American Security Project

On Wednesday afternoon, the American Security Project hosted James KitfieldSenior Correspondent for the National Journal. Mr. Kitfield came to ASP to talk about National Security in an Era of Global Upheval.

You can listen to the event here.

Kitfield said he came out to do a little “strategic free-association,” in which he wanted to look at the “big picture” for national security, talking about the areas he thinks propose the biggest security risks.

He opened by comparing the security situation of the US today, to the situation we were in at the time of the battle of Gettysburg.

The fate of the Civil War, and the nation, Kitfield noted, hung on the decisions of the generals at the time. He thinks that history will judge our period in much the same fashion, with the surges, and more importantly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as forming the templates for how American security will be defined now and in the future.

“Wars matter,” Kitfield said, “because they chart the rise and descent of nations.”

But it is not just wars that matter. Kitfield pointed to a string of other factors that have contributed to the world we know today:

–          The rise of the BRICs count       A post Cold War world that saw our defense budget continue to skyrocket

Kitfield pointed out that security threats are not only multiplying, but changing rapidly in their dimensions. “Asymmetric threats and insurgency” are the factors leading to “CIA drone strikes, which I think, are the model of the future.”

He went on to state that he thinks periods of steep draw-down, like we are planning post-Iraq and Afghanistan, are things that our policy makers historically get wrong.  

He suggested that the partisan gridlock policy makers are engaged in now, in the face of “sequestration” and the “fiscal cliff,” is a dangerous security situation.

Kitfield stated that this gridlock, coupled with a “transformative, unsettled” world make threat assessments very difficult.

He outlined three strategies that the US could be engaged in, yet he thinks all possess certain amounts of risk. Kitfield calls his first strategy “grand strategy lite” where the US continues its soft power usage in its pivot away from Europe towards Asia.

He cited cutting of 100,000 ground forces, to a level not seen since before 2001, as a key part of this strategy. Again, he touted the increased use of the CIA’s drone program and Special Forces, where Libya is the template of how to deal with second order security threats.

The second strategy he outlines is “retrenchment and restore.” This basically advocates nation building at home, and helping our allies learn to fight their own battles. He points to security force training in Iraq and Afghanistan as a “Vietnamization” of those conflicts.

The last one he talks about is a strategy of managing decline. Here, Syria is the template in which we have not wanted to enter into another Middle East war. And, with our influence in the region flagging, this strategy announced that we are no longer the “indispensable nation” in the world.

Our overall strategy has to balance risk with resources, something he notes we have lost practice with. He goes on to say that it’s not about doing more with less, “it’s about doing less with less.”

John Isaacs joined ASP to discuss nuclear amendments in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act currently up for debate in the Senate.

A number of amendments proposed by members of Congress would impact U.S. nuclear programs and strategy. Proposal topics include U.S.-Russia negotiations, East Coast missile defense, and plutonium pit production.

 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

 

Featuring:

John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

Moderated by:

Terri Lodge, ASP Director of Nuclear Security

 

Today, the American Security Project released a major publication, “The Climate Security Report,” which clearly connects the dots between climate change and national security. The report was launched at an event this morning, held at ASP, featuring retired military officers: Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier General Steven Anderson, US Army (Ret.); CEO of American Security Project Brigadier General Steve Cheney, USMC (Ret.); and Andrew Holland, Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate at ASP.

Click here to listen to audio of the event

 

 

Gen. Christman began by discussing the threat of climate change to America’s domestic security. Noting that other nations around the world, notably the Netherlands, made a national commitment decades ago to guard against rising sea levels. In the case of the United States, we have only reacted to extreme weather events, instead of planning for them.  The federal government rebuilt the New Orleans levee system at a cost of $14 billion only after the region experienced the worst disaster in its history.

