Wednesday, August 15, 2012

U.S. Leadership of International Military Exercises -- Preparing for Proxy Wars?

This post is structured around a recent Nick Turse article published in Asia Times, Tomdispatch, and other sites. My contribution is to supply videos and other documentation related to many of the military exercises covered.  Turse's words are in standard font, while mine are in italics, plus the links. 

Washington puts its money on proxy warBy Nick Turse
Atimes.com

The changing face of empire
With ongoing military operations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, the Obama administration has embraced a six-point program for light-footprint warfare relying heavily on special-operations forces, drones, spies, civilian partners, cyber-warfare and proxy fighters.

Africa: The following information comprised a sentence altogether, but I'm breaking apart the main elements here:

2011 war in Libya;

the expansion of a growing network of supply depots, small camps, and airfields; a regional drone campaign with missions run out of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and the Indian Ocean archipelago nation Seychelles;



a flotilla of 30 ships in that ocean supporting regional operations;

a massive influx of cash for counter-terrorism operations across East Africa;

a possible old-fashioned air war, carried out on the sly in the region using manned aircraft;

and a special-ops expeditionary force (bolstered by State Department experts) dispatched to help capture or kill Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony and his senior commanders.

In Somalia, Washington has already involved itself in a multi-pronged military and CIA campaign against Islamist al-Shabaab militants that includes:

intelligence operations,
training for Somali agents,
a secret prison,
helicopter attacks and
commando raids.

Now, it is also backing a classic proxy war using African surrogates. The United States has become, as the Los Angeles Times put it recently, "the driving force behind the fighting in Somalia", as it trains and equips African foot soldiers to battle Shabaab militants, so US forces won't have to. In a country where more than 90 Americans were killed and wounded in a 1993 debacle now known by the shorthand "Black Hawk Down", today's fighting and dying have been outsourced to African soldiers.

This year, for example, elite Force Recon marines from the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12 (or, as a mouthful of an abbreviation, SPMAGTF-12) trained soldiers from the Uganda People's Defense Force. It, in turn, supplies the majority of the troops to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) currently protecting the US-supported government in that country's capital, Mogadishu.

This spring, marines from SPMAGTF-12 also trained soldiers from the Burundi National Defense Force (BNDF), the second-largest contingent in Somalia. In April and May, members of Task Force Raptor, 3rd Squadron, 124th Cavalry Regiment of the Texas National Guard took part in a separate training mission with the BNDF in Mudubugu, Burundi. SPMAGTF-12 has also sent its trainers to Djibouti, another nation involved in the Somali mission, to work with an elite army unit there.

At the same time, US Army troops have taken part in training members of Sierra Leone's military in preparation for their deployment to Somalia later this year. In June, US Army Africa commander Major-General David Hogg spoke encouragingly of the future of Sierra Leone's forces in conjunction with another US ally, Kenya, which invaded Somalia last autumn (and just recently joined the African Union mission there). "You will join the Kenyan forces in southern Somalia to continue to push al-Shabaab and other miscreants from Somalia so it can be free of tyranny and terrorism and all the evil that comes with it," he said. "We know that you are ready and trained. You will be equipped and you will accomplish this mission with honor and dignity."

Readying allied militaries for deployment to Somalia is, however, just a fraction of the story when it comes to training indigenous forces in Africa. This year, for example, marines traveled to Liberia to focus on teaching riot-control techniques to that country's military as part of what is otherwise a State Department-directed effort to rebuild its security forces.

In fact, Colonel Tom Davis of US Africa Command (AFRICOM) recently told TomDispatch that his command had held or planned 14 major joint training exercises for 2012 and a similar number were scheduled for 2013. This year's efforts include operations in Morocco, Cameroon, Gabon, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Senegal and Nigeria, including, for example, Western Accord 2012, a multilateral exercise involving the armed forces of Senegal, Burkina Fa.so, Guinea, Gambia and France.








Update 16 August 2012: Southern Accord 2012 ends. See DoD press release here.  The following is from the press release 

 Africom says the purpose of the exercise, the first of seven iterations of Southern Accord to be hosted by Botswana, is to train both militaries in peace keeping operations in Sub-Saharan Africa.  An ambitious training schedule covered the gamut, from tactical and peacekeeper training to humanitarian road building and medical outreach missions.

 ***
Even this, however, doesn't encompass the full breadth of US training and advising missions in Africa. "We ... conduct some type of military training or military-to-military engagement or activity with nearly every country on the African continent," Davis wrote. =========================================================================

LATIN AMERICA

 Africa may, at present, be the prime location for the development of proxy warfare, American-style, but it's hardly the only locale where the United States is training indigenous forces to aid US foreign-policy aims. This year, the Pentagon has also ramped up operations in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean.

In Honduras, for example, small teams of US troops are working with local forces to escalate the drug war there. Working out of Forward Operating Base Mocoron and other remote camps, the US military is supporting Honduran operations by way of the methods it honed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US forces have also taken part in joint operations with Honduran troops as part of a training mission dubbed Beyond the Horizon 2012, while Green Berets have been assisting Honduran special-operations forces in anti-smuggling operations.
Additionally, an increasingly militarized US Drug Enforcement Administration sent a Foreign-Deployed Advisory Support Team, originally created to disrupt the poppy trade in Afghanistan, to aid Honduras' Tactical Response Team, that country's elite counter-narcotics unit.

**Honduras**:


The militarization and foreign deployment of US law-enforcement operatives was also evident in Tradewinds 2012, a training exercise held in Barbados in June. There, members of the US military and civilian law-enforcement agencies joined with counterparts from Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago to improve cooperation for "complex multinational security operations".

**Tradewinds 2012**

Far less visible have been training efforts by US special-operations forces in Guyana (http://shadowspear.com/special-operations-training/105911-fused-response-2012-us-guyana-special-ops.html), Uruguay and Paraguay (http://www.shadowspear.com/special-operations-training/106105-socsouth-uraguay-jcet.html). In June, special-ops troops also took part in Fuerzas Comando, an eight-day "competition" in which the elite forces from 21 countries, including the Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay, faced off in tests of physical fitness, marksmanship and tactical capabilities.


**International Special Ops Forces Conference, Tampa Bay, May 2012**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyMIgcdC9I

This year, the US military has also conducted training exercises in Guatemala, sponsored "partnership-building" missions in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Peru and Panama, and reached an agreement to carry out 19 "activities" with the Colombian army over the next year, including joint military exercises.

=====================================================

CHINA/ASIA

 Coverage of the Obama administration's much-publicized strategic "pivot" to Asia has focused on the creation of yet more bases and new naval deployments to the region. The military (which has dropped the word "pivot" for "rebalancing") is, however, also planning and carrying out numerous exercises and training missions with regional allies. In fact, the US Navy and Marines Corps alone already reportedly engage in more than 170 bilateral and multilateral exercises with Asia-Pacific nations each year.

One of the largest of these efforts took place in and around the Hawaiian Islands from late June through early August. Dubbed RIMPAC 2012, the exercise brought together more than 40 ships and submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel from 22 nations, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Tonga.

**RIMPAC 2012** Promotional: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aqGFRDilD0

Almost 7,000 American troops also joined about 3,400 Thai forces, as well as military personnel from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea, as part of Cobra Gold 2012.


US Marines Learn Jungle Survival Techniques (humorous):

In addition, US marines took part in Hamel 2012, a multinational training exercise involving members of the Australian and New Zealand militaries, while other American troops joined the Armed Forces of the Philippines for Exercise Balikatan.


**Exercise Hamel**: 2010, just Australia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9wX1QUUTpQ


Exercise Balikitan:

The effects of the "pivot" are also evident in the fact that once-neutralist India now holds more than 50 military exercises with the United States each year - more than any other country in the world.

**India-US**

While in 2008 India and China held a Joint Exercise, obviously without regard for the United States: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzlnogUjMho

What has changed?

2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rNAyj4i68

"Our partnership with India is a key part of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and, we believe, to the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century," said US Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on a recent trip to the subcontinent.

Just how broad is evident in the fact that India is taking part in America's proxy effort in Somalia. In recent years, the Indian Navy has emerged as an "important contributor" to the international counter-piracy effort off that African country's coast, according to Andrew Shapiro of the US State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
===============================================================

Posted by at No comments:

China (and others) Take Notice of Obama's Rebalancing in Asia

In this media piece, the voice of the Chinese government reveals its concern for the rapid military buildup in terms of both arms and alliance that is defining the security environment of east and south Asia. The language is alarmist -- some quick examples:

 Since the start of the year, U.S. armed forces have massively and incessantly engaged in joint military exercises in the Asia-Pacific region.

