Streit Talk

by Alexandra Coakley

The “drone wars” in American political discourse revolve around a skeptical line of inquiry: How tight of a leash are drones kept on? In his recent testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that publicly available information on drones suggests that the White House has not yet acted outside of its designated powers. And while Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour filibuster against John Brennan’s CIA confirmation served as a reminder that the will of the minority cannot be ignored, Paul’s central fear – that an armed unmanned aerial vehicle might be used against a non-combatant American citizen – was dismissed in a short memo sent from Attorney General Eric Holder: “The answer to that question is no.”

Still, anxiety over drones has not emerged in a vacuum of Orwellian paranoia. Bipartisan concern for individual privacy rights and questions about U.S. compliance with international human rights law are steadily pressuring the White House to acknowledge the responsibility that comes with leading the robotics revolution. The U.S. military currently operates over 8,000 UAVs, and while the non-militant fatality rate has decreased under the current administration, in his first term alone President Obama oversaw five times as many drone strikes in Pakistan as President Bush ordered during his entire presidency. While the U.S. currently leads the rest of the world in the production of drones, proliferation is expected to lead to the production of 35,000 drones in the next ten years. And if these developments are not enough to spur action, a full UN investigation of U.S. drone strikes, set to deliver its findings this fall, might encourage the administration to set new standards on drone use. 

U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said that Washington “has not ruled out full cooperation” with the experts and human rights lawyers set to conduct the investigation in the months ahead, but U.S. policymakers should be working to shape – not merely tolerate – the drone debate. Scholars and analysts tend to agree that drones are set to play a pivotal role in modern militaries. Popular approval, however, is not internationally ubiquitous. A June 2012 poll administered by the Pew Research Center reported that while 62% of Americans approve of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, majorities in Britain, Germany, France and other European nations disapprove of them. Recent reports from Washington indicate that the Obama administration is poised to shift the drone program from the CIA to the Department of Defense, marking a potential shift toward increased accountability.

Even so, the U.S. would benefit from diversifying its overall counterterrorism approach. As Rosa Brooks, a fellow at New America Foundation, has written, global terrorism is only the latest challenge to contemporary understandings of the moral and legal boundaries of state sovereignty. Even if U.S. officials have justifiably interpreted the terrorist threat as the kind of extraordinary circumstance that requires forceful intervention, greater transparency may help ensure that current policies do not run afoul of best intentions. During the Cold War too, covert operations were most successful when they functioned as an accessory to – not a replacement for – diplomacy. In the same vein, the White House should strive to promote drones as a tactical necessity, but not the lone anchor of long-term U.S. counterterrorism policy.

The administration should also work to forge a common view on domestic drone use among democratic states. With the civil functions of drones rapidly expanding, calls for regulation on both sides of the Atlantic present an opportunity to strengthen privacy laws and adopt preventive measures for the eventuality of domestic drone abuses. The latter is likely to become increasingly acute as drones are developed by authoritarian regimes. U.S. officials need to capitalize on the as yet relative infancy of this industry and work closely with allies in Europe and beyond to form a critical mass on internal drone use. Indeed, if the U.S. follows the reasoning it currently invokes to justify drone strikes, its global responsibility will soon extend beyond protecting civilian populations from terrorist networks to the very weapons employed to dismantle them.

Alexandra Coakley is an Intern at the Streit Council. Photo credit: UK Ministry of Defence (http://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceimages/8536294421/)

by Sarah Golden

According to the current Prime Minister of Greece, Antonis Samaras, Greece is now in a great depression similar to that of the U.S. in the 1930s. In the U.S.’s case, war helped to lift the nation out of depression by kick-starting private industry. Looking at Greece’s military budget over the past decade, it seems the opposite occurred. Long before and during the current crisis, Greece spent like it was in a war; and likely a world war at that, considering how profligate its spending has been. In 2011, even in the midst of a devastating financial crisis, Greece’s military budget accounted for 3.1% of its GDP, which amounted to over $9 billion. As a result of this spending, Greece now claims the top spot in the European Union in terms of military spending in relation to annual GDP. This is quite a sum for a nation that’s about the size of Alabama with a population only slightly larger than the entire state of Michigan. This is also a lot of money for a country that, quite literally, has no money. And as if all of these variables weren’t reason enough for Greece to cut its military expenditures, the nation has very few legitimate security concerns – not to mention that it also hasn’t been fully engaged in a war since the 1970s. Why in the world, then, is Greece spending so much on what appears to be unnecessary military technology?

