(The following has been updated to include references to President Obama's Afghanistan strategy announced Friday and the Kerry-Lugar amendment to restore the Senate Budget Committee cuts.)
“Smart Power” is the current buzzword for the best way to counter a wide variety of national security threats, but dumb budgeting procedures remain a major obstacle.
Congress already is slicing away at the Obama administration’s Foreign Affairs Fiscal Year 2010 budget containing increases in foreign assistance programs to improve economic and social conditions in countries that are breeding grounds for violence and terrorism.
Meanwhile on the home front, the FBI testified to Congress that it is continuing its emphasis on countering terrorism threat that began after 9/11. But officials acknowledged that the FBI needs more agents to combat corporate and financial fraud and drug trafficking.
These developments reflecting the tugs and pulls of contradictory pressures and competition for resources were illustrated this week as the Congressional budget committees acted on the Obama Administration’s budget proposals, imposing cuts in the foreign assistance programs with their smart power components.
The House Budget Committee on Wednesday recommended a budget that would cut $5.5 billion from the administration’s $53.8 billion request. The Senate Budget Committee followed the next day although it made a lighter cuts — $4 billion.
While these cuts were made from a request that was initially a $5.8 billion 13.6% increase from the FY 2009 levels, this does not reflect the whole picture according to Dr. Gordon Adams, a former associate OMB director for national security and international affairs who is now a fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center. He said that if the second FY 2009 supplemental is enacted by Congress, the overall 2010 budget for State, USAID and foreign affairs agencies as proposed by the House Committee would end up a billion dollars lower than in 2009. If the Senate figures prevail, there would be no increase over FY 2009.
This is at a time when virtually the entire foreign affairs establishment, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates with his November 26, 2007 speech, is calling for allocating more resources for “smart power” foreign assistance and civil affairs activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and other trouble spots. He and many military men have said that that the military cannot do the job alone.
President Obama, in announcing his Afghanistan strategy Friday, said the United States would send hundreds of additional civilians and diplomats to Afghanistan to help improve that country's governance and economy. This would be in addition to the 4,000 additional troops he announced would be deployed to help train and advise the Afghan army.
Various non-government groups have pushed for increased funding for Smart Power, including the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, a bi-partisan group which on March 4 held a major event with speakers including former Secretary of State Powell and Sen. Robert Martinez (D-New Jersey) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other former officials of bioth parties. The Center released a “Report on Reports” summarizing 20 reports by a diverse groups of institutions and experts who support the use of enhanced non-military tools to help deal with weak and failing states. Conferences and seminars on smart power are regular events in Washington, including one held Tuesday at Ft. Meyer that featured several retired generals as speakers and included a panel with Andy Cochran, founder of this counterterrorism blog and Matt Levitt, a regular contributor, that discussed integrating and balancing soft and kinetic power.
Despite these efforts, as Dr. Adams noted, it is widely perceived that “International Affairs budgets do not have the strong constituency supporting defense, and as a result are vulnerable to these cuts.” The Defense Department’s full $533.7 billion request was approved. Dr. Adams said in a statement following the House Budget Committee action that the foreign affairs budget cuts reflect “the Committee and the Congress’ reluctance to consider all elements of national security spending together, as part of U.S. national security strategy. The result of such cuts could be a further weakening of the civilian tool of American statecraft.”
(Following the Senate Budget Committee's Actions, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the senior Republican member, said they will offer a Senate floor amendment to restore the $4 billion cut by the Senate Banking Committee. The U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, in emails urging support for the amendment, said "Anything less than the request level of $53.8 billion will greatly hamper the Administration's effort to implement a "smart power" strategy to elevate diplomacy and development in U.S. global engagement.")
By dumb budgeting, I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the Budget Committees –they have a tough job. But the whole process, involving a great amount of detail, lends itself to making across the board cuts, based on percentages compared to previous year budgets, instead of a close examination of the needs for individual programs. The prolonged use of continuing resolutions to extend funding at the previous fiscal year’s level for a few months at a time because Congress has not passed the appropriations bills on time greatly complicates the planning, scheduling and implementation of foreign assistance and training programs.
The Budget Committees set the overall spending ceiling for the administration’s budget request. A conference committee will work out the differences between the higher Senate version and the deeper House cuts. The authorizing committees also make their recommendations but it has been many years since Senate Foreign Relations Committees and House Foreign Affairs Committees have been able to pass authorizing bills. This is partly because members have been reluctant to vote twice on foreign assistance funding –opening themselves up to campaign opponents who might criticize them for “foreign giveaways.”
Consequently, the real power has shifted to the Appropriations Committees which will then consider the details, authorize on appropriations bills – formerly a no-no-- and make their recommendations to the full House and Senate. However with the Budget committee allocations squeezing down from the top and the Appropriations subcommittees and full committee often making additional cuts in the foreign assistance program, it is likely that additional cuts will be made in the overall foreign affairs account and individual programs.
