5 Questions for Heritage's James Carafano

Heritage Foundation's James Carafano is one of the more outspoken and colorful think tank scholars. The 25-year Army veteran is Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. In a continuation of 5 Questions, Carafano talks to Think Tanked about Afghanistan, why state militias are a good thing, budget cuts at the Pentagon, big bucks from the defense industry and why we still have problems with national security professional development.

1) With a draw down of troops set to begin this summer, why is Afghanistan strategy still being discussed? Many of the major think tanks put out a significant report in the last few months on Afghanistan strategy and many of them have the ears of key stakeholders. Is there a hindrance to strategy with all this discussion?

I don’t think all the variations of “cut and run” in Afghanistan from various think tanks is going to have any influence on the course of events. The future will largely be determined by the success or the failure of the strategy on the ground. No one on any side of the debate thought the 2011 deadline for “significant” withdrawals made any sense. The fact that the White House seems to be backing off the deadline reflects two things. First, the administration thinks the strategy might work. Second, it did not see a big “anti-war” sentiment in the mid-term elections. Therefore, the calculation at this point seems to be that the White House thinks the war is “manageable.” So all those reports did was a kill a lot trees and stray electrons. On the other hand, if things “go south” over the next year, you might see the president dust some of them off as he scrambles for an “exit” strategy.

2) You're a strong proponent of state militias. What's the case for that and what are the differences between them and the militias people are used to hearing about?

Most people know very little about these. More properly called “State Defense Forces” or SDFs, they are authorized by the Constitution and many states such as Texas use them very, very effectively as volunteer organizations. They are not to be confused with “pop-up” organizations that are not created or authorized under state laws. One of the jobs of think tanks is to bring attention to important issues that people are not paying attention to and to provide “facts” and not just opinion. With that in mind, Heritage undertook what I think is the only major survey of these organizations. In the U.S., 23 states and territories have SDFs which had a total force strength of 14,000 members. SDFs are a proven force in homeland security and emergency response efforts. After 9/11, the New York Guard, New York Naval Militia, and New Jersey Naval Militia were activated. After Hurricane Katrina, SDF forces from at least eight states responded to support recovery efforts. What we concluded was that states, Congress, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security can take some basic steps to enhance and expand the capabilities of the nation’s SDFs.

3)Larry Korb recently wrote that it's possible to shave the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion while still maintaining a 6% increase in spending from the period of 2001-2010. Is he right?

First, don’t assume that just cutting the Pentagon’s budget will generate efficiencies. That is the last thing that is likely to happen. Pentagon spending is driven by plethora of federal rules and Congressional dictates (most of the Army’s R&D budget, for example, is dictated by earmarks). If Congress wants the Pentagon to spend money more efficiently it has to change the rules, not cut the budget. That said; there are lots of ways to make defense spending more efficient. In one report we identified $35 billion in potential savings. The issue is if you create these savings, is that an excuse to gut the defense budget? I would argue no. The US military has been on a virtual “procurement holiday” since the end of the Cold War. A lot of our military hardware is wearing; needs to be replaced or modernized or augmented. The wars have only accelerated the demands to recapitalize the force. Savings need to be plowed back into modernization or we going to finish up with a worn out, undersized, underpowered military just like in the aftermath of Vietnam.

Furthermore, I would argue that the obsession with cutting defense to balance the federal budget makes no sense. Defense is not even the “big ticket” in government spending—accounting for less than one-fifth of the federal budget (50 years ago it was half). National defense now ranks a lowly fourth in overall government spending priorities, falling behind the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare, public education, and means-tested welfare aid. Before Congress starts gutting defense and making us less safe it ought to go after these programs first. Defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, even with the costs of fighting overseas, is at a near historic post-World War II low. We live in a dangerous world and the military has never been busier, the idea that our forces can sustain big defense cuts just does not pass the common sense test. Strategy not “green eye shades” should dictate military requirements.

4) A number of media accounts in the last year criticized think tanks for taking money from the defense industry. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute responded with: "I'm not going to work on a project unless somebody, somewhere, is willing to pay. This is a business...bottom line is that if what I write and say is true, it doesn't really matter what my motives are." What should the relationship be between research and the defense industry?

I can only speak for Heritage. First, our financial statement is online. What you see is that corporate giving accounts for single digits of the foundation’s income. Several defense companies do contribute to Heritage. They represent a small percentage of corporate giving. All the defense company money goes to general operations and does not fund specific programs. I am responsible for coordinating all the foreign policy and national security research at Heritage. All of our research requirements are driven by the research staff—we don’t do work on behalf of others. Our research centers get an annual budget for research and that is not tied to individual sources of donations. Fund raising is done by the development staff not the research staff. We constantly monitor research to ensure there are no “conflicts of interest.” I feel pretty comfortable with our process and that our analysts are adequately “fire-walled” and protected from outside influence.

