HILLARY CLINTON IN PARIS: MAJOR ADDRESS ON EUROPEAN SECURITY

This afternoon, January 29, Secretary Clinton delivered a major address on European Security in conjunction with the US Embassy and IRSEM, the Ministry of Defense's strategic studies think tank (Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l'Ecole Militaire).

While emphasizing the need for collective European-American responses to delicately interlaced global challenges, Clinton voiced her support for the Lisbon Treaty, Europe's decision-making autonomy, and praised Europe as a model of transformative power. Though she did mention areas for improvement (need for democratization in certain zones, increased economic opportunity, revamped arms control regime and updated EU/North American institutions fit to manage new problems) and new frontiers for collaboration (cyberterror, terrorism, climate change, energy security).

While assuring the audience that the US's security is anchored in Europe ("Much of what we hope to achieve globally depends on our European partners") based largely on shared, universal values, Clinton asserted the six core principles guiding America's views on European security:

1. Sovereignty of All States to choose allies, provide for their defense, and define boundaries while rejecting claims to spheres of influence.

2. Indivisibility of European Security - there is one Europe with the US as its partner, and sometimes Russia too. It is time to move beyond false divisions (ie: NATO v. non-NATO, EU v; non-EU, etc.) in order to meet common goals.

3. Unwavering Commitment to Article V of NATO - the US will use missile defense to protect all NATO territory. The US is working to engage Moscow to convince it of the stake Russia holds in the presence of nearby missile defense.

4. Practicing Transparency in Dealing with Europe - global threats demand more open exchanges between militaries (info, exercises, site visits). The US supports a revived CFE Treaty for a modern security framework that limits deployment, reinforces territorial integrity, and meets new challenges.

5. Commitment to Non-Proliferation through support of existing treaties, negotiation of new nuclear posture, press other nations to reduce their arsenals and secure stocks.

6. Support Democratization Efforts in order to nourish free expression, encourage development, and end abuses like human trafficking. In this context, the US strongly supports strengthening the OSCE.

Other central topics raised by Clinton:
- Russia: engagement to meet challenges like Iran, climate change, energy security, and non-proliferation.
- China: use a mix of existing institutions to work with Beijing. Key elements: promote military transparency, convince them to sanction Iran, include them in strategic moves like the North Korea talks
- NATO Enlargement: Clinton voiced support for ongoing NATO enlargement plans with Eastern European nations. When this author asked about including non-Western nations who meet membership criteria, Clinton opposed stretching NATO's geography but cited NATO/ISAF as an example of successful cross-hemisphere cooperation that could be applied to other issues like cyberterror.

Click HERE for full text, taken from the State Department.

- Amy Greene

COMMENTING THE 2010 STATE OF THE UNION

President Obama's first State of the Union (SOTU) address on January 27 brought the focus back to the domestic front without neglecting to discuss America's international engagements. In what at times sounded like a recap of his campaign speeches, Obama hit on a number of agenda priorities, like:

- Focus on job creation and economic growth, especially by mass funding green energy/new technologies and infrastructure improvements
- Recognize health care reform as the key to reducing the deficit and providing a basic right to all America's people
- Eliminate lobbyist influence on lawmaking while promoting bipartisanship and plain-dealing in Washington politics
- Vigorously pursue sweeping non-proliferation goals; and
- Pursue systematic engagement as core tenet of US diplomacy in order to build new alliances, to marginalize "rogue states," and to act multilaterally on any number of issues.

The SOTU raised more than a few reflections:

- Will his speech ease America's anger over the coddling of bankers at the expense of advancement on Main Street?

- Was Obama's nuts-and-bolts explanation of health care reform enough to reverse growing skepticism? Or has the opposition beaten the White House to the punch by taking control of the debate and effectively driving the public perception of what reform would mean/look like?

- Will Obama's cost-reduction proposal convince skeptical voters (especially undecideds in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections) that Obama is fiscally-responsible even though he leads a big-spending presidency?

- Perhaps taking the advice of a recent column by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Obama went on the offensive several times, reminding America that he inherited a mess (economic, diplomatic, etc.) and did not hesitate to blame Bush.

- Obama did not define exactly who are "the terrorists who threaten our nation," and where exactly the US is going as it "take[s] the fight to al Qaeda." In some sense, the Obama rhetoric on these questions has not evolved beyond Bush-era vagueness and ambiguity.

- Obama showed unequivocal clarity on the dynamics of US withdrawal from Iraq while sticking to the broadest lines regarding its Afghanistan strategy

- Self-deprecating at times, more optimistic during others, Obama's first SOTU was anything but triumphant in tone. Focusing on the hard work and defining values of the American people, Obama's most successful pleas were the rhetorical leans on government to better honor its people's long-term interests.

- Overall, the SOTU reinforced the notion that Obama's first year was heavy on new starts and light on measurable results, all while laying out a consistent message for the president's agenda during the coming year(s).

- Amy Greene

STEVE CLEMONS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AT ONE YEAR

Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation and The Washington Note has published a piece over at Salon about the Obama administration at Year One.

Clemons argues that Obama has "demonstrated thus far more of an ability to deliver policy outcomes generated by inertia and incrementalism rather than changing the laws of political gravity, which is what he must do if he is to succeed in office."

On all major policy fronts, Obama has been "paralyzed" - siding with architects of the former financial order in order to fix the crisis of their own making; acquiescing to China rather than developing a firm US position; failing to produce a compelling incentive to Iran to abandon nuclear; and on the "defining challenge for the United States in this era" - the Middle East peace - Obama's efforts have "blown up on him" because Netanyahu succeeded in "highlighting more than Obama's enemies the limits of Obama's power abroad."

No president inherits the White House he wants, but Clemons notes how Nixon and Reagan changed "global gravitational patterns" through creative policies towards Communist China and the Soviet Union, respectively. Indeed, Obama needs to create some of the same magic quickly, preferably beginning with the Middle East peace process.

America, and the world, still want change. Now is Obama's time to deliver.

- Amy Greene

NEW MOMENTUM FOR US EXPORT-REGIME CONTROL REFORM?

On January 13, it was reported that Secretary Gates, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, and Acquisitions chief Ash Carter met with Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a top trade lobby comprised of leading defense industry executives (including those of Lockheed and Boeing), to discuss the future of government/industry collaboration.
The meeting comes in the days leading up to the conclusion of the administration's review of export regime controls, commissioned in August 2009 and due for release later this month.

Gates praised the industry for rapidly meeting the Pentagon's needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, including prompt provision of drones and mine-resistant vehicles. He pledged to secure growth in the Defense budget, arguing that the task would be greatly facilitated by an industry that vigilantly cuts costs and delivers provisions on-time.

Gates also threw his full support behind AIA-backed export-regime control reforms. Typically opposed by the Pentagon, Gates' reversal gives new hope to proponents of acquisition and export-control reform. Though he is not the first official to favor the idea - in September 2009, Secretary Clinton and other senior officials (like assistant SecStates Andrew Shapiro and Ellen Tauscher, as well as NSA James Jones) called to remake the notorious ITAR regulations.

The meeting, coupled with the administration's commitment to reshape export controls, raises a few questions:
- How commercially-driven will the White House allow export-regime reform to become?
- How implicated will America's allies be in redrawing the US Munitions list?
- How will the Administration explain any eventual reforms in order to mitigate critics who call the administration weak on national security and seek to damage the White House's credibility in the lead-up to midterm elections?

Also, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to introduce legislation in late January (around the time of the release of the White House strategic review) calling for a Congressional conference that will likely raise the topic of easing restrictions on communications satellite exports.

Prior to its meeting with Gates, the AIA gave President Obama a letter calling for reform on the basis that the current regulations cost US exporters billions in annual sales and weaken defense-related industries that are implicated in the construction and production of new technologies. The list of goods on the US Munitions List is outdated and includes many banal items while excluding far more threatening technologies such as stealth and night vision.

The AIA outlined four key areas for reform, elements to which Gates has now voiced his support:
1. Updating the US Munitions List and commodity jurisdiction
2. More efficient, clearer division of responsibility between government agencies in caseload management
3. Placing decision-making on technology release in the hands of the Defense Department
4. Treatment of drones as a Category I item in the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime

- Amy Greene

ISAF COMMANDER, LT. GEN. RODRIGUEZ ON AFGHANISTAN

Stars and Stripes has published a December 31, 2009 interview with Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the first Commander of International Security Assistance Force Joint Command.

Lt. Gen. Rodriguez emphasizes:
- creating and linking secure zones to give Afghan people an environment in which to thrive, work, and prosper
- engaging in relationship-building to gain the people's trust and incite widespread development
- work closely at all levels of government to encourage good governance practices and instill sense of local ownership over the situation

Rodriguez defines victory in Afghanistan:
"Victory [...] is an Afghanistan that can govern itself well enough to prevent the rise of extremism [...] [Y]ou have to have security forces that can secure the people, [...] a government that can provide for the basic services and take care of its people, and then [...] a people that have a belief in and confidence that their government and their security forces can take care of them and is going to provide them an opportunity for their future."

Explanation of "Embedding":
"We [...] partner all the way up at our level so [...] we have people from the Minister of Interior, Minister of Defense; besides for bringing all of their expertise to our operations center; combined planning and combined operations is helping out tremendously. When I travel, I travel around with the Afghan leaders, [...] they see 70% of the things and I don’t see 30% of things because they know what to look for [...]. It goes from the top to the bottom to learn a rural understanding of how you can best help them [...]. "

The Afghan National Security Forces
"We are trying to build up the Afghan National Security Forces as fast as we can; I’m responsible for training the ‘field-force’ out there and then NTMA/CSTCA is responsible for institutional training; so we partner together to do that; and again, after you leave the institution you get through the basic training and you go out to the field, [...] training is constant [...] One of the key ways to do that is the partnering because [...] when you work that close together [...] it increases the effectiveness of our operations [...] [W]e think it is the best and fastest way to develop the leadership capability in the Afghan National Security Forces, which is really going to be the thing that sustains it in the future."

The Afghan Army and Police forces:
"They are in a wide range of capabilities dependent on, of-course, their partners and how well they’ve been able to effectively train to develop that leadership, and literacy [...] [With] the Police, we started a little bit later, developing, putting a lot of effort into the development of the Police; and then the Police was a fielded force already, versus growing the Army from the bottom. So we’ve got a little bit more to do on the Police, relatively speaking, but I think we’ll be able to make some progress."

Coordinating a 43-nation effort:
"It’s the same thing that you do working with the Afghans. It’s all part of the same solution, you work together and figure out how to maximize the effectiveness of the team [...] [I]t works very, very effectively and there’s some incredible contributions by many of the NATO nations; incredibly brave soldiers and civilians out there all over the place, it’s really inspiring."

The Coalition's major shortcoming and steps to overcome it:
"The partnering piece is a big part [...] and part of the challenge is to ensure that we do things in an Afghan context and ways according the Afghan culture. [...] I think that all that is focused on trying to get a better understanding for the people, better understanding for how the Afghan systems operate and how we can best help them make their system work better and not impose our system."

- Amy Greene

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES SIGNS ON FOR ONE MORE YEAR

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to stay on in his current position for the new president Obama, many speculated that his tenure would be short - just long enough to ensure smooth policy transitions regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, the defense budget, and re-balancing the relative weight of the Pentagon. Surely, Gates's clout in political and military circles, won during service to five presidents and thanks in part to his oversight of the Iraq surge, would be critical to a non-military, "untested" president.

Gates has proven indispensable to President Obama, playing an integral role in shaping the recently-announced Afghanistan strategy to send an additional 30,000 US troops with additional contributions to be made by NATO and other partners.

Secretary Gates will stay on for at least an additional year.

- Amy Greene

NYT: JOHN BRENNAN ON OBAMA'S WAR ON TERRORISM

The New York Times has published a preview of its upcoming Sunday magazine cover article, "Inside Obama's War on Terrorism."
1. Obama's approach to fighting terrorism demonstrates continuity with the Bush years more than it does change.

The major shift is rhetorical with little political change to speak of. Obama has worked to reclaim the message that the US is fighting terrorists and not Islam, which he articulated in his June 2009 Cairo discourse. Why no more substantial policy differences?

-Because the administration is learning that Bush era policies are either necessary or too well-crafted to be easily dismantled.

-Many important evolutions to the counterterrorism strategy had already begun by the end of the Bush presidency (such as transferring Gitmo detainees and emptying many of the CIA's secret foreign prisons)

According to Bush's former CIA Director Michael Hayden, "It's really, really hard to find a difference that's meaningful and not atmospheric." The absence of sweeping change has angered many Obama supporters on the left who worry how much further Obama will lean toward Bush policies should the US fall under attack on his watch.

2. Special focus on John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, and his privileged place at the center of Obama's inner circle for national security.

-A career CIA man, Brennan eventually became George Tenet's chief of staff then the agency's Deputy Executive Director before quitting the government in 2005. Shortly after his departure, Brennan penned an op-ed criticizing the Bush administration ("Mr. President, You're Wrong on Iraq"), which he submitted for CIA clearance then withdrew. It was leaked to the White House thus thrusting him entirely out of the graces of the president's team.

-Brennan is close to former NSA Tony Lake, who introduced him to Obama during the campaign. On election, Obama considered naming Brennan as CIA Director before confronting two major problems: the would-be perception of Brennan's proximity to Tenet and his support of many of Bush's enhanced interrogation tactics including "black site" secret CIA prisons abroad (though Brennan did voice opposition to waterboarding)

3. Finally, the article evokes the emerging frontiers of terrorism, highlighting the success of drones in Pakistan, increased US funding to support Yemen anti-terror efforts, and the threat of American extremists who train abroad with the intention of carrying out attacks at home.

- Amy Greene