Obama's Defense Priorities

My colleague John at Argghhh! comments on Sen. Barack Obama's defense priorities as articulated in this YouTube video (it's only about a minute, so don't expect details). John seems to think that the Dems will never accept a "proven" missile defense system - my concern is not that we can't make a few missiles hit their targets, but is it really feasible and worth the cost to develop a global missile defense system against future Asian and Middle East nations? We know it won't stop Russia. It's more than urgent that we reexamine this program and the $9-10 billion dollars poured into it every year to understand not if we can intercept missiles, but whether we ought to deploy such an effort.

We both agree that not weaponizing space is a good idea, if no one else does either. While other nations may view our satellites as "weapons" and target them, hey, that's not exactly rocket science and it's not weaponizing space if they shoot from the ground. It's fair game. Let's not let word-games blur the issue here - offensive weapons stationed in space is not a good thing. Let's focus instead on the need for space exploration and try to keep the "final frontier" safe.

Slowing the continued growth of "future combat systems" in the generic sense can only be a good thing. I don't think it's a "soundbite" to suggest we urgently need to reform the massively out-of-control major defense acquisition programs. Suggesting that we need future combat systems to "better protect" soldiers is a cop-out if the systems take 10-15 years and billions to develop, when there are better alternatives. What our service acquisition executives need is a hard slap across the face and a demand for rational military requirements and sound fiscal accountability.

The nuke discussion is more complex, but we've covered this ground before. I absolutely agree that we need a goal of world without nuclear weapons - and recognize that a goal isn't tomorrow, four years from now, or forty years from now. And guess what? The United States is already committed to that goal through its signature on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We don't need the RRW until someone can articulate a post-Cold War nuclear weapons strategy. Don't forget that Obama's mentor is Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and he does know a few things about arms control. And certainly there are replacements for fissile material, the National Nuclear Security Administration works this issue with other nations all the time, right now.

Obama's 100 percent correct that while our military's excellence is unmatched, the war has blunted its effectiveness. We won the 2003 Iraq campaign, but our government isn't applying the necessary tools and resources to win the overall "war on terror." It's as if they're trying to win on the cheap - just keep it under $10 billion a month... Obama correctly sees that this strategy is breaking the military. Both John and I both agree that Obama's goal of increasing the military endstrength is needed (why exactly has it taken Bush seven years to figure this out?), but the missions need to be better defined against the newly designated endstrengths.

I'm not sure that either John or I like Obama's idea of giving the National Guard Bureau a seat at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Making the NGB a separate service isn't going to get it more resources or more personnel - it will just mean that the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will outvote the Army and NGB again, as they currently do. I've learned from my time in the Pentagon that being on a joint committee (as the JCS is, have no illusion) doesn't "empower" you to do anything more but give you a stage to make your case before you're told "no." The Guard needs to be subordinate to the Army's overall needs, end of story. Putting the NGB on the JCS board is an empty gesture.

Bottom line, I think Sen. Obama has a few military advisors who are grabbing a bunch of issues and trying to create a platform more aimed at attracting votes than making perfect sense right now. Hopefully that will get better, before the Obama-McCain debates. He's a quick study though, and I'm still confident that he's got the right intentions and will have the right advisors (Sen. Jim Webb, come on down!) to prepare for this job.

Comments

[Grandjester]

That's right NVH,

Jim Fuckin' Webb.

Uh-huh.

And when Hillary finally tanks, Wes Clark and some others will be able to move into Obama's camp.

Hang onto your hats ladies! Getting interesting!

[CKR]

The issue on missile defense is not technical, but rather what it does politically to our relations with other nations, Russia in particular.

All this is left over from the Cold War. We need a new paradigm, but George Bush didn't present one when he trashed the ABM Treaty. So in return, Moscow said "well hey, maybe we don't need the CFE treaty either." Tit for tat is not unknown in the international arena (except maybe to the neocons), so we're headed down that road.

One of Reagan's tenets, to return to that old paradigm, was to share missile defense with the Soviets. It wasn't entirely convincing at the time, but it's a concept that could be resuscitated, as long as we're remaining within the Cold War mentality. And treat it seriously, like placing the anti-missiles in Azerbaijan, as Russia has offered up.

But better yet to fast forward, which I think Obama could do. The fab four of nuclear disarmament have given us some first steps. Just announcing that nuclear disarmament was the US's goal would be a game-changer. Then we could go on from there to even better ideas.

Arms Control Wonk is currently at a conference on the subject in Norway. I've wanted to comment, but just haven't had the time. Thanks for the opportunity to post a quick one.

[Galrahn]

Is it possible both you and John have it right? I honestly don't have a problem with military folks hammering on Obama, he has not stepped up on that issue yet and is largely and unknown with a lot to prove there.

However you also have it right, because he is largely unknown with a lot to prove, he doesn't have to rush into that role in this primary with Clinton, because she isn't going to impress many in the military anyway. You also nailed an important point, right now what is hurting him more than anything on this subject is who his advisors are. Other than Casey, who may or may not be one of his supporters, his military supports are only anti-war Generals, not the strategic thinkers of the military (most of whom are liberal btw).

The way I see it, there is only one way the war becomes the deciding issue in this election. If a candidate is able to sell a global strategy for national defense that puts the US role in Iraq in context of that strategy, that candidate will win.

It doesn't matter if the specific strategy for Iraq is "stay 100 years" or "gun while you run", it is the big picture that puts the Iraq issue in context that will influence voters. I honestly believe that grand strategy issue that links foreign policy, economics, and defense will have impact with the voters (more than any other issue) that decide this race.

Obama has time before he needs to go there.

[NVH]

How's that kool aid taste boys?

[Grandjester]

Effin' Yummy.

[JKK]

"Obama has time before he needs to go there."

Posted by: Galrahn

--------------
If Obama wins the primary, I hope he 'gets' it before "he needs to go there". With 300 million people in the U.S., why should we push someone along that isn't there yet?

If learning world politics and global strategy was so easy, why hasn't Obama already learned how to get there "before he needs to go there"?