December 2010 Archives

Believing that they have a mandate from voters, Republican lawmakers are vowing to curb federal spending and impose cost-saving measures to help reduce the deficit when the new Congress convenes on January 5. Some aren't even waiting; GOP senators on December 16 successfully beat back efforts to pass a $1.108 trillion omnibus spending package in the waning days of the 111th Congress.

Marion Blakey, the head of the Aerospace Industries Association, who released her forecast for 2011, expressed concern that pressure for deficit reduction could lead to defense budget cuts that will slow military aircraft procurement. "Certainly the next Congress is going to be a challenge," she said. But national security industry officials and investors who closely follow defense, homeland security, and intelligence spending said at a recent security conference in Washington that they could foresee cuts coming for large, labor-intensive platforms like the Air Force F-22 Raptor and Navy DDG-1000 destroyer programs. But they projected that some sectors would continue to see robust growth, such as cybersecurity; biometrics and identity verification systems; and critical infrastructure protection.

Should there be significant shifts in spending priorities away from major new weapons platforms to robotic systems, defense electronics and emerging areas like cybersecurity? Should much of the spending be refocused onto research and development of both short-term and long-term innovations? Given the array of security threats, from foreign launched cyber attacks and undetectable explosives aboard cargo and passenger planes to nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea and roadside bombs in Afghanistan -- the biggest killer of U.S. troops -- which national security spending programs should be spared the ax of the deficit cutters?

This week, the Obama administration is scheduled to release its long-anticipated review of its Afghan war strategy and progress in the conflict. It is widely expected to reflect Gen. David Petraeus's belief that the "counterinsurgency math" in Afghanistan finally adds up, and that U.S. and allied forces, along with their Afghan security force counterparts, have reversed the Taliban's momentum in the insurgency's critical strongholds in southern Afghanistan.

The question we would like national security bloggers to address is whether this progress is sustainable given the timelines and challenges that remain. U.S. commanders in Afghanistan applaud NATO's recent adoption of the end of 2014 as the timeline for transferring security responsibilities for the entire country to Afghan security forces. Is that enough time to degrade the capabilities of the Taliban sufficiently for Afghan security forces to take control? Has the 2014 deadline relieved some of the anxiety and unhelpful hedging provoked by Obama's July 2011 deadline for "beginning" to withdraw U.S. forces? Under the current timeframe, can enough progress be made in reducing endemic corruption in the Afghan government, and in making insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan less secure, to give the strategy a chance to succeed? Bottom line: Does the progress reflected in this week's review represent a potential tipping point in the war, or another tactical advance that will ultimately fail to overcome the immense challenges in Afghanistan?

4 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Paul Sullivan, Michael Brenner

The 17-year-old debate about whether to allow openly gay troops to serve in the military escalated last week with the release of a Pentagon report that found that 70 percent of the military believed that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would have little to no impact on their units. But the report found much stronger opposition within the Marine Corps, the military's elite Special Operations community, and the Army's ground combat forces, suggesting that many of those fighting the nation's wars would be far from comfortable serving alongside an openly gay service member.

The issue is divisive both inside and outside the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Thursday that it was imperative that Congress act before a federal court unilaterally struck down the ban, plunging the military into a period of uncertainty about what rules to enforce. But on Friday, the four-star heads of the Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force all warned against trying to repeal the law this year, arguing that doing so would add stress to forces already pushed nearly to the breaking point by long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine Commandant James Amos warned that repealing the ban had the "strong potential for disruption at the small-unit level" and could damage the effectiveness, morale and cohesion of his forces.

Let's talk this week about the report and how policymakers should proceed. Should the views of combat personnel fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan be given more weight than the views of the rest of the military, even if combat troops compose only a fraction of the total force? Should the ban be eliminated throughout the armed forces at the same time or in phases, with some branches of the military integrating openly gay personnel before others do? What, if anything, should be done with troops who simply refuse to serve alongside openly gay colleagues? And perhaps most important, are Democrats right to try to eliminate the ban during the current lame-duck session of Congress? Or are Republicans correct in arguing that a change of this magnitude shouldn't be considered during a time of war?

4 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Col. Robert Killebrew