peacefare.net

GOP critique: leaks and cuts

This is the third installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.

Failure #3: “Unconscionable” Leaks Of Classified Counterterror Information From The White House That Have Been “Devastating”

Here I find myself in agreement with the Republicans:  there have been too many leaks of apparently classified information.  The trouble is this complaint comes from people who never said a word about leaks during the Bush administration.  So to give the complaint more credibility, I think I’ll just reproduce word for word the main allegations, without the partisan hyperbole:

The damaging leaks include:

• Operational details about the Osama Bin Laden raid.
• Existence of a Pakistani doctor who assisted the United States in finding Bin Laden and who was later arrested and jailed in Pakistan.
• Revelation of a covert joint U.S.-Israeli cyber operation to undermine Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
• The existence of a double-agent who was key to unraveling the second underwear bomb.
• The White House’s process for determining the targets of drone strikes.

The Republican memorandum also cites Democratic concern:

• John Brennan, President Obama’s own counterterror chief and Deputy National Security Adviser, has called the leaks “unconscionable,” “damaging,” and “devastating.”

• Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has criticized the leaks and stated that they are coming from the White House. She said, “Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”

The remedy the Republicans suggest is the right one:

Despite the damage done, President Obama has refused to support the appointment of a special counsel to investigate these leaks and hold those responsible accountable. The special counsel mechanism is designed for just such circumstances where the impartiality of normal prosecutors may be compromised because someone in the high chain of command in the White House may be implicated.

Holding people accountable for leaks of truly valuable classified information is a vital component of protecting national security.

Failure #4: “Devastating” Defense Cuts That Will Cede Our Status As A “Global Power”

I confess that my wonkiness does not really extend to budget, which I find fiendishly complicated even if arithmetically simple.  The “massive cuts” President Obama has allegedly instituted to the defense budget are all cuts from projected increases, not cuts in the present budget.  The Republicans cite two “cuts” in 2011:  one of $78 billion and one of $400 billion.  But they neglect to mention that the former would take place over 5 years and the later 10 years.  They also neglect to mention the massive Pentagon increases over the previous ten years.  Then they hold Obama responsible for the $500 billion in cuts (over 10 years) not yet made but scheduled for the January “sequester” if Congress does not pass a budget.

How is President Obama exclusively responsible for the sequester agreement passed in both Houses of Congress?  Not clear, but Governor Romney is alleged to have opposed the agreement, which is easy enough since he is not a member of Congress.  The President however failed to “steer” the Congressional super-committee to an agreement and has not accepted the Ryan budget plan:

In short, the Commander in Chief is holding our national security and our commitment to veterans hostage to his agenda of tax increases.

It would be at least as correct to say that the Republicans are holding our economy hostage to their agenda of tax cuts.

In all this budget talk, some fundamental facts are lost:  the United States spends more on defense than the next 17 countries in the world combined, and all but a handful of those are allies or friends.  There is little sign on the horizon of any conventional military threat to the United States for at least 20 years.  The only immediate potential military challenge other than the war we are finishing in Afghanistan is the Iranian nuclear program, which is a war we or ally Israel will initiate.  The Republicans know this, and the Ryan budget actually proposes a cut in Defense spending for fiscal year 2013, which starts on October 1:

Conventional military challenges may be few, but there are lots of non-conventional and largely non-military challenges in today’s world:  weak and failing states, states transitioning to democracy, regional instability in the Middle East and East Asia, terrorist havens, economic collapse, pandemic disease….  The Pentagon budget is not going to help a lot with these challenges, and for many it is the most expensive, not the most cost-effective, way to go.  Romney supports the Ryan budget, which makes massive cuts in the kind of civilian foreign affairs spending that would help us to meet those challenges.

The Republicans complain that the only program Obama is all too willing to cut is our military. This is not true.  As the GOP never tires of pointing out, he has proposed (and convinced the Congress to pass) $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. The defense budget is by far the largest discretionary slice of Federal spending.  There is not credible way to cut Federal expenditures and leave it untouched, much less pay for the increases that the Ryan budget plan proposes in the out years.

Obama’s purported defense budget “cuts” made so far would not cut the defense budget at all, but only slow its increase.  The GOP allegation that the president is pursuing a policy of unilateral disarmament is false, as is the allegation that he has sent a message of weakness abroad, leading our friends to question our staying power and emboldening our adversaries.  Our allies and friends in Europe and Asia are sticking close by and our adversaries–if you count as such al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea–have a good deal to fear from an administration that has been tough-minded about tightening the screws.