Think Tanked

Former WSJ Publisher, Karen Elliott House Joins RAND & CNAS Boards

The Center for a New American Security and the RAND Corporation have each announced that Karen Elliott House, former senior vice president of Dow Jones & Company and publisher of all print editions of The Wall Street Journal, has joined boards at the think tanks. At CNAS, Elliott has become a member of the Board of Directors and at RAND she has been elected to a second term on the Board of Trustees. 

“Karen possesses extraordinary expertise and decades of foreign policy experience garnered from her own reporting and from leading some of the best news outlets in the business,” said CNAS Chief Executive Officer Nathaniel Fick in a released statement. “Her insight and guidance will be invaluable to the Center and we are honored to have her join our Board.”

"We are delighted that Karen House is returning to the RAND board. As a journalist and publisher, she is dedicated to RAND's mission and its core values of quality and objectivity," said RAND CEO James A. Thomson said.

Personnel Files: Nora Bensahel From RAND to CNAS

The Center for a New American Security announced today that Dr. Nora Bensahel has joined CNAS as Deputy Director of Studies and Senior Fellow. Dr. Bensahel, who previously served as a Senior Political Scientist at RAND Corporation, works in the areas of U.S. foreign policy and military issues.

“Nora’s wide-ranging expertise, analytical rigor and deep commitment to pragmatic approaches to national security will bring immense value to the Center,” said CNAS Chief Executive Officer Nathaniel Fick in a released statement.

Dr. Bensahel (Ph.D., Stanford University) is an adjunct associate professor in security studies at Georgetown University and serves on the Executive Board of Women in International Security. She has been a fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University and at the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University.

AEI's Thomas Donnelly Attacks CNAS Pentagon Budget Report as 'Ludicrous' and 'Perverse'

Like many think tanks, the Center for a New American Security released their analysis of President Obama's proposed budget yesterday. In a report called The Sacrifice Ahead, CNAS' Travis Sharp argues that while the 2012 budget moves in the right direction, numerous other efficiencies could be taken to help "shore up the U.S. economy."

“The FY 2012 budget requested by DOD will enable the U.S. military to defend the nation against many perils. But it will do little to stymie a threat that may ultimately prove more dangerous: America’s growing debt,” writes Sharp. “Over time, the economic consequences of indebtedness may crowd out investments in a U.S. military that undergirds international security; may render the United States more vulnerable to economic coercion; and may erode America’s global stature and soft power. Relieving U.S. indebtedness demands preventive action by American society and government – including DOD.”

AEI's Tom Donnelly shared his reactions to the CNAS report--and CNAS in general, for that matter--at the Weekly Standard blog. Now that Michele Flournoy, Kurt Campbell and Jim Miller all have their Obama administration appointments, CNAS has taken a turn for the esoteric, according to Donnelly.

Under the new management of John Nagl and Nate Fick, CNAS first became the home of the counterinsurgency “COINdinistas” but has also been in the forefront on issues like “natural security” – that is, security the way environmentalists would think about it – and “energy security” – including how the Navy can get better gas mileage – and “soft power” in all its various manifestations.

And it's a direction that has left CNAS analysis strikingly conventional, if not misguided and weak, as far as Donnelly is concerned.

In its infrequent work on more traditional military issues such as defense strategy and budgets or weapons programs, CNAS has tended to adhere to an analytical approach. But its just-released report on the 2012 Pentagon budget – “The Sacrifice Ahead” – comes from the heart of the Rand Paul-Barney Frank corner of the cosmos.  Fearing that the “cost of servicing the [national] debt could…put pressure on investments in America’s soft power” – yikes, the AID budget is at risk! – the study calls on the military to man up (emphasis added): “[A] base reduction of approximately 10-15 percent of the [future years defense plan] could serve as a useful benchmark because it corresponds with DoD’s approximate share of total federal spending and thus its burden of responsibility in contributing to deficit reduction.”

Where to begin with such a rationale? It certainly is as pure an expression of “everything-on-the-table” thinking as can be imagined; CNAS will brook no changes in the federal government’s priorities. (And that, in turn, is what the Obama budget intends: let’s lock in the “gains” in domestic discretionary spending and entitlements, like the health care plan, of the last two years.) But it’s also a pretty perverse reading of the military’s “burden of responsibility.” Asking soldiers and Marines to add “balancing Uncle Sam’s books” to “win in Iraq and Afghanistan” seems like a stretch. The battlefield is burden enough.

CNAS: Financial Pressure as National Security Tool

The Center for a New American Security has released a new report today by David L. Asher, Victor D. Comras and Patrick M. Cronin that systematically looks at the way financial pressure can be used as national security leverage.

In recent years, the world has witnessed the power of the global economy to impact states' behavior and interactions within the international community. The rise of non-state actors and the increasing threat to international stability from states like North Korea and Iran signal that the United States must continue to use financial pressure as a key tool in U.S. national security and leverage the power of the private financial sector to optimize chances for success. In this report, authors Dr. Patrick Cronin, Dr. David Asher and Victor Comras examine the capacity of the United States to use counter-threat finance by examining three cases - North Korea, Serbia and Iraq - to glean lessons learned for the future.

Download "Pressure: Coercive Economic Statecraft and U.S. National Security"

CNAS' Andrew Exum Falls Short on Protest Humor

Accompanied by an instructional video for children, CNAS' Andrew Exum offered his own advice to the Egyptian protesters: stop throwing rocks like girls.

Because our freedom-loving government has apparently been supporting the Sadat/Mubarak regime for the past 30+ years (honestly, who knew?), it is with great hesitation that I write to you on behalf of my countrymen with a little constructive criticism. But over the past few days, we Americans have been watching your street protests with much wonder and a little concern. It's not like we are the greatest baseball players on Earth -- no, that would be the Japanese -- but because of our national sport, we Americans all learn how to throw a baseball at an early age. Judging from your rock-throwing, we think you could get an extra 20-30 yards/meters on each throw if you stop throwing like a girl use some techniques we Americans have developed through the years...

