'm going to throw out jargon here from time to time in an attempt to do this. Center of Gravity is my first try.

Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote last Saturday:

"When geo-strategic military front lines are non-existent, as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, mass no longer equals victory. The great military thinker Carl von Clausewitz's notion of "decisive battles" as the "center of gravity" of war is simply irrelevant to conflicts that have no visible "center of gravity." and besides that, "Victory" cannot bring peace, simply because there will always be a war after the war."

I have a slightly different take. I do think the concept is still useful, if only as a concept. Even though people on the ground in warzones don't use this jargon, here, too. It's still important to jump into the fray of updating what it means. Center of Gravity is a good example. It has progressive implications, if framed for today's world.

Every military seeks to identify both ours and our enemies sources of power, then protect ours and destroy theirs. During WWII, an identified Center of Gravity would have been a munitions factory and its destruction through bombing a high priority. Today’s definition of CoG is constantly evolving. It includes both culture and society and also how they change over time. In fighting terrorism, for example, the enemy CoG is the network of supporters worldwide who view Bin Laden more sympathetically than they view Americans. In this context, "victory" over the enemy CoG means ending support for terrorists by offering persuasive alternatives . The military takes seriously the effects of others’ perceptions of the USA and understands the importance of legitimacy—or leading by example. Check out the Combined Joint Task Force in the Horn of Africa.

The Bush Administration has repeatedly ignored the importance of legitimacy, hence missing the Center of Gravity repeatedly for the past five years. In contrast, General Petraeus, the recently appointed Commander in Iraq, seems to get it comprehensively.

Is This the War Boom at Last? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Via Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress, a story about Gulf states looking at the security situation around them and "re-arming for the first time in fifteen years."  Boy, there's progress for you.  US manufacturers, we're told, stand to take the lion's share of the contracts (which is either an interesting commentary on the reality of our ties with Gulf regimes, the amount of concessionary financing we're willing to provide, or the quality of our weaponry -- you decide). 

How ironic that this won't happen fast enough to benefit the Administration in the current political cycle.  If only these governments had known a couple years ago how bad things would get, they could've ordered ahead.  Some key contracts to plants in, say, Ohio really would've been useful last year.

On the other hand, I know anecdotally of at least one Midwest defense-related plant whose local union members passed an anti-war resolution -- against the advice of their national union -- back when the war began.

GOP Uses Dems (old) National Security Playbook? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

For years, Democrats have paid careful attention to military benefits and welfare issues to try to blunt the accusation that we hated not just any particular conflict, but the troops themselves. I rubbed my ears several times this morning when my local radio station reported that Michigan REPUBLICANS have introduced a bill to triple the amount of time returning Guard and Reserve soliders can take with their families while still holding on to the right to return to their civilian jobs. Needless to say, the state GOP’s friends in the state Chamber of Commerce are quietly unhappy about this. A question: many public opinion experts have told Democrats that this strategy doesn’t work – that it doesn’t replace a public sense that your party can be a responsible steward of our national security. I’m sure this kind of provision will be a boon for families stretched to breaking by long, repeated deployments… but I don’t see any reason it’ll work better politically for Rs than for Ds.

Military grants waivers to felons, while dismissing gays Posted by Rosa Brooks

From today's NYT, an example of true policy irrationality:

The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.

Meanwhile, the military continues to dismiss highly qualified personnel (including Arabic and Farsi linguists) because they're... gasp... homosexual.

How to Hide, c. 2007: Velcro & Pixels Posted by Rosa Brooks

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, Malcolm's soldiers disguise their assault on Castle Dunsinane by holding tree branches from Burnham Wood over their heads. (They thus fulfil the prophesy: "Macbeth shall never vanquished be until / Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill / Shall come against him.")

In the high tech era of modern combat, disguising yourself as a tree won't cut it anymore, and the Army has responded with by replacing the old fatigues and BDUs with new "Army Combat Uniforms." The new uniforms replace the old green/brown splotches with grayish digital pixels, which means that when a soldier in a new Army Combat Uniform stands directly in front of a large computer screen, you won't be able to see him.

No, really. Apparently it works in the desert, too.

The new ACU also replaces archaic medieval devices such as "buttons" with velcro. My question: what happens when some poor soldier is in a situation where being quiet is really important? Hunkered down, outnumbered, hoping to wait out the enemy patrols and make it back to safety.... But, he desperately needs to get at something that is IN HIS POCKET or under his shirt... and there is no way to do this without a LOUD velcro-ripping noise, which gives away his position!

Okay. I am certain that the best and brightest military minds are aware of this issue and it is not actually a problem. Right? Right?

(Learn more about the ACUs and see lots of pictures at Globesecurity.org.)

Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice Posted by Rosa Brooks

Edward Luttwak of CSIS has a piece in this month's Harper's called "Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice." Luttwak begins with a critical analysis of the Army's new counterinsurgency field manual, FM 3-24 DRAFT, written by David Petraeus, among others, then moves on apply this to Iraq. He concludes that the new counterinsrgency manual's "prescriptions are in the end of little or no use and amount to a kind of malpractice. All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principles and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents...."

Read it (it's not available online-- you'll have to buy the magazine! Sorry).

In Defense of "Mercenaries" Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Remember that old movie "Escape from New York?" the one where the city has become a large prison populated by violent and depraved criminals. A story  that fell between the cracks of the State of the Union--two downed Blackwater helicopters, five Americans dead--made me remember the images from that film. No escape, not by land, not by air, not by sea.

