Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

(I think I need a snappier title. Suggestions welcome.)

This is an important article that is starting to get some discussion. It has been mentioned on Fareed Zakaria's program and in Foreign Policy:

"On Friday, April 8, as members of the U.S. Congress engaged in a last-minute game of chicken over the federal budget, the Pentagon quietly issued a report that received little initial attention: "A National Strategic Narrative." The report was issued under the pseudonym of "Mr. Y," a takeoff on George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" from Moscow (published under the name "X" the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union.

The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.

The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world."

The article:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf

A short discussion of it by Andrew Bacevich:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42791650

It's something I want to read and think about before stating an opinion, but it does look like something that deserves your time.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Here is another discussion of the paper by Lt. Lawrence Wilkerson:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42774391

He emphasizes the importance of 2 military men writing the report.


Edit: Brain lapse. It's Colonel Wilkerson, not lieutenant. Maybe Lt. Col.?

[Kuros]

Bacevich has been trying to convince of this for a long time.

Great thread, Ya-Ta.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Thanks. I think it has potential.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a coordinated drive to put the general idea of reducing the military budget into the public sphere. Is it being coordinated by the White House? I have no idea, but I don't know who else could be behind it. Certainly not the military establishment itself since that isn't allowed (I don't think).

The Mr. Y paper was written by two active military officers. As both Bacevich and Wilkerson say, that is the most important point. It is a very progressive document�redirect money from military defense, invest in education and infrastructure, etc. From Slaughter's summary: �We do not want to be the sole superpower that billions of people around the world have learned to hate from fear of our military might. We seek instead to be the nation other nations listen to, rely on and emulate out of respect and admiration.� For anything like this proposal to get off the ground, this attitude will need to become an American attitude, not a position associated with one political party or the other.

Bacevich is undoubtedly right in that the proposal has to come from the Democrats, but they haven't shown the moral or political courage to suggest something this radical. I can imagine Everett Dirkson or Nelson Rockefellar saying stuff like this, but not the current crop of Republicans. And that's a tragedy, because major cuts to the military will have to be made if we are to get ourselves out of the economic mess we're in, and the current GOP is almost as opposed to that as they are to tax increases. It's too bad Gates is leaving Defense. He might have the stature to pull it off. Colin Powell might, too. No one else comes to mind.

Why do I think there is an organized drive to open a public debate? A few days ago, Edward Corcoran, a retired strategic analyst at the US Army War College published an essay. It seems to come from the same mind-set as the Mr. Y paper. In it, Corcoran said �Overall, faced with growing global instabilities and uncertain conditions, there is a strong U.S. tendency to strengthen its military capabilities to be better prepared to meet unforeseen contingencies. Therein lies the problem -- the major contingencies of the XXI Century are not susceptible to military solutions, even for security challenges. Iraq and Afghanistan show its limitations, while turmoil in the Middle East, radicalism and instability in Pakistan, intransigence by Iran and North Korea, and Somali pirates all pose challenges that military force cannot adequately address. But the biggest problem is that the changing global situation poses new challenges for which military force is irrelevant. Globalization with a newly networked world means that that the United States can no longer dominate the global economy and enjoy a grossly disproportionate share of global resources...

Domestically, these looming problems are already causing rising internal friction. The ongoing budget crisis makes it clear that there are not enough assets to address crucial domestic needs, without even considering environmental disruption, occasional natural disasters, or a worsening international economic climate. The highest incarceration rate in the world starkly attests to disaffection within the United States, as do continuous reports of murder, misery and mayhem. Such disaffection can only be complicated by the worsening inequality of wealth distribution coupled with chronic unemployment and millions of illegal aliens. The 1965 Watts riots strikingly demonstrated the power of pent up frustration; two aspects are notable: the rioters burned their own neighborhoods and the events did not spread. But one can easily imagine, for instance, unruly mobs firebombing upscale neighborhoods and the example spreading to other localities. Alternatively, the 2002 sniper attacks in Washington showed how just two determined individuals could terrorize a city for an extended period. It is such internal disruption that could devastate the nation, and it is much more likely than a Russian nuclear strike.
The central fact of globalization is that a prosperous United States can only exist in a prosperous world. It is no longer external force that threatens to devastate the United States, but economic degradation. For the first time in history, military forces are not central to addressing the major challenges facing the nation. In fact, assets dedicated to nonproductive military use undermine the economic conditions necessary to avoid turmoil, both globally and inevitably domestically. Military missions need to be rigorously reassessed in terms of overall national security requirements, limited to directly addressing substantial current risks. As Afghanistan vividly illustrates, failure to promote development in a stable situation can rapidly lead to much larger nonproductive requirements. By shifting assets to developmental uses, the United States can set the example globally for reducing the arms trade and the extensive diversion of assets into nonproductive military uses. Indeed, such a shift in focus is essential if the world is to avoid a global meltdown in the coming decades.�
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-corcoran/the-emerging-strategic-tr_b_852742.html

Then, shortly after reading that I came across another good article in Foreign Policy. �Lean, Mean Fighting Machine�. What is unusual about it is that it lays out specific proposals for reducing the military budget.
�It's high time for something new. What follows here is a plan -- arguably, somewhat radical -- to finally spend wisely and reconfigure the military for the threats of the 21st century. The annualized savings presented here would reduce the current U.S. defense budget by almost 40 percent, some $279.5 billion. This isn't just an accounting exercise, however. What's needed is new strategic thinking, thinking that avoids direct U.S. military involvement in conflicts where the United States itself is not attacked and its national prosperity is not at risk.�
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/26/lean_mean_fighting_machine

Related stories in different media in just a few days. It looks like a serious national debate is beginning.

Maybe others have seen different discussions, or even counter views.