And not all found this too funny, including commenters on the post and some folks on Twitter.

CNAS' Andrew Exum on Obama's ROTC SOTU Comments

In President Obama's State of the Union Address, he addressed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, saying "no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love." And with that, Obama said it was time for all for college campuses to be open to military recruiters.    

But Center for New American Security's Andrew Exum says it's time to take a closer look.

Okay, there is one huge problem with this. It's easy to demonize the Ivy League universities for not having more ROTC programs, but the reality is that the U.S. military has been the one most responsible for divesting from ROTC programs in the Northeast United States. It's hardly the fault of Columbia University that the U.S. Army has only two ROTC programs to serve the eight million residents and 605,000 university students of New York City. And it's not the University of Chicago's fault that the entire city of Chicago has one ROTC program while the state of Alabama has ten. The U.S. military made a conscious decision to cut costs by recruiting and training officers where people were more likely to volunteer. That makes sense given an ROTC budget that has been slashed since the end of the Cold War. But it also means that the U.S. Army and its sister services are just as responsible for this divide between the so-called "elite" living within the Acela Corridor and the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Think Tankers Weigh In on Energy and SOTU

National Journal has posed the question:  What significance does President Obama's State of the Union address have for his administration's energy and climate policy?  

Among the responders are two think tankers. Center for a New American Security's Christine Parthemore reminds the Obama administration that while the economy has to be a priority, security and energy go hand-in-hand.

Concentrating entirely on jobs, however, would prove a lost opportunity to discuss the national security imperative for transitioning to a more diverse and resilient energy economy. It is true that the security of the nation rests in part on the strength of the American economy, but U.S. energy policy must also account for the destabilizing effects of growing worldwide fossil fuel demands and the stabilizing potential of diversifying energy supplies. The United States should bolster its renewable energy economy not just for the sake of leading global innovation, but so that our energy security is increasingly in our own hands. The President should use this State of the Union address to speak to the broad American public on the need to reduce the grip of energy demands on geopolitics globally, and on U.S. foreign and security policy specifically.

And Center for American Progress scholar, Daniel Weiss, says clean energy should be part of Obama's Innovation pillar.

President Obama should forcefully advocate more investments in the invention, production, and deployment of clean energy technologies. The creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration or “green bank” would help companies take new technologies from successful R&D to commercialization, and restoring funds to the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program would support the development of innovative low-carbon pollution technologies. The administration also should assess America’s advanced manufacturing capability and collaborate with Congress to help manufacturers become more efficient and able to produce clean energy technologies.

CNAS' Daniel Kliman Talking China on Washington Post Q&A; Today

Center for a New American Security fellow Daniel Kliman will be taking questions online today at 2 p.m. at The Washington Post. Kliman will be discussing the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao, growing investment by Chinese companies in the U.S. creating more jobs for Americans, human rights issues, compliance on Iran sanctions and more.

CSIS & CNAS Flood Gates' Replacement Pool

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made it clear he plans to retire in 2011. Mark Thompson over at TIME's Swampland blog narrowed the field of those who are likely to replace Gates to five--and three of them have strong ties to think tanks: John Hamre, President and CEO of CSIS; Michele Flournoy (co-founder of CNAS and current Under Secretary of Defense for Policy); and Richard Danzig (Chariman of the Board, Center for a New American Security).

John Hamre, who was second-in-command in the Clinton Pentagon, is widely viewed as the safest choice. Now running the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he's kept his hand in official Pentagon business by serving as head of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel that helps defense secretaries deal with thorny national-security issues. Before serving as the Pentagon's chief financial officer from 1993 to 1997, he spent a decade on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Michelle Flournoy is the Pentagon policy chief, which makes her the third-ranking person in the building (and the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in the Pentagon hierarchy). She gets good marks in her Pentagon role, which involves frequent meetings at the White House with other second-tier officials, and overseeing the Pentagon's every-four-year review of what the national security of the country demands and the best way to get it.

Richard Danzig, Navy secretary under Clinton, was the point man on defense matters during Obama's presidential run and was widely expected to get the job if Gates hadn't been tapped to stay on. He has kept a low profile ever since, now serving as chairman of the board of the Center for a New American Security think tank, which was where Flournoy thought big thoughts before landing her current Pentagon post.

You may be surprised at the other two Thompson mentioned. Have a look at those, as well as his analysis of how, if and when the decision is made.

DoD's Officer Retention Problem: CNAS' Nagl as Case

The Atlantic has a story in its January/February issue by former Air Force intelligence officer, Tim Kane, on the problem of retaining officers in the military--and it starts with Center for a New American Security President John Nagl.

John Nagl still hesitates when he talks about his decision to leave the Army. A former Rhodes Scholar and tank-battalion operations officer in Iraq, Nagl helped General David Petraeus write the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual, which is credited with bringing Iraq’s insurgency under control. But despite the considerable influence Nagl had in the Army, and despite his reputation as a skilled leader, he retired in 2008 having not yet reached the rank of full colonel. Today, Nagl still has the same short haircut he had 24 years ago when we met as cadets—me an Air Force Academy doolie (or freshman), him a visiting West Pointer—but now he presides over a Washington think tank. The funny thing is, even as a civilian, he can’t stop talking about the Army—“our Army”—as if he never left. He won’t say it outright, but it’s clear to me, and to many of his former colleagues, that the Army fumbled badly in letting him go. His sudden resignation has been haunting me, and it punctuates an exodus that has been publicly ignored for too long.

Continue reading "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving."