-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
When I’m not writing and blogging for the American Spectator, or nerding out as a doctoral student, I work with the Foreign Policy Association as an analyst focused on the Middle East and political Islam. I was recently made aware that our organization conducted a major survey of more than 20,000 highly-educated and involved Americans who work in foreign policy. They were asked to provide policy prescriptions to national security challenges amidst a gloomy global economy and suggest techniques that have proven to be successful, and more cost effective.
The poll, which has been run since 1955, is sent to the White House, the Departments of State and Defense, members of Congress and the media.
Suffice to say, the Foreign Policy Association’s National Opinion Ballot confirmed an attitude that’s prevalent in the foreign policy community. Key findings suggest that some defense budget cuts are necessary, global financial regulatory regimes are welcome and opposition to military adventurism is robust.
Perhaps most importantly, disillusionment with the huge costs and uncertain outcomes of major ground wars and extended nation-building projects has affirmed a new emphasis on counterinsurgency and irregular warfare. In line with an Obama administration embrace of drone warfare and small-scale lightning raids (like the one that killed OBL back in May) polled respondents appear to have favor such tactics as the future in the fight against international terror.
These results are indicative of a 49 percent plurality that supports the reduction of the defense budget. But simply cutting back totals isn’t sufficient — 71 percent of respondents answered “in favor of a combination of counterinsurgency capability [COIN] and traditionalist military strategy.”
While I think the poll provides a valuable aggregate of foreign policy knowledge, I think we can also improve our understanding of foreign policy imperatives by examining the experience of a post-Gaddafi Libya.
From that perspective, I’d add that the importance of American airpower cannot be ignored or denied. The Transitional Nation Council (TNC) forces in Libya would not have achieved their victory on the ground without NATO air superiority in the skies. Looking back on the operation, one must agree that NATO airpower was a necessary condition for a free Libya. Granted, airpower was not sufficient, in and of itself, but it more than demonstrates that our boots need not touch the ground to help us help others. Granted, American pilots flew only a handful of sorties, but given the evolving shape of humanitarian intervention and international military assistance, our superiority remains an unquestionable advantage. That we weren’t needed to conduct the majority of missions over Libya leads to my next point…
Libya is instructive as a multilateral coordination of Western powers. While we may have “led from behind,” as suggested by my colleague, John Guardiano, the Obama administration has provided a template for improving U.S. global leadership, based on multilateral cooperation. Still, I’d add my voice to the criticism of the mission — frankly, I’d prefer American troops to focus on defending American citizens, as opposed to a distant Arab backwater with no national security implication for the U.S., but when choosing sides in a civil war for humanitarian purposes it’s always best to get the job done…and ASAP. However, Libya reinforced the importance of executing clear objectives, and an international community that is prepared to share in the burdens and risks of military intervention based on moral imperative.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/20/the-future-of-foreign-policy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Derek Leaberry| 10.20.11 @ 4:50PM
For instance, we have 11 active carriers and three being built. Our nearest competitor worldwide is Italy with 2, an unlikely opponent. China's one carrier is being rebuilt. Do we really need so many? Wouldn't 7 be enough?
William Spincola| 10.20.11 @ 5:00PM
no Seven CVs will not allow the Sea Power that is vital to US National Security. First consider what deployed area of operations US will need CV on station. Then for each deployed station 3 CV rotation is required. Add to unforeseen required deployment or the possibility very real and enemy (PLAN) will sink or damage a CV then one can see USN will not have sufficient flat Tops to meet the threat. 11 CV fleet excepts great risk going to seven is abrogating Sea Power
NumberTwoPencil| 10.20.11 @ 6:07PM
If we had seven ... and some enemy managed to sink one ... we'd still have six times as many as the Chinese. Unless it was the Chinese who sank our carrier in which case we'd have six, and they'd have zero plus a big hole in the ground where Beijing used to be.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.21.11 @ 4:07AM
You have yet again proven that you know nothing about defense affairs. Seven CVNs would not be enough, because at any given moment, ca. 3 of them would be in overhaul or in homeport after a deployment. This would mean no more than 4 carriers would be really available. Even now, with a nominal 11 carrier fleet, 3-4 carriers are in overhaul or in homeport at any given moment, which means no more than 7 are available for deployment at any given time.
Derek Leaberry| 10.21.11 @ 9:05AM
When the government is bankrupt, we will not be able to afford even seven carriers. Regarding what American security interests might be, it would seem that the only carrier group imperative to the American economy would be to always have one in the Persian Gulf. I do not believe conservatives should support any sort of position that makes the US policeman for the world as the neo-conservatives wish.
Occam's Tool| 10.21.11 @ 10:15AM
Dear Derek:
When you need it, you're gonna want to have it. T'aint your tail swinging in the wind, sir.
Derek Leaberry| 10.21.11 @ 12:34PM
How does a nation that is running up $ 1.5 trillion deficits for as far as the eye can see, with Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending likely to drastically increase deficits in the future, continue with the current defense spending? Please explain.
