While marking the first hundred days of a new presidency is a
tradition that dates back to the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt,
the focus of media hype and pundit analysis usually focuses on
domestic policies--grading how effectively a new leader can shape
Washington's agenda. Matters of foreign policy and national
security, on the other hand, do not lend themselves readily to a
100-day agenda.
President Obama, however, has presumptively reversed many
long-standing national security policies since taking over the
White House. The speed and lack of transparent analysis and robust
debate on these choices raises serious questions about the prudence
and efficacy of national security decision-making in the new White
House. The Administration must develop more deliberate means for
formulating its national security policies and immediately move to
review the rash decisions made since taking office.
Leading or Campaigning?
On the most pressing national security matters--Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan (despite the White House rhetoric from
the contrary)--the Obama Administration has largely continued the
strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration. This makes
sense. U.S. vital national interests do not change because the
party holding the presidency shifts. Neither do the facts on the
ground, the resources available to the nation, or the enemy's
objectives. It is therefore not surprising that the Administration
would continue to advance the nation's interest in both parts of
the world.
In contrast, on almost every other 100-day "national security
initiative," the Administration has directed shifts in direction
without clear strategic rationale.
Change on Cuba
The President declared that "50 years" of U.S. policy had not
worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies
to isolate the Cuban dictatorship. This explanation is fatuous. If
the U.S. had followed a similar strategy with the Soviet Union, it
would have abandoned containment and left Russia and half of Europe
controlled by a nuclear-armed evil empire. What is most troubling
and unexamined with this decision is how other dictators will
interpret the seriousness of U.S. opposition to a dictatorial
regime and its willingness to persevere against oppression and
systemic violations of human and civil rights.
Dumbing Down Missile Defense
The President approved a cut of about 15 percent of the
Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying
defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House downplayed
the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North
Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council
response to either incident. Despite the advance of the North
Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, the Administration
justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus
on "regional missile threats."
The rationale for this decision is opaque. The ballistic missile
threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing. The need to
defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed. Abrupt
changes in missile defense programs (that have been under
development for over a decade) make no sense.
Gutting the Defense Budget
In a speech previewing the impending release of next year's
defense budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced deep
cuts in procurement programs. In addition, the Administration is
phasing-out supplemental spending, shifting the costs of operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan into the "core" Pentagon budget. That will
leave even less money for buying new equipment.
Gates justified the decision as eliminating "Cold War" weapons
systems, including the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and
next-generation Navy destroyer. All the programs named by Gates
came into development after the fall of the Soviet Union and were
justified and funded by a succession of both Democratic and
Republican Congresses and Presidents.
Gates also announced these decisions before the Pentagon had
even completed the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) or a White House National Security Strategy
(NSS)--documents that are supposed to provide the strategic
rationale for such decisions. The decisions were driven not by
national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon
spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next
five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion
dollars.
Ho-Hum on Homeland Security
Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent
and contradictory statements on homeland security and
counterterrorism policies since 9/11. Both the President and the
secretary of homeland security have been reticent on the threat of
transnational terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has
shown signs of reversing Bush Administration strategies on border
security and immigration enforcement.
The Administration lacks a coherent approach to homeland
security and has adopted these steps before undertaking the
congressionally mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
(QHSR).
Detainee and Counterterrorism Policy
in Disarray
The President has promised the closure of the detention
facilities at Guantanamo Bay and repudiated interrogation policies.
In addition, the Administration has been unclear about its support
for vitally important legislation reauthorizing critical
investigation tools granted under the USA PATRIOT Act. While the
President has dismissed Bush's policies on combating terrorism, the
Administration has not offered a credible alternative to address
the pre-9/11 problems identified by the 9/11 commission. This gap
could leave the nation at risk.
Reset on National Security
The lesson of the first 100 days is that the Administration
needs to start over on national security. It should:
- Reconsider dramatic and unwarranted missile defense and
Pentagon procurement cuts and ill-considered changes in
counterterrorism and homeland security policy;
- Finalize and implement changes in reorganizing the National
Security Council and use cabinet officials and the council, not
unaccountable czars, to develop critical national security
policies; and
- Make a serious effort to develop and engage with Congress and
the American people on the QDR, QHSR, and NSS.
Presidents must keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous for
four years, not 100 days. The White House has a lot more work to
do.
James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior
Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation.