Daunting Task, Supreme Victory

By Craig S. Byrnes

A National Intelligence Estimate released in the beginning of February offers a gloomy portrayal of the coming months in Iraq. The article, “Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report,” by Jonathan Karl, a writer with ABC News, addresses the “Civil War” issue, the worsening situation, consequences of a rapid withdrawal of U.S, troops and the lethal meddling of Iran inside Iraq. Success in Iraq is detrimental to the stability of the entire Middle East region, as well as, being a key vital interest to the United States in terms of power, national security, international credibility and natural resources, any plunge into chaos must be prevented. It is important to pay close attention to the current situation because it is directly related to U.S. national defense policy. Globalized Terrorism—pioneered from across the globe in a cave—regards the United States as the “Great Satan” making it a target of necessity for Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other terrorist groups who despise the west. The success of the American Forces in Iraq must be of pristine certainty. What happens here is likely to decisively shape the policy of a future administration for better or worse.

Karl begins by addressing the characterization of the situation in Iraq as a ‘Civil War’. Citing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) he says the term only describes some key elements of the conflict, and he points out that a key judgment of the NIE is the term ‘civil war’ “does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq.” While an appropriate descriptor for “the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, the sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian motivation, and population displacements,” it does not encompass Shia on Shia violence, AQI and Sunni Insurgent attacks on Coalition forces or widespread criminally motivated violence—in the opinion of the Intelligence Community.

It is Karl’s assessment that the already bloody situation could get much worse. He points out Sunni defection from the government, or assassinations of important political and religious leaders, could throw the creeping decline into a chaotic plunge causing drastic humanitarian consequences, political consequences and severe security setbacks. This is another area where the article cites a risk of the conflict seeping over the rather porous Iraqi borders into neighboring states thus destabilizing the region.

Karl also summarizes key judgments on the controversial issue of U.S. troop withdrawal stating there would be “catastrophic consequence” for such action. He shares the belief of the intelligence community—in the NIE—that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), “would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution.” Another source of concern—should the U.S. forces withdraw—is the threat of neighboring countries openly contributing to the discord, in all probability bringing about an unacceptably large number of civilian casualties and involuntary displacement of the population. Especially if as the NIE points out—according to Karl—Turkey were to launch a military incursion into the country. Concluding his remarks on the consequences of hasty departure, he conveys the Intelligence Communities belief that Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) would use the Al-Anbar province as their home base of operations. It is from this safe-haven AQI would plan and launch attacks in and outside of Iraq, leading to more instability in the region.

Karl also mentions one of the final key assessments of the NIE concerns Iranian involvement within Iraq, and more particularly their providing “lethal support” for Shia groups causing the conflicts to intensify like gas thrown on a fire. Karl ends the summary citing the intelligence report as saying this Iraqi neighbor is “not likely to be a major driver of violence,” in the coming months due in part to the self-sustaining nature of the sectarian conflict, however any further explanation of this judgment remains classified in the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate distributed to senior administration individuals and select members of Congress.

Analysis

According to the Key Judgments portion of the Estimate, “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.” It also notes if coalition forces were to hastily withdraw during the next 12 to 18 months the result would be escalation in sectarian conflict, the ISF is unlikely to survive, and AQI would launch increasing attacks in Iraq and abroad from their Al-Anbar stronghold. Not one consequence of withdrawal is an acceptable outcome anyway you look at. The anarchic chaos would ignite the entire Middle East, it would severely weaken the United States on the international stage, and it would be a critical breach in U.S. National Security, placing innocent Americans in harms way around the globe. Oil markets would become destabilized and the price of oil would skyrocket. Oil is a vital interest to the United States and the majority of the world community, and it is therefore an obligation for Coalition forces to maintain as much stability as possible in the region. Despite this obvious necessity for action by the only hyperpower in the world on behalf of those who cannot, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution similar to one confirmed in the Senate in the last few weeks, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” This wasteful resolution (H.Con.Res.63) was sponsored by Rep. Ike Skelton of Mo. Along with 5 cosponsors including Ms. Pelosi. A New York Times article titled “Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq,” By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY on February 17, 2007 talks about the Senate’s rejection of the House Resolution, but cites 3^rd ranking Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York as saying, “We will be relentless . . . There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing this body to do what it has not done in the previous three years: debate and discuss Iraq.” This behavior and rhetoric by power drunk lawmakers flaws the policy making process, and further endangers the security of the American people. Instead of concerning themselves with issues at hand, they are blinded by an astonishing amount of hate for the President of the United States, driving them to foolishly disrespect the Presidency, provide much fodder for terrorist propaganda machines and ultimately discredit this country in they eyes of the world. "This was his [President Bush] decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," said 2008 Presidential candidate and democratic Senator from New York Hillary Rodham Clinton, in an Associated Press article January 28, 2007 entitled “Hillary Resents Bush Iraq Strategy.” Ms. Clinton was making her way through Iowa during this time campaigning to be the first woman President of the United States. Resentment is not conducive to peace or success. While the political divide continues—fueled by the far-fetched conception that the mid-term elections were a mandate for the democrats against President Bush and the war in Iraq—the data within the NIE seems to be largely overlooked, distrusted and even misused for political gain.

National Intelligence Estimates are the single most authoritative written judgments on issues concerning National Security, and are issued by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with the support of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). According to the DNI, this estimate holds coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community “regarding the likely course of future events.” The key goal of the NIE and the NIC is to “provide policymakers with the best unvarnished and unbiased information,” offering depth and accuracy to intelligence analysis. Key leaders within the U.S. government who discredit the document and the entire Intelligence Community do so in haste without fully appreciating the scope of the world we live in. A truly clear and present danger is that of future policy limiting and so weakening the ability of the government to carryout the means necessary to avoid a cruel end to our freedom. Our elected officials are put in place to do a job on behalf of the people because they are better suited—and most times more educated—than the majority of the population. When considering policy crucial to the survival and existence of the state it would be prudent to explain to the American people the consequences of pulling out of Iraq at present time, and to avoid focusing on the motivations of entering the war in the first place. In any job an employee is more attractive for accepting responsibility and letting conflict or hardships build character and add to their experience, allowing them to do the job better as they travel through time and I would submit anything less than this is malarkey at the level of public official.

Looking past these inevitable imperfections one certain truth remains: America is left with the choice to succeed or fail in Iraq. When Media begins to connect the current conflict with the Vietnam War era it applies a blemished perspective to the mind of the receiver. A preconceived notion that any war fought against insurgencies is doomed before it begins is simply false. According to Donald Stoker, a professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s Monterey Program, in a January 2007 online article, “The cold, hard truth about the Bush administration’s strategy of “surging” additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work. Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe.” Stoker also mentions it normally takes 8 to 11 years to successfully fight an insurgency, but as a result of U.S. failure to maintain security in cleared regions, the impatience of congress and its constituents to allow troops the time needed to secure victory and the failure of the Iraqi government to step up to the plate it may be a daunting task. “One tragedy of the Iraq war may be that the administration’s new strategy came too late to avert a rare, decisive insurgent victory,” said Stoker.

During uncommon times of peril such as these it becomes necessary to at times accept the face of war and unleash hell on your enemy. “At junctures of high conflict short of war, the side better able to cope with the potential consequences of raising the stakes has the advantage,” according to Paul Nitze on page six of “Is SALT II a Fair Deal for the United States” published in 1979 by the Washington, D.C. Committee on the Present Danger. “The other side is the one under greater pressure to scramble for a peaceful way out—to have the advantage at the utmost level of violence helps at every lesser level.” So I believe it prudent for the American people to set aside their aversion to all out violence, as one nation under God, and remind the world what a hyperpower can do. Words flow like water down a waterfall splashing into the chaotic pool of death filled with the blood of innocents, and these same words have only served as a lubricant increasing the flow of bodies into the abyss. Peace is the calm after a storm, a gift which cannot be given by any man, only earned through overcoming intense adversity. The degree of which determines the scope of peace. For reasons beyond the scope of this analysis—including Nuclear provocation, supplying arms to fuel sectarian conflict and the murder of more than 150 American soldiers—there is no question ground zero should be Iranian interests around the globe and immediate regime change of the sitting President Ahmadinejad. Wars are only unpopular when you are losing. The enemy should rightly fear the U.S. to the point of deterrence, and when they miscalculate such fear by blatantly pursuing nuclear arms, threatening annihilation of Israel and brazenly interfering in wars they were not invited to in an attempt to make a mockery of the United States government while securing their own interests in the region should face complete destruction after repeated attempts for diplomatic solutions have failed.

All in all, the National Intelligence Estimate provides key data for understanding the cost of victory and the cost of failure. Jonathan Karl does an first-rate job keying in on the most important areas of the summary; the inadequacy of “Civil War” as an accurate depiction of the current situation within Iraq, the catastrophic consequences of U.S. withdrawal—including the AQI achieving a strong hold in the Al-Anbar Province—and the lethal meddling of Iran within the borders of Iraq and beyond. The next step is properly educating politicians and the American people on the real issues at hand in this deep rooted conflict. After the realization of the seriousness of the situation, exercising extreme blunt force to ensure swift, decisive and supreme victory will be the only rational course of action to remain a free people in an oppressed anarchic world.

Source Documents

“Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report” By Jonathan Karl. February 02, 2007 ABC News Online

“A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops”. By Jeff Zeleny and Michael Luo. February 17, 2007 The New York Times

“Car Bombs Kill 7 amid Iraq Crackdown”. By Kim Gamel. Associated Press.

“Clinton: Iraq War Bush’s Responsibility”. By Mike Glover Associated Press January 28, 2007

H. Con. Res. 63—Concurrent Resolution full text

[National Intelligence Estimate] Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead. January 2007

“On to the Hard Part on Iraq”. Editorial. The New York Times, February 17, 2007.

“The Worldwide Threat 2004: Challenges in a Changing Global Context

Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence

George J. Tenet

March 9, 2004

“Vast Change since the Cold War”. By Roger Cohen (International Herald Tribune). February 17, 2007, The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

There are many other general sources available upon request if need arises.

National Security Part III

US National Defense Policy Opportunities

By Craig S. Byrnes

Amongst the strengths and weaknesses of US national defense policy are opportunities for growth and improvement on the global stage. According to the National Defense Strategy of the US, the end of the Cold War brought about the opportunity to establish a new “peaceful state system” in the world. Supreme economic development within the US has spurred the growth of the American system to countries as diverse as red China, India, Pakistan and Libya.

Ying Ma—an NRI Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—in a February 2007 issue of Policy Review, completed an article entitled “China’s Stubborn Anti-Democracy” which said, “The fundamental underpinning of American policy toward China today—and US democracy promotion in China—is economic engagement.” Efforts to promote American democracy within the country are not going well though according to Ma, due mostly to the humanitarian issues facing the Chinese government.

“China’s Communist Party continues to rely on repression and brutality to maintain its rule,” said Ma. The opportunity for democratization of the communist country, according to Ma, will begin to be more effective once Americans can learn the secret to “authoritarianism’s resilience.” Significant economic growth coupled with “stringent restriction of what democracy theorists called ‘coordination goods’,” continue to stall the transition to a democratic China, but on the plus side the country will be hosting the 2008 Olympic Games, leaving them on their best behavior during the interim providing occasions where the promotion of democracy would be received more seriously to achieve more stable growth—especially after tasting the economic benefits of the Olympics.

US defense policy toward the Middle East is of utmost importance in terms of vital national interests. Peace in a region basically floating on an ocean of oil would be favorable to the entire international community; therefore all efforts must be made to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to sustain and increase US power and trustworthiness in the region. Following the troop surges in the region there is much debate within the US domestic political environment on whether or not power-drunk democrats are willing to vote in favor of cutting spending for the troops, in an effort to control the president’s war policy.

This extended oversight would normally damage any effort to operate effectively in combat situations or on patrols deep inside hot zones, but in actuality provides an opportunity to increase the use of defense contractors who participate in combat actions. These contractors—such as Black Water USA and Halliburton—can provide highly trained teams of special operations soldiers who are not currently subject to international laws regulating their conduct in combat situations. This above the law force can undertake missions the US would like to execute, but for one reason or another are prevented from doing so. Much of the intense political pressure exerted on the Bush Administration can be avoided by using a mercenary force, and in addition to deployment to Iraq, humanitarian efforts and peace keeping services are in extreme demand in the Horn of Africa and diplomatic security in theatre is increasingly required to maintain continuity of American leadership responsible for coordinating troops and more or less propping up the young Iraqi democracy, but according to James D. Fearon, in a March 2007 Foreign Policy article entitled “Iraq’s Civil War”, since the Bush Administration remains committed to stabilizing the Shiite dominated government within Iraq, “a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability,” no progress will occur within the region due to “limited leverage” with all of the applicable actors who can possibly help to quell the situation.

Widespread economic success enjoyed by the US and other countries that prioritized acceptance of the American model is beginning to lure new international partners into seeking integration into our system, thus providing a greater geopolitical network to support the coalition of the willing, while allowing for greater influence over the affairs of our newest friends. In addition to the in flow of new international partners there seems to be a desire by current allies of the US to “deepen our security relations with them,” according to the National Defense Strategy of the US. Strengthening of geopolitical bonds will be detrimental in obtaining and maintaining an ample fighting force for the GWOT capable of taking pre-emptive action—if necessary—against nations that break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—North Korea and Iran—and either make or acquire an atomic bomb.

A Short Analysis of Claudia Rosett’s “Excess Baggage”

By Craig S. Byrnes

09/06

Part I—Summary

A Wall Street Journal column titled “Excess Baggage” published on August 31, 2006 by Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, announces the United Nations deadline for a halt in Iran’s proliferation of nuclear materials has passed to no avail. The next step to compel Iran to back down is to inflict economic sanctions designed to pressure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see eye-to-eye, but Rosett points out he, “does not seem deeply worried about the prospect of U.N. sanctions,” citing among other things, a media campaign where the Iranian president flaunts samples of enriched uranium and shuns U.N. demands.

According to Ms. Rosett, “some of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s behavior can be discounted on grounds that he is a messianic crackpot,” all the while she believes the modern U.N. is quite the opposite and perhaps still under the weather following the Oil for Food Scandal throughout the Saddam Hussein sanctions. When sanctions require cooperation of member nations Rosett fears Russia and China will cheat considering Iran holds around ten percent of the world’s oil reserves and comes in second in proven natural gas reserves.

Later in the article a United States Department of Energy country survey tells of a $100 billion, 25-year bargain with China for natural gas developments, along with other deals signed or on the table with 16 countries and a foreign subsidiary of Halliburton Co. having to do with oil & gas investments, oil swaps and pipeline developments. Rosett mentions many current and future Iranian business partners are known smugglers and terrorists who helped Iraq and would not stall in doing the same for their own.

Ms. Rosett also asks who would enforce U.N. sanctions and stop violations, pointing out that Russia and China are preaching “patience”, and have openly voiced opposition to sanctions. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez is trying for one of ten rotating seats on the Security Council and according to Rosett, “In his recent tours of the world’s thugocracies Mr. Chavez has reportedly garnered a boost from China for his U.N. bid, as well as a medal and a $4 billion investment in Venezuela’s oil fields—from Iran.”

Secretary General Kofi Annan will depart his position at the end of 2006, and the management of any Iran sanctions would pass to his successor—causing more delay and uncertainty. Rosett concludes citing delays by the International Atomic Energy Agency, European Union and the U.S. have left only the option of military force on the table, but says—no matter what the future holds—the United States will have to do the majority of the work gathering willing military allies, while carrying the weight of the United Nations on their shoulders.

Part II—Analysis

Iran poses a severe threat to peace by defying the United Nations call to cease their uranium enrichment program. Although representatives of the country continue to claim the program is of a peaceful nature and an inalienable right under the nonproliferation treaty, I like Ms. Rosett, tend to disagree. According to Hassan Rohani—a representative of Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator—in an article published by Time Magazine in May, “a negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict.” Any agreements that could be made, along with any sanctions imposed, would hold no weight considering Iran’s readiness and proved willingness to hide portions of their nuclear program, and the unwillingness of member nations—Russia and China—to jeopardize trade ties already in place with Iran. All sanctions and the process leading up to them will do is provide more delays and opportunities for Iran to make a mockery of the U.N. and their archaic ways of handling modern issues. It was proved to the world in the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq that maybe the current policies set in place at the Security Council were irrelevant with the Oil for Food Scandal and the repeated chances Saddam Hussein was given to comply to resolutions.

There can simply be no trust for Iran when Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami blames Bush and the U.S. for turmoil in the Middle East, and according to an Associated Press article CNN quotes him as saying, “As a result of such wrong policies, such unilateral, violent policies, that is—the voice of logic has decreased and the voice of terror and attractiveness of terror unfortunately among youth has increased.” The current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his U.N. representatives have on many occasions called Israel a “horror and terror machine” blaming them for starting a war with Lebanon, and citing U.S. double standards in allowing their possession of a nuclear arsenal. All the while Iran funds and trains terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, most recently providing them with missiles funneled through Syria. One can only imagine what could have occurred if Nuclear weapons existed. According to an unclassified CIA report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction between July 2003 and December 2003, “Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” The report also states, “Iran’s nuclear program received significant assistance in the past from the proliferation network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.”

As Iran continues to use the guise of peaceful civilian energy programs to conceal the true nature of their nuclear program, the danger to U.S. forces abroad grows with every passing second of inaction. I agree with Rosett when she says a military option is the only option left to consider. Consider for a moment if Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy had taken preemptive action to prevent the former Soviet Union from gaining nuclear technology, or at least stopped them from acquiring a large one. In an article written by Scott D. Sagan for Foreign Affairs, he says Eisenhower was particularly alarmed, and in fact asked Secretary of State John Foster Dulles if, “our duty to future generations did not require us to initiate war at the most propitious time that we could designate.” Sagan goes on to say he did not take action out of fear of retaliation on our European allies. History has cycled around and we are now faced with another opportunity to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to secure the future of humanity.

There is great danger in allowing an extremist Islamic nation to obtain and produce nuclear energy. If the U.S. buckles and accepts a nuclear Iran, this will only provide a better cover for their weapons program, and will almost certainly equal easy access to this horrific technology for terror groups such as al-Qaeda, who say the primary difference between them and the West is their love of death and our love of life. The potential cost is too great too imagine and it is best for this generation to take calculated risks and sacrifice what we have to in order to secure a peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. When that overwhelming task is completed it might be time to rebuild the U.N., but for now I say we give them a set of dentures and take care of business.
SOURCES

1. The Wall Street Journal (8/31/2006), A8, “Excess Baggage” by Claudia Rosett
2. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Bush Uses bin Laden Quotes for War Rally” by Nedra Pickler
3. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Former Iranian President Criticizes Bush” by Nick Wadhams
4. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Iran Head Wants Liberal Teachers Ousted” by Nasser Karimi
5. CIA Archive: The Iranian Ballistic Missile and WMD Threat to the United States Through 2015, Statement for the Record to the International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (As Prepared for delivery). By Robert D. Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs (9/21/2000)
6. CIA Archive: Statement by John A. Lauder, Director, DCI Nonproliferation Center to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Russian Proliferation to Iran’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missile Programs (10/5/2000)
7. Statement By Ambassador Mehdi Danesh Yazdi, Deputy Permanent Resident of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question. New York, (8/22/2006)
8. Statement by H.E. Dr. M. Javad Zarif, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Security Council. New York (7/31/2006)
9. CIA Archive: Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction—Iran. (July-December 2003)
10. Reuters (9/5/2006), “Russia Says Nuclear Sanctions Could Inflame Iran.” By Christian Lowe
11. Time Magazine (5/9/2006), “Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Way Out” by Hassan Rohani
12. http://un.int/iran/
13. Foreign Affairs Volume 85-Number 5 (September/October 2006), “How to Keep the Bomb From Iran” by Scott D. Sagan

National Security Part II

National Security Part II--Strategy and Such

By Craig S. Byrnes

The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America summarizes the current strategic environment as uncertain, stating the US is able to identify trends that may point to a looming attack, “but cannot predict specific events with precision.” Due to the extreme hyperpower status achieved by the United States in the post-Cold War period the nation was thrust into a precarious position. After the downfall of Soviet Communism and collapse of the Soviet Union a world existed where not one military came within striking distance of US armed forces, but instead of unchallenged peace, widespread terrorism emerged as the leading threat to peace and stability forcing the American people into global war on terrorism [GWOT] they would rather not have.