William Spincola| 10.20.11 @ 4:53PM
Specifically by line item what defense cuts are "going to be necessary" this is political ruling class code not addressing the disaster of progressivist entitlement policies. Defense spending is not why the US had a catastrophic debt . What threats to vital US interest exist? Determine this first then build a force to counter the threat and carry out the national security strategy. World War, General War and COIN must within US military capability.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.21.11 @ 8:05AM
Exactly. This is what Ronald Reagan said must be done to craft the right defense budget: identify the threats to the US, determine the right strategies to fend off these threats, determine what resources are needed to execute those strategies, and then sum up their cost.
JimH| 10.21.11 @ 8:55AM
I fully agree with your analysis, though I wonder at what role carriers can play these days. The submarine service has a name for them and the rest of the surface fleet. Targets.
ncatty| 10.20.11 @ 5:43PM
New flash: Ghadaffi still dead.
Dixie Pixie| 10.20.11 @ 6:57PM
Powered by the love of his people, Qaddafi remains triumphant is his fight to remain dead.
Dixie Pixie| 10.20.11 @ 6:58PM
Sorry...new line:::
Powered by the love of his people, Qaddafi remains triumphant in his fight to remain dead.
JmsA| 10.20.11 @ 7:21PM
Sic Temper Tyrannis.
JmsA| 10.20.11 @ 7:32PM
Meant to write: Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Occam's Tool| 10.20.11 @ 8:15PM
Well, this lets me know the State Department guys and their teachers are still idiots.
Kill the scum, win the battle. DON'T, for G-d's sake, "Nation Build."
Dixie Pixie| 10.20.11 @ 9:00PM
If you don't mind O..T.., Let me carry your thought one step further.
1) Win the damn War.
2) Kill the current Ruler.
3) Military remove the current government.
4) Impose a government more to the USA's liking.
5) Get entire military out of the country.
6) Let the next government live or die on its own.
Repeat if necessary until the populace and governments know that pissing off the USA will bring down upon themselves the full wrath of America in a full scale military attack.
Occam's Tool| 10.21.11 @ 10:19AM
Dixie: back when Saturday Night Live was still funny, they had an episode where, to show a car's perfect suspension, they had a mohel perform a bris on a child while riding in it. The bris went flawlessly (circumcision) and at the end, the mohel exclaimed, "poifect!"
That describes you, as well. Thanks.
Dixie Pixie| 10.23.11 @ 6:38PM
Thanks for the compliment O..T..
Just one small comic detail, I am a Southern Baptist not Jewish.
JimH| 10.21.11 @ 10:54AM
I agree with the sentiment but you make things more complicated than they need to be. The simpler version:
Make it known that any government guilty of terrorist activities against America or harboring those that do will be destroyed.
Should the occasion arise, actually carry through on this.
Repeat and bounce the rubble as needed.
There is no need for us to become involved otherwise in selecting a friendly government. Actually they need not even be friendly so long as they do not cause trouble. As the saying goes: Oderint dum metuant.
Dixie Pixie| 10.23.11 @ 6:50PM
Greetings Jim.
OK, I will simplify the procedure.
1) Annihilate the offending government starting with killing the Ruler.
2) Replace it with a new government composed of native personal.
3) Leave completely and let no military remain behind.
This procedure works every time it has been used from the Stone Ages to Grenada.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.21.11 @ 3:05AM
Utter garbage, of course courtesy of the Washington Establishment and the utterly-discredited AmSpec magazine. If you are a doctoral student, boy, then you've got a LOT to learn, and you better start learning it NOW, boy. You are not fit to comment on foreign policy issues.
You wrote, inter alia, that:
"Suffice to say, the Foreign Policy Association's National Opinion Ballot confirmed an attitude that's prevalent in the foreign policy community. Key findings suggest that some defense budget cuts are necessary..."
and that
"These results are indicative of a 49 percent plurality that supports the reduction of the defense budget. But simply cutting back totals isn't sufficient"
and you called it
"valuable foreign policy knowledge."
It is not knowledge, nor is it valuable. It's utter garbage. It's just the OPINION of the plurality of the Beltway establishment - the American elite. But the elite is usually wrong, and it is wrong in this case.
Cutting the defense budget is NOT necessary to solve America's fiscal problems. Defense spending did not cause them, and cutting it will not solve them. It is a fact of life that if you don't tackle the ROOT CAUSES of a problem, you will never solve that problem. The Washington establishment has been after the defense budget for a long time. The current fiscal crisis is merely their newest pretext. The foreign policy elite has always been disdainful towards the US military and skeptical of the utility of military might; they've always preferred "soft power", which is no "power" at all. The foreign policy elite, however, is usually wrong, and seldom right about anything.
Occam's Tool| 10.21.11 @ 10:21AM
Zbig,
please see my comment above re: mohel, and know that it applies to you, too. Thanks.
This stuff is hard, but it ain't complicated at the grand strategy level.
yisong| 10.24.11 @ 10:44PM
slewing ring can also bear the larger axial load, radial load and overturning, can replace several sets of ordinary bearing combination to use function. http://www.1stbearing.com