Here is final part of ‘Ungoverned Space: American Foreign Policy’:

Technology and Policing Ungoverned Space

Community policing has more less now become a traditional policing strategy, which has proven its effectiveness in the past and still today, but our modern, globalizing world demands ever more adaptive and innovative policing methods to keep up with criminals/terrorists who continue to utilize ungoverned space and gaps.  In a world with a globalized economy creating ever more state-of-the-art technologies and commodities (cell phones, ipods, Internet, weaponry) there will inevitably be criminal and extremist perpetrators who will try and find gaps in which they can exploit these new-found toys.  As Reid succinctly articulates;

“The unprecedented speed of change and development in the 21^stCentury provides us with those unique opportunities.  We’re wealthier.  We’re more mobile.  We’re more knowledgeable than before.  But as citizens benefit from those opportunities, so do the terrorists who exploit them or the criminals who find new paths.”[1]

It is the critical job of law enforcement today in the US, EU, and everywhere, especially in locals experiencing Absolute or Quasi ungoverned space, to fill these gaps created by modern technological advancements, commodities, and globalized networks of trade before criminals or terrorists can abuse them.  The US and British police systems have already done a remarkable job using and adapting their policing methods with modern technologies and techniques, such as the use of Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTC), border and custom patrols have implemented biometric passports and visas, and increased efforts at curtailing the misuse of identification documents.  Partnerships between the public and private sector are vital.  The British government’s partnership and work with Telecom’s Network Providers, which led to the creation of a system to ensure that stolen mobile phones were made unusable by thieves, is just one example of how effective this collaboration can be.  Criminals and extremists will always be looking for a gap, a hole they can slide through to commit their criminal and terrorist acts, and law enforcement need to do whatever it takes to find, analyze, and close that gap as soon as possible.   

Multilateral Groups

To help mitigate the effects and growth of ungoverned space in critical parts of the globe the United States must depend on the efforts, skills, and partnership of many other nations and multilateral groups.  Though the US must lead the charge, it cannot come close to combating this scourge without much international and regional help.

The US government is already a member of several useful organizations and initiatives that if properly led could slow down or contain terrorist and criminal activity stemming from and breeding in ungoverned spaces.  The State Department led Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI) is one such effort that seeks to develop flexible regional networks of interconnected Country Teams to combat and ‘eliminate terrorism safe havens, but also to address the conditions that terrorists exploit for recruitment.’  The State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism works with ambassadors and interagency representatives in key terrorist theaters of operation to assess the threat and devise collaborative strategies, plans, and policy recommendations.  In this regard, RSI strategy groups are already in place for Southeast Asia, Iraq and its neighbors, around the Mediterranean, and the Horn of Africa.  These RSI groupings provide an opportunity for cooperation around shared security concerns, pooled resources, and to strengthen regional and transnational partnerships in areas in need.  We just need to make sure these groupings remain focused on specific Absolute and Quasi ungoverned areas and targets.  The Vienna-based UN Office of Drugs and Crime and its action-arms Global Program on Terrorism and Global Program against Transnational Organized Crime assist member nations in combating both threats and is a program with international backing and legitimacy that the US should support and play a lead role in.  These UN crime and terror programs strengthen the ability of regional and national customs officials, immigration officers, and border guards to counter narcotics, weapons, and human trafficking as well as provide guidance to states in legislating and implementing anti-terrorism measures.  There are many other useful multilateral groupings with institutions that target transnational crime and terror elements which the US is already a member and should deepen relations with, such as the EU, OSCE, and G8.

Concerning international law enforcement agencies which have and been crucial and need our support to stem the tide of transnational crime and terrorism, the Southeastern European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) Center, based in Bucharest, and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), based in Lyon, must be provided greater financial provisions.  SECI takes a strong regional approach in assisting member states trans-border crime fighting efforts and has an Anti-Terrorism Task Force which focuses on helping its members counter the nexus between organized crime and terrorism.  Southeastern Europe has been a transit route for narcotics from Afghanistan and Central Asia and a hotbed of organized crime itself.  The US, Germany, France, and many others are currently observer members and we need to build on this relationship.  INTERPOL’s efforts are well-known, but its Fusion Task Force, which analyzes linkages between crime and terrorism in order to ‘facilitate the disruption and dismantling of criminal entities that play a central role in the funding or support of terrorist activities.’[2]  The Fusion Task Force has six additional regional task forces in Southeast Asia, Central Asia (Afghanistan/Pakistan), South America (Colombia), Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.  The organization’s paltry $33 million annual budget deserves our attention and financial support.[3]  SECI and INTERPOL may have their operations based in rather secure, governed lands, but their presence helps contain, dismantle, and prosecute criminal and terrorist networks that both breed in Quasi and Absolute ungoverned spaces and find gaps in governed lands.  The US should help to bring about, or strengthen already existing, these types of regional crime/terrorism law enforcement agencies in the Middle East, Central Asia, Central America, and South America.