Fighting off the urge to embrace isolationism the nation moves forward with resolve, however, many new weaknesses now face them. Therefore, according to the defense strategy document, “While we work to avoid being surprised, we must posture ourselves to handle unanticipated problems—we must plan with surprise in mind.”

One of the greatest weaknesses of US national defense policy is the inability to respond to international security challenges unilaterally and remain successful. A coalition of allies—with the capabilities required to act along side the US in addressing global challenges—is the key ingredient to continued success, but as of late coalition members are dropping out of the action of the GWOT making it harder to produce evidence of a decisive victory, not to mention the fact that public enemy number one is not a state but one man—Osama Bin Laden—with a seemingly successful quasi-intelligence organization the world has come to know as al-Qaida.

In this new security environment it is increasingly harder to use the former US cold war strategy of containment, and even harder to use deterrence strategies against an adversary who claims the fundamental difference between the US and the terrorists is they have a love for death where the US has a love for life. According to US defense strategy for the 21^st century, “our leading position in world affairs will continue to breed unease, a degree of resentment, and resistance.”

US strength as a nation state will constantly be contested, not by the conventional military of another nation state, but by the few failing or undeveloped countries and radical extremists who seek to, “employ a strategy of the weak,” where they fraudulently put to use international judicial processes and terrorism to further their goal of defeating the “evil” Americans.

There is truly not another viable option on the table to suggest another way to combat this new threat without it being ruinous to the power and overall standing of the United States as actors on the world stage, and it is for this reason the consequences of our strategy will make us and our allies targets of extremism and terrorism—thus one more demoralizing cost to remain a free people and sustain vital national interests.

While sounding dreadful for the American and allied civilians, according to the Bush Administration, “This strategy focuses on safeguarding US freedoms and interests, while working actively to forestall the emergence of new challenges.” During times of war society tends shift like a roller coaster going up and down the track; the beginning almost always exemplifies total public support—the US invasion of Afghanistan and destruction of the Taliban government—for retaliatory purposes when they have been attacked. Currently on a dip in the track, society remains isolated from the conflict, I fear they will fall victim to the internal domestic political pressures brought on by critics of the current war to secure Iraq, and while most are good intentioned and desire a lasting fruitful, economically stable peace, they probably will end up doing such overwhelming damage US threats of force will be laughed at—as we saw with Saddam Hussein in 2003 and are seeing now as Iran refuses to stop enriching uranium and denies the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to some of its nuclear sites.

Weaknesses brought on by domestic political pressures are avoidable. If the politicians in the US Senate and Congress insist on bickering over past issues and debating the Iraq war—a war of obligation, not a war of choice in my opinion—while many more pertinent issues—such as health care, education and nuclear proliferation—continue to ferment like the whiskey in Edward Kennedy’s flask, then these unfortunate “vulnerabilities” will present an opportunity to our enemies to devastate our great country from within—an unacceptable outcome in every way.

As congress attempts to approve the 2008 Defense budget requests, many will attempt to weaken the Bush Administration, but they will do so at their own peril and at the peril of innocent men and women serving in the US armed forces abroad—a volunteer force—which selflessly secures the freedom and way of life Americans have come to know and love. Two thirds of the defense budget consists of controllable expenses—meaning the congress and others have more room to cut funding from certain areas of national security in order to divert funds to other government programs that constituents and lobbyist pull for daily. Some would like to see forces pulled from Iraq in order to use them to beef up military presence in Afghanistan. Think back. The Soviets occupied the region for more than a decade before finally having to give up and fall back due to the heavily fortified mountainous regions that gave cover to bin Laden then and continue to do so today just over the Pakistan border. If there were ever a conflict that held the potential to become another Vietnam it would be US troops bogged down in the melting snow on the mountains of Afghanistan.

