June 2011 Archives

This week, President Obama announced a faster-than-expected drawdown in Afghanistan. Will withdrawing 10,000 troops by the end of the year give the military enough time to accomplish its goals during the spring fighting season? What do you think about Obama's overall plan to withdraw all 33,000 "surge" troops by the end of next summer? Does it risk jeopardizing recent gains, strike the right balance, or still leave too many troops there? Afghan war commander Gen. David Petraeus acknowledged this week the drawdown's timetable was more "aggressive" than he would prefer--but the military would "nevertheless salute smartly and do everything humanly possible to execute it." Petraeus had urged the president to keep the remaining 23,000 reinforcements in Afghanistan through the end of 2012. How significant is this difference of just a few months?

Overall, is the counterinsurgency plan working? COIN proponents would argue that the strategy--winning over the Afghan population with kindness, aid, and a multibillion-dollar policy to "clear, hold, and build" towns and villages while ruthlessly killing off insurgents--is just starting to succeed. Others, especially in light of the success of the Osama bin Laden raid, are pushing for a shift to counterterrorism strategy instead. What do you think?

8 responses: Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., James Jay Carafano, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Wayne White, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Col. W. Patrick Lang, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Brenner

In an effort to pacify lawmakers, the White House sent information to Capitol Hill last week about ongoing military operations in Libya. In short, the Obama administration said that the United States' involvement in the NATO-led campaign does not constitute a war, and thus does not require congressional authorization. Lawmakers from both parties have balked at that assertion, and House Speaker John Boehner has suggested that Congress has legislative "options" at its disposal to address the issue.

Does the War Powers Resolution apply here, or does the White House's argument have merit? Even if the White House does not believe it needs congressional authorization, would it be wise for the administration to seek it? Should Congress assert itself by passing more than just resolutions demanding information and expressing its dissatisfaction? What are the long-term implications of this struggle between the executive and legislative branches? What do you think Congress should do now, and what should it do if the conflict continues for much longer?

8 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Eric Farnsworth, Wayne White, James Jay Carafano, Paul R. Pillar, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Ron Marks

Defense Secretary Robert Gates used his final European trip to issue a blunt warning: NATO, the military alliance which the U.S. founded and has largely underwritten for the past 60 years, faces a "dim, if not dismal" future because of ongoing European defense cutbacks.

Gates has used much of his tenure at the Pentagon to encourage European powers to boost - or at least maintain - their military spending, arguing that NATO had become a "two-tiered alliance" in which countries like the U.S. and Britain maintained large and capable armed forces while other NATO members cut their troop numbers and armaments. Gates went even further in his remarks this week, pointedly arguing that Washington was losing patience with European nations who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

Are Gates' comments likely to persuade NATO members to reverse their defense cuts, or will Europe's ongoing economic woes lead to even further reductions in the years ahead? Is it reasonable to expect European powers, which see no immediate threats to their own security, to boost military spending? Has NATO - which was founded to deter possible Soviet adventurism within Europe during the Cold War - simply outlived its usefulness, or can still it play a useful role in future conflicts? More fundamentally, has Washington erred by pushing NATO to take parts in distant, unpopular wars like Afghanistan as opposed to having the alliance retain its traditional focus solely on crises within Europe?

11 responses: Paul Sullivan, Daniel Gouré, Michael Brenner, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Wayne White, Gordon Adams, James Jay Carafano, Paul D. Eaton, Michael Brenner, Richard Hart Sinnreich

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh had a close call on Friday when opposition tribesmen shelled his presidential compound. Yemen's opposition is cheering his departure for Saudi Arabia for treatment, but confusion abounds over who's in charge in Yemen.

Saleh had refused three times to sign an agreement that would lead to his resignation, a fruitless and frustrating result of weeks of mediation by the six-state Gulf Cooperation Council. Is this the end for Saleh? Will Saudi Arabia, a key GCC member, allow him to return? What political landscape might emerge? Will Yemen be able to pull out of the economic devastation wrought by the conflict without significant international assistance? The U.S. once again must straddle the line between pro-democracy protesters calling for political change and an autocratic leader once essential to U.S. operations. Where should it stand?

5 responses: Paul Sullivan, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.