The 9th anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attack was landmarked by Koran burning. It is a protest against President Barack Obama’s decision to give permission to build a mosque close to the ground zero. Certainly, 9-11 attacks aggravated anti-Islamic sentiments among Americans, and I think it is a caustic political error to give such a controversial permission when the public have not shed trauma of a dreadful incident.
However, I think things are beyond anti-Islamic sentiment but distrust to the Obama presidency. As shown in the Tea Party movements, grassroots conservatives criticize President Obama’s economic and health care policy, because they are afraid of “excessive” governmental intervention into their civil life. Conservative momentums are growing stronger even without the Tea Party. According to a recent poll by the USA Today and Gallup, “About 59% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans and 50% of independents said they believed the GOP had become more conservative since Obama took office” (Poll: GOP more conservative but not because of the 'tea party'; Los Angels Times; September 17, 2010). It is ironical that the Obama presidency splits America, as opposed to his famous speech to call for unity beyond race and ideology. Koran burning and the Tea Party movements are just tiny tips of an iceberg to illustrate the “Obama Divide”.
Unlike European welfare states, America is a “Right Nation” as John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue in their book. Conservative movements are strong and widespread in the United States. Both British authors compare conservative political bases on both sides of the Atlantic, and they say the American side has more extensive grassroots network and highly esteemed think tanks. Barack Obama is an odd man out in a Right Nation.
The Obama Divide is being intensified in foreign policy as well. While some media regard Obama’s speeches in Prague and Cairo as a breakthrough to depart from Bush’ s cow boy diplomacy, conservative opinion leaders criticize them apologetic to American preeminence. At APEC summit in Singapore, Obama even said that America would welcome the rise of China. Though Obama tries to meddle his liberal thoughts and presidential duty as shown in the speech to commemorate the end of US combat mission in Iraq, it is very tough to soothe conservative and centrist suspicion to his “un-Americanness”. Koran burning reveals such deeply embedded sentiments among the public.
President Obama’s background needs to be examined to explore the reality behind the burning. Had the president come from electoral bases acceptable to conservatives, radical Christians would have stopped burning Koran. Yoshiki Hidaka, Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute, mentions Obama’s “dark personal contacts” with left wing extremists in his book “America has chosen a misfortune”. The famous cover page picture of the New Yorker, in which Obama and his wife Michelle wear Taliban clothes, illustrates deeply embedded suspicion to Obama among the American public. Actually savage behavior like burning did not happen during the Bush era.
I shall never support this sort of uncivilized middle age brutalism. Eminent leaders of counterterrorism allies in both the Afghan and the Iraq wars, notably, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and NATO Secretary General Anders Fough Rasmussen denounced Koran burning. Blair’s Britain was the staunchest contributor to US-led War on Terror. Rasmussen was a leading proponent of the Iraq War as the prime minister of Denmark. Moreover, General David Petraeus who commands the war in Afghanistan denounced the burning. But I have to call an attention to the Obama Divide when we explore the background of fanatic hatred to specific religion.
According to a survey by AFL-CIO, Barack Obama was the most liberal senator. Can a “leftist extremist” Obama govern the Right Nation? The mid term election will be a critical occasion to evaluate the effect of the Obama Divide. Has America chosen a wrong president? That is the vital question.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Prospect of Afghanistan by General Petraeus
President Barack Obama announced that the United States would concentrate counterterrorism struggle on Afghanistan when he declared the end of combat missions in Iraq. Therefore, I would like to review commentaries by General David Petraeus and some articles to understand the Afghan War and explore the strategy.
First, let me present an overview of this war. As in Iraq, the Obama administration explores to transfer responsibility to local security forces and withdraw earlier. However, former commander General David McKiernan and current commander General David Petraeus opposed early transition to Afghan units, because the progress of training them is slower than expected. In order to improve the capability of Afghan forces more quickly, the coalition sent additional troops in December 2009. Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell of NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan said, "Our mission is about teaming with Afghans to build a bright, dynamic future for this sovereign nation."
Currently, Afghan Security Forces consist of the Army, the Air Force, and the National Police. Among them, the army is regarded as the most capable unit. Although the size of the Afghan Army expanded from 83,000 in March 2009 to 113,000, that is short of the requirement by Senator Joseph Lieberman to double the manpower. Also, it is slow to provide sufficient equipments to fight independently against terrorists for the Afghan army. One Afghan general said "I was much [better] equipped when we were fighting the Soviets." The Air Force remains infant level, but the Pentagon plans to make this force capable of providing air support from helicopters to the troops on the ground. As to the National Police, lack of professionalism is a critical problem. The Afghan Police misuse power over the public, abuse drug, and shoot their colleagues.
Currently, as in Iraq, General Petraeus endorses close partnership between the coalition forces and the Afghan troops. US and NATO teams expand their training programs through the Afghan Defense University. Governmental bureaucracy needs to be reformed as well. Judicial systems are still inept to enforce the rule of law, and the Ministry of Defense is split with ethnic friction and political fractionalis (“Backgrounder: Afghanistan's National Security Forces”; Council on Foreign Relations; August 19, 2010).
