American Security Project

On Monday, March 31, The American Security Project hosted A Conversation with Dr. Aboulghar, moderated by BGen. Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) CEO, of the American Security Project.

Since the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, Egypt has faced numerous problems and Dr. Mohamed Aboulghar, founder and leader of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, has played a big role in combating these problems and shaping Egypt’s future.

During opening remarks, Cheney recalled his recent trip to Cairo and made note of the upcoming 2014 presidential elections to take place on May 26th and 27th, followed by parliamentary elections in either October or November.

“I personally believed that what you see a lot in the press is somewhat exaggerated and harps more on the negative and not the positive.” – Cheney

Dr. Aboulghar strongly believes the recent constitution, approved by the majority of Egyptians, is the best constitution in Egyptian history.

“It is not based purely on Islamic beliefs but on different groups presenting different sector in the society.” – Dr. Aboulghar

“39% of the people who have the right to vote came out and voted. This is by any measure the highest ever in the Egyptian history.” – Dr. Aboulghar

The most important point that Dr. Aboulghar stressed in relation to the recent elections, is the high voter turnout. While the most recent turnout represents only a seven percent increase from the 2012 referendum, it is symbol of change. In the 2012 referendum, a 32-percent turnout resulted from vigorous campaigning from the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists and secular groups. However, this year’s higher turnout did not include three major groups: the Muslim Brotherhood, big part of the Salafist and young people who disagrees with what is going on Egypt at the moment. This is important because it shows the shift to a more secular group voting. Dr. Aboulghar stresses that if large amount of people continue to be active in elections it will be hard for the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist to win a free election in Egypt.

“[The] parliamentary election, [in] my mind, is more important than the presidential election. This is the first time in Egyptian history that the parliament will be as strong as the president.”- Dr. Aboulghar

The new constitution presents a better balance of power between the parliament and president. Through the new constitution, the president cannot dissolve the parliament, appoint/dismiss appointments without the parliament consent and call for impeachment of the president with a 2/3 majority.

­Major problems that Egypt still face are in the economy, unemployment and major polarization. Dr. Aboulghar’s party, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, is based off European social democratic parties. His party believes in free market competition and taxation to generate governmental revenue that can provide public goods in education and health.

During the Q&A, one of the most recurring questions involved the media. Dr. Aboulghar stresses that after the 2011 Revolution the media has become more privatized and influential than the government owned press; however, no one media source is completely credible.

“In between this you have to be clever enough to know what is going on.” – Dr. Aboulghar

In the final remarks, Dr. Aboulghar spoke on the United States and Egyptian relationship. Aid is not the big issue at hand but rather confidence between the two nations. What the U.S. can do is provide security to Egypt and help them combat terrorism in the Sinai.

Gen. Stephen A. Cheney also stress that during his visit to Egypt, back in December, he felt completely safe and again stressed that the security situation in Egypt has b...

On Tuesday February 25, representatives of the American Security Project (ASP) visited San Francisco to discuss how climate change is affecting national security, and the livelihoods of people living in city and state of California.

Attending the event were Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) and Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.). Cheney is ASP’s CEO and was the Commanding General of Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot; Adams is currently an independent defense consultant and was a United States Military Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium.

The event was a public lunch discussion at the Marines’ Memorial Club & Hotel in downtown San Francisco. The generals spoke to an audience of over 30 people; including media, businesses, political staff, and foundations. As you will hear in the audio below, the crowd was active and engaged with the generals – asking in-depth questions about America’s national security, and where to go from here.

During the discussion, both Cheney and Adams touched on their military experiences and the way the armed services are already preparing for the events of climate change.

As they said, the climate we live in influences every aspect of everyday life – what you eat, where you live, how you make your living. Changes to that climate will have a direct impact on every one of us. At home, extreme weather presents a direct risk to U.S. homeland security by threatening energy, infrastructure, food production, and human lives.

