The Big Question: How is Obama doing on national security?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.




Today's question:

How is the Obama administration handling national security?

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

President Obama’s handling of foreign policy and national security issues has been a disaster from the get-go. While space doesn’t permit me to even enumerate all the instances in which this is the case, the following summary should convince even most of his biggest fans that this is the case: 

1) Afghanistan – The President has committed us to a war without end in which the parameters of “victory” are more than elusive – they cannot even be formulated coherently. Armed with a  new strategic “doctrine” that instructs its practitioners to “win over” the people, US troops are an army of occupation that cannot possibly win over anyone who isn’t directly on the American payroll. The regime of Afghan “president” Hamid Karzai is enormously unpopular, having gotten into office by means of fraud and force: he has neither earned the loyalty of his own people, nor has he earned the loyalty of his protectors, the US military, which (rightly) views him and his cronies with distrust and open disdain. 

2) Pakistan – We are waging a “secret” war in Pakistan, one that is known to all the world: and isn’t that just too typical of our Keystone Kops-style efforts in this region? Again, our “allies” in this fight seem to morph, more often than not, into our enemies, depending on the circumstances. Hillary Clinton went over there and implied that the Pakistani government really knows where Osama bin Laden & Co. are hiding, treating them as if they are the enemy – when they’re supposed to be our “friends.” The alleged “threat” of a Taliban takeover seems not to be taken seriously – except when US government officials are trying to justify US airstrikes and other military action on the ground – because we treat the elected government of Pakistan with unalloyed contempt.  

3) Iran – The Obama administration has gone beyond George W. Bush in provoking and otherwise making a peaceful settlement of the outstanding issues between the US and Iran impossible. To begin with, they have abandoned the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate, which accurately showed the Iranian nuclear weapons program to have been abandoned long ago. Don’t look now, but they are playing the same game played by the neocons in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq – and if this goes on, it will end just as badly, if not far worse. 

4) National security issues – The biggest non-warfare related national security issue is the question of how to deal with captives in our endless “war on terrorism,” and the Obama-ites have botched this like no other. First they wanted civilian trials, then military trials, then – whatever. One loses track of where they are on this for the simple reason that they’ve changed their minds so many times. This is not how a great power acts, and yet the terrorists seem to have thrown us off balance on this one: it would be funny if it wasn’t such an important issue.

Damon N. Spiegel, entrepreneur and writer, said:

Unfortunately, the almighty President Obama has left much to be desired in the eyes of Americans who would like to see their great nation be the all powerful hegemon that it once was. Our overseas wars only deepen the idea that other nations have towards American; therefore, it is of the utmost importance that President Obama handles them skillfully. However, although there have been some improvements overseas, we still appear to be absent of a tactful plan that will prevent Afghanistan from becoming a complete quagmire.

When it comes to national security, one must remember that this is very broad in scope. However, for long term threats to our country, there appears to be nothing more threatening than our reckless budget that is burring our nation into a point where it maybe beyond repair. And, unfortunately, since our economists don’t have complete foresight into the impacts of this rampant spending, it will most likely hit quick and hard.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:

In the abstract, poorly. We are in the Obama administration neither Western nor globalist and we have no policy toward Israel with any bearing on reality. We don’t know what we are. In reality, our primary security concerns are with Israel and surrounding Islam from Iran to Afghanistan. But success in Iraq fully changes the paradigm with the US, with Israel and with its neighborhood. Sending Joe Biden to charm  Israel will do nothing. Nor will Secretary Clinton address the new realities. The Israelis are waiting for 2012 when their dynamic relationship can begin again either with a sympathetic Romney, Palin or Perry administration or going alone if Obama is reelected. I don’t see that the Democrats have a relevant foreign policy now. There are two Republican positions on Israel: Right (Cheney) and Hard Right (Perry, Palin). These are now the two options.


Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:

Better than Bush, but he still needs an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

When the Founding Fathers made the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, they clearly had in mind George Washington, not a community organizer from Chicago. Some presidents without any military experience or knowledge have both worked hard to educate themselves, and have surrounded themselves with folks who know something of war. Obama, with his monumental ego, has done neither of these, and when the account becomes due we will all pay. There is great enmity for the US out there (listen to the mobs chanting "Death to America"), but the parochial crowd in the White House seems to be so focused on hating the Republicans  that they are happy to give our country's real enemies a free ride.



Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at UC Irvine, said:

We’re neck deep where we need not be – Afghanistan.  We have no China policy other than to take their money and hope they keep buying our bonds.  Our space program – key to our defense – is in shambles.  We’re losing allies in the Afghan campaign from Europe…. Other than this, things are peachy.


Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

The Obama administration has gone on the offense against Al Qaeda more effectively in its first year than the Bush administration did in its entire eight years in office.  President Obama came into office seeking to change perceptions about America around the world, and he invested a lot of time into the effort in his first year - he spent more time and visited more countries in his first year than any other president in our country's history.  All of this while he was cleaning up an economic mess of historic proportions left behind by his predecessor.

Now Obama will need to fulfill the vision he outlined in his 2010 state of the union address - investing in America at home so that it remains competitive abroad.   He needs to multi-task because major challenges loom abroad - wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, and continued instability in Pakistan, among other threats.  No rest for the weary at the White House, but luckily we have a president who can move the ball forward on several fronts at once.



Paul Kawika Martin, policy and political director of Peace Action, said:

Remember what was left behind by the Bush Administration:  perhaps the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history by invading Iraq, neglecting Afghanistan after unnecessarily occupying the country and "cowboy diplomacy" that only fomented more anti-Americanism.  From this, the new administration has made some progress, but there's a long road to hoe before U.S. national security spending is in check and invested in the right tools.

Arguably, President Obama's stance against the Iraq war helped him win the primary against Hilary Clinton and ultimately the presidency.  While his timeline for troop redeployment announced a year ago failed to be fast enough for Peace Action and our congressional allies, it certainly is heading in the right direction.  After Iraqi elections Sunday, Obama smartly reaffirmed his time-based plan of removing combat forces by the end of August.  Despite rumblings by some in the Pentagon, the U.S. cannot wait until conditions on the ground are perfect or we will be there forever.  Obama's plan to have all troops, contractors and bases out by the end of 2011 should be expedited not delayed.  The significant funds Obama promised on the campaign trail to help the Iraqi refugee crisis have yet to materialize.  The U.S. broke Iraq and we must continue to fund fixes.  

The President and many advisors consistently say there's no military solution to the Afghanistan region, only a political one.  Yet, the resources requested by the President and approved by Congress continue to be 90% military.  Until various stakeholders within Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are brought to the negotiating table with regional players such as Iran, China, Pakistan and India, a long-term solution to the region will allude the President.  $1,000,000 invested to solve the 40% unemployment, 80% illiteracy and problems of access to food and clean water would pay for more security dividends than the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan for a year.

There will be a debate tomorrow on the House floor regarding Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, some Republicans will use the same tired arguments of supporting the troops and patriotism.  And some Democrats, for fear of looking weak on defense or speaking out against their commander in chief, will stay silent.  Afghanistan too, needs strong congressional oversight, but I digress....

On Iran, the Administration has for the most part successfully navigated extremely complicated geopolitics.  The Iranian elections last year threw a good, surprising monkey wrench into Obama's diplomatic plans.  The country continues with it's own internal struggles while our public and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts make glacial progress.  Targeted sanctions are much preferred than sanctions that affect the Iranian people and trigger nationalism.  This is decidedly better than the neocons who still call for military intervention, which would be a disaster only outdone by the Iraq fiasco.

A world without nuclear weapons would be far safer.  Obama rightly lays out this vision including support of a new START treaty, the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and steps towards a fissile material cut off treaty.  Inside sources say that his soon-to-be-released Nuclear Posture Review -- the congressionally mandated blueprint of U.S. nuclear doctrine -- may not be as visionary as his Prague speech, but will be large steps forward.  The Obama administration is asking for increases in funding to secure "loose nukes" and for nonproliferation.  Unfortunately, part of the $7 billion dollar increase over 5 years would help "modernize" nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons facilities.  A long list of independent experts agree we don't need to "modernize" our stockpile.  The funds would be better spent decreasing the number of nuclear weapons backlogged to be dismantled.

The enormous U.S. military budget is nearly larger than all other countries in the world combined and is almost half of our discretionary spending.  Obama has slowed the growth of the budget, but it is still nearly a trillion dollars.  He and Secretary Gates have gone after military contractor and congressional pork boondoggles like the F-22 to some success.  How will the fight over the C-17 which the Air Force doesn't want fair this year?

Over the last decade or so we have been funding the military to a 15 to 1 ratio compared to other tools in our national security toolbox such as diplomacy and international aid.  That ratio needs to change so we have a more diverse range of options and prevention mechanisms for national security.  The Obama administration has made baby steps in this area when bold strides are desperately needed.


John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

Any nation that is threatened by terrorism would immediately close its borders.  Obama's predecessors didn't close them and he has solemnly promised amnesty to approximately 10 million illegal immigrants already here.  Each amnesty in the past has resulted in more border crossers.  So the Obama administration gets a very poor grade on this aspect of national security.
 
Regarding wars, he is no different than many predecessors who have believed that our nation could properly go to war without the constitutionally-required declaration of war noted in the Constitution.  (The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan are each without required authorization.)  Obama isn't alone in violating his oath to support and defend the Constitution. While the war in Iraq has settled down, there is no need for 100,000 U.S. troops there, They should be brought home immediately.
 
The Afghan War that actually has gone on longer than the struggle in Iraq has degenerated into a fight against the Taliban, a religion. Does anyone really think it's proper for the U.S. to send military forces against someone's else's religion?  Hasn't this action merely stimulated more anti-American hatred and possible terrorism both there and here?
 
The Obama administration also gets a poor grade when "handling" war is considered. 
 
There's a lot going on that is upside down.  Straightening it out must be accomplished or this nation will soon cease to exist in freedom.