In view of the above mentioned overview, some experts point out fundamental differences between Afghanistan and Iraq when discussing the surge. While Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was resolute to defeat insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai explores some compromises with Taliban. Also, Iraqi forces were permitted to more freedom than Afghan forces, which is necessary to take decisive actions to defeat enemies in case of emergency. It is troublesome that Afghan people are “not necessarily fond of the Taliban actions, do not seem to see huge differences between Taliban and government control” (“Realities, rules, relationships won't help surge succeed”; Iraq the Model; August 1, 2010).
However, Joshua Gross, ex-Media Relations Director of the Afghan Embassy in Washington, insists on the case for the surge and Western involvement in nation building. He points out that liberals have been ardent proponent for the Afghan War since 9-11, while they talk of early withdrawal today. Gross urges war opponents such as the Members of Progressive Caucus to remember vital values of this war, and points out that President Obama endorses the mission in Afghanistan. He argues against progressive claim that the war is an unwinnable quagmire, and the land is ungovernable. Afghanistan fell into turmoil since the United States withdrew support for the mujahedeen when their resistance against the Soviet Red Army ended.
However, Gross points out that Afghanistan was relatively peaceful from late 19th century to early 1970s. And Afghan security is improving and its economic reconstruction is making progress little by little. Therefore, he insists that Afghanistan is governable. More importantly, Gross argues that America must not discourage reform minded Afghans through premature withdrawal (”Liberals stand with Afghanistan”; Politico; August 17, 2010).
As shown in the video below, General Petraeus argues against skepticism to the Afghan mission, and told that NATO forces overturned momentums for Taliban in key areas such as central Helmand province. Also he stressed that this was a necessary war to defend free citizens around the world from transnational extremists’ attack. In addition, General says that this is a war to save Afghan people from mediaeval oppression by Taliban (NATO Channel; August 31, 2010).
Although President Obama asserts his commitment to the Afghan War, his deadline of July 2011 raises concerns among policymakers and military strategists. Senator John McCain said "You cannot tell the enemy you're going to leave and expect to succeed" (FOX News Sunday; September 5, 2010). Marine Corps Commander General James Conway warned that the withdrawal deadline suggested by President Obama would boost Taliban’s morale, and he expected the Marine Corps to stay to complete the mission (“Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns”; Guardian; 25 August 2010). To placate such worries, General Petraeus said that the White House understands unpredictable nature of the war, in an interview with David Gregory (“Meet the Press”; NBC News; August 13, 2010).
For successful mission in Afghanistan, the coalition forces revised both military and non-military approaches. General Petraeus intensified counterinsurgent attacks by special operation forces, and 235 enemy leaders were killed or captured. In parallel, the general said that the special operation forces have made contributions to community building, such as key leader engagements and medical exercises. Socio-economic improvements will discourage terrorists to claim the area as their safe haven or sanctuary (“Petraeus Explains Afghanistan Strategy”; Small Wars Journal; September 3, 2010). Understanding local community is critically important. However, General Petraeus points out that the United States did not know about Afghan tribes and tribal leaders to well enough to deepen cooperation in community building, unlike Iraq (“Petraeus: U.S. Lacks Afghan Tribal Knowledge”; Wall Street Journal; September 2, 2010). External threats are also important. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta insist that the United States focus more on remote control to Afghan terrorists from Pakistan. Petraeus say their concerns are legitimate (“Petraeus: Karzai concerns about Pakistan 'legitimate'”; Hill; August 31, 2010).
In an interview with John Noonan, Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said that cross-organizational coordination, not only between US military and the Embassy, but also between foreign contributors, the UN, and NGOs, is a key to success（”FPI Policy Advisor John Noonan interviews CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot”; Foreign Policy Initiative; September 8, 2010).
The Afghan War is winnable and the land is governable. Prior to NATO Summit in Lisbon on November 19 to 20 this year to discuss transition of responsibilities in Afghanistan, General Petraeus requested 2,000 additional troops to train Afghan security forces (“Gen Petraeus requests 2,000 more troops for Afghanistan”; daily Telegraph; 6 September 2010). The victory in the Afghan War requires consummate skill to coordinate American and international agencies, local authorities and tribes and so forth. General Petraeus has shown competence in managing delicate political interactions in Iraq. The most important point is President Barack Obama’s leadership. As shown in his speeches in Prague, Cairo, and Singapore, the President is too shy of endorsing American preeminence. This may be one of the reasons why he hints early pull out and focusing on the economy. That is a dangerous temptation.
First, let me present an overview of this war. As in Iraq, the Obama administration explores to transfer responsibility to local security forces and withdraw earlier. However, former commander General David McKiernan and current commander General David Petraeus opposed early transition to Afghan units, because the progress of training them is slower than expected. In order to improve the capability of Afghan forces more quickly, the coalition sent additional troops in December 2009. Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell of NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan said, "Our mission is about teaming with Afghans to build a bright, dynamic future for this sovereign nation."