Around the world, climate change will affect how American forces interact with allies and enemies. It will increase the demands on U.S. military personnel: we will see more humanitarian interventions, more peacekeeping, and there will be more conflicts to be drawn into. Resources spent on protecting U.S. interests at home and around the world from the threats of climate change are resources we cannot spend on other urgent needs, whether military or civilian.

They touched on how the drought in California has highlighted the threats at home. As they said, 90.2% of California is now in “severe drought” or worse, and more than 65% is “extreme drought” or worse. In 2013, San Francisco shattered a nearly century old record for lack of precipitation, experiencing only 5.59 inches, compared to the previous low of 9.00 inches set in 1917 (average is 23.65 inches). We know that farmers have been hit especially hard: nearly 600,000 acres of farmland in the Central Valley region will lay devoid of crops due to lack of water, and $11 billion will be lost in annual state revenue from agriculture in 2014.

The military is beginning to plan for the effects of climate change – and to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. Isn’t it time that our society does so as well? Our political leaders should be at least as active as our military.

For the full audio from the lunch discussion, click below:

Today, the American Security Project’s event, TTIP: A U.S. and European Perspective, brought together Peter Rashish, a Senior Advisor for Europe and Transatlantic Trade at the Transnational Strategy Group, and Paul Adamson, editor-in-chief of E!Sharp and Senior European Policy Advisor for Covington & Burling.  Far from being your typical free trade debate, the event took a more holistic perspective of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), covering everything from concerns over regulatory policy all the way to the US geoeconomic interests at stake with TTIP.

Rashish opened with a gloomy hypothetical scenario of a failed TTIP: China gains traction with its more state-dominated model of capitalism and trade liberalization; Foreign investment begins to take flight from Europe due to the continuing burden of high energy prices; and finally, the US and EU are forced to suffer the embarrassing symbolic defeat of their retreating role in global economic leadership.  While Rashish admitted to the embellishment of this crystal ball view, he nevertheless set up the theme that TTIP was much more than your typical 21st century free trade agreement.

While the lowering of tariffs even slightly between the world’s two largest economies would undoubtedly pose mutual economic gains, Rashish underlined that there was more to be gained through facilitating more efficient global supply chains, finding common ground on regulatory standards, and boosting US economic leverage internationally.

“TTIP is not a classical free trade agreement,” Adamson concurred.  “It’s about the meat and potatoes—it’s about regulatory convergence.”  Similar to the desire to converge rules of origin in TPP, TTIP stands as an opportunity to neaten regulatory standards between trading partners and boost trade and investment in the process.

With regard to the feasibility of passing TTIP, both Rashish and Adamson agreed that there was more common ground than realized between negotiators.  Rashish outlined the bipartisan support present in US Congress.  Adamson, meanwhile, explained how TTIP’s ostensible lack of transparency has been overstated by underlining the EU’s incorporation of new advisory committees that represent key public interests.

After departing from the event, one comes away seeing the many benefits of TTIP, as well as the political barriers that stand in its way.  These barriers are being propped up by the many common foes within the “anti-trade” coalition.  But to use Adamson’s words, “Cynics will be cynics.”  As both speakers have shown, it is vital for both the US and EU to overcome the obstacles in front of them in order to reap the much larger gains from a transatlantic partnership.

To listen to the complete event, see the entire video recording below or click on the audio link.

 

 

 

On Monday and Tuesday February 10 and 11, representatives of the American Security Project visited Pittsburgh and Southwestern Pennsylvania for a series of meetings, public events, and briefings on how climate change is affecting national security, and the security of people living in Pennsylvania.

Attending were Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) and Rear Admiral Dr. David Titley, USN (Ret.). Cheney is ASP’s CEO and Titley is the founding Director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk. Andrew Holland, ASP’s Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate participated as well.

The first event was an interview with Dr. Steven E. Sokol, President and CEO of the Pittsburgh World Affairs Council, at KQV AM radio’s studios. Sokol asked Cheney and Titley about how the expect climate change to impact national security, and why the military cares about the issue. They demonstrated the clear links between climate and national security. The interview is aired on KQV on March 22 and 23, 2014, and is available through KQV at “How’s the Weather? The Impacts of Global Climate Change on U.S. National Security.”

