National Security Experts

Powering Our Military: What's the Role of Clean Energy?

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:47:23 GMT

This week's question brought to you by Amy Harder of the Energy Experts Blog. Check out their responses.

How does clean energy fit into the military's mission? And what role should the military play in fulfilling President Obama's goal of creating an economy based on cleaner-energy sources?

The U.S. military is the single-largest industrial consumer of oil in the world. The Pentagon sees the goal of reducing its oil consumption as a national-security concern. The Obama administration has continuously touted the military's use of renewable energy, especially biofuels. Some Republicans in Congress have charged that the military should not spend money on expensive alternative fuels at a time when the nation needs to cut its trillion-dollar deficit.

In what ways--if at all--should the military fund its clean-energy initiatives? What specific types of alternative-energy sources would be best suited for the military's needs? Should Congress intervene? Will the military be a catalyst for the country to dramatically shift to cleaner-energy sources?

Eric Farnsworth responded to Powering Our Military: What's the Role of Clean Energy? on May 21, 2012 10:26 AM

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:47:23 GMT

The Story is Natural Gas There should be no hesitation by the military to investigate the use of all energy sources in terms of cost, reliability, performance, and externalities be they related to national security or the environment. Generations of US policy-makers and political leaders have recognized the strategic vulnerabilities to the United States of an over-reliance on energy, primarily oil, from geopolitically-sensitive regions. (It's not "foriegn" oil that is the inherent problem; Canada, after all, is our top supplier.) Biofuels can play a role, although they will continue to be a niche product for some time. The real story...

Who Will Win Budget Battles?

Mon, 07 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday will mark up its 2013 defense authorization bill. Despite the Pentagon's request for Congress to swallow its request whole, the bill's first draft rejects many proposals DOD was counting on to meet the Budget Control Act's spending limits. Chairman Buck McKeon's bill rejects the Pentagon's request for two BRAC rounds, reinstates weapons and personnel cuts, denies shifting billions of military personnel funds into the war account and adds on an East Coast missile defense system the Pentagon did not seek. Who will win these battles? Realistically, what should the final Pentagon budget look like?

Gordon Adams responded to Who Will Win Budget Battles? on May 7, 2012 08:21 PM

Mon, 07 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Wait 'Till Next Year The House Armed Services Committee will do its usual thing this year, exacerbated by the ideological campaign Chairman McKeon is running as part of the Republican battle plan in an election year. Fortunately, nobody is listening and the outcome will likely be pretty much what the Congress agreed to in the Budget Control Act last August. No need to hyperventilate here. The usual thing is to mark back into the bill all the "stuff" the members of the committee want, but was taken out in the Administration's request. We'll see money for hardware, mostly - M1-A2...

Michael Brenner responded to Who Will Win Budget Battles? on May 7, 2012 12:00 PM

Mon, 07 May 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Rest Assured Pondering the impressive array of military capabilities that are at the center of the current defense budget debates, I am greatly reassured by the high degree of security they provide for me personally and for the USA – whatever the exact outcome. The aching worries that have made sleep an exercise in anxious futility have dissipated. Just think of the protection that we can look forward to. 1. A missile defense shield for the Atlantic coast. No need to fret about WMD tipped missiles with lethal payloads targeting Charleston, Rehoboth Beach, or Kennebunkport. Morocco, Mauretania, and places farther east...

Is the War on Terror Over?

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

If Osama bin Laden were still alive today, he would hardly recognize the world he knew. Nor would he see the supposed "clash of civilizations" that he tried so hard to foment over two decades of violent jihad. Instead bin Laden would see Islamist radicals on the election stump in emerging governments in Egypt and Tunisia, pledging cooperation with senior U.S. officials, and even meeting with a few neocons in Washington. He would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden's confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al Qaida era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism. He would see Islamist parties that are passionately pursuing power and vested interests within their own countries (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) rather than against bin Laden's old "far enemy," the United States.

One year after bin Laden was killed, are we still involved in a war on terror? Has the death of bin laden and the rise of the Arab Spring changed anything?

Jim Phillips responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on May 7, 2012 09:45 AM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

A Premature Declaration of Victory To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in the war on terror, but the war is interested in you. The Obama Administration would be well-advised to remember this as it campaigns for a second term in office. Although severely weakened, Al Qaeda remains a dangerous threat. Moreover its regional franchises and Islamist allies are well-positioned to exploit the power vacuums, chaos and political instability that have been generated by the so-called “Arab Spring.” AQAP is growing stronger in Yemen, AQIM has gained greater freedom of action in Libya and access to Qadhafi’s...

Wayne White responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on May 1, 2012 08:13 PM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Bin Laden Gone, Terrorism Lives On As long as there are real or perceived national or religious grievances that cannot be resolved politically (or through conventional armed struggle), extremists aroused by such grievances will resort to various forms of asymmetric warfare, including "terrorism," against more powerful opponents. Since 9/11 the US and many of its allies have tried to combat terrorism through military action, improved intelligence, covert operations, vast defensive measures, and PR aimed at "winning hearts and minds." Yet, military action can make matters worse, intelligence is incomplete or flawed, covert ops are isolated stabs at the problem frequently with negative downsides, defensive...

Brian Michael Jenkins responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on May 1, 2012 07:21 PM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

NOT YET The War on Terror, whatever Washington chooses to call it, is far from over. To be sure, al Qaeda’s operational capabilities have been degraded. Its once easily accessible training camps in Afghanistan have been dispersed. Its terrorist networks have been largely dismantled. Its leadership has been decimated by arrests and drone strikes. Its sinews of command are frayed. Al Qaeda’s old guard, now holed up on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, has been reduced to a few hundred men at most. Unprecedented cooperation among intelligence services and law enforcement worldwide has made al Qaeda’s operating environment...

