WASHINGTON—In a presidential race focused firmly on domestic issues, this week’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy and national security provides a rare and valuable opportunity for Americans and the rest of the world to hear the candidates revisit the perennial question of “What keeps you up at night?” — and its slightly more frightening follow-on, “What would wake you up at night?” We believe the following subjects should top any candidate’s lists:

Afghanistan: The security situation following the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces in 2014 remains far from clear. Afghan forces are currently expected to assume responsibility for security, but questions surround the size and footprint of the remaining international forces (assuming the Afghan government permits any troops to stay). There is little doubt that, without massive international funding, Afghanistan is headed for a disastrous economic recession. What U.S. policymakers intend to do to stave off such a recession and the ensuing challenge to U.S. security remains vague. And we would like to hear presidential candidates discussing what lessons we have learned during the past decade for future counterterrorism efforts — including how to prevent the next Afghanistan.

Greater Middle East: In time, 2011 might come to be seen as the most transformational year for world politics since 1989. But the short-term challenges for the region, with its 750 million inhabitants, as well as for U.S. policy and leadership are huge — and to no small degree uncharted. Depending on with whom you speak in the region, the United States is seen as a declining power, a bully, an ally, or a partner of convenience. Stable long-term U.S. alliances appear to have frayed over issues relating to terrorism, the Israel-Palestine peace process, and the Arab Spring. Iran’s continued defiance of international concern over its nuclear program, in particular, shows how difficult it has become for the United States to forge a consensus not just with its European allies, but also with its Middle Eastern partners. If any issue has the potential for becoming a waking nightmare, it is Iran.

National security spending: Whatever the outcome of ongoing Congressional efforts at reducing U.S. government expenditure by $1.2 trillion dollars, the largest cut is likely to be to defense spending. The real risk is that this will have a devastating effect on the United States’ defense capabilities. Many Americans do not appreciate that only about five percent of the United States’ gross domestic product is spent on defense and foreign affairs, including international development aid. This relatively small amount of money helps secure U.S. freedoms, enables the development of vital technologies, allows the U.S. to provide assistance to people beyond its borders, and permits the United States to protect the freedom of global lines of communication and transport. What the candidates have to say on the topic of defense cuts is therefore not just about saving government money — it lays the groundwork for the future of U.S. foreign and security policy.

Preventing isolationism: Frankly, at a time of overwhelming domestic preoccupations, the very fact of addressing foreign policy and national security in a debate has become an accomplishment in itself. But that is not enough. Faced with a stormy world economy and a slew of foreign policy quagmires, Americans appear to be tempted by isolationism as never before. Yet no candidate can responsibly suggest that drawing up the bridges is a realistic policy option. The United States depends on its trade and other forms of engagement with other countries — much as the world depends on the United States. A number of emerging large economies present opportunities that could translate directly into jobs and growth for the United States. But it’s not all about trade and economic self-interest: The United States’ tradition has been to export values and principles as well as goods. If the candidates are to convince, they must explain to their U.S. viewers why the United States must continue and expand its engagement with the world.

Leaders who cannot explain to the American people, its allies, or the international community at large why the United States must not only remain engaged in the world but play a leadership role would be — if elected —destined to make the United States weaker and more vulnerable, not stronger and safer. What keeps us up late at night is the thought of a United States that appears distracted, disengaged, and uninterested in shouldering its responsibilities as the world’s leading benevolent and democratic power. Promoting U.S. interests and values around the world is not a partisan issue; it is for all Americans, elected and unelected. Therefore, this campaign and this country need to engage in a serious discussion on the United States’ role in the world. Let it begin.

Glenn Nye, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives (D-VA) and former Foreign Service Officer, and Daniel P. Fata, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy from 2005 to 2008, are Transatlantic Fellows at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Image by Wofford College.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — Civil unrest is breaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. This year, Greek protestors took to the streets in resistance to government austerity measures. Riots broke out in London neighborhoods in response to cutbacks in government services and rising unemployment. Now Americans are camping out in city centers across the country, following the example of disgruntled citizens who decided the best way to be heard was to physically occupy Wall Street. Although some in the media dismiss this movement as simply an assembly of grumpy leftists angry at the inequities of capitalism, the fact that the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread so rapidly to far-flung towns reveals that it has touched a deep nerve in U.S. society.

Recent surveys show that over 70 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. This year, for the first time, a majority of Americans say they believe their kids’ generation will be worse off than they are. Given the United States’ precarious economic situation, the popularity of any movement based on anger over economic weakness comes as no surprise. Perhaps more interesting is that the Occupy Wall Street movement, at just under a month old, seems rooted more in a sense of civil unfairness than simply anger at unemployment. Though they have yet to settle on a single coherent message, the “occupiers” seem to share a common anger at what they see as a deep unfairness in U.S. economics and politics that has its root in the preferential access to political power enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans.

Occupiers call themselves the 99 percent, and focus on the divide between the United States’ wealthiest 1 percent and the rest of society. The message resonates with working class Americans because so many share the view that, since the economy crashed, most Americans are suffering while the wealthiest are protected with bailouts and preferential tax treatment. The Wall Street symbolism works because the big bankers got saved while everyone else feels the pain. It is this deep sense of unfairness that attracts large numbers of new occupiers and gives the movement potential to become a serious political force. The dynamics feeding this populism will only strengthen as Congress struggles to tackle the mounting government debt. Middle class Americans feel detached from that debate, despite the fact that its outcome will affect their job prospects and the education of their children. They fear any debt resolution will only benefit powerful interest groups.

Many are asking if the Occupy Wall Street movement is the left’s equivalent of the Tea Party. Despite the quirky libertarian and anarchist views of some protesters, there is real commonality between the factors that led to the rise of the Tea Party as a national movement and “Occupy” activists. Both were built on a deep sense of unfairness resulting from the bank bailouts initiated in 2008. Both have attracted extreme partisan elements but also appeal to a broad group of politically independent Americans seeking an outlet for frustration over continued high joblessness. The difference is that while the Tea Party focuses on reducing the size of government, the “Occupy” movement is focused on a perception that the pain of recession is not evenly spread due to unequal access to government.

Whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will have an impact on the presidential and Congressional 2012 elections similar to the strong impact the Tea Party had on Congressional elections in 2010 depends on whether one political party can align its core message with the basic sentiments of the occupiers. The Democrats are moving quickly in that direction, asking party members to sign petitions declaring their solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement. President Obama’s theme of asking the richest Americans to “pay their fair share” to fund his jobs bill overlaps with the occupiers chief concern. On the other side of the political spectrum, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Herman Cain were quick to denounce the movement as “dangerous” and “anti-capitalist,” respectively. Romney’s subsequent shift to more sympathetic rhetoric indicates his realization of the movement’s potential to be either a very powerful ally or a problem for a presidential contender. Indeed, the best approach for Republicans will be to attempt to direct the occupiers’ anger about all things economic at the current President, in the hopes of solidifying blame against Obama, building momentum to ouster him.

Though the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to be a political force shaping the 2012 presidential election, it does not promise to move the United States closer to resolving its core challenges, either economic or political. The movement has tapped into a very deep and real sense of unfairness in U.S. society, but proposes no solution. If the Democratic Party can channel that sense of inequity into momentum for their candidates in 2012, it could have an electoral impact. But without a central political priority, like investment in preparing America’s kids for success in the new economy or promoting infrastructure development, the occupiers’ energetic involvement in the political process will not produce a mandate for how to deal with the United States’ economic weakness and debt. That spells more polarization and less compromise. That also seems to be the trap both Americans and Europeans find themselves in — popular anger over what’s wrong but no consensus on how to solve it.

Glenn Nye is a Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

Image by Jens Schott Knudsen

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — Americans are facing two simultaneous and conflicting challenges. Like Europe, the United States is struggling under an unsustainable debt. At the same time, Americans are feeling the pain from crushing unemployment and a stagnating economy. Short-term action to solve either one of these problems merely exacerbates the other, and the extreme partisan battling between diametrically opposed prescriptions for repairing the American economy are making Americans wonder if leaders in Washington have the ability to get them through this crisis. Unfortunately, it’s about to get worse.

On August 2, many Americans breathed a premature sigh of relief as President Obama and congressional leaders came to a last-minute agreement to increase the debt limit in order to avoid an unprecedented default on U.S. public debt. The bill, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), provided for the incremental increase of the debt limit by up to $2.4 trillion, an amount designed to avoid another political fight until after the 2012 presidential election. The BCA also established a “super committee,” which was tasked with taking up the hard negotiations over reducing the United States’ debt and producing a broad agreement by November 23. Though the process designed by the BCA is intended to smooth the passage of a serious debt reduction package through Congress, it is very unlikely to produce a grand bargain that will substantially reduce the United States’ long-term debt and put the country on a stable economic footing. This is due in part to a sharply partisan political environment and the persistent U.S. jobs crisis, but also to the machinery set up for the BCA.

The super committee process does enjoy some advantages to the regular committee process. Super committee members can meet behind closed doors to debate politically sensitive measures. Many debt reduction ideas have already been proposed by groups like the Simpson-Bowles Commission, the Gang of Six (a bipartisan group of senators who found compromise on recommendations for reducing the debt), and the negotiators convened by Vice President Joe Biden to debate debt reduction in July. Any bill agreed to through a simple majority vote of super committee members until November 23 gets expedited consideration by the full Congress with no amendments allowed. The super committee has wide flexibility to consider any idea and could even establish procedures for additional negotiations at a later time. Additionally, the BCA establishes automatic spending cuts that are split evenly between defense and nondefense accounts for any amount less than the targeted $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, as an incentive for members of both political parties to reach an agreement.

However, the process carries with it some important disadvantages. Significantly reducing the debt is an extremely difficult task, requiring members of the super committee to propose spending cuts and tax increases that are painful to constituents and run counter to partisan philosophies. One member threatened, even before the first hearing, to walk out if additional cuts to defense spending are considered. More such threats are likely. Six of the twelve super committee members have pledged never to increase taxes. Though many debt-reduction ideas are available, the group of senators that was closest to reaching bipartisan agreement on serious debt reduction, the Gang of Six, notably has no members on the super committee. The super committee may also consider new proposals for creating jobs in the short term, such as those proposed by President Obama on September 8, but those ideas cost money and pile more work onto the debt-reduction mandate of the super committee. Perhaps most compelling is the fact that the automatic cuts that result from failure to reach an agreement, the supposed incentive for members from both sides of the political aisle to compromise, would not take effect until 2013. Super committee members will be faced with the choice of supporting very unpopular spending cuts and tax increases, or simply waiting until they see the outcome of the presidential election in 2012, leaving plenty of time for action to prevent the automatic cuts from actually taking effect. Some have referred to this incentive as “the hammer” — but it is actually better pictured as lighting a very long fuse, with plenty of time to stamp it out. The temptation to postpone making the really tough decisions will likely prove too great.

The 2012 presidential election contest has already begun. President Obama’s jobs speech was his opening salvo. Aside from some of the tax breaks, his proposals sound too much like ideas already tried in 2009 to galvanize public support sufficient to compel passage through Congress. However, the proposals, along with the offsetting tax increases on wealthier Americans and specific industries, do begin to define the contrast between Obama and his eventual Republican opponent. The closing months of 2011 promise to reveal in increasing detail the shape of competing messages from the rival presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, they do not promise much action to solve the two conflicting challenges facing the United States today. For that, Americans will have to wait until after November 2012, at the very least.

Glenn Nye, a former Member of Congress, is a Senior Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Photo by geetarchurchy

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — One thing the tumultuous wrangling over raising America’s debt ceiling has made clear: America needs to reform the way it makes decisions about fiscal policy, the most basic responsibility of Congress and the President.

Washington politicians are playing a dangerous game, and with less than a week to go before the date U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned a default on American government debt could occur, the parties still seem far from a meaningful deal.  Despite bipartisan agreement that the U.S. debt level is unsustainable, it’s clear that America’s political leaders cannot find common ground on the difficult reforms required to tackle the debt.  Instead the most likely scenario is a short-term deal that once again punts the tough decisions down the field.  Apparently flirting with the economic calamity that would follow a U.S. default has not galvanized sufficient support for a sensible compromise.  It’s time to change the rules of the game to avoid this ever happening again.

Americans have never been shy in offering advice to Europeans about economic reform. We have bemoaned the tortuous decision-making process in Europe. Washington has long wanted a single telephone number to call on policy issues, and this extends to a single European finance minister. We have suggested that Europe have a common fiscal policy, with the ability to spend the tax money raised in richer areas for the benefit of poorer regions, not unlike New York tax receipts are spent in West Virginia to pay unemployment or to build roads. Lately, Americans have called for Europe to have the ability to issue eurobonds to lower the cost of borrowing for Greece, Portugal, and Ireland.  With so much of the world’s economic stability dependent on the ability of policymakers in Washington to get their own fiscal house in order, Europeans will be excused if they wonder why Americans don’t reform their own decision-making before they give gratuitous advice to foreigners.

At this late stage in the debt ceiling debate, the financial risks are great.  Beyond the disastrous effects that would certainly accompany default, even if a short-term deal is reached, there is a good chance credit agencies will downgrade America’s debt rating anyway, noting the inability of policymakers to agree on meaningful fiscal restraint to curb longer-term debt.  The very fact that the United States got this close to the deadline indicates a political paralysis that will continue to plague debate at least until the November 2012 elections.  Congress still has to agree on a budget for 2012 and beyond by September 30 of this year or at least agree to extending appropriations for every government agency by that date to avert a government shutdown.  Given America’s near-record debt, and without a “grand bargain” on debt reduction, these basic responsibilities will become epic battles.  And all solutions that are meaningful are also unpopular.

The biggest challenge to any deal is America’s political polarization.  Extremists on both sides of the aisle make pledges vowing to eschew compromise, and both sides believe they enjoy wide public support, at least in the constituencies that matter to their re-election.  Longer-term solutions require a revamping of the way boundaries are drawn for Congressional districts and reform of primary elections mechanics. But there are some more immediate changes that would force the tough decisions on fiscal balance to be taken now:

1)      Require a Balanced Budget: Whether by constitutional amendment or statute, require Congress to pass a balanced budget.  Without preferring one political party’s preferences over the other, it should require agreement on balancing revenues and spending.  It should also limit “emergency” spending and require a specific plan to offset all emergency spending with future cuts or revenues.

2)      Create a Standing Fiscal Commission: This bipartisan group of appointed officials would enforce budget balance. If Congress could not agree on a budget, the commission would provide a set of recommendations that would automatically receive up-or-down votes in both chambers.

3)      Create a Wasteful Spending Commission: In order to accept painful sacrifices, taxpayers need assurance that all that can be done is being done to eliminate waste.  This group would analyze all programs across agencies and recommend a set of changes to eliminate duplication and waste.  The recommendations would receive an up-or-down vote in Congress.

4)      Link Revenues with Expenditures: Whenever possible, the debate over taxation and spending should be brought into a single conversation.  Taxes linked to specific programs make the trade-offs more apparent, and when a specific program sunsets, so would the corresponding tax.

America’s impending default has compelled its opposing parties to start talking about difficult but necessary sacrifices.   Unfortunately, the crisis has also revealed that under the current rules politics as usual still reigns.  Americans have long offered useful ideas to Europe and the world about how to pursue economic reforms.  Now it’s time Americans put their best ideas to use at home.

Glenn Nye, a former Member of Congress, is a Senior Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Share/Bookmark

By Glenn Nye

WASHINGTON — Major decisions on the endgame in Afghanistan are coming soon in Washington. However, the exit plan for U.S. and NATO forces may be shaped more by the economic climate in the United States than by the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. Public support for the war has been waning as Americans struggle with a weak economic recovery.

A June ABC/Washington Post poll revealed that only 43% of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. In fact, this number includes a 12-point increase since March, likely a response to the successful killing of Osama bin Laden. According to the same poll, 73% of Americans believe the United States should withdraw a substantial number of combat forces from Afghanistan this summer. More revealingly, the bump in President Barack Obama’s popularity after the bin Laden raid has proved short-lived, with his public approval rating retreating to 52% only a month after having increased from 44% to 60%. The killing of bin Laden was celebrated as a major step forward in the fight against global terror. But Americans are now asking why U.S. soldiers are still in Afghanistan and when their campaign will end.

The American public was already souring on a war that costs about $2 billion per week, and that was before recent job figures showed an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.1%. Americans are carefully observing the vibrant and necessary debate underway on the unsustainable national debt and competing domestic priorities. With uncomfortable sacrifices on the horizon, investing in a war without clearly measurable returns is getting harder and harder to justify.

Public opinion against the Afghan War is increasingly making itself felt in Congress. Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for the withdrawal of at least 15,000 troops this year, while Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer argued for a “significant and early transfer of responsibility to the Afghan people.” On May 26, a bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for legislation that would have required Obama to produce a plan and timetable for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. A series of such resolutions over the past few years had failed, but the recent vote—which failed only by the narrow margin of 204-215—clearly demonstrates that public skepticism is starting to gain traction in Congress.

Later this month, Obama is expected to address the American public on U.S. strategy for Afghanistan. The summer 2011 threshold was intended to be a decision point for how many of the surge forces deployed in Afghanistan would be withdrawn and how quickly. But, coinciding as it does with the beginning of the 2012 presidential election process, this moment will inevitably demand that the president lay out a broader vision of the United States’ long-term military presence in the region. Particularly considering the current economic climate, Americans are unlikely to be compelled by the notion that simply staying the course will lead to success.The progress of the nation-building effort in Afghanistan was never the key determining factor in Washington’s strategy for the country. The real issue is whether Afghan forces are developing an ability to secure their own country from terrorists seeking to locate there and the local groups willing to aid them. The U.S.-led international military presence is designed to provide a secure space for the development of local capacity, an inherently temporary mission. However, the patience among the American public for the inevitable transfer of responsibility to Afghans is now wearing thin. Consternation about the state of the American economy and the ability of the United States to afford its leading role in international affairs will have implications for America’s response to the Arab Spring, the intervention in Libya, and other challenges shared with European allies. But the effects will perhaps be most greatly felt in Afghanistan, where NATO members have made significant investments and where important decisions affecting the outcome of a ten-year war will have to be made very soon.

Within the next few weeks, Obama’s national security team is expected to present him options for American drawdown in Afghanistan.  Obama will have to make a tough choice.  He could argue to a skeptical and gloomy American public that progress warrants the continued robust presence of American forces for some time to come.  Or he could heed public will and propose an expedited exit plan.  If he does the former, he needs to be prepared for the increasing chance that Congress will soon take more aggressive steps to reduce America’s commitment in Afghanistan.  Either way, Obama must accept that given current economic conditions, Americans’ frustrations with the war will only get worse.

Glenn Nye, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is a Senior Fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington.

Photo some rights reserved, U.S. Army

WASHINGTON — It’s easy to get lost in America’s big budget debate.  There is so much talk of impending shutdowns and continuing resolutions, debt reduction and tax reform, revenues and spending cuts. And both U.S. President Barack Obama and the House Republicans have now presented proposals for the 2012 budget while the debate over the 2011 budget still rages on. It can get confusing, but it is all part of a vital conversation Americans have to have on how to get their fiscal house in order following a deep recession.  What should not be lost amid all the rhetoric, however, is a serious look at America’s desired role in the world and what resources will be required to ensure that the United States can play that role.

The political stakes of the budget debate are clearly high. With fundamental differences separating America’s two political parties on budget priorities, a government shutdown seems imminent.  As if that’s not bad enough, the timing of an April shutdown threatens to leave many taxpayers waiting to receive their annual tax refunds.  That won’t be popular.  But the underlying reasons for the debate are legitimate.  America must come to terms with its budget deficits, and soon.  With broad agreement on the urgent need to deal with the debt as a national security priority, the big question is how to do it.  There is a danger that, in a rush to balance the numbers, easy but dangerous targets present themselves.  Foreign affairs always looms high on the budget-cutting agenda, but in a time when world events are rapidly unfolding that will challenge America and our European allies for decades, it would be a mistake to deprive ourselves of the resources to influence those events.  Leading in a strong partnership with Europe is the best way to ensure America’s national security is defended while keeping the budget in check.

America’s allies are rightly interested to know what global leadership role a cash-strapped United States intends to play in the future.  The profound nature of current events in the Middle East should not be underestimated.  If the “Arab Spring” results in successful democratic uprisings in places like Syria, or expands into a “Persian Spring” and brings about real political change in Iran, the upsides for global security are huge. The paymasters of regional terrorist groups could be closed down. And Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions could be squelched.

But the successful growth of stable Middle Eastern democracies to replace authoritarian regimes is unlikely without assistance from the West.  President Obama seems intent on ensuring America’s military involvement in Libya is in support of a NATO effort. European military leadership is enabling that approach.  Supporting democratization in Tunisia, Egypt, and beyond would also be most effective as a team effort.  Neither America nor its European allies are likely to be successful on their own.  We have learned some useful lessons on cooperating with Europe as development allies in Afghanistan, so the question is how to apply those lessons to stabilize these new Middle Eastern governments.   The challenges ahead argue strongly for a renewed compact with Europe on development — an urgent team approach designed to solidify democratic governments in the Middle East — both to strengthen regional democracy and to prevent damaging influence from extremists.  However it comes together, America and Europe need to be ready to devote the resources necessary to maximize the chance of success, despite domestic budget pressures.

Arguing for investments in development funds is not always an easy sell with taxpayers.  Perceptions of foreign assistance tend to be negative and overblown.  It is particularly tough on the heels of a recession.  On the other hand, foreign operations funds make up a very small share of the national budget, less than one percent, and comprise less than ten percent of the defense budget.  Foreign aid should be subject to rigorous scrutiny to ensure a fair return to the taxpayer and should be employed as efficiently as possible.  But it is too easy to lose sight of aid’s importance to national security.  This is a bipartisan responsibility.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proposed refocusing resources on stabilization initiatives and concentrating capabilities that would meet the challenges presented today in the Middle East.  Some have suggested combining defense and foreign operations into a unified national security budget to protect civilian national security resources and reflect their importance.  Whatever the method, now is the time for Americans to determine that global leadership is still vital and that our budget priorities need to reflect that.

Despite the difficulty, investing to work with European partners on development is worth the effort.  Now we just need to budget for it.

Glenn Nye, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is a Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington. Photo Credit: David Silver

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — The middle of a budget battle is a heck of a time for a foreign crisis.  The United States now finds itself in the midst of defining moments both domestically, with debates playing out on the future of government spending, and internationally, with the rapidly unfolding revolutions in the Middle East.  The repercussions of each on America’s role in the world are both profound and intertwined.  So far the budget debates on Capitol Hill have resided in the realm of the philosophical: How much should we cut?  Soon they will have to get practical: What to cut? And those questions have to be tied to what results we want to achieve and what is worth the investment, including in our interventions overseas. 

President Barack Obama faces a big challenge in Libya in defining the right level of engagement for the United States.  The implications are enormous.  The outcome of the rolling revolutions in the region will affect American national interests for decades, especially if they replace regimes like Iran’s.  So while the stakes are evident, the question is how the current debate on America’s budget will impact our willingness and ability to take a leading or defining role overseas as events rapidly unfold.  Yes, the military challenges in Libya are complex and costly, the end-game unclear, and the opposition force largely unknown.  The political risks are also evident; President Obama has been accused at the same time of dithering and of rushing into an ill-defined mission (chiefly by Members of Congress eager to be consulted).  Couple that with a maxed-out national credit card and military resources stretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama’s caution is understandable.  On the other hand, this particular crisis happens to include elements that one could usually only wish for — a clear humanitarian crisis precipitated by an obvious bad guy, a more-than-willing coalition of European partners ready for action, and (critically) the overt support of regional Arab governments.  If Obama’s stated goal of acting multilaterally plays out here to allow a successful U.S. intervention with a substantially shared cost, it could increase America’s capability to influence the largely organic democratization of the broader Middle East.  This is especially true if the momentum effect continues from yet another successful overthrow of an authoritarian regime in the region.  It will be further enhanced if American taxpayers see a valuable national security return on a reasonable military cost.

Appropriate investments in military force can help prevent war, just as good investments in development can prevent or minimize conflict.  It goes beyond a Libyan “no-fly zone” to include how America can use development funds to help keep Egypt and others on a sustainable democratic path.  How President Obama chooses to invest American power, both hard and soft, in today’s Middle East could save billions of dollars in costly interventions in the future.  But both cost money now.  Given our dire budget challenges, Americans are rightly skeptical of another costly foreign intervention, so the president still needs to make the sale.  But the time for that case is right; the grand debate at home on the size of government needs to move from generalities to include a real discussion on how we invest to put America in the best position a decade from now.  The president made clear in his State of the Union address his vision for investing at home in America’s future, now it’s time to clarify the vision for investment that secures America’s role in the world.

Share/Bookmark