What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security? Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.
The President of the United States has extensive authority http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html to deal with foreign affairs http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-foreign-policy-disasters?cid=db_articles and national security. While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.
The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases , and the statements of his national security advisor.
Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. Relations with Russia’s renewed cold war attitude, or China’shttp://www.examiner.com/article/china-s-hidden-military-budget
dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, or even the strategic military advances of Iran and North Korea,http://www.examiner.com/article/north-korea-an-urgent-threat constitute a deteriorating world security environment, but the White House has yet to change course, or even to pay significant attention, to developments that run counter to its apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.
As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDER missileshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-russia-missiles-idUSBRE9BF0W020131216) on its European border. Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating n end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.
The threat to the U.S. may be even more local. As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/02/24/americas-provacative-weakness/ “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba. The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on our electric grid.”
Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military. As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era. http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military. http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War-ebook/dp/B00F8F3J2S
The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.
Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise. But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future. In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html
What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.
Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.
America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes http://forbes.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=254787
|
Compromising Defense The U.S. has a shrinking force. · In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285. The U.S. has an aging force. · Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. The U.S. has a strained force. · In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts. Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval Operations |
Getting the price viagra 100mg for sale ticket dismissed will not be marked as spam. Don’t Just getting viagra without prescription Go for Price There is often a misconception that Kamagra medicines available online are clinically tested to guarantee satisfactory results at much affordable cost. After gallbladder removal surgery, some people experience chronic buying viagra uk diarrhea. “Bathroom” issues are a sensitive subject. This is the biggest rationality why beginning together ordine cialis on line http://www.learningworksca.org/resources/in-the-news/ with vigilant command is crucial to get people with diabates at every stage from the problems.
Other elected officials and defense officials have also noted that U.S. armed forces have already endured significant budget cuts. Much of the military equipment that remains has been worn down through years of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Key parts of the nation’s conventional and nuclear arsenals are old enough to be considered antiques, with some pilots flying the same aircraft their grandfathers flew. Unlike other nuclear powers, America has not modernized its strategic arsenal in decades. For budgetary reasons, the nation may reduce its first line of maritime defense, aircraft carriers, to a level below what is truly vital. Command and control functions once thought invulnerable are now subject to destruction.
The proposed cuts www.defense.gov/newsarticle.aspx?id=121703 are based on the assumption that the U.S. will not be involved in any significant altercations in the near future. Critics note that this is similar to cutting back a local fire department on the premise that there would be fewer fires. Sydney Freeburg, writing in Breaking Defense, quotes General McMaster’s criticism that America can’t merely “opt out” of certain kinds of conflict.
The cuts would reduce the army to its smallest size since before World War II. It would eliminate one of the Air Force’s most useful weapons, the A10 Warthog, which Congress has said recently said was too crucial to lose. http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/
Despite the significant history of personnel injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new ground combat vehicle program http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44044-GCV.pdf would be cancelled.
The number of active duty soldiers would be reduced to the lowest point (approximately 440,000) in three-quarters of a century. The National Guard would also be reduced by 10,000 to 195,000. The Navy would see fully half of its 22 cruisers placed into mothballs. Littoral combat ships would be reduced from 52 to 32. There would be an undisclosed number of base closures, as well. The Marines would be reduced by about 4%.Special forces would grow by about 4,000 personnel, and the cuts in research and development would be halted.
There would be significant disincentives http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/199050-hagel-unveils-basics-of-2015-defense-budget-request for those enlisted in the military to remain, or those thinking of enlisting to join. Cuts would be made in housing allowances, reimbursement for renters insurance, and commissary subsidiaries. There would be cuts to health benefits, lowered future increases in salaries, and a freeze in pay for senior officers.
All this is occurring as China and Russia astronomically increase their defense spending, and deploy technology that in some cases exceeds that of the U.S. The risk of an attack is actually greater than it was during the cold war, due to the growing ICBM and nuclear technology of Iran and North Korea, as well as Beijing’s increased aggressiveness and confidence.
The system of alliances that helped discourage a world war has been weakened, as Washington’s relations with allied nations in Europe and Asia are increasingly strained. In Latin America, several governments are openly hostile to the United States, and have invited increased Iranian, Russian and Chinese commercial and military interests to play a larger role within their borders.
The fact that this is occurring while America’s adversaries are increasing their militaries could be described as a move towards a partial unilateral disarmament. Mr. Obama’s recent comments that he wished to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal, without a reciprocal requirement from other atomic powers, gives credence to this view.
Since Mr. Obama has not explicitly shared his perspective on national security, the public must examine his actions and attempt to glean from them his views.
Contrary to all evidence, including Moscow’s extraordinary military buildup, its development of new nuclear missiles, its growing naval power, its re-development of cold war bases around the world, its return to cold war strategic patrols off America’s coasts and Putin’s aggressive statements, the President clings to the “reset” policy that he and former Secretary of State Clinton proclaimed in 2009 that essentially declares Russia to be a non-problem.
Similarly, the President has largely chosen to ignore China’s unprecedented military buildup in size and technological sophistication, the aggressive comments of its military leaders, its cyber-attacks and intensive espionage on U.S. soil, and most importantly, its assaults on U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines, other than redeploying some ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Attempting to balance the US budget through military cuts is, ultimately, a doomed policy. defense costs makes up, on average, less than 19% of Washington spending https://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/defense-budget, and substantial reductions have already been made; as noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 the reduction in 2012, from $711 billion to $668 billion was, in dollar terms, “the largest decline since 1991.” That was shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the rise of Russian militarism under Putin.
The President appears to truly believe that there is no current or immediately prospective significant threat to the national security of the United States or its key allies. Given that perspective, it is not surprising that he has slashed the Pentagon’s budget. Unfortunately, every shred of empirical evidence directly and overwhelmingly contradicts Mr. Obama’s worldview.
The President’s lack of attention to this most vital area and his lack of clarity and candor with the public is deeply disturbing.
Threat Assessment
Against a backdrop of quickly deteriorating global relations both between Washington and other governments, and rapidly escalating tensions between nations across the globe, James R, Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has recently testified to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
From the streets of the Ukraine to the waters surrounding Japan and thePhilippines where the potential for combat is ever-present, the world teeters on the edge of a scale of warfare not seen since 1945.
The people of Israel feel a sense of dread not equaled since the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Taliban is preparing to retake Afghanistan, and al Qaedacontrols more territory than ever in the Middle East.
Moscow is violating arms agreements without any serious discussion of penalty from the White House, as Putin develops a military even more powerful than it possessed during the Cold War. China has devoted its vast riches to the construction of an armed force larger in size than any other nations’, with high-tech weapons that in many cases surpass our own.
In North Korea, people are subjected to a level of atrocities not seen since the concentration camps of the 1940s, as their government continues to rapidly build nuclear weapons and ICBMS capable of delivering them to American soil.
Parts of Latin America are suffering under despotic regimes that repress their own citizens and openly call the United States their enemy. These governments have opened their doors to the militaries and intelligence services of Iran, China, and Russia.
Several nations that formerly were allied in interest with Washington, such as Egypt and Turkey, are now looking towards America’s enemies for arms deals.
CIA Camel A U.S. Marine Corps mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle provides security in the Now Zad district in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, Feb. 16, 2014. The vehicle is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. The unit supported Afghan forces conducting an operation in the area. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Sean Searfus
Excepts from
The Remarks of National Intelligence Director
James R. Clapper
to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
on the 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment
“I’ve not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.
“My list is long. It includes the scourge and diversification of terrorism, loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home, as exemplified by the Boston Marathon bombing; the sectarian war in Syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat this poses to the homeland.
“Let me briefly expand on this point. The strength of the insurgency in Syria is now estimated at somewhere between 75 or 80,000 or up to 110 to 115,000 insurgents, who are organized into more than 1,500 groups of widely varying political leanings.
“Three of the most effective are the Al-Nusrah Front, Ansar Al- Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, or ISIL, as it’s known, who total about 26,000 insurgents. Complicating this further are the 7,500 or so foreign fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to Syria. Among them are a small group of Af-Pak Al Qaida veterans who have the aspirations for external attack in Europe, if not the homeland.
“And there are many other crises and threats around the globe, to include the spillover of the Syria conflict into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq; the destabilizing flood of refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, now about 2.5 million people, a symptom of one of the largest humanitarian disasters in a decade; the implications of the drawdown in Afghanistan; the deteriorating internal security posture in Iraq, with AQI now in control of Fallujah; the growth of foreign cyber capabilities, nation- states and non-nations states as well; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; aggressive nation-state intelligence efforts against us; an assertive Russia; a competitive China; a dangerous, unpredictable North Korea; a challenging Iran; lingering ethnic divisions in the Balkans; perpetual conflict and extremism in Africa, in Mali, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, and in South Sudan; violent political struggles in, among others, the Ukraine, Burma, Thailand, and Bangladesh; the specter of mass atrocities; the increasing stress of burgeoning populations; the urgent demands for energy, water and food; the increasing sophistication of transnational crime; the tragedy and magnitude of human trafficking; the insidious rot of invented synthetic drugs; potential for pandemic diseases occasioned by the growth of drug resistant bacteria.
“I could go on with this litany, but suffice to say that we live in a complex, dangerous world…
“My second topic is what has consumed extraordinary time and energy for much of the past year in the intelligence community, in the Congress, in the White House, and, of course, in the public square.