Conclusion

Ungoverned space and the nefarious elements that grow from its loins is not just a US national security problem or even just an international security problem, it is one of the defining challenges of our modernized and globalized civilization.  Earlier centuries witnessed great wars and conflicts between world powers which caused unspeakable horrors and destruction, but that world is largely gone, and our current challenges stem from transnational criminal and terrorist networks that use the shadows and cover of ungoverned spaces to plot their next attack or offense against our society.  To combat this modern scourge the US needs to lead the world in closing these gaps and spaces of poor governance and weak institutions which leave only meager options for many of the world’s citizens.  Accomplishing this will be a long and at times treacherous path, and one in which we will make mistakes in our chosen policies and with the instruments utilized to carry them out, but this does not a mean we can shrink back into our homeland, for the menacing elements that come from ungoverned spaces will find their way back into our lives.

The United States has been fighting a war in Afghanistan for over ten years. Over 2,000 our bravest men and women have died there during that time period. We still have over 60,000 troops on the ground fighting in the land that hosted Al Qaeda’s leadership a decade ago. Even though, President Obama, the current GOP leadership, and a majority of the electorate are hoping and planning for an American withdrawal, we will likely be impacted and still have American troops in the country for years to come.

So is it too hard for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to mention the war at least once in his convention acceptance speech? Vice President Paul Ryan also neglected to discuss the war the night before and when asked yesterday on CBS News about his and Romney’s plan for the Afghan conflict, Mr. Ryan, a bright and thoughtful man, had nothing worthwhile to say.
I have been harsh on our present Commander in Chief for seeming to avoid talking with the American people about a conflict he called a ‘war of necessity’ in 2008 and that still stands. I doubt we will hear the President or his party speak much about the Afghanistan during the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I can predict with a fair amount of confidence that if President Obama mentions the word ‘Afghanistan’ it will be closely followed or preceded by the words ‘going home’, ‘drawing down’, and ‘rebuilding at home’. President Obama’s lack of using the bully pulpit to remind the American why we are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan is a major reason for the drop it the war’s support.

But at least President Obama has not dodged the issue as much as the GOP did during their convention. Heck, the only one to mention Afghanistan on the closing night was Clint Eastwood. The American people deserve to hear what Mitt Romney would do differently or the same in Afghanistan. I understand that for Romney and Obama, talking about Afghanistan does them no favors in the polls. Americans are rightly concerned about their struggles at home and likely do not want to hear either party going on and on about a decade long war far away, but doing just that is a commander in chief’s job. The American people need to hear what you are planning to do with our sons and daughters and our tax dollars.

Even more so, what about the actual troops fighting in Afghanistan right now? What if they gave Romney an hour of their time and listened to his speech and heard nothing about why they are across the globe fighting a determined enemy? What about all those Americans who were now at home, but had previously fought in the Afghan conflict and lost dear friends in the fight? What about those who were at home and knew they could be redeployed back to Afghanistan? The American people, and especially our soldiers fighting the good fight, need to have leaders worth following. Governor Romney, Congressman Ryan, and President Obama need to rise to their level of bravery and speak the hard truths.

You may have heard that things are going poorly in Afghanistan. Is it true, maybe, maybe not. In either case, what you likely have not heard is any of this from President Obama. The President has spoken very little of the war in Afghanistan to the American public. From positive reports of progress to horrific incidents, the President speaks very little of the war. In the mean time, approval of the America’s participation in the war has dropped dramatically in recent months. According to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, Americans are more than dispirited about the war effort, they want out:

The survey found that more than two-thirds of those polled — 69 percent — thought that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Just four months ago, 53 percent said that Americans should no longer be fighting in the conflict, more than a decade old.

