William S. Cohen, former Secretary of Defense under Clinton and PSA Advisory Board member, recently wrote an opinion article in Politico discussing the use of drones in modern warfare. Cohen has always supported bipartisan action on issues of national security and as a member of Congress (R-Maine) took a nonpartisan stance on security policy. Since leaving the pentagon, Cohen has penned numerous articles and books and even appeared on the Daily Show. In his most recent article, Cohen focuses on the critical role drones have played in Afghanistan and their place at the center of counter-insurgency vs. counter-terrorism debate.

Among the many issues that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta must ponder in the coming months will likely be whether to recommend shifting U.S. strategy in Afghanistan from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism.

Some critics argue that our current policy of deploying large numbers of ground troops puts more of our men and women at risk for questionable gain and even encourages more Afghans to join the Taliban, fighting against what they claim is an invasion force. Yet the recent gains in clearing out Taliban strongholds and helping to build schools, medical facilities and other civic institutions argue, instead, for staying the course for several more years.

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously noted that “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities,” and the recent debt debate was no different. Proving true to form, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 at the zero-hour. The bill raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, cuts spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, and establishes a 12-member bipartisan House-Senate “supercommittee” to recommend up to an additional $1.5 trillion in long-term savings before the end of the year.

The rest of the world, though, didn’t like the soap opera we just went through. Foreign reaction was less than congratulatory after the last-minute agreement and focused on the intractable American political process. Following the passage of the bill, the Economist criticized all sides, calling the debt debate “kabuki-like.” Chinese credit ratings agency Dagong Global “blamed a shaky and untrustworthy political system” as it downgraded US debt. And the Russian press noted that “the obvious inability to reach an agreement that was demonstrated by political forces in the US has had an equally damaging effect on the country… The image of the country as a responsible borrower has suffered most.”

Now that the US has been on the brink of default, an unthinkable proposition until recently, it has changed the way that the rest of the world views us. There is, of course, griping that to some extent has allowed others to take a break from dealing with their own problems to criticize ours. Yet, dismissing foreign viewpoints entirely ignores the importance of taking these viewpoints into account as we burnish our global image, especially if how we go about finding solutions to our long-term challenges is starting to affect the American brand nearly as much as what solutions we find. (more…)

Partnership for a Secure America mourns the passing of Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State during President Bill Clinton’s first term and an esteemed member of PSA’s Advisory Board. From the hostage crisis during the Carter administration to the ethnic conflict in the Balkans during the Clinton administration, Christopher was a major presence in U.S. foreign policy for nearly four decades. Known for his patient and diligent style of diplomacy, President Carter called him “the best public servant I ever knew.”

Mr. Christopher also served as Deputy Attorney General and as Deputy Secretary of State, and he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1981. PSA is honored to have had Mr. Christopher as a signatory on eleven of PSA’s past statements, and joins his family in celebrating his distinguished career in public service.

An article in last Sunday’s Washington Post profiled the recently formed National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona, which was founded in the wake of the January 8th attack in Tucson. The institute’s mission is to serve as a “national, nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation regarding civic engagement and civility in public discourse consistent with First Amendment principles.” Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have agreed to serve as honorary chairs, and the institute’s board features a distinguished bipartisan group of leaders, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a PSA Advisory Board member. Among the institute’s main goals is “to connect people with diverse viewpoints and to offer a venue for vigorous and respectful debate.” For more information, click here to visit the institute’s website.

Tomorrow in Munich, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will exchange instruments of Ratification for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), thus immediately rendering the treaty into force.  The exchange is the final step in a ten-month process that began last April in Prague, when Presidents Obama and Medvedev met to sign the treaty. After lengthy and thorough consideration, the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in a bipartisan vote this past December, followed in January by the Russian Parliament.

The importance of this treaty is reflected in the widespread and politically diverse support it has received from the military and policy establishments. The Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, and seven former heads of U.S. Strategic Command and Strategic Air Command have come out in support of the treaty. In addition, this past June, thirty top national security leaders signed a PSA statement on New START,  including ten former Senators, four Secretaries of State, four Secretaries of Defense, and three National Security Advisors, as well as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission among others.

Broadly speaking, the treaty requires both Russia and the U.S. to decrease their amounts of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, thus reducing the threat of “doomsday” scenarios of nuclear exchanges between the two countries. More specifically, New START gives both the United States and Russia seven years in which to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 – down from the current numbers of between 1,700 and 2,200 – and limit the number of deployed delivery systems to 700 and the total delivery systems to 800. Upon entering into force, the treaty immediately instates a series of verification and inspection measures designed to provide each country with a sophisticated database of information on individual warheads and 18 physical on-site inspections per year. (more…)

Partnership for a Secure America’s Congressional Fellowship Program is now accepting applications for the Spring 2011 session. This highly selective program is for Congressional staff interested in generating dialogue and developing the skills and relationships required to advance bipartisanship on national security and foreign policy issues. Through training, networking, and exclusive activities, this unique program aims to build a “next generation” of foreign policy and security experts equipped to respect differences, build common ground and achieve US national interests. The deadline to apply is March 11, 2011. For further information about the program, and to apply, click here.

Some teachers in junior high school would allow students to sit wherever they wanted in the classroom.  Whenever this was the case, undoubtedly we would quickly group ourselves with our friends.   The jocks sat with other jocks.  The nerds sat with other nerds (generally my group).  And the heavy metal thrashers sat with other heavy metal thrashers.  As you can imagine, there wasn’t much communication between the groups.  Other teachers assigned seats.  All the cliques got mixed up and we were forced to interact with people that  weren’t in our normal social circles.  Although it was uncomfortable at first, I sometimes found myself learning a bit about the people around me.  I learned to appreciate Metallica and the identify who was playing in the lineup for the weekend’s football game – not life changing discoveries, but important nonetheless in junior high interactions.

It turns out that the seating arrangements of the upcoming State of the Union address present a situation that is not altogether different from a junior high classroom.  Our elected representatives will be faced with a simple question:  is it better to sit with my close friends or reach out to to someone who isn’t in my clique?

Traditionally in the tightly choreographed State of the Union address, everyone plays their part.  Democrats sit with Democrats on one side of the room.  Republicans sit with Republicans on the other side of the room.  Democrats stand and clap at their signature issues and Republicans do the same for their issues.  Everyone plays their part – a bit like junior high.

Recently, however, something changed.  After the tragedy in Tuscon, we’ve all been rethinking the roles that we play.  There is a growing realization that there is lack of civility in our public life.

Ordinary Americans work with, socialize with, and go to church with people of many different political beliefs.  Unfortunately, our political discourse has been polarized by right wing and left wing media outlets that encourage people to see issues in black and white terms.   This harmful discourse was characterized by the outburst of Representatives Joe Wilson who exclaimed, “you lie!”, during President Obama’s last State of the Union address.  We see and hear it every day in the partisan attacks on cable news and talk radio.  (more…)

At least the ballot looks easy enough: one hand for Southern Sudan’s independence, two hands for unity with the north and regime in Khartoum. Yet Sudan’s upcoming referendum- now less than a month away – is anything but. The United States and international community are pressuring Khartoum to live up to the conditions set forth in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between North and South Sudan, pulling out all the diplomatic stops to ensure a peaceful vote. Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, and an endless stream of celebrities have made sure the media light – and therefore world opinion – is focused heavily on President Omar al-Bashir’s regime and Sudan. Yet when considering the sustainability of a peaceful and prosperous future, the emphasis on the referendum could be a double edged sword. A successful vote is the precipice, but the substance of peace will occur during full implementation of the results in the following months. If the international community only maintains interest long enough to engage in crisis management, what will hopefully be achieved on January 9^th shall be short-lived. (more…)

There has been much attention in the lame duck session of Congress on whether Democrats and Republicans will find any common ground.  Will they compromise on tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits? During a time of war, will gays and lesbians continue to be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the military?  Will the children of illegal immigrants continue to be denied the chance to pay taxes and seek the American dream? There is much work to be done in the final weeks of this year.  Democrats and Republicans have different approaches to some of these issues.  That’s to be expected.  However, there’s one issue on which pretty much all Democrats and Republicans outside of Congress agree – the New START Treaty.  Yet, it’s being held hostage in the Senate for purely partisan reasons.

Particularly on domestic issues, there are fundamental differences between the parties that generate intense disagreement.  Such discord can be healthy in a democracy as it provides clear choices to voters.  What is damaging is when political leaders lose sight of  their core values and emphasize winning at all costs.  When a policy disagreement becomes a zero sum game in which a win by one’s opponent is considered a loss by the other, gridlock ensues. Before long, the policy matters less than a mark in the win column.  This is what has happened with the New START treaty.

Sometimes both sides are at fault.  They both dig in their heels. In other situations, one side demonstrates willingness to negotiate and the other sees more political benefit from standing firm.  The latter is the situation we face today.  The Republican leadership (thought not all Republicans) in the Senate is playing political games with America’s national security.

The New START treaty is a follow-on treaty to the original START treaty negotiated in 1991 under George H. W. Bush that set limits on the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States.  Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the New START treaty in April 2010.  Many viewed this as a sign of renewal of US-Russian relations and a small step towards President Obama’s stated goal of a nuclear free future.  It would reduce the number of strategic warheads to 1550 from the current limit of 2200 and establish new inspection procedures to ensure compliance.  It must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. (more…)

Kay King, Vice President of Washington Initiatives at the Council on Foreign Relations, recently released a report entitled Congress and National Security arguing Congress’s increasing inability to effectively address major domestic and international challenges has severe ramifications for U.S. national security.

King points to contributing factors which have led to a decline in Congressional effectiveness, including amplified partisanship, abuse of rules and procedures, outdated committee structures, decreased expertise, and competition with domestic programs. She specifically addresses how the toxic partisan atmosphere has contributed significantly to Congress’s mixed performance on its national security responsibilities:

…the nation’s political landscape has been realigning since the 1970’s, ushering in deep partisanship, severe polarization, a combative 24/7 media, and diminished civility. Over time, this environment has given lawmakers greater incentive to advance personal and partisan agendas by any means, including the manipulation of congressional rules and procedures. It has politicized the national security arena that, while never immune to partisanship, more often than not used to bring out the “country first” instincts in lawmakers. It has also driven foreign policy and defense matters, short of crises, off the national agenda, marginalizing important issues like trade. Combining this increasingly toxic political climate with an institutional stalemate in the face of mounting global challenges and it is not surprising that Congress has struggled for years to play a consistent and constructive role as a partner to as well as check and balance on the executive branch on international issues.

King then goes on to recommend reform in five critical areas: prompt and inclusive action on budgets and legislation, timely and knowledgeable advice and consent on treaties and nominees, realistic and effective oversight, closing the expertise gap, and bolstering the congressional-executive branch partnership on national security policy.

The entire report can be found here.