|
During the 1988 presidential debates, no one asked either of the candidates about Iraq, yet soon the US was at war in the Persian Gulf to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. During the 2000 presidential debates, no one asked either candidate about the threat from al Qaeda, yet within months al Qaeda had attacked the American homeland and the war on terror dominated George W. Bush’s presidency. So in 2016, what national security issue is no one asking the candidates about today that could come to dominate the next president’s term in office?
In advance of the first 2016 presidential debate, Marc A. Thiessen pulled together a collection of AEI scholars and eminent foreign policy thinkers from outside the Institute (Elliott Abrams, Jon Alterman, Senator Tom Cotton, Rudy deLeon, Eric Edelman, General (Ret.) Mike Hayden, Peter Hoekstra, John McLaughlin, General (Ret.) David Petraeus, John A. Rizzo and Stephen Slick) to offer their perspectives in response to the above prompt.
Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Former Deputy National Security Advisor and Assistant Secretary of State
In the last decade, freedom in the world has been declining and repressive regimes spreading. Do you think our own freedom is safe if the world is increasingly dominated by regimes that despise our form of government and are limiting the amount of freedom in the world?
Do you think our own freedom is safe if the world is increasingly dominated by regimes that despise our form of government and are limiting the amount of freedom in the world?
Michael Auslin, AEI
Pyongyang’s missile tests are becoming more frequent, yet the US has done nothing to stop or deter them. What if a North Korean ballistic missile test goes wrong, and a missile lands in Seoul or Tokyo? What will be the US response?
Jon Alterman, Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director, Middle East Program at CSIS; Former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs
In 2014, Russia sent its armed forces into the Ukraine, and the United States joined with its European partners to impose sanctions. If Russian forces crossed the border of one of the Baltic states without the permission of the local government, what options would you consider? What kinds of military options would be appropriate to consider? Are there circumstances under which military options would be inappropriate, in your view?
Leon Aron, AEI
Finding itself in a downward economic spiral, the authoritarian Belarus could be heading for a popular uprising similar to the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine. The country’s relationship with Russia is also increasingly strained: President Lukashenko has warned against the growing influence of pro-Russian NGOs, has publicly backed Ukrainian President Poroshenko, and opposes the breakup of Ukraine. Putin will certainly not tolerate another fraternal country—Russia and Belarus are legally a Union State—falling to a supposed “Western plot.” What action would you propose should Belarus erupt in a revolution? Sanctions and diplomacy have shown little effect in moderating Russian behavior, therefore, how would you propose to deal with a Russian intervention in Belarus’ affairs?
Tom Cotton, United States Senate (R-AR)
Hostilities between Japan and China: The next president may have to deal with a shooting war between Japan and China. Constant Chinese aggression in the East China Sea could very well lead to a small miscalculation that quickly escalates, and the next president will have to decide how the US intervenes to defend our treaty ally Japan. He or she will then have to manage the broader economic and geopolitical repercussions of a conflict between the world’s first, second, and third largest economies.
Chinese foreign policy has become increasingly hostile and is at its most ambitious in modern times.
Chinese foreign policy has become increasingly hostile and is at its most ambitious in modern times. Its military build-up is aimed at keeping US military power out of Asia, intimidating neighbors into coercive economic arrangements, and testing and weakening the resolve of the United States and Japan to oppose China’s maritime aggression. The emergent threat from China includes the creation of more than 2,000 acres of land in the South China Sea on which China deploys tactical aircraft, advanced integrated air defenses, anti-submarine warfare aircraft, and anti-ship cruise missiles. It is also advancing its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.
Rudy deLeon, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Former Deputy Secretary of Defense
The failure of Congress and the President to pass a budget agreement for the past eight years has impacted Department of Defense planning and threatens our national security. The military is most effective when it can train and plan for the future. Until we solve the budget back and forth, the Joint Chiefs must rely solely on six month continuing resolutions, creating chaos that will come to hamper us greatly during a future crisis.
Sadanand Dhume, AEI
Over the years, the prospect of an India-Pakistan conflict has slipped off the radar for policymakers, but it remains a real possibility. Two years ago, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected in part to stop turning the other cheek when India is attacked by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. If attacks continue, as appears likely, how will the next president respond to likely Indian retaliation against Pakistan and a broader conflict in the region?
Thomas Donnelly, AEI
The biggest challenge for the next president won’t be a surprise: there won’t be sufficient military forces available to respond to any serious crisis without running terrible risks elsewhere. Thanks to the budgetary devil’s bargain struck by the Obama administration and the Republican leadership of Congress, US armed forces have been reduced to the point where they can handle just one major contingency at a time, and that posture has been further eroded by the need to continue to conduct increased operations in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia. So when the inevitable unforeseen crisis occurs — even if correctly anticipated or predicted — the question would remain: what can be done about it?
