Category National Security Policy

What will be our plans for Afghanistan?

I gather it is still somewhat unknown what we will doing in Afghanistan after 20 January 2017. This concern, among many others, was flagged in my post of 9 November: Questions

It is also discussed in depth in this article: Afghanistan is All Ready to be Donald Trump’s First Foreign Policy Disaster

This article is worth reading. Major points:

  1. Afghanistan is failing.
  2. “More troops? more money? withdrawal?”

Anyhow, we do have a new category in the blog called “National Security Policy”…..as I am very curious as to what we are actually going to do.

National Security Team II

The other pick last week was K. T. McFarland for Deputy National Security advisor. She was an aide to Henry Kissinger 1970-76. Worked in DOD under Caspar Weinberger and was on the board of the Jamestown Foundation (which used to include Zbigniew Brzezinski). She has worked for Fox News most recently. Don’t know her views on particular issues, but it appears that she is well known inside the community and is a much more mainstream choice than General Flynn.

Wikipedia page: K.T. McFarland

Still waiting to see who is selected for Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

National Security Team

Hard to ignore all the drama being publically played out over who is going to be who in the new Trump administration. There were two new picks made this last week but they hardly tell us what is going to be the direction of our foreign and defense policy.

For ambassador to the United Nations they choose South Carolina governor Nikki Halley.

Wikipedia bio: Nikki Haley

Somewhat critical article: Ignorance is Bliss

Hard to argue with the article. Spending a couple of weeks seeing the inside of hotels in Europe hardly qualifies one to be a foreign policy expert.

There have been 29 acting or approved U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations. Some of these have been very established political names (like Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Adlai Stevenson, George H. W. Bush), some have been established foreign policy experts and even a few have been professional diplomats (what a concept!). This is certainly a pick that is none of the above. This has happened before (Andrew Young’s selection by Jimmy Carter comes to mind). It is an odd pick.

List of past U. N. Ambassadors is here: United_States_Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations has often been a cabinet-level position under democratic presidents but is usually not a cabinet level position under republican presidents. I have not heard, but suspect that this will not be a cabinet-level position. My sense is that she will not be a major player in determining national security policy.

Flynn is inn

Sorry…..could not resist the cheesy rhyming headline. It looks like Lt. General Michael T. Flynn is going to be nominated as the head of the National Security Council. I don’t know what to make of all the stories positive and negative about him by the various left and right talking heads…..but he did recently publish a book. His “Conclusions” is mostly readable on-line at Amazon.com. Would recommend reading it before reaching any conclusions:

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

It starts on page 157 and goes to page 180, with several pages missing in between. Chapter 4: “How to Win” is not available on-line.

Now, the National Security Advisor is just that: an advisor. They actually don’t run much. Foreign Policy is handled by the State Department, Defense Policy is handled by the Secretary of Defense (neither which are appointed right now). As the National Security Advisor is the person who regularly (daily?) briefs the president on what is going on the world, they often are very influential. Some, like Henry Kissinger, eclipsed the Secretary of State. Some were not near as visible. It really depends on the person and his relationship with the president. This can also change over time.

Lt. General Michael T. Flynn

Lt. General Michael Flynn was the head of DIA for two years before he was fired (2012-2014). I gather he is close to Trump on foreign and defense policy and is in line to be the next National Security Advisor (the next Kissinger…or next Scowcroft, or next Brzezinski, or next Powell or next Rice).

His Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

He does have a book that was just released. A significant amount of it is actually readable on the Amazon.com site: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Click on the “look inside” section and flip through pages 157 to 180  (“Conclusion”). Most of that chapter is there.

His co-author’s bio is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Multiple other articles on him are here:

  1. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump.html?_r=0
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/15/michael-flynn-trumps-military-adviser-says-colin-powells-emails-include-really-mean-things/
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/

I am sure there is a lot more.

 

Questions

Well, the election is done. Oddly enough there was a certain degree of continuity in U.S foreign and defense policy from Bush Junior to Obama and it probably would have continued to Clinton. Are we now looking at any fundamental changes? What will be our defense policies?

  1. In Afghanistan
    1. Significantly increase effort?
    2. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    3. Keep the same?
    4. Decrease U.S. effort?
    5. Disengage?
  2. In Iraq
    1. Maintain current effort after Mosul falls?
    2. Decrease U.S. effort?
    3. Disengage?
  3. With Syria
    1. No fly zones?
    2. Significantly increase effort?
    3. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    4. Keep the same?
    5. Decrease U.S. effort?
    6. Disengage?
    7. Negotiate settlement with Russia and Assad?
  4. With Ukraine
    1. Significantly increase effort (probably not)?
    2. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    3. Keep the same?
    4. Decrease U.S. effort?
    5. Disengage?
    6. Negotiate settlement with Russia?
    7. What about Crimea?
    8. What about Lugansk and Donetsk Peoples Republics?
    9. What about sanctions?
    10. What about EU sanctions?
  5. With Russia
    1. Confront more aggressively?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Try to tone it down?
    4. Reset?
  6. With NATO
    1. Increase commitment (probably not)?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Decrease U.S. effort?
    4. Force our NATO allies to contribute more?
    5. Disengage because NATO is obsolete?
    6. Negotiate some arrangement with Russia?
  7. What about Georgia?
    1. Encourage NATO to take them as a member (I am guessing not)?
    2. Continue working with them (Partnership for Peace)?
    3. Decrease commitment to them?
    4. Disengage?
    5. What about Abkhazia and Ossetia?
  8. With Iran
    1. Cancel current deal and try to renegotiate?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Try to work out some overarching deal concerning nukes, Iraq support, and Assad support?
  9. With Yemen
    1. Keep the same (remain disengaged)?
    2. Re-engage to some level?
  10. War on Terror
    1. What additional actions are they going to take against ISIL?
    2. What about Al-Qaeda?
    3. Any other long-term initiatives to forestall the development of groups in the future or stop their attacks?
  11. With the Defense Budget
    1. Increase defense budget? (He has stated that he will increase the army from 480,000 to 540,000).
    2. Keep the same?
    3. I gather we will end sequestration (which is already on hold)?
    4. Who is going to be the Secretary of Defense?
  12. And then there is East Asia (China, the two Koreas, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, etc.).
  13. With trade
    1. Will TPP be cancelled?
    2. Will TPP be re-negotiated?
  14. Oil and Climate Change
    1. This is an international issue.
    2. Are we going to pump more oil?
    3. Are we going to use more coal (I gather this is the case)?
    4. Will interest and funding for clean energy decline (I gather this is the case)?

I am not sure what President-elect Trump intends to do on any of subjects, although he is probably going to do something on trade.

There are a few articles detailing his plans, like this one: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-defense-plan-detailed

And this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/09/four-questions-about-how-trump-would-affect-the-military-industrial-complex/

But at this juncture, we really do not know what our future defense policy will be.