"The Presidential Campaign and US National Security"
On April 2, 2008, the National Strategy Forum hosted an expert panel on the topic, “The US Presidential Campaign and National Security.” The panel was moderated by James Warren, a managing editor with the Chicago Tribune and political affairs commentator. Panelists included Richard Friedman, President and Chair of the National Strategy Forum; Andrew Krepinevich, Jr., President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA); and John Allen Williams, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University-Chicago. The panelists discussed an array of major national security issues the US is currently confronting, including Iraq’s future, the rise of radical Islamist terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. They also discussed some less apparent issues the next US president and administration may confront, such as space warfare with China, cyber warfare, and the importance of bipartisanship in national security policy.
National Strategy Forum president Richard Friedman noted that “Vilification, mud-slinging, and lack of substance have been part of presidential campaigns since 1800.” The current presidential campaign is no different, including the personal attacks and the lack of serious discussion about important national security issues, with the exception of Iraq, and even that has been discussed only superficially with little exploration of the potential consequences of alternative policies. “However,” he noted, “the American public is inured to this quadrennial exercise in self-destruction.”
The panelists offered their views of the major national security issues confronting the next US president and administration based on existing and emerging trends. They agreed that presidential candidates typically respond to issues in which the public is interested, and, as a result, it is often difficult to discern candidates’ national security policy positions. Partisanship and a resultant lack of consensus among political elites about what defines America’s “national interest” pose a critical challenge to defining an overall national strategy, which Professor John Allen Williams of Loyola University Chicago explained “requires clear goals and means. Both the moral and practical implications of how we define America’s national interest must be considered.” He added that the current presidential rhetoric might not survive reality come January 20th, recalling Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 reelection slogan, “He kept us out of war,” Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 pledge not to “send American boys in to do what Asian boys ought to do,” and Richard Nixon’s 1968 “Secret plan” to end the Vietnam War.
Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, warned of three major challenges the US faces. First, there is the rise of a disordered world. This is characterized by the spread of radical Islamist terrorism, failed or failing states, and the loss of governmental monopolies of information as a result of the Internet. Second, he noted the ability of non state actors – groups and even individuals – to wreak enormous destruction. Examples include the acquisition of precision guidance systems by insurgent groups such as Hezbollah and Colombia’s FARC and the use of cyber warfare against American public and private sector networks. Third, there is the impact of nuclear proliferation and the actions of actors such as North Korea and Iran and a rising China.
Professor Williams concurred with Dr. Krepinevich’s comments, and noted the effect of nuclear proliferation on conventional warfare operations. In addition to the expected challenges to a new president, there are several ‘wildcard’ threats to consider. These include another terrorist attack, the possibility of state collapse (for example, Pakistan or Cuba), the effect of a boycott and possible collapse of the Olympics in China, a potential PRC/Taiwan confrontation (less likely under the new Taiwanese government), possible alliances among non-state terrorist groups, crime syndicates, and criminal gangs, and the ever-present possibility of a Middle East meltdown of some sort. He also noted the declining military capabilities of our European allies and a concomitant hesitancy to use them. These have affected the effectiveness of NATO operations in Afghanistan.
Richard Friedman said that a lack of competent national security management may be the primary challenge facing the next US president. A legitimate US national strategy, he explained, requires an architecture. “The future is uncertain,” he said. The advent of asymmetric warfare, the evolving threat posed by US enemies and adversaries, and the challenges posed by US strategic competitors such as China necessitate a more a complementary national strategy that can be adapted to changed circumstances. The US is no longer in a position of primacy. Moreover, the US has substituted ad hoc decision making for an overarching strategy that takes into account the strategic objectives of other states and non-state actors. For example, does the new US warfighting doctrine combine US military force with diplomacy, culture, language, and tradition of other countries and hostile groups? Also, terrorists define “victory” as not being defeated; time is on their side. The US defines victory as absolute and unconditional. What are the implications of these differing strategic objectives?
The panelists agreed that the US may be approaching an economic recession, and the continuing US presence in Iraq raises the issue of whether the US can sustain a “guns and butter” economy. They noted that US manufacturing capacity is being rapidly reduced and has been replaced by intangible “information” products. It was noted that one cannot eat or wear digital information.
When asked about the implications of the candidates’ positions on Iraq, the panelists suggested several variables to consider. These include establishing regional security, the need to provide Iraqi citizens with a decent standard of living, the importance of US credibility and the establishment of mutual trust. With regard to the latter, US strategic communications are deficient. The worldwide abundance of information of varying degrees of accuracy and bias creates a challenge in crafting a credible message. That message must accurately reflect American values and use the communication tools available to disseminate that message widely, with a focus on the Islamic world.
The panelists also discussed the important role of US intelligence in counterterrorism and military efforts. They noted that intelligence is the first line of defense and to be effective it will also be very intrusive. This poses problems for civil liberties that must also be addressed. The importance of highly trained and educated US intelligence professionals is paramount. In that connection, the National Intelligence University (NIU) of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence provides an outstanding opportunity for enhancing the education and training of the 100,000 US intelligence professionals. The degree to which the recent reorganization of the intelligence community has improved national intelligence is not yet certain.
The panelists agreed that the next president will need on the job training. The first six months of the new administration will be a time of vulnerability - a period when US adversaries will test the new administration. Events will trump campaign promises and vision. The president and his advisers will be tested roughly and they need a strategy and architecture for the next four years and beyond.
In order to begin constructing an effective national strategy, the panelists agreed, the US must first determine its national identity. What are American values and strategic objectives? What is the American ethos? How do we see ourselves? How do want the rest of the world to see us? And, what are the components of a national strategy that accurately reflects contemporary challenges and remedies, American strengths and weaknesses?
Summary written by Lauren Bean