Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the damaged Republican brand…

Since his 2009 election to the position of RNC Chairman, there has been no lack of drama or satire provided from the curious persona that is Maryland’s own Michael Steele. Though he still maintains loyal supporters within the RNC and the GOP leadership, many Republican insiders would no doubt put Chairman Steele on their main list of potential and present political liabilities to the conservative movement in America. His controversial takes on issues such as race, global warming, and especially the policy decisions of the Obama Administration, have made him a polarizing figure within a majority of the prominent GOP circles of power, with harsh criticism of his actions coming from the likes of Senator John McCain, Karl Rove, and even notorious neocon William Kristol. His recently recorded comments on the Afghanistan War have helped to strengthen the worst fears of the most seasoned Republican politicos. His calling the nine year old war begun under the Bush Administration in retaliation to 9/11 “a war of Obama’s choosing” could go down as one of the most ignorant statements by any party leader in US history. Still, remarkably, and despite the Voyeur Club incident and his other missteps, he remains at the helm of the RNC for the foreseeable future, even as he has become a huge liability for the GOP.

Though the majority of non-cynical minded Americans will brush off Steele’s comments as playing to a crowd that is ignorant to common fact, the bigger problem for Republicans (benefit to Dems) is that this kind of rhetoric makes their brand look bad. Most people are asking themselves, “This is supposed to be the man who leads the Republican cause into the next decade?” When you layer his recent comments on Afghanistan with his “Greenland” remark on the science of global warming, and his constant fictional depiction of what he refers to as the “radical Obama agenda,” it makes sense that many within the GOP are continually calling for Steele’s resignation. Even those standing firm behind Steele, such as Ron Paul of Texas, come off as disingenuous when defending the factually deficient statements of their party chairman. His blog, strangely titled “What Up?” is both misguided in its title and feels out of place when coupled with the realistic look and texture of the current Republican Party. He has also alienated many potential Republican voters with his perceived arrogance and disregard for those who question his spoken words in the media and elsewhere.

Most Democrats are well aware of the Chairman’s negative effect on the larger conservative political movement, and because of this they would be smart to stay silent and let Steele self-implode until the election season heats up. Then, his ridiculous comments can be used to argue against the stability of the Republican Party and its leadership. Though Steele’s backers will always play off his comments as misconstrued satire, his outlandish commentaries, and the disbelief shared by the masses in response to his statements, are impossible to ignore. The Democratic Party basically has an unlikely ally in Mr. Steele, in that he exemplifies the exact persona that political liberals seek to portray when placing a status quo definition on what it means to be a real Republican in 2010. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much tape of Michael Steele is used by Democratic campaigns to counter Republican claims during the upcoming midterm elections. Thus far, as the elected leader of the RNC, it’s been a tight rope act for the troubled Chairman. Though he has backtracked on his comments on the Afghanistan War, and apologized for his mistakes in the past, it seems that he greatly underestimates the intelligence of the greater American populace. Whether he realizes this or not, it will take a major power play on the part of reasonable Republicans to reverse the damage done over the last year and a half by their own party chairman. When this will happen is anyone’s guess.

Thoughts on the effectiveness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US approach to his visit…

Upon the arrival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the United States today, it is obvious that the State Department and The White House are taking a decidedly more tolerant approach to working with the controversial, narrowly reelected leader of Afghanistan. Following months of critical verbiage from the United States and its NATO allies in the region, Karzai has stayed firm in his own, time tested, ways. He continues to reject the existence of Iranian influence in his country, despite the fact that a plethora of Iranian weapon caches have been seized within the Afghan borders, and the continued condemnation by Iran’s regime of the US mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He is guilty of openly accusing the United States of wanting to make a “puppet” out of him, and most recently claimed that western influence had led to fraud in the latest election, which he won when his opponent dropped out (ironically on claims of fraud and corruption by Karzai himself). Then there is the added tension created by Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and his alleged connection to drug trafficking and poppy production, which further complicates the efforts of US and Afghan forces to root out the money lines used in large part to fund outside terror organizations and the Taliban. Our criticism has ultimately led to a situation where we must re-attempt to reach common ground on critical areas going forward in order to bring a meaningful end to nine years of war in Afghanistan.

