Marin Forum

The legacy of the Cold War brings thoughts of failed East European states and societies torn apart by the proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union but the most pertinent legacy is emerging in the domestic sphere. If the Great Depression and World War II created the Greatest Generation then the Cold War may have developed the “failed generation.”

The United States (and the world for that matter) has changed in numerous ways since the 1950s and 1960s as this generation was growing up. Economically, the United States was the undisputed powerhouse. Every industrialized nation from France and Germany to Japan was devastated by the war and was just beginning to fully recover by the 1960s. As a result the United States exported and provided credit; jobs were plentiful. Politically, President Eisenhower brought stability and prosperity while President Kennedy delivered inspiration and further economic growth. In national security, the world was black and white. Even though there was the constant threat of a nuclear holocaust, the enemy was always the tyrannical Soviet Union. Socially, the United States was still a white nation. Hispanic immigration had yet to change the demographic balance in the American Southwest.

Then things began to change beginning in the 1970s. Vietnam became a disaster that destroyed the Johnson Presidency. President Nixon only escalated the war until he was undone by Watergate. The “crisis in government” that began with the break-in at the Watergate Hotel continued to fester under the ineffectiveness of the Carter Administration. Economically, the United States was weakening vis-à-vis other industrialized nations. The Bretton Woods order collapsed in 1971 and the oil shocks further weakened the economic system. The 1980s ushered in the chaotic phenomenon of globalization. By the 1980s Americans had lost confidence in government and the economy.

In the 1990s and 2000s the Cold War Generation found themselves in an alien world. The Soviet Union was gone and instead threats came from obscure parts of the world such as Kosovo, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Globalization wrecked the American psyche. Jobs went overseas and consumer goods that were once produced in the industrial heartlands of America were stamped with “made in China.” 9/11 forced average Americans into contact with the “bizarre” culture of the Muslim world. Hispanic immigration expanded away from the border regions. Immigrant communities could be found in every state. Meanwhile demographic changes in California made Whites a majority-minority with a similar trend predicted in Texas by 2025 and eventually in the rest of the United States.

Today’s reactionary movements are the legacy of the Cold War. The demographic makeup of the Tea Party and associated groups are predominately white, middle-aged Americans – the Cold War Generation. They are reactionary because they have not been able to adapt to the realities of a globalized and multipolar world.

Economics. The 1950s and 1960s were a high point for the American middle class and manufacturing. Naturally the Cold War Generation expected to inherit the prosperity in which they were raised. But globalization radically changed reality and this generation was the first to face the ravages of globalization. Globalization and neo-liberal policies reduced the role of the state in guaranteeing economic prosperity as economic power shifted to the private sector. However government regulatory powers did not accompany the greater role of individual private sector actors. President Reagan pushed deregulation and emphasized the need for less government just as the Cold War Generation was entering the workforce or entering the middle of their careers. By the 1990s this generation made up the majority of the workforce and management making any effort to push regulation a dead end. The second change was the end of manufacturing and the destruction of blue-collar America. The Cold War Generation expected to make a living in the steel mills and auto factories. Globalization has gradually eroded the viability of these industries as the manufacturing centers of the United States, such as Detroit, become ghost towns. The jobs they expected are simply not there. Their anger was easily co-opted by conservatives who blamed their problems on government through NAFTA, taxation, “excessive” regulation, and the Wall Street elite who benefited from globalization (the members of the Cold War Generation who were able to adapt). The reactionary right wants to return to the economic expansion of the 1950s.

Political discourse. Events during the Cold War were portrayed as black and white issues – democracy vs. totalitarianism and capitalism vs. communism. Anything that undermined the American way of life (democracy and capitalism) was either labeled as fascist or communist since these were the two great enemies of the western world in the twentieth century. After the fall of the Berlin Wall communism disappeared and fascism had been gone for a half century, but the Cold War Generation still only knew how to classify the world in these terms. It had not adapted to the new realities of a multipolar world. Thus, President Obama is labeled a communist or a fascist because they do not know any other way to describe someone or something that departs from the status quo.

On a range of issues the Cold War Generation continues to show its inability or refusal to adapt. The demographics of the country are changing and there is no reversal. The Cold War Generation feels powerless to confront the issue and have turned to anger. Likewise, climate change is essentially a referendum on their lifestyle. They refuse to accept that the things their generation developed and worked for is now negatively impacting the environment.

The post-Cold War world is not what the Cold War Generation expected. With the defeat of the Soviet Union they expected greater freedom and prosperity. Instead they have found the economy falling apart and governments telling them that certain actions are unacceptable. FOX News or MSNBC provides them the information that they want to hear not the information that they need to hear. The world has changed and they are not prepared for it. They have turned to reactionaries as they seek to turn back the clock to a world they remember when growing up. When individuals are unable to keep up with changes they seek to return to a previous time instead of attempting to adapt and change. They also turn inward for introspection. As a result the Cold War Generation has provided a very literal interpretation of the Constitution and a re-write of the founding history of the country that conforms to their reactionary views.

