'The name's Robert Gates, and I'm a damn fine Secretary of Defense'

In a speech to NATO officers at the National Defense University, US Secretary of State Robert Gates made this statement:

“The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

Gates went on to warn that the perception of European weakness could provide a “temptation to miscalculation and aggression” by hostile powers. These comments of course come on the heels of what appears to be a Dutch troop retreat from Afghanistan in the coming year. Gates went on to say that financial and man power shortcomings by many NATO members was “directly impacting operations” in Afghanistan. Also noted by Gates in his address, was the fact that only 5 of the 28 NATO members have reached the established target: 2 percent of gross domestic product for defense spending. Polls have shown a growing gulf between how Americans and Europeans see the world, and especially the use of force in international politics.

These are strong statements from a strong leader from NATO’s leading country and should not be taken lightly.

Looking from and IR theory standpoint, we have clear signs of realism and liberalism here. Realists would argue that of course the European states are bandwagoning and letting the United State foot the bill, both in lives and treasure. After all, it appears the Americans are willing to make the sacrifices in Afghanistan no matter the overall NATO commitment. Realists would also not be surprised to see Secretary Gates lament this situation. This current predicament also has strong IR liberal ties. To a certain extent, America’s European NATO partners live in a post-realist world, where international law, globalization of economic goods, technology, and ideas, and a greater emphasis on diplomacy are much more effective tools in fomenting world peace and stability. Of course, when one does not have a powerful military, promoting these facets, one’s you are strong in, just makes sense. As Robert Kagan has argued, the US wishes to live in this world with Europe, but is too busy facing a realist world with problems and actors that may require realist tools, such as the use of military force and deterrence. The US believes without the presence of such tools, as Gates states ‘achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st’ may not be possible.

Deter This!

In the final few months of the administration, the Bush team is making a strong stand on strengthening and expanding American nuclear deterrence, mainly in terms of non-state actors and terrorists.  In 2006, right after N. Korea detonated its first successful nuclear test, Bush stated the rogue state would be held “fully accountable” for the transfer of nuclear weapons or materials to any nation or terrorist organization.  And in late October, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who will be Obama’s Def Sec as well) made a major speech with this emphatic statement:

“[T]he United States will hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction – whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.”

So anyone, I mean anyone, ‘supporting’ or ‘enabling’ terrorist efforts to get and then use WMDs will be held responsible.  The way they will be held responsible is still cloudy, but one can assume Gates and the United States are warning of a cloud that is very clear.  President-elect Obama has stated that he views the detonation of a WMD in US territory as the greatest threat to American national security and I imagine he will be rather supportive of this policy.  

This newly defined deterrence doctrine still has a lot to be worked out.  How will the U.S. expanded deterrence policy work with its NATO or U.S.-Japan alliance commitments?  How will the deterrence policy work in a complicated world of allies, partners, neutrals, great powers, and hostile states?

There are many ways that the US can use such a policy to bring together a multilateral grouping that can tackle this problem, which nearly all can agree is a serious threat to international security.  The Obama administration could lead a charge for first NATO, followed by other allies like Japan and Australia, to wed their deterrent policy to the United States and further the work of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Proliferation Security Initiative in curtailing the growth of WMDs.  One can also see Great Powers like Russia and China wanting to work together in making sure that terrorist and other unstable states or groups gain WMD capabilities.  Elbridge Colby of Real Clear Politics also asserts that the initiative would reduce friction and even conflict in the aftermath of a catastrophic strike, given that, currently, there is no clear set of rules of the road for countries either suffering or inadvertently serving as a launch pad for an attack.

What do you think of this ‘expanded deterrence’?  Will Obama augment the policy or follow it forcefully? Will the US be a leader in promoting a similar form of deterrence with its allies and around the globe or are state’s interests too diffuse and protected to join together in such an important security matter?

President-elect Barack Obama presented his national security cabinet yesterday and the group seems to be overall an experienced and pragmatic group.  Some of the members are extremely well-known, Hillary and Bob Gates, with others having experience in Washington’s biggest stage, but still relatively unknown, General James Jones, National Security Advisor, Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice, the presumed future UN Ambassador.  Reviews of the group have been relatively positive in the media, with most commenting that the group is quite centric, pragmatic, and realist leaning.  The main criticism of the group as a whole is from those who were hoping for a greater imprudence or ‘change’ from an Obama administration.  The New York Times raved and raved about the selections, and one has to wonder if they will ever see a critical comment about this president in the paper (This is a brash transition, as I’m used to reading in the Times only of a US President who can’t do anything right).  

Like most of you, I am learning more and more about these officials day by day and will declare right now that my views of them and their work will be fluid, as they in due time show how effective/ineffective, realist/liberal internationalist they can each be in their assigned position.  That being said, let the judging begin!  Well, I’ll at least give a quick take on a few of the bigger names.  

I couldn't resist.

Hillary Clinton – Sec of State – Hillary, she goes by her first name, is obviously a capable politician and government official who will not be shy in the face of foreign adversaries or challenges, nevertheless her choice brings caveats.  First off, I was surprised at the move, as I thought Obama had many other fine choices, and would not wan to bring the Clinton baggage.  Hillary brings with her Bill and they both bring with them a huge media following that could prove distracting and make policy making and implementing that much harder.  It’s almost like bringing Barry Bonds on your baseball team, sure he’s a great hitter and would help the team, but man, it would suck to deal with all the extra press and attention, a lot of it negative.  Another issue about Hillary is her lack of foreign policy experience.  Obama and his team, including Susan Rice, criticized Hillary’s claim of FP experience as First Lady during the election and for good reason.  Hillary has also been an active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she voiced her disapproval of the Iraq surge policy, and during her presidential campaign showed that she can handle stressful and difficult situations, but we should expect much from our leader of diplomats and foreign policy.  Of course, Condi Rice has a Phd in International Relations and she was involved in some questionable decision making.

Bob Gates – Sec of Defense – I love me some more Bobby Gates in the Defense Department!  Gates has proven to be a strong, pragmatic, and thoughtful manager of US defenses and of the Afghan and Iraq wars. It is this type of pick that gets me excited about a moderate and wise Obama administration.  Even Gates is only around for a year or two he’ll bring stability in a time of great turmoil in America’s foreign wars and global position.  The internal word in the defense department is very positive about this move.  What will be interesting to see is how Gates deals with the likely dismissal of most of his subordinates.  

James Jones – National Security Advisor - To be honest, I have not heard much about the General since before Obama mentioned him in one of the debates, but the more I learn, the more I like.  He has a strong non-partisan past of patriotic service to the US and has been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and served as an envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the Bush administration.  He lived for most of his childhood in France, but I won’t hold that against him.  Seriously, this combined with his NATO experience should definitely help future EU-US relations, especially during times of disagreements, say over Afghan troop levels.

Eric Holder Jr. – Attorney General – Holder was a hold over from the Clinton administration and is said to be a capable man for the job.  The one caveat is his role in the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, a tax fraud convict, and there are some who think this alone should disqualify him.  Though what I know about the Rich case is not pleasant, I do not think it enough for a Senate denial.  The challenges facing Holder will be immense.  He will attempt to close Guantanamo Bay while figuring what to do with all of the enemy combatants who may pose a real threat to the US, but lack verifiable material evidence for a conviction. This modern day warfare brings with it a tremendous challenge to our legal and individual rights, one that will be with use for the foreseeable future.  

Susan Rice – UN Ambassador – Rice apparently is a real go-getter, finishing her Phd in International Relations at a young age and serving in President Clinton’s National Security Council.  She is considered the most liberal of all of Obama’s team and was a close advisor to him on the campaign trail.  The relationship between Rice and Clinton will be something to watch as there were some animosities between the two during the campaign.  Regarding Rice’s possible FP leanings, she is an avowed humanitarian intervention supporter, who is for the use of force in situations such as the Rwandan genocide of the 1994.  Here is a quote:

“I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again {Rwanda}, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” she told The Atlantic Monthly in 2001

Now if a Bush administration official stated this it would be quite the uproar.  Obama seems to be rather measured in the foreign policy realm, in other words more realistic than idealistic, and it will be interesting to see how these two views connect or disconnect.  

This last point is important.  For it seems that Obama has put together a team of realists, those who will let US national interests lead their policy prescriptions and implementation.  Obama does not talk about the ‘worldwide growth’ or ‘greatness’ of democracy.  He seems to be more of a Jeffersonian American, a person who desires to protect US democracy here at home rather than find tyrants to defeat abroad.  Interestingly, George W. Bush entered the White House 8 years ago with a similar world outlook, but we all say how that drastically changed.  Obama, his national security team, and America’s exceptionalism will all bear watching during these next, what are sure to be exciting, four years.