National Security

News flash: the next president faces enormous challenges around the world, seriously

The other races to watch tonight; The general’s sex crimes in a war zone; Why no one cares about Yemen; Defense cuts won’t kill the economy; and more.

Let's assume we will know within the next 18 hours who the next president will be. A dubious proposition to some poll-watchers, but whoever it is will inherit a world's worth of problems, from Africa and Iran to Pakistan and North Korea. As much as this election was about the domestic economy, the fundamentals, as they say, are the same: the world is a challenging place, and it ain't going away. So FP asked 14 smart people to provide their analysis of what comes next.

Christine Fair suggests rethinking the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, for example: "The United States must frankly concede that it has subsidized and incentivized Pakistan to adopt this insane path to security."

Mvemba Phezo Dizolele on Africa: "Obama proved that foreign policy experience does not guarantee success in Africa. Carter and Bush proved that conviction and courage matters as much as experience."

James Dobbins on national security: "Republicans are marginally more worried about external threats than Democrats, but a strong majority of Americans now agrees that the Iraq and Afghan wars were not worthwhile, and there is a consensus in favor of a more cautious and selective brand of American global leadership."

Read more here:

Just as national security issues didn't exactly grip the presidential election, neither did they have a huge impact on the hundreds of congressional races across the country. But that doesn't mean they won't affect defense policy, so we looked at some of the contests to watch today, from the Senate race in Virginia to a House race in New Hampshire that may demonstrate just how much an anti-war activist can use the military and her support for veterans to get her seat back.

The first details emerged on the Army general charged with sex crimes in a war zone. The Article 32 hearing for Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, from the 82nd Airborne Division, began yesterday at Fort Bragg, N.C., for a range of wrongdoing between 2007 and 2012. Charges against him include forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, to misusing official funds; and accusations range from forcing a female officer to perform oral sex to having an extramarital affair with a civilian woman. According to the charge sheet, he threatened one woman's career -- and her life -- if she told anyone about his actions.

When confronted by subordinates about his crass attitude towards women, he said: "I'm a general, I'll do whatever the [expletive] I want," according to Danger Room.

Welcome to Tuesday's edition of Situation Report, where we hope everyone takes the opportunity to try to be the decider today. Follow me @glubold. Or hit me anytime at And sign up for Situation Report here: or just send me an e-mail and I'll put you on the list.

It's always Iran, Iran, Iran: why not "Yemen?" Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen points out that Iran was mentioned 47 times in the last presidential debate and Yemen? Once. The U.S. is ignoring the corner of the Arabian Peninsula at its peril, he writes on FP. "If U.S. assistance pulled Yemen back from the brink this time around, it's only because the United States' love-hate relationship with Sanaa has allowed al Qaeda to regroup time and again as Washington trained its sights elsewhere."

Aid has been an on-again, off-again affair, and the al Qaeda branch in Yemen "is stronger than it was on September 11, 2001," he writes. "The money the United States has spent in Yemen has enriched dozens and the missiles it has fired into the country have killed hundreds -- and yet AQAP continues to grow."

The military industrial complex won't kill local economies if the Pentagon cuts its spending, argues Christopher Preble on FP: The Pentagon, he says, might be an excellent jobs program, "but it isn't a very efficient one." It creates jobs that politicians like to claim credit for, but "military spending doesn't produce more growth in the economy or generate more innovation than a comparable level of spending by private individuals, businesses and entrepreneurs," he writes.

The Aerospace Industries Association, or AIA, the trade group that represents the interests of many large defense contractors, has sponsored several studies that link Pentagon cuts with jobs: One such study by GMU's Stephen Fuller predicted that a reduction of $45 billion in Pentagon spending would equate to the loss of more than one million jobs. But Peter Singer of Brookings says that Pentagon spending only supports 3.5 million jobs, so 10 percent cut couldn't possibly equate to a million jobs as Fuller suggests.

An e-mail we received that we suspect isn't legit: "Congratulations you have won USA Green Card Visa."

Hey rebels, wanna pack the Internet in your weekend bag? It's called Internet in a Suitcase, and it's a software program that gives people in conflict or disaster zones the ability to establish a secure, independent wireless network that is free of government meddling, giving rebels, dissidents, and activists a safe way to voice dissent. Killer Apps' John Reed reports that Sascha Meinrath of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute says the technology could appear within a year or so. "While the system (which, despite its name, involves neither hardware nor a suitcase) is being tested and is usable right now, Meinrath and his team of developers around the globe are holding off on releasing it to groups like the Syrian rebels until they are confident that it can resist large-scale hacking by governments," Reed writes.

Meinrath: "Once we [feel] comfortable that the system [is] decently secure, then and only then would we be looking at deploying it to one of the world's hot spots; so a Syria or a North Korea or a China, or a Tehran kind of scenario, that kind of work, and that's probably still a year out from now. Our focus first and foremost is, do no harm."

The Vote

The Business of Defense

Fiscal Cliff Notes

National Security

Obama or Romney: winners take all

Changes on the Hill; Regardless of who wins, the Pentagon sends more Guard to the northeast; and more.

Romney or Obama, the Pentagon will continue to take that proverbial hill. It will manage the drawdown in Afghanistan, mind the Middle East, and focus much of its efforts on Asia. But while the third presidential debate suggested there is little light between the two candidates on big issues of foreign policy and national security, each will emphasize different initiatives. FP National Security took a look at what they will be.

An Obama win means the Pentagon will focus on military reform, the use of drones will continue to expand and the defense industry will probably see an end to the sequestration saga sooner.

On military reform: Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff spent much of last fall crafting a $525 billion defense budget for 2013 that shrinks the size and projected growth of the U.S. military over five years and has the blessing of the Pentagon's top brass.

On drones: Both candidates support the use of drones, but Obama's interest in their use, which minimizes politically unpalatable boots-on-the-ground, will likely spur the replacement of some of today's slower drones with stealthy, jet-powered models that can survive against modern air defenses.

On the defense industry: The water cooler wisdom is that if Romney wins, Congress will give sequestration a holiday to allow him time to get settled before any real decisions get made. An Obama win would mean, potentially, resolution to the budget issues on the existing schedule -- by the end of the year. Obama surrogates feel the president has leverage to break the deadlock if he wins.

On Afghanistan: Obama will likely hold to his deadline of 2014 but work feverishly to establish a post-2014 troop presence. But he won't have to listen as closely to his liberal base, which thinks the 2014 pullout is not fast enough. So in a second term, Obama might be more willing to listen to the recommendations of his commander, Gen. John Allen, who is expected to want to slow the withdrawal of troops as much as possible. Allen will submit his recommendations later this month.

A Romney win means that shipyards, the Joint Strike Fighter, service end-strength, missile defense, and Centcom will all probably do better.

On ships: Romney's ambitious defense plan is seen as unrealistic by some because it would increase spending $2 trillion over the next decade. But even if Congress agreed to a fraction of that, shipbuilders like General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, and Lockheed Martin could see a lot more business.

On the F-35: Although Romney said he'd boost F-22 production, we hear from Loren Thompson that he actually meant the F-35, which makes far more sense. It's unclear if Romney means increasing the buy of 2,400 or simply protecting it from ambitious budgeteers who think the U.S. could do with fewer of them. Either way, it could mean a big win for Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35.

On end-strength: Romney wants to increase the size of the force by 100,000 troops despite the high cost of personnel, which is making the Pentagon uniforms cringe.

On missile defense: Romney will likely revisit Obama's dismantling of Bush 43's anti-ICBM plan, which would have put ground-based interceptors in Poland.

Welcome to Monday's edition of Situation Report, where we're always taking the hill. Follow me @glubold. Or hit me anytime at And sign up for Situation Report here: or just send me an e-mail and I'll put you on the list.

FP National Security looked at the defense ads playing around the country, in which Democrats leverage the unimpeachable attributes of military vets to warn against electing Republican senators and Republicans warn of huge job losses that would follow cuts to the Pentagon budget.

As Sandy fades from memory in Washington, there are still enormous needs in New Jersey and New York. The Pentagon continues to send thousands of Guardsmen to the troubled region. The National and Air Guard has deployed a total of 7,611 "boots on the ground," Situation Report was told this morning, across Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and West Virginia. (And the Guard is deploying from Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and West Virginia.)

So far, U.S. Transportation Command has delivered 117 power restoration vehicles and 244 technical personnel from March Air Force Base, Calif., and Phoenix, Ariz. to Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York. On Sunday, there were another 11 flights scheduled.

Regardless of who wins, foreign policy on Capitol Hill is going to look different. The Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands and the House in Republican ones, but it's the makeup of key committees and their chairmen that could change, as the Cable's Josh Rogin reports. "[I]nfluential leaders are exiting Washington, and a new crop of national security lawmakers is looking to fill their void," he writes. "The result could be a Congress that has less experience and fewer incentives to work across the aisle or cooperate with the executive branch, playing an increasing role of the spoiler in foreign policy."

People like Minority Whip Jon Kyl, Joe Lieberman, and Richard Lugar are all leaving the Senate, for example. And at the SASC, ranking Republican John McCain has reached his term limit and will have to forego his committee post if the Dems retain control of the Senate.

And at least one analyst thinks the power on Capitol Hill rests not with the committees so much anymore, but with the influence one senator can have in thwarting a major piece of legislation or holding nominees. It empowers senators like Rand Paul and Jim DeMint, who use their power "liberally" to stop nominations and are "generally unmoved by the ire of their colleagues," Rogin writes.

The CFR's James Lindsay on the power of no: "Congress far less often shapes policy in a positive direction. Their main method of effectiveness is to say no. The greatest impact will be with those who are willing to use their ability to slow things down."

The Senate will take up the nominations of Dunford and Allen on Nov. 15. The Senate Armed Services Committee meeting that day will amount to the first public hearing on the state of Afghanistan in many months. Gen. John Allen has not provided much testimony on Afghanistan since he's been ISAF commander, and his confirmation hearing to be Supreme Allied Commander Europe and head of U.S. European Command will give senators a chance to grill him. And his presumed successor, Gen. Joe Dunford, another Marine, who has been studying up on Afghanistan, will have to frame the way he sees the U.S. presence in the final stages of security transition. Dunford, who has not commanded in Afghanistan before, traveled there this fall.

It's likely the new Central Command head, slated to replace Gen. Jim Mattis this summer, won't be a ground guy. The thinking is that the head of Central Command, responsible for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East will be someone who thinks more in terms of what air or naval power can do, especially in a potential conflict with Iran. That would probably decrease the chances of someone like Gen. Lloyd Austin, currently the Army's vice chief of staff, who is in the running, and increase the chances of an Air Force or Navy type. The WSJ's Julian Barnes floats some names: the Navy is putting forward Adm. Bill Gortney, the former top aide to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now the head of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. The Air Force is likely giving the nod to a relative unknown, Gen. Mike Hostage, who now heads Air Combat Command and was a former head of Centcom's air component. "Current and former defense officials say the White House should turn to an Air Force general or a Navy admiral to lead the command, bringing a different kind of strategic thinking than ground officers," Barnes writes.

Read All About It

There's an American Election Happening

The Pivot