Normative Narratives

Tag Archives: military


by Leave a comment

Save the EU, (So it Can Help) Save the World

Two Birds, One Stone

The first round of the French Presidential Election saw anti-EU Marine Le Pen advance to the second round runoff. Her defeat there is not the foregone conclusion many think it is–we have all seen this movie before.

Regardless of the outcome of the election or any future “Frexit” vote, European geography won’t change; Russia will still be an aggressor, and the Middle East will remain a volatile neighboring region. Countries on the European continent need a viable joint security plan. For countries that remain in the EU, a new economic plan is needed to stop these exit movements from gaining popular support.

Three interconnected problems seriously undermine the future of the EU–economic, security, and cultural. Economic contraction from the Great Recession / European Debt Crisis, met with austerity policies, has led to high unemployment and stretched social services. A weak military (partially caused by austerity but primarily the result of historic over-reliance on the US) has left Europe unable to act decisively on regional security issues, resulting in an influx of refugees. The arrival of refugees coincided with an increase in terrorist attacks and exacerbated economic insecurity, fueling strong anti-refugee sentiments across the continent. Given the long-term inability of mainstream politicians to remedy these problems, it is not surprising that once fringe populists offering simple solutions have emerged as a real threat to the future of the EU.

One would think the success of anti-EU movements would prompt a strong response from the block. Unfortunately, it seems like business as usual in Brussels. EU negotiators just demanded a huge 3.5% primary surplus of Greece for an indefinite period of time in exchange for bailout funds, even as it grapples with 23.5% unemployment (almost 50% for young people).

The solution to these interconnected problems, although not pretty, is clear–exempt defense and security spending increases from Greece’s budget surplus target. In general, exempt defense and security spending increases from EU budget rules. These rules are often disregarded anyways, but bailout countries like Greece do not have this flexibility. The result is the poorest countries are forced to accept the most growth-constricting policies.

For Euro countries, make cheap ECB funds available to finance such spending. Security provides a common benefit, so its only fair that the costs be reduced by the common strength of the European economy.

The old saying “war is a rich man’s game but a poor mans fight” is an unfortunate economic reality. US servicemen and women come primarily from lower income families, and this plan would appeal most to the poorest Europeans. But there are, however, benefits to both society and individuals to having stronger armies in the EU. A stronger force can act as a deterrent, discouraging bad actors from, well, acting badly. When preventative peacebuilding, diplomacy, and deterrence fail, a strong army can act decisively in a “just war”. The economic benefits realized by military families are real, and can contribute to economic growth and opportunity.

It is not my intention to glorify war, there are many downsides to it; using force should always be the last option, but for global powers it must be an option. I also want to be very clear, this is not a call for conscription. Those who do not wish to serve in their country’s armed or homeland security forces will of course be free to pursue other options.

Not Ideal, But a Chance to be Real

Ideally, fiscally conservative EU countries would just allow poorer countries to engage in stimulus spending attuned to their specific needs. But almost 10 years after the Great Recession, there is little reason to believe this is the case. In fact, Greece’s recent bailout terms are evidence to the contrary.

Ideally, EU defense and security spending would align with the risks facing its members. But despite terrorist attacks at home, Russian aggression at it’s doorstep, and regional instability in the neighboring Middle East, only marginal steps have been taken on this front.

Eventually “ideally” no longer works. Within the complex bureaucratic framework of the EU, pursuing the ideal has resulted in inaction, which has proven to be the worst course of action of them all. Everything is pointing towards inadequate defense and security spending by EU countries. Europe’s security blanket (the U.S.) is now taking a harder line on defense contributions. It is past time for EU leaders to act decisively before the block becomes irreversibly damaged.

As with any major program there are many specifics to be worked out. For instance, how to maximize the resources that go to “labor” (troops, homeland security forces, intelligence officials) as opposed to large “capital” items (aerial bombers and drones for example), without compromising the objective of improved military and security capabilities.

The proposed solution is a just starting point. But it is the starting point for an idea that can solve multiple problems, and should have support from a wide range of politicians–anti-austerity liberals, populists, and neoconservatives. It is also a relatively simple solution itself, so it should play well with blue-collar voters who are fed up with ineffective technocratic solutions.

—

I am not calling for a global military buildup. Increased military spending by the EU should be met with decreasing military spending in the US. As I have consistently said, Trump’s pressure on EU countries to increase defense spending has been a rare positive for his administration, but would be a wasted opportunity if coupled with the huge increase in defense spending in his proposed budget.