What can you expect of a public that only hears news stories of America and NATO’s troubles in Afghanistan. If it bleeds it leads, that’s the way things are. What is missing is any leadership from the Oval Office. Americans are now only hearing the costs of being in Afghanistan. The ‘Why’ we are still there is not being answered. That job belongs to whoever is Commander in Chief of the war. Walter Russell Mead strongly made this point:

If the commander in chief doesn’t defend the war and make a case for his chosen strategy, the American public has little else to go on but the most garish of headlines. Afghanistan was supposed to be the “good war” that this administration wasn’t going to neglect as — it charged — the Bush administration had done. Yet today, the only thing coming from the Obama administration on the subject is radio silence.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the president has a duty to talk about the war — to explain to the American people why we are fighting, what we hope to accomplish, and why there is reason to believe that we can succeed. If the chosen strategy has run into obstacles, that is what war is about. Presidents are not infallible and war fighting involves flexibility and realism as well as courage and commitment. But the President seems to be conducting his administration as if the war weren’t happening. It is something to be swept under the rug, ignored, deprecated — and, on the current course, lost.

If President Obama thinks it best for the US to get out of Afghanistan then he needs to say so and do so. If, as his current strategy exists, he believes that having American forces fighting extremists, Al Qaeda, factions of the Taliban, and keeping the peace in Afghanistan is worth the costs, he needs to explain this to the American people. War is a serious business, and we need a serious leader. President Bush let the Iraq War dominate his presidency, in many ways to the detriment of the country and his political standing. But one thing is for certain, you knew where he stood. We understand that President Obama is more focused and naturally inclined to focus on domestic matters. But he is not a governor. He is the commander in chief and needs to act like one.

I saw these two reports within a few minutes of each other and the contrast wasn’t exactly hard to see. The first piece detailed China’s rapidly increasing military spending:

China’s defense budget will double by 2015, making it more than the rest of the Asia Pacific region’s combined, according to a report from IHS Jane’s, a global think tank specializing in security issues.

Beijing’s military spending will reach $238.2 billion in 2015, compared with $232.5 billion for rest of the region, according to the report. That would also be almost four times the expected defense budget of Japan, the next biggest in the region, in 2015, the report said.

And then after just a wee bit more web surfing, I came across this report from the US Military Times:

The Pentagon’s base budget will fall for the first time in more than a decade, slipping less than 1 percent to $525.4 billion from last year’s $530.6 billion. When adjusted for inflation, 2013 would mark the third consecutive year the budget has fallen, officials said…New hardware is taking the biggest hit in the new budget proposal, including proposed delays in the purchase of new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and new Navy ships and ending the Air Force’s unmanned Global Hawk program…

I understand that even with a large expansion by the Chinese military and a slight decline in American defense spending the discrepancy between the two is still substantial. But one can’t help but notice a significant transition occurring in these, more and more uncommon, headlines. The United States is now cutting defense spending while Beijing is most definitely increasing theirs. The Military Times article tries to put the decrease in American spending in historical perspective:

[Pentagon’s comptroller Robert] Hale compared the current plans to other post-war periods including the years following the Vietnam War in the 1970s and the aftermath of the Cold War in the 1990s. “They are not that different than past postwar drawdowns,” Hale said.

It is true that much of the decrease in spending comes from the Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns, but Comptroller Hale does not know the near future and what challenges our military will have to meet. We keep hearing about how are military is not really getting smaller, but just moving to a new, more important location, East Asia. But at the same time it seems like we are closer than we have been since President Obama was elected to being engaged in a hot war against Iran. And then there is Syria, where there are reports that the US is planning an aerial blockade. The Iraq war has ended, at least for the US, and the Obama administration has sent strong signals that the US led NATO alliance in Afghanistan will be gone by 2014 (maybe even sooner), but future conflicts, which of course would demand billions of federal dollars, can be seen without much imagination.

These two reports show that hard bottom lines still remain: The coming US deficit crisis demands major changes to its spending/taxing policies, with defense spending so far taking the biggest hit, and the Chinese, though with some rough financial waters likely headed their way, will continue to build up their military capabilities. And if you think things are getting serious right now….

The proposal does not take into consideration the law that may result in an additional $500 billion in cuts that would begin next year if lawmakers fail to reach a broader agreement to reduce federal spending and the national deficit. Hale said those cuts, known as budget sequestration, would amount to a “meat ax” approach.

