|
During the 2000 presidential debates, no one asked either candidate about the threat from al Qaeda, yet within months the war on terror dominated George W. Bush’s presidency. Ahead of tonight’s presidential debate, AEI foreign policy and defense scholars weigh in on the national security issues no one is asking the candidates about that could come to dominate the next president’s term in office.
Danielle Pletka:
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 (of five total) since Obama was elected – 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.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?
Thomas Donnelly:
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:
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…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?
Phillip Lohaus:
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.
Dalibor Rohac:
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.
Katherine Zimmerman:
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 disincentive Western investment. Despite positive development trends in Africa, Washington cannot dismiss these and other risks.
Read the full symposium here.
|