Some news reports speculate that four of the five were shot on the ground. Ugh and sigh. I know it is hard for some people to feel outrage or grief over the death of private military contractors--an attitude that I often find is supported by perverse logic and misplaced anger about our own government's dysfunction. The bottom line is that the privatization of US National Security  is a trend that has been ongoing for years. It was a conversation that Congress forgot to have during the heady government-hatin hoe down that passed for a legislature for the past decade. So here we are. The Post reported that there are  some 100,000 contractors in Iraq alone, including 25,000 private security contractors.

This exceeds the number of all coalition forces combined, and is only 40,000 less than the  number of U.S. troops in Iraq.  It is a virtual army of largely unregulated individuals working on behalf of U.S. national interests.  From strategic weapons systems as the B-2 stealth bomber and Global Hawk to running ROTC programs, the military has been colonized by corporations. This is all legitimate business created by our own government--though the billions of dollars disappeared by contractors In Iraq make Abramoff look like Little Bo Peep.

Handing over public tasks to the free market without a thorough discussion about what are essential government responsibilities is the hallmark of the era that just ended.  The new Congress has set out an ambitious agenda of contract oversight.  But a much larger
conversation needs to happen at the same time.  Now is the chance for Democrats to put forward a governing philosophy that will provide a backdrop for all policy decision making: One that believes in the value of a public sector that genuinely serves a common good.

Private military companies--like many other efficiencies introduced into government--are here to stay.  They arose in the 1990's to meet a demand for manpower in peacekeeping type missions. Whenever this type of military capacity need came up during the last decade, entire rooms full of Congressmen would come down with the Cold War vapors.  The subject was soon redirected back to gold plated commie-killin pet projects and peacekeeping was left to hang in the wind. 

Its still happening today.  Even now when all the commies are watching American Idol.

Meanwhile, an entire infrastructure has developed to support private security services. Take a look at these bios .  These are not mercenaries. In my ideal world, they would be public servants, but our government has pared down its personnel by the thousands over the past two decades.  Now the institutional memory for many of today's most important issues...conflict resolution, peace ops, post conflict stabilization--reside in the private sector. It doesn't have to stay this way, however.

The Burden of Proof Posted by David Shorr

Above all cautionary lessons, you'd think the Iraq debacle has demonstrated the folly of resorting to military force without first gaining the upper hand of political legitimacy, establishing the existence of the threat, and clarifying, through serious planning, how armed force will achieve your objectives. You'd think that this searing experience would make clear that prudence in the resort to force is different from willingness to use force.

After Iraq, surely our political discourse is mature enough that people no longer have to prove their national security credentials by pointing toward where they would use force, and thereby falling into the same sloppy strategic reasoning that got us into Iraq in the first place. We have learned that to be hesitant to use force is simply to respect its destructive bluntness as an instrument and wait until the proper moment.

Surely the burden of political proof has shifted toward those with an itchy trigger finger. That IS the popular wisdom of November's anti-Iraq War elctoral mandate, right? From the looks of Jeffrey Goldberg's article in the new New Yorker, apparently not.

The article compares and contrasts the Democratic presidential frontrunners' foreign policy views. Maybe some of the quotes from the candidates are interesting, I don't know. Frankly I'm having trouble seeing past Goldberg's retrograde premise. He is still asking "do they have the stomach," [a paraphrase, not a quote] when he should be asking "do they have the judgment."

Just one example to show how flimsy this is: "Polls also show that a sizable minority of Democrats now feel that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake--thirty five per cent." [That one is a quote.] Is this serious political analysis? Just what does this sizable minority indicate?

Can we please have a serious debate? Please?

Brave New... White House? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So let me get this straight:

the man who doesn't read polls, "stays the course," and just last week pledged the Rumsfeld would be "with him to the end," removed his Defense Secretary before the election tallies are even final? (it seemed clear from the news conference Q and A that the decision was made before the elections... i wonder whether the coordinated military newspaper editorials calling for Rumsfeld's removal were the final nail?)

the man who has hardly had any use for first Bush Administration loyalists replaces Don Rumsfeld with his father's CIA director?

ok, is it just me or is it odd to put in as head of DoD someone who appears not to have served in the military -- which, given his age, would mean he avoided the draft??  UPDATE:  Marc Grinberg says Gates did serve two years giving intel briefings to ICBM crews:  more here.  I still wish he had more recent military experience...

and read the text of Bush's 1pm news conference and tell me if bits of it don't sound directly cribbed from the Bill Clinton playbook?  (And, White House speechwriters, that joke about giving Nancy Pelosi names of decorators for her new drapes:  not funny.  Better do some remedial work on interacting with women professionals.  Fast.)

It really is a new world.

Speaking of Apologies: Neo-Cons and the Army Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Yesterday's over the top White House rumpus over Senator Kerry's flubbed line  about troops in Iraq is truly ridiculous. It was a dorky mistake but in no way merits a new swiftboating of Democrats.  The calls for apology coming from left and right alike are, well, they are just silly.  The idea that any variety of lip service will somehow "support" our troops--after what we've done to them--is laughable.  Kerry is a conservative fist-magnet and conservatives are desperate to change the subject from our real problems the week prior to the election. Problems like the fact that our fine military institution has lowered standards to meet recruitment goals, is now accepting 42 year olds and mediocre high schoolers and that this is causing the decay of the entire institution.  (did I mention the ranks of the Army being infested with white supremists?)  Lots of things to apologize for. Bad jokes not among them. That the media even covered this gaffe is pathetic.

