skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In the past the GOP has been hawkish on U.S. foreign policy, especially with regard to the war's in both Iraq and Afghanistan. During Monday's GOP presidential debate, various candidates were less united on continuing U.S. military operations in Iraq, but more specifically in Afghanistan, where in the coming weeks the president will be announcing his withdrawal strategy.
The shift in GOP strategy, and more directly as it relates to Afghanistan is a bit interesting, especially when Senator John McCain, who was the GOP candidate who lost to President Obama, and a Vietnam War veteran, supports our efforts in Afghanistan. None of the GOP candidates running for president have any connection to the military or served themselves.
Senator McCain, currently has two son's serving in the military, with his youngest son having served in Iraq with the Marines. America is entering a different period where the vast majority of Americans have little or no connection to those who serve. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have consistently commented on this disconnect and how the gap has widened.
It is interesting to follow the debate when Democrats, as well as Republicans, voted and supported the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but as soon as difficulties arose, changed their tune on why they voted the way they did. Once again we are seeing both political parties play politics with the war at the expense of those serving in harm's way.
No wonder we have a mess in Washington!
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=U.S.%20Politics
In one of his last addresses before he retires as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates blasted NATO for its inadequate defense capabilities. The Defense Secretary said Friday that NATO's sometimes shaky air campaign in Libya had "laid bare" the shortcomings of the alliance, which he said was facing "collective military irrelevance" after years of inadequate defense spending by most of its members.
Too often member nations sit on the sidelines, not because they don't want to assist in Libya, but because they lack the resources to do so. Few countries have spent money on aircraft and other systems that deliver intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, which are critical to the air war in Libya.
After months of conducting a military campaign in Libya, against a poorly armed country that is sparsely populated, many countries are running out of munitions, and yet again are requiring the U.S. to make up the difference.
"Despite 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, not just with boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such has helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.
Europe wants to be consulted and be part of the solution, but they are becoming irrelevant in military matters. As China becomes more of a threat to U.S. interests, a possible reallocation of resources from Europe to Asia may be down the road.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/browse.cfm?category=Europe&subcategory=NATO
In March, President Obama under U.N. auspices, launched a military operation in Libya to protect civilians from a humanitarian disaster. The president promised the nation that military operations would last days not weeks. Unfortunately, we are months into the campaign and there appears to be no end in sight.
The U.S. is now begging other European nations to join in the military campaign against Libya as the operation is placing a strain on NATO. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called on Germany and Poland, who have refused to participate in the Libyan operation. The secretary also called on Spain, Netherlands, and Turkey, which are participating but not in airstrikes, to step up their role.
The president is beginning to receive pushback from Congress who are asking more questions as to what is the perceived goal in Libya. Since military operations began, the president hasn't consulted Congress as stated in the War Powers Act, which requires the president to obtain congressional authorization 60 days after military operations commence. That deadline has already passed.
Remember, then candidate Obama stated, "The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Many questions still remain, and currently our stated objectives are murky at best.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/browse.cfm?category=Africa&subcategory=North%20Africa
A controversial report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chaired by Senator John Kerry, released findings that the extensive attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and might not survive once the U.S. withdraws from the country.
Currently debate is swirling around Washington and waiting for the anticipated announcement by the president in the coming weeks on how far and how deep the drawdown will be. Who is the president listening to with respect to guiding him in his decision making process? Currently the president has elevated and reshaped his national security team with individuals who were against the surge and believe in more of a counter-terrorism approach.
The report listed was done in conjunction with the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID), but minimal input was received from the military. The report mentions that the military has taken the lead in development at the expense of the State Department and USAID, but in 2009, the president mentioned there will be a surge of civilians into Afghanistan; that has not happened.
If a report is to be done in an objective manner, it needs to include input from the military-in-theater, and from Republicans on the committee.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/
President Obama and his national security team are contemplating a steep reduction in U.S. forces from Afghanistan in preparation for his announced draw down of military personnel that he originally proposed in December 2009.
His national security team is conflicted over how much to reduce U.S. forces and it harkens back to the original debate with members conflicted on what course to pursue. Vice President Joseph Biden was opposed to the surge with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton siding with military commanders on the ground.
A changing of the guard has taken place with the president's foreign policy team. Gone are Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Both were supporters of the surge of U.S. forces into Afghanistan and a counterinsurgency strategy advocated by military commanders.
The presidents new team of Leon Penetta, incoming Secretary of Defense, Thomas Donilon, replacing General James Jones as National Security Advisor, all favor a more counter terrorism approach in Afghanistan.
The president has placed into his national security team, political advisors with more experience in Washington then any real experience in global strategy. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the months ahead.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/browse.cfm?category=Defense%20Policy%20and%20Budget&subcategory=Defense%20Strategy
A report yesterday, sent stocks into a tailspin downward over the ADP's Employment Report, showing that the private sector created only 38,000 jobs is May.
This should not come as a surprise to many as the GDP grew at only 1.8% in the first quarter, well below what most economists had predicted, and after the administration had spent $4 trillion dollars since taking office.
The dismal economic news is not a shock to the American public as they know all too well the pathetic nature of the U.S. economy and its failure to create viable employment, and it is ironic that the report comes two years to the month when the "recovery" officially began.
Whatever Washington is trying to do does not seem to be working.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=U.S.%20Politics
May has not been a good month for the U.S. economy. The most striking element is that companies added fewer workers, which points to a struggling economy.
The current unemployment rate is 9%, with the official Labor Department jobs report due out on Friday, but if the report shows a tepid or anemic employment outlook, this has ramifications for the president as he enters the 2012 presidential elections.
After spending close to $4 trillion dollars since entering office in 2009, the economy has not produced the kind of employment numbers or unleashed an economic turnaround. Officially the recession ended in June 2009, but most Americans have hardly felt any change and still believe we'll remain in a recession.
Housing prices continue to fall, and those that have lost their jobs can't find one, and even if they did they are making less than what they earned before.
Troubling times for the president and the nation.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=U.S.%20Politics
