3/2/11

Yesterday, the House passed a short-term spending measure to keep the federal government running through March 18. Congress has yet to approve a budget for the 2011 fiscal year and the GOP's piecemeal approach is beginning to take a real toll on our government's ability to ensure national security. This latest Continuing Resolution will kick the can a little further down the road, while the House and Senate debate the GOP's irresponsible budget proposal for the remainder of the fiscal year.  To compound the problem, the spending resolution that the House passed last month recklessly slashed funding for critical national security programs. There was no rationale or careful planning-conservatives simply wanted to cut the budget.

As our military leaders have stressed, State Department and USAID programs are crucial components to our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. As protests continue to sweep through the Middle East, our diplomats, combatant commanders and humanitarian workers must be able to continue to work in concert with one another to respond to the changing landscape. This requires us to leverage-and fund-all of the tools in our national security arsenal:  our diplomatic, developmental and military might. In tough economic times, every penny we spend should count. Slashing the international affairs budget and critical nonproliferation programs is not only damaging to our national security, but is also a clear indicator that conservatives do not have a coherent strategy for advancing American national security in the 21^st century.

Changes in the Middle East illustrate the need to develop and maintain all the "tools in our national security arsenal."  The popular revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, Oman and elsewhere demand that we leverage all sources of our national power-not just our military might.  Yesterday, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained America's multi-pronged national security response to events in Libya so far: "Marathon diplomacy at the United Nations and with our allies has yielded quick, aggressive steps to pressure and isolate Libya's leaders. USAID is focused on Libya's food and medical supplies and is dispatching two expert humanitarian teams to help those fleeing the violence and who are moving into Tunisia and Egypt, which is posing tremendous burdens on those two countries. Our combatant commands are positioning assets to prepare to support these critical civilian humanitarian missions. And we are taking no options off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to turn its guns on its own people."

Clinton explained that the Libyan example illustrates the need for an integrated approach to national security: "[T]his is an unfolding example of using the combined assets of smart power - diplomacy, development, and defense - to protect American security and interests and advance our values. This integrated approach is not just how we respond to the crisis of the moment. It is the most effective - and most cost-effective - way to sustain and advance our security across the world. And it is only possible with a budget that supports all the tools in our national security arsenal." [Hillary Clinton, 3/1/11]

The GOP's 2011 budget proposal recklessly cuts vital national security funding. Yesterday, Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lambasted the GOP's incoherent approach, saying, "The reckless cuts in that legislation weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said, ‘Here's something that's not working.' Or ‘Here's something we don't need to do.' No - the total level of reductions was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, and totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much that should cost."

State and USAID cuts devastating to our national security. The International Affairs Budget makes up only 1 percent of the entire federal budget, yet conservatives are attempting to slash these funds in the name of fiscal responsibility. Secretary Clinton noted yesterday, "As I told Speaker Boehner, Chairman Rogers, and many others, the 16 percent cut for State and USAID that passed the House last month would be devastating for our national security. It would force us to scale back dramatically on critical missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus have all emphasized to the Congress, we need a fully engaged and fully funded national security team, and that includes State and USAID." [Hillary Clinton, 3/1/11]

Cuts to funding that helps prevent nuclear terrorism leaves us less safe.  As Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Pete Visclosky (D-IN) wrote yesterday, "The resolution short-changes urgent nuclear non-proliferation efforts under the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) by more than $600 million. This funding is a small fraction of the federal budget, but a vital part of our national security. At a time when Al Qaeda seeks to obtain nuclear weapons, this funding is important.  Congress should appropriate the necessary resources for these vital and urgent programs to secure, remove, or curb the spread of nuclear materials." [Smith and Visclosky, 3/1/11]

[Howard Berman, 3/1/11]

Conservatives' lack of coherence on national security and world view is unsuitable for tackling 21^st century challenges. Going into last November's elections, the foreign policy views of newly elected Members of Congress were largely unknown. Despite two wars, international affairs played almost no role in the elections. At the time, Peter Baker wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on the Tea Party's "know-nothing" views on national security: "The question for the movement is whether it can maintain its own uneasy coalition. And for now, at least, that means steadfastly ignoring foreign-policy declarations of any sort.  When nearly half a million Tea Party supporters voted online to define their campaign agenda, not a single one of the 10 planks they agreed on had anything to do with the world beyond America's borders." At the time NSN wrote, "But the broader conservative movement has little to offer either.  The conservative ‘Pledge to America' released last month by House conservatives outlining their legislative priorities fails to address the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism, energy security and other key national security issues we face." 

This lack of concern about national security results in an approach to foreign affairs that is not able to address challenges of the 21^st century.  As defense analyst Andrew Exum of the Center for New American Security wrote after the 165 House conservatives voted to completely de-fund USAID: "every U.S. military officer and defense official from the youngest second lieutenant at Fort Benning to Bob Gates understands: the money we spend through USAID is part of our national security budget. Some money, such as the money we spent through both the defense and aid budgets in Haiti last year, we spend for mostly altruistic purposes. But the two biggest recipients of U.S. international aid through USAID are Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can have a separate debate about whether or not this money is being well spent, but we cannot have a debate as to why it is being spent: it is quite obviously being spent to advance what are seen to be the national security interests of the United States... To not understand that is embarrassing because it means you're an elected policy-maker and still uneducated about the wars we've been fighting for almost 10 years now. [Peter Baker, Foreign Policy, 10/10. NSN, 10/18/10. Andrew Exum, 1/21/11]

What We're Reading

Forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi appear to have launched a major counterattack against rebel forces in the east of the country, taking control of the oil town of Brega, around 500 miles east of Tripoli.

Iranian police fired tear gas to disperse protestors in Tehran.

Assassins, allegedly sent by al Qaeda and the Taliban, killed the only Christian member of Pakistan's cabinet.

Afghan President Karzai angrily criticized foreign forces after nine children were killed in a NATO airstrike.

Nine newspapers in Ivory Coast shut down after being harassed by supporters of Laurent Gbagbo.

Thousands of supporters of President Robert Mugabe rallied against western economic sanctions in Zimbabwe.

A new boat carrying 347 migrants from Tunisia has landed in Italy.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, despite his recent criticism of the current Russian government, was awarded the country's highest honor on his 80th birthday.

A senior Interior Ministry official who recently headed Bolivia's counternarcotics police was arrested and sent to the United States on charges that he ran a cocaine trafficking ring.

The drug war and immigration are on the agenda as Mexican president Felipe Calderon prepares to visit the U.S.

Commentary of the Day

Frederic Wehrey writes that for decades, the outsized personality of Qaddafi has obscured the rivalries among Libya's domestic groups, from the tribes to the military.

Vladimir Ryzhkov says that Russia's greatest curse is not its natural resources, as many believe, but its weak and ineffective institutions.

Nicholas Bequelin argues that instead of stomping out every faint sign of unrest, Beijing should get ahead of the curve and embrace real political change.