Think Tanked

Brookings: Defense Budgets and American Power

As a new Congress is tasked with getting the U.S. deficit under control while the Pentagon is in the middle of a critical period in Afghanistan, the Brookings Institution hosted a forum to discuss the relationships between debt, defense and American power. 

From Brookings:

On December 22, the Brookings Institution hosted a discussion of "Defense Budgets and American Power," as well as the prospects for U.S. deficit reduction, the impact of the massive debt on U.S. national security, and the U.S. defense budget and defense policy more broadly. Michael O’Hanlon, also author of Budgeting for Hard Power (Brookings Press, 2009), presented the arguments from his paper, followed by a panel discussion featuring Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan and Brookings Senior Fellow Alice Rivlin, a member of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and co-chair, with former Senator Pete Domenici, of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force.

Read the unedited transcript at Brookings.

 

AM Briefing: 12/30/10

Not a holiday for everybody (Washington Post)

America's homegrown radicals (New York Post)

Accept defeat and move on (Washington Post)

Calling a truce in the culture wars (New York Post)

U.S. decline is all in our mind (National Review)

China needs to reform foreign reserves management (Wall Street Journal)

Getting back to missile defense (National Review)

Pollard's release gaining momentum (Jewish Chronicle)

Heritage's Conn Carroll Goes After Politico on Nuclear Power

Heritage Foundation Assistant Director of Strategic Communications Conn Carroll is none too happy with the "lamestream media" and Politico, in particular, after Politico's Darius Dixon's piece today, "Can the tea party go nuclear?"

Carroll writes at the Heritage blog:

The premise of the piece is that conservative plans to jump start nuclear power plant construction conflict with Tea Party plans to shrink the size and role of the federal government since today’s nuclear power industry is dependent on federal loan guarantees. This is two thirds right. Yes, the Tea Party does want to “to cut spending and pull back the hand of government.” Yes, the nuclear power industry “depends on subsidies, loan guarantees and other federal funds.” But that doesn’t mean that more federal loan guarantees and subsidies are the only way to revive our domestic nuclear power industry. In fact, expanding the existing loan guarantee program would simply remove incentives to decrease costs, stifle innovation, suppress private-sector financing solutions.

The best policy for reviving our nuclear power industry is completely consistent with a Tea Party vision of governing. Specifically, the federal government should: limit the loan subsidies of Energy Policy Act of 2005 to existing law; avoid creating a government-dependent nuclear industry; remain committed to scientific conclusion on Yucca Mountain; introduce market principles into nuclear waste management reform; and focus the government on key responsibilities like establishing predictable and effective regulation that will ensure safety and security.

CAP's Andrew Light on the Future of Climate Diplomacy

AM Briefing: 12/29/10

Where the U.S. is growing (AEI)

The rise of the gay bourgeoisie? (New York Post)

Economists are the party of no (National Review)

Obama's Muslim outreach (Wall Street Journal)

Finding capitalists for Obama (Front Page)

Do conservative think tanks want to take out liberty away? (Times Herald)

Brookings' O'Hanlon Challenges Bush's Decision Points

Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon picks a different spot to argue in George W. Bush's book, Decision Points. It's not 9/11, it's not Iraq or Afghanistan. It's the UN, Milosovic and NATO.

In Politico, O'Hanlon writes:

But in explaining why this U.N. resolution was not needed, Bush states on page 237: “From a legal standpoint, a resolution was unnecessary. Three years earlier, President Clinton and our NATO allies had removed the dictator Slobodan Milosevic from power in Serbia without an explicit U.N. resolution.”

This is completely false.

In fact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization waged an air war in 1999 designed for the narrow purpose of driving Serbia out of Kosovo. That campaign was ultimately successful, and we negotiated a deal with Milosevic's government that required Serb forces to leave Kosovo and allow a U.N. force to enter.

NATO did not have a U.N. resolution for its air war. But the air war was not designed to drive Milosevic from power — and it did not do so. Moreover, the coalition countries waging war did have formal NATO blessing for their effort, providing at least some partial substitution for the lack of U.N. approval.

Only in 2000, with offensive operations long over, did Milosevic leave power. He was arrested in 2001 by his own countrymen, and later transferred to The Hague for trial. He died there in 2006.

Brookings' Russ Wheeler on Why Obama's Judicial Nominees Lag

Think Tanks Contribute to New Study on Detainee Treatment

With the help of think tankers, The Constitution Project (TCP) is launching a study next month on the treatment of detainees. Spanning the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, the Task Force on Detainee Treatment will investigate past and current treatment of detainees with the hope of clarifying what we already know about the subject, as well as uncovering what we don't.

TCP is currently hiring a research and support staff and expects to complete the study in 12-18 months.