Thanks to Real Clear History, I found this fascinating story about how the United States used spy satellites to map Soviet Russia’s territory during the Cold War. It is from The Atlantic magazine and features an informative video that explains the 1950′s program in a very straightforward way for us political, not hard, science nerds. I highly recommend going to read the article, but here’s the 10 minute video right here:

I have for years thought that a study should be done on how spy satellites have impacted international relations. It seems to me that if one country can keep a close eye on an other’s strategic capabilities and movement and that side knows it is being watched, it would curtail warfare. Like the idea that if you put cameras in a 7-11 it will stop or at least deter robberies. That being said, I’m pretty sure 7-11′s still get robbed once in a while. Anyways, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal highlights this idea in of his 5 things that stick out about this particular spy satellite program:

2. Some historians, at least, believe that spy satellites helped keep the Cold War cool. By providing planners with some information about what was going on behind the iron curtain, they kept the fever dreams of our decisionmakers in check. “At the height of the Cold War, our ability to receive this kind of technical intelligence was incredible,” space historian Dwayne Day told the AP. “We needed to know what they were doing and where they were doing it, and in particular if they were preparing to invade Western Europe. Hexagon created a tremendous amount of stability because it meant American decision makers were not operating in the dark.”

Well, what did you think of the video? The spy satellite program itself? Or the theory that a watched enemy is a quite one?

Governments are inherently run inefficiently without much regard for cost effectiveness. The US government is no different and this includes the Defense department. It is accurate that America will have to include defense cuts in order for us to get out of this fiscal disaster that is fast approaching as our debt continues to spiral. However, I believe the automatic $600 billion dollars that would be cut from our defense spending if the Super Committee cannot come to another agreement, is going too far. The main duty for any government is to provide for the safety and defense of its citizens and interests and these proposed cuts, which of course go on top of the hundreds of billions already cut by Secretary Gates and the Obama administration, are too drastic and are the wrong target for budget savings. Robert Samuelson brings some much needed perspective on this issue:

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, America’s armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing — the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War — was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.

True, Iraq and Afghanistan raised defense budgets. As these wars conclude, lower spending will shrink overall deficits. But the savings will be smaller than many expect because the costs — though considerable — were smaller than they thought. From fiscal 2001 to 2011, these wars cost $1.3 trillion, says the Congressional Budget Office. That’s 4.4 percent of the $29.7 trillion of federal spending over those years. In 2011, the cost was about $159 billion, 12 percent of the deficit ($1.3 trillion) and 4 percent of total spending ($3.6 trillion).

Then Samuelson takes on a few myths about defense spending, including:

We can’t afford today’s military. Not so. How much we spend is a political decision. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was much poorer, 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal budget routinely went to defense, representing 8 percent to 10 percent of our national income. By 2010, a wealthier America devoted only 20 percent of federal spending and 4.8 percent of national income to the military. Social spending replaced military spending; but that shift has gone too far….

The Washington Post came out against the Super Committee defense cuts as well and highlighted some of the testimony of America’s military leaders:

Since the congressional supercommittee is reportedly at an impasse, let’s hope its members have used some of their idle time to catch up with the testimony of the nation’s military chiefs at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. The chiefs were asked to assess what would be the consequences if $600 billion in across-the-board cuts were imposed on the defense budget — a sequestration currently required by law in the event the supercommittee fails to agree on a debt reduction plan or Congress fails to pass it.

Their answers were blunt: “Cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military,” testified Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, a former Iraq commander. “My assessment is that the nation would incur an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk.”

“A severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” said Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations.

“A Marine Corps below the end strength that’s necessary to support even one major contingency,” said Marine Commandant James Amos.

“Even the most thoroughly deliberated strategy may not be able to overcome dire consequences,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz.

There is much waste and superfluous defense programs that should be found and uprooted. I have personally seen defense sector waste and am very sympathetic to the American tax payer who may feel that he is being taken for a ride far too often by its profligacy, but the current proposed cuts on the table would start digging into real and necessary defense programs, personnel, and technology. America’s budget deficits and debt are major threats to our future, but believing we can solve them by mostly cutting our defense spending is numerically and philosophically wrong. Numerically speaking, our financial position is in dire straits because of runaway entitlement spending, not a bloated defense sector. Philosophically speaking, well, I’ll let Robert Samuelson have the last word:

Defense spending is unlike other spending, because protecting the nation is government’s first job. It’s in the Constitution, as highways, school lunches and Social Security are not.

Iran is back in the news again: bungled attempt to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US on American territory, IAEA’s upcoming report which is expected to detail how the Islamic Republic is working toward a nuclear weapon’s program, President Ahmadinejad’s growing feud with the Supreme Leader, and of course Iran’s support for the Bashir regime’s crackdown on it revolting citizens in Iran. David Sanger of the New York Times produced a nice synopsis of the Obama administration’s current strategy toward Iran, detailing American efforts to impede its progress toward going nuclear:

Iran may be the most challenging test of the Obama administration’s focus on new, cheap technologies that could avoid expensive boots on the ground; drones are the most obvious, cyberweapons the least discussed. It does not quite add up to a new Obama Doctrine, but the methods are defining a new era of nearly constant confrontation and containment. Drones are part of a tactic to keep America’s adversaries off balance and preoccupied with defending themselves. And in the past two and a half years, they have been used more aggressively than ever. There are now five or six secret American drone bases around the world. Some recently discovered new computer worms suggest that a new, improved Stuxnet 2.0 may be in the works for Iran.

