Month: February 2014

At the National Journal, Michael Hirsh reports:

It’s been more than a year since incoming CIA Director John Brennan signaled his intention to shift drone warfare to the Pentagon as soon as possible. Brennan, a career spook, was said to be determined to restore the agency to its roots as an espionage factory, not a paramilitary organization. And President Obama endorsed his plan to hand drone warfare over to the military, according to administration officials.

But a funny thing happened on the way back to cloak-and-dagger. According to intelligence experts and some powerful friends of the CIA on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the agency may simply be much better than the military at killing people in a targeted, precise way—and, above all, at ensuring that the bad guys they’re getting are really bad guys. And that distinction has become more important than ever at a time when Obama is intent on moving away from a “permanent war footing” and on restricting targeted killings exclusively to a handful of Qaida-linked senior terrorists.

Hirsh notes that the December drone strike that hit a Yemeni wedding procession and killed a dozen or so civilians was one conducted by the Pentagon, not the CIA. The point Hirsh and others are making is that CIA is better at targeting their strikes so as to avoid civilian casualties.

But there are clear problems with this reasoning. Even if it’s accurate, we don’t have any way to confirm it since “No public data exist on the accuracy and reliability of the strikes launched by the CIA versus those by the Pentagon.” The supposed comparative advantage of the CIA in this respect is just something we’re supposed to take on faith.

But it’s actually more than faith because we have to ignore the facts that have come to light about countless CIA-run strikes and the civilians they killed. It’s like when John Brennan said publicly in 2011 that “in the last year ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral death” – a claim without any credibility.

A November exclusive at Foreign Policy by Gordon Lubold and Shane Harris gets to what I think is the real obstacle to the Obama administration’s promise to shift drones to DoD:

Keeping the drones with the CIA also offers legal cover for drone strikes, former officials argued. By law, the military is not supposed to conduct hostile actions outside a declared war zone, although special forces do so on occasion acting at the CIA’s behest.

One caveat to this is that Obama orders military operations in secret all over the world all the time. Special Operations Command operates in scores of countries without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people. But their missions and activities are secret and – to reluctantly cite Donald Rumsfeld – their activities are an unknown unknown. CIA drone strikes, on the other hand, have proven next to impossible to fully hide from the public and that extra attention would probably lead to pressure for the Obama administration to open up DoD drone strikes to transparency and accountability – something he can avoid if he keeps it with CIA.

Really, Obama is about six years late on his promise to close Gitmo; I don’t know why anybody is expecting him to keep this promise either.

The geopolitical tensions arising between China and its smaller neighbors are complex. There are ways to mitigate them and ways to exacerbate them. For the U.S., however, it’s a much simpler question. Considering the maritime and territorial disputes are none of our business, and we have no right to meddle in regional disputes half a world away, Washington simply has to renounce its claimed prerogative to dominate the Asia-Pacific and – voila! – we no longer have to concern our Air Force, Navy, Army, Special Operations forces, diplomats, and politicians with such parochial issues.

In anticipation of a number of talks he is scheduled to give in Tokyo next week, Noam Chomsky was interviewed on the regional tensions in the Asia-Pacific by the Japan Times. Here are some excerpts.

You arrive in Japan at a possibly defining moment: the government is preparing to launch a major challenge to the nation’s six-decade pacifist stance, arguing that it must be “more flexible” in responding to external threats; relations with China and Korea have turned toxic; and there is even talk of war. Should we be concerned?

We should most definitely be concerned. Instead of abandoning its pacifist stance, Japan should take pride in it as an inspiring model for the world, and should take the lead in upholding the goals of the United Nations “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The challenges in the region are real, but what is needed is steps toward political accommodation and establishing peaceful relations, not a return to policies that proved disastrous not so long ago.

How in concrete terms, though, can political accommodation be achieved? The historical precedents for the kind of situation we face in Asia — competing nationalisms; a rising undemocratic power with opaque military spending and something to prove in tandem with a declining power, increasingly fearful about what this means — are not good.

There is a real issue, but I think the question should be formulated a bit differently. Chinese military spending is carefully monitored by the United States. It is indeed growing, but it is a small fraction of U.S. expenditures, which are amplified by U.S. allies (China has none). China is indeed seeking to break out of the arc of containment in the Pacific that limits its control over the waters essential to its commerce and open access to the Pacific. That does set up possible conflicts, partly with regional powers that have their own interests, but mainly with the U.S., which of course would never even consider anything remotely comparable for itself and, furthermore, insists upon global control.

Although the U.S. is a “declining power,” and has been since the late 1940s, it still has no remote competitor as a hegemonic power. Its military spending virtually matches the rest of the world combined, and it is far more technologically advanced. No other country could dream of having a network of hundreds of military bases all over the world, nor of carrying out the world’s most expansive campaign of terror — and that is exactly what (President Barack) Obama’s drone assassination campaign is. And the U.S., of course, has a brutal record of aggression and subversion.

These are the essential conditions within which political accommodation should be sought. In concrete terms, China’s interests should be recognized along with those of others in the region. But there is no justification for accepting the domination of a global hegemon.

Continue reading “Reminder: ‘The US Is Surrounding China With Military Bases, Not Conversely’”

The international debate over what is happening in Ukraine is a partisan one. Some criticize Russia for nefariously seeking to keep Ukraine in its orbit. These folks denounce the Ukrainian government and security forces for their corruption and violence against protesters. Others accuse the West – the U.S. and the European Union – of meddling in internal Ukrainian affairs. These folks condemn the violent thugs in the street hurling rocks and starting fires.

Both partisan groups seem to be blind to the truth of their opposite counterparts. Partisans for Russia are blind to the fact that Russia is trying to keep Ukraine in its orbit, while partisans for the West refuse to see that Washington, et al. also see influence over Ukraine as a zero-sum realpolitik competition with Russia. Furthermore, the justification for both Russian and American interests in Ukraine seem to exist only because the other power is vying for influence, instead of some kind of vital interest in Ukraine in and of itself.

As an example, take former UN Ambassador John Bolton, a raving lunatic when it comes to foreign policy, if you ask me. He has been howling for weeks about Russian attempts to “reestablish hegemony over Ukraine,” arguing further that if Russia is successful, “the fate of the other Soviet republics won’t be far behind.” He even describes this as a “great power rivalry with Russia,” even while he is apparently blind to the fact that he is advocating the U.S. to adopt the same, or an even more aggressive, approach.

It’s worth reiterating how this snowball started. Masha Lipman at the New Yorker:

Until late last year, Yanukovych was negotiating an association agreement with Europe, but then he abruptly changed his mind. Loans from European and international organizations were available only with strings attached, dependent on the implementation of reforms that mandated more transparency and thus were bound to weaken Yanukovych’s grip on power. In the meantime, Russia was threatening to make things very hard for Ukraine if it opted for a rapprochement with the European Union—and those threats were very real. Putin was promising fifteen billion dollars on the condition that Ukraine stay away from Europe. Yanukovych opted for Russia, and this caused the first wave of street protests…

So yes, this is a case of both powers competing for influence and, in the meantime, letting the Ukraine unravel. As for the U.S., we know Washington has been working largely behind the scenes to, as Jacob Heilbrunn wrote at The National Interest, “install a [Ukrainian] government that it regards as appropriate.”

Continue reading “Interventionism in Ukraine: The Destructive Logic of Great Power Competition”

It’s true that the devil is in the details. It is especially true, though, with legislative budgets. I wrote earlier about the Pentagon’s suggestions for $45 billion in cuts to its own budget and how much of it targets the bloated benefits plans for members of the military.

Yay for cutting the defense budget. But the details are not so encouraging (as one would expect).

For example, “the Pentagon apparently still intends to retain 11 aircraft carriers, possibly cutting into modernization of the Navy’s surface combatant ships,” explains Cato’s Chris Preble. “As had been reported earlier, the venerable A-10 attack aircraft is going away, but the Pentagon remains committed to the troubled F-35.”

The proposal was reported as one that would shrink the U.S. army to pre-WWII levels. Needless to say, that is disingenuous. Yes, troop levels will go “from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000” to “between 440,000 and 450,000,” but other parts of the budget are getting a boost.

Sara Sorcher and Jordain Carney list “winners” and “losers” – or, those parts of the budget getting more money or staying the same versus those getting cut. Here are the winners:

Special-operations forces: The military’s elite special-operations forces, which burgeoned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were at the forefront of the U.S. fight against al-Qaida, will increase from their current level of roughly 66,000 service members to 69,700. This is one key example of how the military, even in more austere times, is trying to protect, as Hagel put it, “capabilities uniquely suited to the most likely missions of the future.”

Military retirement funds: While the Pentagon is offering some modest reforms to military benefits, overall, Pentagon officials have sworn off making changes to the military retirement system in next year’s budget—even though they want to curb its rapid growth that threatens to usurp other key priorities in a downsized defense budget.

After the quick—and bipartisan—backlash in Congress to a provision in December’s budget agreement that cut approximately $6 billion in military pensions, Pentagon officials made it clear they would wait to propose major changes until a commission makes its recommendations in February.

Bases: Hagel is calling for another round of base closures that could take place in 2017. The Pentagon desperately wants to get rid of its excess military bases and facilities. However, especially in an election year, the bases may escape unscathed—and Hagel knows it. “I am mindful that Congress has not agreed to our BRAC requests of the last two years,” Hagel said.

Navy cruiser fleet: Half of the Navy’s cruiser fleet is going to be “laid up”—put in the shipyard—to be upgraded. This in some ways is a work-around, since the Navy has previously tried to decommission some cruisers, instead of providing expensive overhauls, but Congress refused. The Pentagon’s proposal is a more creative way to save some money short-term, since the ships will not be operating—but these 11 cruisers will “eventually” be returned “to service with greater capability and a longer lifespan.”

Cybersecurity: Cyber spending—from cybersecurity to intelligence gathering and reconnaissance—will get a boost. Hagel said last week that the Pentagon is “adjusting our asset base and our new technology.”

The “losers” include cutting the Army’s force size, possibly closing bases in Europe, some military compensation, and some Air Force  weapons systems. Read their full report here.

The line coming from those resisting these relatively modest budget cuts is that it will weaken the United States and its position in the world. Actually, if the U.S.’s position in the world is what you’re worried about, then cutting defense should be priority number one. The U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on its military. And as Paul Kennedy wrote, “If…too large a portion of the state’s resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then that is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the longer term.”

The U.S. is getting to the point where it’s economy can’t go fast enough to keep up with the ever-expanding needs of the state.

After initially agreeing in principle to a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the deal. The White House had been scrambling to get an agreement signed by this month, but now U.S. officials have reportedly ceased all direct talks with Karzai on the issue.

In the meantime, the Obama administration is considering four different options for Afghanistan, as reported by Karen DeYoung at the Washington Post:

Under the 10,000-troop option, U.S. forces would remain in Kabul, Kandahar, Bagram and Jalalabad until the end of 2015, with 5,000 NATO and other international troops based in the northern and western parts of the country as part of a NATO mission called Resolute Support.

A second option would base a somewhat smaller number of U.S. troops in Kabul and Bagram until 2016, with authorization to travel across the country to train and advise Afghan forces as needed. Under the proposals, Option 1 could merge into Option 2, with the entire force scheduled to leave by the end of Obama’s term in office.

The 3,000 troops under Option 3 would be restricted to Kabul and Bagram, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about administration decision making. A portion of the existing Bagram air base ideally would be available for military drone operations, but troops would not travel across the country. It could not be determined how long the troops would remain.

The fourth and final option calls for a complete U.S. withdrawal, a prospect for which the White House sees little immediate political fallout. Washington Post polls have shown that a majority of Americans believe the war was not worth fighting — 66 percent in a December survey. A Gallup poll this month indicated that for the first time since the conflict began in 2001, the number of Americans who believe U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake is equal to the number who say it was not.

As I wrote last week, the Afghan war is lost and the blood and treasure spent has all been in vain. I would be somewhat surprised to see Obama take the fourth option, as he was forced to do in Iraq, and pull out completely. The president has, however, always been sensitive to the politics of his decisions and the fact that “the White House sees little immediate political fallout” to full withdrawal shouldn’t be dismissed.

I imagine if that option were taken, the administration would work to secure a base somewhere close by from which to conduct drone strikes, perhaps in Pakistan (the U.S. was thrown out of their drone base in Pakistan – Shamsi Airbase – in 2011). While the politics may allow for a full withdrawal, I doubt the administration sees a full withdrawal as similarly allowable on strategic grounds, although they should.

The Pentagon is planning cuts to the defense budget that are causing controversy on Capitol Hill, the New York Times reports.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

…The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans’ organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.

Such proposals always get the defense industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill reeling. The notion that big corporations manufacturing death machines will stop getting paid exorbitant amounts of taxpayer cash for weapons systems that military officials say they don’t even want or need is appalling to them, parasites that they are.

But, according to an NPR report this morning, “the part of the Pentagon’s plan that might get the sharpest reaction is the military’s suggestions for ways to reduce the growth in spending on pay and benefits.”

…Pentagon officials warn that those costs “are eating us alive.” The average annual cost of pay and benefits for each active duty member of the military, for instance, has risen from about $54,000 a decade ago to $110,000 now, he said. The costs of health insurance and other benefits for retirees are also soaring.

The bloated salaries and benefits for the military, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey, “will become a crisis.” One official told NPR that the Pentagon is essentially becoming “a benefits organization that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

In a 2012 piece for Foreign Policy, Rosa Brooks – whose husband is a career Army officer – lamented America’s “socialist military” and criticized the fact that “the average member of the military is paid better than 75 percent of civilian federal workers with comparable experience.” Members of the military and their families, she wrote, get “America’s most generous” and “arguably unsustainable” benefits programs.

As the spouse of a career Army officer, I’m stunned by the range of available benefits. Health care? Free! Groceries? Military commissaries save military families roughly 30 percent over shopping in civilian stores. Education benefits? Career personnel can expect the military to finance additional higher education, and the post-9/11 GI Bill provides up to 36 months of benefits to veterans, amounting, in effect, to full tuition and fees for four academic years. (The education benefit is also transferable to dependents.)

Housing? Free on base and subsidized off-base (the housing allowance goes up with family size: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Pensions? After 20 years of service, military personnel can retire and immediately begin to receive, at the ripe old age of 40 or so, an annual pension equal to half their salary — for the rest of their lives. Anyone who thinks socialism failed in America has never spent time on a military base.

Cutting expensive and unnecessary weapons systems cuts to the heart of the nuts and bolts of rent-seeking politics in Washington. But cutting veterans benefits becomes an emotional issue for people, and thus may be very difficult to get past Congress.

These benefits are inordinate, unfair, and unsustainable. Military service is endlessly praised as the ultimate sacrifice for the country. But when you strip away the propagandistic state doctrine, military service is simply a commitment to kill strangers on the orders of politicians in Washington. I can’t for the life of me figure out why that deserves such disproportionate financial benefits.