The Budgetary End-Game: Are Our Security Needs Being Met? Posted by Gordon Adams

Fundamentally, the national security budget is intended to meet our security needs. We all have different views of what needs take priority. My own are best captured in an article I wrote for the Foreign Service Journal in June 2005, available on their website http://www.afsa.org/fsj/june05/adams.pdf. To summarize, while terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are major security challenges, both are symptoms, not the underlying disease of this era. As long as our national security strategy puts these two threats at the top of the agenda and circles the budgetary wagons around them, we are likely to be fighting terrorists and stamping on proliferators for a very long time. Until we also directly tackle the underlying challenges of global poverty, failing or brittle governance, and conflicts of identity, with adequate resources, our security needs are not being fully met. And until we can do this using all the instruments of statecraft, exercising appropriate leadership with friends and allies, and engaging the globe with some semblance of humility, we will never muster the resources adequate to the challenge.

Thought it is, in some way, unfair to ask the administration to meet my goals, I have some thoughts on whether the priorities in the new budget do so. I can only provide this scorecard in an impressionistic way, here; too many programs; too little time.

The Party's Over: Long Term Budgets and National Security Posted by Gordon Adams

The budgetary demands of national security are large; and they are going to grow. I have noted already in these blogs that funding for defense will rise 7% in Fiscal Year 2007, assuming the President’s budget is appropriated (which would be 45% above its 2001 level), while homeland security funding would rise 9% and international affairs nearly 12%.

What’s more, if defense is going to transform its forces to achieve greater agility, mobility and flexibility to deal with the “long war,” the Pentagon projects, it will have to continue to grow at somewhere near this rate. This is especially true if the Department of Defense continues to avoid the “tough choices” between transformation and modernization and to expand the benefit programs for military personnel, which are consuming a growing share of normal defense spending.

Homeland security spending, too, will continue to rise, to cope with the needs of infrastructure security, adequate funding for first responders, greater protection for the transportation infrastructure, and fixing the problems in disaster response that were exposed by Hurricane Katrina.

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.

Is the State Department Ready for the Job? Posted by Gordon Adams

Given the Iraq experience and the recent strategy review (QDR), DOD has made it clear that it will want a lot more interagency cooperation the next time we decide to occupy, stabilize, and reconstruct another country. It is not clear who the candidate countries are, though Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia, Syria come to mind. (That just means it will probably be a country we have not thought of.)

The interagency partner, however, is clear: the Department of State (along with USAID and other financial assistance agencies). Iraq demonstrated that America’s diplomats and assistance agencies were totally unprepared for the challenge. The question is, what lessons has State learned and what investments is Foggy Bottom planning that would correct this deficiency and give DOD the partner it seeks?

Secretary Rice knows State is in the bulls’ eye on stabilization, governance and reconstruction. She gave two speeches last week advertising “transformed diplomacy” at State and “transformed economic assistance” affecting all the aid programs in the international affairs arena.

So, the obvious question is: Has the rubber hit the road in the new budget and will State and AID be ready for the job when the next call comes? We can get some clues from the new budget for International Affairs the administration has just sent up to the Hill this week. And the answer is: not yet, so the trumpet had better not sound soon.

What Iraqis Are Thinking Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Last week’s release of a World Public Opinion/PIPA poll of Iraqis was overshadowed by the State of the Union and associated commentary.  Most of the coverage there was focused on the 47 percent of Iraqis who approved of attacks on US forces – though only 1 percent approved of attacks on civilians.  But the poll, which had good and bad news for all ideological tendencies here in the US, merits a longer look.  Here are my top 5 underreported results:

1. Increase in positive attitudes about the future.  (67 percent overall, compared to 49 percent in an International Republican Institute poll last fall; for ethnic breakdown, though, see below.)
2. Belief, across ethnic lines, that Iraqi institutions would function better with troops gone. (67 percent say day-to-day security would improve, 67 percent say public services would be more available, and 73 percent say factions would cooperate better.)

3. Split on when the US should go that mirrors the split in US public opinion.  (overall, 35 percent want a withdrawal in 6 months, 35 percent in two years, and 29 percent “only as the security situation improves.”  Again, look below for ethnic breakout.)

4. Zero progress in getting Sunnis to feel more optimistic and included.  (More than 90 percent say the elections and the new government are not legitimate; 83 percent want the US out within 6 months.  93 percent say the country is going in the wrong direction.)  At the same time, Ken Pollack looked at t he data and for him it underlined another problem – that we are not paying enough attention to the Shiites, who responded with high degrees of hostility to questions about US non-military assistance. 
5. Across-the-board interest, including from Sunnis, in internationalization of the foreign presence in Iraq, both military and civilian.  (Even 57 percent of Sunnis said Iraqwould need help from “foreign military forces” for a year or more.)

What conclusions should we draw?

Not Telling the Truth Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Leon Sigal begins his essential book on the government and the press (Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking) by quoting from a high official of the Foreign Office (and I paraphrase):  If you think we lie to the public you are mistaken; but if you think we tell the truth you are equally mistaken.

And so we have the Bush Administration's dealings with what it now refers to as the NSA program which the President has described.  Before the program was revealed in the New York Times, the President and the Attorney General, in discussing the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance, may not have lied, but they certainly did not tell the truth.

No fair-minded listener open to the arguments of each side could reach any conclusion but that they were following the requirements spelled out in FISA.  We now know they were not.

