Foreign Policy in Focus

Losing the Moral High Ground

Erin Drankoski — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:47:00 -0400

On the eighth anniversary of the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the spotlight is on the Obama administration's evolving war strategy in a nation long known as the "graveyard of empires."

The current discourse on what is now dubbed "Obama's War" focuses on the number and composition of troops, as well as the overarching strategy (counter-insurgency, rapid withdrawal, a mix of military and reconstruction operations).

Obama's Israel-Palestine Gamble | Foreign Policy In Focus

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:25:00 -0400

Daniel Levy, a senior fellow directing Middle East peace initiatives at the Century Foundation and the New America Foundation, agrees that the United States ... and more »

Afghanistan: War Trumps Elections

Erin Drankoski — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:17:00 -0400

The official results of Afghanistan's presidential elections won't be known for weeks. The ballots cast around the country need to be brought to Kabul--some by donkey and helicopter--and counted. Nevertheless, U.S. officials have rushed to celebrate the process, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen heralded the elections as "a testimony to the determination of the Afghan people to build democracy." This, despite more than 75 reported incidents of violence throughout the

Weapons: Our #1 Export?

Cecille Isidro — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:29:00 -0400

The phrase "Obama has a lot on his plate" is the understatement of the year. The president has a to-do list a mile long, and every day a new crisis (like the coup in Honduras) gets added to the list. Can we really fault him if he sneaks the occasional smoke?

The News on Nukes

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:07:00 -0400

Israel and the United States

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:01:00 -0500

As the bombardment of Gaza enters its third week and the civilian death toll continues to rise, Clinton's remarks offer a thin ray of hope that the next president will deviate from the long-set pattern of U.S.-Israeli relations.

Flynt Leverett in Foreign Policy in Focus | 'Strange Strike'

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:48:00 -0400

In one example, Damascus provided intelligence that helped prevent an attack on the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. Flynt Leverett, a former member of Bush's National Security Council during his first term, confirmed that Syrian cooperation helped "thwart an operation that, if carried out, would have killed a lot of Americans." LINK

Too Many Guns

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:23:00 -0400

We've heard a lot about gun control and the second amendment in this election season. A McCain-Palin poster, featuring Alaska's 44-year-old governor with a big gun and the viewer in her rifle sights, is just one of the more graphic indications that gun control is a lightning-rod issue that distracts, distorts, and dismays.

More than 200 years after our founding fathers enshrined the right to "bear arms" in our Constitution, we have more arms than we can bear. Wars are fought, fortunes are made, and nations rise and fall on these weapons. At the human-to-human level crimes are committed, vengeance is taken, rage is given full range, and terror is wreaked from the barrel of these weapons.

The United States is the world's largest arms-supplying nation. In 2007, the United States entered into over $19.1 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements with other nations and for 2008, sales of military goods and services mushroomed to $34 billion -- triple the volume of the Bush administration's first year.

U.S. exports range from combat aircraft to Pakistan, Greece, and Chile to small arms and light weapons to the Philippines, Egypt, and Georgia. Since the beginning of the war on terror, the United States has transferred more than $88 billion in weapons and military material through the Foreign Military Sales channel. In 2006 and 2007, U.S. weapons and military training went to over 168 states and territories. But it's not just big weapons systems transferred legally.

Illegal Weapons Sales

U.S. small arms are briskly -- and illegally -- sold all over the world. And we need not look further than our southern border to see the intersection of small arms trade and big military policy. The newspapers are full of stories of horrific violence between drug cartels and the Mexican military and police. The New York Times reported recently that 3,700 people have been killed in violent incidents related to the drug trade and organized crime so far this year. In the article "Killings Haunt Mexican School Children," Times reporter Marc Lacey documents the impact drug violence is having on Mexican school children. The headmaster at a school near where 11 mutilated bodies were dumped relates that his students are asking questions like: "Why did they die?"

Since a military-led crackdown on drug traffickers began more than 18 months ago, thousands have died in drug-related violence, including police officers and soldiers, as well as cartel members, corrupt officials, and countless innocent bystanders according to Mexican authorities.

The violence is fueled in part by the high-tech, high-quality weapons bought at gun shows and shops in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more than 90% of guns seized after shootings or police raids in Mexico or at the border can be traced back to the United States. Last year alone, 2,455 weapons traces concluded that the guns had been purchased in the United States.

Where do they come from? There are more than 6,700 licensed gun dealers across four states within a short drive of the United States' 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- three dealers for every mile of border territory. Each state has its own set of laws for gun sales. California has instituted a 30-day waiting period and banned the sale of assault rifles; neighboring Nevada and Arizona have not. The ease with which huge numbers of deadly weapons are bought and smuggled has led law-enforcement officials to dub the region an "iron river of guns."

This is our right to bear arms in practice. And it's not saving lives or guarding liberties. A glut in arms production and patchwork state-by-state laws regulating the sale of guns means that it's relatively easy for narco-traffickers and criminals to get their hands on everything from assault rifles to handguns, as well as all the ammunition they need.

In the last 10 years, the international community succeeded in establishing a global treaty against antipersonnel landmines and a global ban on cluster bombs -- weapons of indiscriminate effect that can leave behind thousands of unexploded "bomblets" that pose a threat to military personnel and civilians alike.

A common thread that unites these efforts is the demand that human rights and humanitarian concerns be placed front and center in decisions on what weapons are transferred, and how they are used.

In addition, each campaign has made effective arguments suggesting that beyond the humanitarian benefits of curbing these weapons, there are national security and economic benefits as well: promoting stability, removing risks to traditional armed forces and peacekeeping operations, and making the nations of the global South safe for development.

Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?

In Wake of Wall Street Bailout, Stop Bailing Out the Arms Industry

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:28:00 -0400

Of the many concerns that went unaddressed in the first two presidential debates between John McCain and Barack Obama, one of the most important was the question of how each candidate would adjust his policy plans to accommodate the impending $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

Neither candidate has given a terribly persuasive answer. Obama talked about the possibility of slowing down an initiative here or a program there; and in the October 2nd vice presidential debate, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joseph Biden followed up with one specific example, asserting that an Obama administration might have to look at delaying their campaign pledge to double foreign aid.

As for John "the Maverick" McCain, he gave a pseudo-answer, indicating that he would consider a freeze on everything but defense, veterans' benefits, and entitlement programs. In his second iteration he replaced the term "other vital programs" for entitlements. Neither during the debate nor in the mounds of verbiage that followed did any major news organization point out that since the items singled out for exemption by McCain account for as much as three-quarters of the federal budget, the savings from his proposed freeze would fall squarely on those programs that can least afford it: discretionary domestic programs ranging from education, to infrastructure, to environmental protection, to employment and anti-poverty programs. In an economic downturn, the demand for many of these programs will increase simply because the millions of people thrown out of work will need greater support. The notion of freezing these benefits in the midst of a recession represents cruel and unusual punishment.

So, one might ask, where is there room to cut spending? The Pentagon budget, for starters. With total expenditures at over $700 billion and counting -- including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the United States is spending more for military purposes than at any time since World War II. Even if it takes years to disentangle the U.S. military from Iraq -- as seems likely even under the Obama/Biden plan -- there are plenty of savings to be had in the Pentagon's baseline budget (the part that doesn't include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan).

There is a large Cold War "hangover" of systems that serve no clear mission in the current global security environment, from $300 million-per-copy F-22 combat aircraft that were designed in response to a new generation of Soviet fighter planes that were never produced to $1 billion-per-copy Virginia-class attack submarines that were originally intended to shadow Soviet subs that are now mostly rusting away in Russian ports. Add to this the unworkable and provocative anti-missile program, at $10 billion per year; the plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons and weapons factories at $200 billion over the next two decades; and the costs of ill-conceived high-tech weapons of the future, like the Army's Future Combat System, and there are tens of billions in annual savings to be had even before accomplishing the essential task of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

While some of the resulting savings can be used to defray the costs of the Wall Street bailout, a better use of funds would be to invest in non-military tools of security that will help prevent future conflicts and pave the way for even deeper cuts in the Pentagon budget over time. This was suggested in the latest "Unified Security Budget" proposal, generated by a taskforce organized by Foreign Policy in Focus (on which the author served as a member).

No Recession for Arms Sales

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:18:00 -0400

The CEO of a weapons manufacturer has plenty of chances to rub elbows with deputy secretaries of defense, officials from Homeland Security, retired military personnel, and the best and brightest of the defense establishment almost any week of the year.

One such opportunity occurred at the ComDef 2008 conference, which wrapped up at the National Press Club in Washington on September 3. Sponsored by weapons giants like Boeing, Raytheon, and BAE Systems, the day-long conference was organized around the theme of "Defense Priorities in an Age of Persistent Conflict." It featured presentations from a Navy undersecretary, a deputy director at the Pentagon, several weapons manufacturers, and defense representatives from France, the Netherlands, Canada, and elsewhere. With this high-powered lineup, the conference probably delivered on the promise of its catch line: "Where the international defense cooperation community gets down to business."

Next on the calendar in mid-October will be the Women in Defense National Conference at the Crystal Gateway Marriott near the Pentagon. Sponsored by consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, the conference includes a panel on the "National Security Priorities in the Next Administration," moderated by a Lockheed Martin vice-president. Foreign policy advisers from the McCain and Obama campaigns will be on hand and -- in a nod towards inclusiveness -- representatives from Bob Barr's and Ralph Nader's campaigns have been invited. The closing reception is sponsored by Lockheed Martin, and Booz Allen Hamilton is picking up the tab for the "Breaking a Glass Ceiling" dinner featuring retired Air Force Major General Jeanne Holm.

And then, who would want to miss flying south for the winter? The Defense Manufacturing Conference at Disney's Coronado Springs Resort in Florida in early December offers military industry executives the chance to soak up the rays and address the question: "Are we ready to provide affordable warfighting capabilities?"

