Contradictory defense outlook?

On Monday, President Obama laid out his fiscal year 2011 budget. The Pentagon also released the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which is in sum an assessment of the U.S. military, its goals and its strategy.

Policy experts at AEI seem to think the President’s budget and the QDR are contradictory.

The simultaneous release today of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal reveals the underlying contradiction at the heart of the Obama Administration’s national security policy.  As the second sentence of the QDR states, “first and foremost, the United States is a nation at war.”  But the remainder of the report and, more critically, the long-term budget, reflect an administration more interested in ending wars than winning them, and ready to “manage” American decline rather than preserving American leadership.

The last sentence could be flushed out in much more detail in regards to International Relations Theory – something I would like to do, but I don’t see how it’s possible considering I don’t have an IR class this semester. In brief, liberals (President Obama) make the argument that a hegemon isn’t needed to maintain the International system. Hegemonic realists, however, would argue quite the opposite. The exit question is this: is President Obama seriously “managing” American decline?

I seriously doubt any President or for that matter any American is with serious vigor thinking about managing the U.S. decline to less than the world’s only superpower – either relatively or in absolute terms. At least, I hope not.

Without further digression, I think President Obama does face the conflict of reconciling his approach to international relations with that of the broad American populace. I think it’s the commonsense view, if only because it has for so long been the only view, that if one person grows stronger, we grow weaker. President Obama defiantly declared in China that all countries could grow the pie together.

To conclude, it’s interesting to note the difference between the opening paragraphs of the QDR and what has been seemingly President Obama’s track on international relations and the role the U.S. military will play in the future. Certainly, President Obama is interested in ending our wars abroad. Does that mean he’s not committed to winning them? Not necessarily – that is entirely based on one’s definition of victory. I think the QDR most likely reflects a more “true to life” version of President Obama’s international relations theory.

Clear Information: The Problem with Iran

“Alarming” revelations this weekend about Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment program show that it may not be so peaceful after all. CNN picked up on the story this morning, citing a Western diplomat, but the UK’s Times Online had the story yesterday.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

This highlights the problem of President Obama’s international relations thought on dealing with Iran. The truth of the matter is we really do not know what we are getting from them and if it in any way resembles the truth. Clear information is very important when it comes to resolving conflicts short of war and what we’re getting from our discussions with Iran and other major powers on the nuclear issue is anything but clear.

Legitimate Democracies do not go to war with legitimate Democracies because of dispute-resolution mechanisms and clear information. Iran is not a legitimate Democracy, evidenced by the fraudulent elections this summer.

My lack of faith in engagement should not imply support for a get tough approach. There are no indications that worked either, evidenced by the failures of the Bush Administration to prevent Iran from getting to this stage in the development process.

The point is however to say that something, albeit I am not sure what, needs to be done if we are truly determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thoughts on the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan

The President’s decision to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan is the right decision. Unfortunately, the attached conditions leave me disappointed. While I understand the political difficulty of the President’s decisions, I hoped for another outcome.

White House Photographer Pete Souza

President Obama in his address on “the Way Forward” in Afghanstian said he would commit 30,000 new troops to the war-torn country, but stipulated they will begin withdrawing in 18 months.

I recognize the tough political position President Obama is in. The left is already blasting him for creating a “surge” and the right, though more friendly than the left, is upset at the timetable.

His decision reflects the difficulty of bridging domestic politics and international relations. Throughout U.S. history, policymakers have faced this dilemma. Moreover, throughout the recorded history of international relations, policymakers have faced this dilemma. How does one reconcile the “national interest” with public opinion, the influence of democratic institutions like Congess and other political interests, i.e. the people who donate money and drive your policy?

President Obama was elected on a platform of change. Thus is his difficulty of continuing the war in Afghanistan much the way his predecessor did and thus is the reason for the timetable – to pacify his political pace. You can’t blame him, it is an obviously necessary move if he doesn’t want to ruin his party’s midterm elections in 2010 or his reelection campaign in 2012.

Having admitted that I understand his logic and reasoning for implementing a time table, I still have to share my distaste. I hoped that the President might put politics aside for the sake of victory.

It comes down to this question: do we have a vital interest in a peaceful and allied Afghanistan? I would answer yes and say furthermore, we have an interest in a peaceful and allied Middle East. That includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and beyond. Because defeat in Afghanistan would allow the Taliban to operate functionally, Afghanistan is a country of vital interest to the security of the United States. Lest we not forget from where the terrorist attacks of September 11 were orchestrated.

The President disagrees, I believe and has done so by making evident his lack of desire to achieve total victory in Afghanistan. He has scaled back the war on terror, actually ended it, and this move further reiterates that point.

The President has developed an exit strategy not predicated on victory. He has done so for the two reasons I already mentioned: (a) domestic political influence and (b) failure to understand the vital importance of a peaceful and allied Afghanistan.

A thought on nuclear peace

Unfortunately, we didn’t discuss this in either of my International Relations classes this semseter, but the concept of “nuclear peace” is very interesting to me.

I would advance the argument that nuclear weapons have been a greater force for peace and stability than anything else i the history of mankind.

This is not an original idea at all and I don’t have time to detail it in-depth, but I did want to put the thought out there. Nuclear weapons stabilize relations between countries. In fact, since their development, no two nuclear powers have fought each other directly on the battlefield.

Countries seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent for war. North Korea and Iran are two examples. I’m not necessarily sold on the idea that more is better, as Kenneth Waltz might argue, but it too is a thought to be considered.