Muslim Cartoons, Jyllands Posten and Some Second Thoughts Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Lots of interesting response here and at the Huffington Post on my musings on the cartoon controversy, which continues to rage.  In posting here I often read through what's being said in newspapers and blogs and try to offer up something I think isn't already out there.  In doing so, I don't always restate the obvious.  But this time maybe I should have.   

Yes, I believe that violence in response to images and cartoons is wrong and inexcusable.   Period.

Yes, I believe that all free societies need to defend to the death the freedoms that make them what they are.    But we need to do so in smart ways that do not have the unintended affect of inflaming the tensions we are trying to tamp down or of undercutting our own values in the name of preserving them.   This is a very tough balance to strike; we and the Europeans are learning lessons the hard way.

Yes, I think the governments in the countries where some of the most destructive protests have taken place were obligated to do far more to protect the peace.  But it also seems rather far-fetched to me to actually believe they would have done so, given the politics of the situation and their own sometimes tenuous hold on power.  Whatever "the answer" is, it isn't about the Syrians or the Lebanese somehow getting these radical forces under control, because that won't happen anytime soon.

No, I don't think the Danish government should have contemplated - for a moment - taking any action against any of the newspapers that published the images.   When I spoke of the need for the Danish government to meet with Islamic leaders, I had in mind conversations with moderate Islamic clerics and others with an interest in trying to calm tempers, not to retaliate against the exercise of free speech.

No, I don't think the answer to Islamic extremism in Europe or anywhere else lies solely in reconciliation, conversation, or social programs.  There are a frightening number of Islamic radicals who are far beyond the reach of those kinds of efforts, and need to be met with the most sophisticated and fearless intelligence, law enforcement and anti-terror tactics.  But there are hundreds of thousands of others who have not yet crossed that line, and should be prevented from doing so -- if at all possible -- for their own sake and ours.

Munich's Security Conference: Deja Vu or Defining Moment? Posted by Julianne Smith

While he is out of pocket this week, Derek Chollet asked me to report on the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy (aka Wehrkunde), which I had planned on attending this past weekend. Unfortunately, the flu kept me stateside but thanks to a few calls to friends and the conference website, I can still offer some highlights.

This high-profile conference always has an air of déjà vu to it and this year was no exception. The conference program addressed many of the same topics as in years past: the future of NATO, the state of the transatlantic partnership, and challenges in the Middle East. Like a well-rehearsed script, the Americans asked the Europeans to spend more on defense and the Europeans cautioned against NATO overstretch. Many of last year’s recommendations – to strengthen the EU-NATO relationship, expand NATO’s partnership programs, and deepen the dialogue between the United States and Europe – were repeated. However, three things made this year’s conference different:

One, the arrival of Angela Merkel on center stage. Germany’s new Chancellor made an impressive debut. Her confident and firm delivery of her hard-line position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions was met with a roaring round of applause. She also used the opportunity to state her strong support for NATO (“NATO is the most important body for international conflict management”) while making some rather provocative recommendations, including the rewriting of the Alliance’s 1999 Strategic Concept by 2009. Merkel’s remarks were a welcome departure from the tone and substance of her predecessor whose commitment to the transatlantic relationship remained in question during the last few years of his tenure. Personally, I also appreciated the addition of another female speaker at an event that is so heavily dominated by men.

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.

Jack Abramoff, Mr. Hollywood Posted by Michael Signer

If you're interested in a little light reading on Jack Abramoff's prior career as a Hollywood producer (as well as a shameless plug for a non-Democracy Arsenal piece by yours truly), please check out this American Prospect Online piece I recently co-authored with my colleage Ryan Chiachere... hope you find it amusing, unsettling, or both.

Muslim Cartoons, Jyllands Posten and the Terror at Home Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Until this weekend I classed the Muslim cartoon fracas as an interesting story I didn't have time to follow.   But with the outrage yielding some of the most violent attacks the Middle East has seen lately (outside of Iraq, that is) - namely the sacking of the Danish consulate in Beirut and of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus - the protesters have gotten what they clearly are after: a closer look from the Western media.

The story is labyrinthine and goes something like this:  A Danish children's book author penned a tale about the Mohammed and couldn't find an illustrator willing to buck a supposed Muslim prohibition on images of the prophet (think Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh).   

Hearing that story, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands Posten challenged a group of cartoonists to interpret Mohammad.  They came up with images including one in which his turban was a bomb with the lit wick.  The paper published these back in September, and the uproar has mounted steadily fueled by a variety of half-apologies wrapped within defenses of freedom of speech.   Several European papers reprinted the images last week, whereas American papers for the most part have not.  The images themselves and a detailed chronology of the affair are available at Wikipedia.   I also recommend this Guardian piece for a good overview.

So, what the hell's really going on?  It's hard to remember the last time anyone got seriously mad at the Scandinavians.  After all, the Danish are among the west's most generous aid donors (however, those funds have been cut back in the last few years under a right-wing government).  Denmark was part of the original coalition in the Iraq war and has about 500 men in serving in Iraq.

The issues are complex.  There's no question that Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers had the right to publish the images.   For those that republished them knowing their incendiary impact, thorny questions of balancing newsworthiness with sensitivity arise:  Egyptian papers routinely publish offensive anti-Semitic images; yet it might be legitimate for another paper to republish some of these in a story about the Egyptian media's hostility to Jews.   

While attributing the acts of an independent newspaper to the Danish government betrays a lack of understanding of how a free press works, Copenhagen may have waited way too long to respond to overtures from Muslim leaders, thus opening the way for escalation.

For those trying to take a step back and interpret, at least two things are worth talking about.