The evening of Monday, February 10, the ASP team drove outside of Pittsburgh to Washington, PA for an event at Washington and Jefferson University. After a dinner with the President of W&J and select students, Gen. Cheney and Adm. Titley presented to a public event of about 75 students, including a significant number of Army ROTC students. The event was sponsored by W&J’s Center for Energy Policy and Management. The Washington Observor-Reporter wrote a story about how “Climate Change is Presented as a National Security Threat.”

On Tuesday morning, after a series of off-the-record meetings, Andrew Holland broke off to conduct an interview with Pittsburgh’s NPR station, WESA 90.5 FM for “Essential Pittsburgh” with Paul Guggenheimer. They spoke about the impacts of climate change on national security and the threats to the Pittsburgh region, particularly focusing on extreme rain events and flooding. The entire interview is available.  Click here to Listen.

The team reconnected for a lunch event at the University of Pittsburgh, sponsored by the Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies. They spoke to a group of mostly graduate students about how to prepare for climate change as one of the many threats and challenges that they will face in their careers. Dr. Phil Williams (pictured), director of the Center, introduced the event. The students were particularly interested in asking “so what?” General Chenery offered that politicians and policy makers listen to their constituents. Admiral Titley noted that climate change is already affecting the planning of the Navy, and that will grow. The video of this event is available on YouTube

Today the American Security Project hosted an event titled, “Inside Aleppo: New Tools for Understanding the Syrian Conflict“, with Dr. David Kilcullen and Mr. Nate Rosenblatt of Caerus Associates, as well as Matt McNabb, CEO of First Mile Geo.

The event circulated around the crucial and timely findings on what may be the most detailed, publicly available assessment of the ongoing conflict in Syria to date. The findings were based on four months of in-depth, time-series research from within Aleppo; Syria’s largest, most diverse, and most economically relevant city.

The uniqueness of the report lies in its understanding of the complex dynamics occurring on the ground. This was made possible with the use of First Mile Geo’s highly innovative technologies leveraged for collecting, visualizing, and analyzing high-fidelity data that produced a rich-interactive picture of the humanitarian, security, and political crisis in Aleppo.

From the onset, Kilcullen stated the findings were not necessarily a prescription for policy-makers, but rather to provide an insightful description of the “humanitarian tragedy” from a hyper-localized-level. Often times, when policy-makers are confronted with a conflict, their theory drives data resulting in ill-advised planning, wasted resources, and a further exacerbation of the existing situation for local populations. Caerus’ method was to enable the data to drive the theory by avoiding general-claims of the conflict, and using locals on the ground in Aleppo to collect the information. The result was a more nuanced look at the diversity and flux of demographics, infrastructure, and food transit supplies, than previously noted in the press.

As the conflict in Syria grows more and more complex day-by-day, the impact of these findings on policy-makers are uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the method of collection, the analysis, and the sheer rigor for objectivity presented in the report by Caerus Associates may be a watershed moment in the field of conflict-resolution.

For the full report, click here: Mapping the Conflict in Aleppo, Syria

 

Click the podcast symbol for an audio recording of the event:

 

 

 

 

 

Today the American Security Project hosted an event titled, Defense Budget Issues for FY15: A Conversation with Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, moderated by BGen. Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) CEO, American Security Project

Since sequestration and passage of the new budget, the Defense Department has been adjusting to a reduced funding environment. Dr. Larry Korb, a Senior Fellow at The Center for American Progress specializing in the federal budget, military, and national security, discussed the outlook for Pentagon spending for FY2015.

During opening remarks, Cheney made note of the Administration’s upcoming 2015 budget request that will be sent to Congress on March 4th, as well as the Pentagon’s budget portion that will be previewed by Secretary Hagel on February 24th. He also mentioned that that the cap for FY2015 should be around 521 billion, give or take.

“There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that this amount is less than ideal in the Pentagon’s eyes. Reductions have to occur. The question is where and why.” – Cheney

Larry Korb has been covering federal budgetary issues since he wrote his dissertation in the late sixties.