Currently, Afghan Security Forces consist of the Army, the Air Force, and the National Police. Among them, the army is regarded as the most capable unit. Although the size of the Afghan Army expanded from 83,000 in March 2009 to 113,000, that is short of the requirement by Senator Joseph Lieberman to double the manpower. Also, it is slow to provide sufficient equipments to fight independently against terrorists for the Afghan army. One Afghan general said "I was much [better] equipped when we were fighting the Soviets." The Air Force remains infant level, but the Pentagon plans to make this force capable of providing air support from helicopters to the troops on the ground. As to the National Police, lack of professionalism is a critical problem. The Afghan Police misuse power over the public, abuse drug, and shoot their colleagues.
Currently, as in Iraq, General Petraeus endorses close partnership between the coalition forces and the Afghan troops. US and NATO teams expand their training programs through the Afghan Defense University. Governmental bureaucracy needs to be reformed as well. Judicial systems are still inept to enforce the rule of law, and the Ministry of Defense is split with ethnic friction and political fractionalis (“Backgrounder: Afghanistan's National Security Forces”; Council on Foreign Relations; August 19, 2010).
In view of the above mentioned overview, some experts point out fundamental differences between Afghanistan and Iraq when discussing the surge. While Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was resolute to defeat insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai explores some compromises with Taliban. Also, Iraqi forces were permitted to more freedom than Afghan forces, which is necessary to take decisive actions to defeat enemies in case of emergency. It is troublesome that Afghan people are “not necessarily fond of the Taliban actions, do not seem to see huge differences between Taliban and government control” (“Realities, rules, relationships won't help surge succeed”; Iraq the Model; August 1, 2010).
However, Joshua Gross, ex-Media Relations Director of the Afghan Embassy in Washington, insists on the case for the surge and Western involvement in nation building. He points out that liberals have been ardent proponent for the Afghan War since 9-11, while they talk of early withdrawal today. Gross urges war opponents such as the Members of Progressive Caucus to remember vital values of this war, and points out that President Obama endorses the mission in Afghanistan. He argues against progressive claim that the war is an unwinnable quagmire, and the land is ungovernable. Afghanistan fell into turmoil since the United States withdrew support for the mujahedeen when their resistance against the Soviet Red Army ended.
However, Gross points out that Afghanistan was relatively peaceful from late 19th century to early 1970s. And Afghan security is improving and its economic reconstruction is making progress little by little. Therefore, he insists that Afghanistan is governable. More importantly, Gross argues that America must not discourage reform minded Afghans through premature withdrawal (”Liberals stand with Afghanistan”; Politico; August 17, 2010).
As shown in the video below, General Petraeus argues against skepticism to the Afghan mission, and told that NATO forces overturned momentums for Taliban in key areas such as central Helmand province. Also he stressed that this was a necessary war to defend free citizens around the world from transnational extremists’ attack. In addition, General says that this is a war to save Afghan people from mediaeval oppression by Taliban (NATO Channel; August 31, 2010).
Although President Obama asserts his commitment to the Afghan War, his deadline of July 2011 raises concerns among policymakers and military strategists. Senator John McCain said "You cannot tell the enemy you're going to leave and expect to succeed" (FOX News Sunday; September 5, 2010). Marine Corps Commander General James Conway warned that the withdrawal deadline suggested by President Obama would boost Taliban’s morale, and he expected the Marine Corps to stay to complete the mission (“Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns”; Guardian; 25 August 2010). To placate such worries, General Petraeus said that the White House understands unpredictable nature of the war, in an interview with David Gregory (“Meet the Press”; NBC News; August 13, 2010).
For successful mission in Afghanistan, the coalition forces revised both military and non-military approaches. General Petraeus intensified counterinsurgent attacks by special operation forces, and 235 enemy leaders were killed or captured. In parallel, the general said that the special operation forces have made contributions to community building, such as key leader engagements and medical exercises. Socio-economic improvements will discourage terrorists to claim the area as their safe haven or sanctuary (“Petraeus Explains Afghanistan Strategy”; Small Wars Journal; September 3, 2010). Understanding local community is critically important. However, General Petraeus points out that the United States did not know about Afghan tribes and tribal leaders to well enough to deepen cooperation in community building, unlike Iraq (“Petraeus: U.S. Lacks Afghan Tribal Knowledge”; Wall Street Journal; September 2, 2010). External threats are also important. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta insist that the United States focus more on remote control to Afghan terrorists from Pakistan. Petraeus say their concerns are legitimate (“Petraeus: Karzai concerns about Pakistan 'legitimate'”; Hill; August 31, 2010).
In an interview with John Noonan, Max Boot, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said that cross-organizational coordination, not only between US military and the Embassy, but also between foreign contributors, the UN, and NGOs, is a key to success（”FPI Policy Advisor John Noonan interviews CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot”; Foreign Policy Initiative; September 8, 2010).
