Foreign Policy In Focus

This strange animal called sequestration is certainly wreaking havoc with our customary ideological boundaries. 

If you’re an advocate, Iike I am, for revamped federal priorities that shift resources from a bloated Pentagon budget toward neglected domestic priorities, your take on this animal can’t be simple. You say cutting everything indiscriminately is a bad way to run a government (this view is nearly universal). You oppose the cuts in the domestic budget that will leave us with fewer food safety inspectors, medical researchers, Head Start teachers, and airport baggage screeners on the job. But you can reel off long lists of ways to cut waste in the Pentagon budget to the levels prescribed by sequestration, and show that these cuts will leave us completely safe.

But you also know that the whole conversation is focused on the wrong topic. It’s past time to shift this conversation away from austerity and toward investment to create jobs, as clear majorities of voters said in November was what they wanted.

Now let’s look at the Washington Post’s blogger who says he writes “from a liberal perspective,” Greg Sargent. On Wednesday he went at the Republican position on sequestration, wielding a new report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. The report found that the single most important cause of increased income inequality in recent years is the favored tax treatment given to capital gains and stock dividends — i.e. what the rich have used to get richer.

The Democrats, as Sargent points out, want to change this, taxing the rich and using the proceeds to replace the sequester cuts. The Republicans want to stick with sequestration and keep this favored treatment for the rich.

But all of this puts the Republicans, says Sargent, in the position of “openly conceding that the sequester will gut the military.” It’s a concession that Sargent appears to be taking at face value. Or at least not calling into question.

Gut the military? That’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been saying any chance they get. Sequestration would “invite aggression,” says lingering Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. It will “put the nation at greater risk of coercion,” says the Joint Chiefs Chair, Martin Dempsey. When asked at a recent congressional hearing which nation might coerce us, though, he couldn’t say.

In fact, sequestration will not “gut” our military. Our military budget has nearly doubled since 2001. Sequestration would take it back to the level it was in 2007 — when we were still fighting two wars. Adjusted for inflation, it would leave that budget higher than its Cold War average — when we had an adversary that was spending roughly what we were on its military. Now, as Michael Cohen notes in The Guardian, the closest thing to a peer adversary we have is China, and we are spending more on research and development of new weapons than the Chinese are spending on their entire military. We spend more on our military, in fact, than the next 14 countries put together.

After the longest period of war in our history, we are due for a defense downsizing. Sequestration would create a shallower downsizing than any of the previous postwar periods since World War II. We can do this, and we should. We need the money for other things.

As sequestration threatens to confuse us all, let’s be sure to stay clear on that, at least.

Cross-posted from the Project on Government Oversight.

If there’s one thing most Americans support in foreign policy, it’s sanctions against Iran to halt its alleged drive for nuclear weapons. From President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, leading candidates all want to put the economic squeeze on Tehran and to signal their support for Israel. President Obama recently announced he will ratchet up sanctions on the country’s oil exports and declared a “national emergency” to deal with the Islamic Republic. The Senate will try to iron out its differences over anti-Iran measures in coming weeks, as bus stations around Washington, DC, are studded with advertisements questioning the President’s resolve on the issue.

In this politicized environment, the last thing any candidate or legislator would countenance is gobs of U.S. taxpayer money going to a military contractor caught doing business with the Islamic Republic. Indeed, Congress specifically addressed that possibility in 2010, when contractors were required to certify in writing that they have no ties to Iran’s sanctioned enterprises.

And that's why the current situation surrounding one big military contractor known as Kuwait and Gulf Link Transport Company, or KGL, seems so puzzling. Amid renewed allegations that the Kuwait-based behemoth is involved in dealings with Iranian shipping interests, ports, and front companies, KGL continues to hold up to $1 billion worth of contracts with America’s armed forces. No contractor to the U.S. military has ever been debarred for doing business with Iran, so KGL could emerge as a test case.

At the Pentagon, its number two official has repeatedly told skeptical Members of Congress that KGL is free of ties to Iran and has broken no law. Yet documents reviewed and interviews conducted by POGO show that the FBI and the Pentagon’s own Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) are apparently conducting a non-public probe of KGL that is at least a year old, taking evidence from former employees and others about alleged business dealings that could violate Iran sanctions laws.

The upshot is that instead of projecting a message of American resolve and clarity, the case of KGL seems to offer an ambiguous quagmire of mixed signals as key issues surrounding the company remain to be sorted out. Indeed, as the undisclosed federal probe of KGL drags on, the giant logistics provider continues to have access to U.S. military facilities and provide support for American troops in the tense Gulf theater.

To read in its entirety, visit the Project on Government Oversight.

Adam Zagorin is Project on Government Oversight's journalist in residence.

On Friday March 23, 2012, Staff Sgt Robert Bales was charged with 17 counts of murder, six counts of attempted murder and six counts of assault. This is a result of what Fox News has called “the worst allegation of killing of civilians by an American in Afghanistan.” On March 11, Bales allegedly had been drinking prior to attacking two villages near his base in the Afghan villages of Balandi and Alkozai, where he murdered nine children and seven adults. He was moved first from Afghanistan to Kuwait and is currently waiting trial at the military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The BBC says that Bales is seeking defense for "diminished capacity" because he doesn’t remember the crime, he had already completed three tours in Iraq, and had received brain and body injuries in previous tours. Prior to the rampage Bales had seen his friend’s leg blown off and was drinking. Other excuses cited by the Kansas City Star were that Bales had just been passed over for promotion, was experiencing stress with finances and in his marriage, and had been working at the Joint Base Lewis-McChord, known for being “the most troubled base in the military.” These rationalizations could have major implications for the military administration.   

For example, Bales shouldn’t have been enlisted for a fourth tour if he was not physically and psychologically capable, which he is clearly arguing he was not.  On top of that he had been drinking which could have increased Bales’ memory loss and is against U.S. military orders. However, if the rampage were a symptom of PTSD, then the United States is not doing enough to offer the psychological support the troops need. Providing that support is crucial to the success of overseas operations. The Huffington Post argues that the United States had no choice but to stretch what knowledgeable military it had thinly. This is understandable, but it hardly seems worth it when considering the ramifications.

This incident fuels the social upheaval that has resulted from NATO and U.S. Army personnel accidentally burning several Qurans. The Taliban says Bales won’t get a fair or speedy trial. In fact the trial could be drawn out for years. They say Bales was not the only one involved in the incident. The Taliban thinks that the murders were premeditated and carried out by a group of individuals. Therefore, in their eyes the justice process is already flawed. The results of the rampage and following process are undermining U.S.-Afghan relations, Taliban peace talks are off, and Karzai has yet another reason to demand early withdrawal.

Arguably, Bales is not the only one who should be on trial right now. Military protocol and the psychological health of personnel should also be called into question.

Last week the House passed a defense spending bill that increases military spending $17 billion over last year's allocation. While many hawkish commentators have blasted Obama's deficit reduction plan for supposedly prioritizing domestic spending over national defense, the shape of the recent House bill demonstrates that not all military spending is motivated by legitimate security concerns. ExecutiveGov describes the broad outlines of what went into this bill:

The bill would provide $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide a 1.6 percent increase in pay and buy various warships, aircraft and weapons, including a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request but is good news for the Boeing production line in Long Beach, Calif.

The Chicago Tribune also notes a questionable spending addition introduced in the House:

[The Bill] also barred the Pentagon from retiring six of 66 B-1 bombers, as the White House prefers. So what if these Cold War-era bombers look increasingly less vital in an age of pilotless drones? The measure prohibiting the use of funds to shelve the planes was sponsored by Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer — whose district happens to include a B-1 base.

Gooznews offers yet another example of an earmark slipped into the bill to serve political interests:

[T]he legislation includes $453.3 million for refurbishing 70 M1A2 Abrams tanks in Lima, Ohio. A coalition of legislators led by Ohioans Jim Jordan, a Republican from Lima, and Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Toledo, earmarked $272 million more than the Pentagon had requested in order to keep the plant, which employs about 1,000, operating throughout next year.

In anticipation of the bill's passage, the White house threatened a veto "citing limits in the legislation on the president's authority to transfer detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and money for defense programs the administration didn't want."

Before passage, the bill faced two attempts at limiting the size of the budget increase, from Barney Frank (D-MA) on the Democratic side and tea party-backed freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, (R-SC):

In Congress this year, anti-war lawmakers and budget-conscious tea partyers have banded together to try to rein in military spending with some success.

"We are at a time of austerity," Frank said. "We are at a time when the important programs, valid programs, are being cut back."

Frank's amendment to cut $8.5 billion failed on a 244-181 vote Thursday.

"Many of us have gone around back home and told people how serious we are," Mulvaney said. "But how can we look them in the eye and tell them that we are serious about cutting spending and then come in and plus up the base defense budget?"

He added: "We have made hard decisions. We have made hard choices. The Defense Department needs to do exactly the same."

His amendment to set the Pentagon budget at current levels failed 290-135.

Only 12 Republicans and 75 Democrats opposed bill in its final form, and many of those nay votes reflected a belief that the bill left the military underfunded. While Rep. Tom Price, (R-Ga), chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, stated that “House Republicans demonstrated responsible leadership that sets priorities and does not jeopardize our national security interests and our nation’s ongoing military efforts,” the House has in fact constructed a bill that burdens taxpayers with additional spending of little relevance to national security concerns. Contrary to the Congressman's statement, parochial political interests have been the priority, not national interests.

For more insights on how the budget allocation process often prevents rational allocations of security resources, review the "Budget Process Reform" section of FPIF's FY 2012 Report on a Unified Security Budget.

In addition to facing a potential presidential veto, the house's bill must also be reconciled with the Senate's defense spending bill, which remains in committee. Some reports note that military reductions remain within the realm of the possible:

The secret Senate Democratic budget resolution drafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and shared with the White House suggests even larger cuts to the Pentagon which would see its budget slashed by more than $800 billion over 10 years, according to sources.

Bold action would be required to realize these potential cuts to the soaring military budget. Political leaders and the American people must recognize that defense cuts do not always equate to cuts in national security. Indeed, in this time of soaring budget deficits, a military spending bill that cuts out politically motivated programs would do little to damage American security, and would offer an opportunity to reallocate resources in more rationale directions.

Keith Menconi is an intern at Foreign Policy in Focus.

In November of 2010, Rev. Bryan Fischer, who has been called the public face of Rev. Donald Wildmon's conservative American Family Association, wrote an inflammatory series of four posts titled The feminization of the medal of honor. Occasioned by the award to Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, who, incidentally, did kill Taliban forces in the process of saving life, Fischer's theme was, if I remember correctly, picked up by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. . . . When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire . . . and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements. 

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things [not helping your argument here, Rev. -- RW] so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery.

As you can imagine this generated some strong reaction. The Atlantic Wire directs us to an example at Mother Jones, where Adam Weinstein.

To say that killing is the highest virtue for any human being, much less a soldier in the employ of his (or HER) democratic republic, is a repudiation of the Ten Commandments. . . . It is a usurpation of the powers of the Christian God and his son.

Such responses walk right into the liberals-are-soft on-national security trap. Meanwhile, Rev. Fischer probably misses the mark when he speaks of "feminization."

We no longer fight in defense of the "free world" (unless you're one of those who believe that Muslims are champing at the bit to enfold the United States into its dream of a caliphate ruled by shariah law). More likely, the change in award emphasis reflects the national ambiguity about U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Killing in these wars is often less than politically correct.

One can't help but suspect that if the United States were fighting a war in its defense, such as World War II, the Pentagon would have no qualms about once again issuing medals of honor to natural-born killing machines such as Audie Murphy.