ConservativeHome's Platform

Rep. Mike Turner: National Security cuts a cause for concern in final debt deal

Congressman Mike Turner is the US Representative for Ohio's 3rd congressional district.

For months, Congress has been debating how to deal with the economic questions surrounding an increase in our debt limit. At a time when foreign nations own nearly $4.5 trillion of our $14.2 trillion debt – proposed cuts in the recently passed deal could have serious implications for our national security.  That’s why I was concerned that national security funding would be subject to an initial $175 billion cut in the final version of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Throughout this debate I have advocated for our government to cut current spending and cap it at a responsible level so that we may balance our budget. We must remember though that in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers empowered Congress to: "Provide for the common Defense… To raise and support Armies … (and) To provide and maintain a Navy." Fulfilling that obligation and meeting our budgetary responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. As a nation we should be able to provide for our defense and balance our budget. One should not come at the expense of the other.

This is a critical moment for both our nation and our armed forces. We have servicemembers deployed overseas in support of a number of military and humanitarian operations including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Those operations over the past 10 years have taken a toll on our forces. Currently, the Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now, while the Marines need $12 billion. Our men and women in uniform are not only being asked to make further sacrifices with additional deployments, but in some cases they’re relying on equipment which is often older than they are. For example, Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. In addition the Air Force is relying on bombers averaging 34 years in age and is refueling aircraft with tankers that are nearly 50 years old. 

An additional point of concern is that further cuts to defense are being used as a bargaining chip in a yet to be named Congressional “super-committee.” Twelve members of Congress from the House and Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, are required to find an additional $1.8 trillion in cuts. If the committee deadlocks on an agreement, or fails to complete its work by November 23^rd of this year – then $281 billion in additional defense cuts automatically take effect. These cuts are unspecified and are an arbitrary number chosen to pressure the “super-committee” members into crafting an inadequate deal in fear of these cuts being enacted. I voted against this bill because I could not support a process which circumvents the normal legislative process and gambles with our national security.

Our military remains strong and morale among servicemembers remains high, but we cannot continue to operate with a strained force or we will not be able to meet the obligations of the future. In fact, the Vice-Chiefs of Staff of each of our braches of the military echoed this same sentiment at a hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated that some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.”  Furthermore, additional proposed cuts of $281 billon in the bill would result in a "fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force."

Our national defense has always been a bipartisan issue in the halls of Congress. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize the role our military plays in both protecting this nation, and advancing the goals of our foreign policy. Subjecting this integral piece of our government to cuts, without thorough debate in committee and on the House floor, sets a dangerous precedent.

Rep. Don Manzullo: The Lady of Burma speaks to the U.S. Congress

Congressman Don Manzullo (R-IL) is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Rep. Manzullo co-authored a bill that was signed into law in 2008 awarding Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal for her brave fight for democracy in Burma. Manzullo has also kept pressure on the military junta in Burma by working annually to renew economic sanctions against them. Manzullo is also a member of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that monitors human rights and rule of law violations in China.

We have a remarkable opportunity Wednesday to hear directly from the extraordinary woman at the center of the decades-long struggle to bring freedom to Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  Ms. Suu Kyi – a Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy advocate – has sent us a recorded video message that we will play at a Congressional hearing I will chair on Wednesday afternoon. The hearing of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific is titled “Piercing Burma’s Veil of Secrecy: The Truth Behind the Sham Election and the Difficult Road Ahead,” and it will share Suu Kyi’s account of the ruling military junta’s Nov. 2, 2010 sham election and changes that have occurred in Burma since then. The Capitol Hill hearing will take place in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at http://www.hcfa.house.gov.  

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ms. Suu Kyi – both as a freedom fighter and a courageous leader.  If you are looking for modern day heroes you certainly have to include Ms. Suu Kyi in a group with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.  She is a true inspiration to millions of people around the world.

Recounting Ms. Suu Kyi’s life requires understanding the historical context in which she emerged as the Lady of Burma.  Ever elegant, eloquent, and gracious, Ms. Suu Kyi is not just a gift to Burma, but also a gift to the entire world.  She remains a symbol of hope against a brutal military junta in Burma too cowardly to let democracy reign supreme.  Ms. Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy Party were the landslide winners in the 1990 presidential elections.  Yet Burma’s military regime continues to deny those election results to the detriment of its own people and its own legitimacy.  For 23 years, Ms. Suu Kyi has championed the cause of democracy in Burma, and she spent the past 15 years as a prisoner for daring to believe in a better tomorrow.

The Saffron Revolution of September, 2007 exposed the Burmese regime for what it is – a brutal authoritarian regime willing to stop at nothing to crack down on thousands of peaceful, nonviolent protesters simply because they demanded their basic human rights.  I vigorously spoke out against the actions of the Burmese government then, and will continue to do so in the future.

The recruitment of child soldiers, detention and torture of political dissidents, restrictions on freedoms of press, speech, assembly and association, and limited religious freedoms continue to prevail in Burma under the highly authoritarian military regime of General Thein Sein.  Minority religious groups like Christians in Burma continue to struggle to obtain permits to repair places of worship or build new ones.  Amidst all of this, Aung San Suu Kyi and her countless followers continue to pressure the government to reform.  But these voices need support from us and others around the world who share in Ms. Suu Kyi’s vision for a democratic and free Burma.

Many Burmese people fittingly refer to Ms. Suu Kyi as “mother,” indicative of the important and enduring role that she plays in her country.  She is the mother of the movement for democracy and human rights in Burma who has earned, by every standard measurable, not only the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Gold Medal, but also our enduring respect.  Ms. Suu Kyi’s spirit has not been broken by 15 years of house arrest, but given strength through her faith and hope in a brighter future for millions of Burmese citizens.  Our Lady of Burma continues to inspire us all.

Miles Taylor: No time for retreat - the dangers of an isolationist GOP

Miles Taylor works in the U.S House of Representatives and previously served in the Department of Homeland Security. He is co-founder and senior editor at Partisans.org.

Republican presidential hopefuls spent little time on foreign policy in last week’s CNN debate, instead focusing on the economy and healthcare—and Herman Cain’s persistent xenophobia toward Muslims.

But when the subject did come up, Mitt Romney made an unexpected statement while discussing Afghanistan.  “We’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.  Only Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”  The comment came on the heels of his appeal to “bring our troops home as soon as possible.”

Romney’s remarks were surprising for a number of reasons—not least of which was his odd decision to frame the conflict solely as a “war of independence.”  Until now, the former governor has been a staunch supporter of U.S.-led effort.

Romney is not alone among conservatives in his criticism of interventionism, though.  Presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman recently hopped on the bandwagon, too, declaring that we were “wasting our money” in Afghanistan and Libya.  House Republicans seem to agree and are reportedly considering a proposal to defund the U.S. military’s involvement to oust Qaddafi.

These comments and actions are indicative of a broader trend gaining traction among GOP leaders:  isolationism.

This comes as a bit of a surprise.  Many of the Republicans using isolationist terminology are the same ones who strongly backed U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and who voted to more than double foreign aid during Bush’s tenure.  Have war-weary conservatives changed their views on America’s role in the world? 

It is unlikely.  A better explanation for the shift, though not a more encouraging one, is political posturing.  The top presidential contenders, for example, are competing for the support of the Tea Party movement and several have adjusted their positions to court the movement’s isolationist strains.

It was only last year, for instance, that Mitt Romney released his book, “No Apology:  The Case for American Greatness,” which argued for anything but an isolationist foreign policy.  But Romney has become a “weathervane,” as one analyst put it, and appears to be trying to “appease Ron Paul’s [isolationist] constituents without actually being Ron Paul.”

For other Republicans, though, the shift to an isolationist message appears to be little more than reflexive opposition to anything “Obama.”  As a result, GOP members of Congress who would have almost certainly backed a Bush-era toppling of Qaddafi are calling Obama’s Libyan intervention “unconstitutional” and accusing the president of wasting taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary escapade.

During the Bush Administration, though, Democrats were guilty of the same habit.  They ridiculed Bush’s advocacy for democracy promotion and argued that Americans could not afford to be the world’s policemen.  Those Democrats had ignored—or conveniently forgotten—their support during the Clinton years for democracy promotion and police actions in places like Yugoslavia and Somalia.

In fact, the partisan-inflicted amnesia was so great that today there is still a good deal of ideological confusion in liberal foreign policy circles, perpetuated by the Democratic Party’s lingering disdain for President Bush.  Many seem to have forgotten that it was leaders of their own party, like Woodrow Wilson, who promoted an activist, values-based foreign policy in the first place.

But whether today’s isolationist shift in the GOP dialogue is genuine or simply political posturing is irrelevant.  The reality is that it legitimizes a foolish and dangerous foreign policy.