“When it comes to defense, dollars are policy. If you don’t get the money, you can’t do it. Planning becomes irrelevant and operations impossible. It is very, very important that we do it and that we do it correctly.” – Korb

Korb also stressed that the decisions made now regarding the budget are going to have a profound impact for future administrations.

So where are we?

“The amount of money is really not a problem. I think all things considered, given our debt problems and everything else, the Pentagon has enough money.” – Korb 

OCO Account: Overseas Contingency Operations

Korb talked about the various areas you can apply the OCO funds, such as missile defense, or routine personnel cost.

According to him, last year’s OCO account hardly came down, but we cut the number of troops in Afghanistan by half. So all in all, in terms of money, we’re okay.

There are number of important decisions that have to be made when it comes to the defense budget.

Korb’s first point was nuclear weapons:

“We are on the threshold of having to modernize all the legs of the triad right now. The real question is do you want to stay within the New Start limits? Do you want to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines, a new bomber, and of course modernize your land based ICBMS?” – Korb

In regards to the cost of nuclear triad modernization, Korb noted that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at 360 billion dollars if it is done the way the various military services want it to be.

“In my view, I don’t think you need to do that. We could go down to 1,000 weapons right now. “ – Korb

The next issue he raised involved personnel and the balance between active and reserves. According to him, the primary key issue is the Army, as they are the most man power intensive of services with a height of 570,000 at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current target number to go down to is 490,000, but Korb said his personal view, given with how well the National Guard and Army Reserve performs, the number could be lowered to around 420,000.

He went on to address the concerns of risk involved with doing this.

“Is there a risk, yes there’s always a risk. You can’t buy perfect security. It’s a manageable risk. It’s hard to conceive us getting involved in a large land war anytime soon.  The fact of the matter is, the emphasis is on drones and Special Forces operations in terms of the way we are going...

On Tuesday, ASP Board Member Ambassador Don Beyer spoke on his experiences as Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Outlining the three roles of an ambassador as 1.) government to government diplomacy, 2.) economic statecraft, and 3.) public diplomacy, Beyer presented on a myriad of topics relevant to U.S. relations with Switzerland, ranging from the Iranian nuclear program to trade and business policy.

In discussing public diplomacy, Beyer broke the practice into three elements: listening, learning and leading.

To employ these elements, Beyer suggested taking the approach of a political campaign, breaking Switzerland down into its local political entities and applying a strategy become a presence in as many of these states and districts as possible.

During his remarks, Beyer made special emphasis of his efforts in listening, and seeking to build relationships and connections by decreasing the “degrees of separation” between himself and the Swiss people. This included visiting all 26 cantons (states), and making himself as accessible as possible: including being seen places you wouldn’t expect to see an American ambassador. Demonstrating his openness in Switzerland, Beyer hosted over 6000 visitors and more than 400 overnight guests at his home.

He also commented on the importance of learning, noting his concurrence with many foreign services officers that it was incredibly important for an ambassador to become the expert on the host country. That means knowing the culture, the history, and the language(s) of that country, as well as the subtleties of its political system.

Beyer also covered many lessons about Switzerland that he felt could be beneficial to the U.S. to better understand. This included, but was not limited to, policies related to passing a balanced budget, education spending, concordance politics, land use planning, farming, and business practices.

In leading public diplomacy efforts, Beyer contended that influence in public diplomacy comes through building relationships and being able to tell the American story. More effective at accomplishing strategic ends than simply advocating U.S. policy, Beyer felt that better explaining the intricacies of America’s story beyond its sometimes misleading outward appearance tends to help change minds. This includes the role of women in politics and business, immigration, American efforts to combat climate change, and more.

Additionally, Beyer spoke briefly on some of the institutional challenges that the foreign service and U.S. missions overseas face. For instance, the restrictions placed on building web content as a U.S. mission means that the U.S. reacts and produces content much more slowly than private industry. While this is improving, private industry has much more freedom to act promptly and readily than the U.S. Government. Of particular note, Beyer noted that the relatively short terms served by Ambassadors in-country tends to make building effective relationships difficult.