From the release:

The Task Force will help policymakers and the public confront alleged past abuses—including torture and cruel treatment—by following the facts. As an ideologically diverse, objective, third party the Task Force is uniquely positioned to make sense of the vast quantity of information in the public domain. It will review this information, determine where the holes are and then pass the baton to the administration, Congress and ultimately—to the American people—who will determine what steps should be taken next.

According to TCP President Virginia Sloan, “The Task Force is an idea that took shape over a period of nearly two years, with support and input from a broad coalition of organizations and individuals with an interest in protecting America’s civil liberties and strengthening the rule of law.”

Asa Hutchinson, a Task Force Chair and the former Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration remarked, “This is a national security issue. We are still facing a real threat from terrorists and others who don’t trust or like us. It is in all of our interests to discover the truth, so that we can deal with the accusations, make whatever reforms may be needed, and strengthen America’s credibility on the world stage.”

The Task Force chairpersons and members include:

• Eleanor J. Hill ‐ Task Force Chairperson; Partner, King & Spalding; Staff Director, Joint Congressional Inquiry on the September 11th attacks; Inspector General, Department of Defense, 1995‐1999

• Asa Hutchinson ‐ Task Force Chairperson; Senior Partner, Asa Hutchinson Law Group; Undersecretary, Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration, 2003‐2005; Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, 2001‐2003; Member of Congress, (R‐AR), 1997‐2001; U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas, 1982‐1985

• Ambassador James R. Jones ‐ Task Force Chairperson; Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP; Member of Congress (D‐OK), 1973‐1987; Ambassador to Mexico, 1993‐1997

• Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte – Past President of the American Bar Association and Co‐Founder of the ABA’s Central European and Eurasian Law Institute; President Emeritus of The Florida State University

• Richard A. Epstein ‐ Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School; Peter and Kristen Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

• Dr. David P. Gushee ‐ Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director, Center for Theology and Public Life, Mercer University

• Azizah al‐Hibri ‐ Professor, The T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond; President, Karamah (Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights)

• Brigadier General David Irvine, USA (Ret.) ‐ in the private practice of law' in Salt Lake City, Utah; Retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer; taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School; served 4 terms as a Republican legislator in the Utah House of Representatives

• Judge William S. Sessions ‐ Partner, Holland & Knight; Director of the FBI, 1987‐1993; Chief Judge, 1980‐1987, and Judge, 1974‐1987, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; U.S. Attorney, Western District of Texas, 1971‐1974

• Gerald E. Thomson, MD – Lambert and Sonneborn Professor of Medicine Emeritus at Columbia University; Chair, Board of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession; Board Member, Physicians for Human Rights, 2005‐10; President, American College of Physicians, 1995‐96

• Judge Patricia M. Wald ‐ Member, President’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2004‐2005; Judge, 1979‐1999, and Chief Judge, 1986‐1991, U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit; Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 1999‐2001 The following endorsers have also agreed to lend support to the TF members, staff, and the project:

• Wayne Budd ‐ Senior Counsel at Goodwin Procter LLP; Associate Attorney General of the United States, 1992; United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 1989‐1992

• Lee H. Hamilton – Director & Founder, The Center on Congress at Indiana University; Member, Homeland Security Advisory Council; President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1999‐2010; Vice‐Chair, 9/11 Commission, 2002‐2004; Member of Congress, (D‐IN), 1965‐1999

• Alberto Mora ‐ General Counsel of the Navy, 2001‐2006

• William H. Taft IV ‐ Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State, 2001‐2005 TCP will oversee this initiative under the leadership of President Virginia Sloan and with the support of its staff.

CSIS Report: 'Clear Gold' Shows a Different Take on Water Constraints in the Middle East

We all knew water is a major concern in Middle Eastern deserts, but a new report from the Center for Strategic and Inernational Studies suggests it's much different (and worse) than we thought.

Scholarly work on water has often focused on shared rivers as a potential cause of war between countries. But countries in the Middle East have not gone to war over their rivers, and diplomats have been successful in keeping tensions to a minimum. Instead, finite supplies of underground water within national borders pose a more immediate and strategically consequential challenge. Groundwater has fed the agriculture that many regional leaders have used to cement political loyalties. Its potential exhaustion threatens existing political balances.

Water is a fundamental part of the social contract in Middle Eastern countries. Along with subsidized food and fuel, governments provide cheap or even free water in order to ensure the consent of the governed. But when subsidized commodities have been cut in the Middle East, instability has often followed. Water’s own role in prompting unrest has so far been relatively limited, but that record is unlikely to hold. Water has no substitutes, and while cheap in its natural state, water is expensive to process and transport. Future water scarcity will be much more permanent than past shortages, and the techniques governments have used in responding to past disturbances may not be enough.

Download "Clear Gold: Water as a Strategic Resource in the Middle East"

 

AM Briefing: 12/27/10

You're tracked all over the internet (LA Times)

On the 150th anniversary of the Civil War (Washington Post)

We need a bigger House (Boston Globe)

Obama in 2012 (National Review)

What are we doing in Afghanistan? (UPI)