Despite all the negative aspects and vulnerabilities resulting from the GWOT, it is still possible to recognize many opportunities for growth, improvement and adaptation within the realm of US national defense policy.

National Security Part 1

National Security Part I--The Cost of Freedom

By Craig S. Byrnes

Freedom by nature should be free, but history continually proves the cost is in fact quite high and rising on a daily basis. According to Daniel W. Drezner in an essay entitled “The New New World Order” in the March/April 2007 edition of Foreign Policy magazine, “growing anti-Americanism has revitalized groupings of states traditionally hostile to the United States, such as the Nonaligned Movement.”

Current World environments call for a strong national defense policy that can accomplish difficult military and non-military tasks at home and abroad without skipping a beat. One of the strongest elements of US defense policy is its ability to retain a military force unrivaled by any other state in the International system. According to Drezner more than 250,000 troops were stationed in 45 countries in support of US interests. In order to maintain an agile stance on the world battlefield, and ensure rapid adequate response to changing global threats, the Bush Administration has enacted swift reform of troop deployments, focusing on re-aligning troops stationed in former Cold War battlegrounds back to the homeland or to other hotspots.

President George W. Bush took over a defense program that needed a little shoring up, and he began—along with Vice President Dick Cheney and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—to tackle bureaucracy within the pentagon that threatened the security of American lives here and overseas. Because of the copious number of challenges and opportunities presented by the post 9/11 world, it was necessary to engage in a global war on terrorism—a conflict which greatly increases the cost of freedom.

Rising costs have been met by a robust defense budget and a healthy sum for the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Total overt national security costs—including the National Defense Budget for fiscal year 2008 requested by the Bush Administration—add up to $802.9 billion a roughly $108 billion dollar increase since 2006. According to Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, in an analysis originally appearing in the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, a consensus on the size of the budget has mounted within Washington. According to Mr. Wheeler the consensus, “has little to do with facts and much to do with political maneuvering, which has been orchestrated with brilliant success by the very same White House that everyone in Washington discounts as washed up.” Funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—approximately $142 billion—was not included in the Defense budget submitted to Congress for $481 billion, but is included as an emergency fund. Also included under total budget authority is $17.4 billion for the Department of Energy—the home of the US nuclear arsenal—for nuclear weapons, $36.4 billion for DHS and $38.3 billion for International Affairs according to a budget table included in the March/April 2007 issue of The Defense Monitor, a newsletter for the Center for Defense Information.

In order to fully appreciate the spending on defense you need to compare with China—who holds second place. According to a New York Times article on March 5, 2007 entitled “Beijing Boosts Military Budget Mightily” by Jim Yardley and David Lague, “Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for the National People’s Congress, the Communist Party-controlled national legislature, said China’s military budget would rise this year by 17.8 percent to just under $45 billion.” This number is miniscule in comparison, but the article goes on to say, “military analysts in the United States and Europe say China’s public military budget reflects only a fraction of its overall defense spending and that the real figure is likely to be two to four times higher.”

Another key strength in US defense policy is preserving, “a resilient network of alliances and partnerships,” according to the National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. This geopolitical network consists of the European Union, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Russia and many more. It is these strategic alliances that provide a multilateral international force capable of confronting threats to international security while further securing the interests of the US.

Leadership in the international community on issues of common concern is a vital policy strength that plays an integral role in securing US influence worldwide. It is this international influence that is detrimental to knocking out threats before they have the opportunity to become catastrophic or ignite into military conflict. Doors are also opened through diplomatic efforts allowing for key advantages in other areas of the national power arena including political, economic, technological and cultural, thus further securing freedom and allowing for a flourishing democracy.

While US defense policy holds these key strengths it is prudent to remember there are considerable “vulnerabilities” within the current system placing American citizens at risk within the homeland and overseas that must be adequately addressed to prevent surprising or devastating security failures—physical and psychological—that will place US freedoms and interests in jeopardy.

Tomorrow : Weaknesses