Overall, Ambassador Beyer presented a compelling and informative case about how Ambassadors are elemental to the practice of diplomacy, whether traditional or public. If you missed the event, please be sure to check the video, audio, and photos included below.

Video:

Audio:

 

 

 

Photos:

 

 

On Thursday, January 30th, ASP hosted Russell Rumbaugh, a senior associate at the Stimson Center and Director of its Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense program. He discussed the defense budget for fiscal year 2014 with ASP’s CEO Brigadier General Steve Cheney, along with numerous guests.

To open up, Cheney stated that, “one of our thoughts here at the American Security Project is that the budget is not always tailored to what our strategy is, and we think that it ought to be.”

In response, Rumbaugh talked about the importance of having these types of conversations together, and that by examining the different areas of the budget, we can figure out what people are saying it is doing, what we think it is doing, and how we can make it better.

“I think you can learn a lot from looking at the budgets, and they do matter to how we figure out what U.S policy is, both within the U.S. and abroad.” – Rumbaugh

He goes on to talk about that during the process of formulating the budget, there is a lot of “skewing” that takes place. “This is what leads to the difficulty of understanding what is going on with the budget and what the strategy is going to be.”

Rumbaugh believes that if the bipartisan budget act holds, and if the caps that are in place hold, the United States is going to settle out at significantly higher defense spending than any of the past defense budgets.  His estimates are that the defense budget will be around 480 billion as the low-point, which is 25% higher than the downturns we went through during the 50s, 70s, and the 90s; not to mention that this was during the Cold War.

Speaking in constant dollars, Rumbaugh explained:

“In the 50s, the lowest point of the defense budget was 373 billion, the 70s: 384 billion; and the nineties: 391 billion. None broke 400 billion. That seems pretty dramatic that while drawing the defense budget down, we are going to land at a spot a quarter higher than we used to land.” – Rumbaugh

However, he makes the point that this is not counting war costs, which is a separate budget within itself that does not count against spending caps. Although the war budget may go away when troops draw down from Afghanistan, it is unlikely since the U.S. has had a war budget since the Gulf War of 1991.

“If you add the war budget on top, we are looking at 50% above what our defense budgets were in the 50s, 70s, and 90s. Is this the post-Cold War world? Is this the War on Terrorism world? Is there a structural change and is there a strategic or geopolitical reason, or do we need to start sniffing around for more suspicious skewing reasons of why it is higher?” – Rumbaugh

So what’s in the defense budget?

Rumbaugh says that the first take-away has to be that this is “kind of a healthy defense budget.” What does healthy mean you might ask? –The term “healthy” refers to the current readiness of our military force. Readiness includes all military operations, maintenance, training, and people costs, such as travel. The ability to send our troops anywhere in the world at any given time is considered “readiness”.

He talks about how there is no question that personnel are the basis of all American military achievements. However, he goes on to say that “Military personnel spending as an aggregate has not changed that much.”

According to Rumbaugh, these numbers mean that military personnel are not consuming the defense budget. However, we have a lot less people. We used to keep about 3 million people in uniform in the eigh...

 

According to Brig. General Stephen Cheney, CEO of the American Security Project, “The science is proven, the engineering is not.”

That is how Wednesday, January 29, 2014’s ASP hosted event “Fusion: Update on the International ITER Project” was introduced. ITER is an international fusion research and engineering project which combines the resources and intellect of China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, United States, and the European Union. Fusion is the process that powers the Sun and allows for all life to exist. Scientists are currently seeking to harvest this incredible power according to the presentation by Dr. Ned Sauthoff.

Dr. Sauthoff, US ITER Project Director, gave an overview of the process of nuclear fusion and the history of man’s quest to exploit nuclear physics. He also detailed ITER’s origin, fabrication in ITER member countries and construction in Cadarache, France.