How about a collective apology from civilians for not paying attention-- throughout the 1990's-- to what our military has been doing? Like implementing the majority of our post Cold War foreign policy, from building girls schools, to AIDs prevention to (horrors!) peacekeeping and peacebuilding around the world. How about an apology for not ever devising a truly new grand strategy when the Soviet Union fell apart? Now we have an Army that doesn't have enough down to Earth items like body armour or Farsi speakers but continues to be the organizational home for that space-weenie fantasy missile defense?

Only this year did the military put forward a new counter insurgency doctrine  Only last November, did the DoD come out with a directive  stating that stability support is as important as combat in today's missions.

BTW, an article that ran last week about the Army budget deserves major attention. Seems it has been muffled because of its lousy timing.(meaning elections) In short, Republican appointee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has given a figure for the Army budget that is $17.8 billion dollars short of the amount Army leaders say is required to execute its part of the current military strategy. Read the whole article here. . Progressives, check out the new organizations out there that are breaking down the notion of "strong" on defense. Look who gets the F grade  when defense issues focus on human resources.  And jump on this NOW.  The neo-cons are onto it. In his convenient revision of recent history, Joshua Muravchik  at AEI makes one important coherent point about the importance of human resources in the military. That we've focussed on technology at the expense of human beings.

A lame joke is so nothing compared to this strategic blindness. The Iraq war is a mess, yes. Afghanistan's woes a missed opportunity...but our current leadership has put our very military institution in peril.  Who is going to apologize for this?

Moment of Truth: Missile Defense or Stopping Genocide Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Every once in awhile, those of us who follow defense issues here in Washington will catch a dreamy glimpse of pre-9/11 days in wonkdom. Back then, optimistic progressive types, though bummed by the election results, were beginning to find some hopeful ways to co-exist with the Bush Administration. One of those Hobbits-in-the-Shire flashes came to me last week when I saw that the House Democrats backed up with an official request a statement that Secretary Rumsfeld made while visiting the missile defense interceptor site in Alaska in August. He asked for an "end to end" test of missile defense. That means a comprehensive and realistic test of a limited system. 100 billion dollars into this system, the tests thus far don't approximate any realistic scenario. (you wouldn't know how much skepticism is deserved by reading, um, just about any major newspaper after a "successful test") In contrast, you would think that true shock and awe might result for the decades of accumulated failures of the single most expensive weapons program in our budget.

Back in 2000, I felt conflicted by our new Sec Def. I did not view him as a neo-con, but, rather, as a corporate conservative who would knock some heads together in the defense establishment and finally purge the most egregious Cold War leftovers. As a bona fide conservative, Rumsfeld could pry some of those gold-plated barnacles off of our defense budget and persuade the defense industry and Congress to get on with post Cold War priorities. Sadly, 9/11 derailed those possibilities.

Which is why the House Democrats throwing down the glove about realistic testing is important. As we move past the half trillion mark in defense spending, perhaps their request will begin the vital discussion about tradeoffs within the defense budget. Maybe now we can move past that old political trap of "guns versus butter" and get on with the "guns versus guns" debate. In budget item terms, this is the fight over military resources dedicated to technology versus human beings. Maybe, with counter insurgency's comeback and the recognition that all the techno gadgets in the world can't find a political solution for Iraq--the human resources issues within the military will get a boost.

This reality does not make the defense industry happy, however.

No Marines to Send Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Almost a year ago, I attended a conference at which several senior retired Marines said that we would soon see evident in the Marine Corps the same kind of stress and strain that has been much-talked about in the regular Army.

In fact, the talk about "straining the Army to the breaking point" died down for a while this spring, when troop levels were quietly declining.  Now, of course, that trend has stopped.  And guess what?

The Marine Corps announced today that it is short 1200 active-duty forces over the next twelve months and will begin its own involuntary recalls.  The specific problem seems to be that Marines who have served their active duty commitment, and were formerly quite reliable about volunteering when needed, have become steadily less reliable over the last two years.  It's worth emphasizing that this affects only Marines who volunteered to serve four years of non-active duty in an Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) instead of the regular Reserves.

The head of the Marines' manpower mobilization planning said that President Bush has authorized this "until the GWOT is over with."  Just in case you were wondering.

Security Assistance and Reconstruction: Who Is Going to be in Charge? Posted by Gordon Adams

The U.S. response to the attacks of 9-11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taxed the military and the U.S. foreign policy community in a variety of new ways. In many respects, the existing institutions of government were ill-prepared for these challenges, which has meant a constant process of ad hoc invention throughout the executive branch. If the U.S. is going to continue to do the post-conflict job, after Iraq and Afghanistan, it is going to be increasingly important to figure out who is responsible for it. The answer is not clear today, and the Congress, in its new defense legislation, is hedging its bets.

Undermining the Budget: The Supplemental Problem Posted by Gordon Adams

As military and diplomatic crises multiply overseas, the Congress has continued its merry way providing funding for the Administration’s national security policy. Given the policy chaos, it is not surprising that there would be budgetary chaos, as well, in the way Congress is supporting national security.

This week, the Senate will consider its version of the defense appropriations bill, which includes more than $453 b. for the Defense Department (defense funds are actually higher – nearly $550 b. - since this bill does not include military pay, quality of life and construction funds). Of that amount, $50 b. is included for what is called a “bridge fund.” for Afghanistan, and global military operations against terrorists.

This $50 b. has the status of “emergency funding,” meaning it does not count against the Congress’ self-imposed ceiling for discretionary spending. This $50 b. is the tip of the iceberg for funding, Afghanistan and the so-called Global War on Terror. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), through the current fiscal year ending in September, the nation will have spent another $437 b. on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the struggle with terrorism, nearly three quarters of it for operations in Iraq alone, and over 90% of it for the military.

All of this spending has been provided as “emergency” or “emergency supplemental” funding. And it is likely to continue. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the nation is likely to spend another $371 b. on these operations between now and 2016, even with the deployed forces shrinking.

Defense Industry and Congress: No Shame in Sight Posted by Lorelei Kelly

You would think that a $330 billion tab for two ongoing wars would create a bit of caution and conservation among those who profit from America's unparalleled military might.  Not so. This week the Senate defeated an amendment that would have required tough oversight standards for military contractors. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but you have to wonder. The defeat of increased oversight likely made Halliburton happy (a company that gives 95% of its campaign contributions to Republicans). 

Just who is benefiting from this outsourcing of our government? Certainly not taxpayers. The House Government Reform Committee's minority staff has reported an 86% increase in contracts with private businesses, from $203 billion in 2000 to $377.5 billion a year in 2005 - a growth rate nearly double that of federal spending as a whole.

But the abuse of national security dollars is a special category of shame. And the facts, no matter how they add up, don't seem to make a dent in the problem. Today the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that basically says the Air Force's prized F-22 should be shelved  (this is a fighter plane designed for the Cold War that has caused egregious cost-overruns).   This news comes in the wake of the news that the Air Force is also planning to cut 40,000 people from its ranks in order to pay for weapons platforms (including the F-22).

When will our military leaders and our Congress fully understand that--in today's post 9/11 world--human beings ARE our best defense platform?  There's a reason that Special Forces are the poster child of the military. They can shoot, speak foreign languages and set up a criminal justice system. No spangley widget nor contractor can do this as well. Our defense needs to be in the hands of such dedicated, well-trained public servants.

The Use of Force Panel Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This should be where the rubber meets the road.  Richard Holbrooke, Joschka Fischer, Michele Flournoy and Larry Korb are on the podium, a panel chaired by John Ruggie.  So far we've had a case for "strategic redeployment" out of Iraq from Larry Korb, and a critique of the Bush Admin's definition of preemptive war by Michele Flournoy. 

Ruggie asks Holbrooke what the next President ought to do on Iraq, assuming he's handed the problem as Bush seems to intend:   

Holbrooke highlights Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a collective morass in which our position is deteriorating in every individual country.  Says we unaccountably outsourced our Iran policy for five years to other countries, rather than talking directly.  Last week's half-measure deserves very light applause.  Afghanistan is a deteriorating disaster - the Administration says he's too pessimistic but based on his trips there there's no basis for optimism.

He and our own Mort Halperin now agree that Iraq is worse than Vietnam both in its consequences and the policy challenge posed by the need to extricate.  Neither thought they would ever say that about any foreign policy quandary.  It's astonishing that with 1000 days left Bush is already saying he plans to hand this to his successor - its a guaranteed 2000+ more casualties.  Plus our international standing will only continue to wane.

Administration's dilemma is whether to draw down troops for political reasons or increase troops for strategic reasons.  Says Haditha reflects a climate of permissiveness throughout the power structure - the marines there don't know the name Alberto Gonzalez but got the message.  He deeply regrets giving the Admin qualified support on Iraq.  The most prescient statement on Iraq was Al Gore's speech in 2002 at the Commonwealth Club in San Fran.  Well worth a re-read.

If Bush buck-passes as is his stated intent, it now looks like the 2008 election may be a referendum on Iraq.  In office, a new president will have to end the war to have a hope of reelection in 2012.

So what to do??  Many good ideas have been put forward.  Korb's Strategic Redeployment.  Gelb and Biden's Partition Plan.  Talk of a regional forum or internationalizing the conflict are just rhetoric.  We need to talk about things we can do, not what we dream others could or should do.  (He didn't say this, but this is the import and I agree).

We need to get rid of Rumsfeld, as when McNamara was replaced by Clark Clifford to start to turn the tide.

Fischer's up.  America is indispensible.  He says it not because he wants it to be so, but having witnessed it.  If we give up our traditional role in the world, it will be a disaster.  We all but invented international law, international organizations.  He cannot imagine a peaceful world without these instruments - - this is the most rousing defense of American exceptionalism to be sounded this morning.  But its being made by a foreigner.

Asking permission to momentarily defend the neocons, he does think we need to work to modernize the Middle East and tackle the structures that stand in the way of that.  That said, the place to start was not Iraq (Palestine would be my guess).

So, What About Civilian Control? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

It’s gotten awfully trendy to toss around concerns over civilian control of the military.  But do we really have a problem, and if so, what is it?

This week, conservative Republicans think that naming an active-duty military officer to head the CIA puts dangerous pressure on civilian control of intelligence affairs.

Last month, when half-a-dozen retired generals called for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation, a line of worry ran from the White House talking points to the Washington Post editorial board and even some progressives:  the generals were, in the words of the Post, assaulting "the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control…. If [the generals] are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent."

And, lest we forget, for much of the 1990s we heard from the right how the incompetent Clinton Administration was unable to master the military.

Now, I’m in a strange position here.  I do think we have a problem with the balance of power in our civil-military relationship.  But our friends on the right are wringing their hands about symptoms, not root causes.  Retired generals trashing Don Rumsfeld, or Les Aspin for that matter, is hardly the heart of the matter.  Neither is appointing active-duty military officers to senior positions in intelligence, the war on drugs, etc. etc.

Last month the problem was (retired) military officials questioning the judgement and qualifications of the civilian Secretary of Defense.  This, said Charles Krauthammer, might lead to factions within the active-duty military:

That happens in places such as Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.

Lest you think I am picking an extreme target here, Slate’s Fred Kaplan agreed that the long-term threat is factionalism within the force.

And when you stop to look at the analyses, folks have quite different definitions of what the problem is.

This week the problem seems to be expanding military control of our intelligence apparatus:

Dennis Hastert said “I don’t think a military guy should be head of the CIA, frankly.”

Senator Susan Collins saw the problem as DoD moving to take control of the intelligence apparatus by “seeking to fill any vacuum or create one if necessary.” 

Until I Figure Out whether the Iranian President is Crazy... Posted by Shadi Hamid

I'm still trying to figure out whether Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational. In the meantime, here is my latest article on the "origins" of the nuclear confrontation with Iran, beginning with the 1953 coup (can you say "blowback" ?).

National Security Vision: Right, Left, or Dare to Be Different? Posted by Gordon Adams

Once again the Democrats have tried to outflank the Republicans on the right on national security. And, once more, the Republicans, and the Administration have out-maneuvered them. The Dubai Ports World management deal will go into overtime, with a 45-day CFIUS review, as it should have had in the first place.

The lesson should be clear. The issue with the administration’s national security policies is not one of who can be tougher. Al Gore tried that; so did John Kerry. No sale! The Republicans will always win the fight, positioned that way.

Many Democrats have been posing the wrong issue, and not with a lot of credibility. If they try to look tougher than the Republicans, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. If they move to the left, they are vulnerable to being soft on American national security.

Exploiting Terrorist Dysfunction Posted by Lorelei Kelly

West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center has produced report that dissects Al Qa'ida through a group dynamics model straight out of a business school organizational behavior class.  They put forward the idea that members have different goals and objectives, and preferred strategies for achieving these ends.  The authors then ask the question, how might we exploit the weak links in these human relationships?

While capture-kill options may be most effective for certain individuals—e.g., operational commanders—we identify a number of non-lethal prescriptions that take into account differences in al-Qa’ida members’ preferences and commitment to the cause.

The US invested time and money in social science research until about the end of the Vietnam War, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided they would never fight an irregular war again.  Simple linear theories like nuclear deterrence and containment prevailed for the next few decades. But, looking around today,  technology is not the key to victory in the war against terrorism...(nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan)  so social science research is again gaining ground.  The report is fairly academic (and I'm only half way through it) but it provides yet more human-level analysis for today's greatest challenge--that of preventing and disrupting catastrophic criminal networks.

The terrorists’ challenge is simple to describe. For security reasons, political and ideological leaders, the principals, have to delegate certain duties—planning attacks, soliciting funds, recruiting, and the like—to middlemen or low-level operatives, their agents. Such delegation poses no problem if all the agents are perfectly committed to the cause and agree with leaders on how best to serve the cause. Under those conditions, the preferences of the principals and their agents will be perfectly aligned, and the agents will act exactly as the principals would like.

      However, preferences aren’t always aligned.  Read more here.

National Security: Rove's Achille's Heel Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Two weeks ago, Karl Rove addressed the conservative faithful here in Washington with a typical display of magic.  In front of  an audience with severe political indigestion, (caused by a diet rich in lobbyists minus principles) Rove previewed his 2006 electoral strategy.  The rabbit he pulled out of the hat was the Energizer Bunny-- wound up and clanking "liberals are weak on defense, soft on security, and won't keep you safe"  Specifically he said:

At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview - and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.

Then this week Rove's employer rolled out a defense strategy and a federal budget that hearkens back to approximately  1985.  But definately pre-9/11.  Why?  Because the Bush Administration--with its profoundly wrong worldview-- refuses to lay out a strong and effective defense strategy for post-9/11 threats.  One primary lesson from both Iraq and Afghanistan is that the way to keep our military strong is to share the responsibilities for national security across the government--made obvious by the gaps in our post-war reconstruction efforts.  Defense is just one part of a national security strategy, but the vast majority of security dollars go to the defense budget (over half a trillion dollars for 2007).  Re-balancing spending across the government is the work of decades, but today we're draining the coffers of defense to purchase billions of dollars worth of weapons designed to thwart the Soviet Union. This must stop.  These "pre 9/11" priorities are being foisted on us when our National Guard troops need basic items like trucks, ammo and language training.

