Defense Budget Corrective Posted by Patrick Barry

There have been some excellent responses (here and here) to dishonest conservative attacks on Gates' defense budget, but Kudos to Brian Beutler for tackling the biggest fallacy of them all - that Gates and the Obama administration are cutting defense overall defense spending:

The soft-on-defense spending cuts meme is spreading today, both in the media and among Congressional Republicans--and now even a Blue Dog Democrat is picking it up.

Politico, again, reports that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates is steeling himself against blowback from Congress over his sweeping defense cuts, but he's also girding for a fight within the Pentagon's five walls."

But while there is some evidence that there is early opposition within the Pentagon to some specific cuts, Gates has, once again, proposed a budget whose bottom line is higher than last year's.

Geopolitical Impacts of the Global Financial Crisis Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I had the opportunity, earlier this week, to sit in on a fascinating discussion on the geopolitical impacts of the global financial crisis with a bunch of economists and national security experts.  The implications are generally unknowable and brutally complex, but here are some observations I took out of the discussion.

There are a lot of countries whose economies could potentially collapse, throwing their political systems into total chaos (We're getting a little preview right now with Moldova).  In my view the three most frightening from a U.S. national security perspective are Pakistan, Mexico and Ukraine.  Pakistan is an obvious member on the short list with its nuclear weapons, political instability, active insurgency and the fact that it also got a pretty significant IMF infusion just a few months ago.  Mexico is simply frightening because of its proximity to the United States and the increased violence it is facing from the drug cartels.  Ukraine could also be highly problematic. If it finds itself on the cusp, the Russians may have an opportunity to swoop in and bailout the Ukrainian economy and in exchange essentially move it back into the Russian sphere of influence.  The Russians aren't exactly in great financial shape themselves, but an opportunity to essentially buy Ukraine for cheap may be the geopolitical bargain of a lifetime and too tempting for them to resist.  The resulting crisis between Russia and the West could get pretty ugly. 

Of course, there are other potential dangers.  If the Europeans were to let one of the Eastern European economies fail that could cause contagion throughout Europe.  But this scenario seems less likely, which is why I wouldn't put at the top of the list.  One of the commodity producers may go under, with oil dropping so much so fast.  South Africa and Argentina are two other important countries that are in some trouble right now.  Or for all we know, it could be something that we don't even see coming.  But for my money it's hard to argue with putting Pakistan, Mexico and Ukraine at the top of the list.

Another disturbing trend is that as bad as things are at the center, the periphery is being brutalized.  The last ten years have seen unprecedented growth in international aid and you may now see those funds dry up.  Poor countries, such as Mozambique, who have been doing pretty well but are completely dependent on international support may have the rug pulled out from under them.  The result could be increased misery for the poorest segments of the world population, which of course would likely be coupled with greater instability.

Finally, there is the question of great power relations.  On the one hand, the United States is actually much better off than many of the other countries in the world that have been impacted by the crisis, most notably the Europeans.  On the other, American credibility has been horribly damaged by the crisis, which in view of the rest of the world as our fault.  China seems to be in a pretty powerful position, but nobody knows for sure how badly its economy has suffered and it is stuck with a trillion dollars in U.S. treasury bills.  It is making noises about diversification and creating some alternative international currency, but it is still putting all its money into U.S. treasury bonds because it doesn't see any other safe options.  So, it still has great leverage over the U.S. but since it has no reasonable alternative investment options, the U.S also has great leverage over China.  On this question in particular it is way too early to tell.

NSN Daily Update 4/8/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomes talks with the U.S.  Iran reports massive new discoveries of oil reserves.

Vice President Joe Biden will shepherd the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty through the Senate.

Protests continue in Moldova.  Over 10,000 young Moldovans reportedly stormed the capitol, using Facebook and Twitter to organize.  Internet was soon cut off and riot police took back control of the President’s offices.  The government blames neighboring Romania for inciting the protests.

The Wall Street Journal reports that cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electricity grid.

Commentary of the Day

J. Peter Scoblic says that President Obama’s nonproliferation goals make him “sleep better at night.”

Reza Aslan discusses the importance of dropping the rhetoric of the “war on terror.”

Martin Wolf looks at what leaders must continue to discuss and work on after the G-20.

NSN Daily Update 4/7/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

In Turkey, President Obama held a student town hall, calling for increased U.S. engagement and pushing for progress in the Middle East peace process.

A new Red Cross report calls CIA treatment of detainees “inhuman.”

Cuban President Raul Castro met with seven U.S. lawmakers, his first face-to-face discussions with U.S. leaders since he took office.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger in the Iranian presidential elections, described President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an extremist and called for increased freedoms.