“I’m speaking, of course, about potentially the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence information in our history by Edward Snowden, and the ensuing avalanche of revelations published and broadcast around the world. I won’t dwell on the debate about Snowden’s motives or his legal standing or on the supreme ironies occasioned by his choice of freedom-loving nations and beacons of free expression to which he fled and from which he rails about what an Orwellian state he thinks this country has become.
“But what I do want to speak to, as the nation’s senior intelligence officer, is the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and will continue to cause. And, as a consequence, in my view, this nation is less safe and its people less secure.
What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs. As a result, we’ve lost critical foreign intelligence collections sources, including some shared with us by valued partners.
“Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources, methods and trade craft. And the insights that they are gaining are making our jobs much, much harder. And this includes putting — putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk, as well as our armed forces, diplomats and our citizens.
We’re beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists, a disturbing trend that I anticipate will continue. Snowden, for his part, claims that he’s won and that his mission is accomplished. If that’s so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed, to prevent even more damage to U.S. security.
“As a third, and related point, I want to comment on the ensuing fallout. It pains me greatly that the National Security Agency and its magnificent workforce have been pilloried in public commentary…
“As I and other leaders in the community have said many times, NSA’s job is not to target the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens. The agency does collect foreign intelligence, the whole reason that NSA has existed since 1952, performing critical missions that I’m sure the American people wanted to carry out.
“Moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire Intelligence Community, not just NSA. Critical intelligence capabilities in which the United States has invested billions of dollars are at risk or likely to be curtailed or eliminated either because of compromise or conscious decision. Moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we’re incurring.
“The stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. The Intelligence Community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies than we’ve had. In this connection, I am also compelled to note, as did Ranking Member Ruppersberger, the negative morale impact this perfect storm has had on the I.C. workforce, which were compounded by sequestration, furloughs, the shutdown and salary freezes.
“This leads me to my fourth point: We are thus faced collectively — and by collectively I mean this committee, the Congress at large, the executive branch, and, most acutely, all of us in the intelligence community — with the inescapable imperative to accept more risk. It’s a plain hard fact and a circumstance that the community must, and will, manage, together with you and with those we support in the executive branch.
“But if dealing with reduced capabilities is what we — is needed to ensure the faith and confidence of the American people and their elected representatives, then we in the intelligence community will work as hard as we can to meet the expectations before us.
“And that brings me to my fifth and final point: The major takeaway for us, and certainly for me from the past several months is that we must lean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. With greater transparency about these intelligence programs, the American people may be more likely to accept them…”
U.S. Force train Afghan police (DoD photo)
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S WORLDVIEW?
As the planet becomes far more dangerous, the U.S. military continues to shrink.
While all this occurs, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaims that global warming is his main concern.
The time has long passed for highly important and urgently appropriate questions about the Obama Administration’s foreign policy strategy and goals, as well as its vision of America’s international role.
There are two salient issues involved. The first is the incredible deterioration of international relations during Obama’s tenure. The second is the complete failure of the President to share with the American people his worldview. Since his election, Mr. Obama has been exceptionally hesitant to explain his worldview. He has commented about foreign affairs far less, in speeches, press conferences, and state of the union addresses than his predecessor.
Critics have raised serious questions about the priorities of a President who rushes to ouster an Egyptian regime that was friendly to the U.S., and a Libyan regime that was fighting al Qaeda, but does nothing of substance to assist Iranian dissidents who are seeking to reform the Tehran government, or to assist Cuban political prisoners, or those seeking to restore democracy in Venezuela, or Ukrainians seeking to avoid a Kremlin takeover.
There has been a noticeable lack of communications from the Oval Office of the President, or the State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, about what direction they are steering this nation in, and why there has been no discussion of this Administration’s intentions.
What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security? Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.
The President of the United States has extensive authority to deal with foreign affairs and national security. While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.
The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site, and the statements of his national security advisor.
Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,” and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. There has been no publicly stated policy to deal with an era when Russia has a renewed cold war attitude, China has a dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, and Iran and North Korea continue to make strategic weapons advances. The White House has, as far as can be discerned, yet to pay significant attention to developments that run counter to its apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.
As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDERmissiles) on its European border. Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating an end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.
The threat to the U.S. may be even more local. As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy, “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba. The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on our electric grid.”
Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military. As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era. Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military.
The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.
Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise. But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future. In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.”
U.S. B-52 bomber, a mainstay of the strategic and tactical strategy of the Air Force.
Thes planes are so old the grandfathers of current USAF pilots flew the same aircraft. (USAF photo)
What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.
Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.
America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
|
In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285. · The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45. · Two decades ago the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today. · China now has more ships in their Navy than the U.S. has in its Navy.
The U.S. has an aging force. · Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. The U.S. has a strained force. · In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled.
Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts: Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Nava |