The Afghan War is winnable and the land is governable. Prior to NATO Summit in Lisbon on November 19 to 20 this year to discuss transition of responsibilities in Afghanistan, General Petraeus requested 2,000 additional troops to train Afghan security forces (“Gen Petraeus requests 2,000 more troops for Afghanistan”; daily Telegraph; 6 September 2010). The victory in the Afghan War requires consummate skill to coordinate American and international agencies, local authorities and tribes and so forth. General Petraeus has shown competence in managing delicate political interactions in Iraq. The most important point is President Barack Obama’s leadership. As shown in his speeches in Prague, Cairo, and Singapore, the President is too shy of endorsing American preeminence. This may be one of the reasons why he hints early pull out and focusing on the economy. That is a dangerous temptation.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
A Review of Ex-PM Blair’s Commentary on Iraq and the War on Terror
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has released a new book, entitled “A Journey” on the day when President Barack Obama announced the end of the Iraq War. Is it a coincidence? Even if it is not, the book has appeared at a turning point when Obama decided to turn the page (“Was Obama's speech 'Mission Accomplished'?”; Washington Post; September 1, 2010). Though Obama was an opponent to this war as a presidential candidate, FPI Director William Kristol says the President was respectful to soldiers in his speech (“A Note to My Fellow Hawks: It wasn't a bad speech”; Weekly Standard Blog; August 31, 2010). Anyway, Obama tried to strike a delicate balance between his liberal belief and the duty as the President. Since the Commander in Chief does not have confidence in the mission in Iraq, it is vital to review the new book, in order to understand why Tony Blair fought the Iraq War along with George W. Bush. Also, I would like to refer to some articles by Blair to explore how major democracies lead the global community in the War on Terror.As the Prime Minister, Blair insisted that Iraq and Afghanistan was beyond security and military issue but they were starting points to win the War on Terror in terms of values. Extremists want stable democracy to fail, and drive the Islamic world back to semi-feudal religious autocracy. Also, Blair said clearly that Iraq was a vital threat to global security, though WMDs were not found. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, and murdered the Kurds with chemical weapons. The United Nations issued 14 resolutions against the Baathist regime (“A Battle for Global Values”; Foreign Affairs; January/February 2007).
In his latest book, Blair talks about WMD information prior to the Iraq War. Though the media and antiwar activists blamed intelligence mistake, Blair says they would have accepted the war, had WMDs been found. In addition, Blair wonders why Saddam acted as if he had been hiding nuclear weapons. However, he still believes that the decision was right. Though Saddam faced tough sanctions, and it was a compelling priority to remove them to save the economy, Iraq still craved for dominance in the Middle East. Nuclear acquisition was vital for his ambition to overshadow Iran and Israel. I believe this is a critical point to evaluate whether American and British attack was right or not. Saddam mocked UN inspectors, because he did not give up such megalomaniac greed. Remember this when we deal with current proliferators like Iran and North Korea.
The threat of Baathist Iraq is not the only problem. Tony Blair mentions the number of Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam Hussein as shown below.
• Iran–Iraq War, 1980–8: 600,000–1.1 million total fatalities from both countries
(Anthony Cordesman, The Lessons of Modern War, Vol. II, p. 3)
• Anfal Campaign against Kurds, 1988: up to 100,000 Kurdish fatalities; many more injuries and displaced persons
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Genocide in Iraq’, 2003)
• 1991 Invasion of Kuwait/Gulf War: 75,000 fatalities
(Milton Leitenberg, ‘Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century’, Cornell University, Peace Studies Program)
• 1991 campaigns/reprisals against Shia: 50,000 fatalities
(Leitenberg)
• Other political killings over the years: 100,000 or more
(Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice Needed for Iraqi Government Crimes’, December 2002)
Moreover, Blair points out that international sanctions inflicted significant impacts on health and sanitation for Iraqi citizens.
The Iraq War is just one case of the battle against extremist and autocracy. Blair insists that military intervention to rogue regimes has become increasingly required due to globalization. Among those regimes, Iran is the most critical. Blair comments, “Iran is a far more immediate threat to its Arab neighbours than it is to America ... That's why Iran matters. Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean others in the region acquiring the same capability; it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, but also within Islam." He concludes "I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon" (“Tony Blair: military intervention in rogue regimes 'more necessary than ever'”; Guardian; 1 September 2010).
As Barack Obama pulled US combat troops out of Iraq, it is time to explore rights and wrongs in the Iraq War, and learn lessons to defeat dangerous ambitions of terrorists, extremists, and rogue states. Tony Blair presents us invaluable suggestions.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The US-Japanese Friendship Festival at Yokota Air Base
I went to the US-Japanese Friendship Festival at Yokota US Air Force Base in Fussa city, north west of Tokyo, on August 22. The festival is held once a year, co-hosted by the US Forces in Japan and Fussa Tourism Association. Yokota Air Base is a keystone of US military operations in the Asia-Pacific region, and the headquarters of the US Forces in Japan is located there.
During the festival, the air base is open to the public, and visitors enjoy shop stands and aircraft exhibitions. For Japanese people, it is a good opportunity to enjoy American culture and life style close at hand, and 130,000 visitors came to the air base. I was marveled to see a sheer number of people coming to Yokota. The festival lasts for two days, and various entertainment attractions are performed on the stage.
As soon as I arrived at the base, I walked around shop stands to buy lunch. I had a BLT (bacon, lettuce, tomato) sandwich and soft drink. Although both dollar and yen were used at the shop, the change bills in yen I received were wrinkled. This is very American, because people receive neatly pressed bills at the shop and the bank in Japan.
Having eaten lunch, I walked toward the airfield to see military planes of the US armed forces and the Japanese Self Defense Force. The aircrafts displayed were F4, F15, F16, and F22 fighters; A10 attackers; SH60 and UH60 helicopters; and so forth. F22 stealth fighters were very popular. They came from Okinawa.
F22 Raptor, very popular
Quite interestingly, I found four short vinyl strings in the hind part of the helicopter. I asked a US serviceman what they were. He told me that they were electric wires to release static electricity. Those wires are not equipped with jet fighters, according to him. Seeing is believing! I would not have found such an interesting fact, even if I made well-designed plastic models.
Visitors were not necessarily military manias. I saw innumerable families, couples, and so forth. Some of them came to the base only to see fireworks at night. It was extremely hot, atomospheric temprature of 35℃ or 95°F, and there were hardly any shades in a vast and open asphalt air field. I was impressed with physical endurance of American soldiers because they were not exhausted by the heat wave at all. No wonder they can fight anywhere in the world once ordered by the president.
Strangely enough, I did not find any leftist rallies. At Yokota, tens of thousand of visitors enjoyed the festival. Can people in Okinawa enjoy some events like this? There seems to be a huge perception gap between mainland Japanese and Okinawans, as to US bases in Japan.
During the festival, the air base is open to the public, and visitors enjoy shop stands and aircraft exhibitions. For Japanese people, it is a good opportunity to enjoy American culture and life style close at hand, and 130,000 visitors came to the air base. I was marveled to see a sheer number of people coming to Yokota. The festival lasts for two days, and various entertainment attractions are performed on the stage.
As soon as I arrived at the base, I walked around shop stands to buy lunch. I had a BLT (bacon, lettuce, tomato) sandwich and soft drink. Although both dollar and yen were used at the shop, the change bills in yen I received were wrinkled. This is very American, because people receive neatly pressed bills at the shop and the bank in Japan.
Having eaten lunch, I walked toward the airfield to see military planes of the US armed forces and the Japanese Self Defense Force. The aircrafts displayed were F4, F15, F16, and F22 fighters; A10 attackers; SH60 and UH60 helicopters; and so forth. F22 stealth fighters were very popular. They came from Okinawa.
F22 Raptor, very popular
Quite interestingly, I found four short vinyl strings in the hind part of the helicopter. I asked a US serviceman what they were. He told me that they were electric wires to release static electricity. Those wires are not equipped with jet fighters, according to him. Seeing is believing! I would not have found such an interesting fact, even if I made well-designed plastic models.
Visitors were not necessarily military manias. I saw innumerable families, couples, and so forth. Some of them came to the base only to see fireworks at night. It was extremely hot, atomospheric temprature of 35℃ or 95°F, and there were hardly any shades in a vast and open asphalt air field. I was impressed with physical endurance of American soldiers because they were not exhausted by the heat wave at all. No wonder they can fight anywhere in the world once ordered by the president.
Strangely enough, I did not find any leftist rallies. At Yokota, tens of thousand of visitors enjoyed the festival. Can people in Okinawa enjoy some events like this? There seems to be a huge perception gap between mainland Japanese and Okinawans, as to US bases in Japan.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Defense Reform by Secretary Gates
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he would close the Joint Forces Command (See 1 and 2) to cut military spending in view of recession. In addition, Gates considers lowering the budget for defense contractors, and cutting civilian and military positions in the Department of Defense. Those cuts are expected to offset the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars and increasing domestic spending (“Gates announces major cuts in military spending”; Boston Globe; August 10, 2010).
The new defense budget plan has inflicted damages on defense contractors and investors. The Joint Forces Command employs 6,100 contractors, civilians and military personnel in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the plan by Gates, the Pentagon will reduce the number of contractors for 10% annually over three years. Loren Thompson, a consultant to major defense contractors including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and BAE, comments that hardware producers will be all right but administrative work outsourcers be hit by the plan (“Defense secretary's planned cuts upset investors and defense contractors”; Washington Post; August 11, 2010).
At the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Gates told the audience, “It means shifting resources from bureaucracies and overhead to military combat capabilities needed by our combat forces now and in the future.” On the other hand, Gates demanded the Congress not to repeat the same mistake of slashing military spending too deeply at the end of the Cold War, simply because of rising federal deficit (“Gates Urges Congress to Avoid `Mistake' of Harmful Cuts in Military Budget”; Bloomberg News; August 14, 2010). Even though Secretary Gates said he would resign in 2011, he wants to maintain his influence on President Obama as a senior advisor through this plan (“Defense secretary Gates says he would like to leave next year”; Washington Post; August 17, 2010).
However, some people cast doubt on the plan by Gates. Stephen Daggett, a specialist in defense policy and budgets at the Congressional Research Service, said that defense spending would not be cut simply by closing the Joint Forces Command, because some of its duties, including developing doctrine and training, would be done other sections of the military (“Will Gates' proposed Pentagon spending cuts really save money?”; Top Secret America ―― Washington Post Blog; August 10, 2010). It is more important to discuss whether the United States can manage state and non-state threats around the world under a scaled down defense budget. In the House, Rep. Buck McKeon and Rep. Eric Cantor criticize the plan because they see the Joint Forces Command necessary to manage growing and intertwined threats（”Lawmakers Question Gates Defense Cuts in Face of 'Growing Threats'”; FOX News; August 11, 2010).
This issue is much more deep rooted than it appears. The day before 9-11 attack, Secretary of Defense-then Donald Rumsfeld declared structural reform in Pentagon bureaucracy, such as lowering dependence on administrative work outsourcing. However, the terrorist attack forced Rumsfeld to shift his attention away from the reform to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert Gates tackles an incomplete job of his predecessor beyond partisan constraints (“Gates takes on the bureaucracy”; Shadow Government――Foreign Policy Blog; August 10, 2010). In addition to structural reform of the Pentagon and armed forces, Gates stopped some “Cold War” arsenals like F22 stealth fighters, DDG-1000 destroyers, and so forth. However, Secretary Gates must strike a delicate balance between large arsenals for traditional state-to-state conflict and small and quick arsenals for post Cold War combat like counterterrorism (“The Transformer”; Foreign Policy; September/October 2010).
Thomas Donnelly, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that the Joint Forces Command should be scrapped because it did not work well to pursue joint defense objectives beyond armed forces sectionalism. However, he says that the reform make the United States safer only marginally (“Gates is Wielding the Budget Axe”; AEI Center for Defense Studies; August 9, 2010). The rise of terrorism and the economic crisis make it necessary to reform bureaucratic and command structure in the armed forces and the Pentagon. However, the United States still must be prepared for traditional threats, as Russia and China reemerge in the post Cold War era. This reform is an unfinished job of his predecessor. Will Gates make solid foundations for the future of American defense policy until his resignation in 2011?
The new defense budget plan has inflicted damages on defense contractors and investors. The Joint Forces Command employs 6,100 contractors, civilians and military personnel in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the plan by Gates, the Pentagon will reduce the number of contractors for 10% annually over three years. Loren Thompson, a consultant to major defense contractors including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and BAE, comments that hardware producers will be all right but administrative work outsourcers be hit by the plan (“Defense secretary's planned cuts upset investors and defense contractors”; Washington Post; August 11, 2010).
At the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Gates told the audience, “It means shifting resources from bureaucracies and overhead to military combat capabilities needed by our combat forces now and in the future.” On the other hand, Gates demanded the Congress not to repeat the same mistake of slashing military spending too deeply at the end of the Cold War, simply because of rising federal deficit (“Gates Urges Congress to Avoid `Mistake' of Harmful Cuts in Military Budget”; Bloomberg News; August 14, 2010). Even though Secretary Gates said he would resign in 2011, he wants to maintain his influence on President Obama as a senior advisor through this plan (“Defense secretary Gates says he would like to leave next year”; Washington Post; August 17, 2010).
However, some people cast doubt on the plan by Gates. Stephen Daggett, a specialist in defense policy and budgets at the Congressional Research Service, said that defense spending would not be cut simply by closing the Joint Forces Command, because some of its duties, including developing doctrine and training, would be done other sections of the military (“Will Gates' proposed Pentagon spending cuts really save money?”; Top Secret America ―― Washington Post Blog; August 10, 2010). It is more important to discuss whether the United States can manage state and non-state threats around the world under a scaled down defense budget. In the House, Rep. Buck McKeon and Rep. Eric Cantor criticize the plan because they see the Joint Forces Command necessary to manage growing and intertwined threats（”Lawmakers Question Gates Defense Cuts in Face of 'Growing Threats'”; FOX News; August 11, 2010).
This issue is much more deep rooted than it appears. The day before 9-11 attack, Secretary of Defense-then Donald Rumsfeld declared structural reform in Pentagon bureaucracy, such as lowering dependence on administrative work outsourcing. However, the terrorist attack forced Rumsfeld to shift his attention away from the reform to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert Gates tackles an incomplete job of his predecessor beyond partisan constraints (“Gates takes on the bureaucracy”; Shadow Government――Foreign Policy Blog; August 10, 2010). In addition to structural reform of the Pentagon and armed forces, Gates stopped some “Cold War” arsenals like F22 stealth fighters, DDG-1000 destroyers, and so forth. However, Secretary Gates must strike a delicate balance between large arsenals for traditional state-to-state conflict and small and quick arsenals for post Cold War combat like counterterrorism (“The Transformer”; Foreign Policy; September/October 2010).
Thomas Donnelly, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that the Joint Forces Command should be scrapped because it did not work well to pursue joint defense objectives beyond armed forces sectionalism. However, he says that the reform make the United States safer only marginally (“Gates is Wielding the Budget Axe”; AEI Center for Defense Studies; August 9, 2010). The rise of terrorism and the economic crisis make it necessary to reform bureaucratic and command structure in the armed forces and the Pentagon. However, the United States still must be prepared for traditional threats, as Russia and China reemerge in the post Cold War era. This reform is an unfinished job of his predecessor. Will Gates make solid foundations for the future of American defense policy until his resignation in 2011?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Hurdles for a Nuclear Free World
Has global security started to move toward a nuclear free world this year? Based on the Prague speech, President Barack Obama hosted the 1st Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12 and 13. Also, Ambassador John Roos attended the Atomic Bomb Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima on August 6 as the first US representative in history. Those actions are impressive, but it is a long way to go to achieve this goal, because old geopolitics has reemerged in the post Cold War era, and rogue states are pursuing nuclear development projects.
First, let me talk about fundamental points regarding the idea of a nuclear free world. This is not original to Barack Obama. It was senior American politicians, including Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State George Schultz, Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Former Senator Sam Nunn that presented theoretical foundations for a world without nuclear weapons in the Wall Street Journal in 2007. In the article, bipartisan leaders insist that policymakers change Cold War mindset of MAD as nuclear deterrence is becoming decreasingly effective due to the challenge of rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the emergence of non-state actors like terrorist groups. The four leaders argued just from realist viewpoints, and never remarked something controversial, like a highlighted phrase in the Prague speech, “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”
Regarding this phrase, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment points out that Obama articulated to maintain nuclear deterrence to defend the United States and free allies as long as nuclear threats continue to exist (“The Obama Nuclear Agenda: One Year after Prague”; Carnegie Policy Outlook; March 31, 2010).
The most critical hurdle for a nuclear free world is old geopolitical rivalries posed by Russia and China. Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. As to China, Gordon Chang says, “Beijing’s ruthlessly pragmatic leaders see our failure to press human rights as a sign that we think we are weak. And if they think we are weak, they see little reason to cooperate. So promoting human rights is protecting American security."
While the Obama administration explores a win-win deal with Russia, conservatives are concerned with new START because Kremlin simply wants to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticizes Obama’s obsession with arms reduction and says, “The positions of the United States and Russia are not parallel, and roughly equivalent warhead limits impair Washington far more than Moscow." I agree with Bolton that the United States must defend allies around the globe, but Russia does not have to.
Quite importantly, neither Russia nor China share concerns with the West regarding nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups. Russia sold S300 surface to air missiles to Iran. In addition, Kremlin decided to supply uranium to Iran’s first nuclear reactor in Bushehr, though the United States worries that Iran will interpret this as a signal of tolerance to its nuclear ambition (“Russian nuclear agency says Iran's first nuclear plant will start getting fuel next week”; FOX News; August 13, 2010). China still endorses the repressive regime in North Korea, simply because the Beijing government worries confusions associated with the collapse of the Pyongyang dictatorship, rather than nuclear proliferation. Stark gaps are found on nuclear terrorism. As Liz Cheney mentioned in the debate with Former Secretary of State Colin Powell this February, American policymakers are keenly aware of terrorist acquisition of WMDs, from conservative to liberal. Until Russians and Chinese face further serious attacks by radical Muslims of Chechnya and Uighur respectively, they may not assume common understandings on nuclear terrorism with the United States.
Also, it has become apparent that China does not respect the Obama initiative. In June, China proposed to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, despite the fear of intensified nuclear rivalries with India. Beijing Communists assume “If America can bend the rules for India, then China can break them for Pakistan” (“Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares”; Economist; June 24, 2010). In theory, such a geopolitical game will happen. However, China was more cautious to avoid provoking America during the Bush era. Applying a phrase by an Iraq veteran Captain Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets for Freedom, I would like to say “China sees Obama as weak.”
Henry Sokolski, Executive Director at the Nonproliferaion Education Center, points out that even if America reaches a model nuclear deal with developing courtiers, other nuclear suppliers ruin nonproliferation efforts by Washington. Regarding the nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates finalized by the Obama administration, Sokolski says that the UAE chose South Korean facilities because of lower price and looser nonproliferation requirements than those of the United States (“Nuclear Nonproliferation Games”; National Review Online; August 5, 2010). In other words, the Obama administration failed to bind the UAE, and simply lost business opportunity with this country. It is not lofty ideals cited by Barack Obama but commercial interests that have significant influences on nonproliferation efforts.
President Obama may have taken some impressive actions for a nuclear free world, but his initiative is not respected among major nuclear powers and possible proliferators. As long as they see America weak, none of nuclear elimination initiatives will make any progress. Particularly, autocratic regimes pursue interests of their leaders, not global peace. Yes, a nuclear free world is much safer. To achieve this goal, the United States must impress its strength, rather than hinting America's moralistic drawbacks that Obama mentioned in the Prague speech.
First, let me talk about fundamental points regarding the idea of a nuclear free world. This is not original to Barack Obama. It was senior American politicians, including Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State George Schultz, Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Former Senator Sam Nunn that presented theoretical foundations for a world without nuclear weapons in the Wall Street Journal in 2007. In the article, bipartisan leaders insist that policymakers change Cold War mindset of MAD as nuclear deterrence is becoming decreasingly effective due to the challenge of rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the emergence of non-state actors like terrorist groups. The four leaders argued just from realist viewpoints, and never remarked something controversial, like a highlighted phrase in the Prague speech, “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”
Regarding this phrase, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment points out that Obama articulated to maintain nuclear deterrence to defend the United States and free allies as long as nuclear threats continue to exist (“The Obama Nuclear Agenda: One Year after Prague”; Carnegie Policy Outlook; March 31, 2010).
The most critical hurdle for a nuclear free world is old geopolitical rivalries posed by Russia and China. Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. As to China, Gordon Chang says, “Beijing’s ruthlessly pragmatic leaders see our failure to press human rights as a sign that we think we are weak. And if they think we are weak, they see little reason to cooperate. So promoting human rights is protecting American security."
While the Obama administration explores a win-win deal with Russia, conservatives are concerned with new START because Kremlin simply wants to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticizes Obama’s obsession with arms reduction and says, “The positions of the United States and Russia are not parallel, and roughly equivalent warhead limits impair Washington far more than Moscow." I agree with Bolton that the United States must defend allies around the globe, but Russia does not have to.
Quite importantly, neither Russia nor China share concerns with the West regarding nuclear proliferation to rogue states and terrorist groups. Russia sold S300 surface to air missiles to Iran. In addition, Kremlin decided to supply uranium to Iran’s first nuclear reactor in Bushehr, though the United States worries that Iran will interpret this as a signal of tolerance to its nuclear ambition (“Russian nuclear agency says Iran's first nuclear plant will start getting fuel next week”; FOX News; August 13, 2010). China still endorses the repressive regime in North Korea, simply because the Beijing government worries confusions associated with the collapse of the Pyongyang dictatorship, rather than nuclear proliferation. Stark gaps are found on nuclear terrorism. As Liz Cheney mentioned in the debate with Former Secretary of State Colin Powell this February, American policymakers are keenly aware of terrorist acquisition of WMDs, from conservative to liberal. Until Russians and Chinese face further serious attacks by radical Muslims of Chechnya and Uighur respectively, they may not assume common understandings on nuclear terrorism with the United States.
Also, it has become apparent that China does not respect the Obama initiative. In June, China proposed to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, despite the fear of intensified nuclear rivalries with India. Beijing Communists assume “If America can bend the rules for India, then China can break them for Pakistan” (“Nuclear proliferation in South Asia: The power of nightmares”; Economist; June 24, 2010). In theory, such a geopolitical game will happen. However, China was more cautious to avoid provoking America during the Bush era. Applying a phrase by an Iraq veteran Captain Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets for Freedom, I would like to say “China sees Obama as weak.”
Henry Sokolski, Executive Director at the Nonproliferaion Education Center, points out that even if America reaches a model nuclear deal with developing courtiers, other nuclear suppliers ruin nonproliferation efforts by Washington. Regarding the nuclear cooperation deal with the United Arab Emirates finalized by the Obama administration, Sokolski says that the UAE chose South Korean facilities because of lower price and looser nonproliferation requirements than those of the United States (“Nuclear Nonproliferation Games”; National Review Online; August 5, 2010). In other words, the Obama administration failed to bind the UAE, and simply lost business opportunity with this country. It is not lofty ideals cited by Barack Obama but commercial interests that have significant influences on nonproliferation efforts.
President Obama may have taken some impressive actions for a nuclear free world, but his initiative is not respected among major nuclear powers and possible proliferators. As long as they see America weak, none of nuclear elimination initiatives will make any progress. Particularly, autocratic regimes pursue interests of their leaders, not global peace. Yes, a nuclear free world is much safer. To achieve this goal, the United States must impress its strength, rather than hinting America's moralistic drawbacks that Obama mentioned in the Prague speech.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
A New Contribution to Another Thinktank Online
I have contributed a commentary to another think tank online called Hyakka Somei of the Council on the East Asian Community, which is an affiliate organization of the Japan Forum on International Relations and the Global Forum of Japan.
The commentary is based on a post on this blog which explores Japan’s distinct position in East Asian history. Japan had been out of the Chinese Confucianist order in the pre-modern era. After the Opium War, Japan has become one of the Great Powers along with Europe and America. Considering such Japanese national identity, Japanese foreign policy should be founded on a staunch alliance with the United States, rather than meddling between America and China.
If you understand Japanese, see the link 1 and 2 to read the commentary. I consider writing a column for journals and papers, to make myself much more widely known and draw public attention to my advocacy as argued on this blog.
The commentary is based on a post on this blog which explores Japan’s distinct position in East Asian history. Japan had been out of the Chinese Confucianist order in the pre-modern era. After the Opium War, Japan has become one of the Great Powers along with Europe and America. Considering such Japanese national identity, Japanese foreign policy should be founded on a staunch alliance with the United States, rather than meddling between America and China.
If you understand Japanese, see the link 1 and 2 to read the commentary. I consider writing a column for journals and papers, to make myself much more widely known and draw public attention to my advocacy as argued on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)