 It seems that the United States has developed a fresh yen for waging military exercises with its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Apart from the drills' dazzling intensity, what is more alarming is that some of these exercises have even openly taken China as the imaginary enemy.

The Obama administration, since its first year in office, has demonstrated a fervent desire to deter China by strengthening its military alliances with countries like South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, as well as some other Southeast Asian nations.

By setting China as its simulated foe and making a parade of its military prowess in the region, the United States intends to send out a message that no one is allowed to challenge its dominant position in the region.

And the article invokes US electoral politics as well --

Another reason for the rising military involvement of Washington in the region this year is that by trying to play tough against China, Obama could hopefully woo more voters in his presidential race.

The U.S. moves, based on Cold War mentality, would only aggravate regional tensions and plague China-U.S. relations.

Moreover, they would embolden a few regional countries to take rather irresponsible attitudes when handling their maritime disputes with China, and further push the entire Asia-Pacific area to the brink of military conflict.

The electoral connection is low-hanging fruit, hard to resist. And no one would ever accuse me of being blind to the politics of foreign policy, indeed, I simply expect political advantage to be at minimum an unconsciously considered factor in a policy maker's decisions.  However, in this context the assertion is absurd. First, Obama did not create an Asia-centered foreign policy out of thin air. China's new great power status has been emerging for decades, and all presidents have had to deal with the complex mix of conflict and cooperation that defines Sino-American relations. As China has progressed as a world player and as a major trading partner with the United States, the issue of managing relations with China has risen steadily on presidential agendasas they work toward .  Major headline-grabbing crises between the two countries have been sporadic, and thus China may not always have been the most visible presidential priority, but relations have been steadily intensifying.  Thus, whoever would be president in 2012 other than Obama would undoubtedly be pursuing similar policies, though details may have varied. For example, it cannot be known if another president would have pursued the exact bilateral and multilateral alliances as the incumbent. Second, the military buildups on the scale of those Obama is pursuing in the Persian Gulf and in Asia are serious matters, not prone to superficial campaign tactics. The extensive diplomacy required by American civilian and military agencies and their international counterparts is simply not subject to electoral dynamics, though doubtless any successful diplomacy will be used as campaign fodder. Indeed, one motivation for this blog is to rebut many of the rather generic and typical criticisms levied at Obama's foreign policy.

It's clear that Obama's aggressive pursuit of alliances to establish a balance of power system in Asia is worrying the Chinese as they face a great deal more uncertainty  than many people realize, uncertainty in both domestic and international affairs.  Obama's Realpolitik is not without its benefits for those who advocate a values-driven foreign policy as Myanmar/Burma makes strides toward democracy as it gets closer to the U.S. (and farther from China), and even in Vietnam there may be glimmers of change along with international engagement.


In this piece published in an online Filipino news source, a militant group leader is quoted as warning against U.S. diplomatic and military moves in the region. In doing so, he presents a rather insightful summary of new and renewed U.S. relations with the Philippines, Australia,  etc.  The point, however, is to highlight the report as another indication that when the U.S. Navy moves in, potential aggressors take notice and sound a warning, hoping to use fear as an avenue for greater support. This goes for the CCCP as well a Filipino militia.  Walter Pincus of the Washington Post makes similar points about the Middle East, where a similar U.S. strategy is arming, training and organizing the Arab states and Gulf Cooperation Council into an international deterrent against Iran.

The next post will include a listing and video/documentary summaries of recent major international military exercises that the United States is using to build, solidify, and prepare these incipient coalitions.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Drezner in Foreign Policy blog: Romney's Talk of Culture and Economic Development

Daniel Drezner's blog on the Foreign Policy webpage summarizes his and others' views on the comments Romney made in Israel and his subsequent attempts to contextualize or clarify them. Good explanation of the difference between culture and political/economic institutions that Romney does not seem to understand. Interesting that Zakaria invokes Milton Friedman a day or so after Friedman's centenary.
Posted by at No comments:

In Reply to Op-Ed by Dr. Condoleeza Rice in Financial Times


The Financial Times asks readers to not copy and post to the web their content. However, this op-ed by Dr. Condoleeza Rice is garnering attention, including from analysts who include part of the essay. I did abridge the essay carefully so as to not post the entire essay contrary to FT's wishes. My comments are in italics.

July 26, 2012 8:37 pm+ www.ft.com

US must recall it is not just any country

By Condoleezza Rice

In this young century, the 9/11 attacks, the global financial crisis and the unrest in the Arab world have struck at the heart of vital US interests. If Americans want the tectonic plates of the international system to settle in a way that makes the world safer, freer and more prosperous, the US must overcome its reluctance to lead....


The problem with short op-ed essays, of course, is the inability to fully define what one means when using terms such as"safer, freer and more prosperous." The predictable response to this statement is to assert the obvious or even self-evident meanings of safety, freedom, and prosperity. But there is much to ask about these goals. First, safety, which can be taken to be interchangeable with security in the common language of national security policy. However laudable is the goal of a world of states and non-state actors and individuals sharing a clear perception of safety, in a world currently constituted by no expectations of Great Power war and indeed in which the number of interstate wars ongoing is at a historical low point, there remains a set of challenges that Dr. Rice justifiably raises in this piece and elsewhere. So, what are the security challenges and how should the United States approach them -- and, in the political realm what do we make of Dr. Rice's critiques of the Obama Administration's foreign policy record to date?


The list of US foreign policy challenges is long and there will be a temptation to respond tactically to each one. But today’s headlines and posterity’s judgment often differ. The task at hand is to strengthen the pillars of our influence and act with the long arc of history in mind.


Very eloquent, and an excellent reminder that strategic thinking is critical to long-term success. What adds complexity and difficulty to carrying out this suggestion is that crises do happen and quick responses are expected, with considerable political pressure on decision-makers to act in ways that may not allow for adequate application of long-term strategic plans in the immediacy of crises. Let's take the situation in Syria. 
 
In the Middle East we must patiently use our aid, expertise and influence to support the creation of inclusive democratic institutions. The fundamental problem in the region is the absence of institutions that can bridge the Sunni-Shia divide, and protect the rights of women and minorities. Even as we make necessary immediate choices – including arming the Syrian rebels – we must insist upon inclusive politics. The US cannot afford to stand aside; regional powers will bring their own agendas that could exacerbate confessional divisions.



Nothing inaccurate here. The problem is the lack of any idea of how the United States can overcome this "fundamental problem." The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly as old as Islam, and is exponentially exacerbated when combined with geopolitical tensions, nationalist, ethnic and tribal rivalries, and a host of additional sectarian identities including the Alawites, who comprise 12% of Syria but has been ruthlessly governing for decades under both Assads. It seems a consensus is rapidly building around the idea that Bahsir al-Assad is not going to be in office for much longer, but also that he is unlikely to go down without additional and horrendous assaults. Therefore, arming and otherwise supporting the rebels is a logical suggestion -- except it raises the question of how such actions align with the long-term, strategic vision that Rice rightfully says should be our guide. The fall of Assad and his military dictatorship would remove a long-standing ruthless regime and would rob Iran of an important (if not always reliable) partner in furtherance of its regional power ambitions. But given Dr. Rice raises the issue of Iraq next, what evidence does she offer to indicate what lessons of Iraq should be applied to Syria? Shaping a post-civil war Syria offers many of the same challenges our overthrow of Saddam unleashed throughout Iraq -- tribal and sectarian war, military-civilian power struggles, and a lack of civil society as a basis for growing democratic values. In spite of these unknowns, the Obama Administration has acted in ways that critics such as Dr. Rice should appreciate. Perhaps the level, speed, and overtness of American support for the Syrian rebels have not matched what Dr. Rice and Mr. Romney seem to be calling for, but they have not adequately portrayed how this support should manifest, what limits should be placed on such support, and how we should prepare for the likelihood that weapons and resources we supply will end up in very unsavory hands, including some in the rebellion who have their own agendas to pursue. In short, many of the same questions that were raised during the NATO attack on Libya can be raised here, namely, just what mix of good guys and bad guys comprises the Syrian rebellion? Does being anti-Assad alone qualify one as pro-democracy? I think we all know the answer. 
 
