Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography North America

241. Belgium Should Not Change Strategy on Her Contribution to NATO's Nuclear Role Sharing

Author:
Didier Audenaert
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
In this policy brief, the author focusses on NATO’s nuclear dimension. He highlights key challenges in the European security environment and explains essential charac- teristics of NATO’s deterrence and collective defence, and its contribution to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. He then briefly describes the contributions of NATO’s nuclear states (and in particular France’s) to collective security and defence. All Allies (except France) participate in the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG), NATO’s senior body on nuclear matters. NATO’s nuclear role sharing is at the heart of this policy brief: US nuclear weapons carried by European dual-capable aircraft (DCA). The author argues emphatically as to why American nuclear weapons should be kept on European soil and the current DCA countries should maintain the status quo. Tangible recommendations follow on in terms of Belgian’s foreign security policy and defence, many of which are also highly likely to apply to other DCA countries.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, Belgium, and North America

242. The Case for Withdrawing from the Middle East

Author:
Justin Logan
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The Middle East is a small, poor, weak region beset by an array of problems that mostly do not affect Americans—and that U.S. forces cannot fix. The best thing the U.S. can do is leave. The immense cost and evident fruitlessness of U.S. wars in the Middle East are widely lamented in American politics, but not enough to extricate U.S. troops. And even beyond the wars, U.S. policy in the region is an expensive and unnecessary disaster. The cost of maintaining forces to protect the Middle East from itself is extraordinary, even in peacetime. Conservatively, attempting to control the Middle East costs Americans on the order of $65–70 billion each year, apart from the trillions spent on wars there. The number should be closer to zero. Nothing about the Middle East warrants the U.S. investment there over the past 30 years. The few important interests there—preventing major terrorist attacks, stopping the emergence of a market-making oil hegemon, curbing nuclear proliferation, and ensuring no regional actor destroys Israel—do not require American troops. The roughly 60,000 U.S. troops in the region should leave. American efforts to manage the Middle East make nothing about oil, Israel, or terrorism better. The U.S. would be better off withdrawing all forward-deployed troops from the region, while maintaining access agreements for naval ports with the consent of host countries. Withdrawing ground forces from the Middle East will make it harder for the U.S. to start or join any wars there. Shrinking the U.S. armed forces to reflect the lack of threat from the Middle East will free up resources for any number of higher priorities at home or abroad.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

243. A Plan for U.S. Withdrawal from the Middle East

Author:
Mike Sweeney
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Thinking through the process of transiting U.S. forces completely out of the Middle East gives additional depth to conversations on force reductions and further normalizes the idea that the United States can eventually leave the region. The underlying social and economic forces that produced the Arab Spring demonstrations of 2011 have not been adequately addressed. They will likely spark additional instability in the years ahead. This fact should affect not only U.S. considerations about decamping the region, but also the pace and speed of a withdrawal. Iranian missile capabilities—as demonstrated in the retaliatory attacks following the death of Qassem Soleimani–allow Tehran to increasingly contest U.S. presence in the region. This will be a long-term factor in U.S. basing decisions, regardless of force levels. The center of gravity for U.S. presence in the Middle East is the “core four” of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). They account for more than half the total number of U.S. troops in the region and also host the most substantial physical basing infrastructure. The direction of a U.S. withdrawal should be away from the center and toward the periphery, with forces flowing from the Persian Gulf west and south toward redoubts in Jordan and Oman. A measured timetable of four years would allow the United States to significantly reduce its presence by as much as 50,000 military personnel when rotational deployments (like carrier deployments) are factored in. At the end of the four-year period, the United States would be postured to return to a role as offshore balancer with an option to completely withdraw from the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Armed Forces, and Instability
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

