Tag: Defense
Stevenson’s army, January 24
Lots of leaks following the Camp David meeting to discuss Ukraine options. Most strike me as authorized, rather than an effort by those losing the interagency debate. NYT says US might send more troops to Baltics. WaPo says US plans heavy sanctions to prevent transfer to Russia of US semiconductors and aircraft parts.
– Meanwhile, US & UK have begun withdrawals of dependents and some staff from Ukraine.
– FT suggest all the publicity has undercut effectiveness of deterrent.
– WSJ sees Russia angle in US sale of F16s to Turkey.
– NYT writer says Pakistan army wants US back in region.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 17
– How many wars are we in today? I just discovered the latest Biden administration report to Congress under the war powers resolution, which was sent on Pearl Harbor Day. It say US troops equipped for combat have been sent to 16 countries, no longer counting Afghanistan.
– I also found on the White House news site a list of the extraordinary outreach the administration claims to have made to forestall Russian action in Ukraine.
– The WH also has a new briefing on cybersecurity matters.
– CBO has a new report questioning the accuracy of Pentagon reports on aircraft readiness. I worked on this issue myself in the 1970s and know the DOD tendency to define problems away.
– CRS has recent reports on the use of defense contractors, general and historically in Iraq and Afghanistan.
– Though I still support the Senate filibuster [and would like some changes to make its use harder and less frequent] I wanted to share Norm Ornstein’s latest article.
– Over the holidays, I delved into the question of why Hitler chose to declare on war with America on December 11, 1941. I read Klaus Schmider’s book, which argues that Hitler’s decision came in that short period before the attack on the USSR clearly had stalled, when Japan needed reassurance of the alliance, and when the naval conflict in the Atlantic seemed low cost. I see the NYT Book Review discusses the new Simms and Laderman book, saying it argues that Hitler acted preemptively, expecting the war to come anyway. I look forward to reading it, too. I think it’s always important to realize that major strategic decisions often are highly contingent on the particular circumstances at the particular time.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 16
I have a backlog of papers to review [latest first], but I wanted to share a few items:
Several administration sources told the media that Russia might be planning a false flag operation to justify intervention in Ukraine.
NYT says recent events have strengthened NATO.
NYT also said US might support, covertly and openly, an insurgency in Russian-controlled Ukraine.
WaPo in print today documents the more than 1700 congressmen who owned slaves, including over 40% of members until just before the Civil War.
WaPo also reports that earmarks are back in money bills.
I liked the WOTR article on cyber surprise.
Also the article on reforming DOD’s budget process.Also liked Walter Pincus’ take on nuclear policy review.
Historian Michael Beschloss put on Twitter the Willard Hotel menu just before Lincoln’s inauguration and the Senate Restaurant’s menu in 1940.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 6
– Karl Rove says Republicans should accept responsibility.
– William Saletan says GOP voters, not politicians, are to blame.
– News study finds continuing misinformation abounds.
– Why do Hill staffers stay? Congressional Management Foundation did a survey.
– Russia sends troops to Kazakhstan. NYT has updates and background.
– Walter Pincus analyzes Putin press conference.
–US F-16s go to train with Poland.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 5
– Cook Political Report says redistricting is a wash.
– Defense appropriations heading to higher figure.
– Austin & Blinken together testify on Afghanistan before SFRC next week, in closed session.
– DefenseOne criticizes US hypersonic missile program.
– Vox sees flaws in legal opinion on SEAL refusal to vaccinate.
Charlie also published this yesterday:
I’m always looking for good cases to illustrate the policy process. For diplomatic and military policies, the supply is vast. For foreign economic policy, however, I haven’t found many. Until this week, when I finally had a chance to read Edward S. Miller’s 2007 book for the Naval Institute Press, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Miller also has a revealing summary of U.S. economic sanctions policies starting with World War I, showing how reluctant U.S. officials were to use sanctions for foreign policy purposes. The key law empowering the president for almost any economic sanctions, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] of 1977, is actually based on a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. That law resulted from a bureaucratic fight between the Commerce Department, which historically ran export controls, and Treasury, which claimed jurisdiction over financial transactions laws. Treasury won that fight, not least because the assertive secretary was also President Wilson’s son in law.
A similar bureaucratic struggle occurred in 1940-41 over Japan.Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the key interlocutor with the Japanese, resisted harsh sanctions because he considered them too provocative. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, however, favored pressure but had only an advisory role on sanctions. In key meetings with FDR in July, 1941, the president decided on freezing Japanese assets in the United States and restricting exports of various commodities but not a full embargo. Roosevelt and his cabinet officers even expected to sell oil to Japan, but only after some delay and on a case-by-case basis.
At the sub-cabinet level, however, Dean Acheson dominated the interagency committee that wrote the rules implementing FDR’s executive order and did so to prevent any oil shipments to Japan, a red line that many historians argue made war inevitable. Hull was upset to learn of the impact of the rules when he returned from medical leave, but was reluctant to force a change that might be viewed as favorable to the Japanese. FDR himself was preoccupied with his meeting with Churchill in August and the growing naval conflict with Germany and did not force a change back to his original policy.
Miller cites a 1976 paper by a researcher at the National Archives which has even more details of the hawkish cabal in the bureaucracy on the broad range of export restrictions on Japan, including redefining “aviation gas” so as to prevent any oil exports.
The key lesson for me is the power of the sub-cabinet bureaucracy to shape policy by implementation rules, regardless of presidential-level decisions. It happens all the time. The formal policy was to deter Japan from greater conquest by limited but significant export restrictions, not a full embargo. The actual policy Japan faced was an existential threat.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 4
In the good old 20th century, when a heavy snowstorm hit, the federal government announced a “liberal leave” policy. Now they call it “unscheduled leave.” As I interpreted the old language, only liberals could stay home. Everybody else had to work.
Nearly 94 years ago, most nations agreed to the Kellogg-Briand pact, outlawing war as an instrument of national policy. Notwithstanding the [in]effectiveness of that agreement, five major nuclear powers this week declared that nuclear wars can never be won and should not be fought. Good luck.
The newly empowered National Cyber Director is hiring 75 staff.
WSJ reports Russia & China are cooperating militarily.
Defense contractors are bankrolling lawmakers who opposed certifying Biden’s victory.
So, yes, it’s time for another piece surveying research on collapsing democracies.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
