Content Preview: rss
212 days ago
418 days ago
By Janine Davidson Erin was right in her prediction that the economic crisis would squeeze out much of the foreign policy discussion in Friday night's presidential debate. And given today's events, the economy will no doubt continue to dominate campaign discussions. But are we headed for a repeat of 1992, when Bill Clinton's motto -- "it's the economy, stupid" -- turned out to be the key to the election? When incumbent President George H.W. Bush found that the first Iraq war couldn't help him to a win? Although the stars seem to be aligning that way, we shouldn't write off national security as a major campaign issue just yet. Sure, as a national security scholar, I'm a bit biased about the importance of these issues. But it's not 1992 all over again. And here's why. Back then, the Gulf War was hardly considered an existential threat to the United States.
421 days ago
By Clint Douglas As Erin wrote, it's not clear how much foreign policy the candidates will talk about tonight. When they do get around to debating their differing visions of America's place in the world, however, they'll likely be confronted by the perennial question: "What is the greatest threat to America's national security?" It's not a very good question. It traditionally lends itself to sweeping generalizations that are light on specifics and concrete policy proposals. But how the candidates grapple with an answer will shed some much needed light on what will be their national security priorities for the next four years. What would my answer be? Pakistan. Pakistan's parlous state constitutes a direct threat to the United States, and more so than any other country or individual terrorist group. In its 60-year history, Pakistan has rarely functioned as a state, regardless of who happened to control the reigns of
421 days ago
By Erin Simpson Well, after last minute "will-he-or-won't-he" drama, it looks like we're gonna have ourselves a debate tonight. But will it focus on foreign policy (the agreed upon topic) or instead the bailout and this week's market histrionics? That seems like anybody's guess. And while my professional interests are generally confined to counter-insurgency and related military matters, I don't think the candidates are going to get any points in the David Galula drinking game tonight. Here's what I'll be looking for in the debate: 1) An understanding that the financial crisis and resulting bailouts do not exist in a vacuum. They affect the candidates' options for both foreign and domestic policy. We can save the latter discussion for the next debate. Tonight, I want to hear how these recent events may affect Pentagon procurement, planned "plus-ups" for the Army and Marine Corps, and other international commitments. 2) Reflection on
421 days ago
By Robert Bateman Back in late 1991, my battalion deployed to the Sinai Desert as a part of the Multinational Force and Observers. This force, consisting of military forces from eleven different nations, stands on the border between Egypt and Israel and ensures that both sides are adhering to the terms of the Camp David Accords. The mission is to "Observe, Report, and Verify" any violations or potential violations. It is an appropriate application of military resources, but it is also boring. Extremely boring. During that six-month tour in the desert, I had a lot of time on my hands. We all did. But I did learn a few things over the course of the deployment. I learned, for example, about chief warrant officers, two of which deployed with us. Warrant officers are a special breed in the United States military. Technically they are officers, but instead of a having