Conservatism is not a problem but reactionary forces do pose a serious problem. Unfortunately just as the Cold War Generation is inheriting the positions of influence it is also turning to reactionary impulses. An attempt to turn back the clock will be a disaster for this country. There is no future in the past nor can the new realities of the world be ignored much longer. The Cold War Generation is on the verge of becoming the “failed generation” as it squanders the economic and political capital of the United States due to its inability to adapt and respond to the post Cold War world. If the Cold War Generation is spent then what is the future of the Post-Cold War Generation and how would it respond to a reactionary shift?

As the Tea Party begins to flex its muscle one can not help but notice the glaring inconsistencies in the movement. The independent and fractious nature of the movement is a major factor in the inconsistencies. On one side you have Republicans attempting to use the movement for their own gain. These include many of the Republican members of Congress. They tow the Republican party line but feed off the populist anger directed toward President Obama and the federal government. On the opposite side lies the radical militia groups that hate all aspects of the federal government (Democrats and Republicans alike). All of them want a smaller federal government. Most of them want to do whatever it takes to win the “War on Terror” and strengthen our borders.

And here is one of the greatest inconsistencies in the Tea Party “platform.” They want strong national security with a small federal government. These two goals are are incompatible. While the federal government expanded significantly during the New Deal, its growth should also be attributed to the rise of the national security state. Federal expenditures per capita barely grew during the 19th century. World War I began to change the operation of Washington. However, it wasn’t until WWII that that Washington saw its largest growth. The Cold War necessitated the continued mobilization of the armed forces along with the establishment of permanent national security apparatuses such as the CIA and the NSA. Wars always require a buildup of the central government. The Cold War was essentially a “permanent partially mobilized war effort.” As a result wartime agencies either remained open or were incorporated into other agencies. Even after the Cold War ended the national security apparatus was not dismantled because by the 1990s the United States was the undisputed monolithic power in a unipolar world. Its interests were global and often in unstable parts of the world. 9/11 brought back the “real” threat to US national security. A new department (DHS) was created along with numerous smaller bureaus within the established agencies. President George Bush significantly expanded the powers of the Executive. And now we find ourselves in a new “permanent partially mobilized war.”

The Tea Party movement strongly believes that Obama is an absolute failure in national security. First, they want a much stronger approach to the fight against terrorism. Marco Rubio summed up their stance at CPAC:

We will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” Rubio said. “We will punish their allies like Iran. We will stand with our allies like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them. We will get useful information from them. And then we will bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo — not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.

This position is essentially an extension of the Bush era policies during the height of the Neocon era (2001-2006). This means: no withdrawal from Afghanistan, torture when necessary, unilateral action, and more aggressive stances (potential of war) toward Iran and North Korea. An expansion of the current theater (Iran and Hamas) will require an expansion of the federal government and larger deficits.

Furthermore, Republicans and the Right were outraged over the attempted Christmas Day bombing. The only way to completely prevent attacks on US interests is to increase the reach of the national security apparatus. More wiretapping, warrantless searches, comprehensive security checkpoints, and disregard for the Bill of Rights (and even then there will be holes). This would be a far greater loss of privacy and obtrusive role of government than universal healthcare or cap-and-trade.

Illegal immigration is the second issue that particularly bothers the Tea Party. Their solution: close the border and deport all undocumented workers currently in the US. First, a wall stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico would significantly raise the deficit (besides questions on its practicality). Forced deportations would require a very active federal government. The current federal laws are not even enforced due to lack of resources and will. Workplace enforcement would require a government agency to ensure compliance.  Attempts to find undocumented workers would require intrusion of the federal government into daily lives.

Despite calls for smaller government, the Tea Party’s platform for national security would require a sizable increase in the reach of the federal government. Furthermore, immigration enforcement and the fight against terrorism cannot be managed by individual states.  While state and local authorities do handle deportations occasionally (and they can handle internal counter-terrorism efforts), individual states simply don’t have the resources to effectively counter illegal immigration or terrorism.

In the Tea Party’s ideal world they would maintain national security funding while decreasing funds for entitlement programs. But the healthcare debates have made the Right champions of medicare. President Bush showed that Social Security reform is a dead end. President Reagan and Thatcher in the United Kingdom attempted to scale down government but they were unable to touch the bulk of government activities. Programs, especially social services, are extremely hard to cut. The government would play less of a regulatory role but in many cases the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has a responsibility and obligation to regulate certain sectors.

The federal government is not going away. As long as the Tea Party remains wedded to maintaining national security and “American exceptionalism” it will never reduce the deficit or get the federal government out of peoples’ hair. A national security police state is not smaller government. It is a farce to talk about a powerless federal government and in the same sentence to demand national security.

Two years ago as the United States was entering the economic crisis talk among experts and the political campaigns focused on the green economy as a source of American renewal. The United States would retool its economy and use clean technology to replace the loss of manufacturing jobs in the rust belt, and then it would export its new industry to the developing world. We would develop clean coal technology so we could sell it to China as they further invested in coal fired power plants. We would put people to work and bolster our economic situation vis-a-vis the Chinese.

Two years later and most likely we will soon be importing clean technologies. According to the New York Times, China has now become the leading producer in wind turbines and solar technology. By 2020 China is expected to build 50 new nuclear reactors while the rest of the world might build 15. Meanwhile, clean energy technology has expanded in the United States thanks to the federal stimulus bill, but the United States is still “sleeping” in the words of many Eurocrats. President Obama’s State of the Union address emphasized that if the United States did not embrace the green economy then it would continue to lose jobs overseas and cede its role as world economic powerhouse. Obama made it quite clear: America’s future lies in the green economy.

But efforts in the United States have stalled in the Senate. Germany and Spain have long been on the forefront of green technology and have invested accordingly. China has the advantage that its government still retains significant control over the economy and can mobilize resources for key projects. Does it truly care about environmental protection? The government has placed more emphasis on reducing pollution. For example two years ago it commissioned a study to gather information on pollution throughout the country. However, China’s main concern is its economy. Sustained economic growth is not possible while being completely dependent on foreign sources of energy. As China goes increasing urbanization, its energy demands will increase. Clean energy technology is a matter of national security.

Now is the time to get realistic in the United States. Two issues resonate well with the majority of voters: jobs and energy security (the stability of supply). Climate change is not the ticket to victory. Yes it is bad when the polar bears drown because the arctic ice sheets disappear, but Americans simply don’t care. Climategate has only made things worse. A recent poll shows that more Americans today do not believe in anthropogenic global warming (although more Americans view global warming as a serious threat to their family). Take two bills. Bill A invests X amount of money to create Y jobs in the green sector. Bill B invests X amount of money to reduce emissions by Y. Bill A will have wide bipartisan support while Bill B will will break apart on partisan lines. Both bills could have similar mechanics; in fact they could be part of the same bill: X amount of money is invested in green technology to create Y jobs which reduces emissions by Z.

The problem with cap-and-trade is that it has been labeled a job-killer. Will cap-and-trade kill some jobs? Yes, but in any market mechanism there are winners and losers. Will it destroy the economy? Not at all. Cap-and-trade is not a foreign concept. There already is a cap-and-trade mechanism in place for sulfur dioxide emissions in the Northeast (the acid rain program). The utilities adapted, and the program is widely praised. The Emissions Trading Scheme (the European cap-and-trade program) has had its ups and downs, but it is working.

But maybe we could develop a green economy without cap-and-trade or a carbon tax? Not likely. Tax credits or federal handouts may stimulate green technology sector growth but without the institutional development once the federal support dissipates the growth will stop. It works in China because China is able to mobilize resources on a level that are unimaginable in the United States. Green technology needs a market mechanism to sustain it. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary.

Senator Lindsey Graham is backing comprehensive energy and climate reform (and a price on carbon) because he recognizes that any meaningful energy policy that builds energy security requires a price to be placed on carbon. Under the current circumstances coal and oil are more competitive than renewables. The only way to develop domestic sources of energy is by making fossil fuels more expensive. A cap-and-trade system, cap-and-dividend, a carbon tax, or any other form of carbon pricing is the only way to develop the green economy thus creating jobs and reducing emissions. Even if global warming turns out to be a farce we will still have a net benefit of domestic job growth and increased energy independence. But the latter two are only possible with a price on carbon which means climate legislation.

Eventually renewables will reach grid parity with fossil fuels but we can’t wait. By then we will have been left behind by China and Europe. We are already behind in solar and wind technologies. Instead we need to make the political and monetary investments now. This is why the President is now focusing on carbon capture and storage technologies. The race isn’t close to be over, and there is still room in the solar and wind markets. However, without legislation that puts a price on carbon, the domestic green industry market will remain dormant. Without the green industry the United States will continue to lose jobs to the developing world and remain dependent on foreign sources of fuel.

It’s time to get real. Polar bears don’t win elections but jobs do. We need comprehensive energy and climate legislation since without it America will be a second-rate economy and we would only have ourselves to blame. All options need to be on the table: nuclear, natural gas, clean coal, and biofuels. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. It is a win-win scenario. We will create the jobs to fuel America’s recovery and in the process we will combat global warming.

But in the meantime we are losing as China takes advantage of the green revolution. Its time to wake up.

It has long been the position of this blog to support the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (although we may have strongly criticized the strategies). We recognized from the beginning that the Surge in Iraq was the right strategy to set the conditions for an exit strategy and a “stable” Iraq. Likewise, we saw President’s Obama’s promise to step up our efforts in Afghanistan as the right decision. Afghanistan was where all the problems began. However, recent events have shown that Afghanistan is quickly becoming a lost cause.

However, the war effort is not a lost cause for the reasons commonly asserted by the Left. Afghanistan has a history of destroying empires. The historical argument is compelling. After all, efforts by the superpowers to unite the country all ended in humiliation. But, historical determinism theory is usually discredited by historians. It ignores the influence of individuals and events. The Soviet Union was not popular in Afghanistan but their ultimate defeat in the region was due to foreign influence. In 2002 the United States had popular support and things may well have been different with proper leadership. The Afghan people do not want nor do they believe in democracy. This argument is essentially an extension of the bigoted thesis proposed in Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. Islam and democracy are not incompatible. The Afghan people have little experience with democracy and it is limited to the current democracy under Karzai’s government. Hence, to the Afghan people democracy (as envisioned by the United States) is just more ineffective government. The people aren’t opposed to democracy, they are opposed to corrupt and ineffective government.

The Taliban has become more bold in their attacks as security continues to deteriorate in the country. Our international partners have been hesitant to commit troops and resources and it’s likely that many will begin to pull out their troops in the next year. But more importantly, after eight years the Afghan government still has no legitimacy. The recent elections were clearly fraudulent. Today, President Karzai’s main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has decided to withdraw from runoff election citing persistent problems of fraud. Thus, the results of any runoff will be seen as illegitimate.

The success to any state building effort must have support from 1) an engaged “lead” state along with the international community and 2) strong and legitimate local rulers. The United States is unquestionably engaged in Afghanistan and is committed to its stability. The problem is that the second criteria does not exist. Karzai may have had enough legitimacy in the beginning of the conflict but he subsequently lost it all. Afghan leaders who have legitimacy remain outside the government because they do not want to be associated with the inept and corrupt Karzai government.

The United States has three options:

1. Afghanization. This strategy consists of accepting the current political situation while making efforts to strengthen the Afghan institutions. Militarily, this strategy involves a gradual troop buildup (20,000-40,000 troops). The problem is that 40,000 more troops makes little difference. Perhaps if the Afghan government had legitimacy a limited troop increase would be helpful. Otherwise, a modest increase in troops will only provide limited security benefits while endorsing the current political situation.
2. Militarization. To provide security to the entire country would probably require a buildup of 100,000+ troops. This would be the exact opposite of Afghanization. Since the NATO allies are unlikely to contribute much the bulk of the buildup would have to come from the United States. This option would put operation of the country more in the hands of the United States; thus, potentially allowing the United States to reshape and strengthen Afghanistan’s political institutions. Such an option is completely impractical. Back in the United States the public couldn’t stomach such a large buildup. The United States doesn’t have the military resources for a sustained, large military buildup. Nor would the United States be seen to be any more legitimate than the current Afghan government.
3. Withdraw. An exit strategy was supposed to look like this: troop increases would allow the Afghan government to strengthen its position. Elections would then yield to the United States handing authority over to the Afghans. Security didn’t improve and the elections were a complete failure. Under ideal circumstances the US would be able to withdraw while leaving a small contingent of troops to provide military training and counterinsurgency operations. But without strong US backing the Afghan government will fall like a house of cards. It has no legitimacy, it is facing a well organized insurgency, and its military is a paper army. Downplaying our role in Afghanistan is complete withdrawal.

Afghanization is the status quo which is unacceptable. Militarization is impractical. Withdrawal is the only option short of reshuffling the Afghan government (is that practical?). But is there someone more effective than Karzai? Politically we are failing in Afghanistan and it is becoming ever harder to reverse eight years of ineffective governance.

Withdrawal will not be pretty. Essentially its a confirmation that the last eight years have been a failure and a waste of resources and lives. It will probably parallel the US evacuation of Vietnam in 1975. It will be demoralizing. Also it will have long term repercussions. NATO may very well lose its relevance. If it can’t handle “out of area” operations then what distinguishes it from the budding defense arrangements under the EU’s Common Security and Foreign Policy? More importantly, Afghanistan will be a failed state which will require the international community’s constant attention. Somalia is a headache for the international community; yet, had it been committed to Somalia’s stability in the early 1990s piracy may very well not be the problem that it is today.  Lastly there is the problem of Pakistan. An unstable Afghanistan may very well bring down the Pakistani government. The US withdraw from Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the Afghan state will haunt the US and the international community for years to come.

Yet, these are the effects that the US will have to stomach. Getting out of Afghanistan will free up resources and political capital for Obama’s domestic agenda and his other international efforts. It will change the US-Europe relationship for the better. Instead of focusing efforts on bolstering NATO efforts in a losing effort, Obama and European leaders can turn their efforts toward climate change and nuclear nonproliferation. It is important that the US does not ignore the region like it did in the 1990s. This is where Obama’s diplomatic effort will be critical. The US will need the support of Pakistan, Russia, China, and even Iran to “contain” Afghanistan.

It’s time to get out of Afghanistan. Our efforts in Afghanistan cannot succeed without a legitimate Afghan government. Afghanistan is limiting our foreign policy and is diverting resources and capital from our domestic policy.

In the last few days two stories came to attention: the cancellation of the F-22 program and the statistic that July has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces in Afghanistan since the war began. On the surface these appear to be completely unrelated events. The F-22 has not been assigned to Afghanistan and the recent “surge” in Helmand Province is predominately a ground operation. Where is the connection? It is operations like Operation Khanjar or the surge in Iraq that show why the F-22 is a wasted asset.

In the last two decades military strategy has increasingly shifted toward the use of airpower. One of the stories of the Cold War was the rise of the Air Force as the pre-eminent military branch. World War II showed the significance and importance of airpower. The Allies recognized the destructiveness of airpower and its ability to demoralize the enemy. Thus, in the early years of the Cold War, Air Force generals like Curtis LeMay became prominant in the Pentagon. Until the development of ICBMs the nuclear startegy of the United States relied on bombers as the delivery vehicle (in fact throughout the Cold War, the United States was far more reliant on a nuclear bomber fleet than the Soviet Union). In the Cuban Missile Crisis, LeMay was a strong advocate of bombing military installations in Cuba. The Vietnam War was effectively the culmination of the past twenty years of airpower thinking especially the final bombing operations of the war such as Operation Lineback II.

The 1990s saw a further progression of airpower strategy as it became the centerpiece of US operations. The military apparatus was impressed by the Air Force’s performace in the first Gulf War. Not only did US warplanes dominate Iraqi airspace but the war saw the first use of percision weapons and stealth planes (the F-117 Nighthawk). Bosnia gave the Air Force even more confidence. The common interpretation is that US airpower and use of cruise missiles forced Slobodan Milošević to the peace table. Likewise, in the 1999 Kosovo War many argue that airpower alone defeated Milošević.

Why has the airforce become dominate?

1. It has had some very prominant successes. The Air Force has shown that it can be extremely effective at what it does. The quick ends to the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Bosnia (once NATO began bombing) lend support to this claim. Futhermore, the US Air Force is one of the best equiped air forces in the world. Even the US’s fleet of 30 year old front line fighters are equal or better than any opposing force (although the new Chinese J-10 is most likely superior). Results earn respect; the US Air Force has earned its respect.
2. The air force has become extremely good at procuring new weapons systems. Many of the top research projects in the US military are being developed by the air force. Furthermore, the air force and its contractors have learned to spread their operations around the US. A new airbase not only provided a strategic value but it also provided an economc boost to local communities. The same is true for the military contractors such as Lockheed Martin. The F-22 had considerable support in Congress because various parts of the plane were produced in many members’ districts and were a source of emloyment. The air force knows how to play politics.
3. Finally, Americans do not have the guts for war. Clinton was especially fearful of military casualities. The US quickly pulled out of Somolia after 19 soldiers died over a period of five months. In Kosovo, Clinton refused to send US soldiers because he feared the domestic political backlash. Similar sentiments are held by Europeans which has hampered operations in Afghanistan. As a result political and military leaders have sought “low cost” operations that keep US personnel out of harms way.

This “low cost” strategy essentially relies on the ability for the military to conduct quick and devestateing airstrikes. Technology wise the emphasis is placed on aircraft with long range, high speed, and stealth capabilities. Excluding the revamped versions of the F-16 and F/A-18, all combat aircraft that entered production in the last twenty years have met these criteria (F-117, B-2, F-22, and soon the F-35). These aircraft are perfect for penetrating enemy airspace and bombing, lets say a nuclear reactor, without being detected. Meanwhile, the F-22 can engage with any fighter deployed Russia or China. The problem arises when there are no high priority targets or aerial conflicts with China/Russia.

Thus, we get to the connection with Operation Khanjar. In 2001 the US Air Force ran into a problem in Afghanistan. There were no high priority targets to bomb. It was said “how can we bomb a country into the stone age when it is already in the stone age.” Strategy developed during the 1990s called for the Air Force to target key infrastructure  (including civilian) and military assets. By crippling infrastructure and communications the enemy would fold. The Air Force was tired of targeting tanks and other field equipment as was common in the Gulf War and the Bosnian War. However, Afghanistan did not have the infrastructure, and the Taliban was able to operate without it. In 2003 Saddam’s army was easily routed but the high tech airforce was completely incapable of eliminating the resulting insurgency. Then in 2006 the Isreali air bombardments during the 2006 Lebanon War failed to achieve any of Isreal’s objectives.

Even the so called “successes” of airpower, Bosnia and Kosovo, were less successful then they are portaryed to be. In both Bosnia and Kosovo airpower was believed to be the decisive factor. Upon closer examination this claim falls apart. In Bosnia, Milošević capitulated because the Croatian army was making rapid gains. Yes, Milošević was rather shocked by NATO firepower and that certainly played a role but the deciding factors were the conditions on the ground. In Kosovo other factors explain why Milošević surrendered. It finally appeared that President Clinton was committed to sending ground troops and NATO promised to deploy 50,000 troops. Perhaps more importantly, Moscow refused to give crucial support to Belgrade. Milošević was out of oppotions and saw surrender as the only way to maintain his regime. However, another lesson can be learned from Kosovo. The NATO bombings of Belgrade created significant negative opinion toward the West among Serbs. Timothy Garton Ash argues that the NATO bombings completely undermined the student demonstrations against  Milošević that were present before the war. Futhermore, the intial NATO bombings encouraged Serbs to commit more “ethnic cleansing” (although proponents of the air war argue that had NATO been more aggressive initially the reciprocated killings could have been prevented). Air power alone does not seem to be the end all solution.

The 2006 “Surge” in Iraq showed a new approach to military strategy. Greater emphasis would be placed on ground forces securing the area and embedding with the local population. Likewise, now in Afghanistan we are seeing a new “surge.” The occupation of a country greatly dimenishes the necessity for stealth, and the low tech nature of the Taliban makes the advanced electronics of the new generation of aircraft useless. The 50 year old B-52 is just as effective and more reliable than the stealthy  B-2. Meanwhile, the F-16s and F/A-18s are perfectly capable of performing the strike capabilities that were supposed to be carried out by the F-22 and F-35. Thus, we find ourselves with a weapon that has no practical battlefield use.

The F-22 was designed to counter any fighter produced by Russia or China. Since a conflict with Russia or China are effectively out of the question, the only potential threat is from high tech Russian or Chinese weaponry that are purchased on the market by a developing nation. Venezuela and Iran have purchased Su-30s, and there are reports that Terhan attempted to buy some Chinese J-10s. These fighters may be a threat but they are in such small quantities that the current fleet of F-22s (capped at 187) would be more than enough to effectively deal with it. Otherwise most developing world airforces predominately consist of Vietnam-era Russian and Chinese fighters. The Taliban’s ”air forice” was a joke. The F-15 could easily achieve air-superiority.

As Bosnia, Kosovo, and the 2006 Iraq Surge show the ground war is the vital factor. Thus, the air force should be built around a supportive role for our ground forces instead of a first-strike orientation. Stealth planes will not be important and will be underutilized in the future foreseable conflicts. This is not to say that first-strike capable aircraft are useless. These aircraft can be vital for eliminating key ground defense positions and anti-aircraft batteries. However, to convert the entire fleet to extremely expensive high-tech aircraft is a mistake. Once boots hit the ground the element of surprise is lost. Instead the military should focus on upgrading the current fleet of F-15s/F-16s/F-18s and potentially consider the  development of a fighter with the performance of the F-22 minues some of the advanced electronics and stealth capabilities. That being said, the fifth generation F-35 is coming in at around $83 million per unit and hopefully will be the answer.

The battlefield of the near future is going to be very similar to what our Marines currently face in Helmand Province. The Air Force and their F-22 are geared for the wrong fight. The air strategy developed during the 1990s works well against decently developed countries with conventional militaries. But over the next two decades or so the most pressing security threats that could turn into “hot conflicts” will come from developing countries with low tech/unconventional forces (although North Korea may be very vulnerable to the air warfare doctrine). Effort needs to be placed on cost-effective and easily deployable weapons systems that directly benefits our ground troops and enable them to successfully carry out their missions.

Washington DC may have attracted two million people, but throughout the country people gathered at makeshift inauguration events to watching the swearing in of the 44th President of the United States. Here, at the University of California, Berkeley perhaps around a thousand people congregated on Sproul Plaza before classes to watch the historic event.

Some will say that the inauguration speech itself was lackluster, but Barack Obama probably was not aiming to deliver a speech that would be remembered for the ages. Its focus was more on “we’ve got a lot of problems, so lets get to work.” Still it was excellently delivered.

Now begins the first one hundred days where Obama will be held under close scruitney as some will be hoping for a period similar to the first days of FDR’s presidency. Time will tell how things play out.

With 2008 over lets take a look at some of the major events and how they will impact 2009 and the years to come. The year saw an interesting juxtaposition of events. Barack Obama was elected president emphasizing hope and change while the global economy collapsed. Russia invaded Georgia while the world came together at the Beijing Olympics. Meanwhile, there seems to be a end approaching to the US involvement in Iraq. And in one of the more feel good moments of the year Ingrid Betancourt was rescued from the FARC. Here is a look at the 5 most important events of 2008.

1. Barack Obama Elected 44th President of the United States

When the primaries began early in 2007 people knew that the 2008 election was going to be historic and wild. Barack Obama led a masterful campaign through months of primary battles that some thought would go undecided until the Democratic National Convention. The general election proved to be just as wild. Figures such as Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and Bill Ayers dominated the media spotlight. But by October it was clear that Senator John McCain was outmatched. And so on November 4th Barack Obama was decisively elected the next president of the United States and the first African American to hold the highest office in the Union. Immediately he picked a strong group of intellectuals to compose his cabinet. Any election that results in the change between parties is easily one of the most important events to happen in the year. The shift between the Bush and Obama administrations should prove to be one of the more dramatic in US history. US foreign, economic, and environmental policies should see a major overhaul. Obama is entering the presidency during historic times where he has the chance to make significant changes in how the United States relates to the rest of the world and in reforming the economy. Not only will Obama’s election have an impact on the next four years and possibly the next eight, but it’s quite possible that there will fundamental policy changes comparable to the New Deal.

2. Economic Collapse

By December economists announced that we had been in a recession for a year. The year saw the collapse of the housing market, several banking institutions, and US automakers. Some reports show GM failing to survive the next few years. However, the economic crisis was felt beyond Wall Street as all aspects of the economy were impacted. The economy will be the number one issue for the next few years and it will constrain actions of political leaders. Local municipalities and government in general are facing budget problems that will result in reductions in government services. People are out of jobs. The economic situation is bleak and the fact that infusions of cash have yet to help the economy shows that reform and more regulations are badly needed before the economy is on solid footing. Obama owes the bleak economic situation for presidential victory, but it will limit the scope of his plans. All eyes are on Obama and whether his public works project and “green revolution” can end the crisis. Obama and the economy are tied together.

3. Russia Invades Georgia

On the eve of the Summer Olympics Russia invaded Georgia over supposed Georgian aggression in the semi-independent region of South Ossetia. The Georgian military was quickly routed and after a month the conflict disappeared from the media spotlight. However, Russia’s disproportionate use of force shocked world leaders. Eastern Europe countries such as Ukraine felt extremely exposed. And rightly so. If Russia wishes to expand, its first targets will be the oil rich Caucuses and Ukraine. The Georgia crisis exposed the dangerous nature of Putin and the current Russian government. Russia wants to regain its superpower status. To do so it is more than willing to flex its military muscle and use its energy monopoly over eastern Europe. At the same time Russia is in a very fragile situation and the current economic crisis could send the country into a tailspin. Russia is a rising threat; it is not an enemy, but it is a country that needs to be treated with concern. Putin will continue to make his presence felt in international politics.

4. Beijing Olympics

The 2008 Summer Olympics saw several incredible sports feats, but more importantly it had crucial political implications. The Beijing Olympics was China’s coming out party on the international stage. The international audience was dazzled by China’s grandiose displays and impressed by China’s performance in diving and gymnastics. China is quickly on the path toward superpower status rivaling the United States, and the Olympics affirmed China’s progress on that track. It was more positive media attention following their response to the devastating earthquake earlier in the year. On the flip side the Olympics focused attention on China’s dismal record on human rights. Its handling of the Tibet uprising couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Chinese government. The Olympics highlight the issues facing the Chinese government as it rises on the international stage. On one hand spectacular achievements will give it international media attention which is necessary to be recognized as a world power. On the other hand, increased media attention means more exposure of China’s uglier sides. China is going to have to accept that the price of international power is closer scrutiny and criticism.

5. US-Iraq Troop and Security Agreement

By the 2006 midterm election it was clear that the American public was tired of the war in Iraq. While the Surge saw successes, especially visible by 2008, the US was no nearer an exit strategy. Conditions on ground had improved by 2008 to the point where Iraqi troops were able to assume more responsibilities. Also Iraqis wanted the US presence out of their country. In response the Iraqi government drafted and passed a security agreement where all US troops would be allowed to remain in Iraq until 2011. The US would have to withdraw its forces by that date. On one hand it allows the US to legally remain in Iraq for another two years. On the other, it could mean that the US will be finally leaving Iraq in two years. The security agreement can be lengthened or the United States can withdraw earlier. In any event the US now has a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and military leaders will have to plan accordingly. Finally after nearly six years the debacle in Iraq is hopefully drawing to a close.

Honorable Mention-Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Bhutto’s assassination started 2008 off to a bad start for Pakistan. The country is in considerable turmoil and extremist groups are growing more powerful. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai only highlight the problems facing Pakistan. Unfortunately Pakistan is heading towards more turmoil and its future is closely intertwined with neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan could be the most immediate and dangerous problem facing Obama.

*****

The top five events highlight the major themes of 2008 and will continue to be extremely important in the next few years. Obama will shape US policy for the next four years (at least), and the impacts of his policies (like any president) could be felt for decades to come. The economy will be the number one domestic issue facing the United States. It will greatly shape US policy. Russia and China are the emerging powers on the international stage. Russia wants to reclaim its former glory while China wants to establish itself as a power to be reckoned with. Finally, Iraq dominated George Bush’s presidency and it will define the early years of Obama’s. Unfotunately, 2009 has a bleak outlook, but all eyes will turn toward Obama to see if he has the ability to lead the nation through domestic and international crises.

On Monday Barack Obama announced the key components of his foreign policy team. As expected Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, Robert Gates is Secretary of Defense, Gov. Janet Napolitano will head Homeland Security, General James Jones will be his National Security Adviser, and Susan Rice will be the UN ambassador. With these additions Team Obama is proving to be full of high profile figures and large personalities. The question is whether these personalities can mesh into a coherent and effective foreign policy team. Or rather the question is what role will Clinton play.

Hillary Clinton is by far the highest profile figure on Obama’s foreign policy team and will be a leading voice. This is not to undermine the role of the rest of the team, but Clinton will receive the most attention. The first question is whether Obama and Clinton will be able to work together. This should not be a problem. Obama has repeatedly shown that he can work with former opponents. Clinton proved her backing of Obama on the campaign trail.

A second question is what will become of Bill. He has considerable influence around the world and his charities have a global impact. The difficulty will be in separating Bill Clinton’s charity work from his wife’s diplomatic efforts. Clinton’s charities cannot become ears for US foreign policy. Bill will not go away and he will be a factor. It will be important for Team Obama to use Bill when necessary but also keep him distant to prevent conflicts of interest or any scandals.

In previous posts it has been mentioned that Clinton would best serve in a leadership role in the Senate. That being said, Clinton could be able to play a key diplomatic role in guiding US foreign policy. She is perhaps one of the highest profile figures to head the State Department. Colin Powell or George Marshall both come to mind. Many presidents have feared a popular and ambitious Secretary of State. Both Bill Clinton and Kennedy picked low profile, yes-men for the position. Clinton particularly floundered in foreign policy precisely because of his yes-man Secretary of State. By selecting a high profile figure with their own following for Secretary of State, Obama has allowed another voice to interject opinion and critique his foreign policy initiatives. The end result should be stronger foreign policy which will only be helped by Clinton’s energy and influence.

The rest of the foreign policy team brings things to the table. As previously mentioned Gates will provide a transition in Iraq. General Jones brings military experience and an emphasis to refocus on Afghanistan. Rice has been in the State Department for many years where her background was in African affairs. Her diplomatic background will be important in the UN. Napolitano has knowledge on immigration issues as a Governor of a border state. Her selection as Secretary of Homeland Security suggests that immigration will be a top priority of DHS.

Obama’s greatest task will be able to channel all these personalities into one coherent administration.

Barack Obama wants current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to continue at his post. Gates has yet to accept although most sources say that it is highly likely that he would accept the offer at least for a temporary amount of time. Sources say that Gates may hold onto the job for another year which would be up to 2010. Clearly the Obama team wants to keep Gates at the Pentagon as long as a sizable contingent of US troops are stationed in Iraq.

The Left will be disappointed with this appointment as it signals that Obama will not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Yet, this is a good thing. A significant failure in Iraq due to hasty changes in policy would possibly cripple Obama’s presidency. Obama wants a gradual withdrawal of US forces but he also wants US forces out of Iraq as soon as possible. Keeping Gates at the Pentagon does not prevent that objective.

Over the next few years (basically Obama’s first term) the Pentagon’s main concern will be Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Gates entered the Pentagon in 2006, things on the ground in Iraq have improved. It might be too much to attribute many of this to Gates, but he did represent a new direction in US-Iraq policy. Under Obama it is quite possible that he will have a freer hand at looking at other alternatives. Furthermore, he has done a pretty good job while in the Pentagon and has earned respect from both parties.

Iraq is not Vietnam in the sense that it will collapse if we withdraw like South Vietnam. It has a democracy and the people want democracy even if it’s a form that we may look down upon. Thus, it is still possible to make something good out of the Iraq fiasco before we leave. Gates would connect the successes of the surge to any Obama plan. He provides the necessary transition that might aid in bringing some stability.

Under Obama we will be in Iraq for a little while longer. Out attitude will change, our patience will be much thinner, but we are going to be in Iraq at least through 2010. Due to our continued presence, Obama needs someone in his cabinet or close group of advisers who has connections to the leadership since the surge. What better person for such a position then the man himself who oversaw the surge and associated policies. In regards to Iraq, stability is paramount and Gates provides that stability.

The answer is that there is nothing wrong with being a Washington insider. Both parties in the 2008 election emphasized the difference between being a Washington insider and being an outsider. As an instrument of change Barack Obama emphasized how he’s going to reform Washington. Joe Biden leaves Washington by train every night. John McCain is a maverick who fights the entrenched Washington insiders such as lobbyists. Sarah Palin lacked any connection to Washington. The Republican right-wing elements further distanced themselves from Washington by fueling anti-intellectual and anti-media sentiments. Washington is bad; the periphery is good. This feeling has been around in politics for decades. The easiest way to increase support is to distance oneself from the “mess in Washington,” especially when Washington is receiving very low approval ratings.

The latest manifestations of anti-Washingtonism is taking the form of attacks on Obama’s cabinet selections. Obama selected Thomas Daschle to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Immediately Dascle was attacked for being a Washington insider. Many of the attacks focused on his wife who is a lobbyist. Immediately there is a contradiction. People want the most experienced person possible to head a government department, but they also want someone with no association with Washington.

Often the most experienced people for high level government positions are people who have spent decades in Washington. They rose through government by working the system; thus, they have lots of experience in how the system works. Experience in how the system works is invaluable for a cabinet member and presidential adviser.

There’s a fear that government insiders will represent the interests of Washington rather than the people. There are a couple things wrong with this statement. First, regardless of the person’s background, cabinet secretaries often end up representing their agency’s point of view. Thus, an outsider from Alaska could just as easily take up the cause of the Department of Education as a Washington insider. Second, cabinet members are extensions of the bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are unelected officials and are institutionally designed to not be accountable to the public. A Bureaucrats’ job is make sure that government functions regardless of public opinion. Under this definition bureaucrats (cabinet members) are supposed to reflect the interests government. Thus, it doesn’t matter if the person is a Washington insider or not. As soon as anyone accepts a cabinet position, they become a bureaucrat and a Washington insider. As the official elected by the people and accountable to the people, it is the President’s job to make sure that the government’s priority is his and by extension, the people’s agenda not Washington self-interests.

The strength of the President is the most important factor. A strong President will be able to listen to his cabinet for advice coming out of the various agencies, but ultimately he has to be the one pushing his agenda. The argument should not be about whether someone is an insider or an outsider, but whether they are the most qualified person for the job. If the most qualified person is an outsider then give them the position and the same is true for an insider. The fact that Obama is filling his advisors with Washington insiders most likely suggests that those people are the most qualified people to help carry out his agenda. When the president is in the control, there should not be anything to fear from the “Washington elite.”