Commentary of the Day

David Ignatius describes meetings between Afghan leaders, Richard Holbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen.

Turkish journalist Asli Aydintasbas describes how the U.S. characterizes Turkey’s domestic political position and position in the world.

Iranian Nassrine Azimi examines the differences between Turkey and Iran.

Ira Stoll looks at anti-Semitism and its role in reactions to the financial crisis.

The Trouble with Counter-Insurgency Redux Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at the excellent Abu Muqawama blog, my new friend Andrew Exum has responded to my post of a few days ago about the trouble with counter-insurgency. He says that my argument "ends up ignoring the great many of us who never want to fight another counter-insurgency campaign again but still think it's a damn good idea to have the doctrine and best practices handy."

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this argument and I think it minimizes the deleterious impact that a focus on COIN could have, not just for the US military, but for US foreign policy, writ large.

Look, if COIN-dinastas don't want to fight counter-insurgencies and there is growing evidence that both in the US and overseas this sort of military doctrine is simply not politically viable, why then were COIN advocates pushing for a rather fulsome and ambitious counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan? This wasn't a case of having "best practices handy" it was a case of advocating for what Exum calls a doctrine and making it the strategic foundation for our continued involvement in Afghanistan. Andrew says that my problem is with policy not military doctrine; and to some extent he is correct - I want our civilian leadership to fundamentally reassess the threats we are facing and think about how our military should be repositioned in order to most effectively confront these challenges. But as I'm sure Andrew knows, if you're not careful military doctrine can quickly evolve into a national security policy.

Quite wisely, President Obama rejected a full-throttled counter-insurgency policy in his Afghanistan review, but you have still advocates like Michele Flournoy at DoD arguing that the President's plan is "very much a counterinsurgency approach" so I hardly think this debate is over. I worry if in 18-24 months when we are reassessing our Afghanistan policy that the COIN-dinastas will try again to convince the President that we need to use our military to turn Afghanistan into something close to a stable and democratic state. Quite simply, those of us who think that COIN is a bad idea should not be sitting back and trusting that COIN-dinastas really don't want to fight counter-insurgencies and so thus it ain't going to happen.

And when you have folks like John Nagl (King of the COIN-dinastas) arguing that the security challenges of the 21st century require that our military be able to “not just to dominate land operations, but to change entire societies" well that suggests an entire transformation in how our military is trained and the doctrine that underpins future operations. It seems worth noting as well that Nagl and many other COIN advocates believe we are fighting a Long War with extremists. I don't.  And I definitely think the best means of confronting this security challenge is not our regular Army, but instead a confluence of law enforcement, diplomacy, long-term development, foreign assistance and low-intensity military operations. Where I get most concerned is the belief by COIN fans that the military should be at the end of the spear.

This may be where the greatest danger lies in embedding counter-insurgency doctrine in military planning - the militarization of American foreign policy. Take for example, over at World Politics Review, Judah Grunstein's push back on my critique of COIN:

One of the COIN-inspired transformations of the army is to expand its skill set to include aid and development functions that were previously squarely in the civilian sector. The logic being the sooner reconstruction can begin, the more quickly hearts and minds, as well as territory, can be secured. In the event of conflict, this capacity, which only the Army can play, will be absolutely necessary.

This is the logical outgrowth of the COIN argument and it's one that I find deeply troubling. It is simply incorrect to say that only the Army can perform post-conflict reconstruction and I'm utterly unconvinced that its proper for the US military to be expanding its skill set to include aid and development functions. Isn't this why we have a civilian agency dedicated to aid and development?

Now as some of my friends at the Pentagon often remind me AID and State, as currently formulated, are not as well positioned as they should be to play these roles. But the solution is not to outsource this stuff to the military, it's to build up capacity at civilian agencies so they are better able to play their assigned roles! One of the reasons the military has taken on responsibilities that used to be restricted to civilian agencies is that they were given the responsibility at the outset of the Iraq War - and under the Bush Administration the capacity of our civilian agencies was allowed to diminish.

In the end, this is perhaps the greatest problem I have with counter-insurgency doctrine, and the most intractable divide between myself and COIN-danistas: embedding COIN in military doctrine is not a benign exercise. It risks shifting power dramatically and perhaps irreversibly toward the military and away from civilian agencies - and it provides a rationale for ever-expanding military budgets. Considering that the greatest security challenges facing the US in the future will come from non-state actors and transnational threats - and thus best confronted by the non-military elements of our national security toolbox -- the result could be a US national security and foreign policy apparatus that is ill-prepared and badly positioned to confront them.

Obama’s Progressive Defense Budget Posted by Max Bergmann

Since coming to office Gates has discussed the need for the military to move in a dramatic new direction, but action had been limited – until now. The budget laid out by Gates gives a clear indication that the Obama administration is serious about finally shedding the legacy of the Cold War and building a military that is suitable for the 21st century. In fact, this budget closely resembles what many progressives have been calling for on defense over the last few years.

First, this budget represents a clear move toward a more balanced strategy and is a dramatic departure from the strategy of “transformation” that the Bush administration blindly pushed under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld. The U.S. military after the Cold War remained heavily focused on developing its conventional forces to fight a conflict with a modern enemy that did not exist. Following 9-11, The Rumsfeld Pentagon under the catch-phrase of “transformation” was given free rein to invest in the high-tech conventional capabilities that they thought would be crucial to modern warfare. They were wrong. One of the main lessons of Iraq was that even though our conventional military capabilities were so powerful that we could destroy an enemy regime rapidly and with few troops, this still did not ensure a peaceful or stable aftermath – in fact so few troops and so much firepower severed as a handicap. Therefore it makes little sense for the military not to prepare for stability and COIN operations. Since even if our forces are called upon to undertake a conventional fight, our forces will still likely have to engage in stability and COIN operations following any successful conventional operation. Investing more in stability and COIN is therefore about making the military more balanced so that our forces can engage in the entire spectrum of operations, not just conventional operations.

Second, this budget makes the hard choices that the Bush Pentagon didn’t make. Under the Rumsfeld Pentagon almost no weapons systems were cut. This was the case even though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposed a fatal blind spot in our military capabilities. This budget actually goes through and makes the hard choices and trade offs that needed to be made. For example, the Future Combat Systems, – the Army’s modernization program – has been paired back dramatically. While FCS makes sense in principle, it has morphed into a monstrous program that has not been informed by the lessons of Iraq. The budget also does a lot of other good things, such as reining in government contracting and cutting back a missile defense program that has little utility.

Third, conventional programs are NOT being neglected. Conservatives will criticize the cuts in the big weapons programs, as evidence that Obama is “weak on defense.” But this budget has not come with cuts in overall defense spending. Base spending on defense this year rose by more than $20 billion. What Gates and Obama are doing is shifting money away from needless programs that are either outdated, redundant, or simply not cost effective (i.e. the F-22). The budget instead increases investments in a number of conventional weapons program such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Let’s be clear: the vast bulk of defense spending will remain focused on conventional priorities. And that amount of spending is massive.

Fourth, this budget is not overly focused on the “last war," There have been criticisms from conservatives (and some progressives) that this budget excessively embraces and institutionalizes the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives, like Kori Schake, who was an adviser on the McCain campaign, insist that this budget has gone too far in that direction:

Gates's emphasis on institutionalizing counterinsurgency sounds remarkably like fighting the last war, and too little effort has been directed toward redressing those vulnerabilities in U.S. military power most likely to produce losses in future wars. The United States is already reasonably good at counterinsurgency, as a result of the Iraq war, and the equipment has adapted relatively quickly despite a balky Pentagon bureaucracy…Rumsfeld denigrated the human element of warfare to focus on high-tech innovation. His successor is about to make the reverse mistake.

There are a number of problems with this. First, we are still fighting both these wars. This budget is not focused on the “last war” it is focused on the current wars. It would seem wise to maintain a focus on the wars we are actually fighting, especially since there is a possibility we may be fighting them a while. Conservatives like Schake are the ones focusing on the “last war” – namely the “Cold War.” Second, Schake assumes we have figured out COIN. We have not and there are a number of capabilities that we need to improve upon. Third, this budget does not denigrate “high tech innovation,” it simply does not view building high tech systems as a panacea or that these systems are worth building no matter what the cost. Finally, we are still building the weapons systems needed to maintain conventional dominance, believing otherwise is foolish.

It is worth noting that some progressives also share this fear – that by investing in COIN capabilities, we will be more inclined to engage in COIN operations in the future. This is a legitimate fear but I think it is misplaced. The military’s job is to be prepared as possible for future contingencies and to improve its capabilities. This does not mean that we should be engaging in continuous COIN operations around the world – these operations are exceptionally challenging and have a very low success rate. But it is the job of political leaders to make these decisions, not the military.

This budget is an effort to move the military in a new direction that is more focused both on the wars that we are in and on the irregular contingencies that we will likely face in the future. In doing so it is a dramatically positive step in creating a more balanced force.

A Pretty Good Start Posted by Michael Cohen

When it comes to defense spending I think the greatest challenge the United States faces in the lack of a strategic framework for our military - whether its a focus on conventional war-fighting or counter-insurgency the all important question of what type of enemies America will be facing and how our military should be reconfigured to deal with these new threats is all too rarely asked.

But having said all that, the budget announced by Secretary of Defense Gates is a pretty damn good step in the right direction. Not only does it propose long overdue cuts in outdated and overpriced defense systems, but there was this Churchillian rhetoric on contractor reform:

There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies.   Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.

While I need to dig a little deeper to see if the reform measures Gates is advocating are the right ones this is an important step in the right direction and a long overdue recognition from the highest levels of the Pentagon about the need for reform.

I hope this is the beginning not the end of a larger discussion about what we want our military to be doing in the future, but the fact that we are even talking about serious budgetary reform is a critical step in the direction. And the larger recognition in the Pentagon of the diminished importance of gold-plated weapons system built to confront a conventional enemy that no longer exists is great news.

As Noah Shachtman puts it over the Danger Room: "What we have here is the Defense Secretary trying to shake the defense establishment free of the Cold War, finally."

Amen, brother.

Another Knock Against COIN Posted by Michael Cohen

A couple of days ago I wrote a long post about the domestic political constraints to counter-insurgency.  Well the recent NATO summit in Strasbourg further strengthens my argument. After much cajoling NATO agreed to send 5,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan, but before one reads too much into this development this is basically what the Times calls "temporary security duty" in the run-up to August elections. In the end, this is a pretty tepid response to the President's call for more troops.

As for the reasons behind the reluctance of European countries a good story in Friday's Guardian provides some context. Here is the money quote:

A senior German politician said public opinion in his country no longer shared the view that Germany's security was being protected "in the Hindu Kush".

"For internal political reasons, we're not in a position to produce massive new troops," said a senior European Union official. "And the scale of a civilian surge needed to match the US military surge is not there yet either."

One can come up with all kinds of reasons why European government might be resistant to sending more troops to Afghanistan; whether its financial constraints related to the downturn or general European aversion to military conflicts. But the lack of domestic support seems to be driving much of our NATO's allies recalcitrance.  The simple reality is that if you can't rely on NATO countries to maintain their commitment to what is basically nation-building in Afghanistan what makes anyone think that they would join in a long-term counter-insurgency effort elsewhere?

A successful counter-insurgency effort relies not only on having enough troops on the ground, but it depends on maintaining political will. The fact that we are unable to get European countries to support a rather modest counter-insurgency uptick in Afghanistan - where actual attacks against European targets have been hatched -- because they lack domestic support should tell us something very important: namely that if we want to do counter-insurgency operations on a grand scale there is a pretty good chance we may have to do them alone.

Conservatives Suffer From Fuzzy Memory on the Defense Budget Posted by Patrick Barry

Conservatives have apparently decided on their strategy for criticizing President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates' 2010 DOD budget: Ahistoricism.  This from AEI's Tom Donnelly via Tom Ricks:

Obama is going to be cutting defense budgets (and we shall see what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan) and Gates gives him top cover that no Dem can give. Obama needs Gates through this year's budget, the QDR process and the 2011 budget-build, and these are difficult defense issues that matter a lot more than gays or satisfying any of the party constituencies, because they could jeopardize Obama's domestic priorities. Gates, for reasons that I cannot quite figure out, has agreed to this Faustian bargain.

The idea that the Secretary of Defense is falling on his sword to allow the Obama administration the political cover necessary to make cuts to the defense budget is interesting, but only because it is completely unconnected from reality.  One possibility that doesn't seem to have occured to Donnelly is that Secretary Gates is supporting the current Administration's defense reprioritizing because it was his idea in the first place.  Here is Gates last September:

"When it comes to procurement, for the better part of five decades, the trend has gone towards lower numbers as technology gains made each system more capable. In recent years these platforms have grown ever more baroque, ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities.Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps reaching a point of diminishing returns."

Recall also that Gates warned this past January that the "spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing."  It isn't as if no one saw this coming.  Accusing the Secretary of Defense of entering into a devilish pact with the President out of political expedience distracts from the reality that this is the Pentagon's budget, reflecting statements which the Secretary has been making since the last administration. 

NSN Daily Update 4/6/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

President Obama is in Turkey today, and addressed Turkey’s parliament saying that the U.S. “is not and will never be at war with Islam."

A series of six car bombs killed at least 30 in Baghdad.  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visits Baghdad for the first time since the war began.

Three suicide attacks in 24 hours in Pakistan killed at least 42.  The U.S. presses Pakistan for more action against the Taliban and al Qaeda, but the Pakistani military is focused on combating India.

NATO approved President Obama’s Afghanistan plan, but committed few troops.

Commentary of the Day

Roger Cohen interviewed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyit Erdogan.

Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, writes about the North Korean missile test and President Obama’s disarmament speech.

Nicholas Goldberg examines the legacy and outlook for Benjamin Netanyahu.