244. Georgia’s Road to NATO: Everything but Membership?

Author:
Marion Kipiani
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The ongoing crisis in Ukraine continues to jolt the architectural plans of Euro-Atlantic security developed over the past 25 years. Predictions of a “new Cold War,” and anxiety over Russia’s ambitions in its neighborhood, have led to calls for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to step up efforts to ensure security on the European continent and protect its newer members in close geographic proximity to the Russian Federation. After more than two decades, during which NATO was transforming into a military alliance fo- cused on out-of-area missions, the collective defense at the heart of the 1949 Washington Treaty has suddenly appeared to regain its relevance. Since the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the escalation of military conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas region a year ago, NATO has demonstrated its commitment to the security of its Eastern European member states through reassurance measures that have included increased air and maritime patrols, as well as the rotation of ground forces. There are however countries partnering with NATO – but not covered by its collective defense protective umbrella – which fall into a gray zone of influence between Russia and the Euro-Atlantic allies. These countries, including Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine itself, are particularly concerned by Russia’s strategic objective of keeping a sphere of i
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Georgia, and North America

245. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Ultimately though, my very last remarks are ultimately optimistic, because President Trump lacks geopolitical vision, lacks historical insight or, really even, frankly – I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but – curiosity about history. Everything is about the deal. One and one, the individuals, the people – that’s why he had nobody in a room which is what Putin wanted, besides Rex Tillerson and the interpreter when they met. And so, what’s inevitably going to happen is he will start up with a grand bargain, where something hap- pens in Ukraine mostly cut over the heads of the Ukrainians. But thank goodness with Am- bassador Volker there, I know he’s no fool and will fight against that, but probably though there will be an agreement which I know that the Trump administration, from my own contacts within, has been cooking up, hoping for, for a longtime, whereby President Putin gets what he needs. He gets an excuse to exit Donbass, because that’s a failed operation, the uprising that he expected never happened, Russian troops are dying, it’s an economic albatross around the neck of Russia. But he can’t just leave, he can’t just pull out Russian troops, because that would really hurt him domestically, politically. So, okay, he says: “We’ve reentered the geopolitical stage, we’re at the center of it with President Trump”. Putin will say “We’ll pull out of Donbass, we’re never leaving Crimea”, That will be the deal I think. Donbass – if the Ukrainian government offers autonomy – will have a sort of a frozen political conflict, troops gone, heavy weapons pulled back on the Russian side, Crimea still what it is – anschlussed by Russia. And then the other area where there will be coopera- tion is in Syria. And we’ve already seen in Southeastern Syria there is a modest cease-fire that seems to be holding – that’s great, may it work, however it also provides U.S. bless- ing for Russian troops to base deeper in the Middle East, and that has never happened before. But leave that aside, maybe it will bring peace. Eventually that cooperation in Syria will collapse. Russia has no history of successfully establishing peace and rebuilding economies and complex cultures. It used brutality in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, to build the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t have the finesse to rebuild something on the scale of Syria. And so, Trump is going to be disappointed with President Putin. President Putin will inevitably overplay Russia’s hand, and finally at that point my last remark – if the EU and NATO have maintained their cohesion, remain strong, maintain the geopolitical vision of President Duda and Secretary of State Szczerski, then we have a chance to take these positive developments and push away the lack of clarity, the dalliance with Putin and the security services on the part of team Trump, and finally wake up – just as Obama woke up, just as President Bush woke up and realized he that he hadn’t see Putin’s soul, and then maybe we can rebuild. So, the key to all this is that you all are doing exactly what you’ve said, Mr. Secretary of State – taking the strategic reins in your own hands, pursuing initia- tives like the Three Seas, changing the geopolitical facts on the ground so that when the U.S. does finally wake up – we know which way to move. Thank you very much!
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

246. Rediscovering a Strategic Purpose for NATO

Author:
Peter Ricketts
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Watford is at first sight an unlikely place for a gathering of world leaders. This nondescript suburb to the north of London found itself briefly in the media spotlight one chilly afternoon in December 2019. Boris Johnson had taken time out from his election campaign just before polling day to host a meeting of NATO leaders. It was intended to be a signal of allied unity in the 70th anniversary year of the 1949 Washington Treaty.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

247. Where Are We Now? Examining the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Combat Cybercrime

Author:
Michael Garcia and Anisha Hindocha
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has seen an acceleration of an already massive cybercrime wave. Daily reports of cybercrime to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center have nearly quadrupled since the pandemic began, to roughly 4,000 reports per day. Unfortunately, even before this crisis began, the enforcement rates for these crimes are low – for every 1,000 reported cyber incidents, only three arrests of the perpetrators occur. In the fall of 2018, the White House released the “National Cyber Strategy of the United States,” which detailed how the Administration would create or update policies for combating cybercrime. While no implementation plan for this Strategy was ever published, Third Way conducted an analysis of publicly available information of the Administration’s actions and budgetary allocations since the strategy’s release to examine their cybercrime enforcement efforts.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

