National Security Experts

Contributor

Daniel Gouré

Biography provided by participant

Dr. Daniel Gouré is a Vice President with the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public-policy research organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. He is involved in a wide range of issues as part of the institute's national security program. Gouré has held senior positions in both the private sector and the U.S. Government. Most recently, he was a member of the 2001 Department of Defense Transition Team. Gouré spent two years in the U.S. Government as the director of the Office of Strategic Competitiveness in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He also served as a senior analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses, Science Applications International Corporation, SRS Technologies, R&D Associates and System Planning Corporation. Prior to joining the Lexington Institute, Gouré was the Deputy Director, International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. At CSIS, Gour� was responsible for analyses of: U.S. national security policy, the future of conflict and warfare, the information revolution, counter-proliferation, and defense industrial management. He directed analyses of emerging security issues with a special emphasis on U.S. military capabilities in the next century. Gouré also has done extensive consulting and teaching. From 1990 to 1991 he led a study for the U.S. Institute of Peace on deterrence after the INF Treaty. Gouré has consulted for the Departments of State, Defense and Energy. He has taught or lectured at the Johns Hopkins University, the Foreign Service Institute, the National War College, the Naval War College, the Air War College, and the Inter-American Defense College. Since 2001, Gouré is an adjunct professor in graduate programs at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, teaching a Homeland Security course. Gouré is a well-known and respective presence in the national and international media, having been interviewed by all the major networks, CNN, Fox, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. He has been published extensively in over two dozen journals and periodicals. He is also an NBC national security analyst. Gouré holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in international relations and Russian Studies from Johns Hopkins University and a B.A. in Government and History from Pomona College.

Recent Responses

June 15, 2011 07:19 AM

As far as I can tell, no one disagrees with anything Secretary Gates said in Brussels, although many question his motives as well as the wisdom of the policies that have led to the sorry state of the Alliance’s military capabilities. NATO and it s continental counterpart, the European Union, does not spend enough on defense, spends in unwisely, acts with all the hesitation, indecision and backbiting of any alliance and cannot perform any but the simplest military maneuvers without the United States. As Gates himself pointed out, he is but the latest in a long line of U.S. officials to point out that the Alliance is not meeting its public defense commitments. This saga has been ongoing since the 1960s.

It is clear that with a defense budget around $400 billion Europe could buy a lot of defense capabilities were it so inclined and structured. The problem is that it spends on the wrong things. Too many people, too much infrastructure and too much redundancy. Europe does not need three tactical fighter programs, all of which were obsolescent be

Continue Reading

March 7, 2011 07:52 AM

Before we discuss whether the interests of the United States warrant military intervention in Libya, I would like to address some of the misconceptions coloring the debate. The first of these is that that such an effort requires initial offensive operations against Libyan air defenses. Secretary of Defense Gates made this claim in testimony before the Appropriations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee declaring that the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace “begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." The basis for this statement appears to be that Libyan air defenses could pose such a severe threat that U.S. aircraft could not otherwise operate safely over that country’s airspace.

My response to this argument is two words: the F-22. One of the missions of U.S. fifth-generation fighters, both the F-22 and the F-35, is to operate in denied airspace. But the threat against which the F-22 and F-35 have been designed was so-called triple digit surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) of which Libya

Continue Reading

January 10, 2011 09:56 AM

Many defense and budget experts are inclined to view Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent announcement of Pentagon budget cuts as but the first in a series of such reductions. The point to the decade of defense spending increases following the events of September 11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is the growing U.S. debt crisis and the notion that all budget accounts need to be cut. Finally, there is the argument made by a few that defense spending needs to be cut back in the context of the altering U.S,. national security and foreign policies to reduce its engagement in the world and the use of military power when engaged in the world.

However, this time is likely to be different., Past defense spending downturns have always come in response to the end of conflict and public declaration s that peace has broken out. That is not the case this time. Secretary Gates strongly emphasized this point in last week’s press conference. The world is a very dangerous place an d will remain so even after the U.

Continue Reading

August 12, 2010 10:24 AM

Updated at 11:00 a.m. All of us weighing in here and elsewhere on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ Monday announcement of moves to improve the efficiency of his department have focused on the wrong point. Will his proposal to shutter JFCOM negatively affect the Norfolk area? Possibly in the short run, but this may be better than what will happen to that area in the long run if defense budget cuts force a curtailing of construction of nuclear attack submarines or aircraft carriers. But to respond to the question more broadly, it is not important whether or not Secretary Gates' proposed steps will actually save significant amounts of money – I have argued elsewhere that as presently defined they will not. Nor is it important whether this signals a significant change in the Department's “culture of endless money” – which I doubt, unless Gates commits to retaining his office at least through Obama’s entire term. Was his idea for insourcing private sector work smart? No, as he now himself admits. We can applaud his current efforts, laud him as an agent of

Continue Reading

August 2, 2010 11:39 AM

U.S.military preeminence is not unaffordable. Indeed, at around 4.5 percent of GDP and less than 20 percent of federal spending it is a relatively cheap investment in international stability, the security of the free world, the safety of U.S. interests, the peace of the global commons and the suppress of extremism. The reality is that what is unaffordable is the welfare state. Just look at the cost growth projections for Social Security and Medicare/Medicare. Whining about the costs of national security is one way of avoiding the need to address the politically difficult problem of entitlements.

This being said, there is no question that DoD is an extremely inefficient organization. It has been very slow to adopt modern business practices, supply chain management methods of even enterprise resource planning systems. Some in DoD still tend to treat its private contractors as opponents rather than as, in effect, a coequal branch. Without the private sector, not only would DoD not have the platforms and weapon systems it needs but it could not even support its forces de

Continue Reading

March 29, 2010 08:36 AM

Russia: Not Good Bear or Bad Bear but Dying Bear

Russia is no longer a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Now it is a tragedy wrapped in a failed system inside a catastrophe to come. Russia wasted the opportunity presented by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shedding of its empire to transform its economy and political order and to become a major part of an expanded community of free nations. Now Moscow increasingly must look on from the from the sidelines as it becomes weaker and more irrelevant. Its behavior on the international stage is a pathetic yet dangerous attempt to mask its weakness and postpone the moment at which the Kremlin leaders must admit that they have led their people down a dead-end road.

Ironically, Russia leaders live in a world of illusion in which weakness is strength. The Russian elite’s political narrative stands reality on its head. In their statements on Russia’s world view and foreign policy, Russia’s Pres

Continue Reading

 

Contributors

 

The “agree” function has been temporarily disabled from the blog while we transition to a new system. The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.