Since it is the season of giving, I’ve got some super exciting, extremely provocative, and amazingly fascinating great power stories for you to check out. I mean we got….sanctions, Hugo Chavez, Polish missiles, Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer, an Islamic Reformation, and cyberwarfare in Iraq. One of those was just a tease. Another present? GPP’s 4th Great Power Rankings will be out this weekend. Print it out, wrap it, and give it to your loved ones.

Sanctions and Strategy - This is a provocative (I told you that would be here) analysis of the use of economic and political sanctions in modern international politics by George Friedman at Stratfor. Friedman, a staunch IR realist, is more than a little skeptical about sanctions usefulness in actually changing a state’s behavior. Friedman’s conclusion concludes that sanctions are just a way of buying time and passing the buck:

The ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war. The effectiveness of that platform is not nearly as important as the fact that it provides a buffer against charges of inaction and demands for further action.

Sanctions satisfy the need to appear to be acting while avoiding the risks of action.

Hugo’s Russian Missiles - About a week ago, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez stated his country had received thousands of Russian-made missiles and rocket launchers as part of his government’s military preparations for a possible armed conflict with neighboring Colombia. Chavez claimed: “They {Colombia} are preparing a war against us. Preparing is one of the best ways to neutralize it.” In recent years, Hugo’s regime in Venezuela has grown closer and closer to Moscow and it has been reported that Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms since 2005, ‘including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. In September, Russia opened a $2.2 billion line of credit for Venezuela to purchase more weapons.’

A more distressing issue though is Chavez’s military build up on Venezuela’s border with Colombia and released reports that his government is aiding and abetting FARC members. The US should make it loud and clear that any overt aggressiveness by Chavez would be met with a strong rebuke, mainly with international pressure and military assistance to Colombia. However, I doubt anything serious will occur.

Cyberwarfare in Iraq and Beyond - Shane Harris of The National Journal has written a fascinating (told ya!) article about the recent past and present of US cyberwarfare tactics and defense. Harris asserts that President Bush authorized a cyberattack on cell phones and computers used by Iraqi insurgents to plan roadside bombings in May 2007. Anonymous officials reported that the Americans were able to deceive their adversaries with false information and led them into the fire of waiting U.S. soldiers. Well, I’m impressed and think this needs to be a tactic that the US military continues to exploit. Harris credits former Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell and Gen. David Petraeus for bringing cyber threats to the table under the Bush administration. Gen. Former President Bush formed the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which President Obama is attempting to enhance and grow. In regards to our beloved great power politics, Harris quotes Kevin Coleman, a senior fellow with security firm Technolytics, who asserts that there is basically a three way tie between China, Russia and the U.S in terms of cyberwarfare capability. The whole articles a must-read.

Poland’s American Missiles - A Status of Forces Agreement has been reached between Poland and the US, which calls for American troops to install and operate a mobile, land-based set of short- and medium-range missiles to defend against incoming attacks. In other words, after scrapping the major Czech-Poland-American missile defense plan, the Obama administration has put in place a similar program, but on a much smaller, disconnected scale. Russia, of course, is concerned about this recent development. Though I was against the cancellation of the earlier plan, I applaud the Obama administration for a rather quick strategic re-engagement with a trusted ally, Poland.

Special Relationship, Not So Special - I’ve discussed this at least twice before so I don’t need to get into too much here, but the Obama administration has continued to distance itself from the British Isles. I think this is wrong for many reasons and hope the administration changes course soon.

Islamic Reformation, Not Looking Too Likely Anytime Soon - New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an exciting (ok, that one was forced) op-ed calling for internal changes within the Islamic community. Here’s an example of what Friedman sees as wrong or failing in parts of the Islamic world and with reactions to it in the US:

(Referencing the recent terrorist bombings in Baghdad) Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.

Friedman is right, there really is very little the United States can do to get to the heart of Islamic violent extremist dilemma. Their neighbors, family, countrymen need to stand up and say ‘this type of behavior is wrong and does us much more harm than good’. In referencing Friedman’s article, I found an even better one on the subject by Tom Bevan.

Tags: arms sales, Bush, cyber warfare, cybersecurity, Hugo Chavez, Islamic extremism, Islamic world, Missile Defense System, missiles, Obama, Sanctions, special relationship, Venezuela

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan troop surge, America Exceptionalism, Bush, international liberalism, Obama

President Obama made a ‘war on terror’ state of the union type speech today at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC).  The speech covered the basics (we are fighting hard against Al Qaeda, but the threat is still with us, etc.), but two things peaked my interests.  There was a lot to like about the speech no doubt, but these two things irked me a bit.

First off, Obama rightly praised the work of all those who have diligently worked, mostly in the shadows, to keep America safe.  Specifically, he highlighted the recent good works that have lead to the deaths or capture of 11 of the top 20 Al Qaeda members.  These folks and these works do indeed deserve every American citizen’s cheers and gratitude.  But what was missing was any mention of the previous administration led by President Bush.  The very constitution of the NCC itself as it looks today would not be as it is without the Bush administration.  I’m not asking Obama to heap praise on Bush, but a quick acknowledgement of all the work that was done after 9/11 would have been appropriate and respectful.  Whether one agreed with 50%, 75%, or 100% of the previous administration’s anti-terror policies, there were still thousands of good people, many Bush appointed, doing their best to keep America safe and by not mentioning this in any real way is bringing partisanship into national security.  Obama, you don’t like Bush, I get it, but you’ve been president for almost a year now and know the hard calls that the position takes.  I would think this would sober one up a bit and give one greater respect for his predecessors.  It’s not like President Obama has really reversed much of the Bush anti-terror policies anyways.  This is really disappointing to me because, though it sounds and is surely naïve, I like to think that certain parts of our American system are above politics, and protecting the country is one of them.  I would like to see more continuity between administrations and less ‘all bad, I fix’ mentality that I so far have seen from Obama.

Secondly, I was disappointed in the time of the speech, not the ‘timing’, but the speech’s length.  It is well known that President Obama’s main focus is on domestic affairs, but couldn’t a speech on a such a vital national security issue be longer than 10 minutes?!  Especially in light of the recent arrest of Al Qaeda connected terrorist Zazi in Denver and reports that the US has had some major success in killing numerous of Bin Ladin’s top men in the mountains of Pakistan.  I’m not sure how long the President’s Olympic address was in Copenhagen, but I’m gonna guess it was longer.   

Overall, a couple minor qualms in a decent speech.  GPP’s thoughts on the Iranian negotiations and Obama’s UN speech still to come.  And I guess I could forsee the 4th edition of GPP Great Power Rankings! coming soon as well.  

Tags: Bush, Obama, terrorism, War on Terror

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan troop surge, Bush, domestic politics, Obama

As much as I disagree with the CIA prosecution policy of the Obama administration, it has helped highlight a critical and complicated issue in US national security, international security, and for modern democracies.  Discussions by President Obama, ex-VP Dick Cheney, leading intellectuals, newspapers, and citizens, like us here at GPP, attests to this, and I hold up that we can find an acceptable, if not happy, medium.  In any regard, that’s all I’m going to say about that right now.  Well, almost.  Here’s two provocotive CIA/torture pieces worth checking out:  Liberal Columnist Richard Cohen looks at ‘Torture’s Unanswerable Questions‘ 2.  A high level debate on the issue spurred by Cohen’s piece.

The rest of this post will be as the title suggests, a hodge-podge of Great Power topics.  Are you pumped or what!?!  I am!!!

• Stratfor’s George Friedman takes a stab at reviewing the now concluded, opening stage of President Obama’s foreign policy.  Friedman’s take is centered on two related points: Obama’s policies are a lot like Bush’s and this is no surprise because state leaders’ foreign affairs decisions are shaped by ‘necessity’ and constrained by fundamental strategic interests.  Friedman is a Realist, and a consistent one, so this should not surprise.  The most interesting aspect of the review is Friedman’s geopolitical analysis of Obama’s ‘Reset’ policy with Moscow.  He sees an inherent problem with the strategy:

The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.

This is true for many international issues, as just because we desire ‘talks’, ‘resets’, ‘war’, etc. does not mean our ally or enemy want the same.  Conflicts happen for a reason.

• For only the 2nd time in decades, with this time looking to be much more consequential than the first, Japan has a new ruling party running its domestic and foreign affairs.  The perennially in power Liberal Democrats have been booted out of government and replaced by the Democratic Party of Japan and this will muddies the future Japan-US alliance, if even just a bit.  From their very existence, the Liberal Democrats were closely allied with the US, and the DPJ has held some troubling policy prescriptions toward its relations with the US while in opposition.  Though a sea change in relations is extremely unlikely, there is indeed some cause for concern, especially in regards to the presence of American military personnel on certain Japanese islands.  The Obama administration will need to show some agility in dealing with this new government and keeping the Japanese-American alliance strong.  A rather mundane, stable US foreign policy sphere has suddenly become a bit more exciting/worrying.

• Speaking of East Asia and Realism, Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini wrote a short and sweet piece persuasively arguing that no one should expect to see US-China partnership any time soon.  Here is a list of the contrasting interests and positions that will keep them apart: 1. US focus on geopolitical headaches around the globe with China confining itself with geo-economic challenges 2. Both state governments have internal issues to keep their attention (economic, health care, Uighurs, baseball playoff races, etc.) 3. Internal bureaucratic infighting, especially in regards to a lack of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington’s respective State and Treasury Departments 4. Lastly, on major international security issues, like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia’s moves in Eastern Europe, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, climate change, the two behemoths have diverging positions.  What’s interesting about this piece by Bremmer and Roubini is that they make a Realist argument, but stress internal aspects (bureaucracy, domestic politics) as key factors.  Realist theory largely and mistakenly misses these factors by focusing too much on just the state and international actors.

• Speaking of Russia in Eastern Europe (at least I did a little bit ago), Moscow is having a good ol’fashioned great power row with Poland about who was more Nazi-friendly during World War II.  I know what you’re thinking….this is great-power-awesome!  Apparently, Russia has been releasing documents showing elements in Poland helped the Nazis, while the Polish are trying to remind Moscow that they invaded and conquered them in a partnership with the Third Reich!  It seems like this morbid diplomatic fight is not a real threat to Polish-Russian relations, just an interesting verbal spat.

• Apparently, the War on Terror may not be dead just yet.  Obama Press Secretary used the phrase in its proper context when defending Obama’s Afghan strategy.

• Just when you thought your great power work was done, here is a bloggingheads.tv video by two mostly well-spoken folks debating whether America will remain a great power, with the much more important question of How, being addressed as well.  Hat tip to my friends at Foreign Policy Association’s Rising Powers blog, specifically David Kampf, for this and for already picking out the discussion’s ‘money quote’:

“the greatest advantage that the United States has going forward is that as other countries become more powerful there is always going to be the feeling among their neighbors and among others in the world that they are going to view that apprehensively and I think they are going to look to the United States…to provide you with a security partner.”

Just like the Pittsburgh Pirates’ playoff chances, this post is finished!

Tags: Bush, CIA, domestic politics, Obama, War on Terror, WWII

There are many besides those in the Obama administration who think this is a good idea.  In fact, the New York Times and the Huffington Post are angry that these moves do not go far enough!  In one scary Huffington Post article, former Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin calls the past administration a ‘Bush torture regime’ and compares this prosecution process to the Nazi Nuremburg trials!  Last time I checked waterboarding two known terrorists and verbally threatening a few others does not equal a Holocaust, but maybe I’m wrong.  I think Mr. Froomkin should start shopping at the perspective store.  Froomkin argues that Obama should go much further, worrying:

“The message for future federal employees faced with morally suspect orders will be clear: Do what you’re told to do, and we’ll cover your ass. And the message for future policymakers will be: If you can find someone at the Department of Justice to say it’s OK, then anything goes - literally, anything.”

Reread the last part.  ‘Anything goes’.  99% of CIA, military, FBI, and government officials acted appropriately and extremely diligently to protect US civilians, but apparently the Bush administration had an ‘anything goes’ policy that only Froomkin knew about.  Though not nearly preposterous as Froomkin’s ramblings was a New York Times editorial praising the Obama administration’s recent CIA exposure moves.  The editorial spends quite a bit of space talking about the Bush administration’s ‘moral repugnance’ and pushing for more investigations, but at no time, not one word, mentions how these CIA investigations and releases affects US national security.  It is easy to criticize an agency tasked with national security without mentioning why it did what it did in order to provide protection and whether or not its methods were effective or not.  If you want to advocate a high level investigation of CIA officials and former administration members, you at least must acknowledge the national security, agency morale, and future administration ramifications.

These CIA soldiers were told what they were doing was lawful and needed to protect the United States and now they fear for their livelihood. It would be wrong to pretend that this investigation will not have its negative impact, as according to some, it already has; as one anonymous CIA official concluded about his fellow agents:

“Their view is, they policed themselves and they turned themselves in.  Now they have to fight al Qaeda and the U.S. government at the same time.”

A little over dramatic, but true nonetheless. Current CIA Director Leon Panetta had this to say about the recent bad news: “This is in many ways an old story. … The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of Sept. 11, ended in January.  For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do.”  The job of the CIA is to keep American citizens and interests safe, sometimes I think this is forgotten, especially if you read the aforementioned opinion pieces.

In this post, I have constantly referred to ‘President Obama’ and the ‘Obama administration’, not AG Eric Holder or the Justice Department, and I did so purposely.  Though the President has tried to distance himself from these recent policy decisions, he is ‘where the buck stops’ and a decision by Eric Holder is for all purposes a decision by the President, who appointed him and could fire him at any moment.  If Obama thinks this is best for our country he needs to stand up and explain why.  Where’s the leadership?  Where’s the Commander and Chief?  Imagine if you worked for the CIA and after releasing damaging, formerly classified documents a few months ago, the President came and made a big speech about how the CIA’s integrity was vital to our national security, but just a couple months later his administration is all over you again?  Would you feel safe?  Trusted?  An editorial by the Chicago Tribune ended poignantly:

One day, heaven forbid, there may be another attack on American soil. Once again, we will ask CIA and other agents to find out whatever they can, as quickly as possible, to defend this nation. How will they respond?

Heaven Forbid.

Tags: Bush, CIA, intelligence, Obama, terrorism, torture, War on Terror

Please take a look at this report from Reuters:

“If it were in a position to do so, Al-Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on June 21. Pakistan has been battling Al-Qaeda’s Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 100 kilometers northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands. ‘God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahedin would take them and use them against the Americans,’ Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of Al-Qaeda’s in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television.”

After reading this a couple thoughts came to mind.  1. The US and the international community cannot fall into any type of lull in our efforts to prevent non state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This is obviously especially pertinent in the state of Pakistan, where the Pakistani military seems to be making some progress against Taliban strongholds in the Swat and Northwest Frontier provinces.  The Obama administration has shown they take this threat seriously, exemplified by their recent efforts to enhance the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.  The administration should also actively promote the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).  A flexible, internationally accepted organization to curtail WMD proliferation started by the Bush administration.

Secondly, why is Al-Jazeera television giving this Al Qaeda criminal air time?  Al-Yazid’s words should be heard by intelligence analysts, government officials, and no one else.  What good can come out of this publicity?  Let Al Qaeda’s words fall on deaf ears by giving them a smaller and smaller soap box or at least one without a microphone near it.

Tags: Al Qaeda, Bush, nuclear terrorism, Obama, PSI, terrorism

First off, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of all those who fought and died on France’s Normandy shores 65 years ago so I could sit on a comfy couch, in a beautiful city, and in a country where I can safely say and write whatever I want.  Thank you.  While I’m at I would like to thank those who are this very moment protecting our freedom and way of life in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, and beyond.

'I have a fruit basket, Is there someone named Islam here?'

Now let’s get to Obama’s Cairo speech.  I read the whole speech very early on Thursday morning and took copious notes (all of which I left at work) and my first impression was very positive.  The various topics covered and the audience were far from easy or simple, but President Obama did a serviceable job with a near impossible task, opening a more constructive, fair dialogue between Americans and many Muslims, specifically Arab Muslims.

Obama made quite the effort to show connection between Islam and the United States (sometimes too loosely) and praised Islamic culture and history throughout the speech.  Thankfully within this praise he was able to bring up faults (mainly violent extremism, lack of human rights, and opportunity) and highlight America’s history of progress and promise.  Referring to the latter, Obama had one of his best lines:

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.

This was an effective way to connect Obama’s personal life story (Obama in poll after poll is more popular abroad than the US as a country) to the country that helped him become who he is today.

Though there has been criticism that Obama did not use the word ‘terrorism’ in his speech, I thought he did a bang up job defining the enemy and stating that it was a problem that needs to be combatted head on by both the United States, Muslim states, Muslim people, and Islamic faith.  He forcefully stated that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda (in other words not one of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories that are sadly passed around the Middle East and beyond) and went on to unequivocally state that the US would do whatever was needed to defeat this threat.  However, he was a bit to politically correct and playing to his audience when he finished off this subject with this line, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.’  I’m sorry, but the large majority of violent extremists in the world and those especially targeting the US are Islamic and base their reason for their acts on Islam.  So though Islam itself may not be the complete problem, interpretations and factions of it are.  To deny this would be not calling the enemy what it is.

Moving on.  I was disappointed by the near complete pass Iran’s nuclear program received during the speech.  Here was a sympathetic audience (at least the Arab state leaders) and Obama pretty much made clear that the issue was not a high priority for his administration, as the short Iran section seemed almost like filler and quickly turned to ‘ending the world of nukes’.  I think Obama may have been scared to be the seen as the American President giving demands or saying an Islamic state ‘can’t have nukes’.   This however, does not make good policy.  If you were Iran’s mullahs and you heard that part, you would think, ‘okay, we’re cool’.

I was also not a fan of the continual moral equivalencies (US women’s rights and Middle Eastern women’s rights really have nothing in common, and CIA assistance of the coup of Mosaddeq equals the Islamic Republics bad behavior for thirty ongoing years), but Max Boot discussed this better than I ever could.

Regarding Israel-Palestine, I was largely in agreement with Obama.  Israel does need to stop their settlements (though this is extremely complicated, much more than Obama lets on) and I thought Obama clearly laid out how Palestinian use of violence was unacceptable; ‘It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.’

On to Iraq, which was really short changed by Obama.  He mainly just talked about the US getting the hell out of there, but what about regional stability of the situation or about how the Iraqis were actually having REAL ELECTIONS to an audience that has never experienced such a thing.  I felt that they could have been a great seque into democracy promotion, but Obama faild to do so.  Many have died to make those elections come about and it would have been nice if the President of the United States at least acknowledged what was going on only a few hundred miles away.

That being said, Obama did finish up his speech with some nice words for universal human rights and democracy, but he did so without really using the D-word specifically.  Here’s his best line regarding what people yearn for:

…the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

It is interesting compare Obama’s democracy descriptions with former President Bush (”We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right.”).  Different for sure, but really arguing the same point; democracy is da bomb.

I’m sure my notes had much more insight and hilarious jokes, but that’s all I got.  Overall, a nicely toned speech well-delivered.  The hard part of course is seeing real progress follow the words.

Tags: Bush, democracy, democracy promotion, Egypt, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamic extremism, Islamic world, Obama, Obama Cairo Speech

The American-Australian alliance has been one of the world’s most stable, if not, important since the end of the Cold War, and it looks like it will remain so and bear fruit. Former US President George Bush and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, both conservative leaning had a very close relationship and current US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, both more liberal leaning, look to be continuing this trend. The latter two met for security and economic talks in late March and each emphasized their commitment to common security and economic goals and the strength of the alliance. This alliance and ‘partnership’ talk has brought some real results.

Australia’s Rudd has pledged to up his country’s troops in Afghanistan by 50%, increasing them from around a 1,000 to about 1,500. These troops, like most of their European counterparts in NATO, will mainly be training Afghan military and police units as well as providing security for the upcoming elections in Uruzgan Province. The 1,500 Australian troops are by far the highest of a non-NATO participant in the conflict and is part of an increased emphasis on growing the Australian military capacity. This move is one of the first concrete accomplishments of the Obama administration’s efforts to get more international help for the Afghanistan conflict. Kudos to the Australians for coming to the aid of a friend and recognizing the severity of the situation even though the dust has cleared from the Twin Towers many years ago.

As was quickly mentioned, Australia’s government has also announced that it will grow its military, specifically its navy, to prepare the country for expected security threats to the Asian region in coming decades. Prime Minister Rudd asserted:

“It’s important for our own capability requirements … for the Australian Defense Force to be prepared to meet a range of contingencies arising from military and naval buildups across our region. That is prudent, long-term defense planning, and we believe we’ve got the balance absolutely right.”

It appears that Australia sees the writing on the wall with the growing powers in its region, mainly India and China, and the possibility of a decreased US naval presence causes concern. Instead of just sitting back and hoping the US will continue to control the vital waterways in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, Sydney has decided to be proactive. Aust. Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon denied that the build up was strictly connected to China’s military rise, but he stated that indeed it was a factor. Fitzgibbon clearly believes great power politics has not faded from this earth:

“We do think that there will be a number of other powers floating about, China and India for example, the re-emergence of Russia. It’s natural that that sort of change can, and probably will, lead to strategic competition and maybe strategic tension, which in turn can turn into miscalculation. This country is determined to ensure that we are ready for any such contingencies. That’s why we’re substantially increasing our military capability so that we can defend this nation without necessarily relying on the armed forced of any other nation state.”

To accomplish this increase in capabilities, Australia has laid out plans to replace and double its submarine fleet, replace its frigates with modern warships, and to phase out their F-18’s and buy 100 Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters. It should be hoped that this type of forward thinking by the Australians will not lead to future war in the region but prevent it. Besides the Middle East, the future of East Asia and the Pacific is the most precarious and it is better to be safe than sorry.  Or maybe Sydney’s just doing these things to get on GPP’s Great Power Rankings…

(Photo 1: Associated Press, Photo 2: Global Security.com)

Tags: Australia, Bush, Chinese Navy, Indian Ocean, military, military buildup, Obama