He began the presentation with the sun, the source of inspiration for nuclear fusion. The sun is rich with hydrogen the fuel for fission. It has a very high temperature, which is necessary for fusion to overcome natural repelling forces between positively charged nuclei. The sun also has a very strong gravitational field, which prevents the matter and reactants from escaping and allows for the energy produced from one reaction to keep the sun hot. It is this last aspect, confining the products and preventing energy from radiating away as waste, which has perplexed scientists attempting to create a “sun” on Earth. ITER hopes to solve this problem through a tokamak, a device which creates a super strong magnetic field, replicating how matter is restrained by the sun’s gravity.

Magnetic confinement fusion has not yet reached breakeven point (that is, producing as much fusion power as injected to keep the plasma hot). Fusion would have exceeded the breakeven point already, according to Dr. Sauthoff, if not for the lack of funding during the 1990s to build the next generation fusion device.

When fully developed, ITER expects to create 500 megawatts of power from fusion energy, ten times the amount of the 50 megawatts needed to heat the plasma.

Dr. Sauthoff emphasized that fusion is a clean power source and does not produce high-level radioactive waste nor can a fusion reactor “meltdown,” two of the biggest drawbacks often associated with nuclear fission power. In addition, it requires relatively little sources of fuel: “Whereas you have a hundred coal train cars pull up to a power plant every day, with fusion, you would need only two pounds of fuel to create the same amount of energy.”

The United States’ two biggest contributions to the ITER project are the Central Solenoid, a gigantic pulsed magnet that will control the plasma in the reactor, and the Cooling Water System which will exhaust the power. Additionally, the United States is contributing to the diagnostics system, because the US is a leader in controlling, measuring, and researching plasma, as well as other critical ITER systems.

Diplomatic representatives in attendance from the EU, Japan, China, India, and France expressed their country’s continued commitment and dedication to the project.

Audio, video, and pictures from the event are all available below.

Click below to listen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the American Security Project hosted an event titled “Energy Choices 2014 – The Choices We Face for a Strong & Secure America”, with speakers, Todd Foley, Senior VP of Policy and Government Relations, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Scott Peterson, Senior Vice President of Communication, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and David Wochner, Partner, K&L Gates.

In the opening comments, Andrew Holland, ASP’s senior fellow for Climate and Energy, suggested the history of energy transitions often occur abruptly, alluding to the current shale oil boom taking place in the United States. Holland pointed out the discussion regarding energy in the U.S. has managed to coast on choices that were made in the 1970s. The theme of the event circulated around this notion that an energy policy choice must be made if the U.S. is to move forward in the coming decade.

Speaking directly to this choice, Wochner stated that the U.S. must recognize the advantage they have in human capital and natural resources. The U.S. has the most robust inter- and intra- state pipeline infrastructure in the world. Production and the technical know-how are in place. The impediments are coming from the Department of Energy which is creating further uncertainty and delay in the market. For Wocher the concern was not regulation – as he suggested regulation is quite American – rather the inconsistency in regulation and the lack of certainty on U.S. energy policy.

You can find the full report here: America’s Energy Choices 2014

Foley suggested a similar point. As the trajectory of energy is highly dependent on policy from the government, the lag associated with policy formulation and market innovation creates gaps that “chill the market.” Foley pointed out despite the boom in natural gas in the U.S., the U.S. has become the “Saudi Arabia of renewable energy.” Therefore an increasing emphasis on diversity of supply is not only a pinnacle of energy security, but a viable long-term strategy for the climate.

Peterson posited a parallel point suggesting energy diversity is necessary for safeguarding the base load of energy output during supply shocks and additionally meeting climate goals. Alongside renewable energy and hydrocarbons, nuclear energy plays a substantial role in price stability and clean energy generation.

All three speakers were in consensus regarding the energy landscape in the United States. The discussion regarding what choices need to me made are influenced by the transformations we are seeing take place in the global energy market. To rejuvenate U.S. energy policy a discussion concerning energy security, economic stability and environmental sustainability must take place.

You can listen to or watch the event here: