Mr. Obama’s Pitch to NATO
By Guest Authors Michael Barton and Gabriel C. Lajeunesse
General David Petraeus testified last week that militant extremists in Pakistan could “literally take down their state” if left unchallenged. Meanwhile, suicide bombers continued to strike unabated in Afghanistan, even as the international community committed their support to the fledgling democracy at the Hague. The President now has a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It wisely marshals resources by centering on a core goal: fighting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qa’ida and their supporters. This strategy also hedges against European NATO members’ reticence to offer additional combat forces by providing them the “out” of instead providing trainers, funding, and other military support.
The real challenge to this strategy will be in the execution. This battle, much like the battle for Baghdad during the Iraq surge, will be won or lost by Commanders on the ground, soldiers in the field, and their civilian counterparts. In the years since 9/11 the U.S. has demonstrated the capability and willingness kill or capture senior al-Qa’ida operatives in Pakistan. The network of low-level facilitators, however, is an order of a different magnitude, with its geographic area and scope too vast for a conventional mission with only 21,000 additional troops.
With these additional troops, Generals David Petraeus and David McKiernan can focus on identifying and destroying the al-Qa’ida facilitation networks near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. These networks remain the backbone of al-Qa’ida, moving people, passing information, and acquiring equipment to enable the targeting of civilians and American, coalition, and Afghanistan troops – as well as U.S. supply routes. These networks also use criminal and narcotrafficking enterprises as force multipliers in their efforts to co-mingle with civilians, which remains one of the single most important elements of any successful terrorist organization. A significant amount of intelligence is needed to effectively dismantle such an extensive network, and it will only come as the Afghans begin to trust that the security gains are not fleeting. To be successful, this requires a targeted and fully resourced counterinsurgency effort.
After years in Iraq our Soldiers and Marines are seasoned in counterinsurgency and the community policing that it entails. Living among the civilians, protecting them, and demonstrating our commitment to them as individuals and improve the quality of their lives. Successes like those seen in Brigadier General Shawn MacFarland’s Anbar, or Colonel David Sutherland’s rough and tumble Diyala, will only be seen if the new U.S. forces and partnered Afghan forces are concentrated along the key pipelines that al-Qa’ida depends upon for its survival. Once forces in Iraq moved from secure forward operating bases to exposed combat outposts in the heart of troubled areas, security there improved. One year after applying these techniques in the Iraq surge, violence had decreased 70%. Weapons cache seizures – a good indicator of a cooperating population – increased 60%. The Pakistani’s likewise must learn to adopt these approaches and training missions if they are to build a capable counterinsurgency force. Without such capability, Pakistani leadership and civilians will continue to be picked off, and the Pakistani Army’s status of guarantor of national security will be even further eroded.
The Afghanistan-Pakistan counterinsurgency approach is a means to an end. The goal has never been to establish a Switzerland in Central Asia, rather, it has been to deny al-Qa’ida a base from which it can freely plan and execute terrorist attacks. Applying these additional forces to attack al-Qa’ida’s vulnerability will keep them running, hiding, and on the defensive until the backbone of this network is broken for good.
Mr. Barton served at the White House from 2003-2006; Mr. Lajeunesse is an associate at Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy and is a former Air Force Special Agent.
Developing a Coherent National Security Architecture
Gabriel Lajeunesse and Bill Wunderle are associates at Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Walsh School of Foreign Service, where they co-teach a class on radical Islam and the war of ideas.
We face a number of significant challenges to US security interests. One of the next administration’s first acts should be to introduce rigor into our national security processes.
Transition provides opportunity; opportunity to rethink, renew, reorganize, opportunity to reinterpret and be reinterpreted. Perhaps never before has any President had so much at stake in getting it right as this—with the US engaged in two wars, both of which will be arguably won or lost during this administration, an economic crisis of global proportions, growing competition from China, the threat of a nuclear Iran, and a resurgent Russia to name just a few pressing issues. In his early days in office, President Obama should take the opportunity to organize an effective National Security Architecture. Interagency failures in the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan provide a window into needed reforms.
The National Security Council Staff
President Obama must continue to make conscientious choices as he fills out his National Security Council staff. It is the NSC staff that manage the interagency process for the President—the day to day working groups (currently Policy Coordination Committees, PCCs or sub-PCCs) that bring together the various departments of the US government to formulate policy options for the President and his National Security Council. The National Security Advisor is the captain of this elite team. General Jim Jones is an excellent choice. While some have advocated for massive national security overhaul, i.e. a Goldwater-Nichols Act for the interagency, much can be accomplished simply through good leadership; in that regard we are off to a good start.
The NSC staffers must also be experienced leaders and not just policy wonks. This is particularly crucial when dealing with our nation’s top priorities. It wasn’t until May 2007 that President Bush placed a senior leader in charge of policy development for Iraq and Afghanistan, Lieutenant General Doug Lute. Prior to that, a rising young star, Meghan O’Sullivan, held that seat, but was unable to overcome an environment of interagency backbiting over Iraq that became notorious. The youthfulness of the Bush NSC team was well known; and the decision to bring in more senior leadership has helped the interagency process immensely. Yet even after the appointment of LTG Lute, one has to wonder if it would not be more effective to have a single senior Presidential advisor for Iraq and another for Afghanistan. Our national security leaders need to have sufficient depth of knowledge, continuity, and focus. It may have been effective to have a single senior National Security Advisor and a couple of other senior assistants when looking at the world through “Cold War tinted lenses”; but this cannot be the case now. We should have senior policy advisors/drivers for all our top priorities—i.e. Iran, the Middle East Peace, China etc. These senior Assistant National Security Advisors could keep the interagency on-track with regularly scheduled work-product flowing through working groups to the Deputies Committee, and Principal’s Committee and NSCs as appropriate, to drive whole of government efforts in achieving US national security objectives.
Agencies also need to be agile in how they assign their senior staff to priority problems. The most senior military officers working Iraq or Afghanistan full time at the Pentagon are Colonels. These are the very best officers the services could find, for sure, but possibly not as senior as needed in wartime. The situation is similar across the interagency. If these really are our most pressing problems, they deserve the attention of our very best, very most experienced people.
The National Security Planning Process
In addition to improvements in personnel, the NSC must make some serious changes to its planning methodology (or lack thereof). The NSC should develop overarching regional plans that articulate the government’s desired end-state and strategic objectives and drive interagency action and link ends, ways and means to operationalize our foreign policy. Such an effort would allow for something that has yet to be done to date—a budget process grounded and linked to clearly articulated foreign policy objectives.
Interagency Structure
The interagency must also dedicate proper resources to supporting counterinsurgency and state-building enterprises. US Agency for International Development, State, US Department of Agriculture and Treasury are key actors and must prepare themselves to fully partner with the DoD in its deployments to contingency environments. Additionally, the international affairs budget must be appropriately funded to allow these agencies to fully lead or partner in hostile environments. Planning will go a long way to help justify these expenditures and help demilitarize what has been termed a militarized foreign policy.
By ensuring good leadership of the NSC process, implementing planning processes in the NSC, and properly resourcing the interagency we will optimize our ability to deal with complex challenges ahead.
Living in the World of “I”: Winning Essay
Each year, the Harvard Program in International Education holds an essay contest for high school students that are part of the HPIE program. It is our pleasure to reproduce the winning essay from this year’s contest, written by Keaboka Nyumbu.
There are so many problems in society nowadays, but the major problem facing the world today is the “I” mentality. We live in the world of “I” (selfishness) instead of “we” (altruism), and this orientation has caused many problems far beyond anyone’s comprehension. In this paper, I will give examples of why “I” is the biggest problem facing our environment and society.
Global warming is one of the biggest problems facing the environment today, a problem that could be prevented if people concentrated less on themselves, and more on the environment and other people instead. Unfortunately, this seems impossible in a world where each person will do whatever it takes to get their monthly checks even if it means destroying the earth. Money has become more important than the earth because people focus too much on their individual needs instead of the needs of all people. Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding.” People, companies, and countries don’t bother to take action if doing so will cause them to lose money. For example, why aren’t car companies making Hybrid cars cheaper than regular cars? They choose not to, largely because they won’t make as much profit from selling them. But why is making profits more important than saving the planet? It’s more important to each car company that wants to make more money for itself. No one seems to care if their way of making money is contributing to droughts or other natural disasters caused by global warming.
Despite these problems, there are a few people in this world who are trying hard to create change by focusing more on the world as a whole instead of on themselves alone. Among these people is Dr. Wangari Maathai . She began The Green Belt Movement which did more than just plant trees; it gave hope to the people of Kenya, and it helped restore trees and environments lost to deforestation. Despite being persecuted and beaten by government officials, she still continued to pursue her goal of changing the world. She managed to do just that; she grew over thirty million trees in her country and inspired countless others. This is just one example of what can be accomplished if people tried to think outside of their own personal gain.
In conclusion, creating the world of “we” may seem impossible. But I firmly believe that it is possible; other people have already begun by setting an example. They have acted not for their own personal gain, but for the gain of all living things in this world. If this ethic continues, we can stop global warming, we won’t have wars, we can eliminate poverty, and no one will lose a friend or family member to an illness that could have been prevented with enough money to afford medicine. We would eliminate the things that are too selfish, too prideful, or too egotistical. A world where everyone helped each other and contributed to the greater good is a reality that we can all reach if we have the courage to try. If we learn how to work together as human beings, things will change for the better.