June 2010 Archives

The Rolling Stone article that led to the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent shudders along the always sensitive fault line of military-media relations. When a reporter with a pad and a tape recorder helps to take down a four-star general in charge of winning a war, it gets the attention of both warriors and scribes, or what longtime war correspondent Joseph Galloway called the "control freaks" and the "anarchists." The questions we would like security bloggers to consider this week concern what, if anything, the incident says about media coverage of America's ongoing wars; what impact it will have going forward on military-media relations; and what lessons should be taken from the incident by both soldiers and journalists.

Ever since former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed for the "embedding" of hundreds of journalists during the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a counter to Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine, the idea has taken hold that both the media and military can benefit from a close working relationship where journalists are given extended and unprecedented access to military units and commands. Do you believe that concept has served the military, the press and the American public well, in terms of accurate and in-depth coverage of U.S. conflicts? Is the Rolling Stone article the exception that proves the rule that reporters tend to get too chummy with their subjects under such conditions? Will the McChrystal firing set back military-media relations and cause the Pentagon to view extended exposure to journalists as a possible threat to careers and missions? How should the press cover a war fairly and accurately?

12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Paul Starobin, Michael F. Scheuer, Paul Starobin, Dov S. Zakheim, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Loren Thompson, Wayne White, Steven Metz

After 9/11, American military power erupted into South-Central Asia. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan required supporting efforts in Pakistan to the south and the former Soviet Central Asian republics to the north. Today, Pakistan has returned to democracy but remains a distinctly difficult ally. A provisional government in Kyrgyzstan wrestles with ethnic violence and threatens to shut down the U.S. air base at Manas (while notably not touching the Russian base at Kant). In Afghanistan itself, the focus of the U.S. effort, much-publicized "surge" offensives in the south and political reform efforts nationwide are not moving fast enough for skeptics either in Congress or the U.S. media. Russia, China and India all have interests and influence in this region, but what is the American stake in this new "Great Game"? South-Central Asia is a tough neighborhood for the U.S. to be in. Do the rewards of staying -- or the risks of leaving -- outweigh the costs of our presence?

After nearly nine years, there is no consensus on the strategic goal of the American commitment in Afghanistan and its neighbors. Does our presence in Pakistan and Central Asia exist only to support our war in Afghanistan? Or are we waging war in Afghanistan in the cause of stability and wider U.S. interests in the region? For many mindful of domestic U.S. politics, the goal is simply "never again 9/11," a counterterrorism campaign narrowly focused on al-Qaeda. For many who are mindful of history, the goal is "never again 1989," not repeating the collapse of U.S. interest after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that let the country slide into instability. For those mindful of economics, the stakes are not just Afghanistan's recently touted trillion-dollar mineral deposits -- originally mapped by the Russians and on Chinese investment lists -- but Afghanistan's location as a potential crossroads between India's growing economy, hungry for both markets and resources, and Central Asia's wealth of oil and natural gas. For the realpolitik traditionalists, Afghanistan's location makes it a strategic outpost outflanking both Russia and Iran. But do any of these reasons, alone or in combination, justify a nine-year war?

13 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Dov S. Zakheim, Chris Seiple, Michael Brenner, Bing West, Michael Brenner, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Paul R. Pillar, Loren Thompson, Michael Brenner

Washington got the U.N. Security Council to approve a new round of sanctions against Iran on June 9. But the sanctions, watered down by China and Russia, are far from "crippling," as initially sought by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And two usual U.S. allies, NATO member Turkey and Brazil, voted against even this modest package.

The episode begs a larger question: Is the ability of Washington to assemble coalitions on behalf of its global objectives starting to ebb, even with the White House now in the hands of a president, Barack Obama, who touts himself as a committed multilateralist, opposed to the "go-it-alone" mindset of his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Another point in favor of this proposition is Obama's failure to get the Europeans to commit a large number of troops to the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then again, in East Asia, with a rising China and an ever-dangerous North Korea both stark geopolitical facts, both Japan and South Korea are still looking to align themselves under the U.S. security umbrella.

What do you think? Are our alliances fraying -- and if so, why? Does this trend have to do with our flailing economy, with inept diplomacy, or with some other set of factors?

10 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Michael Vlahos, Michael F. Scheuer, David Krieger, Michael Brenner, Eric Farnsworth, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Christopher Preble, Steven Metz, Ron Marks

Israel's nighttime operation to intercept the "Gaza Flotilla" last week, which left nine activists dead and a number of Israeli commandoes seriously wounded, has provoked an international furor, calling into question not only Israel's blockade of Gaza but also once again what some experts perceive as its penchant for disproportionate and overly aggressive tactics. This week, National Journal would like its national security experts to weigh in on the implications of the flotilla tragedy, both for Israel and in terms of U.S.-Israeli relations as both nations look to forestall Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Giving its timing and high-risk nature, was the operation a strategic blunder on Israel's part, as some experts have charged? Conversely, given that the purpose of the flotilla was clearly to break a blockade aimed at keeping rockets from falling into the hands of Hamas terrorists, and ultimately raining down on Israeli cities, did Israel have any other viable choice?

What impact, if any, will the operation have on U.S. efforts to further isolate Iran with another round of U.N. sanctions? Will the incident likely have a lasting negative effect on U.S. and Israeli relations with Turkey, and if so, how significant is that setback? Finally, given that U.S. officials insist they warned Israel to use "caution and restraint" in dealing with the flotilla, what if anything does this say about how much influence the U.S. really has over Israel as it surely contemplates the military option against Iran's nuclear facilities?

9 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Michael Vlahos, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Brenner, Kori Schake, James Jay Carafano, Paul R. Pillar, Steven Metz

The Obama administration's just-released National Security Strategy emphasizes that to be strong abroad, the United States must be strong at home. Specifically, it argues that in order to continue to lead globally and project power and influence overseas, the nation must stand on a firm economic foundation, and that requires getting a ballooning deficit and debt under control.

How serious a threat is the mounting debt to the nation's standing as the world's only superpower? Can the U.S. continue to spend more than all other countries combined on its military forces given burdensome debt levels? In what other ways does the mounting debt undermine the country's strategic position? If our unsustainable debt loads are such a drag on U.S. power, how do you judge the Obama administration's dealing with matters of the economy, debt and spending?

15 responses: Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Gordon Adams, Larry Korb, Christopher Preble, Paul Sullivan, Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Joseph J. Collins, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Paul Sullivan, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams