Third Way

Scroll to Info & Navigation

What are America’s security interests in Syria? 

Despite a recent CBS/New York Times poll that noted a clear majority of Americans do not wish to be involved in the Syrian conflict, the U.S. has significant interests in the struggle, primarily because of the regional instability caused by the war. 

  • Syria borders Turkey—a NATO member with which the U.S. has a military alliance and a mutual defense treaty—and Israel. The fighting could easily spill over into those countries, drawing the U.S. into the conflict.
  • Syria also borders Lebanon and Jordan, two countries on already shaky political footing. The war is already causing internal security problems in those nations.

The Syrian conflict is creating a humanitarian crisis both inside and outside of the country.

  • The UN estimated in April that 70,000 people have been killed in two years of fighting. 
  • The UN further estimated that the war has created 1.4 million refugees, with over a million of those in Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.

The refugees are placing enormous pressure on these nations’ economies and infrastructure, potentially destabilizing them as summer approaches and water, food, and power resources are strained even further.

For more info, read our new policy memo: What is America’s Best Bad Option in Syria?

Not Your Father’s Missile Defense

By Mieke Eoyang and Aki Peritz

We’re overdue for an updating of the missile defense debate. A lot of folks remember the Reagan-era missile defense system called the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, derisively known as “Star Wars.” At the time, Reagan promised a shield in space to defend against hostile attack, but multiple problems quickly emerged—for example, opponents said it would be technologically impossible to use missiles to strike incoming multiple Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles using a technology that did not yet exist.

Another challenge with SDI is that it undermined the theory of deterrence. After all, if one nuclear power had little to fear from another—Reagan promised in his second inaugural address that SDI would render “nuclear weapons obsolete”—the idea of nuclear retaliation would disappear and would allow for the first use of nuclear weapons. Finally, Reagan’s SDI was a huge financial sinkhole costing billions and billions of dollars. F or example, in 1987 the White House requested $5.4 billion for the system, while the next highest request was to procure F/A-18 jets for the Navy … for only $2.8 billion.

Read more

Fighting al Qaeda in the Post-bin Laden Era

By Aki Peritz

Chadian soldiers assisted by Malian gendarmes, patrol the streets of Gao, Northern Mali, Monday Jan. 28, 2013.

It’s welcome news to hear French and Malian troops have almost fully liberated northern Mali from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM, and the other jihadists who turned much of the country into a neo-Taliban state. Let’s take this opportunity to reflect on how to wage war against al Qaeda in the post-Osama bin Laden era.

1. Let our allies shoulder the security burden.

For more than a decade, the United States has led the world’s efforts to crush al Qaeda. But let’s be honest: The United States has little experience in the vast, lawless Sahel, despite the much-ballyhooed stand-up of the Pentagon’s Africa Command a few years ago. America’s knowledge of the region remains sparse—chances are you can probably count the number of Bambara or Tuareg speakers in the U.S. government on one hand, if you lop off a few fingers.

Other allies—most notably France, but also Great Britain—know more about the region, the turf, and locals than we ever will. And remember: French and Malian soldiers are doing the fighting, the killing, and the dying. So in this fight, America should support them and provide them with assistance: reconnaissance drones, advanced munitions, refueling capacity, intelligence support—you name it.

They certainly need it. In this hot war, Paris has struggled to move men and materiel to the front lines. And Mali’s army is beset by numerous problems. But let’s not criticize our allies; now is the time to help them. After all, if we can hammer another nail into the coffin of an al Qaeda franchise, it’s certainly worth leasing France a few more C-17s.

Read more

Blue World Order

How the Democrats can maintain the rare national security edge they enjoyed in the 2012 election.

BY MATT BENNETT and JEREMY ROSNER

image

Alex Wong/Getty Images

For Republicans, the recent U.S. presidential election was supposed to be 1980. They would paint President Barack Obama as Jimmy Carter — weak on the economy and weak on national security. High unemployment and low growth? Check. National security? Democratic presidential candidates — from Carter to John Kerry — were often hobbled by public doubts about their fitness to protect the United States from foreign threats (see: “Dukakis, tank”).

But not this year. For the first time in decades, Democrats had a presidential candidate with an advantage on these issues. Obama entered the 2012 election with a successful foreign-policy record: The U.S. war in Iraq was over, the war in Afghanistan was winding down, Osama bin Laden was dead, al Qaeda’s top ranks were decimated, Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi was toppled, and an international coalition had been assembled to impose the toughest-ever sanctions on Iran.

Americans have taken notice.As recently as 2003, Democrats trailed Republicans by 29 percentage points on which party voters trusted more on national security. But on Election Day this year, voters trusted Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, equally on national security — and they trusted the president 11 points more on the broader category of international affairs. This represents a historic turnaround.

This reversal reflects not only the president’s strong record, but also the incoherent positions of Romney and his Republican allies. Sometimes, they returned to the neoconservative recklessness of the George W. Bush era — banging the war drums on Iran and calling for the indiscriminate arming of Syrian rebels. At other times, Romney and his surrogates sounded frozen in the Cold War, calling Russia America’s No. 1 geopolitical foe and referring to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia. Romney and the Republicans also argued that debt was America’s biggest challenge, even as they proposed spending trillions more on defense than even the Pentagon has requested.

Now the question is: Can Obama and his party retain that national security edge in the face of old doubts about the party and new global challenges?

(More after the jump)

Read more

Is dealing with Russia the lesser of two evils on Afghanistan and Syria? This Infographic explains. The major road out of Afghanistan (the Khyber Pass in Pakistan) has been closed since December 2011, after American forces killed 24 Pakistani troops in a border skirmish. Consequently, the U.S. must use the much more expensive and lengthy Northern Distribution Network—which requires permission of many former Soviet states, including Russia.

Is dealing with Russia the lesser of two evils on Afghanistan and Syria? This Infographic explains.

The major road out of Afghanistan (the Khyber Pass in Pakistan) has been closed since December 2011, after American forces killed 24 Pakistani troops in a border skirmish. Consequently, the U.S. must use the much more expensive and lengthy Northern Distribution Network—which requires permission of many former Soviet states, including Russia.

Afghanistan: Understanding the Administration’s Transition Strategy

The exit from Afghanistan is underway, but the debate continues over whether it’s moving too slowly, too quickly, or just about right. President Obama has charted a responsible path to ending our combat role in Afghanistan while maintaining our ability to eliminate future threats. Why?

In our newest digest, we explain:

  • Why the President’s transition plan is ending the combat mission as quickly as is logistically possible;
  • Why a faster withdrawal timeline could imperil U.S. security interests;
  • Why making our objective a Taliban surrender could extend the U.S. combat mission by decades; and
  • How the current plan and security agreement provides for U.S. security interests going forward.

New poll shows Americans favor diplomacy over war with Iran

shortformblog:

  • 69% of Americans prefer a diplomatic approach instead of an Israeli attack on Iran, according to a new poll from the University of Maryland
  • 38% of Republicans polled favor military action by the Israeli government, a percentage likely to surprise experts and policymakers
  • 17% of Democrats and independents polled agreed with their Republican counterparts, preferring military action over diplomacy source

Read ShortFormBlog • Follow

(via reuters)