Defense and the New Congress

The new majority in the House of Representatives will be much more friendly to a strong United States defense and foreign policy but will have a minority with far less knowledge and understanding of defense and foreign policy issues than any Congress during the entire Cold War.

Specifically, the House Armed Service Committee lost 19 Democratic members. The current Chairman, Ike Skelton, is one of the best friends our Americans soldiers have ever had. He will be missed. And Congressman Marshall of Georgia will be missed in that he was a supporter of the liberation of Iraq and of missile defense.

But most HASC remaining Democratic members will be relatively junior and have not been fully supportive of US defense needs. And with the defeat and retirement of nearly half of all the HASC majority, we are faced with the top Democratic member being Loretta Sanchez of California, if the most senior current member, Silvestre Reyes of Texas, retains his top ranking spot on the House Intelligence Committee. (While the House changes are dramatic, the Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, will lose at least 25% of its membership as 5 members are retiring.)

As numerous publications have noted, the new House majority will want to win in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we cannot come up with a policy that has a strong prospect of winning, there will be considerable pressure to push the administration to adjust US policy so we can win. This is important for a number of critical reasons.

First, a strong and independent Iraq will be a bulwark against nefarious Iranian influence. That requires that the US make clear our full support for seeing our position through. Withdrawal just for the sake of not wanting to have “the war around anymore” doesn’t cut it. But no blank check will be forthcoming either.

And second, failure in Afghanistan gives the Taliban and other terror groups in Pakistan a sanctuary from which to operate against the government of Pakistan. Here the ISI is playing its usual double-game. The collapse of the Pakistani government into the hands of terrorists would give such thugs a ready arsenal of 100 nuclear weapons. This might very well precipitate a war with India. Other threats would be the transfer to terror groups of such weapons with which to surreptitiously attack the United States and its allies.

The new majority in the House not only understands these threats but they will not be reticent from raising them in both authorization and appropriations forums with administration officials. The new House wants to be a cooperative and helpful partner with US defense and foreign policy. But they are seriously concerned with whether the current direction of US policy is sufficient to protect the country, reassure our allies and deter our enemies.

Specifically, that will be assessing whether the future reliance largely on a Navy-based missile defense system is wise policy or whether other additional and complimentary systems should also be pursued, including laser systems such as the Airborne Laser or ABL.

On the Democratic side, Norm Dicks of Washington state will remain the ranking member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee and will be a welcome voice in defense matters, including ABL, tankers, and other critical defense matters.

The new majority in the House will also push for a much more credible policy on terrorism. I believe they will seriously question the administration’s adoption of the idea that the major threat to the US and its allies are loose bands of terrorists, whether Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas, and “their affiliates”. Instead, I see the House members, and their Senate allies, getting us back to the proper focus that our main adversaries are states, their intelligence and military services, and their accomplices whom they have often created which we refer to as “terrorists.” In short, the new House will understand the difference between the “terror masters” and their accomplices.

Voice of America echoes this point, noting that “Republican gains in the House and Senate could also lend weight to critics’ charges that the president has not been tough enough on Iran and its potential development of a nuclear weapon. Gains for the Republicans could also allow conservatives to press Mr. Obama to be more assertive on disagreements with Russia and China.”

This last point is particularly important. Although no one is seeking confrontation, the activities and behavior of both China and Russia have been deeply offensive to many Americans. Global Security Newswire recently quoted an administration source saying that the two countries have been helping Iran with both ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

As my friends at JINSA, the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, have recently written, our adversaries, whether Iran, Syria, Russia or China, are part of a very nasty coalition of bad actors which see the US promotion of freedom and liberty as antithetical to their drive for global or regional hegemonic power. They seek these objectives not because they disliked President Bush; nor will they give up these ambitions even should they now admire or like our current President.

This concern has been echoed in a Los Angeles Times piece by Paul Richter. Now I have in the past been particularly critical of his coverage of such national security issues as missile defense. But on this issue, he gets things right. He writes:

Western powers’ strong new sanctions on Iran have so far failed to push Tehran’s leaders toward compromise on their disputed nuclear program, a senior European diplomat said Tuesday. In a grim assessment, the official said that although the economic punishments clearly have inflicted pain on Iran, there has been no signal from the country’s leaders that they are willing to yield ground to relieve the pressure.

I have been a strong proponent of many of the economic sanctions we have been pursuing against Iran. However, I have also pointed out repeatedly that we have not engaged in such actions seriously, having let China and Russia drive truckloads of help for Iran through the “exceptions” and “loopholes” in both US and UN policy.

In another critical area, we also have only very partially divested our public and private pensions from companies that do business with Iran, directly or indirectly. I have long advocated that we simply “unplug” Iran from the world’s economy. We have not done that.

This new Congress may indeed take this task much more seriously. In particular, they may seek to give Stewart Levy at the US Treasury the kind of resource the Department needs for a very serious shut down of financial, energy and technology transactions with Iran, including divestment. We will see.

The New Congress, especially the House, is also going to take seriously the Russian objections to US and NATO efforts to build cooperative missile defenses. Some senior members of the Russian Duma have been quoted as saying they may withdraw the new START treaty from consideration unless the lame-duck session of Congress ratifies the treaty.

In my conversations with some senior members of the Senate, that was precisely the wrong message to be sending to the new Congress. It will backfire. They are not in the mood to have the Duma dictate to the Senate terms of the new treaty, especially given the actions of Russia with Iran, Venezuela and others.

The new Congressional majority will also be much more insistent that the administration come forward with a credible and explicit program of strategic nuclear modernization, including plans for maintaining our Triad of missiles, submarines and bombers , as well as the infrastructure of labs and facilities to sustain and modernize our nuclear infrastructure.

At the top of Congress’s agenda will be Iran and other state sponsors of terror. As Paul Richter noted, his European sources believe Western attempts to negotiate with Iran have fallen into a fruitless pattern: “Tehran will be coaxed to meet with foreign diplomats twice, but when a third meeting approaches, ‘it will all peter out.’ So far, he said, it appears the latest proposed talks may follow the same routine.”

The new Congress understands this. It is the central dilemma of US security policy and it will be front and center of the debates now destined to take place on Capitol Hill over the next year.

Defense spending will find a more friendly audience for sure, but given the necessity of significantly reducing the current and projected deficits, defense spending will be scrutinized seriously. Just this past year, pro-defense Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama joined with Senator McCaskill of Missouri to reduce annual defense spending by some $7 billion. Those efforts will no doubt continue. Senator Coburn and Congressman Paul have both said they are considering further cuts in defense.

Again, as Richter has noted, quoting Congressman Hoekstra, “I think if Republicans go in and say ‘no cuts to defense,’ then we are no different than Obama. But if we say ‘yes’ to cuts across the board from the pre-stimulus budget, then that is the way to go.” He further said: It is a “bad idea to get into a situation where Republicans say there is no waste, fraud and abuse in the defense budgets.” Concluded Richter, “He also stressed that defense cuts should be part of overall budget reductions”.

The left will love cutting defense. They will seek to ensure that their friends in the drive-by media insist that if welfare or Medicare spending are to be on the table, then of course defense should be as well. Of course, studies show there is upwards of $125 billion annually in Medicare fraud while Pentagon fraud is far less.

Whether such savings can be found is a big question. However, while the Defense Secretary seeks to wring $20 billion a year in efficiencies out of the defense establishment, he wants to transfer the savings into necessary defense acquisition programs, and not to other spending or deficit reduction. However, if the larger debate is over the entire edifice of entitlements, which is really what is driving the budget, defense will be less likely to have to endure the most of any deficit reduction. After all, if in fact Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are some $100 trillion out of balance over the next few generations, cutting $20 billion a year out of the defense budget will accomplish nothing but probably rendering US security less robust than it otherwise would be.

This then is the newly emerging state of affairs on defense and national security in the new Congress. Stay tuned.