Moving Forward, Standing Still

Congratulations to the Senate for doing the right thing.  It's about time the policy is put to rest, and all Americans who want to serve are given the opportunity to do so with dignity.

On the other hand, shame on you for not passing the DREAM Act, though it wasn't a big surprise. We will not long remain the "indispensable nation" if we cannot even recognize the value of welcoming those who, aside from a social security number, are Americans, have pursued the American dream, and been successful.  We should be officially embracing bright, educated, driven residents of our country, particularly those who were brought here illegally as children. Granted, I personally don't think that any productive resident of our society should have to live in constant fear of arrest, detention, and deportation, but the DREAM Act seemed like a no-brainer that even a polarized Congress could get behind.

I suppose one out of two ain't bad, especially for Congress, but I can't help but be disappointed in the Democrats on this one.

The Great Cooling?

Yesterday, I posted on NATO's drawn down in Afghanistan and touched on potential knock-on effects potentially as severe as a US-initiated demise of the alliance and withdrawal of the majority of US troops from Europe.

Today, I noticed this piece in the NYTimes on the increasing disinterest toward Europe in US policy circles:

While the report broke no new ground, it was the first formal confirmation of what European leaders have been saying for months and an indication that Ms. Ashton considers regaining influence in Washington a priority. “Europe is no longer the main strategic preoccupation of U.S. foreign policy,” the document says. “The U.S. is increasingly looking to new partners to address old and new problems.”

 As the US engages more heavily with new strategic partners and expends more resources in building and securing those relationships, some sort of disengagement in Europe seems inevitable. The exact form and how radical the change will be is, in my mind, something that the Europeans can influence in their favor. But leaders and almost certainly the societies they govern may balk at the rising costs of that influence in terms of greater defense spending and fuller active participation in missions.  I think they'll also increasingly find less inclination in Washington to shrug off failures to deliver.

The Afghanistan Review and NATO

I don't think anyone is surprised by the content of the President's Afghanistan-Pakistan review set to be officially released tomorrow.  Disrupting Al-Qa'ida remains the primary goal, Pakistan is still difficult and important, and a "responsible, conditions-based US troop reduction" is still on the books for July 2011. Not that US troops or US funds are truly going anywhere for a long time.

There is a good article on NPR today about the pivot points in Afghanistan that don't seem to be covered in the report.  The review maintains a predictable but regrettable silence on the corrupt and unreliable Afghan government, dedicates hardly a word about the fragility of the Afghan National Army, avoids specifics about Pakistan (other than indicating how dangerous and frustrating it remains), and fails to address the rise of Al-Qa'ida presence outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan as pressure on the organization increases on both sides of the border.  But there was one part in particular that caught my eye:

3. NATO Commitment: At the organization's summit meeting last month, NATO allies agreed to Obama's call to maintain a large Western military presence in Afghanistan until 2014. Countries that were planning to pull out combat troops — notably, Canada — agreed to provide troops to help train the Afghan National Army. The administration's review summary highlights NATO's "enduring commitment beyond 2014," yet it's clear that European leaders face considerable political pressure back home to withdraw, and only Britain has a sizable number of troops on the ground. As a result, the war is becoming increasingly Americanized. On Thursday, Germany's foreign minister confirmed that country's intention to begin withdrawing its 4,600 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next year.

How long does the Alliance last when it proves incapable of succeeding in Afghanistan?  It's pretty clear that, in general, Europe has little appetite for the mission, or for funding military establishments.  Whether or not their societies have become "debellicized," the Europeans in ISAF have been, aside from the British and the Dutch, constrained by iron rules of engagement and squirreled away in more "peaceful" parts of the country.  European populations have been vocally against these contributions, despite the constraints designed to make them more palatable.  It has been argued that even this meager European contribution has been about "saving NATO" and keeping the US as guarantor of the collective security of a region currently slashing defense budgets in the midst of austerity.

With the Dutch--having been engaged heavily in volatile Uruzgan--already gone, the Canadians pulling out two-thirds of their troops--leaving about 1,000 trainers in country while removing "combat troops, the Germans beginning withdrawal by the end of 2011, and the Poles out by 2012, its beginning to look lonely for the US after 2011.  The US isn't going anywhere in significant numbers until at least 2014, whatever the withdrawals that will occur around July 2011.

The US has its own troubles with a sluggish economy, bloated defense spending, and, let's face it, a near-paralyzing inability for domestic leaders to agree to do anything about, well, anything.  NATO and US presence in Europe could become a popular target of outraged, cost-cutting politicians. After all, it could be argued the majority of NATO abandoned the US in Afghanistan and relies on massive US expenditures for defense even as they slash their domestic defense budgets.  Coupled with the hysteria about rising China and rivalry in the Pacific, and the foundational weakness of "resurgent" Russia, we may very well be seeing the sunset of the grand old alliance.  As a bit of an Atlanticist myself, an alumnus of Scotland's finest university, and a believer in the success of a US security blanket that has allowed for, among other things, an ambitious political union of formerly conflict-ridden states and the Eurovision Song Contest, I would be sorry to see it go.

Introduction

I had big plans for the first post, some profound, thoughtful statement that would launch Res Publica Belli and be a significant contribution to human knowledge.  I was coming up short on that account, so I figured I should just lay out a few things about myself and the blog in general.

1. The blog has been founded to cover a range of topics, but all focused primarily around a core of international security issues. In fairness, that could include everything from political violence to climate change, but RPB will be most concerned with topics such as counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, grand strategy, and defense policy.  These constitute my primary interests, and my areas of specialty, but the beauty of a blog is the ability to occasionally stray into topics of limited knowledge but big opinions. I reserve the right to do so, and consider this a fair warning.
2. Bona fides: I have a graduate degree in international security with a specialty in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, and currently work in the defense industry in Washington, DC.  I've chosen to hide behind a Latinate pseudonym (for anyone wondering, I chose Stilicho because it seemed to fit the theme of the blog and I've been interested in the man since reading about him as a kid), and will remain there for the foreseeable future. Cowardly, I know, but for the moment it seems the best way to be able to air my opinions without worrying about folks at work or in the general public. Oh, and I don't know much Latin, just thought the title seemed to fit--and had the added bonus of being a bit of play off of the big guns over at Kings of War, so apologies to any classicists I've insulted (and feel free to suggest revision).
3. I'm not sure what the readership of the blog will be, but I'm hoping that if you do stop by that you'll comment. There's something to be said for screaming opinions into the great void, but the true awesomeness of a blog is the conversation that they can spark.  If I just loved to read my own writing--don't get me wrong, I'm vain enough to enjoy it from time to time--I'd keep a diary rather than a blog.

Hopefully this cleared somethings up about the purpose of the blog and yours truly.  I apologize in advance for any offense caused or mistakes I make, and I look forward to our future conversations.