EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Lorelei Kelly

Lorelei Kelly

Posted April 29, 2009 | 09:10 AM (EST)

Getting our Game Back: The First Hundred Days


?>

If we kill people, we lose the war. The most significant achievement of the Obama Administration thus far is a consistent and systematic understanding that security as we know it has fundamentally changed. Today, legitimacy (having the moral authority to lead) is getting as much attention as containment (dominate, isolate, destroy) in our strategic plans. Communicating a new framework about how to keep Americans safe is no small challenge in a political environment that has suffocated normal and healthy dialogue about many issues. Number one among them is public conversation about the role of the military in American democracy. And secondarily, the role of the military in our national security. Legitimacy requires a sense of shared expectation and uniform rules. This has huge implications for everything from defense budget priorities to criticism of allies like Israel--because most of the time the use of force is anathema to legitimacy.

We must have this conversation ultimately....for it not only will determine the soul of the American military (our most beloved institution) it will determine the fate of our nation. We can't privatize our way out of asking hard questions about what the military should be doing. We can't be persuasive through hardware dominance. We look foolish and unconvincing when we say one thing and do another. We can't have it both ways.

Here's another way to put it. Today, we have finally recognized that we're moving away from a world where safety was linear and predictable and where weapons technology provided a fix --to a world that is much more random and chaotic and where skilled human beings are the answer. Intentional communication and strategies for participation are the art and science of violence prevention. The Marine Corps at Quantico just conducted a week-long wargame on conflict prevention. What should the military's role be in this new world? The military hates surprises. It prepares based on what it experiences. But only civilian elected leaders can turn their experience into a security strategy.

The metrics that the military uses to prioritize are shifting to recognize trans-national threats. For example, contagious ideology thrives where social and political vacuums exist. Modern doctrine views the safety of people across borders to be as important as the safety of people within borders. Counter insurgency is one operational example of these priorities--where only about 1/3 of the activities require traditional military tools like shooting guns (called "kinetic"). The Marines are the most progressive of the services--and their lens on prevention represents a major shift, but there is no guarantee it will be followed through with systemic change. And no matter how happy we are that the military is engaged in prevention, it should not be the lead agency on these activities. For us to be legitimate, civilians must fill that role.

Some illustrations from an Army friend: In the 1940s military planners scoped out threat scenarios based on questions like: Where is their navy fleet? Why is their Army missing from the Polish border? Is it doing an exercise? Better find it. Arms control treaties with their acronym soup and bizarre permutations of mutual suicide were the ultimate example of countable criteria. Today, additional criteria are less countable, but still measurable. Is there a court system that renders satisfied judgments? Are human rights activists being murdered? How many girls are in school? Was the last election fair? Who has clean drinking water?

To see if our elected representatives in Congress are listening to the advice of civilian and military professionals--watch what happens to the Obama-Gates defense budget. Even though it is 4% higher than Bush's budget--its intentions are clearly moving resources away from Cold War weapons platforms and toward policies that require a different strategy and far more civilian capacity. At long last. But Congress is already making moves to put some of the eliminated weapons programs back into the war supplemental. Unless we somehow develop a domestic constituency for modern security priorities that can rival the defense industry, these congressional antics will not change. (Hillary supporters--if you want to see her become the most successful Secretary of State in history--organize her political base into this state by state network) And federally funded state universities, would you please come up with some defense economy conversion research for your congressional delegations?

If our security priorities were aligned with legitimacy as a security strategy we would demand that the US Senate pass a treaty omnibus much like it passes the defense budget year after year...rushed through with urgency and lots of patriotic salutes. I'm not kidding. Law of the Sea, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, International Criminal Court, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). They've been debated incessantly. Pass them all in one fell swoop. We would be safer overnight.

When President Obama says that our ideals will make us stronger, he's rebuilding our moral authority. When he speaks about America having the obligation to lessen the nuclear threat through cooperative efforts--he's invoking a sense that the world has taken us up on our belief in the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we need to deliver some part of that. Strategies of persuasion are put forward, strategies of coercion kept in the back pocket. As it should be. Framing, re-framing, convening, constant communication, taking early risks--these are all things that Americans are good at. The sunk cost of the Bush years was largely paid with our political capital--relationships, cooperation based on self-interest, predictable patterns, transparency,respect for rule of law. I'm waiting to see if our new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan will cause fewer civilian casualties. And I'm waiting to see whether or not we really, actually leave Iraq. I would do backflips for a truth commission with subpoena power on use of torture. I really like our President's constant recitation of a new vision for America in the world. This vision is so compelling that it makes occasional slip ups--like invoking "crippling sanctions for Iran" seem weird and out of place...President Bush knocked us off our game. President Obama is getting it back. I give the first hundred days a B plus.

p.s. I'm willing to allow grade inflation in exchange for a speech about basic civics and the role of the military in American democracy...perhaps in another 100 days?

If we kill people, we lose the war. The most significant achievement of the Obama Administration thus far is a consistent and systematic understanding that security as we know it has fundamentally ch...
If we kill people, we lose the war. The most significant achievement of the Obama Administration thus far is a consistent and systematic understanding that security as we know it has fundamentally ch...
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:24 PM on 04/29/2009
One instance which clarifies the military lack of preparedne­ss, and further illustrate­s an habitual unwillingn­ess to think "outside of the box", is the threat posed by Somali pirates.

