- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
March 24, 2009
Exclusive: Two Months In, and it's Time for Action
The shortness of February notwithstanding, President Obama has now been in office for two months. During the election season, President Obama's popularity was based in large part upon a belief that his personal charisma, intelligence, and overall excellence would improve America's allegedly tarnished standing in the world. After eight years of the Bush Administration, the American electorate decided that it was time for America's domestic, economic, and foreign policies to shift in a new direction. Thus far, President Obama has made a great spectacle of reversing as many of President Bush's policies as possible, from a sleight of hand on the issue of stem cell research, to proposals for tax increases. With respect to foreign policy, what kind of progress has America made since Barack Obama was sworn in?
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is as good a place to start as any. Since President Obama took office, North Korea has begun preparations to launch a "satellite." However, many in the intelligence community believe this "satellite" to be a long range missile, likely a Taepodong 2 (AP, CNN, AFP). This allegedly includes the construction of a new underground fueling facility (AP, AFP) - a measure that would only be taken by a government dominated by exceptional paranoia, a government with something to hide, or both. When challenged, North Korea has asserted its sovereign right to launch missiles.
The missile issue is not the only posturing from the DPRK has undergone since the inauguration. There are also reports that the Yongbyon reactor that was disabled in 2008 has been replaced with a secret nuclear station. The North Korean government has released statements saying that it will consider any attempt to shoot its missiles down to be an "act of war" after warnings from both the United States and Japan that they would shoot any missile out of the sky if launched (AP, CNN). North Korea has also refused American aid shipments, and released angry statements protesting joint American/South Korean military exercises. Last week, North Korea detained two American journalists – or, according to some reports, kidnapped them from the Chinese side of the border. These can hardly be seen as anything less than aggressive tests directed at feeling out the new administration.
Speaking of China, America's most enigmatic rival has done its share of testing since President Obama took office. Several weeks ago, an unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance ship was harassed by multiple Chinese vessels in international waters – within an "exclusive economic zone," according to the Chinese government. The Chinese also claim that the American ship provoked the exchange, and the People's Liberation Army Navy has increased patrols in the area in question. The Chinese made a comparable move in Spring of 2001 by harassing a U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries signals reconnaissance, resulting in a collision that destroyed one Chinese fighter and forced the American aircraft to land at a Chinese air base (where the plane was painstakingly dissected by the Chinese government). President Bush refused to issue an apology, and pursued a diplomatic exchange that resulted in the return of the aircraft. If the Obama Administration has accomplished anything of the sort, it has been behind the proverbial curtain, giving the Chinese government a de facto diplomatic victory.
The controversial matter of climate change has also been a prominent pet issue for the Obama Administration, and those on both the right and the left have pointed out that China has eclipsed the United States as the most prolific source of atmospheric carbon in the world. In the wake of the international failure of the Kyoto Protocol, an expectation exists that no international agreement will succeed or even take hold without concessions from China and India, the two nations whose recent industrialization is causing the "dirtiest" pair of carbon footprints in the world. Last week, China absolved itself of responsibility when Li Gao, China's top climate negotiator, made it clear that carbon emissions from China's exports were the responsibility of the consumer, not the producer (BBC, AP, Guardian). This, too, should be seen as a Chinese test of the Obama Administration's mettle on issues that President Obama has claimed to be crucial for America's future.
A lesser-publicized source of consternation since President Obama took office is Syria. Syria has been relatively quiet since the inauguration, but a few poorly publicized developments call Syria's resolve to truly "come in from the cold" into question. The biggest piece of news is that International Atomic Energy Agency investigators have found both Uranium (BBC, AFP) and graphite at the alleged nuclear reactor that was bombed by the Israeli Air Force during Operation Orchard in September of 2007. The Obama Administration's only publicized response was to summon the Syrian ambassador to "discuss [their] concerns." Syria has allegedly built a missile facility on the bombed site (AP, CNN). And, according to Jane's Information Group, a private intelligence firm based in the United Kingdom, the Assad regime is developing a chemical weapons facility in northwest Syria. The Syrian government has rarely made a point of publicizing its illicit activities; however, the continuation of such activities after the inauguration of President Obama certainly fails to register as the actions of a nation that is inspired by either hope or fear to abandon aggression and intrigue.
Some of the more troubling developments since President Obama's inauguration have come from Russia, a former enemy, a short-term ally, and a likely current and future global rival. Russia's first big move after the inauguration was to allegedly pressure Kyrgyzstan to close the Manas Air Base, forcing a chaotic shift in American supply lines providing logistical support to the Afghan theater. Last week, Russia announced an ambitious re-armament plan (BBC, Guardian, Times, CNN). According to a Department of Defense spokesman, the American defense leadership is not worried about the move; and to be fair, Russia has made similar claims in the past few years, despite a decaying military industrial complex and few substantial innovations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, this announcement can be seen as a Russian challenge not only to President Obama, but also toward NATO. Always good for an interesting (if largely unsubstantial) contribution to the global discourse on current events, the BBC responded to the Russian re-armament announcement with a forum question: "Should Russia rearm?" Before it was removed by moderators, one of the more intentionally comedic responses by an obviously anonymous participant proved exceptionally poignant.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is as good a place to start as any. Since President Obama took office, North Korea has begun preparations to launch a "satellite." However, many in the intelligence community believe this "satellite" to be a long range missile, likely a Taepodong 2 (AP, CNN, AFP). This allegedly includes the construction of a new underground fueling facility (AP, AFP) - a measure that would only be taken by a government dominated by exceptional paranoia, a government with something to hide, or both. When challenged, North Korea has asserted its sovereign right to launch missiles.
The missile issue is not the only posturing from the DPRK has undergone since the inauguration. There are also reports that the Yongbyon reactor that was disabled in 2008 has been replaced with a secret nuclear station. The North Korean government has released statements saying that it will consider any attempt to shoot its missiles down to be an "act of war" after warnings from both the United States and Japan that they would shoot any missile out of the sky if launched (AP, CNN). North Korea has also refused American aid shipments, and released angry statements protesting joint American/South Korean military exercises. Last week, North Korea detained two American journalists – or, according to some reports, kidnapped them from the Chinese side of the border. These can hardly be seen as anything less than aggressive tests directed at feeling out the new administration.
Speaking of China, America's most enigmatic rival has done its share of testing since President Obama took office. Several weeks ago, an unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance ship was harassed by multiple Chinese vessels in international waters – within an "exclusive economic zone," according to the Chinese government. The Chinese also claim that the American ship provoked the exchange, and the People's Liberation Army Navy has increased patrols in the area in question. The Chinese made a comparable move in Spring of 2001 by harassing a U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries signals reconnaissance, resulting in a collision that destroyed one Chinese fighter and forced the American aircraft to land at a Chinese air base (where the plane was painstakingly dissected by the Chinese government). President Bush refused to issue an apology, and pursued a diplomatic exchange that resulted in the return of the aircraft. If the Obama Administration has accomplished anything of the sort, it has been behind the proverbial curtain, giving the Chinese government a de facto diplomatic victory.
The controversial matter of climate change has also been a prominent pet issue for the Obama Administration, and those on both the right and the left have pointed out that China has eclipsed the United States as the most prolific source of atmospheric carbon in the world. In the wake of the international failure of the Kyoto Protocol, an expectation exists that no international agreement will succeed or even take hold without concessions from China and India, the two nations whose recent industrialization is causing the "dirtiest" pair of carbon footprints in the world. Last week, China absolved itself of responsibility when Li Gao, China's top climate negotiator, made it clear that carbon emissions from China's exports were the responsibility of the consumer, not the producer (BBC, AP, Guardian). This, too, should be seen as a Chinese test of the Obama Administration's mettle on issues that President Obama has claimed to be crucial for America's future.
A lesser-publicized source of consternation since President Obama took office is Syria. Syria has been relatively quiet since the inauguration, but a few poorly publicized developments call Syria's resolve to truly "come in from the cold" into question. The biggest piece of news is that International Atomic Energy Agency investigators have found both Uranium (BBC, AFP) and graphite at the alleged nuclear reactor that was bombed by the Israeli Air Force during Operation Orchard in September of 2007. The Obama Administration's only publicized response was to summon the Syrian ambassador to "discuss [their] concerns." Syria has allegedly built a missile facility on the bombed site (AP, CNN). And, according to Jane's Information Group, a private intelligence firm based in the United Kingdom, the Assad regime is developing a chemical weapons facility in northwest Syria. The Syrian government has rarely made a point of publicizing its illicit activities; however, the continuation of such activities after the inauguration of President Obama certainly fails to register as the actions of a nation that is inspired by either hope or fear to abandon aggression and intrigue.
Some of the more troubling developments since President Obama's inauguration have come from Russia, a former enemy, a short-term ally, and a likely current and future global rival. Russia's first big move after the inauguration was to allegedly pressure Kyrgyzstan to close the Manas Air Base, forcing a chaotic shift in American supply lines providing logistical support to the Afghan theater. Last week, Russia announced an ambitious re-armament plan (BBC, Guardian, Times, CNN). According to a Department of Defense spokesman, the American defense leadership is not worried about the move; and to be fair, Russia has made similar claims in the past few years, despite a decaying military industrial complex and few substantial innovations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, this announcement can be seen as a Russian challenge not only to President Obama, but also toward NATO. Always good for an interesting (if largely unsubstantial) contribution to the global discourse on current events, the BBC responded to the Russian re-armament announcement with a forum question: "Should Russia rearm?" Before it was removed by moderators, one of the more intentionally comedic responses by an obviously anonymous participant proved exceptionally poignant.