We have learned that in criticizing, and essentially backing the opposition to Karzai in the 2009 Afghan Presidential Election, we have proceeded to further alienate ourselves from our most crucial partner in a war we have invested so much life and treasure into. Though his intentions have often been questioned, Karzai has proven time and time again that he is a capable politician in his own right, and frankly he worries more about pleasing his potential voters in Kabul than in conceding positions to the United States or any other country for that matter. Therefore, as he visits the United States at this crucial moment, we must acknowledge that although we may not agree on some of the fine details of how Afghanistan does its business, we all share a common goal of disarming the Taliban, and rooting out the Al Qaeda presence in the region and worldwide. Karzai understands this, and he has known since 2001 that truthful cooperation with the United States and NATO is essential to his hold on power, and essential to his ability to avoid his fragile government from being overrun by the Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in the region.

As the meetings in Washington DC unfold, it should come as no surprise to see all of the parties involved projecting a much more positive, united tone with regards to the nature of the discussions which took place. With the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq looming in the coming months and years, we can be certain that the fixes we make to this timid relationship will be pivotal in the execution of the lofty foreign policy goals and wartime objectives of all parties involved.

Thoughts on United States v Faisal Shahzad and the keen eyes of New Yorkers…

As a disclaimer, I am not stating in this article that the vast majority of citizens in other US cities are not capable of deciphering terror attempts and smelling imminent danger; but in a Post 9/11 world, there is a noticeable level of heightened awareness that many long time New York City residents share when it comes to situations like this weekend’s failed car bombing by Connecticut resident Faisal Shahzad. The heroic actions taken by Time Square vendors to alert police of the danger at hand cannot go understated and reinforce this thought. In a culture that largely chooses to look the other way, or run for the hills in times of crisis or danger, these keen eyed individuals saw a suspicious vehicle, saw smoke, and reacted without hesitation to protect the people around them, and not just themselves. Whether it would have mattered had the bomb detonated quicker is of no matter. For police, this kind of petty terrorism is almost undetectable until it’s too late. Therefore, the critical cooperation between ordinary citizens in the streets, and the officers of the NYPD, is a prime example of the kind of open eyed approach to counterterrorism that ultimately saves lives.

We know, as of the release of the Federal Charges against Shahzad, that the newly naturalized United States citizen was a former resident of Pakistan. He had returned in early February from his latest trip to Karachi where he visited his family, but also made his way to Waziristan to train himself in bomb making. His claims to be working alone are under investigation, but his tracks are slowly leading him to a connection with the Pakistani Taliban and possibly Al Qaeda. In addition to his quickly unraveling story line, it seems that Shahzad was a rookie when it came to his attempted car bombing. Though his materials could have combined for a huge explosion, it has been revealed that his wiring job was amateurish, and his subsequent attempts to leave the country with a ticket to Dubai bought with cash lead me to believe he was chosen as an actor with little hierarchical importance to any major terror network. He parked his SUV in a location where cameras could catch his every move. He apparently bought the SUV off Craig’s List with cash, even inquiring to the previous owner about the cargo space at the expense of a faulty engine. Basically, this man has all of the signs of a wannabe who went too far.

As the details of United States v Faisal Shahzad continue to emerge, it should not surprise anyone if it is found that the Pakistani Taliban hired this green individual to carry out its dirty business. Why sacrifice an important individual to carry out an act which is likely to result in a bust or failed launch? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are growing increasingly desperate, and they are resorting to petty acts of terror in order to stay in the game. The Obama Administration has embraced the recent cooperation of the Pakistani government and military, and by doing so, the two sides have teamed together to slowly root out the radical influences in the region. It’s a struggle between divergent ways of life which is likely to last as long as humans are on the planet earth, and in order to leave the region in better shape than it was before we arrived in 2001, we must find a way to prevent US citizens such as Shahzad from reaching terrorist camps around the world.