Granted, our current arsenal of warships and aircraft carriers sport a diverse array of strategic missiles, big guns, and multi-bill­ion dollar short range aircraft designed to counter battleship­s, submarines­, and inland strategic targets, but nothing adequately equipped to combat something so rudimentar­y as AK-47 armed fishermen conducting a reign of terror in convention­al speedboats­. The Navy does possess significan­t numbers of P-3 Orion maritime partrol craft, which can loiter around for 14 hours, but the smallest anti-ship weapons equipped by these aircraft are Harpoon Missiles, hardly suitable for taking out such small targets.

Granted USAF AC-130 Gunships could probably pose a more adequate deterrent to these types of activities­, but this poses an additional problem in that Air Force crews are not trained in prolongued maritime navigation­.

Like many services, the military bases its criteria for preparedne­ss on previous experience­s, which in turn often limits the scope of the prospectiv­e threats which it expects to encounter in the future Simply due to the fact that our military planners failed to think "outside of the box", our navy never fathomed piracy as a threat warranting military interventi­on, and thus has been caught with its proverbial pants down.
09:08 PM on 04/29/2009
What we actually need is a radical restructur­ing and division of the Defense Department­. These hideously expensive weapon systems are only useful in army-on-ar­my violence, which is at most a third-tier threat in the modern world. Prevention is best, of course, and State needs way more funding (right now it's just a fraction of Defense), but when things do break down, the most likely forms are power vacuum and cyberwar. Our current military is inappropri­ate for both these situations­.

Power vacuums require a police force, which only work with a constructi­ve mindset. A traditiona­l military is destructio­n oriented, which is proper for it’s function, but asking the personnel involved to switch back and forth on a dime is both impractica­l and unfair. It also confuses the locals. We need a clear division between a military and an internatio­nal policing force.

If we do ever actually fight a cohesive country, like China or Russia, the first thing they are going to do is shut down our domestic economy through computer networks. Our military wouldn't last long without supplies. A hierarchic­al, order-orie­nted social structure is probably not the best environmen­t for the sort of personnel that would be most useful here.
02:51 PM on 04/29/2009
I agree the military should constantly be evaluating and changing its strategies to meet new challenges in the world but they are only effective if they are backed by our overwhelmi­ng ability to destroy an enemy. If the United States is unwilling to use force and accept civilian casualties then we will be unable to make tough decisions and have no authority to lead. Make no mistake though there will always be a group of people that will view any action by us illegitima­te and if we spend all of our time trying to gain consensus we will ultimately fail.
02:36 PM on 04/29/2009
all I have to say is that Obama had blood on his hands within two weeks of being in office, what's worse is the fact that it was caused by DRONE planes.

Obama is escalating the WAR in Afghanista­n and he isn't doing much to end the WAR in Iraq, nor to tear down any of the bases built in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. Obama is also inflating the already obese Military.

I won't even get started on the financial hi-jacking of our government via the (not-so-fe­deral) "federal" reserve (Tim Geithner, former president of the NYC chapter of this cartel, now the Treasurer)

Obama is no more than George Bush the 3rd - I do not understand why you people give him a free pass. Why, because he's (half) Black? because he has a BIG smile? It makes no sense. He has either gone back on or twisted his promises of change, he has voted for the FISA (governmen­t allowed to spy on YOU and ME) bill, he has NOT repealed the Patriot Act!
The too Big to Fail banks and Insurance giants and the already wealthy CEO's are getting BAILOUTs on our tax dollars, while average Americans CONTINUE to lose homes and jobs.

Seriously, Where's the Change?

Anybody out there wants to support REAL change, support HR 1207 - a Bill to AUDIT the "federal" reserve. Lets see what these criminals are doing with all of OUR money!
01:50 PM on 04/29/2009
The purpose of the military is - Kill people and blow things up... when we try to change that we get into trouble. What BO is doing now (seems to me) is trying to change these fundamenta­ls because he said so... we've seen in the recent past (Clinton) that treating these global threats as police actions have disastrous effects - e.g. "Blackhawk Down"
01:28 PM on 04/29/2009
I think I understand what you mean, but really, war and killing are a bit difficult to separate. Perhaps you should have said something along the lines of, "If we kill people we aren't being diplomatic­." Or maybe, "If we kill people we are still fighting a war."
12:32 PM on 04/29/2009
Read the article again Emmory and try to understand it. Our security does not rely on military might alone, and really, no successful nation's security has ever relied on its military alone.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lorelei Kelly
World peace without patchouli
11:57 AM on 04/29/2009
I don't think they are comparable­. The ability to retailiate with devastatin­g consequenc­es has become distribute­d far more dangerousl­y than existed back then....
03:15 PM on 04/29/2009
Devastatin­g consequenc­es were different back then? So the tens of millions of people who died as a direct result of WWII isn't as serious as what could happen now?
I think you couldn't be more wrong. Hitler would have used the H bomb and so would have Japan and so would Iran or any terrorists today.
Are you kidding?
11:07 AM on 04/29/2009
So....
When we killed Nazis and Japanese during WWII did we lose that war?
06:24 PM on 04/29/2009
No, because we were allowed to have a clear purpose and objectives for those wars. And they were more linear in the sense that we knew who the enemy was, where they were (for the most part) and we developed simple, yet effective strategies to deal with that enemy.

While I don't disagree that our intelligen­ce gathering must change along with the change in the type of enemy we engage, and the resultant type of warfare we must engage them with, the simple fact remains that out military must remain the best, most powerfully equipped in the world. To disagree with that is dangerous.