Rebuilding the military is a great way to economic recovery. Just look at history.
- Adolf, Berlin, Germany
- Adolf, Berlin, Germany
The rearmament scheme may be the most public of Russia's latest moves, but it is certainly not the only one. In early February, Russia announced the creation of a new military collective - a collective that FSM contributor Dr. Robin McFee points out to be a direct challenger to NATO. Russia has also consolidated its August attack on Georgia by re-establishing its air base in Abkhazia, and the Russian government is seeking to establish a new naval base on the Black Sea. Meanwhile, Russian aircraft have been making a point in recent months of overflying U.S. Navy ships. According to some sources, Russian power is at its greatest height since the Soviet collapse. These moves by Russia represent the posturing of a nation emboldened by a belief that America's new leadership lacks the will to apply effective pressure to stop them. Thus far, the Obama Administration's most prominent attempt at influencing Russian policy is to offer to abandon the missile defense system in exchange for Russian assistance with Iran - a big card to throw down on the table when the Russians hold most of the chips in that particular game, and have never shown any real inclination to do anything of the sort.
Speaking of Iran, the Iranian government has used President Obama's first two months in office to make a concerted effort at advancing its war machine. In early February, Iran launched its first satellite - a development that undoubtedly had a much greater military impact than scientific or economic. Iran has also claimed that it possesses a missile capable of reaching Israel's nuclear facilities. Analysts now claim that Iran has enough fissile material to build an atomic bomb, and that Iranian scientists are ready to do so, despite IAEA claims that Iran has slowed Uranium enrichment. In late February, Iran ran a preliminary test of the Bushehr reactor.
President Obama's only major attempt at influencing Iranian policy has been a video message to the Iranian leaders – a message that was almost immediately rebuffed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ayatollah Khamenei had recently stated that he perceived President Obama to be "on [the] wrong path." Indeed, shortwave radio listeners to Iran's Voice of Justice radio program, or the English service of Radio Havana Cuba, will have noted that the very regimes that President Obama claimed to be able to make diplomatic progress with were lambasting and criticizing him almost immediately upon his arrival in the Oval Office - not to mention that al Qaeda is got an early start themselves. While those who expected an immediate shift in the attitudes of these hostile regimes upon the retirement of President Bush were obviously naive to believe in such instantaneous results, those who supported President Obama's candidacy certainly should not have expected the situation with both Iran and these other nations to deteriorate with such immediacy.
The most disconcerting situation with respect to President Obama's foreign policy may come from his treatment of Afghanistan. Although the word "surge" has certainly gotten old since it became a buzz phrase in early 2007, the surge strategy of providing overwhelming numbers of troops in order to bolster security within communities, thus allowing infrastructure and commercial projects to progress, thereby eliminating the social and economic problems that lead a local community to support an insurgency, worked in Iraq. Anbar province in particular, which had at one point turned into Iraq's version of Taliban Afghanistan, is a case study in how to eliminate an insurgent enemy. American and coalition generals charged with winning the fight in Afghanistan have been advocating such a strategy for at least a year now, coupled with a campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and staging areas in Pakistan. Indeed, generals from around the NATO table have been complaining for years - literally, years - that there are not enough troops to secure the trouble spots, and many of those troops are prevented by their home countries from engaging in combat operations. President Obama's electoral success was based in large part upon a claim, erroneous though it may be, that his political allies have been pushing for years: that Iraq was a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan.
So, what of President Obama's strategy? Much has been made of his careful consideration of that new strategy (BBC, AFP). President Obama finally committed seventeen thousand troops in late February (Guardian, Times), despite calls for at least thirty thousand from various generals with experience in the Afghan theater. President Obama has also called for talks with so-called "moderate" Taliban elements - the existence of which has been thoroughly debunked. Furthermore, even those who advocate a pure diplomatic solution must realize that such negotiations are possible only when one has exceptional leverage with which to bargain - and the Taliban are currently winning the waiting game against the coalition, meaning that any negotiations at present would occur at the Taliban's mercy.
Despite signs in both Afghanistan and Pakistan that the local populace has no desire to live under Taliban rule, polls indicate that the Afghan people continue to lose confidence in NATO/coalition forces (BBC, Guardian). While this might seem like a minor setback on the surface, experts in counterinsurgency operations know that this lack of confidence can become a critical vulnerability if it prevents the Afghan people from providing the valuable intelligence needed to defeat the Taliban. The Afghans have a long history of siding with whichever side they think is more likely to win, and if they fear that a lack of resolve will result in an eventual premature withdrawal by multi-national forces, their allegiance could very well swing back to the Taliban out of pragmatic necessity. If a lack of public resolve translates into a lack of progress in securing and rebuilding the country, President Obama's unwillingness to make an unequivocal commitment to stay the course in Afghanistan could very well result in America losing the war in Afghanistan for lack of resolve, and not for lack of true capacity to win. No prose has expressed this better than a recent joint submission to the Washington Post by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman that questions President Obama's moves on Afghanistan since taking office, and recommends a new trail for Obama to blaze.
President Obama's bizarre security policies don't stop with the lackluster response to the war in Afghanistan. He has also indicated a desire to cut costly military programs (AFP, AFP), and his desire to terminate the Bush-era practice of funding defense expenditures through the supplemental funding process means that even though the Obama Administration will appear on paper to be increasing defense funding, the proposed policies will amount to an overall cut in military spending. Lest anyone forget, much of the discretionary and supplemental military funding that occurred during the Bush Administration was aimed at digging the Department of Defense out of a hole that the Clinton Administration left by cutting both programs and troop levels. Under the Obama Administration's current course, the United States will be under a very real risk of facing national and international security challenges without sufficient funding. Streamlining the defense acquisition process and ensuring that American taxpayers receive a good return on their investment is, of course, very important; however, the likelihood that this funding strategy will fix the recent turmoil in defense acquisitions while continuing to sufficiently fund the Department of Defense is questionable at best.
This is to say nothing of the fact that the only federal agency to receive an unequivocal cut in projected funding during the coming presidential term is the Department of Homeland Security. President Obama has criticized President Bush repeatedly – and perhaps with some justification - for using rhetoric that compelled a sense of fear in the American public. However, can one really expect Americans to move from fearing terrorists and other threats to American security, to facing such threats with a calm and confident resolve, if the very agency that unites America's domestic protectors becomes the one federal department that the President of the United States wants to shrink?
Another questionable issue is the projected closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This detention facility was controversial throughout its existence under the Bush Administration, and President Obama's reticence to continue its operation is understandable. However, recent reports of former Gitmo detainees returning to terrorism have only added to numerous similar reports of this phenomenon over the last several years. A prominent example of this trend was noted in recent media articles that highlighted the reappearance of former Gitmo detainee Abdullah Ghulam Rasul (now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir) as a Taliban operations commander (AP, BBC, Guardian, Times). Even more egregious is the claim by Attorney General Eric Holder that a number of Chinese Uighar detainees, whose turnover to the Chinese government was prevented by an American court due to fears that they might be tortured, could be released in the United States. Holder's claim that this is only one of a number of options being considered is little consolation. President Obama may wish to get Gitmo off the proverbial radar, but he and his officials have yet to enumerate a coherent strategy for dealing with hundreds of detainees who not only forfeited legal rights by violating the internationally recognized Geneva Conventions, but who are more than likely destined to return to terrorism if released.
Even the diplomatic front has proven difficult for the Obama Administration. First came a family-wide gaffe with the British Prime Minister and his wife, in which the First Lady presented gifts to Sarah Brown for the Brown boys that had almost certainly been purchased by a staffer at the White House gift shop, and President Obama presented Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a set of American movies on DVD that were not only a lackluster gift to the leader of America's closest ally, but that weren't even playable on a European DVD player.
Alluding to another Obama Administration gaffe, independent journalist Michael Totten pointed out that maybe America needs a reset button for the United Kingdom. This referred, of course, to Secretary of State Clinton presenting a "Reset" button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov – only, instead of reading "Reset" in Russian (which would have been coy), the translator had instead supplied the Russian translation for "Overloaded" or "Overcharged" (which was awkward). Although Lavrov was gracious about the mistake, and Sen. Clinton can not be personally blamed for the gaffe, this is yet another misstep by the Obama Administration when working on important foreign policy matters. And let's not even get into the teleprompter incident with Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen. In point of fact, one would be hard pressed to conjure a single memory in the two month duration of the Obama Administration's diplomatic record that hasn't resulted in a noteworthy gaffe or misstep.
The purpose of this article is not necessarily to lambaste President Obama, the First Lady, Secretary of State Clinton, or even Attorney General Holder. Its purpose is to point out that while President Obama is picking basketball brackets on ESPN, hanging out with Jay Leno, or going on vacation in Chicago, things are happening around the world that have a profound impact on the security and economic interests of the United States, America's current allies, and America's potential allies.
President Obama and his supporters made it clear during the election that he was capable of leading and succeeding as soon as his hand came off that Bible on that cold day in January. A period of adjustment is to be expected for any president. However, the Presidency is serious business, and Barack Obama has yet to demonstrate a mature outlook and capacity to do what is necessary to keep this nation safe, to protect and advance America's interests worldwide, and to confront those who would see these missions derailed. The campaign is over, the time for adjustment and jitters has passed, and it is long past time that President Obama and his officials begin to address these serious issues with a sense of urgency.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