248. US Global Cybercrime Cooperation: A Brief Explainer

Author:
Allison Peters and Anisha Hindocha
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Cybercrime is a persistent and transnational threat with the rates in the United States estimated to have up to quadrupled during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, law enforcement in the United States and globally has struggled to keep up with this crime, resulting in a considerable enforcement gap that allows cybercriminals to operate with near impunity. In the United States, only 3 in 1,000 malicious cyber incidents will ever see an arrest and the global enforcement gap is likely to be similar.1 The investigation of one cybercrime case often involves criminal justice systems in many different countries, requiring intense international cooperation to bring the perpetrators to justice. The United States is a member of a number of formal and informal mechanisms that help facilitate this cooperation. This includes being a party to a number of binding treaties—particularly the only global cybercrime treaty known as the Budapest Convention—as well as a member of key networks and in multilateral forums. The United States is also a member of a number of entities aimed at developing norms to guide the behavior of nation-states in cyberspace where cooperation in cybercrime investigations is encouraged.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Crime, Cybersecurity, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

249. 2020 Thematic Brief: US Cybersecurity Efforts

Author:
Third Way
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Cybercrime is exploding. Malicious cyber actions by America’s adversaries are becoming more sophisticated. And cybersecurity remains a top national security issue for the United States. But while we are spending huge amounts of effort to secure our systems, our ability to go after attackers is woefully outdated. As COVID-19 continues to ravage the globe, malicious actors are exploiting the pandemic and committing cyberattacks for a variety of motives. Nation-states, terrorists, criminal groups, and lone actors have launched cyberattacks and committed cybercrime against large businesses and private citizens, causing devastating impacts to US national and economic security. While federal, state, and local agencies have taken steps to reduce cyber threats, the Trump Administration has not provided nearly enough resources, does not coordinate efforts, and denies risks posed to election infrastructure. Here’s what Congress must do: Go after the bad actors. We must improve the US government’s capabilities to identify, stop, and punish human cyber attackers in order to close the yawning cyber enforcement gap: the number of cyberattacks launched per year in the United States versus the number of arrests of malicious cyber actors; Secure America’s election infrastructure and combat foreign interference and disinformation efforts; and Re-establish the United States as a global leader in setting policy around how different actors should behave in cyberspace and boost international cooperation and capacity around these issues.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

250. 2020 Thematic Brief: Preventing and Countering Terrorism

Author:
Third Way
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
The Trump Administration’s stated strategies to prevent and counter terrorism have largely continued the approach of the Obama Administration. However, this approach is at odds with the president’s own rhetoric and actions, which make us less safe in the long term. President Trump has verbally attacked and abandoned key allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, including the Kurds in Syria, while embracing counterproductive policies that will make it easier for terrorists to rebuild. At the same time, President Trump has largely ignored the far-right extremism that has spiked under his presidency. Even worse, he has retweeted statements that come from people associated with hate groups. Right-wing extremists, and in particular white supremacists, have caused more deaths than international terrorists in recent years.1They feel they have an ally in President Trump because he has largely refused to condemn them. During the recent protests for racial justice, he completely ignored the threat of right-wing extremists accused of killing Americans and plotting attacks against the military, while at the same time he was inflating other extremist threats.23And he blamed both sides in Charlottesville. To be clear, one side was neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. The United States needs a smart and tough approach to terrorism and extremism that includes: Prioritizing the threat of domestic extremism and dedicating resources to prevent and counter it, including by providing support to organizations working on these issues, cutting off financial flows, evaluating whether further designations of foreign right-wing organizations are warranted, and addressing extremism in the US military;4 Preventing the spread of all forms of violent extremism by addressing the root causes globally and reducing the effectiveness of recruitment efforts; Protecting the American homeland by preventing terrorist attacks and disrupting terrorist networks in the United States; and Eliminating terrorist safe havens abroad and building up the capacity of partner nations to fight terrorism on their own turf.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America