April 2011 Archives

The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistani governments may be as tense as it's been since immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when the United States launched an offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan and called on Pakistan to step up its counterterrorism efforts. Political and public outrage has mounted inside Pakistan in response to CIA-led missile strikes using unmanned drones, which reportedly have killed civilians, and in response to an incident in January when CIA contractor Raymond Davis shot and killed two Pakistanis in Lahore. The tensions have sparked a series of high-level meetings between U.S. and Pakistani senior officials. On April 20, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, flew into Islamabad, where he bluntly criticized Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency for having ties to the Haqqani network, which sends militants into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and NATO forces. And the CIA has not backed down from carrying out drone operations in Pakistan, launching an attack April 22 that reportedly killed militants but also women and children.

The two governments are locked in a rocky but symbiotic relationship. The United States depends on Pakistan to allow it to continue counterterrorism operations inside the South Asian country. And the Pakistan government has been offered billions of dollars in U.S. economic and security assistance.

So this week, we ask our contributors for their perspective on where the U.S.-Pakistani relationship is heading and where it should be heading. Is the relationship nearing a breaking point, and what's at stake for U.S. national security interests and the war effort in Afghanistan? Can the United States confidently withdraw forces as planned from Afghanistan if Pakistan does not do more to combat militants in the tribal regions? Or does the U.S. government have unrealistic expectations when it comes to Pakistan? How much operational control, if any, should the CIA be willing to give up in the country? What should both governments do to get past the current tensions?

6 responses: James Jay Carafano, Eric Farnsworth, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Ron Marks, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Michael Brenner

Last week, President Obama laid out his plan to reduce the deficit, including making an additional $400 billion in security cuts by 2023. Aside from the cuts, which were first revealed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday, Obama has also ordered a high-level review to determine where, specifically, he should look for cost savings. The Pentagon gave tepid support for Obama's plan -- emphasizing that finding the cuts would not simply be a math exercise. The Defense Department, however, has already acknowledged that cuts of that size would require the military to reduce its force structure and its war-fighting capabilities, essentially scaling back its sets of missions.

The additional cuts would take affect in fiscal 2013 -- if not before. That means the comprehensive review would have to be on the fast track through the sprawling Pentagon bureaucracy in order to affect budget negotiations that already are under way.

So this week we ask our contributors to put Obama's announcement in some perspective. Just how big is the $400 billion cut through 2023? Will it be a devastating blow for the Pentagon, or merely a slight fiscal pinch? Can the Pentagon feasibly put together a comprehensive review on such an abbreviated timeframe? Where should officials start looking for cuts? What missions or capabilities seem ripe for termination? What role will Congress, which has always been reluctant to end military programs and scale back the military's missions, play here?

8 responses: Gordon Adams, Joseph J. Collins, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., James Jay Carafano, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Gordon Adams, Michael Brenner, Richard Hart Sinnreich

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spent last week on a farewell tour of sorts through Iraq, the country that has dominated most his tenure at the Pentagon. Speaking to a large gathering of American troops in Iraq, Gates recalled that a firefight had been raging behind him during his first press conference in the country in 2006. "Things were not going well here," he told the troops last week.

Things have since markedly improved, for both Iraq and for Gates. The country's once-unrelenting violence has fallen precipitously, and it has a government that--regardless of its fragility and flaws--is one of the only democratically elected regimes in the Arab world. Gates, meanwhile, is preparing to leave office as one of the most popular and well-respected Defense secretaries in American history. His successor will have enormous shoes to fill, which helps to explain why so much of official Washington is engrossed in the parlor game of trying to guess who will replace him. The leading contenders appear to be Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi who has close ties to President Obama.

For this week's conversation, let's talk about the post-Gates era at the Pentagon. What kind of qualifications will be most important for the next Defense secretary to possess, and why? With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, what are the likely to be the biggest challenges of the next secretary's tenure? Should the White House aim to find someone with Gates' public stature or go for a technocrat perhaps better suited to the coming age of Pentagon austerity? And the $64,000 question: If you were advising Obama, who would you recommend for the job and for what reasons?

8 responses: Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, Larry Korb, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Ron Marks, Michael Vlahos, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner

Japan's disaster deepens by the day. But last month's tsunami and its radioactive aftermath are just the latest blow: Japan has been in trouble for almost 20 years.

A generation ago, Japan was an ascendant superpower whose rise made it a favorite bogeyman of protectionists and pop culture. Now it seems like the land of the setting sun. Japan has never fully recovered from the recession of the early 1990s, its politics are gridlocked, and its population is aging faster than any other in the world. Now it mourns at least 10,000 dead even as nuclear reactors slide slowly into meltdown.

What will be the international repercussions of Japan's deepening disaster? Chernobyl-style fallout blowing across borders could strain relations with its neighbors. The demands of recovery could force the Japanese government to focus inward, not only distracting it from foreign affairs but likely requiring cuts in the foreign aid that has underwritten Japan's international position. The disaster might be the nail in the coffin of Japan's national morale.

But Japan has rallied after worse devastation before. Today's Japanese after the tsunami might imitate their grandparents after World War II and finally lift their country out of its long stagnation. Reconstruction typically boosts GDP and might provide the economic jump start the nation needed. And revelations about lax regulation of nuclear plants and poor tsunami planning might inspire enough outrage to upend Japan's deadlocked politics.

So, we ask our expert contributors: Which way do you bet on Japan's future health at home and its standing abroad?

4 responses: Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Paul Sullivan, Wayne White, Ron Marks