On that National Security Strategy

The White House released its long-awaited National Security Strategy (NSS) today. There are lots of reviews of it, so I won’t go into great detail about it (except to note that I agree with Andrew Exum, the laundry list and lack of prioritization is disappointing and will probably create more problems than it solves).

There are two points I would like to highlight, one good and one bad. The first is that it recognizes that our capacity to project power abroad depends on the strength of our economy. I am really glad to see this. I have been worried for some time the we are making military commitments abroad that we can’t finance. We are going to have to adjust one way or another. I am pleased to see that the NSS argues we must fix our economy so we can maintain our military strength.

The bad point is the clear contradiction at the center of the strategy:

Going forward, there should be no doubt: the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security …As we do, we must recognize that no one nation – no matter how powerful – can meet global challenges alone.

Like many others, I am not sure what this means. How can we underwrite global security if the challenges we face are too large for us to handle alone?

New policy on Afghanistan?

This seems right to me. I have no idea how the Obama administration is going to sell it. In particular, if it is true that Mullah Omar is currently in the custody of the Pakistani government and that the Obama administration does not plan to arrest him, Obama is going to be in real political trouble at home. Stay tuned!

He’s not calling it insubordination…

…but it sure sounds like it to me:

The President’s orders to McChrystal basically gave him instruction to quit the pointless exercise of trying to pacify southern Afghanistan – and instead put his troops in places where they might do some actual good. But rather than following the President’s orders — and not biting off more than we can chew — McChrystal is embedding the military in places where we have little prayer of maintaining a long-term NATO or government presence and miring the country more deeply (and unnecessarily) in a counter-insurgency effort.

Silly me, I though the President was the commander in chief. I guess McChrystal takes the opinion that Obama delegated policy on Afghanistan to him, though I am not quite sure what gave him that impression.

Abbas and Netanyahu are fighting again

I’m telling mommy edition. The Israelis and the Palestinians are not at all serious about negotiations, so why is Obama trying so hard? It may be in the US interest to solve the conflict, but its a hard thing to do when the parties to the conflict don’t want to solve it. Obama can threaten to pull the car over if the kids don’t stop fighting in the back seat (which he has not yet done), but ultimately its the children who have to solve their own problems.

Fredo comes to Washington

Hamid Karzai (aka Fredo) is coming to Washington this week to meet with President Obama (aka the Big O). Below is a brief guess of how Fredo and the Big O’s conversation will go:

Big O: Dude, WTF? Whose side are you on?

Fredo: The side of the Afghan people.

Big O: Really? It would be nice if you occasionally acted that way.

Fredo: Easy for you to say. I am going to be stuck cleaning up your mess after you start to leave next year. Yeah, I heard the West Point speech. We do have TV in Afghanistan.

Big O: Whatever, dude. We’re not leaving next year.

Fredo: What the…are you crossing your fingers?

Big O: (incomprehensible mumbling)