Today, America underwrites global security for the world’s 6.7 billion people.  This is a costly and often thankless burden for the country, but far preferable to the alternative.  A U.S. withdrawal from the international scene would be an unmitigated disaster.

For every inch America retreats on the world stage, nations like China and Russia move an inch forward.  Does the United States want to be responsible for creating a vacuum in global security—one that will be filled by countries with starkly contrasting values?

It’s not difficult to imagine what Russia would do in bordering states without American influence, or what China might do in the Pacific without the same.

Even when the United States has given into more moderate impulses to “step back” in the past, the result has been damaging.  For example, the United States still hasn’t fully recovered from the “peace dividend” retreat of the 1990s, which left the foreign service in disrepair and decimated America’s covert workforce overseas.

It would be a mark of shame upon the Republican Party—and a danger for the rest of the world—for the next GOP president to take office vowing to roll back America’s involvement overseas. 

* * * 

Isolationists like Ron Paul proudly cite George Washington, who made a final appeal before leaving office for American leaders to avoid foreign entanglements.  His advice was probably wise for the time.  America was young, weak, and unprepared to agitate despotic states around the world, who might try to crush the fledgling democracy.

But applying Washington’s advice today would be borderline delusional.  America’s “foreign entanglements” have freed billions from the chains of poverty and despotism, changing the course of history and the face of the world as Washington knew it.  Diminishing America’s global presence now would lead to a world that is both less prosperous and less friendly to freedom-loving people.

Isolationist Republicans are wrong to seek a diminished U.S. role in the world. 

The world needs America’s innovation, which is the lifeblood of the global economy; its ideals, which are the foundation of the most prosperous societies; and its might, which has served for a century as insurance against the aims of rogue regimes.

In short, the world needs America to care about “foreign entanglements”—or someone worse will. 

Rep. Steve Pearce: Time for a realistic Middle East policy

Congressman Steve Pearce represents New Mexico's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, I participated in a joint meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to receive Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  This should have been a positive meeting with America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.  Instead, the tension in the room was palpable, because everyone there was conscious of President Obama’s speech on Israel last week.

I was shocked to hear the President make the unprecedented suggestion that Israel should revert to its 1967 borders.  Israel is not only our best friend in this volatile region, but the freest nation.  In fact, Freedom House, an independent organization which rates countries based on their protection of political and civil rights, rated Israel as the only “free” country in the Middle East last year.

That the President outlined such a troubling policy with regard to our friends in Israel defies imagination.  It goes against our belief in freedom to ask this tiny beacon of human liberty, alone in an area known for violence and chaos, to retreat.  It goes against our responsibility to the world to ask our strongest ally in the region, a nation that has fought for its right to exist from its very creation, to withdraw to indefensible borders.  As Mr. Netanyahu said in his speech, “Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket.  Would you live that way?  Would anyone live that way?  Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.”

Under the 1967 borders, the Israelis would be shut out of East Jerusalem, which contains some of the holiest sites for Christians, Jews and Muslims—including the Temple Mount, Western Wall, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  This is unacceptable.  The Prime Minister pointed out that only in Israel have Jews, Christians and Muslims been free to worship as they please. Jerusalem must never again be divided!

The 1967 borders are significant because that year saw hundreds of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi troops massed along those borders, intent on invading and destroying Israel.  It is disturbing that the President would even speak of forcing our ally back into such a position.

The President refers to a non-militarized Palestinian state, but only mildly condemns the Palestinians for accepting Hamas, a recognized terrorist group that openly supports the destruction of Israel, as a governing partner.  The 1967 borders would place Hamas within an 11-mile march of Tel Aviv, one of Israel’s major economic and cultural hubs.

The President expects Israel to reduce its security while Iran is building a nuclear weapon and has made clear that Israel is its preferred target.  Iran ships missiles and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, supporting a heavily armed hostile force on Israel’s northern border.  Iran supports Hamas in the Gaza strip, from which rockets and missiles are launched into Israel daily.

Israeli children wait in bomb shelters for the school bus.  Rocket and missile attacks are a constant and reliable terror.  Recently, as Mr. Netanyahu told the President, one such rocket hit a school bus and killed a 16-year old boy.  We would not tolerate such a thing in our country, and it is unthinkable for us to ask our ally to do so.  Now is not the time for political fantasy, it is the time for policies that will bring about peace and stability.

The President spoke of the advancement of democracy in Egypt, but failed to recognize concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could seize power.  This group poses a serious threat to global security and especially to the safety of our ally Israel.  The President continues to talk about our intervention in Libya, but the fact is that President Obama risked American lives there needlessly and without congressional authorization.  Gaddhafi remains alive, and the situation has become a stalemate.  The President’s own Secretary of Defense admits that we had no pressing political or security interests in Libya.

The President stated that his outline on Israel’s border is a starting point for negotiations.  But I would prefer that negotiations start not with massive and dangerous concessions, but with each side recognizing the other’s right to exist in peace.  Israel has done this.  But Hamas, Hezbollah, and others have not.  As Mr. Netanyahu pointed out, when Arab states expelled their Jewish populations in 1948-49, Israel gladly took them in.  Meanwhile, over six decades later, many Arab countries still leave their Palestinian populations in refugee camps.  It is completely unacceptable that the President expects massive sacrifices from the only nation who has acted responsibly in the matter.

During his meeting with President Obama last week at the White House, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that “a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality.”  He’s right.  It is time for the White House to shape a policy based in reality.  Americans and our allies deserve a policy that will protect us from the very real dangers and threats in the Middle East. 

UPDATED: Two Revolutions: America's leaders must speak out in support of freedom in the Middle East

Will Inboden is a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas-Austin, and a Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy magazine.

Even as events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself, last night’s news of Mubarak’s desperate grasping at power reverberates across the Middle East, and around the globe.  The dictator’s defiance is a challenge to freedom, and conservatives across the Anglosphere should recognize it as such.  But if February is to be remembered in history as the month of liberty for the people of Egypt, the current standoff must soon give way to a democratic transition.  And the United States can play a crucial role. 

Specifically, the Obama Administration – ideally President Obama himself -- should immediately and publicly call on Mubarak to step aside now. Republican leaders should do the same.  And the White House and Republican leaders should together announce America’s active bipartisan support – diplomatic and economic – for free and fair national elections that are open to all peaceful parties in Egypt.  It should make clear to a transitional post-Mubarak government supported by the military that the United States expects it to be just that – transitional – and that its two primary responsibilities are to preserve basic order while taking active steps to support multiparty elections.

The United States has nothing to gain from supporting Mubarak any further at this point. The octogenarian autocrat has already written off the US and feels beholden only to his own interests. Meanwhile, the Egyptian people clamoring for Mubarak to go still wonder if the US supports their aspirations for liberty, opportunity, and a better life – or stands with the dictator whom they see as the obstacle to those aspirations. President Obama and Republican leaders need to speak out publicly and unequivocally, so that the Egyptian people wonder no more whose side we are on.

Amidst the prevailing standoff in Tahrir Square, not to be forgotten is that before Egypt, there was Tunisia.  And before Tunisia, there was Iran. It was, after all, the 2009 Green Movement protests in Iran that first signaled that the Middle East of the 21^st century would not be consigned to the status quo of the previous 50 years, when autocrats and theocrats alike stifled freedom and held forth their false promises of stability or revolution, respectively.  Just as Iran’s Green Movement protests helped sow the seeds of events in Egypt today, so now Egypt’s protests are terrifying Tehran, where the mullahs fear any further inspiration for Iran’s reformers. Ironically, today marks the anniversary of the Iranian revolution.  It was thirty two years ago on February 11 that the Shah fell from power, replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini and his murderous regime. 

Some commentators take away the wrong lesson from this history, and conclude that America should always support dictators in the region, lest there be more Islamist takeovers such as Iran in 1979.  The right lesson is rather this: America should support freedom in the region, which provides the most enduring type of stability and antidote to extremism.  As Charles Krauthammer writes today, the United States needs to adopt a freedom doctrine that supports democracy and democratic reformers across the region, while opposing the Islamists who might seek to hijack it. A robust freedom doctrine would include political liberty, economic liberty, and religious liberty – all of which are inimical to the Islamist agenda.

What this coming week holds, let alone the rest of the month or year, remain uncertain and will no doubt defy the best prognostications. There are no sure guarantees that Egypt will not be taken over by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But such a dismal fate would become more likely if the US remains on the sidelines or behind Mubarak – and will be less likely if we extend our support now to the Egyptian people in Tahrir Square. 

UPDATE: Well one thing I suppose I got right when first writing this post is that "events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself" -- Mubarak's defiance of last night gave way today to the reality that he has lost his country, and he at last is stepping down.  Let us hope that this will mark February 11 as the day when the Egyptian revolution of 2011 overtook the Iranian revolution of 1979 as the region's pivot point.  As the Obama Administration continues to play catch-up, their flat-footed posture over the last two weeks mirrors their neglect of the last two years.  The White House now needs to make a forceful, clear, and direct statement to the Egyptian military and the Egyptian people of American support for their transition to democracy. Republicans should do the same, and can contribute further by developing the tenets of a "freedom doctrine" that supports democracy and opposes anti-democratic Islamist ideologies, much as the US distinguished democratic elements from communist parties in post-war Europe. For a lesson in what not to do, one needs only look at the Obama Administration's woeful record in Egypt the last two years -- and consider that in this area the George W. Bush Administration got it right.

Jonathan Paris: Waiting for the Iranian regime to collapse is not an option

Jonathan Paris is a London-based security specialist and Adjunct Fellow at Legatum Institute, which recently published his report, “Prospects for Iran” at www.li.com.

Two clocks are ticking in Iran. One is counting down to the collapse of the regime, and the other to Iran becoming a nuclear state. The international community must accept that this second clock is ticking faster, and waiting with crossed fingers for the regime to fall is not an option.

The embers of internal dissent continue to burn in Iran. The disputed June 2009 election, recurring human rights abuses and the persistence of the Green Movement have all served to undermine the legitimacy of both the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Ahmadinejad. Power struggles within the leadership add to the sense of government paralysis and a regime that has run out of steam. Meanwhile, the Iranian people suffer from an increasingly dire economic situation with unemployment, inflation and decaying infrastructure. Amidst all of this, Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue unabated.

While some Western observers suggest that the world should sit back and let the reformists wrestle Iran back from the brink, it will take more than a slow march towards reform to bring an end to the country’s pursuit of nuclear capability and regional dominance. The Obama administration’s approach of “engage and sanction” has shown some success but does not appear to be strong enough to change Iran’s course. “Strategic patience” would be a logical option if Iran were not driving towards a nuclear weapon.

The one area where the two clocks potentially intersect is on sanctions, which have the potential for stoking popular anger against the regime for its economic mismanagement. The government’s controversial removal of massive subsidies is causing prices of fuel, food, medicine and many other necessities to skyrocket.

Crippling economic sanctions that block imports of refined petroleum and other key products on top of the removal of subsidies might precipitate worker strikes and urban demonstrations. If regime leaders anticipate that sanctions today will only get worse tomorrow, sanctions could become a domestic threat to their survival. Only then will they compromise.

The problem is that Russia, China, India and other key countries are unlikely to support crippling sanctions. Brussels is reluctant on moral grounds to punish ordinary Iranians. The maximum sanctions envisaged by the collective international community will not be enough to either mobilise the streets of Teheran or alter the calculus of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, for whom economics is subsidiary to their ideological causes.

So what is to be done if sanctions and engagement do not work and Iran continues with its nuclear plans in violation of numerous outstanding IAEA requests and four UN Security Council resolutions? The next step will likely be for the US to articulate a credible military threat. This is where it gets tricky. For the US to actually carry out a military strike could result in several disastrous short-term consequences.

Iran may retaliate with attacks against US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and unleash its sleeper cells in Europe and the Americas. Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv may find themselves on the receiving end of Hezbollah and Hamas rockets and missiles. If attacked, Iran would likely leave the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and become even more determined to reconstitute a nuclear weapons programme that will be largely covert and no longer monitored by the IAEA. The revenge factor might increase the chance of a nuclear war in the future.

The ‘don’t attack’ view, however, underestimates the strategic changes in the region that may follow from a nuclear Iran. An Iran that goes nuclear will have more lasting consequences, and not only for the region. London, Paris and Moscow will be in range of ballistic missiles that Iran is developing with North Korean assistance.

Other countries in the region may feel compelled to match Iran’s nuclear potency, and non-state actors may even try to obtain a bomb. This situation leaves an unmanageable state of affairs in which any minor crisis has a chance of escalating into a Cuban Missile crisis. In the Middle East, distances are short and ‘command and control’ mechanisms are likely to be far more fragile than they were in the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War, where the fear that a regional commander might launch a nuclear missile without authority from the top was scary enough.

The second set of problems with a nuclear Iran is the emergence of political realignments adverse to the US and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. Iran will resort to coercive diplomacy to threaten or emasculate the Gulf and other Arab states, Turkey, Central Asia and some European countries into accommodating the new regional superpower. The worsening Lebanese crisis of 2011 would be even more difficult to resolve in ways satisfactory to the democratically elected Hariri government and its supporters if Hezbollah’s patron had nuclear weapons to back up Hezbollah’s threats.