Basically, anything that doesn’t involve an actual American (or Israeli) military strike or real sanctions on Iran’s oil industry. Sanger also quickly layouts what a parallel containment strategy for Iran might look like:

The early elements of it are obvious: the antimissile batteries that the United States has spent billions of dollars installing on the territory of Arab allies, and a new Pentagon plan to put more ships and antimissile batteries into the Persian Gulf, in cooperation with six Arab states led by Saudi Arabia.

It seems to have reached conventional wisdom that the Obama administration has ruled out any serious military action to halt an Iranian nuclear reality, but analyst David Rothkopf thinks that may be naive:

But in the end, as dangerous as an attack might be militarily and politically, if the President believes there is no other alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will seriously consider military action and it is hardly a certainty he won’t take it. From a domestic political perspective, right now Obama’s strong suit is his national security performance. For the first time in years, he has taken the issue away from the Republicans. Right now they simply cannot attack him as being weak or assert they understand defense better. That is why they are so silent on the issue. Obama has only four real areas of vulnerability on this front. First, if he pushes too hard for defense budget cuts before the election, the Republicans will go after him. He won’t. He will seek cuts but will be comparatively cautious. Next, if there were a terrorist attack of some sort and the administration seemed unprepared or responded weakly, that would create a problem. But that is a perennial wild card. Third, if he distances himself from Israel, the Republicans will seek to capitalize on the sense some supporters of that country have that Obama is not a committed friend. There is already plenty of activity in that area … and the Israelis are eager to take advantage of their perceived election year leverage. And finally, if Iran were to detonate a nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely attacked for a policy of engagement that ultimately proved to be toothless.

Walter Russell Mead has also made this argument, though more persuasively. I wouldn’t be so quick to think that Obama would make such a move. Yes, he has shown a willingness to use violent force to kill terrorist enemies and participated in the aerial bombing of Qadafhi’s regime in Libya, but an attack on Iran would be a whole other animal. I believe Obama is still a firm believer in international institutions and law and would loathe the idea of going it alone (albeit with Israel) as there is little chance a major attack would be approved in the Security Council. Attacking Iran would also open up a plethora of unknowns (oil prices, counter attacks, etc.) that I don’t think the President wants to bring to the 2012 election. It would also undermine the benefits Obama will receive from his base by getting all US troops out of Iraq. However, Rothkopf and Mead should be applauded for going against the conventional wisdom.

In any case, after becoming a nearly forgotten topic amongst all of our economic dull drums, the Iran question is back in the news and obviously worth watching.

Does Pakistan stand for ‘Land of the Duplicitous’? In case you haven’t heard, during a Congressional hearing, Adm. Mike Mullen made some damning accusations of the Pakistani government’s role, particularly the ISI, in some serious attacks on American targets:

The remarks by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, represented the strongest U.S. criticism to date of the long-suspected ties between the militant Haqqani network and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.

In his most serious accusation, Adm. Mullen said the agency had aided the militant group’s attack last week against the U.S. embassy in Kabul, and also helped in the Sept. 11 truck bomb attack in Afghanistan’s Wardak province.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives plan and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Adm. Mullen said, adding there was evidence the group also was behind the June 28 attack on Kabul’s Inter-Continental Hotel and others.

“The Haqqani network … acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency,” Adm. Mullen said.

Don’t forget to add that Osama bin Laden was found near a major Pakistani military base. Now the relationship between the US and Pakistani governments is a marriage of convenience for both sides and each partner has not held up their side of the bargain at one time or another, but with these latest statements from the head of US military, it appears that the US may be growing tired of the ISI’s double game. These are pretty damning accusations and they were made very publicly. There is no doubt that even if these statements don’t change current American policy toward Pakistan (we still need their support in Afghanistan and for intelligence against Al Qaeda) it will likely harden American public opinion against future financial and military support for Pakistan.

I hope most of you have heard about the heroics of Sgt. Dakota Meyer as he received his Medal of Honor last Friday. Through his selfless actions, dozens of American marines and Afghan soldiers were saved. Talk a moment to watch Meyer’s story, which was featured on 60 minutes yesterday: