PANETTA @ SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE: EXPLAINING US' ASIA PIVOT

On June 2, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta delivered a keynote address at the IISS's Shangri-La Dialogue in which he outlined in greater depth more specific elements concerning the US's shift toward Asia-Pacific, fleshing out the context, driving principles, and physical and material investments to which the US is committing over the next several years, beginning now.

The overall context is one of constraints - namely economic - and of course the need to adapt to the profound changes underway caused by the emergence of Asia Pacific as a major global pole. The official line is to accomplish more with less, and to act more effectively within a series of defined limits and fixed objectives.

Most of the speech, however, was spent elaborating the four underlying principles and going into details about what the policy consequences would be. 

What are the four basic principles outlined by Panetta?

More after the jump...

OBAMA ON THE DEFENSE STRATEGIC REVIEW

Earlier today, President Obama introduced the findings of the Defense Strategic Review, designed to outline both American strategic interests and its spending priorities over the coming decade while cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget. The DSR is set to flesh out approximately $500 billion in cuts, with the potential to add another $500 billion in reductions beginning in January 2013.

The President was Joined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey.

The President gave no specific figures nor did he announce the funding of any new initiatives or weapons systems. While outlining the overarching priorities going forward, Obama added that US might should be defined more comprehensively - including by its agility, flexibility, leanness, and preparedness for new challenges.

Some important take away points from the President's speech:

- Key commitments will remain: "vigilance" in the Middle East, maintained investment in NATO, strengthened presence in Asia Pacific.

- Replacement of large nation-building missions (Iraq, Afghanistan) with the reliance on smaller conventional forces coupled with the modernization of systems and capabilities reflecting future threats rather than outdated Cold War paradigms. This means funding programs geared toward intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism efforts, countering weapons of mass destruction, and gaining access to denied spaces.

- Amelioration of treatment given to veterans, opening opportunities to better health and mental health care, job opportunities, and integration back into society following their service.

- Emphasis on the need to rebalance the ensemble of national programs, restore America's internal resources and infrastructures, and begin to climb out of its massive debt - defense budget cuts are a major first step in achieving this balance.

None of these points were particularly surprising, as administration officials have been talking for weeks about these same themes, including the will to bolster American presence in Asia while scaling back the large missions that so thoroughly consumed the military since 9/11.

A number of questions remain as to what the specific cuts will look like and how they will be received and debated both within the US (and among Republican presidential candidates) and among America's allies:

For example, what will be the general reaction in Europe as the US shifts its focus to Asia Pacific? Will there be any notable change in troop numbers? What new expectations might the US have of its NATO allies given its turn to other areas of the world? What are possible areas of convergence for the US and Europe in emerging power zones? What challenges can be anticipated in the transatlantic alliance following this strategic shift?

More precise details of the Defense Strategic Review will follow in the coming weeks.

Stay tuned to Potusphere for the latest in these developments...

- Amy Greene

NEW SHIFTS IN US INTERNAL DEBATE ON ISRAEL

In recent weeks, following on the heels of the US's dismissal of the Palestinian Authority's U.N. bid for statehood, there has been growing chatter in American discourse on taking a harder line towards Israel.

Skeptics still have ample ammunition to fuel their concern that no amount of tough talk will actually translate into policy. For them, even a subtle shift in American elite opinion is a long-awaited admission of reality. But criticism has been made in the past by all levels of government and in the public sphere, with action remaining elusive.

To boot, the importance of current American electoral dynamics; staunch US domestic support of Israel; and Israeli intransigence cast doubt on Obama's desire (and ability) to summon the courage and creativity to break new ground.

Whatever the interpretation, a spate of very public remarks should not be dismissed insofar as they take direct aim at Israel's current policy and the US's complicity therein.

From the Democratic politics to the mainstream press and a left-leaning think tank, here is a rundown of some of the most visible commentary:

1. The day after President Obama's Sept 21 speech before the U.N. on Palestinian statehood, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation wrote a vivid, worthwhile piece equating Obama to segregationist whites of the civil rights era in telling Palestinians essentially to "stay in the back of the bus." He then compares the Palestinian initiative to Gandhi's embarrassment of Britain, to Israel's own path to achieving statehood, and to the hypothetical refusal to recognize Kosovo until it resolved all of its issues with Russia. In expressing his disappointment in Obama - who could have ranked among Gandhi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King -, Clemons calls the president's position "dangerous" and one amounting to the USSR losing a war of wills against Cuba at the height of its Cold War power. Lacking will and conviction, Obama risks solidifying his image as a subordinate to Netanyahu.


2. On the same day, Sept 22, former president Bill Clinton - during a panel on the Middle East during his Clinton Global Initiative in New York - blamed Netanyahu for the failure of the peace process; saying that even after receiving all requested security and other assurances, the Netanyahu government has moved further away from the consensus to move toward peace. Clinton evokes another theme, which will be repeated later by others - the demographic shift which makes the Israeli population both less amenable to peace and more in need of it.


3. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, during travels to Israel (Oct 3), warned that Israel is increasingly isolated and must seek to renew relations with Turkey and Egypt, asking "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." Highlighting the reality of dramatic shifts in the Middle East, Panetta called on Israel to make a broad effort to formalize channels of cooperation with its neighbors, lest problems be constantly taken "to the street."


4. Finally, writing in the New York Times (Oct 5), Nicholas Kristof asks and answers the question, Is Israel its own worst enemy?, saying that "Netanyahu is isolating his country" with a policy on settlements akin to "a national suicide policy." Kristof criticizes the US administration for wasting global good will by categorically refusing to support Palestine's bid for statehood, the Israeli government for its insulting response to Obama's pro-Israel speech (authorizing the construction of new settlements), and the unnecessary unraveling of relations with Turkey at the hands of Netanyahu's government. Denouncing Israel's occupation and urging it to apply democratic principles to all - including giving Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections in the territory it occupies, Kristof concludes: "Today, Israel’s leaders sometimes seem to be that country’s worst enemies, and it’s an act of friendship to point that out."


- Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in the Back of the Bus (Atlantic)
- Bill Clinton: Netanyahu Killed the Peace Process (FP)
- Panetta Warns Israel Getting More Isolated (ABC)
- Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? (NYT)

- Amy Greene

POTUS WATCH - RECENT APPOINTMENTS

Please find the third installment of POTUS Watch, this time compiling an analytical overview of the most recent Obama appointments in all domains, with no specific thematic core linking them.

Potus Watch, Recent Various Appointments

-Amy