January 2011 Archives

Is there a future for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt? What would you recommend to the U.S. administration as this drama unfolds? What is the worst-case scenario?

9 responses: James Kitfield, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Wayne White, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Joseph J. Collins, Paul Sullivan, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Michael Brenner

Despite vowing to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year of taking office, the Obama administration is set to begin holding new military commission trials there in coming weeks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a vocal advocate of shuttering the prison, put new rules in place two years ago barring military prosecutors from opening new cases against Guantanamo detainees. But Gates is likely to rescind that ban soon, clearing the way for several detainees to be brought before military commissions for the first time since President Obama took office.

The coming changes, reported by The New York Times last week, angered many of Obama's progressive allies, who criticized him for abandoning a campaign promise to shut down the prison, which has become a significant source of Muslim and Arab anger towards the U.S. Dozens of detainees have been held there for almost a decade without a trial, and it's not clear when -- or if -- the most dangerous of the remaining prisoners will get the chance to challenge their captivity. But the White House move reflects the stark reality that there is little political support on Capitol Hill for closing the prison, especially if that meant moving detainees to American soil.

Was Obama correct in deciding that he had no choice but to reopen the military commission process, or should he have pushed harder to find another alternative? What should be done with the most militant and ideological of the remaining detainees, especially those who have been subjected to brutal interrogations by U.S. operatives in the past? Is Guantanamo Bay likely to remain open for the foreseeable future, and what will be the national security implications for the U.S. if the controversial prison continues to hold dozens of militants without trial for decades to come?

1 response: Michael Brenner

Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised eyebrows inside and outside the Pentagon when he announced plans to shave $78 billion from the defense budget over the next five years by eliminating expensive -- and questionable -- projects like the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and by shrinking the Army and Marine Corps by roughly 47,000 troops, the Pentagon's first manpower reductions since the start of the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The defense chief acknowledged that he'd lost an internal administration battle over the defense budget, which he'd hoped to protect. Instead, the Pentagon's budget will increase by less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012 (the smallest such increase since the wars began), see smaller increases to its rate of growth in fiscal 2013 and 2014, and then see no growth whatsoever in fiscal 2015 and 2016. Gates made clear that he was hoping to stave off the growing calls for even deeper cuts to the Pentagon's budget, which is suddenly on the minds of both White House officials and many newly elected Republican lawmakers. Both sides, who are divided about most everything else, seem to generally agree that defense shouldn't be spared from the painful budget cuts that are coming for many popular domestic spending programs.

How significant are Gates's budget cuts, and will they be enough to prevent the White House and Congress from imposing even sharper reductions down the road? Should the budget be pared back at all right now given the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rising tensions with China and Iran? And if further cuts are coming, should they come out of the ranks of the active-duty military, or from big-ticket procurement programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Put another way, what's more important in this new age of Pentagon austerity, men or machines?

7 responses: Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Daniel Gouré

Some experts are calling Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington this month the most important meeting between U.S. and Chinese leaders in thirty years. Given the growing strains in the Sino-American relationship, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has called for a joint declaration from the meeting that clearly outlines the principles that guide the relationship; defines common political, economic, social and security goals; and recognizes the critical importance of the partnership to the stability of an increasingly interdependent international system.

The question for National Security bloggers this week is: How would such a joint declaration read? Are there guiding principles for the Sino-American relationship on which both sides can agree? What are the common goals that unite them, and where is there fundamental divergence? How can differences be narrowed on issues as varied as human rights, China's support for North Korea, trade and exchange rates, and China's perceived aggression in the South China Sea? Fundamentally, would an honest declaration reveal two countries that are drifting dangerously towards confrontation, or moving closer together in an international system that depends on both for its continued stability?

6 responses: Paul Sullivan, Chris Seiple, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, Eric Farnsworth