Mackenzie Eaglen, AEI
The general nominated to run the military command overseeing space recently told Congress that the United States must be prepared to wage war in space.
China, Russia, and others have pinpointed the reliance of the US military and commercial economy on our satellite constellations. They are developing and testing missiles and spacecraft to destroy or manipulate these critical assets, which allow for financial markets to trade in milliseconds, enable our cars and phones to help us get from point A to point B, and undergird the entirety of the US military. Both candidates seem to support NASA, but what of the crucial activities the US military conducts to maintain our satellite constellation and ensure readiness for space warfare? Both candidates seem to support NASA, but what of the crucial activities the US military conducts to maintain our satellite constellation and ensure readiness for space warfare? How will each deter or fight back against a Russian or Chinese day-one space salvo, and how much will each invest in the day-to-day competition for space control?
Nicholas Eberstadt, AEI
The North Korean regime has been waiting three full Kims to take advantage of a weak or irresolute US president and finish up the work it started in the Korean War.
We need to get more than a waffle-mouthed answer from the candidates about what they would do in the face of Pyongyang’s escalating use of violence against the South. (By the way: how did Washington ever allow such recurring aggression against Seoul to get defined down to “provocations“?)
And we need to know what the candidates would do to pave the way for a successful Korean reunification under a free-market, democratic government still allied with America.
Eric Edelman, Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Scholar in Residence at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Today, Kashmir is roiling with conflict between the local Muslim population and the Indian Army that controls the disputed region. Over the past 15 years, in 1999, 2001, and 2008, crises between India and Pakistan, both nuclear armed, have threatened to spin out of control. The dangers of nuclear use, particularly by Pakistan, have grown due to Pakistan’s increased production of fissile material and adoption of a nuclear doctrine that, like Russia’s, foresees the battlefield use of low-yield, short range nuclear weapons as a means of “escalating in order to de-escalate” a conflict. The prospect of a stand-off on the Indian sub-continent, much less a nuclear confrontation or nuclear war between India and Pakistan, has hardly come up in US policy discussions despite the fact that such a conflict would be the most likely route to terrorists getting hold of a functioning nuclear weapon.
General (Ret.) Mike Hayden, Visiting Professor at George Mason University and Principal with the Chertoff Group; Former Director of the NSA and the CIA
Pakistan can be fairly described as ambitious, fragile, and nuclear. When it comes to stability and overall state health, the Fund for Peace rates it 14th from the bottom among the world’s nations, comfortably tucked between Burundi and Nigeria. Pakistan is making nuclear weapons faster than any other country on earth as its society becomes more violent, more radicalized, and more anti-American. What happens if Pakistan fractures?
Pakistan is making nuclear weapons faster than any other country on earth as its society becomes more violent, more radicalized, and more anti-American. What happens if Pakistan fractures?
Peter Hoekstra, President of Hoekstra Global Strategies; Former Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Iran’s expansion, including IRGC and Hezbollah operatives, into Latin America and the Caribbean could be an increasing threat in the near future. With the infusion of massive new funds from the Obama administration’s nuclear deal, Iran will have the means to establish forward operating bases for its intelligence and terror front groups in countries in the United States’ southern backyard. This has gotten the attention of the US Southern Command but seemingly has not gone far beyond that in the realm of the policymaking ranks of the US government. The porous nature of the US southern border and coastal defenses leaves open the very real potential for subversive infiltration by Iranian-linked nefarious operators.
Phillip Lohaus, AEI
Little attention has been paid during this election cycle to the possibility of a terrorist-led, large-scale WMD attack against American allies or the US homeland. But the risks of such an event are arguably higher now than ever before: The Islamic State recently demonstrated a rudimentary chemical weapon deployment capability, those who participated in al-Qaeda’s famous pursuit of biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons have now spread throughout the globe, and knowledge of how to produce home-brew biological and chemical weapons is readily available in public sources. Though the likelihood of such attacks is debatable, a terrorist WMD event would challenge much of our prevailing thinking about—and the institutions which support—deterrence and non-proliferation, expose deficiencies in our security establishment’s ability to detect certain substances, and test the resiliency of society in ways that few have considered.
J. Matthew McInnis, AEI
American opinion of our old ally Saudi Arabia continues to decline, as evidenced by the strong support in Congress for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Kingdom for the alleged role some of its officials had in the attacks. Washington is right to increasingly challenge Riyadh’s policies, from its continued spread of Wahhabist Islam to its poorly-conducted war in Yemen, but we should be just as concerned about the health of the Saudi state. A weakening or even unravelling Kingdom could trigger a crisis in the region beyond any we have seen so far.
Saudi Arabia is still the lynchpin of US policy in the region, but the Kingdom may be facing greater internal leadership and economic challenges than most in Washington realize. A weakening or even unravelling Kingdom could trigger a crisis in the region beyond any we have seen so far.