James Jay Carafano responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on April 30, 2012 04:15 PM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

War What’s It Good For… The problem with the question is that if you ask al Qaeda, its leaders would say “no.” Clausewitz wisely observed “defeat is in the mind of the enemy commander.” Al Qaeda is still waging war on us. Of course we don’t have to wage war on them—it takes two sides to make a war. We can do nothing—or very little—like we did before 9/11. That unfortunately did not work out so well....

Michael Brenner responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on April 30, 2012 11:52 AM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

The Eternal 'War on Terror' The “war on terror’’ began as fraud; now it is farce. Conceived in deceit, warped at birth and raised behind a veil of duplicity – the ‘war’s” mature years are marked by actions of mindless reiteration. The penalty we - and the rest of the world – have paid for this feckless exercise in vengeance and grandiosity has been enormous. The payment has been in lives lost or crippled, in trillions of dollars, in prestige and authority dissipated, and in a latent menace to our well-being that the ‘war” supposedly aimed at eliminating. This...

Steven Metz responded to Is the War on Terror Over? on April 30, 2012 07:47 AM

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

From War to Managing the Barbarians The war on terror is over in the sense that Americans have realized that "war" was not the best or most appropriate policy in the first place. War is rational when military victory over an opponent can lead to strategic or political victory. As many commentators noted from the beginning, this was never true of terrorism. Military victory over an operational method made no sense. That said, the conflict with al Qaeda and, with increasing importance, its emulators is far from over. But the model henceforth should not be war--which has a discrete...

What Happens Next for North Korea Policy?

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

All eyes were on North Korea's controversial missile launch--and subsequent failure--on Thursday. Does the launch, in defiance of international pressure, mean the Obama administration's effort to engage Pyongyang has failed? The U.S. quickly announced it would suspend food aid, and is huddling with South Korea, Japan, and other allies to consider further retaliation. What steps should be taken? How does this new crisis affect early hopes that the country's new young leader Kim Jong Un would have a warmer-- or at least more rational-- relationship with the West?

Michael Brenner responded to What Happens Next for North Korea Policy? on April 17, 2012 07:40 PM

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

THE PERSONALITY FACTOR I neglected to mention one other factor in the comparative equations: the personality of the leadership. Much ink has been spilt arguing that Iran is not a rational actor and therefore the logic of deterrence from any use, or threatened use of nuclear wepaons could not be expected to work. Yet, Ayatollah Khameini has abjured the use of nuclear weapons twice on ethical grounds. Moreover, he would not be making those decisions in isolation. By contrast, the current North Korean is the third in a line of autocratic hereditary rulers all of whom have manifested emotional instability...

Michael Brenner responded to What Happens Next for North Korea Policy? on April 17, 2012 10:28 AM

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

PYONGYANG & TEHRAN In sequential weeks we have discussed Iran and North Korea. Yet little effort is made to compare the two cases (with the notable exception of Paul Pillar). I believe that it would instructive to undertake such a study. The comparisons can be expected to expose different risk assessments, strategies and diplomatic modes of address. That in term draws our attention to the question of what exactly the United States and other external parties want. There is neither space nor time for a complete analysis. So allow me simply to prime the discussion by posing a key and...

Steven Metz responded to What Happens Next for North Korea Policy? on April 16, 2012 09:16 AM

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

More of the Same But That's OK The DPRK's strategic objectives are to prevent opposition to the Kim regime from the domestic elite and to extract the maximum amount of resources from external sources. Given this, there is no reason to expect any change in its combination of threat, bluster, and meaningless glimmerings of concession or opening. The game has worked so far, and there is little motivation for Kim to change it. The chances of any sort of diplomacy leading to the DPRK surrendering its nuclear weapons are nil. Two other points merit comment though. First, the admission by...

What Do You Expect from Negotiations With Iran?

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

After years of stone-walling, Tehran has agreed to restart talks with the Perm-5 Plus One (permanent members of the UN Security Council the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China, plus Germany) about its nuclear program. Yet even before the talks recommence, squabbling has broken out over the venue, with Iran objecting to the preferred site of Turkey. What are the chances that meaningful progress will be made at the upcoming negotiations? Is there a face-saving deal that would allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium supposedly for peaceful purposes, but of a quantity and quality that do not presage a possible nuclear weapon? Are sanctions biting hard enough to convince Tehran to give up enrichment altogether? If these talks fail, how seriously do you take the Obama administration's warning that they could represent the last chance for diplomacy?

Wayne White responded to What Do You Expect from Negotiations With Iran? on April 11, 2012 09:49 AM

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Deja Vu? Parties involved in the Iran-Nuclear talks this weekend still do not appear prepared to compromise sufficiently to break the deadlock (or possibly avert war). Iran seems ready to make some concessions, but quite possibly not enough to meet the demands of the increasingly concerned Americans, Europeans, and the Israelis standing ominously in the wings. Similarly, Washington is hinting it will restrain its demands a bit (sufficiently so to draw criticism from a number of observers in the US and Israel), but probably not enough to secure Iranian acceptance because even this package (especially the closure of Iran's Fordo enrichment facility) is...

Michael Brenner responded to What Do You Expect from Negotiations With Iran? on April 10, 2012 12:30 PM

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:00:00 GMT

IMMATURITY IMMATURITY Immaturity, as the alienists tell us, expresses itself in various psychological strategies to cope with a reality that challenges self-image – e.g. a recalcitrant Islamic Republic of Iran that threatens the ingrained belief of American leaders that they can coerce weaker states to bend to their will and thereby fulfill the United States’ self-defined needs. Such an ego defense mechanism becomes pathological when its persistent use leads to recurrent maladaptive behavior that impairs the ability to act rationally and to pursue realistic goals – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali. These ego defense mechanisms and strategies try to...