At stake could be such important but relatively small counterterrorism programs such as the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program (ATA), which improves the counterterrorism capabilities of civilian officials of friendly countries. The FY 2009 request was $141.5 million but about $17 million is earmarked for Afghanistan includes protection for the President of Afghanistan. The figures for 2010 will, like the rest of the budget, not be available until April but officials have indicated that they hope for some increases to meet the growing needs as Al Qaeda inspired terrorists continue to pop up in many countries. For more details, see the link to the discussion we held for the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Meanwhile during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Mueller said that countering the terrorism threat was still the number one priority although the focus left fewer agents to counter non-terrorism crime.
The New York Times interpreted this as the Obama administration “moving to solidify one of the most significant shifts of resources put into place under President Bush: the transformation of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into agencies where the top priority is counterterrorism rather than conventional law enforcement.”
On another terrorism-related issue Mueller urged Congress to renew portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that have sunset provisions and are scheduled to expire in December unless renewed by Congress.
A key provision is the so-called “roving wiretaps” that allows federal officials to seek wiretaps on all the communications devices utilized by a terrorist suspect, instead of seeking a separate warrant for each blackberry, cell phone or regular phone. Such authority was originally allowed in Mafia and other racketeering cases and was later extended to terrorism cases. The American Civil Liberty Union has opposed the Patriot Act as a “disastrous violation for Americans’ rights. But this roving wiretap act is one provision that should clearly be maintained to avoid unnecessary delays every time a terrorists suspect changes phones.
It is important that a balance be maintained between with civil liberties and security concerns and of course it is appropriate to review the sunset legislation in an objective matter. At the same time those who advocate and accept the ACLU’s opposition to these issues should understand that it should also be one’s civil liberty to be able to fly on an airliner or work in a landmark office building without being blown up.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tackling the Afghanistan-Pakistan Problem: Part 1 (Iran) by Olivier Guitta
U.S. President Barack Obama presented on March 27 his strategy for dealing with the Afghanistan-Pakistan (known as AfPak) region. He made crystal clear that al-Qaida, Pakistan and Afghanistan are closely intertwined and need to be dealt with simultaneously, albeit differently.
In his presentation, Obama nailed all the aspects of this huge challenge: the military operation against both al-Qaida and the Taliban, the need for additional Afghan security personnel, a corrupt government in Afghanistan, drug trafficking, need for a very large international coalition, civilian financial aid to Pakistan, a civilian surge, and benchmarks for the two countries.
This is easier said than done. To begin, let us take a look at the current state of affairs in Afghanistan from a military perspective.
Obama had announced he was sending 17,000 troops. On top of that he has said he would be sending an additional 4,000 to help train Afghan forces. But this is short of the 30,000 that the military had asked for. Also Obama announced that Afghan security forces - the military plus the police - will number 216,000. That is also way short of the 400,000 that the U.S. military had reportedly advised.
As Obama rightly pointed out, the region is the most dangerous in the world and al-Qaida has been planning attacks against the U.S. homeland from there. Confirming the importance of the region, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently stated that 70 percent of the terrorist plots being investigated in Britain can be traced back to Pakistan.
In fact, the region has become the center of the worldwide jihad. According to Western diplomats, U.S. intelligence services have detected an increase in telephone conversations in "foreign languages" (Arabic, Chechen, English...) in the tribal areas at the Pakistan-Afghan border.
There has been a very significant switch from Iraq to AfPak as the main front for jihad. Since the demise of al-Qaida in Iraq, the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq from the Middle East, Africa and Europe has dried up and they have been rerouted to AfPak. Numerous reports have confirmed the presence of Western European nationals fighting alongside the Taliban, most notably British and French citizens.
For example, French interior minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, confirmed that French services have indeed established that Frenchmen are traveling nowadays to the Pakistani-Afghan border area to receive education and training.
For many Western governments, the main worry is their return to their home country as hardcore experienced terrorists where they could perpetrate attacks. That is why U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Europe's security was deeply tied to NATO's success in Afghanistan.
Obama clearly asked for help from his European allies; he will see first-hand if his popularity in European capitals will tilt the balance. But at this point, European nations seem little inclined to dramatically increase their commitment to the Afghanistan mission.
An asymmetrical intense war is taking place in Afghanistan between NATO, the largest military alliance in the world, and about 10,000 Taliban fighters. The IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and the suicide attacks account for half of the victims of the Afghan and international forces. The Taliban now only works in small groups, embedded in the population, connected by mobile phones. It has renounced holding ground in order to privilege harassment with a strong psychological impact: commando actions, suicide bombings, kidnappings, remote control triggering of improvised mines on the passage of our convoys.
The Taliban is willing to give $200 to a farmer, just to trigger the explosion of a mine which is hidden in his field. And for that kind of combat, the Taliban has the advantage of experience and the control of time. It is playing the quagmire card, like it did with the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 1980s. And simply put, the insurgents do not need to win; all they have to do is not to lose.
The recent mini-surge of additional troops may indeed make a difference, but the solution is also in Pakistan and in the political realm. (We will look at this next week.) Afghanistan has a weak and corrupt government and presidential elections are coming up this summer. The next few months are going to be crucial for the future of Afghanistan.