John McLaughlin, Senior Fellow in the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence at the CIA
1. What would you do if Vladimir Putin used a version of his Crimea or Ukraine tactics in a NATO country that has a large Russian-speaking population, such as Estonia or Latvia? Imagine that he stops short of moving in Russian forces but manages to foment unrest among that population by covert tactics, creating a measure of protest and instability. And imagine that this leads the affected country to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which calls on other NATO countries to come to the defense of the member under threat. How would you handle this?
2. How would you respond if there were a collision between Japanese and Chinese military forces in the East China Sea — a disputed area that the two countries patrol in close proximity? China has warned that it has an air identification zone there, even though Japan, the United States, and others regard this as international civilian airspace, in which they are entitled to free movement. If some sort of military action ensued, Japan, as a US treaty ally, could call on the US for help in combating China. What would you do?
General (Ret.) David Petraeus, Chairman, KKR Global Institute; Former Director of the CIA and Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national security issue that could well occupy the next president is that of a sustained cyber-attack on our physical and/or virtual infrastructure. This could prove especially challenging because of the extensive damage it would do, because there is no agreed concept for America’s response, and because it would likely be difficult to achieve unity in determining the appropriate international response.
Danielle Pletka, AEI
The United States focuses a lot of attention on what gets the headlines: ISIS, Russia, Syria… But even the last North Korean nuclear test – the fourth since Obama was elected (and fifth overall) – got precious little ink. Among the reasons North Korea tests (for itself, for intimidation, for technical reasons, for its Iranian friends), attention and leverage are high on the list. But it’s not getting a lot of attention, a fact surely frustrating to the unbalanced young Kim Jong Un. We should have little doubt that if the price is right, Kim will make the sale. The right next step, therefore, for Pyongyang is to more aggressively proliferate its nuclear technology, and even a weapon. We should have little doubt that if the price is right, Kim will make the sale. That means ISIS, al Qaeda, pretty much anyone, will get a nuclear weapon. What should the United States do to prevent this from happening?
John A. Rizzo, Senior Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Former Chief Legal Officer at the CIA
The Iranian government (or some hardline faction thereof) takes a provocative, high-profile act against the US government in the region, such as the kidnapping of diplomats or American servicemen. The purpose would be to immediately test the new president and the resolve of Washington in its commitment to the nuclear deal.
Dalibor Rohac, AEI
Many are concerned, and rightly so, about Russia’s aggressive posture towards the Baltic States. Yet, Russia’s ongoing militarization of the Black Sea should be of equal concern, given Russia’s war against Ukraine, its rapprochement with Turkey, and especially given Bulgaria’s refusal to participate in joint NATO patrols. Without military deterrence and effective mechanisms to counter Russian propaganda and corruption, the new democracies on Europe’s south-eastern flank might be in danger.
Michael Rubin, AEI
In this era of autocracy resurgent, sudden vacuums can shake the world. Russia is one bullet away from chaos should Vladimir Putin be its recipient, and what happens in Iran after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s death is anyone’s guess. Lastly, what is not on Washington’s radar but should be is how extremists might seek advantage from the fragmentation of Ethiopia once that dictatorship collapses. “Russia is one bullet away from chaos should Vladimir Putin be its recipient, and what happens in Iran after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s death is anyone’s guess.”– Michael Rubin Gary Schmitt, AEI
Since the end of the Cold War, every American president has sent American troops into harm’s way in a conflict they didn’t anticipate. Predicting the unpredictable is a dead end. Hence, the real question is what an incoming administration is planning to do in terms of having the necessary resources and capabilities on hand required to meet the inevitable surprise.
Stephen Slick, Director of the Intelligence Studies Project, University of Texas at Austin; Former Senior Director for Intelligence Programs and Reform on the staff of the National Security Council; Spent 28 years as member of the CIA’s clandestine service
How will our next president respond to a cyberattack aimed at disrupting our orderly transition of power or to a foreign strike directed against a critical government or private target? The next president’s decision — whether to act, how to act, or to refrain from acting — will ripple widely and help shape international norms for conduct in cyberspace that will emerge in the next decades. The complexity of considerations implicated in such a policy decision is daunting, but this decision may nonetheless be required within hours, and in the absence of complete information. A debate, decision, and clear expression of US policy in this area should therefore be among the next administration’s highest early priorities.
Katherine Zimmerman, AEI
Growing strategic threats, such as refugee flows, in Africa—a continent that rarely receives attention in US national security debates —will pressure European allies. An expanding African base for al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) strengthens the groups globally and increases their threat to the US homeland. Chinese and Russian influence in Africa is rising as instability and insecurity discourages Western investment. Despite positive development trends in Africa, Washington cannot dismiss these and other risks.
In advance of the first 2016 presidential debate, AEI scholars and a collection of eminent foreign policy thinkers from outside the Institute offer their predictions on the national security crisis that could dominate the next president’s term in office.
|
|