As we work with reformers across the region, we should not forget that Iraq has the kind of institutions that are meant to overcome these divisions. Given its geostrategic importance, the chaos engulfing its neighbours and Iran’s destructive influence, our re-engagement with Baghdad is sorely needed.



I find these statements on Iraq to be very interesting. If I was the type to be blunt, I'd say that what they reveal is a continuation of the same willful blindness to the realities of Iraq that created the conditions there in the first place. First, the reason Iran's influence is so great is that the U.S. removed one of Iran's greatest enemies in Saddam Hussein. I've always marveled at how little significance was accorded the fact that so many of post-Saddam Iraq's leaders had spent decades in Iran. Perhaps there was a theory that returning to Iraq would be an Etch-a-Sketch moment for these Shi'ite leaders and they would govern without regard to sectarianism.

So just what would "re-engagement" with Iraq look like? I get the feeling that by re-engagement, she really means the re-establishment of American hegemony of Iraq, but Iraq is a sovereign state now, and while its behavior should not be unmet with consequences, at some level its diplomatic priorities are its own. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the U.S. has a fine line to walk, between allying with the Kurds and not provoking the ire of Turkey who cannot allow Kurdish independence movements to succeed anywhere.


The US needs to turn again to the development of responsible and democratic sovereigns beyond the Middle East. The George W. Bush administration doubled aid spending worldwide and quadrupled it to Africa. It channelled assistance to countries that were investing in their people’s health and education, governing wisely and democratically, building open economies and fighting corruption.... US tax dollars will have been well spent.


Now this is interesting. Not that I disagree with her; she makes good sense. However, I look forward to seeing either Romney supporter or perhaps even Vice Presidential candidate Condoleeza Rice promoting increased foreign aid to the GOP national convention and TEA Party crowds. I do not think it would go over well.


We must also not lose sight of how democracy is solidifying in the western hemisphere. US assistance and trade policy can help democracies in Latin America to provide an answer to populist dictators. At the same time, we must speak out for dissidents – from Cuba to Venezuela to Nicaragua. Mexico needs attention across a broad agenda that includes the devastating security challenge that threatens both it and the US.


Another good set of points. Latin America has declined on the American agenda overall, but our relationship with Brazil has seen considerable improvement under its new president, illustrating that the United States, under presidents of either party, is subject to foreign environments in part defined by the domestic politics of other sovereign states. The threat of Chavez is overblown. The situation in Mexico is one I see as a strong national security interest. I look forward to hearing whatever may be said about Mexico in the presidential debates.


The US “pivot” to Asia (a region that had hardly been abandoned) has focused heavily on security issues. America should remain the pre-eminent military power in the Pacific. But consider this: China has signed free-trade agreements with 15 nations over the past eight years and has explored FTAs with some 20 others; since 2009 the US has ratified three FTAs negotiated during the Bush administration and it has continued – but not concluded – talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which began in 2008...


All true, though it's deceptive to compare a high number of recent FTAs established by China in comparison with U.S. action in this area, when the U.S. has been a free trade leader for many years. It's interesting that Dr. Rice rather cavalierly dismisses the security-centered strategy pursued by President Obama. Additionally, the security, political and economic dynamics of our relationships are not completely discrete categories of policy. There are cross-cutting influences. Consider a recent analysis by a former South Vietnamese General in which he lays out the possibility for democratic gains in Vietnam stemming from the closer relations the United States has pursued under President Obama, which has largely been focused on security relations (arms sales and military exercises). This analysis can be found here. His concluding paragraphs are worth highlighting:


"Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also underscores the importance of freedom and human rights in emerging nations. During a visit to Mongolia earlier this month, she touted the recent democratic reforms in Asian countries such as Mongolia, Myanmar and East Timor. She also visited Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to push for greater democratic reforms across Asia.

There is a saying in Vietnam that if the Vietnamese communist government follows China, it will lose the country; and if it sides with the United States, it will lose the party. Recent events show that the Vietnamese communist leadership appears ready to accept the consequences of a closer strategic cooperation with the United States. They may have a hunch, indeed, that the United States containment scheme against China may succeed – like the one against the Soviet bloc had succeeded during the Cold War era -– and that the collapse of the Chinese communist regime is only a question of time because China is facing unsurmountable (sic) ethnic, economic, political and social dilemmas. Thus, it may be time for them to jump ship before it is too late.

If the recent collapse of long-established dictatorial regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, the subsequent political reforms in Myanmar, Mongolia and East Timor, and the seemingly relentless spread of democratic values across the globe are any indication, don’t be surprised if the long-awaited Asian Spring is already on the horizon."


In sum, once again a Romney supporter over-generalizes her critique of actual U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It seems that with nearly every statement it takes less and less time to refute them, as they descend to talking points.

A robust free trade policy will strengthen our economy and influence abroad, as will developing our domestic resources, such as the North American energy platform. High oil prices empower Venezuela, Russia and Iran. We are developing alternative sources of energy but they will not replace hydrocarbons for a long time. ....


A rather tepid statement on energy policy, which is usually a strong component of Obama criticism. When it comes to alternative sources of energy, whether natural gas or solar energy, one problem is that the technology has become subject to market gluts that make it less profitable to invest in them. People can scream unachievable goals about national energy independence, but they don't seem to realize that is not going to happen because the very actors they depend on to provide that independence are putting profit over nationalism, as is their function.


Most important, we need to reassure our friends across the globe.


I have long been put off by the way commentators treat the subject of international alliances. First, there is the common use of the word "friend" or "friends" in reference to sovereign states with which the United States has strong and mostly positive relations. While the use of the informal "friends" is not unheard in public diplomacy, the way that the topic of friends/allies is treated by political officials and pundits creates a false impression, an image of a complex interstate relationship being reduced to an interpersonal relationship. Sovereign states shape their relations with each of the other states in accordance with their perceived national interests, first and foremost their interest in sustaining and growing their power status. This is especially so for the world's stronger powers, and it is what especially bothers me about how these relationships are discussed, particularly relative to Israel. What I see in President Obama's treatment of Israel is classic Realism, or Realpolitik -- power politics. One of the most respected scholars of the 20th century, Hans Morgenthau, offered the following nine principles of international politics from the Realist perspective:
1. Diplomacy must be divested of the crusading spirit. . . .
2. The objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest and must be
supported with adequate power. . ..
3. Diplomacy must look at the political scene from the point of view of other nations.
4. Nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them.
5. Give up the shadow of worthless rights for the substance of real advantage. . . .
6. Never put yourself in situation from which you cannot retreat without losing face and from
which you cannot advance without grave risks. . . .
7. Never allow a weak ally to make decisions for you. . . .
8. The armed forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master.
9. The government is the leader of public opinion, not its slave.

Dr. Morgenthau's work dates to the 1940s, but I see much value in reviewing at least some of these rules of the road. In regard to the United States' relationship with important but asymmetric allies such as Israel, I've often cited #7 in reply to what I see as a call to abdicate U.S. independent action to the will of Israel. Also, little reference is made regarding Israel's treatment of the United States. This recent bit of news is a case in point: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Jul/28/us_sees_israel__tight_mideast_ally__as_spy_threat.html


But even beyond dramatic news about Israeli espionage against the United States, Israel has continually adopted a position defined far more by expectations than by any sense of deference. As a former CIA hand was recently quoted,


"It's a complicated relationship," said Joseph Wippl, a former senior CIA clandestine officer and head of the agency's office of congressional affairs. "They have their interests. We have our interests. For the U.S., it's a balancing act."


As the superpower of the pair, the United States under administrations of presidents such as Nixon, GHW Bush and Obama have occasionally approached U.S. relations with Israel and the Arab states from a pragmatic perspective. Lately I've been reading The Kissinger Transcripts, which are deeply revealing of how distant that Republican administration was from current GOP policy stances. American policy remained pro-Israel throughout, but was also based on a classic Realist construction based on balances of power. This has often been described as a more balanced approach,which is accurate, but a specific benefit of Realism is a greater likelihood of pursuing policy that reflects mutual interest among the principal states, such as the interest in a non-nuclear Iran shared by the Israelis, Arabs and Turks.


The rush to court adversaries has overshadowed relations with trusted allies.


Not unlike the propensity and practice of Nixon/Kissinger, Obama's policies have taken the form of a classic balance of power-based containment strategy vis-a-vis both China and Iran. Arms sales and military exercises have sent clear messages to China and to Iran, as evidenced by both states' public complaints. At the same time, Obama followed up on his campaign pledges to offer the opportunity for engagement with such states with whom the United States has had increasingly tense relations. As Dr. Rice's statement below says, Obama's offers were rebutted -- but what is left unsaid is that Iran is suffering the consequences of its intransigence. As for Venezuela's Chavez, his illness and general failure to build an effective anti-American coalition have sidelined him from serious consideration. As for Brazil, the previous Brazilian president asserted an independent path and was rather cool to the United States, but since their most recent election the relationship has grown warmer. Turkey is struggling to define itself through its foreign policy, working with the United States, Israel, and Europe when in its national interest to do so. Turkey is a vital player in the international storm brewing around Syria, and will be a deciding voice in the long term future of the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. To the extent that the United States and Turkey have mutual interests -- regardless of who is President -- there will be a corresponding degree of cooperation.


Our engagement with Europe has been sporadic and sometimes dismissive. Strategic ties with India, Brazil and Turkey have neither strengthened nor deepened in recent years. Hugo Chávez and the Iranians have bitten off the extended hand of friendship. There is no Palestinian state because it will only come through negotiation with a secure Israel that is confident in its relationship with the US. The decision to abandon missile defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, to “reset” relations with Russia was pocketed by Vladimir Putin who quickly returned to his anti-American ways. Friends must be able to trust in the consistency of our commitment to them.


I don't quite agree with Dr. Rice's statement on Europe. For one thing, she completely ignores the depth to which the United States has been involved in managing the Eurozone crisis through the Fed and through the International Monetary Fund. However, the overall point is not without validity, i.e., that U.S. policy toward Europe has not made the headlines relative to areas in which the United States has been at war for over ten years or in which the United States is most likely to face its biggest 21st century challenges, namely China and Asia more generally. The United States and western Europe have highly institutionalized relationships across the board -- economically, culturally and militarily -- and even relations with the former eastern bloc nations are stable enough to suffer mostly minor disturbances compared with the what we're seeing in the Middle East and the South China Sea.


On the topic of Israel, I do not know how much more clearly the political, military and intelligence leaders of Israel can state what benefits they have seen in Obama's treatment of Israel, nor why their very positive statements about this relationship are blatantly ignored by people who have what seems to be a deeply felt emotional need for Obama to be anti-Israel so that they can literally demonize him on a topic many see as important on a biblical scale. The same people who often speak reverently about the Israeli defense and intelligence establishments, with Mossad imbued with almost mythical powers (to the point where the most popular crime drama on network television features a former Mossad agent, the daughter of the Mossad director no less) -- these same people will completely ignore or dismiss the repeated praise heaped upon President Obama's security-centered relationship with Israel. In sum, Obama's chilly relations with Netanyahu are not the same as US relations with Israel. This is in no way unprecedented -- Nixon was a horrid anti-Semite but backed Israel strongly in '73 and he's considered pragmatic on the topic of Israel (pragmatic being a characteristic of what Wolfowitz derisively called "the reality based crowd"); Kissinger came closer to tying anti-Semitism to policy. But the point is that Obama does have rough relations with Bibi (but much better relations with Mossad), and such things are two way streets. What has Obama actually done? He vetoed Palestinian statehood vote in UNSC. He is supplying the Iron Dome rocket defense system on terms very favorable to Israel. His intervention rescued Israeli diplomats stuck in Embassy in revolutionary Egypt. He is building an anti-Iran coalition with Arabs and Turks, (including massive buildup in Persian Gulf and institutionalize Gulf Cooperation Council as political-military organization), which Israel supports......




Poland will be the base of missile defense technology that is proving quite promising. The criticism of Obama's alleged insult to Poland by changing the GW Bush plan has been based on a superficial understanding of the issues. First, questions are never raised about the details of the Bush deployment plans -- for example, was the technology feasible, and when would it be in place with confidence? In short, the technology was undeveloped and untested. The Obama administration changed strategies, and with that changed deployment plans to a more realistic and adaptable system which added a layer of sea-based anti-missile technology. The point is that it was a U.S.-led strategy and U.S.-supplied technology and forces offered in the interests of the United States and thus if the Commander-in-Chief shifts the geographic focus of a policy as broad and significant as ballistic missile defense, the lesser power partners may find themselves having to accept such changes. As in the current case of U.S.-Poland relationship, the lesser power's national interest in remaining broadly aligned with the greater power (aka band wagoning) will likely be unchanged.
In sum, more attention needs to be paid to the implications of words such as "friends and allies" in international relations. Even within the formal definition of an alliance -- as documented in a security treaty of some sort -- there are gradations. For example, the United States has led the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for over sixty years, and in the last twenty years the U.S. has placed fifteen countries in the category of "Major Non-NATO Ally."


Finally we cannot forget that strength begins at home. Global leadership rests upon a strong economy built on fiscal discipline and robust private sector growth. Ultimately, our success depends on mobilising human potential, something the US has done better than any country in history. Ours has been a story of possibility, not grievance and entitlement. Ambitious people have come from all over the world to seek out the opportunities America provides. The absence of a humane and sustainable national immigration policy threatens this great asset.
Our talent has historically come from every part of American society, without regard to class and economic circumstance. But when a child’s zip code determines whether she will get a good education, we are losing generations to poverty and despair. The crisis in US education is the greatest single threat to our national strength and cohesion.


The American people have to be inspired to lead again. They need to be reminded that the US is not just any other country: we are exceptional in the clarity of our conviction that free markets and free peoples hold the key to the future, and in our willingness to act on those beliefs. Failure to do so would leave a vacuum, likely filled by those who will not champion a balance of power that favours freedom. That would be a tragedy for American interests and values and those who share them.




I don't have much to say about the concluding paragraphs, as they are mostly repetitive of common general themes. Not to be snarky, but I do often wonder how American values can be exceptional and universal at the same time. The concept of leadership likely will be common in the electoral discussions. I just have to wonder if thought is ever given to exactly what this means, and more to the point to the extensive costs of leadership and the obstacles to leadership which are often out of one's control. A great number of words have been spilled about the "lead from behind" comment unfortunately made by a staffer. It has proven to be low-hanging fruit for Obama's critics. But even in the context of the Libyan war in which it was spoken, the phrase has little meaning. British and French warplanes did fly a greater proportion of sorties than has been the norm for NATO conflicts, but I fail to see how that's a negative, when for years I've heard American critics of Europe demand that they contribute more to alliance operations. Also, eighty-percent of the fuel they used was supplied by the United States. American commanders expressed frustration at how, after so many years of promoting interoperability, European military forces still cannot communicate effectively with one another, illustrating again the superior capabilities of the United States.




Dr. Rice favors continued and perhaps expanded foreign aid programs, more "humane" immigration policies, and she seems to argue for a more equitable distribution of education resources domestically, which makes me wonder again how this will fly with the Tea Party crowd, assuming she is a serious potential for VP. As for her final two sentences, she returns to President George W. Bush's terminology with "a balance of power that favours freedom." Ethnocentrism runs rampant, that is, the assumption that what and how we (assuming there's even an agreement among "us") define freedom is universal. After reports of true atrocities committed by insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and Syria, it does not seem too much to ask, "freedom for whom, and to do what, exactly?" No one is unhappy about seeing the dictators fall, even if they were useful to U.S. policy at various times. But that does not mean we can drop critical questions when it comes to political change worldwide. Revolutions have a way of spinning out of control. It is simply not enough to proclaim support for noble causes such as freedom.


***************************************************************************


The writer is a former US secretary of state
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.









Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

USNS Howard O. Lorenzen missle tracking tests begin

This link is to an article provided by the Nuclear Threat Initiative webpage, specifically the Global Security News portion.  Here is the beginning:


By Bob Brewin
Nextgov.com
WASHINGTON -- The Naval Sea Systems Command has kicked off sea tests of the Air Force’s newest ship, the USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (see GSN, June 27).

The $1.7 billion, 534-foot-long vessel is equipped with a massive radar system, known as the Cobra Judy Replacement, to track foreign ballistic missiles to ensure compliance with strategic arms treaties. It will take over missions performed by similar missile tracking systems housed on the aging USNS Observation Island, which was launched in 1953 and converted to its missile tracking role in 1977 after a stint in the late 1960s conducting test launches of Navy ballistic missiles. (Cont'd.)
*******************************************************************************

1973 Navy video on USNS Observation Island, linked here
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)