In his presentation, Obama nailed all the aspects of this huge challenge: the military operation against both al-Qaida and the Taliban, the need for additional Afghan security personnel, a corrupt government in Afghanistan, drug trafficking, need for a very large international coalition, civilian financial aid to Pakistan, a civilian surge, and benchmarks for the two countries.
This is easier said than done. To begin, let us take a look at the current state of affairs in Afghanistan from a military perspective.
Obama had announced he was sending 17,000 troops. On top of that he has said he would be sending an additional 4,000 to help train Afghan forces. But this is short of the 30,000 that the military had asked for. Also Obama announced that Afghan security forces - the military plus the police - will number 216,000. That is also way short of the 400,000 that the U.S. military had reportedly advised.
As Obama rightly pointed out, the region is the most dangerous in the world and al-Qaida has been planning attacks against the U.S. homeland from there. Confirming the importance of the region, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently stated that 70 percent of the terrorist plots being investigated in Britain can be traced back to Pakistan.
In fact, the region has become the center of the worldwide jihad. According to Western diplomats, U.S. intelligence services have detected an increase in telephone conversations in "foreign languages" (Arabic, Chechen, English...) in the tribal areas at the Pakistan-Afghan border.
There has been a very significant switch from Iraq to AfPak as the main front for jihad. Since the demise of al-Qaida in Iraq, the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq from the Middle East, Africa and Europe has dried up and they have been rerouted to AfPak. Numerous reports have confirmed the presence of Western European nationals fighting alongside the Taliban, most notably British and French citizens.
For example, French interior minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, confirmed that French services have indeed established that Frenchmen are traveling nowadays to the Pakistani-Afghan border area to receive education and training.
For many Western governments, the main worry is their return to their home country as hardcore experienced terrorists where they could perpetrate attacks. That is why U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Europe's security was deeply tied to NATO's success in Afghanistan.
Obama clearly asked for help from his European allies; he will see first-hand if his popularity in European capitals will tilt the balance. But at this point, European nations seem little inclined to dramatically increase their commitment to the Afghanistan mission.
An asymmetrical intense war is taking place in Afghanistan between NATO, the largest military alliance in the world, and about 10,000 Taliban fighters. The IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and the suicide attacks account for half of the victims of the Afghan and international forces. The Taliban now only works in small groups, embedded in the population, connected by mobile phones. It has renounced holding ground in order to privilege harassment with a strong psychological impact: commando actions, suicide bombings, kidnappings, remote control triggering of improvised mines on the passage of our convoys.
The Taliban is willing to give $200 to a farmer, just to trigger the explosion of a mine which is hidden in his field. And for that kind of combat, the Taliban has the advantage of experience and the control of time. It is playing the quagmire card, like it did with the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 1980s. And simply put, the insurgents do not need to win; all they have to do is not to lose.
The recent mini-surge of additional troops may indeed make a difference, but the solution is also in Pakistan and in the political realm. (We will look at this next week.) Afghanistan has a weak and corrupt government and presidential elections are coming up this summer. The next few months are going to be crucial for the future of Afghanistan.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Great Powers Chapter 7 Reading Group
Chapter Seven changes gears from the trinity of diplomacy, defense and development (we spent the last three chapters learning how they must be realigned). My first impression as I began reading this chapter was the connection made to the ultimate transparent network, the Internet and how it has changed the structure of the world by spreading faster than any infectious pathogen or conquering army. By comparing Internet users to the global pyramid where the rising middle-class inhabit the space between the top-down planners (empires) and the bottom billions (failed states) we are given a hand-drawn map to begin our exploration of The Rise of the SysAdmin-Industrial Complex.
THE UNDENIABLE TRAJECTORY: SUPEREMPOWER ME
Reading this section made me think of my own six degrees of connection to America's past and what motivated my forbears to leave their familiar homelands and journey to America. My family's story has been repeated millions of times and continues with the landing of every jet and the dusty tramp of feet across our southern border. Part of that motivation is fueled by the need to solve a problem. This problem-solving ability has become the core to innovation that has marked the rise and spread of the American System's DNA as Tom Barnett explains in the preface, to all points across the globe. The concrete observation of this section is that "Every nation's average citizen does better in America than back home." Spreading globalization has led those whom we can't ever accommodate to use our system, globalization, to become super-empowered individuals at home in the form of a rising middle-class.
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM PERTURBED: THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL GUERRILLAS
Reading this section made me think that the threats we now fret over, pirates, smugglers and trans-national criminals, have always existed. In earlier times, unless directly confronted with the threat, it became the gist of adventure tales of far off lands or consigned to an occasional sermon by the local pastor about the sins of mankind. Instant communications networks have brought those threats riding alongside the same conduits that carry the staples of our consumer demands. Adjusting to those threats is the goal of this section.
THE NEW RULES: FROM "KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER" TO "KNOW YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN"
The four V's velocity, volume, variety and visibility lead off this section and are drawn from Nayan Chandra's Bound Together. Taking examples from the previous section of how "bad actors" will use all this connectivity to carve out their share of goods and services. This reminds me of how road agents used to prey on stagecoaches and rob trains in our own expanding west. In those days we countered with all types of measures, private guards, US Marshal's and the Army to secure the supply chains. Our response today requires us to go beyond the old tried and true security measures, as the threats don't hide in the rocks alongside the chain, but integrate themselves as fellow passengers to spring forth at the opportune time to strike.
Combating these new bad actors will take the collaboration of nations and individuals to share technology and innovations by adopting a structure that is connected, as equals, and willing to share and act globally.
THE NEW NORMAL: IN SEARCH OF NEW DETERRENCE
This section comes at a topically approriate time. Tom Barnett testified this week before the House Armed Services Committee about the requirements for the future capabilities of the United States maritime forces. His testimony called into sharp contrast the gulf between those who go to bed dreaming of the glory of the conflicts of their grandfathers and those who are dreaming of a future that mirrors the huge changes wrought by the connectivity described in the opening of this chapter. A paragraph that stood out for me in this section was on page 319, where a well-attuned public is defined as the best strategic deterrence in the global age. As one who has transitioned from learning by studying manuscripts in dead tree form to logging on and drawing from literally an uncounted tableau of resources, I find the contrast stunning. For me, a historian retrained in the information age, it has led to an appreciation that may be lost on the average person and caused conflict among those who still cling to the old ways and resist all mention of Wikipedia as a source for information.
THE GLOBAL ACCELERANT: THE GREAT GLOBALIZATION BUILD-OUT
The past couple of years I have traveled to Europe and Asia. To me the greatest contrast happens when you land at any one of the new air terminals that now serve the major cities around the world. They are gleaming symbols of the gateway to that nation. They are laid out to accommodate the traveler and speed them on their way. Contrast this to arriving and being processed through the Bradley Terminal at LAX, where long overdue construction now restricts most of those waiting to pick up arriving travelers to waiting outside in benches while the terminal whose area to greet incoming fights resembled a grungy big city bus terminal is being very slowly renovated.
Until we in America begin to direct more funds to rebuilding our own infrastructure the opportunities that beckon in this section are huge. It is projected that $20 trillion in infrastructure will be built in the emerging markets in the next ten years. That figure should stimulate any red-blooded American construction company to think about what Barnett writes about in this section.
First, ... get in on this huge....build-out going on in Asia...
Second, ...not being there..means no roll-up season... Meaning being in on the M&A to create the giants to build all this expansion.
Third, ...be there to partake in the...R&D that will..come with accompany this...development.
Finally, ...learning to sell to the bottom of the pyramid.
Just look at Wal-Mart as an example of a company that learned to sell in this environment.
I would counsel my son as he prepares for his future to look to using his multi-language skill combined with his acquired understanding of the world to join in exploring this next great build-out of connectivity. The rewards will be both emotional and monetary.
THE INESCAPABLE REALIGNMENT: REENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT (IN-A-BOX)
The focus in this section is to build on the previous and offer an example of several companies who have made that connection and become frontier integrators by seeking opportunities in areas of the world that are recovering from traumas caused by conflict and disaster.
Reading this section makes me wish to be younger, for if I were, the company I would love to work for would be Enterra Solutions. Tom Barnett's description of the founding and how he came to be associated is a compelling story that for me is a beacon to inspire others to join in making a better world by becoming as Tom asks the reader to imagine, the United States as a developer of a vast housing subdivision he calls the global economy. Well worth a careful reading, then let your imagination soar regarding the possibilities.
THE BETTER NORMAL: THE RISE OF THE SYSADMIN-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
For those who, since President Eisenhower, have warned against the rise of the Military-Industrial Complex, this section offers compelling hope. It would be understatement to say that I am touched by this section. Tom acknowledges my tiny contribution to this work by including a comment I made in response to a post quoting Chet Richards about our efforts in Iraq.
The bottom line of the message in this section and I dare say the whole book is that we have a very limited window to realign our grand strategy. Three points stand out. First, we can not win solely with kinetic solutions (guns). Second, we can not win alone, without peers. And finally, we can not win by concentrating on a "Global War" with only the twin opposing objectives of terrorism and democracy.
When I began to read about Lockheed Martin and how they are evolving into a global security contractor, I thought of my uncle, J.R. Janssen who worked for Lockheed for over thirty years from their early days as a fledgling airplane company to their halcyon days as a card carrying member of the military-industrial complex. Lockheed cut their teeth building the P-38 fighter, one of the contributors to defeating Japanese air power in the Pacific.
Today, Lockheed Martin has seen the future and it involves more than precision weapons of war. Their future includes building systems that make people feel secure and helps prevent the rise of conditions that can lead to war.
The integration of military applications and global security is further illustrated by the account of the development of sea traffic control, first tried in the Mediterranean and then spreading across the globe to form a network of receivers to track the movement of ships. I found it interesting that the Med was the appropriate test bed for this concept. Because of the unique geographical feature of being surrounded by mountains, much of the sea can be viewed and if at sea, landfall is visible allowing for safe transit between ports in Europe and Africa.
The final message is clear: in order to adapt to a changing world, we need to, as a nation, create a new set of rules and complexes that can meet both the challenges of opportunities other than war, while still maintaining our ability to discourage big wars.
The discussion table is open.
THE UNDENIABLE TRAJECTORY: SUPEREMPOWER ME
Reading this section made me think of my own six degrees of connection to America's past and what motivated my forbears to leave their familiar homelands and journey to America. My family's story has been repeated millions of times and continues with the landing of every jet and the dusty tramp of feet across our southern border. Part of that motivation is fueled by the need to solve a problem. This problem-solving ability has become the core to innovation that has marked the rise and spread of the American System's DNA as Tom Barnett explains in the preface, to all points across the globe. The concrete observation of this section is that "Every nation's average citizen does better in America than back home." Spreading globalization has led those whom we can't ever accommodate to use our system, globalization, to become super-empowered individuals at home in the form of a rising middle-class.
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM PERTURBED: THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL GUERRILLAS
Reading this section made me think that the threats we now fret over, pirates, smugglers and trans-national criminals, have always existed. In earlier times, unless directly confronted with the threat, it became the gist of adventure tales of far off lands or consigned to an occasional sermon by the local pastor about the sins of mankind. Instant communications networks have brought those threats riding alongside the same conduits that carry the staples of our consumer demands. Adjusting to those threats is the goal of this section.
THE NEW RULES: FROM "KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER" TO "KNOW YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN"
The four V's velocity, volume, variety and visibility lead off this section and are drawn from Nayan Chandra's Bound Together. Taking examples from the previous section of how "bad actors" will use all this connectivity to carve out their share of goods and services. This reminds me of how road agents used to prey on stagecoaches and rob trains in our own expanding west. In those days we countered with all types of measures, private guards, US Marshal's and the Army to secure the supply chains. Our response today requires us to go beyond the old tried and true security measures, as the threats don't hide in the rocks alongside the chain, but integrate themselves as fellow passengers to spring forth at the opportune time to strike.
Combating these new bad actors will take the collaboration of nations and individuals to share technology and innovations by adopting a structure that is connected, as equals, and willing to share and act globally.
THE NEW NORMAL: IN SEARCH OF NEW DETERRENCE
This section comes at a topically approriate time. Tom Barnett testified this week before the House Armed Services Committee about the requirements for the future capabilities of the United States maritime forces. His testimony called into sharp contrast the gulf between those who go to bed dreaming of the glory of the conflicts of their grandfathers and those who are dreaming of a future that mirrors the huge changes wrought by the connectivity described in the opening of this chapter. A paragraph that stood out for me in this section was on page 319, where a well-attuned public is defined as the best strategic deterrence in the global age. As one who has transitioned from learning by studying manuscripts in dead tree form to logging on and drawing from literally an uncounted tableau of resources, I find the contrast stunning. For me, a historian retrained in the information age, it has led to an appreciation that may be lost on the average person and caused conflict among those who still cling to the old ways and resist all mention of Wikipedia as a source for information.
THE GLOBAL ACCELERANT: THE GREAT GLOBALIZATION BUILD-OUT
The past couple of years I have traveled to Europe and Asia. To me the greatest contrast happens when you land at any one of the new air terminals that now serve the major cities around the world. They are gleaming symbols of the gateway to that nation. They are laid out to accommodate the traveler and speed them on their way. Contrast this to arriving and being processed through the Bradley Terminal at LAX, where long overdue construction now restricts most of those waiting to pick up arriving travelers to waiting outside in benches while the terminal whose area to greet incoming fights resembled a grungy big city bus terminal is being very slowly renovated.
Until we in America begin to direct more funds to rebuilding our own infrastructure the opportunities that beckon in this section are huge. It is projected that $20 trillion in infrastructure will be built in the emerging markets in the next ten years. That figure should stimulate any red-blooded American construction company to think about what Barnett writes about in this section.
First, ... get in on this huge....build-out going on in Asia...
Second, ...not being there..means no roll-up season... Meaning being in on the M&A to create the giants to build all this expansion.
Third, ...be there to partake in the...R&D that will..come with accompany this...development.
Finally, ...learning to sell to the bottom of the pyramid.
Just look at Wal-Mart as an example of a company that learned to sell in this environment.
I would counsel my son as he prepares for his future to look to using his multi-language skill combined with his acquired understanding of the world to join in exploring this next great build-out of connectivity. The rewards will be both emotional and monetary.
THE INESCAPABLE REALIGNMENT: REENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT (IN-A-BOX)
The focus in this section is to build on the previous and offer an example of several companies who have made that connection and become frontier integrators by seeking opportunities in areas of the world that are recovering from traumas caused by conflict and disaster.
Reading this section makes me wish to be younger, for if I were, the company I would love to work for would be Enterra Solutions. Tom Barnett's description of the founding and how he came to be associated is a compelling story that for me is a beacon to inspire others to join in making a better world by becoming as Tom asks the reader to imagine, the United States as a developer of a vast housing subdivision he calls the global economy. Well worth a careful reading, then let your imagination soar regarding the possibilities.
THE BETTER NORMAL: THE RISE OF THE SYSADMIN-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
For those who, since President Eisenhower, have warned against the rise of the Military-Industrial Complex, this section offers compelling hope. It would be understatement to say that I am touched by this section. Tom acknowledges my tiny contribution to this work by including a comment I made in response to a post quoting Chet Richards about our efforts in Iraq.
The bottom line of the message in this section and I dare say the whole book is that we have a very limited window to realign our grand strategy. Three points stand out. First, we can not win solely with kinetic solutions (guns). Second, we can not win alone, without peers. And finally, we can not win by concentrating on a "Global War" with only the twin opposing objectives of terrorism and democracy.
When I began to read about Lockheed Martin and how they are evolving into a global security contractor, I thought of my uncle, J.R. Janssen who worked for Lockheed for over thirty years from their early days as a fledgling airplane company to their halcyon days as a card carrying member of the military-industrial complex. Lockheed cut their teeth building the P-38 fighter, one of the contributors to defeating Japanese air power in the Pacific.
Today, Lockheed Martin has seen the future and it involves more than precision weapons of war. Their future includes building systems that make people feel secure and helps prevent the rise of conditions that can lead to war.
The integration of military applications and global security is further illustrated by the account of the development of sea traffic control, first tried in the Mediterranean and then spreading across the globe to form a network of receivers to track the movement of ships. I found it interesting that the Med was the appropriate test bed for this concept. Because of the unique geographical feature of being surrounded by mountains, much of the sea can be viewed and if at sea, landfall is visible allowing for safe transit between ports in Europe and Africa.
The final message is clear: in order to adapt to a changing world, we need to, as a nation, create a new set of rules and complexes that can meet both the challenges of opportunities other than war, while still maintaining our ability to discourage big wars.
The discussion table is open.
Smart Power and Dumb Budgeting by Michael B. Kraft
“Smart Power” is the current buzzword for the best way to counter a wide variety of national security threats, but dumb budgeting procedures remain a major obstacle.
Congress already is slicing away at the Obama administration’s Foreign Affairs
Fiscal Year 2010 budget containing increases in foreign assistance programs to improve economic and social conditions in countries that are breeding grounds for violence and terrorism.
Meanwhile on the home front, the FBI testified to Congress that it is continuing its emphasis on countering terrorism threat that began after 9/11. But officials acknowledged that the FBI needs more agents to combat corporate and financial fraud and drug trafficking.
These developments reflecting the tugs and pulls of contradictory pressures and competition for resources were illustrated this week as the Congressional budget committees acted on the Obama Administration’s budget proposals, imposing cuts in the foreign assistance programs with their smart power components.
The House Budget Committee on Wednesday recommended a budget that would cut $5.5 billion from the administration’s $53.8 billion request. The Senate Budget Committee followed the next day although it made a lighter cuts — $4 billion.
While these cuts were made from a request that was initially a $5.8 billion 13.6% increase from the FY 2009 levels, this does not reflect the whole picture according to Dr. Gordon Adams, a former associate OMB director for national security and international affairs who is now a fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center. He said that if the second FY 2009 supplemental is enacted by Congress, the overall 2010 budget for State, USAID and foreign affairs agencies as proposed by the House Committee would end up a billion dollars lower than in 2009. If the Senate figures prevail, there would be no increase over FY 2009.
This is at a time when virtually the entire foreign affairs establishment, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates with his November 26, 2007 speech, is calling for allocating more resources for “smart power” foreign assistance and civil affairs activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and other trouble spots. He and many military men have said that that the military cannot do the job alone.
President Obama, in announcing his Afghanistan strategy Friday, said the United States would send hundreds of additional civilians and diplomats to Afghanistan to help improve that country's governance and economy. This would be in addition to the 4,000 additional troops he announced would be deployed to help train and advise the Afghan army.
Various non-government groups have pushed for increased funding for Smart Power, including the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, a bi-partisan group which on March 4 held a major event with speakers including former Secretary of State Powell and Sen. Robert Martinez (D-New Jersey) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other former officials of bioth parties. The Center released a “Report on Reports” summarizing 20 reports by a diverse groups of institutions and experts who support the use of enhanced non-military tools to help deal with weak and failing states. Conferences and seminars on smart power are regular events in Washington, including one held Tuesday at Ft. Meyer that featured several retired generals as speakers and included a panel with Andy Cochran, founder of this counterterrorism blog and Matt Levitt, a regular contributor, that discussed integrating and balancing soft and kinetic power.
Despite these efforts, as Dr. Adams noted, it is widely perceived that “International Affairs budgets do not have the strong constituency supporting defense, and as a result are vulnerable to these cuts.” The Defense Department’s full $533.7 billion request was approved. Dr. Adams said in a statement following the House Budget Committee action that the foreign affairs budget cuts reflect “the Committee and the Congress’ reluctance to consider all elements of national security spending together, as part of U.S. national security strategy. The result of such cuts could be a further weakening of the civilian tool of American statecraft.”
(Following the Senate Budget Committee's Actions, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the senior Republican member, said they will offer a Senae floor amendment to restore the $4 billion cut by the Senate Banking Committee. The U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, in emails urging support for the amendment, said "Anything less than the request level of $53.8 billion will greatly hamper the Administration's effort to implement a "smart power" strategy to elevate diplomacy and development in U.S. global engagement.")
By dumb budgeting, I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the Budget Committees –they have a tough job. But the whole process, involving a great amount of detail, lends itself to making across the board cuts, based on percentages compared to previous year budgets, instead of a close examination of the needs for individual programs. The prolonged use of continuing resolutions to extend funding at the previous fiscal year’s level for a few months at a time because Congress has not passed the appropriations bills on time greatly complicates the planning, scheduling and implementation of foreign assistance and training programs.
The Budget Committees set the overall spending ceiling for the administration’s budget request. A conference committee will work out the differences between the higher Senate version and the deeper House cuts. The authorizing committees also make their recommendations but it has been many years since Senate Foreign Relations Committees and House Foreign Affairs Committees have been able to pass authorizing bills. This is partly because members have been reluctant to vote twice on foreign assistance funding – opening themselves up to campaign opponents who might criticize them for “foreign giveaways.”
Consequently, the real power has shifted to the Appropriations Committees which will then consider the details, authorize on appropriations bills – formerly a no-- no-- and make their recommendations to the full House and Senate. However with the Budget committee allocations squeezing down from the top and the Appropriations subcommittees and full committee often making additional cuts in the foreign assistance program, it is likely that additional cuts will be made in the overall foreign affairs account and individual programs.
At stake could be such important but relatively small counterterrorism programs such as the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program (ATA), which improves the counterterrorism capabilities of civilian officials of friendly countries. The FY 2009 request was $141.5 million but about $17 million is earmarked for Afghanistan includes protection for the President of Afghanistan. The figures for 2010 will, like the rest of the budget, not be available until April but officials have indicated that they hope for some increases to meet the growing needs as Al Qaeda inspired terrorists continue to pop up in many countries. For more details, see the link to the discussion we held for the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Meanwhile during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Mueller said that countering the terrorism threat was still the number one priority although the focus left fewer agents to counter non-terrorism crime.
The New York Times interpreted this as the Obama administration “moving to solidify one of the most significant shifts of resources put into place under President Bush: the transformation of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into agencies where the top priority is counterterrorism rather than conventional law enforcement.”
On another terrorism-related issue Mueller urged Congress to renew portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that have sunset provisions and are scheduled to expire in December unless renewed by Congress.
A key provision is the so-called “roving wiretaps” that allows federal officials to seek wiretaps on all the communications devices utilized by a terrorist suspect, instead of seeking a separate warrant for each blackberry, cell phone or regular phone. Such authority was originally allowed in Mafia and other racketeering cases and was later extended to terrorism cases. The American Civil Liberty Union has opposed the Patriot Act as a “disastrous violation for Americans’ rights. But this roving wiretap act is one provision that should clearly be maintained to avoid unnecessary delays every time a terrorists suspect changes phones.
It is important that a balance be maintained between with civil liberties and security concerns and of course it is appropriate to review the sunset legislation in an objective matter. At the same time those who advocate and accept the ACLU’s opposition to these issues should understand that it should also be one’s civil liberty to be able to fly on an airliner or work in a landmark office building without being blown up.
Congress already is slicing away at the Obama administration’s Foreign Affairs
Fiscal Year 2010 budget containing increases in foreign assistance programs to improve economic and social conditions in countries that are breeding grounds for violence and terrorism.
Meanwhile on the home front, the FBI testified to Congress that it is continuing its emphasis on countering terrorism threat that began after 9/11. But officials acknowledged that the FBI needs more agents to combat corporate and financial fraud and drug trafficking.
These developments reflecting the tugs and pulls of contradictory pressures and competition for resources were illustrated this week as the Congressional budget committees acted on the Obama Administration’s budget proposals, imposing cuts in the foreign assistance programs with their smart power components.
The House Budget Committee on Wednesday recommended a budget that would cut $5.5 billion from the administration’s $53.8 billion request. The Senate Budget Committee followed the next day although it made a lighter cuts — $4 billion.
While these cuts were made from a request that was initially a $5.8 billion 13.6% increase from the FY 2009 levels, this does not reflect the whole picture according to Dr. Gordon Adams, a former associate OMB director for national security and international affairs who is now a fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center. He said that if the second FY 2009 supplemental is enacted by Congress, the overall 2010 budget for State, USAID and foreign affairs agencies as proposed by the House Committee would end up a billion dollars lower than in 2009. If the Senate figures prevail, there would be no increase over FY 2009.
This is at a time when virtually the entire foreign affairs establishment, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates with his November 26, 2007 speech, is calling for allocating more resources for “smart power” foreign assistance and civil affairs activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and other trouble spots. He and many military men have said that that the military cannot do the job alone.
President Obama, in announcing his Afghanistan strategy Friday, said the United States would send hundreds of additional civilians and diplomats to Afghanistan to help improve that country's governance and economy. This would be in addition to the 4,000 additional troops he announced would be deployed to help train and advise the Afghan army.
Various non-government groups have pushed for increased funding for Smart Power, including the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, a bi-partisan group which on March 4 held a major event with speakers including former Secretary of State Powell and Sen. Robert Martinez (D-New Jersey) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other former officials of bioth parties. The Center released a “Report on Reports” summarizing 20 reports by a diverse groups of institutions and experts who support the use of enhanced non-military tools to help deal with weak and failing states. Conferences and seminars on smart power are regular events in Washington, including one held Tuesday at Ft. Meyer that featured several retired generals as speakers and included a panel with Andy Cochran, founder of this counterterrorism blog and Matt Levitt, a regular contributor, that discussed integrating and balancing soft and kinetic power.
Despite these efforts, as Dr. Adams noted, it is widely perceived that “International Affairs budgets do not have the strong constituency supporting defense, and as a result are vulnerable to these cuts.” The Defense Department’s full $533.7 billion request was approved. Dr. Adams said in a statement following the House Budget Committee action that the foreign affairs budget cuts reflect “the Committee and the Congress’ reluctance to consider all elements of national security spending together, as part of U.S. national security strategy. The result of such cuts could be a further weakening of the civilian tool of American statecraft.”
(Following the Senate Budget Committee's Actions, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the senior Republican member, said they will offer a Senae floor amendment to restore the $4 billion cut by the Senate Banking Committee. The U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, in emails urging support for the amendment, said "Anything less than the request level of $53.8 billion will greatly hamper the Administration's effort to implement a "smart power" strategy to elevate diplomacy and development in U.S. global engagement.")
By dumb budgeting, I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the Budget Committees –they have a tough job. But the whole process, involving a great amount of detail, lends itself to making across the board cuts, based on percentages compared to previous year budgets, instead of a close examination of the needs for individual programs. The prolonged use of continuing resolutions to extend funding at the previous fiscal year’s level for a few months at a time because Congress has not passed the appropriations bills on time greatly complicates the planning, scheduling and implementation of foreign assistance and training programs.
The Budget Committees set the overall spending ceiling for the administration’s budget request. A conference committee will work out the differences between the higher Senate version and the deeper House cuts. The authorizing committees also make their recommendations but it has been many years since Senate Foreign Relations Committees and House Foreign Affairs Committees have been able to pass authorizing bills. This is partly because members have been reluctant to vote twice on foreign assistance funding – opening themselves up to campaign opponents who might criticize them for “foreign giveaways.”
Consequently, the real power has shifted to the Appropriations Committees which will then consider the details, authorize on appropriations bills – formerly a no-- no-- and make their recommendations to the full House and Senate. However with the Budget committee allocations squeezing down from the top and the Appropriations subcommittees and full committee often making additional cuts in the foreign assistance program, it is likely that additional cuts will be made in the overall foreign affairs account and individual programs.
At stake could be such important but relatively small counterterrorism programs such as the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program (ATA), which improves the counterterrorism capabilities of civilian officials of friendly countries. The FY 2009 request was $141.5 million but about $17 million is earmarked for Afghanistan includes protection for the President of Afghanistan. The figures for 2010 will, like the rest of the budget, not be available until April but officials have indicated that they hope for some increases to meet the growing needs as Al Qaeda inspired terrorists continue to pop up in many countries. For more details, see the link to the discussion we held for the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Meanwhile during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Mueller said that countering the terrorism threat was still the number one priority although the focus left fewer agents to counter non-terrorism crime.
The New York Times interpreted this as the Obama administration “moving to solidify one of the most significant shifts of resources put into place under President Bush: the transformation of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into agencies where the top priority is counterterrorism rather than conventional law enforcement.”
On another terrorism-related issue Mueller urged Congress to renew portions of the USA PATRIOT Act that have sunset provisions and are scheduled to expire in December unless renewed by Congress.
A key provision is the so-called “roving wiretaps” that allows federal officials to seek wiretaps on all the communications devices utilized by a terrorist suspect, instead of seeking a separate warrant for each blackberry, cell phone or regular phone. Such authority was originally allowed in Mafia and other racketeering cases and was later extended to terrorism cases. The American Civil Liberty Union has opposed the Patriot Act as a “disastrous violation for Americans’ rights. But this roving wiretap act is one provision that should clearly be maintained to avoid unnecessary delays every time a terrorists suspect changes phones.
It is important that a balance be maintained between with civil liberties and security concerns and of course it is appropriate to review the sunset legislation in an objective matter. At the same time those who advocate and accept the ACLU’s opposition to these issues should understand that it should also be one’s civil liberty to be able to fly on an airliner or work in a landmark office building without being blown up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)