Think Tanked

CNAS Issues "Responsible Transition" Afghanistan Report

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has released a major new report today on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan by CNAS Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), former commander of U.S. and Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and Fellow Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger and civilian advisor to General Stanley McChrystal.  

The 39-page report, "In Responsible Transition: Securing U.S. Interests in Afghanistan Beyond 2011," will be formally launched December 14, 2010 at an event featuring Barno, Exum and Bob Woodward, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and author of Obama’s Wars.   

From the release:

...the authors lay out a strategy for the post-July 2011 phase of the war, define the U.S. troop presence and commitment beyond 2014, and offer operational and strategic guidance for protecting U.S. and allied long-term interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Responsible Transition, Barno and Exum provide policy recommendations - military and political - for how the United States and its NATO allies can get from summer 2011, when U.S. and coalition troops begin to draw down in Afghanistan, to 2014, when U.S. forces transition to a residual force and transfer full leadership of operations to Afghan security forces. Barno and Exum also consider "spoilers," or disruptive events, that could affect the success of any plan, including: a terror attack on U.S. soil originating in Pakistan; an adversarial Pakistan; a resurgent Taliban; and Afghan National Security Forces failure.

Key recommendations include:

• The United States and its allies should commit to a long-term presence in Afghanistan to safeguard vital interests beyond 2014.
• The United States and its allies should begin a phased transition, starting in July 2011, from a large-scale mission employing in excess of 140,000 troops to a residual force of 25,000-35,000 troops.
• United States troop presence beyond 2014 would be a residual force fully reorganized into an unconventional warfare task force (UWTF) that would guide military and counterterrorism operations.
• The United States and its allies should shift their direct investment in the government of Afghanistan away from Kabul and toward local governance.
• The United States should use greater political, military and economic leverage over its allies in Pakistan to drive more aggressive action against violent extremist organizations in the region.

Download "Responsible Transition."

Is the Defense Industry Bailing Out Incumbents?

One set of predictions for the 2010 election cycle relies on the assumption that it's a bad year for incumbents, of which only a few are safe. And if incumbents are subscribing to that explanation--and maybe even if they're not--they might look around for connections to the defense industry, according to a report from Politico's Jen DiMascio.

She points out that freshman Rep. Glenn Nye (D-VA) has increased his defense industry donations 10 times in two years, since serving on the House Armed Services Committee.

And if you keep on that trajectory, one may reasonably expect what Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) can pull down.

A 33-year Capitol Hill veteran and conservative Democrat, Skelton has rarely faced a tough contest. In 2008, he was reelected with 66 percent of the vote while 61 percent of his district voted for Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama.

Those vote variations help explain why the NRCC decided to target Skelton this year. The chairman is facing heat from former state representative Vicky Hartzler, who’s getting support from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

So far this year, Skelton’s brought in nearly $150,000 from his top five contributors: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Finmeccanica. Industry insiders are also monitoring his race closely, and company representatives say they will increase their giving if Skelton stumbles. Thus far, Skelton is holding on to a small lead — 45 percent to 41 percent — in recent polls.

Loren Thompson from the Lexington Institute (who is quoted in the Politico article as saying "This may be the worst year in a long time to bet on incumbents, but it's the natural reflex of the defense industry.") says there's a similar lesson, but it's mostly for Democrats.

What Democrats in particular don't seem to get is that defense plants are populated by members of industrial unions that should be natural allies of this White House, and many of those plants are located in swing states like Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yet the White House has stood aside and let defense secretary Robert Gates -- hardline Republican holdover Robert Gates -- kill $330 billion in planned weapons outlays without even considering the electoral impact of his decisions...Now Gates has the White House committed to killing a jet engine that would be built in and around Ohio, arguably the most important swing state of all in presidential elections.

And in what seems like a strange admission:

Gates is right on the merits -- the engine is a waste of money -- but as with the other cuts the defense secretary has proposed, the White House will pay a price at the polls for its bravery in trimming weapons outlays.

In this case, Gates ought to cut the jet engine for austerity purposes, but ought not for political purposes. Sacrifice the health of the nation for the health of the party, which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is the exact ongoing critique the Obama administration has made of the Bush administration.

How would that play out in an election cycle?

CNAS Challenges the Pentagon to Get Off Oil by 2040

The Department of Defense prides itself on their ability to meet challenges. But can they meet this one?

Christine Parthemore, Center for New American Security fellow and director of the Natural Security Program, blogged today about the release of a new report: Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era. And in that report, they are challenging the the Pentagon, the largest oil consumer in the world, to get off the juice.

She writes:

I’ll cut to the chase: We are calling for DOD to ensure that it can meet all of its fuel needs without petroleum by 2040. The overarching energy goal we therefore recommend is for DOD to manage a smooth transition beyond petroleum over the next 30 years.

Interesting note: Not one of our internal or external reviewers – which included DOD representatives and non-governmental experts – questioned whether this transition was feasible or necessary. One suggested a shorter-term timeline for a DOD goal for moving off of petroleum, and a few people asked us to clarify better why we chose 30 years, rather than 20 or 40. (You can read our reasoning – a combination of feasibility, opportunity and necessity – in the report.) I fully expected reactions to include many variations on “WTF, we’ll be able to produce more oil for at least another century, right?” It was heartening to see a growing acceptance that DOD’s dependence on a single fuel, petroleum, for 77% of its energy consumption is an incredible vulnerability.

Download Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

Brookings Institution's Peter Singer Weighs in on DADT: Keep the Courts Out of This

The Brookings Institution's Director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative, Peter W. Singer, argues that it's time to leave the courts out of the question of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

And here's why:

The point here is that the Constitution doesn’t provide the exact answers, but provides a process that steers us hopefully in the right direction. In my mind, DADT is an issue that turns on both on the issue of rights, but also effectiveness, and in doing so shows the brilliance of the document. It is clear that the Constitution and its amendments provide protections for Americans of all minorities, whether religious, racial or sexual. In this case then, we must weigh the impact of protecting those inherent rights on the question of military effectiveness that protects those rights. And by dividing it out into these two parts, we see how this last question is not a rights question; it is an analytic one — it is a question to which an answer can ultimately be found, rather than adjudicated (and note again and again, how all the research, whether in the U.S. or in the more than twenty of our allies that allow open service, consistently shows that allowing gays to serve did not in the past, does not now, nor will in the future jeopardize military effectiveness). That means this overall debate of both rights and policy is not something that should only be handled by the courts, but one best handled in interplay between the other two branches that the Constitution laid out for us, the Legislative providing the laws and the Executive implementing them. And to take matters full circle, our research shows that the best course of implementation in military personnel policy is not to single out any one minority for exclusion or promotion, but simply to set clear standards of behavior that apply to all. So, respecting rights shows us the Constitutional answer, but also the policy implementation answer.

CAP's Larry Korb on the Iraq Troop Withdrawal

CAP & Lexington Institute Advocate Pentagon Cuts

Two think tank scholars--Larry Korb (Center for American Progress) and Loren Thompson (Lexington Institute)--became an unlikely pair advocating for a scaled back defense budget. In the LA Times, they wrote that it's not so much if Pentagon funding will be cut, as it is how the Pentagon will cut funding while keeping America secure. 

And how will that be done?

Now Washington must become more selective in its commitments, even as threats grow more diverse. It appears the only way this can be accomplished without encouraging aggression is to expect more of allies and friends. In other words, countries such as Germany, Japan and India must help fill the strategic vacuum created by America's retreat.

The Obama administration does not concede that America is in retreat, but it has fashioned a National Security Strategy that is well suited to current trends. The strategy emphasizes the importance of allies and "newly emerging partners" in accomplishing shared defense goals, and commits the United States to helping partners do more for their own defense, especially in coping with terrorism and insurgencies.

This is a sensible approach given the fact that allies will usually have more "forward presence" overseas than U.S. forces can muster, and typically will understand the cultural context of local conflicts better. But there are some steps that Washington needs to take so that partners can take on roles now beyond America's means.

Brookings' Ken Pollack on Withdrawal from Iraq

AEI's Pletka on the Arrival of Petraeus

On the announcement that Petraeus will stay the (better implemented) course in Afghanistan, AEI's Danielle Pletka says there is reason for optimism and offered praise to both Petraeus and Obama.

The decision is yet another sign of Petraeus’s seriousness as a commander—and a thinker. Rather than simply landing in Kabul and shaking the snow globe, he has methodically brought in teams to work through the plans, the implementation, and the politics. There’s no glitz and no leaking. It’s not just that Petraeus isn’t leading reporters on drunken romps through Paris, it’s that he has managed to get the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan back on track and to tamp down the bizarre soap opera that began under General Stanley McChrystal.

And still on the better news front—and words of praise for our commander in chief—the United States seems to be seriously working through on the “unity of effort” diktat from the White House. Tuesday’s international conference in Kabul holds real promise—which will take some realizing, to be sure—but promise is more than we’ve had in years. See what my colleague Tim Sullivan had to say on the subject over at our CDS blog.

Hoover's Sofaer & Brookings' Singer on Drones

CNAS President Optimistic on Agfhanistan, Petraeus

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed today, Center for a New American Security President John Nagl makes a case for optimism in Afghanistan under Petraeus, if he follows a similar model he employed in Iraq. 

One important component: a strong Petraeus-Karzai relationship.

Gaining Mr. Karzai's acceptance—after he had resisted for a year—may be just as important for Gen. Petraeus as are the militias themselves. One of the hardest parts of a counterinsurgency campaign is the need to work by, with and through the political leadership of the host country. A combination of carrots, sticks and cajoling is always required, but not always fruitful.

Gen. Petraeus diligently mentored Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who was derided as weak and ineffective until he suddenly decided to send Iraqi Army units to clear insurgents from Basra, and personally took charge of the fighting there. Few signs suggest that Mr. Karzai will assume field command of the pending effort to squeeze the Taliban out of Kandahar. But Gen. Petraeus has already demonstrated the ability to get the Afghan president to do things that he would rather not. How well Gen. Petraeus is able to use that talent to improve the performance of Mr. Karzai's government—and that of Pakistan's—will likely prove decisive.