Finally, we should remember that prior to World War II the United States had turned inward and refused to play a leading role in world affairs. Convinced that the Second World War had come about in part from the global economic depravity that helped give rise to fascism in Europe and Asia, FDR used the war as a catalyst for the construction of a new political, strategic, and economic order. It was based in large part on the extension of American moral and military power through the United Nations and the extension of American economic power through the creation of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and a new multilateral economic system that would open up the world’s markets and natural resources to freer trade. Taken together, these measures resulted in a permanent restructuring of the world’s social, economic, and strategic makeup. They formed the basis of the new world order that has given rise to the globalization of the world’s economy and the American-led multilateral security system that the United States has played a leading role in since 1945.

As much as I would like to believe, with Woolner, that these institutions still form the basis of a stable world order, it’s clear that time has taken a toll on their legitimacy and credibility. Take the United Nations, for example. Just today, the Security Council failed to pass a resolution on Syria hours after an attack on the city of Hom’s by Assad’s security forces, an attack that some are calling a massacre. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice voiced “disgust” over the veto by permanent members Russia and China that has derailed any hope of coordinated action to end the violence. The U.S. should be proud of having assembled a broad diplomatic consensus with allies in Europe and the Arab League. In the end, though, it was no match for the veto power wielded by permanent members.

The UN was born in the aftermath of a world war started by dictators and now permanent members of the Security Council are defending a dictator. What would FDR think?

Image Credit: Wikipedia

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home. These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. [...] And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran.  Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one.  The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt:  America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. [...] The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment — and I mean ironclad — to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope.  From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. hat’s not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.

The State of the Union address is at best an opportunity for the president to be Cheerleader-in-Chief and to use the powers of the presidency to propose programs and initiatives that make all of our problems seem solvable if only the Congress would simply follow his lead. It’s an opportunity for him to deliver a national pep-talk that allows us all to feel good about the country and our role in the world. In the harsh light of day critics are sure to find fault in many of his statements, but for one brief moment (very brief if you watched the televised response from the opposition party following the speech) we can all cheerfully buy into the spin that all is well.

Should we allow doubts to enter, listen to the critics, and find fault with such a grand exercise in shared wishful thinking? We could, if we wanted to, note counter-examples to almost every positive statement. Yes, for example, the alliance between the U.S. and Israel is strong. And yes, the U.S. is resolved that Iran should not become a nuclear power. How then to explain the sudden delay in long-planned military exercises between the U.S. and Israel? Has deterrence suddenly become unfashionable? And yes, the U.S. is for free trade an open markets, but we are apparently not averse to a little populist protectionism (with China) when needed. And yes, the U.S. is back. But, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that we left.

Still, I’m inclined to bask in the moment for at least one night and to accept the idealized picture presented by the president as a true representation of reality. It’s the U.S., and the U.S. role in the world, as we wish them to be, and perhaps if we try hard enough, as they will be.

Image Credit: Press Pool photo by Saul Loeb

Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia all are using their considerable web presence today to protest legislation pending in the U.S. Congress. According to the Google announcement:

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

It may appear to the casual reader that this is an effort by entertainment corporations (Hollywood) to impose their particular view of internet regulation on the rest of the country and encountering opposition from Silicon Valley. What’s not commonly understood (and why this is a subject for our discussion) is that provisions of these laws block foreign websites. In other words, the U.S. Congress has taken it upon itself to legislate for the world. This is why Wikipedia (a global encyclopedia) has blacked-out it’s English-language version that is available all over the world. While this is much more common than most would think (the U.S. Congress often sets standards that other countries and businesses must meet in order to do business in the U.S. – often their largest market – which makes the U.S. Congress a de facto global lawmaking body) it’s an excellent example of the global scope of American laws.

It’s particularly ironic that the U.S. Congress is seeking to curtail internet access while another branch of the U.S. government, the Executive Branch (namely the State Department) is seeking to undermine those countries that censor the internet. As this report notes:

The United States plans to pump millions of dollars into new technology to break through Internet censorship overseas amid a heightened crackdown on dissent in China, officials have said. State Department officials said they would give $19 million to efforts to evade Internet controls in China, Iran and other authoritarian states which block online access to politically sensitive material [...] The funding comes out of $30 million which the US Congress allocated in the current fiscal year for Internet freedom.

The New York Times clarifies some of the specific strategies and tactics the U.S. will use as this policy is implemented:

The State Department plans to finance programs like circumvention services, which enable users to evade Internet firewalls, and training for human rights workers on how to secure their e-mail from surveillance or wipe incriminating data from cellphones if they are detained by the police [...] Administration officials say that the emphasis on a broad array of projects — hotly disputed by some technology experts and human rights activists — reflects their view that technology can be a force that leads to democratic change, but is not a “magic bullet” that brings down repressive regimes.

A commendable policy, to be sure, but what happens if the repressive regime is the U.S.?

We are witnessing a very odd development in which other countries seek to block access to politically sensitive material while the U.S. seeks to block access to commercially sensitive material. Some would say it amounts to the same thing: state-sponsored censorship.

It is now a stock phrase among presidents and presidential candidates that they want to champion U.S. values abroad. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to do that. Does the U.S. stand for freedom of expression or censorship? The upcoming votes on SOPA and PIPA may well provide the answer.

Image Credit: CNN/AFP/Getty Images

REUTERS/Deborah Gembara – Detainees participate in an early morning prayer session at Camp IV at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay

On New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed into law the post-9/11 practice of detaining terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge. Shock and awe waves rippled through the blogosphere in response to the move, not least because Obama had threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill. Other grumbles included its lack of temporal or geographic limitations, which signaled to some the potential for military detention of anyone, anywhere, anytime.

But despite congressional approval of the well-worn practice, most rights wonks don’t expect any significant change in the frequency or type of indefinite detentions going forward. They do, however, maintain that the practice breaches international humanitarian law and undermines counterterrorism efforts.

One such expert, Martin Sheinin, professor of international law and UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism from 2005 to 2011, spoke with me about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its potential to derail US counterterrorism efforts.

The War on Law

To put the controversy in context, Mr. Sheinin explained why Washington supports indefinite detention:

“The NDAA builds upon the well-established rule in international humanitarian law (law of armed conflict) that during an international armed conflict combatants, i.e. soldiers of one of the states involved in the war, can be detained as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. When there is an international armed conflict and when someone is a combatant, then such detention does not amount to arbitrary detention that would violate international human rights law.”

When the “global war on terror” was waged following 9/11, he said, the possibility of indefinite detention was extended to terrorism, “far beyond genuine situations of international or even non-international armed conflict. And it extends indefinite detention to persons who are not combatants. For instance, persons who are held to have provided substantial support to terrorism would be subject to indefinite detention.”

Against that background, Mr. Sheinan suggested several ways in which violating human rights in the course of countering terrorism can “backfire.” Rights violations can “add to causes of terrorism,” he said, “both by perpetuating ‘root causes’ that involve the alienation of communities and by providing ‘triggering causes’ through which bitter individuals make the morally inexcusable decision to turn to methods of terrorism.”

Further, “these kinds of legal provisions are always open for bad faith copying by repressive governments that will use them for their own political purposes.” Though such copying was found to be less common than expected, “repressive governments may do so for their own political purposes.”

“It is hard to see any practical advantage gained through the NDAA. It is just another form of what I call symbolic legislation, enacted because the legislators want to be seen as being ‘tough’ or as ‘doing something.’ The law is written as just affirming existing powers and practices and hence not providing any meaningful new tools in the combat of terrorism,” he concluded.

With Washington simultaneously fostering democratic transitions across the Middle East and North Africa and gambling on military exits from Iraq and Afghanistan, such “backfires” may well hamper development of the rule of law and respect for human rights when they are needed most.

For the second time in days the U.S. Navy has saved Iranian fishermen. As you will recall, it was earlier this month that the Navy rescued Iranian fishermen being held by Somali pirates. That incident came amid rising tensions and threats from Iran that it would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz (through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows) in retaliation for Western sanctions. This report from The Washington Post nicely contrasts the humanitarian U.S. actions with the recent threats from Iran:

A U.S. Coast Guard cutter, the Monomoy, picked up the Iranians off the coast of Oman about 3 a.m. Tuesday after their cargo dhow, the Ya-Hussayn, signalled with flares and flashlights that they were having engine trouble, Navy officials said [...] On Thursday, the Navy liberated 13 Iranian fishermen who had been hijacked and held hostage for several weeks by Somali pirates, also in the Arabian Gulf. In both cases, U.S. officials portrayed the Iranian sailors as extremely grateful for the emergency help — a sharp counterpoint to the Iranian government’s recent threat of war if U.S. forces don’t stay out of the nearby Persian Gulf. “Without your help, we were dead,” Hakim Hamid-Awi, the owner of the Ya-Hussayn, was quoted as saying by a U.S. Fifth Fleet account of the rescue. “Thank you for all that you did for us.” The Good Samaritan acts by U.S. forces also stood in contrast to the Iranian government’s harsh announcement Monday that it had sentenced an Iranian-American citizen to death, allegedly for spying.

This report from the Christian Science Monitor also does the same with this well-worded headline: Iran keeps issuing threats, US keeps saving Iranian sailors

Will the U.S. rescue operations have any impact on the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program? Not likely. We can hope that reports of these rescues will reach the ears of Iranian citizens and lead them to question the anti-American propaganda fed to them by their government. Even if that happened, recent events in Iran would make us question what role, if any, public opinion plays in shaping Iranian foreign policy. Just ask those democratic reform activists. Oh wait, you can’t, because they were imprisoned or executed.

The rescues at sea are in keeping with the finest traditions of the U.S. Navy. They are also an example of what political scientists call “international norms,” broadly accepted standards of international behavior. There’s not a navy in the world that would ignore a distress call. It’s clear that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon the entire region would send out a distress call. Hopefully the U.S. Navy will still be on hand (budget permitting) to lead the rescue.

Image Credit: Christian Science Monitor/U.S. Navy/AP

The U.S. formally ended the Iraq War today. As The New York Times reports:

Almost nine years after the first American tanks began massing on the Iraq border, the Pentagon declared an official end to its mission here, closing a troubled conflict that helped reshape American politics and left a bitter legacy of anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world [...] For Americans, the ceremony on Thursday marked an uneasy moment of closure, with no clear sense of what has been won and lost.

Lasting nearly a decade and claiming close to five thousand American lives, the war became for many a Rorschach test of the U.S. role in the world. There are millions of people in the world whose first thought when asked to describe America is that we are a country that invades other countries, and Iraq is the premier example. The war was controversial from the start, a war of choice meant to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. When those weapons failed to be found, U.S. motives were further questioned (some said it was always about the oil) and the war was recast as an effort to promote democracy. Even as U.S. forces withdraw, the war remains controversial, with some expressing concerns about a precipitous withdrawal and others defending the withdrawal as prudent.

I suspect that the war was never really about weapons of mass destruction, oil or democracy. It was about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. It was about Hussein trying to assassinate George H.W. Bush and the former president’s son deciding that simply would not stand. Hussein had good reason to expect a covert attempt to remove him from power as soon as George W. was inaugurated (after all, the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress during the Clinton Administration), though he probably never imagined such an overt attempt as a massive land invasion. The 9/11 attack created a “permissive environment” in which the exercise of American power in the context of removing a dictator-behaving-badly was well within the bounds of the “new normal,” but I’m not sure it would have mattered. Bush would likely have found a way to remove Saddam from power one way or another. One could make the case that the attempt by a foreign government to assassinate a sitting or former American president constitutes an act of war. Sadly, that case was never made, at least, not in public.

Historians will debate the causes of the war for many years to come. What can’t be debated is the outstanding performance of the U.S. military. The all-volunteer force demonstrated once again that our soldiers will answer the call to duty, even when it means serving in far-off lands. The greatest mistakes of the war (sending too few troops and disbanding the Iraqi army) were made by civilian administrators, while military leaders found innovative ways of working with Iraqi tribal and sectarian leaders (the Awakening Councils) and imbedding troops in local communities, strategies that went a long way toward stabilizing Iraq. As our troops return home we can be justifiably proud of their service and sacrifice. They removed a dictator from power and gave Iraq a democratic government – now let’s see if they can keep it.

And finally, let’s return to that idea of Iraq as a Rorschach test of the U.S. role in the world. Yes, the U.S. invaded another country without having first been attacked. Yes, we removed the leader from power and then carelessly crushed all the social institutions that could have provided order, setting the stage for a violent sectarian and tribal bloodletting. That is all true. But we also worked over years, sacrificing lives and treasure, to rebuild what had been destroyed. If a Rorschach test can reveal many different perspectives then my hope is that history will note the negative while focusing on the positive and conclude that the U.S. ultimately did more good than harm and set Iraq on a path to being a prosperous and free country.

Photo Credit: MSNBC

“Human Security Is The Primary Purpose Of Organizing A State In The Beginning.”
– Surin Pitsuwan, ASEAN

In the wake of the Arab Spring, and in light of the ongoing global economic disorder, world leaders would be well advised to examine their understanding of national security. Recent events paint a picture of national leaders who are wildly out of touch and hopelessly behind the principal national challenge of the 21st century – human security.

(Source: Newsweek)

In 2011, the world witnessed the sudden and total political implosion of a handful of states that up until recently were firmly in the hands of their autocratic rulers. There was much debate about how the warning signs and red flags were missed. Clearly, N. African leaders were out of touch and not able to sense the social fissures and stress points that indicated popular rage.

Though one of the core lessons of the Arab revolts is that super angry citizens now have virtual meeting grounds to vent, meet, organize and to act, the most memorable lesson of the revolts is that governments must provide for the legitimate needs of their people or face ouster. Authorities must quickly learn that protecting their people from state on state conflict or homeland attacks (i.e. Freedom of Fear), must be balanced with the human requirement for the basics, or what social scientists call “Freedom of Want” (think shelter, food, clean water etc.). In most societies, this need is satisfied when people are productively employed in the economy and basic goods/services are made available through a combination of social programs and a healthy private sector. Mubarak, Gadaffi, and other modern day pharaohs simply failed to effectively work with the ‘whole of society’ to deliver on their respective “Freedom of Want” promises.

From Pharaoh to Prisoner (Source: Newsweek)

As we prepare to start a new year, basic food prices across the globe remain at historically high levels and although great strides have been made in the anti-poverty fight, the numbers are still staggering.

• Approximately 9.2 million children under the age of 5 die each year, mostly from preventable diseases. That’s approximately 25,000 children each day.
• 69 million children are out of school around the world, a figure equivalent to the entire primary school-aged population in Europe andNorth America.
• Food prices have risen 83 percent since 2005, disproportionately affecting those in poverty who spend a higher percentage of their income on food.
• Daily disasters. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—all treatable diseases—claim the lives of over 8,000 people every day in Africa due to lack of access to health care.
• More than 800 million people go to bed hungry every day…300 million are children.

(Statistics are from the World Bank and the ONE Campaign)

To make matters worse, the global economic recovery continues to stall with very little sign that industrialized nations have a solid game plan to get the ball closer to the goal line. Sadly, even with this bleak economic reality, developing nations today account for the majority of arms purchases in the world, buying arms supplied mainly by the permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Yes, I know what you’re thinking.

So while the international community and mainstream media focus their collective attention on containing the nuclear genie, nations that can least provide human security for their people purchase conventional weapons from the countries that claim to want world peace and social development.  Perhaps all should heed a warning from Thomas Jefferson who once said, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty”.