Many critics often cite the fact that planning for climate change will be costly, but Andrew Holland notes that not addressing the threats of climate change is penny wise and pound foolish. Sure, we will save some money by doing nothing in the short-term, but the national security threat of climate change will only grow over, costing significantly more than preventive measures in the first place. Rising sea levels, drought, severe storms, floods, and altered agricultural production threaten not only the American economy, but its infrastructure, its people, and its security.

General Anderson also discussed the stress that climate change puts on American military readiness. Just this past weekend the northeast experienced the strongest storm on record, inundating several states, flooding lower Manhattan, crippling roads, bridges and subways, and killing at least 82 people.  In response, thousands of National Guard forces were mobilized to provide relief efforts – providing water, fuel and rescue. Gen. Anderson noted that while that was obviously the right thing to do, these forces will be increasingly burdened with climate change and responses to it. This has a negative “operational impacts” on our armed forces – additional burdens that sap the military of money, manpower, and other logistical resources.

Gen. Anderson also went on to discuss the physical damages resulting from climate change. A National Intelligence Council report in 2008 declared that more than 30 U.S. military installations around the world are at risk due to climate change. Rising sea levels, severe storms, coastal erosion are some of the impacts that undermine the security of these military bases. ASP goes into detail on this important issue in a fact sheet, which you can find here. Some of the most threatened bases are: Diego Garcia, an important logistics hub in the Indian Ocean; Guam, a logistics hub in the Pacific; Bahrain, an important base in the Persian Gulf; and several others.

Lastly, why now? Why would ASP do a report on climate change now? The literature on the connection between national security and climate change is not new.  However, the national security impacts of climate change, while hitherto discussed as future problems,

Governor Christine Todd Whitman on Hurricane Sandy

 

 

On October 30th, ASP Board member, former Administrator of the EPA, and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman was interviewed about Hurricane Sandy on CNBC. In that interview she discussed her admiration for the government’s pre-impact preparations, dealing with changing weather patterns, and the importance of treating climate change as a real national security concern.

When asked about how Hurricane Sandy might alter the climate change debate, Governor Whitman responded:

Whether you think humans cause it or not, you can certainly say that human activity is exacerbating a natural trend… we know that the earth has been changing since it was formed, and if there’s anything that we can do to slow it down or to better prepare… this has national security implications for us, too, the way things are changing. We need to take it seriously

ASP’s stance on climate change is that increasingly large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are transforming the global climate, and that there is compelling evidence that current trends are both unprecedented and man-made.

We are aware that the earth is warming and that each decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the last. According to climate scientists, this warming trend will continue and it will most likely accelerate. This rise in temperature will result in worsening flooding, the raising of ocean levels, disruptions in trade routes and agricultural production, increased political instability, and changing weather patterns. In fact, there is some evidence that Hurricane Sandy’s intensity and path can be linked to man-made climate change.

As a result of climate change, natural disasters (like Sandy) are expected to increase, further threatening America’s security, economy, and infrastructure. Soon, as Governor Whitman warned, Americans may not be able to build homes in certain areas due to the risk of flooding and inclement weather.

On November 1, ASP is releasing the 2012 Climate Security Report, which will feature a discussion involving Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier General Steven Anderson, US Army (Ret.); and CEO of American Security Project Brigadier General Steve Cheney, USMC (Ret.). Come join us, as we discuss how climate change will affect peace and security around the world, what climate change means for the security of the U.S. homeland, and how it will affect U.S. military installations both at home and abroad.

Governor Whitman also did a conference call with reporters today to discuss the importance of ASP’s Climate Security Report. You can find the audio of that call by clicking here.

 

Links:

Pay Now, Pay Later: A State-by-State Assessment of the Costs of Climate Change

ASP’s Climate Change Page

Critical Energy Choices for the Next Administration Report

The American Security Project hosted a roundtable discussion on Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and prospects for the nation’s future following the 2014 withdrawal of US and NATO forces.  The event, moderated by ASP Fellow Joshua Foust , brought together three counterinsurgency experts: Matt Freear, Nick Lockwood, and David H. Young for a substantive discussion on the successes and failures of US-NATO strategy in Afghanistan, and what can be expected in the short-term for the nation.

Matt Freear, drawing on his experiences in Helmand Province, stressed that the US has learned a great deal in Afghanistan at the technical level, but has yet to apply this understanding at the strategic level in a manner consistent with realistic expectations.  Citing the direction of the public debate on Afghanistan, Freear noted that a critical challenge the US faces is maintaining the support of both the American and Afghan people.  Concerns about civil war and governmental collapse following the 2014 exit are valid, and there is a clear need to “build governance over government” in order to empower institutions over personalities.

Despite the fast-approaching exit date and significant challenges still facing Afghanistan, Freear remained cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the war.  However, he stressed, it is critical that the US elevate its understanding of the conflict from the technical to the strategic level and learn that there are “very real parameters” to what can be achieved in a specific environment.

Having worked in both counternarcotics and on reintegration of the Taliban into the Afghan government, Nick Lockwood presented a sobering outlook for Afghanistan’s future.  Lockwood asserted that counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would have been a good idea, but remained unsure whether such a strategy was actually implemented.  Drawing extensively from his own experiences in Helmand, he noted US institutions are designed to converse with elites and not the general population, as is required by counterinsurgency strategy.  There has been too much focus on development initiatives and not enough on achieving security.  Consequently, one sees that, in particular, rural areas of Afghanistan are presented with a choice between self or local governance or Taliban governance, as opposed to a central authority.

Additionally, Lockwood explained that 60-90% of Afghanistan’s finances come from the US, raising the question: what happens when US forces withdraw in 2014?  Like Freear, Lockwood expressed concern for how long US domestic support for efforts in Afghanistan can be sustained, noting that when the money for Afghanistan dries up, the country ability to function will be hindered.

David Young stressed that ultimately, everything in Afghanistan is done on a local level, including security.  Prior to the war, Afghanistan relied heavily on local militias to maintain security and provide justice.  However, when the US and NATO initiated large-scale, highly organized operations in Afghanistan, these militias disbanded, having found greater financial benefit in joining the government or securing contracts.  Looking ahead to 2014, Young foresees a return to local security forces with the possibility of civil war in the East and South of the nation, instigated by Kabul in an effort to keep the conflicts from entering major population centers.

Initially noting that counterinsurgency has become a “dirty word” over the last several months, Foust reiterated the panel’s opinion that securing Afghanistan remains a preeminent challenge as the war draws to ...

Click here to listen to this event.

 

The last U.S. nuclear test took place September 26, 1992 – over twenty years ago. Since then, the United States has ensured the safety and security of nuclear arsenal in a variety of ways, including a vigorous stockpile stewardship program, life extension programs, and advanced simulation and computing.

Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller recently joined the American Security Project for an event marking the twentieth anniversary of the last U.S. nuclear test.

As explained in a recent ASP Fact Sheet, CTBT ratification would enhance U.S. national security interests by deterring potential proliferators and maintaining a vigorous verification and monitoring regime, while allowing the U.S. to maintain a robust nuclear force.

Undersecretary Gottemoeller highlighted “the Treaty’s robust verification regime, which supplements our own state-of-the-art capabilities for monitoring, our national technical means.”

These verification techniques “will severely challenge any state trying to conduct militarily significant explosive nuclear tests that escape detection,” Undersecretary Gottemoeller noted, going on to describe “the added burden that this treaty, when in force, will place on a country attempting to cheat. They will face onsite inspections; they will face the full force of the CTBT verification regime.”

“It really, really ups the level of uncertainty for any country that is considering cheating,” the Undersecretary added.

While making the case for U.S. ratification, Undersecretary Gottemoeller also emphasized the role of other nations in CTBT entry into force.

“Don’t sit on your hands and wait for the United States,” Undersecretary Gottemoeller said. “When the United States ratifies the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it will drive progress forward…The United States lends special momentum, but we’re not the only ones. All states, as they participate in ratification efforts, drive this process forward.”

For the U.S., CTBT ratification “will be a difficult task on many levels,” Undersecretary Gottemoeller said, adding that the administration is “nonetheless committed to moving this Treaty forward, since the national security of the United States, and all states, will be enhanced when CTBT enters into force.”

Acting Undersecretary Gottemoeller, who was recently nominated to officially assume the post,

This morning on Capitol Hill, The American Security Project, along with the American Geophysical Union, co-hosted an event entitled Science Supporting National Security. The event was made possible with the support of House members Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Judy Biggert (R-IL).

Click here to listen!

Panelists included former military commanders and representatives from the defense industrial/research base. Lt. General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.) addressed how military innovation has led to technological advances in civilian society. Dr. Wendy Roberta Cieslak, Principal Program Director for Nuclear Weapons Science & Technology at Sandia National Laboratories, discussed increasing nuclear weapon reliability and safety through a stockpile stewardship program. Mike Dudzick, Vice President of Science and Technology at Lockheed Martin spoke about the need for industry to use research and development to anticipate and deliver innovative products for national security missions. Finally, Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.) discussed the importance of an aligned strategy between public and private partners to address emerging threats stemming from globalization.

Topics of discussion included nuclear weapons upgrades, fusion energy, public/private partnerships, STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education programs, the current budgetary environment, and the continued importance of R&D for national security. Despite their diverse backgrounds, the panelists agreed that the country must sustain a commitment to science and technology in order to maintain America’s capabilities advantage over potential adversaries and fuel a robust economy.

Click here to listen!

 

 

 

Today marks 11 years since the terrible events of september 11 2001.

In the last eleven years we have seen U.S. military operations – big and small – all over the world. It’s clear that the 2001 leadership of al-Qaeda has been broken or killed.

But where does this leave America now?

Where are we with the struggle against al-Qaeda? and what if anything do we need to change?

Click Here to Listen

Featuring:

BGen Stephen A.  Cheney USMC (Ret.) –  ASP’s CEO and retired Marine Corp Brigadier General

Joshua Foust – a Fellow at ASP specializing in asymmetric operations

and

Matthew Wallin – a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in public diplomacy

 

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN

Listen to other podcasts :

Public Diplomacy and National Security

Afghanistan and the US Response

The changing climate and its implications for our nation security

America and Central Asia

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development

Energy Choices, Climate Change and CAFE Fuel Standards

The American Security Project hosted a roundtable discussion about the strategic framework and effects of U.S. drones policy.  The discussion, moderated by ASP Fellow Joshua Foust, included three noted counterterrorism experts: Aaron Zelin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Will McCants of CNA and Johns Hopkins’ SAIS, and Christine Fair of Georgetown University.

Audio from this event is available here

The standing room-only event provided a forum for a candid and fact-based discussion of current US drone programs and their effects in target environments.   Foust introduced the discussion as one focused on the “big picture” of drone policy that has developed over time, noting that much of the current discourse has eschewed strategic concerns in preference for tactical concerns.

The discussion highlighted the challenges in determining the effects of current US drone programs in the absence of quality empirical data as well as the need for strategic discussion.  Throughout the discussion, it was a common refrain that those who were more familiar with drones – whether through official channels or as a consequence of a first-hand experience of a strike – were generally less hostile to their presence and use.

Christine Fair spoke on the use of drones in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, where the unique environment preferences drones above other policies and tactics.  Within FATA, there are three specific groups with which the US must contend: enemies in common with Pakistan, allies of Pakistan who are enemies of the US, and militant enemies of Pakistan that are of little strategic interest to the US.  As a result, Pakistan will cooperate with the US on some targets, while undermining joint efforts on others.

In speaking on the lack of empirical data on drone strikes, Fair said that in data collection and analysis, one must remain cognizant of the question of who is the US trying to kill, the influence of “circular reportage” and “social desirability bias” on data availability and quality, and the need for confirmations of deaths through burials or proof of existence.  Ultimately, Fair noted, this data is needed to determine the efficacy of US drone programs, but it is consistently “obfuscated” on official levels in both the US and in Pakistan.

Will McCants suggested understanding the use of drones in counterterrorism requires one to consider how current US drone programs evolved.  Referring to a specific event in 2000, McCants mentioned how unarmed Predator drone conducting surveillance observed a figure suspected to be Osama bin Laden walking around a property.  The President was advised it would be six hours before a missile could be placed within strike distance.  Furthermore, it was believed children could be present in the area.  Any opportunity to conduct the strike quickly passed.

McCants marked this event as a precursor to equipping of drones with lethal force; the attacks of September 11, 2001, “changed the calculus” in defense strategy by reinforcing and accelerating efforts to this end.  Now, the US is faced with four increasingly difficult questions in evaluating the strategic use and effects of drones:

* Do drone strikes drain US resources moreso than other policy options?

* Do drone strikes reduce the threat of a large-scale attack on the homeland that would result in unbalanced policy?

* Are drone strikes empowering terrorists in recruitment efforts?

* Are drone strikes breeding future anti-American sentiments?

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

 

Today the American Security Project hosted Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce, who spoke on American competitiveness, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the indivisible relationship between economic strength & national security. Donohue gave his views on how the United States can strengthen its economy to bolster national security, focusing mainly energy production as the answer.

He explained the link of national security and the economy:

“If you don’t have one, you can’t have the other… It’s simple as this: we need prosperity to pay for security and without security we can’t have prosperity.”

The lack of substantial growth in the American economy is bringing American economic preeminence and world power status into question, he said. To that end, there needs to be a linkage of economics and diplomacy, which he praised Secretary Clinton for doing at the State Department.

“Economic statecraft recognizes that we have to advance our global leadership at a time where power is more often measured and exercised in economic terms.”

Donohue began highlighting the ways he thinks the US can strengthen the economy by saying:

“Economic growth can’t be generated without the private sector and the private sector cannot generate economic growth without realistic policies from government that support business and job creation.”

He then detailed specifics starting with ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty as “one of the really important things our government can do to bolster our economy, enhance our national security, and to reassert our global leadership.” He continued by listings the vast benefits for both the US economy and national security, echoing his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and op-eds. The US is losing out on economic opportunities and will not have a say in maritime laws if its not ratified.

Donohue emphasized the importance of ensuring safe passage in shipping lanes as another critical reason for ratification because seafaring vessels transport more than 95% of all the goods in and out of the US.

In response to those who are against the treaty, despite all the problems the US had with it being fixed in 1994, Donohue said:

“So if we want to be isolationists, if we want everybody else to have to have the opportunity to deal in these issues without us then maybe we’re doing the right thing. But I don’t think so.”

When asked if businesses have a problem with being a part of an international regulatory body, Donohue replied:

“Across the board businesses large and small want to do this deal.”

In response to a question on whether or not the Law of the Sea Treaty is dead, as there are now enough votes against it in the Senate to block ratification, he said: “It’s just a temporary inconvenience.”

Donohue highlighted the importance of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a way to boost domestic energy production by giving businesses the legal certainty then need to invest in offshore drilling.

“Developing energy off our coasts would have huge economic and national security benefits to us and so would developing our onshore resources and strengthening our infrastructure and we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.”

Donohue stressed that “energy underpins a robust economy” and that currently the US isn’t utilizing its resources it has because they are in federal lands that are off limits. He advocated unlocking these lands, some 86% of offshore lands and 80% of onshore, and taking an inclusive, “all of the above approach” to the means of energy production.

However, he continued, the other half of the energy security puzzle is the ability to maintain the energy infrastructure. He pointed out the vulnerability of the current US ele...