Unless we and our allies can produce a full proof, globally intertwined system to detect the movement of high risk individuals into hotbeds of terror around the globe, it will be the keen eye of our citizenry, along with our collective willingness to work with law enforcement, that will ultimately determine our success in stopping future plots on our own soil. Our intelligence communities can help us to narrow down the major players of the various terror networks around the globe. They can help the TSA and other transportation safety agencies to flag individuals who are deemed a threat to their intended destination or are fleeing the scene of a crime. But, without our timely cooperation, and a New York City type awareness of the world we live in, the hard work of our homeland security officials can only get us so far in the fight to end terrorism. We, like those heroic Times Square vendors, need to alert the authorities to suspicious activities, especially when we are in crowded areas such as airports, tourist attractions, mass transit systems, and other high profile venues. In 2010, we have the ability to use our technology to capture videos and still images of suspicious behavior as it happens. We can then quickly forward that information to law enforcement. If we do this, we can rest assured that what is preventable is prevented, and the parties responsible, like Shahzad and his accomplices, are apprehended and brought to justice in a timely manner.

Thoughts on the short and long-term implications of the upcoming surge in Kandahar, Afghanistan…

As US/NATO forces prepare for the series of targeted offensives planned for June of this year in Kandahar, Afghanistan, it may be useful to examine what we might expect to transpire in the day’s, month’s, and year’s following this pivotal operation aimed at permanently removing the Taliban insurgency from the region. With the US troop surge underway, and efforts being undertaken to work with Afghan leaders to minimize civilian casualties and develop trust, a successful mission is going to be one that not only eradicates the Taliban threat from Kandahar and elsewhere, but also empowers the Afghan people and local tribal governments to eventually take true control of their own cities and their country going forward.

Kandahar lies at the heart and soul of this ages old conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Far before the attacks on 9/11/01, many powerful nations have fought and paid great prices for their efforts to secure this strategically located region of the world. Since we are not in Afghanistan to occupy it, the most important precursor to this planned offensive will be getting on the same page with local leaders and the Karzai government. Afghan forces must trust NATO forces, and vice versus, and without a clear understanding of our intended purpose, both short and long-term, there will be no way to effectively move forward post-offensive. Local leaders must know where to move civilians in order to prevent large scale casualties, and this will require that operational knowledge travel to Afghans who we have yet to establish real trust with. Once a meaningful degree of trust is established, and we carry out the proposed mission as planned/previewed to these leaders, then the momentum can slowly begin to build towards the empowerment of the Afghans themselves, without the United States or NATO forces constantly there to protect them.

Should the planned offensive go without a hitch, and an excess number of casualties are avoided, the door may creak open to proceed toward the long awaited end of the major US mission in Afghanistan. Of course, until there is true stability, nobody will be leaving in mass numbers, but at least if there can be a genuine degree of cooperation between NATO, Afghan leadership, and the United States leadership, the point can be made that progress is no longer an illusion, but a choice in the hands of the Afghan people, not the Taliban insurgency, or the US and our allies. Much like in Baghdad, Kandahar will be a tough fight for those who wish to remove an entrenched, armed, and organized insurgency. But, should the Afghan people decide that they no longer welcome the Taliban, and the Karzai government begins to act to eliminate the threat they pose to the general population, there is a chance that we could finally see an end to this decade long conflict.

Thoughts on war and the domestic agenda of the United States…

Upon analysis of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, it has become obvious that the priorities of the United States are in great jeopardy due to massive debt incurred from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only have over 4,000 servicemen (including my first cousin) and women died in the war on terror, but over 30,000 will return home with life altering battle wounds. In addition, billions in taxpayer dollars have disappeared due to mismanagement by hired contractors, overpayment to companies like Halliburton, and corruption by those who are responsible with using these funds appropriately as directed.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the war debt created by the Bush Administration has now come due, and with heavy interest. This year alone, it is estimated that US taxpayers will foot a bill of nearly 200 billion dollars for debt incurred over the past decade. Our military budget is 1.2 Trillion dollars this year, and the fact that war spending was billed as a separate budget entity under President Bush, only recently to be included in the full budget, demonstrates the degree to which fiscal irresponsibility was ignored in the name of fighting the “axis of evil” abroad.