Presidents and Prime Ministers — Fear And Respect Your People!

The Foreign Policy Association has asked the blog team to write year-end summaries and even provided a nice little template for us to follow. So, without further ado:

Summary of the Past Year

What an extraordinary year 2011 has turned out to be. The U.S. appears to have successfully navigated a year of extreme turbulence in international affairs, a year filled with both triumph and tragedy and a few surprises along the way.

In the triumph category we surely have to count the raid by U.S. special forces to capture and kill Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan in early May. The raid represented the culmination of a massive manhunt over two administrations to bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice. There was no ticker-tape parade for the members of the secretive U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six credited with that raid, but they know they enjoy thanks of a grateful nation. The raid inside the borders of erstwhile ally Pakistan to target bin Laden’s apparently secure haven located a mere 800 yards from their national military academy (their West Point) and 60 miles north of the capital of Islamabad generated tensions on both sides and it would be no understatement to say that the alliance has never fully recovered. Still, there are few who would way that it wasn’t worth it.

In the tragedy category I have to note the famine in the Horn of Africa as well as the historic earthquake in Japan. In both cases, the U.S. actively provided support and aid that saved lives and provided both a visible and practical symbol of the U.S. role in the world. As this year ends the tragedy of those events is compounded by calls to greatly reduce U.S. foreign aid, making it doubtful that the U.S. will be able to respond as quickly to such disasters in the future.

As for surprises, I’m surprised that the U.S. role in the Libyan campaign went as well as it did.  And, I have to admit that I’m surprised that the withdrawal from Iraq is going as well as it is, although, as this report notes, attacks on U.S. forces are expected to increase in the final days of the U.S. withdrawal. Although U.S. troops will be coming home from Iraq, many of them will ultimately be deployed to Afghanistan, where the U.S. goes into 2012 with a new strategy and a new determination to ramp up to wrap up that war.

Most Unexpected Event – Back to Africa
In October the media breathlessly reported that the U.S. dispatched 100 advisers (mostly special forces) to help in the fight against the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa and aid efforts to kill or capture its leader, Joseph Kony. Many commentators seemed surprised at this turn of events. From the media reports one would assume that this was a dangerous and reckless expansion of the U.S. military presence into Africa and represented a new front in the war against terrorism. The reality was, of course, far different. At the end of 2008 the Foreign Policy Association asked the blog team to write a year-in-review post just like this one in which they considered several questions, including the following: What was the most under-reported event of the year? For the U.S. Role blog I noted the establishment of the U.S. Africa Command. Having lived in Africa years ago in a period in which the U.S. presence was waning, I viewed the new military command as a welcome sign that the U.S. once again appreciated the strategic importance of the continent. Since that time the U.S. has stepped up joint operations with local military groups, sending special forces advisers, funding intelligence sharing and training, and deploying drones as well as millions of dollars in military aid to combat al-Shabab, an al-Qaida-linked group in Somalia, and AQIM – an al-Qaida group that operates in the west and north of Africa. The “new” U.S. military presence in Africa was a surprise only to those who were not paying attention.

Person of the Year – Steve Jobs
Now, keep in mind that this blog is devoted to the U.S. role in the world and is not exclusively focused on diplomacy or defense. I’m providing this caveat so you won’t be too shocked as I nominate Steve Jobs as Person of the Year. I think a good case could be made (as I tried to do here) that Jobs symbolized the American Dream to the world at-large in a non-political manner that even those determinedly anti-American could appreciate. His death was a global event (as attested to by the throngs of well-wishers who gathered at Apple stores all over the world), that reminded people that in America the estranged son of a Syrian immigrant could, through hard work and determined focus, change the world and earn billions of dollars in the process.

Forecast for 2012
As the new year dawns the U.S. will set about the urgent task of repairing relations with Pakistan, a vital partner in the war in Afghanistan. Is it too late? Pakistan needs the U.S. as much as we need them and despite the great distrust that exists between us, self-interest should be enough to keep relations cooperative enough to continue the war next door in Afghanistan. I think the real story in 2012 will be the how well the U.S. can balance a rising China with our many Pacific allies that depend on the U.S. to maintain their security. I’m not one of those convinced that our relationship with China need necessarily become adversarial, we have many mutual interests, but China has long demonstrated a difficulty in understanding a country like ours in which their are multiple centers of power, and this lends itself to misperception and miscalculation. I would not be surprised if the year sees little progress in the Middle East peace talks (linked as they are to the Arab Spring), the effort to isolate Iran (Russia and China are certain to veto further sanctions even as Iran does a pretty good job isolating itself), and foreign policy initiatives in general because of the upcoming U.S. presidential election. And finally, as Europe continues to struggle with their debt crisis, I’m looking forward to next year’s G8 Summit in Chicago as an opportunity for the U.S. to demonstrate leadership at a time of global economic uncertainty.

The Congressional supercommittee charged with finding trillions of dollars in debt reduction has failed in their mission, opening the door to a drastic reduction in the U.S. federal budget. Like most people I would assume that debt reductions would take place in a calm and orderly manner, with decisions on reductions made by adults who can evaluate and prioritize both the areas and scope of reductions so that vital programs and services would not be undermined. Now that the members of the supercommittee have abjectly failed in their mission and let their institution, their constituents, and the people of the county down, massive cuts will be implemented without the careful consideration they should have provided. So great is their failure that I can only hope that the members of this committee will be subjected to levels of scorn and ridicule unparalleled in the history of modern politics. Their failure not only endangers government programs we have all come to support, it also has the potential of directly endangering the safety and welfare of every American citizen. Why? As one of the largest areas of the federal budget (but still less than entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), U.S. defense spending will be dramatically and adversely impacted by the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are soon to be triggered in the aftermath of this failure of Congressional leadership.

The website Politico notes that in a sobering letter to Senator McCain (R-AZ) sent earlier this month, Defense Secretary Panetta warned that automatic spending cuts would be devastating:

Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of  the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after ten years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of  ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history. We would also be forced to terminate most large procurement programs in order to accommodate modernization reductions that are likely to  be required.

Can the U.S. accept a navy comparable to the one we had in 1916, an army comparable to that of the 1940′s, or an air force smaller than it’s ever been? With so many threats all over the world it’s difficult to imagine that this is the right time for such cuts. You may be surprised to learn that there are those who believe that this is precisely the right time. Scholars who study war and conflict say that there has rarely been such a peaceful and stable time in all of human history. Really. It may sound counter-intuitive, but studies of political violence, wars, insurrections, civil wars, rebellions and the like suggest that the chances of the average person facing death due to any of those historically common events are very low at this point in time. Why? This report answers that question with terms near and dear to political scientists everywhere: the democratic peace, hegemonic stability, and the impact of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). So, given a relatively peaceful era (if you accept this argument), why not go for a peace dividend?

The answer to that question, of course, is as near as the arrest of the latest wannabe terrorist bomber in New York City and as far away as Afghanistan and Iran. And beyond the threats we can identify there are emerging threats, like cyberwarfare, that our military of the early years of the last century never had to contend with. The threats we face are real and we can’t just ask our enemies for a time-out while we get our finances in order.

Still, there’s no doubt that many Americans support defense cuts. The Foreign Policy Association recently polled participants of their Great Decisions national civic-education program and found that, “49 percent of survey respondents think the Obama Administration should either reduce the defense budget or increase taxes.” This poll is considered significant because the sample group is composed of people who have taken the time to study foreign policy issues in-depth and are considered to be educated and informed opinion-leaders in their communities.

Given the failure of the supercommittee, defense cuts are coming, that’s guaranteed, we can only hope that Congress will yet find a way to make sure those cuts are made in a manner that does not undermine our national security.

Image Credit: Pew analysis of Congressional Budget Office Data

I’ve been considering a post titled “Late-Blogging the GOP Debate.” I’m using the term late-blogging as opposed to live-blogging. I wasn’t able to watch the foreign policy debate over the weekend and had it saved on my DVR for later viewing. I’m not really sure anyone would appreciate “late-blogging” since the debate has already been well-covered so I’ll just let it go. And since the FPA is a non-partisan organization, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to offer pointed political commentary (I’d like to think that you can read my posts and not know if I’m a Republican, Democrat or Independent), although it’s certainly fair game to question how the candidates view the U.S. role in the world. So I will venture a quick summary of my impression of the debate spin.

I think the average viewer would conclude from the debate that the U.S. under Republican leadership would be much more likely to use military force, much more likely to waterboard detainees, and much more likely to attack Iran. On the subject of Iran, I was surprised at the support for covert operations against that country. There’s something a bit comical (or perhaps farcical) about the candidates talking publicly about their desire to increase covert operations. Perhaps they are under the impression that the Iranian intelligence agency will be unaware of their comments? Or perhaps the candidates are unaware that covert operations are already underway? Here’s a statecraft tip guys (and gal), don’t talk about covert operations.

If you missed the debate, don’t feel bad, there will be another debate on November 22nd on the topic of national security and foreign policy. The debate will be hosted by CNN, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and the Heritage Foundation. AEI put together the following video outlining what they see as the major foreign policy challenges (and the primary enemies) facing the U.S.

Image Credit: The New York Times

A Russian spacecraft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on Monday, taking NASA astronaut Dan Burbank and Russians Anton Shkaplerov and Anatoly Ivanishin on a mission to the International Space Station. This marks the start of the U.S. tag-along space policy in which U.S. access to low-earth orbit is provided by Russia. It’s nice of them to let us tag-along. Of course, we are also a paying customer, so I’m sure that helps.  This report from Spaceflight Now has the launch details if you are interested.

I’m trying to work up a rant about the sad demise of the U.S. manned space program but I think I said all I wanted to say earlier this year (here and here). What more is there to say? Through a tragic lack of leadership and financial mismanagement the U.S. has given up a commanding lead in the space race. Oh, did you think the space race was a thing of the past? Other countries are forging ahead, they clearly didn’t get the memo. The strategic and symbolic value of space is very clear to many other countries that are embarking on their own ambitious space programs. Most of them are very long-term programs, but they have the advantage of a coherent and ambitious space agenda. The American plan is now to develop a commercial space taxi service and then maybe, maybe, do some exploration with NASA, if they can ever get the funding for it. In the meantime, the launch facilities and personnel that formed the core of the American manned space program have been retired.

The days when NASA and American astronauts in space were a visible part of the U.S. role in the world appear to be over. There may come a time in ten or twenty years when the U.S. will once again find the political and financial wherewithal to support a manned space program focused on science, exploration and discovery, but until that day comes, I will remain one of those who feel that something important has been lost.

Image Credit: Spaceflight Now/Roscosmos

The U.S. is taking time off today to honor veterans. The Veterans Day holiday is a time to give thanks and to pause and recognize the contributions of the more than 23 million veterans who served our country. The day is also observed all over the world by our allies as Armistice Day and Remembrance Day.

If you are interested in learning more about the history of Veterans Day the Military.com website offers some great resources, including ideas for how to observe the holiday, an overview of the holiday, and helpful tips and links for veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a similar website with links to the history of the day and a helpful teachers guide to the holiday useful for explaining the holiday to children. The image above is from their poster gallery of official images commissioned by the department. And to close this by returning to our “U.S. role in the world” focus, the Legacy.com website offers a Moving Tributes page that features videos that friends and family made to honor those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thank you to all the men and women in uniform who served and are currently serving the U.S. both at home and abroad.

Image Credit: Department of Veterans Affairs

President Obama took a break this week from Washington D.C. drama to attend the G20 summit in France. As you can imagine, most of the debate at the summit had to do with the European debt crisis. Given that focus, it was not a summit at which one would expect U.S. leadership to be especially evident and perhaps that is what prompted some commentators to question if the U.S. was still the “indispensable country.” Maybe that’s why the White House went out of the way to affirm U.S. leadership. I think they are still sensitive to all that talk about “leading from behind.” All of this at a time when most Americans, preoccupied as they are with domestic issues, barely even knew that their president had left the country. Of course, the relative newness of the G20 may be partly to blame for the lack of public awareness. It doesn’t have the name recognition of the G8 and the it’s probably true that the more arcane aspects of international financial governance do not lend themselves to easy coverage by the mainstream press. That’s why I was impressed with this backgrounder from the Council on Foreign Relations, it offers a great primer for anyone interested in how the G20 and other international bodies go about coordinating the world financial system. It also explains why the G20 is a great forum for bringing in emerging economies in a collaborative manner and thus not really the kind of forum where one leader (other than the leader of the host country) is seen to be dominant. Asking if the U.S. is leading at the G20 (or if Obama has changed U.S. standing in the world, as BBC News does here) is a fair question, but the G20 gathering may not be the best forum to look to for an answer.

Image Credit: MSNBC

If you have followed this blog for a while you may have noticed a few posts on the subject of U.S. foreign aid (most recently: here , here , and here). I’ve mentioned it several times and so I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the U.S. is celebrating the 50th anniversary of USAID, the primary government agency charged with providing development and humanitarian assistance throughout the world. The official announcement includes the following information:

President John F. Kennedy recognized the need to unite development into a single agency to maximize expertise. In 1961, USAID was created. Since that time, USAID has been a quiet force for progress, fostering a more peaceful and secure world. The spirit of innovation and the belief in doing the right thing have never been stronger. On Thursday, November 3rd, USAID will celebrate its 50th Anniversary hosted by USAID Administrator Raj Shah with keynote remarks by Vice President Joe Biden, special guest Caroline Kennedy, and a performance by Grammy award-winning performer Angelique Kidjo.

The event was webcast live here and I’ve imbedded the encore presentation below for those that missed it. Happy birthday USAID!

Before the convoy had traveled two miles, NATO officials said, it was set upon by an American Predator drone and a French warplane. With the attack the convoy “was stopped from progressing as it sought to flee Surt but was not destroyed,” Defense Minister Gérard Longuet of France said. Only two vehicles in the convoy were hit, neither carrying Colonel Qaddafi, a Western official said. But the rest of the convoy was forced to detour and scatter.

This video report from NBC news provides more details:

So while it may be technically correct to credit the U.S. drone strike it would be more accurate to say it was a NATO attack on the convoy that started the countdown to the final hours of Qaddafi’s life. While noting the crucial U.S. role in Libya operations, President Obama, in his statement, also focused on the NATO coalition:

Faced with the potential of mass atrocities — and a call for help from the Libyan people — the United States and our friends and allies stopped Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks. A coalition that included the United States, NATO and Arab nations persevered through the summer to protect Libyan civilians. And meanwhile, the courageous Libyan people fought for their own future and broke the back of the regime [...] For nearly eight months, many Americans have provided extraordinary service in support of our efforts to protect the Libyan people, and to provide them with a chance to determine their own destiny. Our skilled diplomats have helped to lead an unprecedented global response. Our brave pilots have flown in Libya’s skies, our sailors have provided support off Libya’s shores, and our leadership at NATO has helped guide our coalition. Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end.

The U. S. role in the death of Qaddafi is the same as the U.S. role in the Libyan military campaign: collaborative leadership of a coalition of the very willing. This is reflective of a larger (and still evolving) Obama Doctrine, defined by some as, “the use of intelligence, unmanned aircraft, special forces, and the leverage of teaming with others to achieve very narrowly defined but critical goals.” The removal of Qaddafi was that narrowly defined goal. How well Libya manages to avoid factionalism and civil war and build a new society is well beyond the scope of the allied mandate and there is little now for NATO and the U.S. to do but wish them well.

Photo Credit: The New York Times