Leon Panetta's confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense begin as the Pentagon - and our core security and defense objectives - face significant transition. Solid ground has been gained in the in the fight against al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have been killed, their networks have been disrupted and experts assess the continuing threat to be "real, but not catastrophic." Meanwhile America's military, which has fought admirably for a decade, remains engaged in multiple wars and is in need of a sustainable strategy. Budgetary pressures and the demand for stronger civilian partners demand a strategic long-term review and hard choices about role and mission. This is an important time for effective leadership at the Pentagon.

Effective vigilance against terrorism. The death of Osama bin Laden in May was a great success, but was only one part of a broader approach to combat terrorism, of which the Pentagon is one component, along with intelligence, diplomatic, financial and legal tools. As the most recent report from the American Security Project's "Are We Winning" program says, "The United States has built a strong international coalition to combat the threat of Islamist terrorism. It has modernized its own laws and governmental institutions while promoting effective international cooperation on tracking and limiting terrorist financing and information sharing. These positive developments are visible on a regular basis in the form of disrupted plots both at home and abroad."

Taking the fight to the terrorist. In a recent congressional testimony, al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen states that, "The death of bin Laden is devastating to ‘core' al-Qaeda, but arguably just as important to undermining the terrorist organization is the large amount of information that was recovered at the compound where he was killed in northern Pakistan on May 2, 2011. That information is already being exploited for leads. Between the ‘Arab Spring' and the death of bin Laden, both al-Qaeda's ideology and organization are under assault." [Peter Bergen, 5/25/11]

Disrupting plots at home and bringing terrorists to justice.  A large number of plots have been disrupted at home through a combination of solid intelligence work, effective policing, informed citizens, and interagency cooperation. Daphne Eviatar, an expert on national security law at Human Rights First, explains how civilian courts have been successful at bringing these terrorist to justice: "the Justice Department has been far more successful at investigating and prosecuting terrorism in the past than has the Defense Department, winning more than 400 terrorism convictions since 9/11, as compared to DoD's six convictions in military commissions." And as CAP's Brian Katulis and Ken Gude write, "effective intelligence and law enforcement work - a component of successful counterterrorism operations for decades - is a crucial part of an integrated strategy to keep Americans safe." [Daphne Eviatar, 5/25/11. CAP, 5/4/10]

Effective international cooperation. The administration has spurred renewed international focus on reducing the terrorist threat.  Last year's Nuclear Security Summit brought together heads of state from nearly 50 countries to take actions from heightened port security to securing nuclear materials in order to limit the worldwide threat posed by nuclear terrorism. Partners in Europe heightened cooperation to track financial and bank transfers that the United States, a program that has led to 1,500 investigative leads to European allies in the past nine years. [NSN, 4/14/10. NY Times, 7/8/10. Washington Post, 5/14/10]

[ASP, 5/25/11]

America needs to move to a more sustainable war-fighting strategy. Departing Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently quipped that, "Any future defense secretary who advises the president to send a big American land army into Asia, or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,' as Gen. [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it." Panetta will face the challenge of winding down the two large land wars already in progress. He will have to guide the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan - and more immediately, Iraq - to conclusion. In addition, he will have to set effective guidelines, planning and expectations for how and for what ground forces are used in the future. Chris Preble of the Cato Institute writes, "The U.S. armed forces have responded impressively and honorably to the many burdens we have placed on them in the past 15 years. But a strategy that maintains the current total levels of U.S. ground forces, on the assumption that the U.S. military should prepare for further long-term foreign deployments on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan, gets it backward. We need to reduce the strain on our men and women in uniform, not commit them to dubious missions requiring many more of them than we have. What makes our power ‘smart' is not what we have, but how we use it."

Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb adds, "Rather than invading, occupying, and keeping hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in countries around the globe, the United States should rely on its air and naval power and only selectively engage with ground forces."  [Robert Gates via Wall Street Journal, 2/25/11. Chris Preble, 3/23/11. Lawrence Korb, 6/6/11]

Tackle defense spending - through a serious review of the strategy guiding it. "If confirmed, I will work to make disciplined decisions in ways that minimize impacts on our national security," Panetta said in a 79-page set of answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee in advance of his confirmation hearing, scheduled for tomorrow, "But it must be understood that a smaller budget means difficult choices will have to be made." Brookings' Peter Singer writes, "the president should make clear that he expects more than the regurgitation of buzzwords and demand an organizational clarification of DoD's mission and interests in them. That is, what does war look like in these spaces, versus insurgency in these spaces, versus terrorism, versus crime, etc., and what is the DoD role in each?"

Such decision will require going beyond "efficiency" savings and reviewing strategy, roles and missions - recognizing that, as defense expert Gordon Adams notes, "Money has always driven strategy and strategy has always influenced money." Adams further noted in a recent Foreign Policy piece, "Panetta is going to have to get tougher, a lot tougher, to discipline DOD's overhead. Budgets for overhead functions are going to have to be cut to incentivize reform, as they were in the 1990s, when Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget. For overhead savings to be enduring, moreover, DOD has to seriously ‘do less,' meaning mission reform, and not backfill military slots with more civilians or, worse, contractors."

Yet as Wired's Spencer Ackerman writes, "It's too glib to say Panetta's test as defense chief will be to execute Obama's desired 12-year, $400 billion budget cut. Panetta will take over the Pentagon from Robert Gates at a time when not only is the budget out of whack, but so is U.S. defense strategy. The U.S. is fighting three wars at once, all of which have a debatable relationship to the national interest. His real test is how he can craft a smaller budget that supports a more sustainable strategy - one that cuts back on ground wars and personnel costs and emphasizes maritime, air and cyber dominance." [Leon Panetta via Bloomberg, 06/08/11. Peter Singer, 6/11. Gordon Adams via Defense News, 4/17/11. Gordon Adams, Foreign Policy, 6/3/11. Spencer Ackerman, 6/8/11]

What We're Reading

Britain, France, Germany and Portugal have circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution that would condemn Syria's crackdown and demand an immediate end to the violence but not invoke military action or further UN sanctions against the Syrian government.

As reports mount of defections in the Syrian military and the government staggers from the killing of soldiers and police officers, President Bashar al Assad may turn increasingly to his brother, Maher, whose elite units in a demoralized army could prove decisive to his government's survival.

A 20-year gap exists between China and the U.S. military in equipment, weapons and systems, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie told the 10th Shangri-La Dialogue.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a much-publicized press conference seeking to reassert himself, his first major public acknowledgment of the political war being waged between himself and loyalists to the Supreme Leader.

The U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal, according to the findings of a two-year congressional investigation.

Tunisia is delaying its first elections since the ouster of the country's longtime autocratic president, the prime minister announced, setting a new date of Oct. 23.

President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered assurances that they share the goals of pushing Muammar Qaddafi from power and restoring the global economy.

India and Pakistan are making efforts to ease visa procedures, and a second round of talks between their home ministers will be held, the Indian high commissioner has said.

The Department of Homeland Security has stepped back for the past two years from conducting its own intelligence and analysis of home-grown extremism, according to current and former department officials, while law enforcement and civil rights experts have warned of rising threats.

A fresh surge in oil prices and a rise in the cost of food pose the biggest threats to the recovery of poor countries from the global recession of 2008 and 2009, according to the World Bank.

Commentary of the Day

Henry Kissinger contends that for negotiation to turn into a viable exit strategy in Afghanistan, four conditions must be met: a cease-fire; withdrawal of all or most American and allied forces; the creation of a coalition government or division of territories among the contending parties (or both); and an enforcement mechanism.

Ray Takeyh writes that American dominance is waning in the Middle East, a trend that predated the Obama administration, and one for which ramifications are likely to unfold long after it leaves office.

Charles A. Kupchan suggests that orchestrating a breakthrough on missile defense will require continued efforts to deepen ties between Russian and the West, not just incremental progress on technological and operational cooperation.

Charli Carpenter and Lina Shaikhoun explain four misconceptions about drone attacks and raise four questions: whether truly autonomous weapons should be permitted in combat, how to track the human cost of different weapons platforms and promote humanitarian standards in war, and whether targeted killings are lawful means to combat global terrorism.