5) Nearly 10 years after 9/11, there are still major gaps in national security professional development. Why is there still a struggle here?

I could not be more demoralized with a) the lack of attention to national security professional development or b) most of the junk that is put out that purports to national security professional development reform. Mostly what you get are just different ways to “centralize” and re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic (i.e. the Office of the President). Most of it is also incoherent. I have written tons on this issue. Here is a link to one paper as an example. I also wrote a piece for Joint Force Quarterly a while back. The problem is a) nobody really owns this issue so there is no real stakeholder to undertake a reform agenda and b) the lack of really good research and analysis. I am sure what will happen is nothing till the next Pearl Harbor and then we will all scuttle around and do something for the sake of doing something. The great irony is that the Bush administration made a half-decent effort at professional development at the end of its tenure, but they really didn’t get it off the ground. The new administration lost interest it and the whole thing is moribund as far as I am concerned.

Comments

[Sam Vaughn]

Anybody who has ever had any experience with a paranoid schizophrenic knows that they would see shadows of conspiracy in the Sahara at high noon. Throw bipolar disorder into the mix and you have a powder keg of potential maniac behaviour. This has been going on since the dawn of mankind.

The behaviour is easy to see once you scrape the surface but impossible, in a politically correct world, to simply call someone crazy. Paranoid schizophrenics can be incredibly intelligent, the one I knew was Mensa level. He knew how to push back. Nevertheless, he's one moment away from pushing a bystander off a train platform and nobody you tell in positions of authority are willing to consider that somebody might actually be crazy..... Nope they always play the victim card..... it's not his fault it's societies fault, it's your fault. After this experience I've come to believe that evil exists and it's malevolence holds no bounds, let alonw party affiliation. A re-run of the Mickey Mouse Club could set him off......

[J Wilson]

So.... It's Walt Disney's fault?

[Douglas Bostick]

Q1, Is or shouldn't be about time lines, most Americans want us out, most Americans don't have a clue why were still there. You can't regulate or go to war over moral issue's that have been going on for centuries. We attcaked the Terrorist in 2002 we believed we won/paid back the Terrorist for 9/11. Buy all rights we should have been out of the area soon after Hussian was hung. Wether you were for or against going into Iraq, there's no reason for our Military being killed in 2011 for these people, They have had years to secure thenselves and thats failed, they have had years to decide vote for a governemnt that represents all the people, thats failed. We pulled most of the troops out last year even though Obama promised to remove the troops in months after election, that failed as did most of his other promises. #1 G.H.W.Bush dropped the ball in the 1st war with Iraq by not arresting and taking Hussian out of the picture, then Jr. does it years later. I am a Republican, I voted twice for Jr. and would have a 3rd time if it was legal, but it's time to close this book on a sect of people that have been at war with there neighbors since B/C. We saved Saudia Arabias ass and for what, they lost 50 or so of their own and we have paid the price for their oil and at a high price just to make them richer? Isn't it interesting that some powerful Americans would rather protect a turtle, a bird or some small crecture rather than drilling for oil in the USA or off shore, the Kennedy's didn't want wind turbines off the coast because it was unsightly, I guess you have that luxury when your a millionaire and in Congress for life. Here's the bottom line if we leave now or we leave in 2 more years (this will be an issue in 2012) they will revert back to the shara law and muslim rule, it's like the drug cartels that we have been fighting for 25 years, once a controlling entity has control, enjoys the good that goes with being on top, they ain't leaving kind of like our Congress.

[Douglas Bostick]

Q3. Cut Pentagon Budget, I have a better suggestion, cut spending period, my wife spends until the money in the bank has been depleated, then we quit buying, the Congress that passes the budget hasn't a clue how to balance anything, it's not their money. What did Ronald Reagan say "the taxpayer" is someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take a civil service exam! The opinion of Congress rather than stop wastful spending is add more ways to generate money (we can't call it a tax) from the working class. Any American that ran a business a budget and check book like Congress would be in Jail, which most of them shold be. Were about as close to becoming a 3rd world county as you can get and if we don't reel in the spending, get our security and borders in order we soon will be a socialist ran country. Ever wonder why the Congress won't vote on an amendment to balance the Federal Budget? they won't let it go to the public for a vote, just think how quickly this problem with money and deficit were in would change if they had to do as all Americans do and balance a budget each year. And while were on Congress the President has term limits, most State Governors have term limits, most State oficials have term limits, but NOT Congress. humm Isn't there a amendment that address's issue's with Congress passing special laws that just protect effect them? I'm sure I read that somewhere, maybe they should.