 

Advertisement


by 2 Comments

Conflict Watch: The End of Team America World Police Pt. 6; Towards A Global D.I.M.E. Framework

“Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be — a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.” –Barack Obama, 2014 West Point Commencement Speech

Yesterday, President Obama delivered the commencement speech at West Pt. (full text). The President took the opportunity to lay out his vision for American foreign policy, hitting on many points discussed here at NN:

1) The Human Rights Roots of Terrorism and Conflict: Most conflicts are, at their root, related to human rights violations (Protracted Social Conflicts) . Over time, if unsupported, legitimate grievances can be overridden by opportunistic forces hoping to advance very different agendas. President Obama correctly hit on the important roles sustainable human development and democratic empowerment play in preventing future conflicts and creating new markets for shared prosperity. By recognizing the importance of human rights concerns in security matters, we can work towards preventing future conflicts.

2) The Cost of Traditional Warefare: The War on Terror has resulted in nearly 7,000 U.S. combat deaths, 50,000 wounded military personnel (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Veterans suffering with psychological ailments such as PTSD), and $8 trillion in spending and interest payments. Given these costs, its is imperative that unilateral military action be reserved as a last resort to direct threats to America’s National security.

3) A Global D.I.M.E. Foreign Policy Framework: Military intervention is only one of the tools available to influence international affairs, as part of a broader “D.I.M.E” (Diplomatic, Intelligence, Military, Economic) framework. The situation in Ukraine highlights how a strong network of institutions can use these tools to counter military threats: Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions. Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions. NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies. The IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy. OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. This mobilization of world opinion and institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border, and armed militias.

4) Strengthening Multilateral Security Forces: Some threats require a military response–America cannot continue to shoulder such a disproportionate share of global security costs. I regularly echo the call for our NATO partners to more equitably share the costs of global security.

Another important multilateral security force are United Nations Peacekeepers. As certain countries (mainly the U.S.) work to reduce military expenditure, it is important to ensure U.N. Peacekeeping operations–which benefit from the technical knowledge and legitimacy of the U.N.–remain adequately funded to respond to conflicts around the world. UN Peacekeeping has 16 active missions, yet currently accounts for only 0.5% of global military expenditure; the global community must dedicate more resources to this increasingly important security force.

5) Capacity Building in [Potential] Conflict Regions: In response to the high cost of American “boots on the ground”, and in an effort to promote security partnerships globally, the U.S. military has renewed its focus on training local forces to deal with threats. Training local forces is cheaper, keeps American lives out of harms way, and avoids the anti-American sentiment often associated with direct intervention. Furthermore, local forces naturally have a better understanding of both their enemy and the terrain.

That is not to say training local forces always goes smoothly, there are often complications related to local allegiances and ancillary resources. However, this is all the more reason to have American’s involved in training local units. Many of the qualitative concerns regarding trust can only be addressed through prolonged relationship building. Training and oversight, alongside their primary function of developing more effective security forces, also provide an opportunity to establish these necessary relationships.

Furthermore, building local capacity goes beyond establishing military relationships. In order for the international community to successfully support human rights / democratic movements, we must establish reliable relationships across a range of actors. Leaving only a strong military, without supporting the institutions which champion human rights, is not likely to lead to sustainable democracy.

—

There will always be the need for both “soft” and “hard” power in international affairs–every type of response has its strengths and weaknesses, its costs and benefits. It is important to remember that “hard power” does not necessarily require unilateral military action. By more equally distributing the costs associated with global security, and building the capacity of trustworthy local partners in conflict regions, hard power can be utilized in a more sustainable and preventative fashion.

Since hard and soft power are complimentary, making these global security reforms is an essential component of the emerging global D.I.M.E. framework. Furthermore, to the extent that security is a necessary precondition for sustainable human development, the global D.I.M.E framework is an indispensable component of the broader global partnership for development.


by 2 Comments

Conflict Watch: A Coup By Any Other Name…

May be even more deadly.

Days after declaring Martial Law, Thai General Prayuth Chan-ocha announced a Military Coup on Thursday. Since then the Military has stationed troops in major cities, suspended the constitution, enacted a curfew, put a halt to both pro and anti-government protests, taken certain channels and media outlets out of circulation, and detained former PM Yingluck and members of her government. Classic Coup actions.