Greeks Protest High Military Spending

Ironically enough, some of the blame for Greece’s irrational expenditures can be put on one of the countries that is trying to help it out of the hole it’s dug for itself: Germany. In 2011 alone German military technology imports accounted for 25% of Greece’s overall military budget; totaling about $2 billion. This made Greece the third largest importer of German military technology, right behind China and India. Germany hasn’t been acting alone though. France has also taken advantage of Greece’s thirst for high-tech, high-priced toys, providing it with 50 Mirage 2000 fighter jets, setting the country back another $1 billion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the U.S. very recently also provided 400 high-tech M1A1 Abrams tanks to Greece. However, to its credit, the U.S. claimed to make a concerted effort to “spend smart” with Greece, by offering it a refurbishing package in addition to supplying it with the armor.

What is arguably the most peculiar part of Greece’s current predicament is its unwavering fear of the Turks. According to a study conducted by the Hellenic Foundation for European Foreign Policy, Turkey is, and will continue to be, Greece’s largest security concern despite a recognition of Turkey’s increased attempts at Western integration. In fact, Turkey’s accession to NATO, as well as its attempt to gain admittance into the EU, has diminished the prospect of improved relations with Greece. Greece views Turkey’s desire to become more integrated in Europe as an infringement on its turf, which, it believes, will result in Greece losing favor with the more powerful Western nations. In other words, Greece can no longer garner the support of its European allies against a common Muslim enemy because Turkey is no longer viewed in that particular negative light. All in all, Greece has refused to let go of its past suspicion of Turkey, despite the minimal odds of an attack originating from Ankara. This has led Greece to pay less attention to the nation’s more realistic concerns, such as border control and illicit trade. What is equally as remarkable, according to the Hellenic Foundation’s findings, is that even though many within Greece realize that Turkey is not a threat, they refuse to decrease their military budget to levels more in line with their European partners. The question, then, is: can Greece continue to afford to feed its fears?

Realistically speaking, Greece’s days of frivolous military spending are likely coming to an end. If it wants to receive further monetary assistance from European lenders, its needs to begin paying back the 400 billion Euros it owes to the IMF, the European Central Bank and various other bondholders. Currently, Greece has been tasked by these lenders to cut 11.5 billion Euros from its overall national budget by 2014. This means Greece will need to make huge budget cuts in addition to a significant tax hike. The nation’s large military budget seems like a logical place to start.

Unfortunately, the end result of Greece’s military spending has been significantly counter-productive to its overall goal of increasing national security. In fact, it’s done quite the opposite and has actually contributed to the European monetary tailspin, which put the region in a state of total economic insecurity. With the vast majority of European leaders worried about keeping their respective national economies afloat, less priority can be given to legitimate international security concerns, such as the growing instability of Iraq and Syria; both of which have been dealing with the increased presence of terrorist organizations in recent weeks. Greece’s debacle can serve as an example of how military might doesn’t necessarily yield security.

Sarah Golden is an Intern with the Streit Council; Photo credit: gadams (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61808955@N08/5621153138/sizes/m/)

by Griffin W. Huschke

Government Illustration of bin Laden's Compound

Well, its over.  As you’ve heard by now, probably the largest and most expensive manhunt in U.S. history is at an end.  After a decade, the perpetrator of the terrorist attacks on September 11^th, Osama Bin Laden, is finally dead.

There isn’t a lot to be said about this man that isn’t already being spoken about elsewhere, and the details remain pretty sketchy. We’ll obviously be covering this for weeks to come, so let’s take a moment to think about the effects of bin Laden’s actions on the world community, and how the 17^th son of a Saudi construction magnate managed to have such an outsized effect on the way our world works.

In his own unfortunate way, bin Laden drastically changed the way security organizations, especially NATO, thought about possible threats.  Al Qaeda brought to light the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and engendered massive shifts in force structure, command and control, and information sharing across the world as countries aligned to combat this “new” threat.   Al Qaeda also gave the Atlantic Alliance a new way to focus its resources on smaller scale units, like the Special Operations forces that ended up capturing bin Laden and development projects in areas hardest hit by the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan. NATO has grown into this role in fits and starts, and there’s plenty more work to be done, but Europe and the U.S. remain to be each other’s strongest strategic allies, and the Alliance continues to adapt.

Al Qaeda also changed the way NATO thought about itself.  9/11 solidified the notion that NATO would no be used to defend Western Europe in a pitched tank battle in the Fulda Gap, but would need to respond to new threats as infrastructure became more vulnerable and the world became increasingly globalized.  NATO’s new focus on a range of threats, including cyber attacks and WMD, are a total result of this post-9/11 soul-searching, as are NATO’s continued search for out-of-area “partners” like Japan and Australia.  The Alliance realized that global threats, like terrorism and cyber attacks, require global allies in all theaters.

We obviously all wish that NATO never had to make these changes in thinking; that bin Laden had renounced violence that would claim so many lives.  But now that we have had to live through a painful decade of war and recession, let’s hope those tasked with protecting us are more able than they were a decade ago.

Griffin W. Huschke is the Mayme and Herb Frank Fund Research Fellow at the Streit Council. Photo credit: TalkMediaNews (http://www.flickr.com/photos/talkradionews/5680432685/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

by Griffin W. Huschke

An MQ-1 Predator Drone

There’s a lot of news worth covering lately (Wikileaks is the gift that keeps on giving for the blogophere), but a popular article in the Washington Post today raised some especially salient points for transatlantic watchers and more general international relations scholars. A recently released study by the British Defence Ministry pondered if technological advances in unmanned aerial vehicles, like the Predator drones that are now buzzing over the skies in Libya, will allow future policy makers to “resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously.”

Whether they knew it or not, our ponderously-spelling allies in the British Defence Ministry have wandered into the crossfire of an international relations debate that has been going on for years.  Several years ago Steven Van Evra published a work hypothesizing that if countries thought offensive weaponry were more effective, they would be more likely to go to war (while if defensive weaponry were perceived to be more effective, states would be more hesitant to engage in conflict).  For example, in the early 20^th century, European countries believed they could gain a strong military advantage if they were the aggressor in war, which helped create the hostile “powder-keg” political conditions in the run-up to World War I.  This theory, which uses the “offense-defense balance” to explain why countries go to war, continues to be influential to this day, and is clearly echoed in the Defence Ministry’s assertion above.

But like anything worth saying in academia, the offense-defense balance has engendered a lot of passionate arguments among the large-brained.  Scholars argue that there isn’t really such a thing as a strictly “offensive” or “defensive” weapon (is a tank an offensive or defensive weapon?  What about heavy artillery?), and military experts almost always say the defense has the advantage no matter how evolved the weaponry.  Some also concede that the offense-defense balance is a factor that leads states to go to war, but isn’t as big of a factor as, say, shifts in international power or regime type.  Indeed, in the last several years, fewer and fewer scholarly debates seem to be referencing the offense-defense balance as a legitimate explanation for inter-state warfare.

Griffin W. Huschke is the Mayme and Herb Frank Fund Research Fellow at the Streit Council. Photo credit: Beth and Christian (http://www.flickr.com/photos/six27/4698436162/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

by Griffin W. Huschke

NATO Headquarters

So now we’re in-fighting in NATO over the whole Libya thing.  Thirteen days into the NATO-led bombing campaign against loyalist forces in Libya, and the alliance is already showing signs of strain.  The Hawks, led by France and the UK, have expressed their displeasure over the small impact the bombing missions have made thus far (the sorties have yet to stop the shelling of tenuously-held Misurata ), and are pushing to send arms to the poorly-equipped rebels.   The Doves, led by Belgium and the empty seat Germany used to sit in, are questioning the legality of arming rebels under a UN mandate that only calls for “protecting civilians.”

While the latest spat within the Atlantic Alliance isn’t that surprising (we’re still fighting about deployments to Afghanistan) there might be some extenuating circumstances that are exacerbating tensions present in any NATO-led mission.  A general lack of political will and low levels of European defense spending are obviously contributing to the recent fracas, but operational factors may also be putting an undue strain on the alliance.  NATO commanders have all but admitted that constraints put on people and machinery by their home countries, such as limiting aircraft to a support role, is restricting the efficacy of the bombing campaign.  It may be these tactical and operational failings that are causing rifts at much higher levels.

There’s also the red-white-and-blue elephant in the room that no one seems to be mentioning much.  The U.S. pulled out of bombing missions when NATO took over, leaving French, British and other member- countries to fill the hole in manpower and equipment left by Uncle Sugar’s withdrawal.  But it’s tough for Europe to fill that gap on its own—the U.S. spends twice as much on defense as all other NATO countries combined, and NATO is designed to rely on U.S. defense capabilities.  Consider this quote from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006:

Imagine a NATO operation with Norwegian special forces being dropped off and picked up by a Polish airlift team, protected by US satellites, an aircraft carrier and its warplanes. What makes NATO effective is its integrated military structure and its mutual defense pledge.

The author is speaking somewhat hypothetically here, but it’s a good illustration of how people have been thinking about NATO’s force structure.  The United States provides a firm base for operations, and if you take that essential piece away, it’s going to make things a lot harder for the alliance.

Going forward, moving away from consensus decision-making at the committee level would make the Alliance more nimble, and revamping some common funding elements would better distribute the financial and military costs among all members.   This would ensure the Alliance’s effectiveness even if individual member states objected to an operation, and would allow for both financial and military contributions.  The 21^st century is going to require a stronger alliance to combat a host of new threats, and better integration is the only way NATO can adapt.

Griffin W. Huschke is the Mayme and Herb Frank Fund Research Fellow at the Streit Council. Photo Credit: European Parliament (http://www.flickr.com/photos/european_parliament/4128509538/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

by Griffin W. Huschke and Molly Parker

As if the Taliban weren't enough to worry about . . .

We’ve been covering a lot of revolutions and international organizations lately, and while that’s interesting and timely, we feel it’s time for a little break from the heavy stuff (we’ll be back with multilateralism and munitions on Thursday).  While most of us were reading volumes on Libya during the recent civil war, this article appeared in Slate detailing the effect that poor food decisions are having on U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It seems that an abundance of “comfort food” from KFC, McDonalds and the like are making thousands of our fighting men and women overweight and unfit for duty.  And with the U.S. still “surging” in Afghanistan and beginning bombing runs on Tripoli, we need all the brave men and women we can get.

Here to discuss this issue with me is Molly Parker, a nutrition scholar who runs the organic food blog Delicious Eats and Treats, which seeks to educate urban youth about nutrition issues. From what I understand, she also became a new Aunt yesterday, so she may be a little sleep deprived after discovering how much of a racket those little bundles of joy can produce.

Griffin Huschke: Molly, I’ve worked with the military before, and I can honestly see why overseas bases have options for KFC, McDonalds and other quick serve restaurants.  These people are trapped on the moonscape of southern Afghanistan for the better part of a year, and are often pushed to the breaking point with near constant combat patrols and troubles at home.  After three days trudging around the desert, a Number 3 value meal with an extra-large coke is probably pretty good for morale.

Molly Parker: We Americans love our meat, sodas [pop], and convenience foods, and the comfort of having them readily available for the men and women overseas must be greatly valued in times of extreme emotional and physical stress. However, the fact of the matter is that these foods provide little to no healthy nourishment for the body. Too much meat raises cholesterol levels, too much soda [pop] raises blood sugar, and increases the risk of diabetes. Fast food and other convenience items are loaded with salt and preservatives, raising blood pressure and contributing to hypertension and metabolic syndrome. Consuming all of these foods on a regular basis can lead to serious health consequences for anybody; for a soldier’s body, it can lead to both health and service consequences.

It would be absurd to compare my sporadic stress eating with the kind of stress eating that goes on overseas, but I often try to have wholesome yet on-the-go types of food available for those occasions. Granola bars. Apples, nuts, yogurt cups. Studies have shown that bananas are the best snack to eat to fill you up and tide you over until the next meal. Having these types of foods available during non-meal hours would be a great source of nutrients, fill bellies, and boost energy levels.

Griffin Huschke: The other thing I was thinking about was the logistics of getting fast food to the front lines.  Green things tend to spoil, and they have a pretty byzantine path to make before they get to COP Middleofnowhere, Afghanistan.

Molly Parker: That’s true, and you’re probably not going to see fresh edamame in MRE’s any time soon.  It really is a shame that foods packed with preservatives are much easier to send to front line soldiers, as fresh food is much more likely to spoil or rot—that’s just the nature of real food. But frozen fruits and veggies keep very well, as does whole grain bread, and protein like chicken, yogurt, and milk. Most food doesn’t lose much nutritional value while it’s frozen, so if there’s a way to keep things cold on their way to our men and women in uniform, they should have options available to them.

Griffin Huschke: Front-line personnel need over 3,500 calories a day–that’s a lot of salad.  What should they be eating that gives them the fat and calories they need without sacrificing overall health?

Molly Parker: 3,500 kcals a days would indeed be a lot of salad–probably too much for a digestive tract to handle at any rate. Complex carbohydrates should make up most of the diet. These include oatmeal, whole-grain pasta, brown rice, potatoes, whole-grain bread and cereals, beans and lentils. Mono- and poly-unsaturated fat are also great ways to pack in extra kcals, as fat contains 9 calories per gram (protein and carbs contain 4 calories per gram). Fats should only make up 10-15% of the daily intake. Good sources of unsaturated fat include all types of nuts (especially almonds, peanuts, cashews, pistachios), peanut butter, oils that are liquid at room temperature (olive oil, veggie oil, etc), olives, fish (salmon and tuna), and avocado. Like all athletes on an intensive regimen, soldiers must eat for energy as well as for prevention of injury which can be caused by nutritional deficiencies. A variety of different colors of fruits and veggies will help to solidify a good balance of vitamins and minerals.

Griffin Huschke: Thanks for dropping knowledge with me here today, Molls, and congratulations again on your new Aunt-hood.

Griffin W. Huschke is the Mayme and Herb Frank Fund Research Fellow at the Streit Council, and Molly Parker is the primary editor for the food weblog Delicious Eats and Treats.  Photo Credit: Kenfagerdotcom (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenfagerdotcom/4690095326/)