The Obama Administration, despite escalating troop levels to finish the fight in Afghanistan, has already begun to reign in wasteful defense spending. Not because they intend to back down to outside threats, but because the cost of waging war for nine years has taken a critical toll on the domestic agenda here at home. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are at risk because we are spending nearly $10 billion a month fighting overseas. To date, the Iraq War has cost over $740 billion. In comparison, Afghanistan, the true stomping grounds of the 9/11 planners, has cost a mere $260 billion or one-third of Iraq. In all, over one trillion dollars have been spent on anti-terror based operations, and only now are we truly focused on finishing the job of dusting off the Taliban and capturing Al Qaeda leadership.

In stark contrast, W. Bush’s father was able to wage the first Gulf War at a total cost of $62 billion, including returning our troops home to safety upon completion of the mission. W, as opposed to his father, declared victory, but then chose to extend the conflict into an ambitious nation building operation. This decision was made with budgeting practices which ignored the long term viability of such an action. As the price of the War in Iraq skyrocketed, it became apparent that defense spending was spiraling out of control. Thus, the Bush Administration told the Pentagon to scrap unnecessary projects, such as a new fleet of Presidential helicopters, in a shallow attempt to appear frugal.

With defense spending dominating budgetary matters, the mainland American public was suffering dire economic consequences. From unregulated banks, Wall Street greed, and an exploding housing bubble, there is no denying that fighting two wars, while largely ignoring the home front, ultimately led us to near chaos in late 2008. While it cost taxpayers over $390,000 to deploy a solider abroad, middle class and lower income families saw their wages remain stagnant amidst inflation in healthcare costs and gas prices that peaked near $6 dollars a gallon at the height of the Iraq War.

In a sense, our country has not only lent its heart, soul, and children to fight these wars, we’ve sacrificed a decade worth of monetary progress to avenge a savage act on our soil. To debate the necessity of the Iraq War is futile; as it is coming to an end as you read this, but there is no doubt that the American people are less well off because of the irresponsible manner in which it was conducted. Our reputation abroad was damaged because of holes in the game plan, and the proximity of the conflict to Iran and Israel has allowed tensions to reach a boil. This brewing conflict took center stage, while our education, healthcare, and immigration systems required attention that was not being given to them.

Now is the time for us to focus on the problems that are right under our noses. President Obama has begun to draw down the troop levels in Iraq, diverting additional resources to the fight in Afghanistan, and setting his sights on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. The eventual return of a majority of our armed forces to the mainland will have a dramatic effect on the morale of the country, and aid in our ability to handle tough domestic issues. Going forward, it will be vital to refocus on building an America that is ready to lead both militarily and intellectually in the 21st century.

We need to become a healthier nation from a mental standpoint, and we need to reevaluate what kind of country we want to be going forward. Are we to be defined by our wars or by our ideas? Are we going to be a nation that fears the future, or relishes it? These questions are important to think about as we witness new foreign and domestic policies begin to take form. It will be in the vested interest of all Americans to take note of the impact of a less confrontational world view on our perception abroad, as well as the effects of having an extra $10 billion per month to use for domestic purposes.

Though in the end these wars we have waged are but a blip in the violent history of the world, we must realize that this is our time to regroup as a nation. The decisions that are made by our leaders going forward will ultimately define all of our futures. For this reason, we must all agree that no matter what our petty differences may be, our common needs do not change because we are at war. It is because of this fact that future wars must be fought within the realm of financial reason. Ultimately, we cannot afford to fight preemptively if it means bankrupting our nation again. The time has come to take note of what has happened to us, and to avoid repeating history in the future.

Addendum I: Effects of ending the War in Iraq: The successful return home of the brave soldiers stationed in Iraq should have short term positive boost on the morale of the entire nation. It will be our responsibility to help our biggest patriots mesh into the non-war world. We have to remember that this has been the longest War we have fought in several lifetimes, so it will be difficult even for the strongest minded of our troops to adapt to the calmness of daily life in America. In addition, a decline in tension between the US and Iran may be possible some time down the road given that much of the current day paranoia expressed by the President of Iran is due to our proximity to their border and their fear of American imperialism. Finally, world markets should welcome the renewed flow of billions more in domestic spending to renew the American economy, leaving the potential for a late 90's type boom.