Following a post from a few months back, I was pointed in the direction of an intriguing study by Duke University’s Hal Brands and David Palkki of the National Defense University that is germane to the current debates over a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program and its implications for Israeli security (h/t Zach Novetsky). “Saddam, Israel, and the Bomb: Nuclear Alarmism Justified?”, published last summer in International Security, is the result of countless hours pouring over documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The implications of Brands and Palkki’s findings for Israeli security are alarming but . . .
→ read more
|
|
|
|
On the March 27, 2011 edition of Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show, GPS, The Global Public Square, an exchange between Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass and Brookings Institution senior fellow Robert Kagan highlighted one of the most prominent ways in which the Beltway’s foreign policy mavens have ignored the purpose of bringing America’s military might to bear in a conflict. Kagan, in response to Haass’ concerns about the unknown endgame of America’s then-relatively new intervention in Libya, made a truly remarkable statement: [W]e start wars, whether it’s World War I, World War II, the Civil War—we don’t know. . . . This is a guest contribution from Maria Andersen. She is a researcher living in Washington, DC. Until recently, Gary Johnson, the presumptive Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has been clear on his foreign policy views. He has argued for the removal of troops in Afghanistan. He was against intervention in Libya. He is not in favor of the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen. Johnson justifies his views by pointing out that none of these countries pose any military threat to the United States. Johnson has said: Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged . . . How many defense contractors does it take to build a ship? More specifically, how many defense contractors does it take to build a light frigate? That doesn’t leak or corrode? I don’t know the answer but the number is higher than 14 (rough count based on Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics LCS websites). Because that’s how many companies are involved in building the two different versions of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)—a procurement program that has so many problems on so many levels it boggles the mind. We have written about U.S. military procurement generally and the Littoral Combat . . . I have recently been preoccupied with the Asia pivot, or more generally the structural shift towards Asia—not in the serious research way, but more like the European pondering in the park while smoking a pipe way (figuratively speaking—I usually don’t go outside; I sit inside tweeting). By sheer coincidence the other day I came across Stephen M. Walt’s 2009 article “Alliances in a Unipolar World,” which applies alliance theory and frameworks to the peculiar period of unipolarity we are in currently. Walt mentions the rising powers in Asia and the long list of countries allied or aligned with the . . . A little over two weeks ago, a report in the New York Times by Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti described a recent war game run by CENTCOM that envisioned the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program. The result: Regional war with hundreds of American service members dead. News of the classified simulation, which was leaked to the Times by an unnamed official, had the Twitterverse abuzz, and the subject was quickly hyped on the Left by ThinkProgress, the blog of the liberal Center for American Progress, and denounced on the Right by Bret Stephens, writing in . . . This is a guest contribution from H.A. The author is using a pseudonym for professional reasons. Most Americans probably assume (if they consider it at all) that the hundreds of billions of dollars the Department of Defense spends each year goes toward the defense of the United States. To some extent, that’s true. Tellingly, however, the Obama administration’s new defense strategy is entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership.” That’s because the Pentagon’s focus is not on defending the United States but on defending other countries. It’s a strategy based on the idea that only U.S. deterrence, achieved through military presence, . . . By now the GOP national security establishment is sufficiently apoplectic over President Obama’s off-the-cuff statement at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul to outgoing Russian President Dimitry Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” on missile defense after November’s election. There have been the usual accusations of Obama’s appeasement of Moscow and his selling out of American national security. Fortunately Jacob Heilbrunn at the National Interest responds to the wailing with a cold dose of reality: The good news would be if Obama really was prevaricating—if he was secretly prepared to jettison an expensive and worthless missile-defense program that is . . . The Korean Peninsula is never far from the news cycle. Between the presence of nuclear weapons and thousands of U.S. troops, it seems a military confrontation is always just around the corner on the 38th parallel. Even mildly positive developments, such as North Korea recently agreeing with the United States to suspend its uranium enrichment program in exchange for food aid, are met—appropriately—with skepticism and criticism. But occasionally you need to look beyond the level of the nation-state for hope. Inspiration, however small and fleeting, can come from individuals and institutions outside of high diplomacy. Enter global soccer and . . . [DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any other contributor to this site] I have been hesitant to use this space to weigh in on the ongoing dispute between Charles and David Koch and the Cato Institute. My friend and co-blogger, Hans-Inge Lango, came up with the idea for this blog shortly after we met as interns in defense and foreign policy studies at Cato. I have always wanted to maintain this space as a means to offer analysis and commentary on American foreign and . . . |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Hegemonic Obsessions - All Rights Reserved |
|
