U.S. National Security Forecast: The Next Four Years

The election is over.  President Obama’s administration will be in charge of national security policy for the next four years.  The product of this tenure will have long lasting consequences for American security, for good or for ill.

The next issue of the National Strategy Forum Review presents a comprehensive and succinct overview of what lies ahead for the next four years—trends, options, and consequences.  It is our forecast of the major issues and challenges that will shape U.S. national security discussion in 2013 and beyond.  Articles in this issue include:

• Defining National Security Strategy: The components of national security strategy, likely and unforeseen global events and their consequences.

• National Security Principles from 2010 to 2012 and Beyond: Past, present, and future—the need to adapt to changed circumstances.

• The Politics of National Security in the 113^th Congress: How domestic politics affects national security strategy and policy.

• Averting the Fiscal Cliff: Necessary But Not Sufficient: Economics as the dominant component of national security and implications of the fiscal cliff and beyond.

• The Threat Array: Knowns and Unknowns: Given that there are many unknown emerging threats, it may be prudent to develop national resilience rather than to counter every known threat to U.S. national security.

• Military Policy in a Time of Fiscal Retrenchment: The U.S. military is in a state of flux as a result of the Afghan and Iraq wars. U.S. military resources and doctrine must adapt to asymmetry, terrorism, insurgency, and a constrained defense budget.

• Homeland Security: Protecting the Critical Infrastructure: As a result of Hurricane Sandy, protection of the national critical infrastructure is gaining visibility.

• U.S. Foreign Policy: Challenges, Opportunities, and Organizing Principles: Traditional foreign policy is adapting to changed circumstance, and will require reevaluating methodology to meet emerging international challenges.

• Pivot to Asia: Calculus and Consequences: The American destiny may lie more with countries in the Asia-Pacific than with traditional Western European orientation.  What are the consequences and how can this shift be managed?

• Flashpoint Mediterranean: Middle Eastern conflicts are continuing and are unresolved.  There is a Mediterranean connection that should be explored, resulting in potential amelioration of the conflict.  The realistic goal is political stability rather than peace.

• The National Security Benefit of Good Neighbors – Canada And Mexico: America’s backyard is composed of Canada, Mexico, and Latin America.  These states are expanding their economic and political stability.  Although the U.S. has not been an exceptionally good neighbor, there is opportunity for the U.S. to initiate actions that could result in an enhanced relationship.

• Proactive Asymmetry: To counter ongoing terrorist threats, the U.S. needs to “think small”—an asymmetric, proactive offensive doctrine.

• Management of National Security: Strategy and national security require fundamental management change within government agencies.

The National Strategy Forum mission is to assist our members to become more informed about U.S. national security issues through our lecture series, conferences, and publications.  It is our hope that this new issue of the National Strategy Forum Review proves useful to you.

National Security Forecast: The Next Four Years can be read online at the link here.

Breeding Grounds for Terrorism and Transnational Crime

As the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Department of Defense and Pentagon are cutting excess programs, security analysts are faced with the challenge of doing more with less.  How can the U.S. best use its resources, military, and intelligence tools to focus in on the major threats to U.S. national security?

Fine tuning what too look for and where to look for it is key to this process.  A team of analysts at Syracuse University’s Global Black Spots—Mapping Global Insecurity Project (GBS-MGI) is developing a new research methodology that goes beyond the traditional state level analysis to find “Black Spots,” or areas of insecurity that are beyond government control.  The team probes the local-level characteristics of a region using open source information to determine where terrorism and transnational crime may develop in the future.  Their findings provide a map of global insecurity that is being applied by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Summer 2011 issue of the National Strategy Forum Review shares this process with our readers.  The case studies below are a sample of the estimated 600+ Black Spots operating around the globe.  This unique research demonstrates that traditional security analysis must add a deeper, more local component to the search for future security threats.

Missiles and the Balance of Power

Missiles are again prominent in international news.  This time, however, it is not the United States or Russia that is making headlines, as was the case during the Cold War, but rather small and rising powers across the globe.  The ramifications of diffuse missile technology is altering the face of geopolitical power and causing advanced countries to rethink their strategies.  Developing countries with small military forces are finding that they can effectively counter-balance larger, more advanced militaries by deploying low-tech missile technology.

There are four recent examples of missiles changing the balance of power in the international system.  Read the analysis in the article below.

Missiles and the Balance of Power

By Eric S. Morse

The Panama Canal Treaty-An Update

The signing of the Panama Treaty was the first major foreign affairs decision of Carter’s Presidency and it proved to be one of the most controversial.  Polls soon showed that approximately 70% of the American public opposed the transfer of control and ownership of the canal.  The opposition included a rising star in the Republican Party, California Governor Ronald Reagan, who would eventually make this an issue in the 1980 presidential campaign.  Carter encountered considerable opposition in the Senate in 1978 before he finally succeeded in getting the treaty approved by a single vote.

Was the treaty a success?  Has Panama flourished since the treaty was signed in 1977?  What of U.S.-Panama and U.S.-Latin America relations?

Major General Neal Creighton describes the history of the Panama Canal Treaty in this National Strategy Forum Review Special Report.  From 1971-72, MG Creighton served as the Coordinator for the Department of Defense Committee for the Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations.  Click the link below to read the full report.

The Panama Canal Treaty-An Update

By Major General Neal Creighton