The Thai army says it will remain neutral and wants to enact certain reforms before holding elections. If this is indeed possible, this Coup could be less disruptive than previous Coups. The big question is what form will reforms take? Will they increase transparency and accountability, curbing the potential for future corruption? Or will they involve drastic legislative redistricting, in an attempt to marginalize the political voice of rural Thailand? Can the army orchestrate meaningful reforms while remaining a neutral intermediary between rival political parties?

The answers to these questions will likely determine how the Coup plays out. There is, however, something reassuring about the Thai army calling this a Coup, especially in comparison to Egypt’s “non-Coup”. By acknowledging this was in fact Coup, the Army is at least taking responsibility for what happens next in Thailand. We should not, for instance, expect a bloody crackdown as we saw in Egypt.

—

In a previous post, I emphasized the determinative role armed forces can play in regime change. All things equal, it is always best for the military to stay out of politics and focus on security and defense issues. But all things are not equal; countries face unrest for a variety of reasons, and this unrest can turn violent and often has adverse economic consequences, as it has in Thailand.

One could certainly question the necessity of this Coup, violence has not recently escalated and Prime Minister Yingluck agreed to step down 2 weeks ago. Economic deterioration seems to be the most obvious catalyst in this instance. Either way a Coup has occurred, and the focus now shifts to the actions of the Thai army.

If the Army is indeed committed to the things it says, it may be possible for a Coup to play a constructive role in Thailand’s political crisis. Last month the U.N. highlighted this constructive role security forces can play in peace efforts:

The United Nations Security Council today called on countries emerging from conflict and all those assisting them to prioritize the development of domestic police and national defence forces that maintain rule of law and respect human rights, in its first-ever stand-alone resolution on security sector reform.

Stressing that it is the sovereign right and the primary responsibility of the countries concerned to reform their security institutions, the Council, through the resolution, encouraged the UN and other international partners to strengthen their approach to training and other assistance, and to integrate it with other efforts to help rebuild national institutions.

Mr. Ban reaffirmed some of the principles of security sector reform outlined in his latest report on the issue, including the linkage between security efforts and broader processes of political and institutional reforms in the countries in question.

“Strengthening operational effectiveness must be combined with efforts to build a strong governance framework, robust accountability and oversight mechanisms, and a culture of integrity and respect for human rights. National ownership is imperative,” he said.

Security is a necessary prerequisite for stability, human development and economic growth. There is nothing inherently good or bad about security forces. They can restore order and champion principles of democracy, human rights, and rule of law, or they can kill with impunity. There is something very interesting and deeply psychological about the broad spectrum of roles armed forces can play in society–it is in many ways a microcosm of free will.

Thailand is not Egypt, there is no reason to think just because there was a Coup, that the human rights environment in Thailand will deteriorate as it has in Egypt. However, certain actions by the Thai army certainly raise eyebrows, such as imposition of a curfew and suspensions of press freedom. Also, the Thai military’s track record does not inspire confidence; perhaps today is a new day?

All we can do now is wait and see, and hope the Thai army backs up its neutral rhetoric with appropriate actions and reforms. Except more on this topic in the coming weeks.


by 1 Comment

Transparency Report: TEOTAWP, Cyber-Terrorism, Civil Liberties and Invasion of Privacy

For clarity sake, TEOTAWP stands for The End of Team America World Police, a recurring theme here at NN.

—

Two weeks ago, President Obama addressed the nation to signal a shift away from President Bush’s “War on Terror” towards more sustainable foreign policy.

Yesterday, information was leaked about the U.S. government using “dragnet” tactics to access American’s personal telephone and internet information. There has understandably been outrage about this apparent infringement on civil rights / liberties. The purpose of this blog post is not to address this legitimate concern, but rather to explain why data-mining is perfectly consistent (and arguably a logical conclusion) of the Obama administrations stance on national security.

A recap of what Obama said, through the NN lens, can be read here:

“‘Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.’

Mr. Obama rejected the notion of an expansive war on terrorism and instead articulated a narrower understanding of the mission for the United States. ‘Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,’ he said.

‘Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror,’ Mr. Obama added. ‘We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.’”

“As our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion,” Mr. Obama said. “To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power — or risk abusing it.”

“The changes reflect a conclusion by the White House that the core of Al Qaeda has been decimated by years of strikes and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But in the speech, the president said that the threat had evolved in a complicated mosaic of dangers from affiliated groups and homegrown terrorists, like the bombers who attacked the Boston Marathon.”

“Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, issued 10 questions to the president in reaction to previews of his speech. “Is it still your administration’s goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda?” he asked. “If you are scaling back the use of unmanned drones, which actions will you be taking as a substitute to ensure Al Qaeda’s defeat? Is it your view that if the U.S. is less aggressive in eliminating terrorists abroad, the threat of terrorist attacks will diminish on its own?”

I, like President Obama, addressed the issue from a theoretical/normative perspective; over the medium to long run more cooperation and building stronger, more resilient geopolitical relationships will allow the U.S. to divert some resources from the DoD to the DoS, an element of “D.I.M.E” diplomacy.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expanded on Obama’s vision recently, in a more practical short-term way:

“Over all, he said, the United States will keep its “decisive military edge,” an oblique but distinct reference to American military superiority. China has announced an 11.2 percent increase in military spending this year, part of its rapid military modernization.

He stressed that new technologies would entail spending fewer resources in a smarter way…”

As Senator Boehner’s questions highlight, simply ignoring terrorism and the growing threat of cyber-terrorism will not make these issues go away. They demand a response that is more sustainable financially and more stomach-able morally. Obama did not say he would stop drone strikes, but that he would make the process more transparent. He did not say he would stop fighting terrorism, but that the way that terrorism is going to be fought is changing.

Instead of sending our young men and women to remote locations to fight unsustainable wars which tarnish America’s image and fuel anti-American sentiments, the Administration will use a fraction of those resources to protect homeland security. Obama’s statement that the “threat had evolved in a complicated mosaic of dangers from affiliated groups and homegrown terrorists, like the bombers who attacked the Boston Marathon.”, alludes to a more covert approach in combating terrorism and protecting America’s national security interests.

We must realize that everyday there are people who try to hurt Americans–Jihad does not take a vacation. The fact that the Boston Marathon attack was the first major act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11 is not a result of a diminished threat, but rather highlights the efficacy of American intelligence efforts.

To the extent that the Obama administration is embracing a a shift to D.I.M.E. (diplomatic, intelligence, military, economic) foreign policy, winding down traditional military programs requires putting more resources in diplomacy, economic aid, and intelligence gathering. As I said, far from being hypocritical, the Obama administration is being consistent; when the ultimate goal is security for American’s (and the world), putting people directly in the line of fire is counter-productive unless it is truly a last-case scenario.  

If gathering personal communications data is what it takes to unlock resources needed for important domestic programs, brings home the troops, while continuing our efforts to undermine anti-American forces at home and abroad, then we must take a practical view of the matter. Particularly in light of the cyber-security threat, monitoring internet actions seems like a logical counterweight.

There is certainly a debate to be had about protecting our civil liberties in modern times, but the “slippery-slope” argument is akin to conspiracy theory. Just because the Federal government has access to personal information does not mean it will be used for nefarious purposes. In fact, its is exactly because it is the U.S. government that we should not have these fears; as cynical as people are about the U.S. government, it is the global model for transparency, accountability, and protection of human rights (including civil rights).

For example, the U.S. government has nuclear weapons in order to maintain peace and stability. North Korea and Iran, on the other hand, are trying to develop nuclear capabilities for destabilizing purposes. That is why North Korean and Iranian nuclear capabilities, while negligible compared to American capabilities, pose a much more direct threat and have drawn a consensus response (global sanctions). If this seems like a double standard, it’s because it is. America, and other nations that have proven they are accountable and responsible, have earned the right to pursue certain questionable actions in the name of the “greater good”. The same claim, by a government that is unaccountable and systematically violates human rights, does not hold the same merit.

Nothing in this world is black-and-white. The economist in me tends to approach complex issues in cost-benefit framework. It seems to me that the benefits of collecting personal information are tangible, while the costs amount to little more than unfounded fear of “big brother”. Conspiracy theories may be a fun distraction on a rainy afternoon for some, but they have little place in practical political and foreign policy debates.

—

The fact that the bipartisan support exists on this issue should tell us something about its importance:

“Congressional leaders from both parties stood by a program that they had effectively sanctioned through the passage of counter-terrorism laws over the years. Senators Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, the chairwoman and vice chairman of the intelligence committee, released a joint statement defending the surveillance.

“The threat from terrorism remains very real and these lawful intelligence activities must continue, with the careful oversight of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government,” they wrote.”