By Harrison Moar, on June 26th, 2012
NATO members are meeting today to discuss Syria downing a Turkish fighter jet. Concern is rising that this incident could pull NATO into an armed conflict. Turkey has called the meeting under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty—just the second time this has been invoked in NATO history—which states:
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
The circumstances and facts of the incident are not clear. What is clear, however, is that Turkey is not taking this situation lightly . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on June 25th, 2012
Ben Hubbard of the Associated Press filed a fascinating yet sobering report last week after being embedded with Syrian opposition fighters for two weeks. The report provides great insight into the debate over arming the Syrian opposition. It paints a picture of groups that are disorganized and lacking in basic communication. As the fighting becomes bloodier and the chaos grows, it becomes more evident that a U.S. or NATO intervention would be subject to numerous unintended consequences. Specifically, arming the wrong opposition groups should be a main concern. But relying on the hope that the C.I.A. can acquire sufficient . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on March 28th, 2012
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 . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on December 5th, 2011
Recent announcements by Russian President (for now) Dimitry Medvedev raise the specter of a new round of confrontation between the United States and its former superpower rival. In response to planned American missile defense deployments in Europe Medvedev has said Moscow will deploy Iskander missiles, target land-based interceptor sites that will be activated later this decade, and shut down the Northern Distribution Network to Afghanistan that runs through Russian territory—a serious problem in its own right but even more so given the recent deterioration in U.S-Pakistan relations. Russia, as well as its Soviet predecessor, has a history of making . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on October 26th, 2011
A meme is emerging in the aftermath of the death of Col. Moammar Qaddafi. According to some, a new American paradigm for future conflicts has been established. In the Wall Street Journal, Julian Barnes and Adam Entous describe Libya as “a new template for future military intervention” that “emphasizes quick planning, a small footprint and limited duration engagements, according to U.S. officials assessing the outcome.” Barnes and Entous go on to quote Vice President Joe Biden lauding the operation: “NATO got it right…This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward.” And, . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on October 7th, 2011
A recent piece by McClatchy newspapers reports that NATO will not be undertaking any effort to determine how many civilian casualties have been caused by the Atlantic alliance’s bombing campaign. According to NATO spokesman Col. Roland Lavoie, “NATO has no plans for further investigations.” His justification, which was given in an email to McClatchy about an incident near Majar, Libya where civilians were supposedly killed by a NATO airstrike on suspected pro-Qaddafi forces, explains that “NATO does not have troops on the ground in Libya and consequently no reliable method to verify the civilian casualty allegations.”
Just a few . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on August 24th, 2011
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, along with Paula De Sutter, has authored a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for the abrogation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The INF Treaty—signed in 1987 and ratified by the Senate in 1988—eliminated U.S. Pershing II and Soviet SS-20 ballistic missiles, as well as ground-launched cruise missiles and several other Soviet short-range missiles, from both superpowers’ nuclear arsenals. The agreement was universally lauded at the time as a crowning achievement for the Reagan administration, but some in the neoconservative camp of Reagan’s coalition were not pleased and, . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on May 27th, 2011
It would be nice if Moscow would get its story straight on how it feels about the missile defense system the United States will deploy over the next decade in conjunction with its NATO allies. Last week, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said that failure to secure an agreement on a joint NATO-Russian missile defense system in Europe would cause Moscow to have to consider expanding its strategic arsenal—in effect, abrogating New START before the ink even dried. Medvedev had previously raised the specter of a renewed strategic arms race, and had been fairly consistent in his warning up until . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on May 19th, 2011
The Heritage Foundation has released a new report [pdf] on President Obama’s missile defense strategy by Baker Spring. Unfortunately, as with most of Heritage’s material on missile defense, Spring’s report has a fatal flaw that makes it unrealistic: wanting it all. The strategy proposed in the report goes far beyond what is necessary based on existing ballistic missile threats and is based on technologies that have proved neither reliable nor cost effective. The report also goes beyond merely honest disagreements about strategic necessities. It is riddled with factual errors and makes assertions about the Obama administration’s missile defense policy . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on April 19th, 2011
In my last post, I criticized the Washington Post’s editorial, “The Libya stalemate,” for mischaracterizing the Obama administration’s reasoning behind taking a supporting role in the Libya military operation. The calculation behind this policy is not ideological, but more likely a compromise within the administration and an acknowledgement by President Obama of the unintended consequences if the United States is the lead actor and responsible for the outcome in Libya.
But regardless of how the White House reached this policy, there is a crucial strategic reason for the President to remain resolute in his decision. This represents a critical . . .
→ read more
|
|