Ever since Katrina, our Commander in Chief has lost credibility on the issue that he ran on: national security.  Many Americans have a nagging, uncomfortable feeling that these guys really don't know what they are talking about. Its time for liberals to hit back hard.  This will require renewed interest, updated language and a national security lead on every issue that comes into public conversation.  We must not let Rove be right.   First step: let go of the "guns versus butter" debate pronto.  What we need now is a guns versus guns debate.

The New National Security Budget: Are We Getting the Tools Right? Posted by Gordon Adams

With the arrival today of the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 budget, we now know what the administration wants to spend on national security next year: at least $578.2 b. 

- The Defense Department would get 84.6% of the total - $439.3 b. (seven percent higher than the $410.7 b. it received from the Congress for FY 2006), plus a $50 b. down payment for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the “war on terror” next year (DOD is also seeking a supplemental budget of another $70 for this year’s costs of that war, on top of the additional $50 b. it already got from Congress.)

- Homeland Security funding (including the Department of Homeland Security) would be 9.3% of the total, growing to $53.8 b., $3.4 b. or six percent over the FY 2006 level. 

- International affairs (including the State Department and AID) would be 6.1% of the total rise to $35.1 b., an increase of $3.5 b. or over 11 percent from what Congress provided for FY 2006. 

These numbers suggest that, as in years past, America’s tools of statecraft are not in balance. Once again, the tool “on steroids” is the Department of Defense, while international affairs is more on “life support.” This is why, over the years, the military services have been asked to carry such a large share of dealing with the new national security challenges – it seems like the best organized and best funded department to do the job. Moreover, the new Quadrennial Defense Review makes it clear that, as far as the Defense Department is concerned, its commitment to what the Pentagon calls the “long war” will continue well into the future, and will be reflected in future defense budgets.

Bulk the Army or Review the Policy: The Defense Dilemma Posted by Gordon Adams

The Quadrennial Defense Review appears today, the fourth since the Bottom Up Review of 1993. Newspaper columns are going to be filled with discussions of “irregular” conflicts and “catastrophic” threats, and the “long war” Secretary Rumsfeld announced this week at the National Press Club. The underlying debate, though, is going to focus on the Army – is it overstretched and near the breaking point, or is it a “Goldilocks” force – just right for what it is being asked to do. The answer to this question, however, is not “how much should we add to the Army,” but what is the Army for.

From the narrow point of view, there is no doubt the Army is overstretched. Maintaining 160,000 troops in Iraq, plus another roughly 30,000 at sea or in neighboring Kuwait, preparing a next wave of forces to go there, and resetting the forces that came home not only costs a lot (see that $70 b. Iraq supplemental coming this month) but goes well beyond the algorithm the Army likes to use for deploying its forces. Minimally, the Army likes three units for every rotation: one in the field, one getting ready to go, and one coming back to rest, retrain and reequip. In Iraq, it is more like one coming back and one going out, period. Can’t do that without calling up the reserves, so we have done that, with more than 600,000 men and women now on active duty in the Army.

The QDR:Dreaming of the USSR Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Big sigh...it looks like any forward thinking hopes for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) are unwarranted.  This is the every-four-years defense document that supposedly re-orients the US military to think creatively in the face of new threats.  From early press reports, it appears the inspiration for this document is circa 1985--when we just counted the Soviet's toys and then made more for ourselves. The USSR remains-- like a phantom limb that we chase until we collapse-- in the QDR.  All the Cold War platforms were spared--and will supposedly be paid for by cutting personnel.  This, despite the manpower crunch in the military and the need for human intelligence, civil affairs, policy, public health, foreign force training and languages.

I would carp on about the defense industry (who are unaccountable slackers these days in contrast to their role in developing strategy post WWII) but most of the blame for these priorities still lays squarely with Congress. The members, after all, control ALL the money. And when they aren't busy protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas--they talk a good deal  about China in order to justify the hardware heavy defense priorities that provide the whistle stop for the gravy train in their districts.  Yet the US spends as much on its research and development every year as China does on its entire defense budget. Tom Barnett writing in Esquire nicely demolishes the "China is coming" hype.  Yet --as he points out--there sure are lots of Members of the Armed Services Committee on the new congressional "China Caucus"  hmmmmmm....

"Why the Strong Lose" is a current Parameters article by Army author Jeff Record.  His premise in the article is that all major failed US uses of force since 1945—in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia—have been against materially weaker enemies and also that "the US military’s historical aversion to counterinsurgency is a function of 60 years of preoccupation with high-technology conventional warfare against other states and accelerated substitution of machines for combat manpower, most notably aerial standoff precision firepower for large ground forces. "  Here's the long version for a good overview.

The QDR looks like it will fly in the face of other positive developments--like the recent White House  directive that gives the State Department lead-agency responsibility in post conflict peace building (what they call "transformational" diplomacy)  This directive dovetails nicely with the Defense Department's new directive on Stability Operations--which makes post conflict skills a core military mission.  But none of these ideas will get any traction if Congress does not start leading the charge.

Speaking of defense manpower, here are two hopeful items from West Point: a new project called "Beyond War" and news that the West Point Model United Nations team has finished its most successful year in team history--taking first place at every conference in 2005.

Like Clausewitz said, it's people, stupid.

The Iraq Document we Should be Reading Posted by Lorelei Kelly

What did I think of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq --the NCVI?  As a war plan, what's not to like? Only problem is that this document should have been ready in October 2002, after the US Congress voted for the war.  In fact, the content reminds me of a strategy paper written by Army academics in January 2003 called Reconstructing Iraq:Challenges and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario.

This strategy paper had over 100 necessary tasks listed for US post-war planning.  I remember attending a January 03 briefing with the somber authors as they laid out the tremendous chore we were hurtling toward.   They went unheeded like many of the reality-brakes on the war policy.  If our civilian leadership had listened to the military back then, we wouldn't have fought this war.  But nobody likes a crank wearing a uniform. It messes up the photo op.  Here's a good post on the NCVI

Can't resist a little snark: I rolled my eyes when I read the details of the political strategy in the NSVI document. It includes:  nurture a culture of reconciliation, Human Rights and transparency, cooperation across religious divides, focus on issues and platforms instead of identity.  The manly Karl Rove must have been holding a live chain-saw and eating raw hamburger as he proofed it.   I must remember to take a scrolled copy of these political instructions and hammer them on the door of the Republican National Committee next time I'm on the Hill--advice just in time for the 06 elections.

In the shadow of the attention hogging National Strategy, a really important Defense Department document was released yesterday--one that represents a silver lining for our time spent in Iraq.  The Stability Operations Directive  that has been on the verge of being signed for weeks is now done.  I need to read it closely, but here are my first impressions: 

Privatizing ROTC? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The privatization of many functions of the military has occurred without much discussion over the past 15 years--bouyed along, in part by the free-market fundamentalism peddled by so much of the idea industry here in DC.   This issue is ripe for Democrats and progressives as a cornerstone in a regenerated "philosophy of government" argument about what are essential public service roles that only government can perform (FEMA might be another one...) 

A good article on the subject can be found here, but you can read the abstract below.  Along the same theme, make sure to read this LA Times piece called The Journey that Ended in Anguish  about the suicide of a military ethicist in Iraq.

The Privatization of Military Affairs: A Look into the Private Military
Industry

By Kyle M. Ballard, Occidental College

In the push to revolutionize military affairs, governments are turning to private companies to conduct many tasks that were once undertaken by the military alone. Anything from  feeding troops to fighting on the front line can now be outsourced to highly advanced, corporate-structured  private military firms (PMFs). In the United States, for example, PMFs now "provide logistics of every major  US military deployment, maintain such strategic weapons systems as the B-2 stealth bomber and Global  Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle, and [are] taking over the ROTC programs in over 200 American  universities."1

Military Peace and Stability Sites Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Here is  a list of websites on the Conference CD of the Peace and Stability Education Workshop, Army War College, September 05.  If you cruise through them, you'll find many, many more great links.  There is also a list of referenced research institution sites on the CD that I will put up later.

Center for Army Lessons Learned Thesaurus

NGO Global Network (groups that work with the United Nations)

Humanitarian Information Unit at the State Department

Joint Doctrine and Concepts Center (United Kingdom)

US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute

Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned

Marine Corps Security Cooperation Education and Training Center

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN

Correspondence Instructions in Peacekeeping Operations

Hawks, Doves and Stoolpigeons Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Today I attended two events--both about security--which left me with two very different impressions about how to effectively put forward a progressive American vision of a secure future.  In the morning was a panel of Democratic leaders  discussing how to be "strong on defense"  To the credit of the organizers, the panel was representative of a range of  views on security, from progressive to centrist/DLC.  The afternoon gathering was on Capitol Hill, a briefing about potential crises in our oil-depleted future with a Swedish physicist named Dr. Aleklett from the University of Uppsala.

I left the morning event a little bit depressed--the last thing I heard was how the Democrats can only be seen as strong on defense if they protect themselves from the "activists".   Interestingly, the afternoon gathering included everyone from Greenpeace types to military.  Although the data was startling (Ex: The ratio of oil use to world population USA: 25% to 5%  China: 8% to 21% see more here.)   It was also exhilarating to hear the problem-solving views put forward by both the speaker and the audience.  It was matter of fact i.e. "we're going to run out of oil, what shall we do about this? We need everyone's creativity to get out of this bind."   The contrast between these two gatherings put into stark relief the  paucity of  "strong versus weak" argumentation when it comes to security.  Indeed,  seeing security as Hawks versus  Doves has turned much of our elected leadership into a flock of stool pigeons--the rhetoric is a decoy, a distraction for not facing the risks of real change.  And now Americans are getting killed because of it.  We have plenty of good ideas, but our leaders have not implemented our imagination.  The "activists" just may have been right all along.  Let's hope the new Contract for National Security mentioned by Heather and Suzanne  helps the Democrats bust through this deadweight rhetoric.

It can't come too soon. Let's look at the ongoing action on the Defense Appropriations bill. Despite one significant victory  (the committee cut $4.5 million that the Administration had requested  for the nuclear bunker buster weapon).  Full funding for missile defense was approved.   The measure also includes $50  billion as a fiscal year 2006 down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are now costing about $5.6 billion a month.  See a full analysis here.   

One document that gives us language to move past the old frameworks is The Korb Report: A Realistic Defense for America.  This is a great piece of work by Larry Korb and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities --founded by that  "activist" CEO Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's)  Korb lays out a plan to trim $60 billion from President Bush's 2006 Pentagon budget.  But in so doing, he gives us language to stay out of the hawks versus doves trap.  He makes trade-offs simple. For example, instead of just dismissing missile defense, distinguish the star wars fantasy up in Alaska (national missile defense) from the Patriot program (theater missile defense) which protects the troops in the field.  Another example, instead of griping about all those fancy fighter jets, offer instead an upgrade of the F-16 and continuation of the Joint Strike Fighter but get rid of the F-22.  In other words, give the "activists" something to say "yes" to. 

Here are some of the promised links from the Army conference reader I was given last month:

Mission Creep is Back Posted by Derek Chollet

The debate about what to do next in Iraq – and how long we should stay – presumes that we have the luxury of the full range of choices.  We don’t.  Our military is reaching its limit in Iraq, and few planners think that we can sustain the tempo of our presence there much longer.  In fact, I’ve heard from reliable sources that Army plans for next year call for pulling at least 4 brigades out of Iraq – 15,000 troops – regardless of what happens with the political process or the training of the Iraqi forces.  Not a full pullout, to be sure, but I think a sign of things to come.

Added to this is the growing role the military is assuming in many areas – from post-conflict reconstruction, to diplomacy, to domestic disaster relief.  Today’s New York Times has a story about an Army idea to create a specially-trained disaster relief force.

Writing in this week’s Defense News, my colleague Julianne Smith and I have some thoughts about this.   Here's what we say:

Our bottom line is that mission creep is back. In the wakes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Bush suggested that the military take on a bigger role in responding to natural disasters. Then his administration decided the Pentagon should assume responsibility from the State Department for providing assistance to Iraq’s Defense and Interior ministries.

Given the U.S. military’s unique competencies, particularly in managing large-scale and complex operations during a crisis, these changes might make sense in the short term. But Washington’s increasing reliance on the Pentagon is setting a dangerous trend, one that is already straining the force and undermining military preparedness for its core mission — to fight and win wars.

The trend is not new. Starting in the 1990s, the military slowly started to outrank its civilian chain of command in influence, authority and resources in many parts of the world. As the State Department struggled to meet the demands of an increasingly ambitious foreign policy agenda, and labored under severe budget constraints, U.S. combatant commanders — four-star generals in charge of military forces deployed around the globe —- stepped in and became a kind of regional ambassador on steroids.

With large budgets, their own planes and enough cache to secure an appointment with anyone and everyone they pleased, these military proconsuls transformed American diplomacy. U.S. ambassadors and their embassies often became sidelined in the process and the Defense Department found itself taking on a growing list of diplomatic tasks. Today, these combatant commands, in addition to their core military missions, find themselves spending an enormous amount of time shaping U.S. foreign policy with very little coordination with other parts of the U.S. government, and even less congressional oversight.

The Pentagon has also been given the de facto lead in undertaking and managing the full range of tasks associated with stability operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Operations in Bosnia and Kosovo exposed the inability of other U.S. government agencies to mobilize sufficient personnel and resources for postconflict reconstruction. The Pentagon filled this void.

Yet, despite tireless efforts to learn from each mission, the U.S. military has little or no comparative advantage in many of the tasks associated with such operations, particularly those that fall outside of the security sector. With the exception of civil affairs units, the U.S. military is not adequately trained or equipped to build civil administrations, act as mayors of villages, establish a national financial system, rebuild health and sanitation infrastructure, instigate judicial reform, or hold elections.

Now, it looks like the Pentagon could soon supplement its military, reconstruction and diplomatic portfolios with domestic disaster relief responsibilities. The U.S. military’s enormous capacity to mobilize and turn on a dime is invaluable in the face of a natural disaster. But giving the military additional responsibilities at a time when it is already pushed to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than just unfair to the men and women who serve and the civilians who work in other government agencies. It could lead to the worst of both worlds: a military that is both ill-prepared and overstretched.

Republicans and Democrats alike must find a way to break their habit of turning to the military every time another agency fails to prove up to the task. Instead of piling onto the Pentagon’s never-ending list of responsibilities, the Bush administration and Congress must decide to resource and empower places like the State Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Treasury, Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security.

Those agencies need to develop the confidence to serve as the lead agency in their areas of comparative advantage, and confidence can only come with capacity. The State Department, for example, needs the authority and resources to build its own civilian operational capacity. And FEMA needs to return to the status it had in the 1990s, when it was a Cabinet-level institution fully empowered and funded to take charge when disaster strikes.

America’s military is one of this county’s most important institutions, and its men and women show every day why they are the greatest fighting force in the world. We want the military to be flexible, and we want it to be able to adapt and take on different kinds of missions.

But adding more responsibilities to an already overburdened force is not in the military’s interest, nor is it in the American people’s. Given all the challenges we face at home and abroad, we need the rest of the government to work too.

Talk of the Blogs: Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Posted by The Editors

By now you've probably heard of Captain Ian Fishback.  A member of the famed 82nd Airborne, he alleges that members of his battalion routinely beat and abused prisoners in 2003 and 2004.  Along with two other soldiers, Fishback recounted his story to Human Rights Watch after spending 17 months trying to use the proper channels, but it's his poignant letter to Senator John McCain which has the blogosphere talking:

We are America.  Our actions should be held to a higher standard.  I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is 'America.'
(Balkinization has the full text of the letter.)

Laura Rozen highlights portions of the HRW report.

Finally, Andrew Sullivan has really picked up on Fishback's story (here and here).

Using our Military at Home: We're all Nails Now Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Laura Rozen over at WarandPiece.com points to