One of the persistent themes of these and many other weapons industry conferences is the looming concern that the military budget -- which increased by two-thirds between 2001 and 2008 -- can't keep spiraling upwards forever. ComDef 2008 frames it like this: "persistent warfare is eroding the capability of our armed forces and hard choices will need to be made…It is increasingly unlikely that more money will be found for defense." Last year, the Women in Defense conference addressed this issue with a panel titled "Shaking the Money Tree: Funding National Defense," moderated by a vice-president for programs and budget at Lockheed Martin.

Shaking the Money Tree

Lockheed Martin stands head-and-shoulders above its competitors as a professional tree-shaker. Between 2001 and 2008, the company saw its contracts from the Department of Defense jump nearly 130%, from $14 billion to $32 billion. In a stagflation economy, their profit margin is more than healthy. The Bethesda-based company reported a 13% increase in profitability for its second quarter -- from $778 million last year to $882 million this year.

The weapons industry's concern about belt-tightening notwithstanding, the military budget is likely to continue its dramatic growth. The Defense Department's base budget, which does not include funds for nuclear weapons or the $12-billion-a-month "global war on terror," has grown by nearly 70% -- from $316 billion in 2001 to a request for more than $515 billion for 2009's fiscal year (which begins in October). Despite the fact that these figures represent close to what the rest of the world combined devotes to the military, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has adopted reducing military spending as part of his national security plan. In fact, as both of them talk about modernizing the military for the 21st century and expanding the size of the armed forces, the billions add up.

So the weapons industry's alarm bells are ringing prematurely and the future -- particularly in foreign weapons sales -- looks very bright. Take Lockheed Martin, for example: The company, which is springing for the floral arrangements at the Women in Defense conference next month, has more than $10 billion in proposed or recent weapons deals with foreign nations. The biggest deal could be worth $7 billion (that's a lot of gladiolas and irises for Women in Defense) to Lockheed Martin. The United Arab Emirates is interested in the company's THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system. The mobile truck-mounted system is designed to intercept incoming missiles targeted at sites such as airfields or populations centers.

Another potentially huge sale would be to Iraq, where the combination of regime change, occupation, and oil revenue has created loyal new customer. Even as U.S. fighter planes bomb Iraqi cities, the Maliki government has indicated it would like to order 36 of the company's advanced F-16s. Recent sales of these $100 million planes to countries like Morocco, Pakistan, and Romania have all contributed to a bumper year for the Bethesda-based company. But Lockheed Martin isn't the only company reaping rewards in the age of persistent conflict. War and instability are good for business across the board. Jeanne Farmer of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which processes requests for foreign military sales, noted at the ComDef meeting, "in the current environment, everybody needs everything right now. We do expect to continue to have large, large sales."

"Our program," she continued, "is growing by leaps and bounds," describing how her agency is dealing with more than 12,000 open cases (in some instances the weapons have been transferred, but not all options have been exercised or the licenses have not expired) totaling upwards of $270 billion.

U.S. weapons sales to foreign countries in 2008 are on track to be 45% higher than in 2007. This year, the United States will offer about $34 billion in weapons to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries. In 2007 that figure was $23.3 billion, just a small bump from the $21 billion of 2006. So far in 2008, Farmer's agency has processed more than $12.5 billion in possible foreign military sales to Iraq -- not including the F-16 fighter plane request, which has not yet been formalized. On Baghdad's wish-list are systems like the Abrams tanks, attack helicopters, Hellfire missiles, heavy transport aircraft, and other weaponry. Proponents of billion-plus weapons sales argue that these sales will reduce Iraq's reliance on the United States military, but we need only look at Pakistan to see evidence that these policies create well-armed short fuses.

Since the beginning of the war on terror, the United States has transferred billions of dollars in weaponry and more in military aid to Pakistan. Recently, the U.S. military has mounted attacks in Pakistani territory aimed at Taliban and other restive elements without even informing Islamabad in advance. The response from the Pakistani parliament? A forcefully worded statement that the Pakistani military -- armed, trained, and outfitted by the United States -- be prepared to "repel such attacks in the future with full force." It wouldn't be the first time U.S. forces clashed with U.S. armed adversaries.

Bad News for Them: Good News for Us?

A multi-billion-dollar trade, a world bristling with weapons, and a well-organized and powerful industry committed to keeping it that way: these factors make the arms trade big news. Whoever assumes the presidency in January will have to choose between continuing Bush's policy of arming the world or setting a new course against strenuous objections from the military-industrial complex.

But neither of the presidential hopefuls has devoted even a few lines of major addresses to weapons-sales policy. Even so, the industry seems worried about Barack Obama's vice presidential pick Joe Biden. Loren Thompson, a pro-industry analyst with the conservative Lexington Institute, told Defense Daily International that "Biden's record on weapons-related issues is that of a doctrinarian…he always comes down on the liberal side. So this is not good news for the defense industry."

As CEOs, retired generals, and Pentagon officials flit from one industry-underwritten conference to another, bemoaning imagined cutbacks and belt-tightening, the real bad news for their business would be good news for everyone else -- namely peace, diplomacy, democracy, and human rights.