It’s a brave new world out there, but I don’t think it is the one Aldous Huxley had in mind when he wrote his famed book in 1932.

What Huxley gave us was a frightening vision of the future. And in one sense, though not the one Huxley was writing about, that vision is becoming reality. I refer to the expanding role of robots in war.

The most visible aspect of this is the use of aerial drones such as targeting Al Qaeda militants with Predator drone strikes. Predictably, some places, such as the Weekly Standard, think this fine and dandy, and worry only that we do not use them more for which they criticize President Obama. That is ironic as the President has authorized more drone attacks in the first year of his term in office than Bush did in his entire presidency.

But war is inherently unpredictable. One of the few ways we have of restraining its destructiveness is by having military personnel perform their duties in a framework of carefully wrought, time tested framework grounded in civic-military and ethical considerations. While pilots may sometimes be egomaniacal Top Guns they at least spend some time thinking about these things. But what happens when the man operating a Predator is just another technician, no different from any other journeyman such as an electrician or plumber? What happens when the use of deadly force is just another day at the office?

Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway noted that before 9/11, the CIA hesitated to strike bin Laden’s farm in Afghanistan because women and children might be killed. But as the war drags on the rules of engagement, rules against targeted assassination, whom to kill and not kill, have slipped, as they invariably do in all wars. (more…)

There’s little new in Russia’s new military doctrine, approved by President Dmitry Medvedev on February 5. The document turned out to follow closely its predecessor, albeit possessing more clarity and concision. Fortunately, the role of nuclear weapons in Moscow’s security policy did not rise. Unfortunately, Russia continues to distrust NATO and resent its expansion. From the very day when the text of the doctrine appeared on the Kremlin’s official web site, the former has not been appreciated enough and the latter has been too strongly criticized.

Alarmed by Nikolai Patrushev’s divulging the plans to assign nuclear weapons to “local conflicts,” the international community sighed with relief upon reading the final document that keeps strategic weapons restricted to regional and large-scale wars.

However, instead of applauding the triumph of reason in the Russian military establishment, some hazarded guesses that the new doctrine is sane only because the true nuclear policy is concealed in “Basic principles of state policy in the area of nuclear deterrence to 2020,” a classified document approved simultaneously with the new doctrine. While the contents of the unpublished document remain secret, it hardly conceals the true contours of Russia’s nuclear policy: the point of deterrence is to make the others aware of the risks so that they refrain from aggression. (more…)

I confess that I have been fantasizing. I realize that most people have moved on from Iraq to Afghanistan. But given the enormous toll paid both by Iraqis and Americans in terms of lives and money and overall social and cultural destruction I have been trying to imagine what it would look like if the United States actually undertook a fact based investigation into the decisions by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq in 2003.

By that I don’t mean the past investigations by special commissions or congressional committees into what the intelligence community knew or didn’t know, or what pressure they were under to cherry pick information. Rather I mean an investigation into what former President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other cabinet officials knew and did, day by day, leading up to the invasion.

Fortunately, I don’t really have to imagine. Instead I can just look across the Atlantic to Great Britain. There they have been conducting an inquiry, officially launched 30 June 2009. The terms of reference of the Iraq Inquiry,  also known as the Chilcot Inquiry, after its chairman Sir John Chilcot, state:

It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned.

Consider some of what has been revealed just during the past few weeks. (more…)

President Obama’s announcement of his intention to work with Congress and the military to repeal the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is the sort of change that should receive broad bipartisan support.  The public backs such a change.  A poll last year by the Washington Post/ABC news found that 75% of Americans supported the repeal.  The same poll found that 64% of Republicans wanted to allow homosexuals to serve openly.  This is now a mainstream opinion of both Democrats and Republicans.

President Truman’s landmark decision to integrate African-Americans into the military was particularly noteworthy because it led a transition in public opinion.  Today, public opinion has already shifted, which makes this repeal even more overdue.

Many advocates of the repeal of this policy have strong moral and human rights arguments.  Although such arguments are appealing, the stronger rationale for this repeal is simply that it will make America safer.

Even though the public is on board, there are some political leaders who still support the ban.  John McCain, who once said that he would follow the advice of the military leadership regarding the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy has changed his tune and says that now is not the right time to change the policy because we are in the midst of two wars.  House Minority Leader John Boehner said, “In the middle of two wars, and, and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” This is where McCain and Boehner get it wrong.  This is precisely the time to make such a change.  Today our forces are stretched thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet, at this time of tremendous need in the military we are kicking out brave soldiers simply because they admit openly to being gay. (more…)

Today marks one week since the magnitude 7.0 Jan. 12 earthquake hit Haiti. If there is anything in the world that, at least momentarily, brings people together it is the innate humanitarian impulse to help those who have been struck by natural catastrophe.

In this regard Haiti is no exception. Nations from around the world, not just the United States, are rushing supplies and various specialists to assist in search and rescue, provide food, water, and housing, and begin the effort to assist with what will, of necessity, have to be a long term recovery effort. Early estimates state that one third of Haiti’s nine million people have been affected by the quake. Already 20,000 bodies are estimated to have been recovered. The final toll will undoubtedly be far higher.

The United States, by virtue of its geographic proximity to Haiti, its long term involvement with the country, and its immense logistical capabilities is taking the lead role in coordinating relief efforts. No problem there; as the Haitian government has been almost as destroyed as the housing in Port au Prince.

In terms of domestic politics nobody thus far, aside from the usual rightwing whack jobs, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are objecting to the U.S. rushing to the rescue. And U.S. efforts are significant. If President Bush had done for New Orleans what President Obama is doing for Haiti the Bush legacy would be significantly different.

This past weekend, in a striking example of bipartisanship, President Obama asked former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush  to spearhead private-sector fund-raising efforts.

Thus far, the U.S. military is doing a useful job. Whether it has done as much as it could or should will be a question that will doubtlessly be debated.

A three-star general, Lt. Gen. P. K. Keen, the deputy director of the military’s Southern Command, has been tapped to lead a new joint task force devoted to Haiti.

7,500 troops and four ships arrived in Haiti yesterday to join the about 5,000 U.S. military personnel already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby. Reportedly the bulk of the troops will operate off the ships, not on the ground.

Air Force special operations controllers set up an air-traffic control center. It was the beginning of an operation that, by Sunday, had unclogged one bottleneck preventing aid from reaching Haiti’s desperate population. By Sunday, the Air Force had landed some 300 planes, most of them laden with relief supplies.

The 82nd Airborne has established small posts around the city to protect food and water drops. (more…)

The President is getting some kudos for the frank and forthright way he stepped up last week to articulate the government failings in the Christmas Day attack. After much media noise he announced that no one would be fired, and he took full responsibility for the mistakes. Loyalty is a good if an uncommon virtue in DC. But just saying the buck stops here too often means it stops nowhere. The President had a few good lines and not much else to follow through. What is really alarming about the Christmas Day attacks is not that they happen, or that we dissolve into a wave of recrimination, but that we learn nothing.

The US government is built on agencies with generally poor political and bureaucratic leadership. We have a semi feudal system, rife with patronage and a club mentality. Political appointees as a class are well educated, underqualified, and woefully unprepared for office. Senior bureaucrats, usually neglected by Congress, are subject to Darwinian selection to remove all evidence of any spine, humanity, imagination or leadership skill. If you really want something done on time, under budget, and is well led and executed – would you really give it to the US government, or worse subject it to a current USG contract?

When it comes to homeland security we really maximize our critical weaknesses. As one example there has been some discussion of moving the visa function out of State Department, and there has been predictable push back from Foggy Bottom. But regardless of who takes up the function, the requirement for juniors officers to sit on a visa line on a rotating basis creates an in-built weakness at every embassy around the world.

For those who are down on America, the longest lines in the world are still often found outside US consulates, of eager people looking for a visa. Along side of every queue is a cottage industry of people selling information or a quick way to cheat the lines complete with “information” on the new officers at the windows, and their behavior patterns. (more…)

This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

President Obama has now presented the nation with a sober, solemn assessment in explaining the need for an additional 30,000 troops for Afghanistan: Al Qaeda remain in “common cause” with the Taliban; they have metastasized into Pakistan; they have again infiltrated our shores.  Answering those who have grown complacent, the President reminded America that “this is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.”

Yet many are unconvinced.  Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), for instance, responded to the President’s address that more troops would not make America more secure because ”Al Qaeda can go any place. They don’t have to be in Afghanistan.”   Senator John Kerry stated that many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, “either don’t see the nexus or don’t accept” that al Qaeda and the Taliban remain in league with one another.

(more…)

Unlike my fellow blogger Matt Rojansky I do not support sending more troops to Afghanistan. Doing so is the geopolitical equivalent of Newton’s third law of motion, i.e., “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Sending more troops only strengthens the Taliban, and non-Taliban Afghans, especially the Pashtuns, who just don’t want foreigners in their lands.

Yet despite all the attempts to pretend that there is some huge debate in the White House about whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan there has never been any serious question that the Obama administration will not do so. The only question is how many.

After all, can you remember the last time a newly elected president decided to withdraw troops from a war he inherited? Neither can I. In fact, right now the insider wisdom seems to be that Obama is settling on around 32- to 35,000 more troops, which is over 80 percent of what Gen. McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, asked for in his strategy report.

That said let’s hope someone in the Obama administration is thinking about other issues. For example, putting aside the future ultimate sacrifices measured in lives lost and physically and mentally wounded, the financial costs will start mounting up.

(more…)

Two years ago this week, on this blog, I wrote the following about politicians who thank men and women in uniform “for their service” without doing anything to improve their lot:

After six years of war, we must pay more than lip service to our gratitude.  We must act to ease the burden on our armed forces, and to give strategic vision and moral depth to our national security policy.

It has now been eight years of war in Afghanistan and approaching seven in Iraq.  We have a new President, a new Congress, new military commanders on the ground, and a new set of relationships on the world stage.  Yet I am concerned that Americans have seen too little progress on the foreign policy challenges that matter most.

The Obama Administration, less than a year into its tenure, has reached a national security tipping point.  Despite swift and significant troop reductions in Iraq (coupled with a handover of security duties to Iraqis), invitations to Iran and North Korea to sit down at the negotiating table, and an ongoing policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the new Administration has won few admirers for its national security program.  One obvious reason is the lack of clear, immediate payoffs.  Other than “resetting” the US public image in European capitals, it is not clear that Obama’s changed approach has delivered any concrete benefits appreciable to average Americans, or to our elected leaders on either side.

(more…)