Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy
- Author:
- Alistair Taylor, Ross Harrison, Jerry Feierstein, and Marwa Maziad
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- Middle East Institute (MEI)
- Abstract:
- The Biden Administration's National Security Strategy has drawn some criticism for its relatively late release, but what of its actual substance? Today, Alistair Taylor talks with four experts, each with unique insights into the context and strategy of this document with regards to the Middle East, North Africa, and American foreign policy at large. Our first guest is Ross Harrison, a Senior Fellow and Director of Research at the Middle East Institute, and a Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Our second guest is Jerry Feierstein, Distinguished Senior Fellow on U.S. Diplomacy and Director of MEI’s Arabian Peninsula Affairs Program. We are then joined by Dr. Marwa Maziad, a Non-Resident Scholar with MEI's Defense and Security Program and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Israel Studies at the Gildenhorn Institute at the University of Maryland. Our final guest is Melissa Horvath, a Non-Resident Scholar with MEI’s Defense and Security Program and the lead Foreign Military Sales Instructor and Curriculum Developer at ASRC Federal.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, National Security, and Joe Biden
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, North America, and United States of America
43. US-Taiwan Relations and the National Security vs. Human Rights Fallacy
- Author:
- Randall G. Schriver and Jennifer Hong Whetsell
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- East-West Center
- Abstract:
- The Honorable Randall G. Schriver, Chairman of the Board at the Project 2049 Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs, & Jennifer K. Hong Whetsell, Senior Director at the Project 2049 Institute, explain that "Taiwan, a leading democracy and one of the freest countries in the world, continues to combat coercive and annihilative threats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), while not wavering on human rights."
- Topic:
- Human Rights, National Security, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
44. Achieving a Safer U.S. Nuclear Posture
- Author:
- Joseph Cirincione
- Publication Date:
- 02-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- • U.S. nuclear posture is on a dangerous path that imperils national security and expends far too many resources. It is not a rational response to external threats but is driven primarily by domestic factors including a hubristic strategy of nuclear supremacy, partisan politics, and entrenched arms lobbies with formidable influence in the Pentagon and Congress. • A safer nuclear policy entails, among other steps, reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads by one-third, to about 1,000, taking nuclear-armed missiles off hair-trigger alert, embracing no first use or sole purpose doctrines, and requiring an additional senior official to authorize launch. Pacts such as AUKUS that encourage the spread of nuclear weapons technology must also be rethought. • If implemented, these policies will greatly reduce risk while maintaining deterrence; they will also lead to significant savings in the national security budget. A majority of independent experts believe that U.S. national security objectives can be met at far lower levels and with a safer nuclear posture, saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. • Many of these recommendations can be implemented even if the Biden administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review proves disappointing. The president retains substantial policy and budgetary options for reducing the risk of nuclear war and the cost of nuclear deterrence.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Budget, and Defense Spending
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
45. Three Reasons Why CHIPS-plus is a Big Win for US National Security
- Author:
- Tom Klein
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- On August 9th, 2022, President Biden signed vital bipartisan legislation to compete with China. H.R. 4346, called the CHIPS and Science Act or “CHIPS-plus,” would pave the way for nearly $280 billion in incentives to boost US-based chip manufacturing, scientific research, technology standards setting, and STEM education. These initiatives directly protect our immediate security vulnerabilities in the US military and support our long-term national security competition with China by promoting democratic norms and spurring critical defense innovations.
- Topic:
- Security, National Security, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Innovation, and CHIPS
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
46. A Primer on the 2022 National Security Strategy
- Author:
- Peter Juul and Heba Malik
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The 2022 National Security Strategy introduces new ideas on navigating strategic competition with China and Russia, investing at home, and a renewed focus on the fight against climate change.
- Topic:
- Security, Climate Change, National Security, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
47. Software Defines Tactics: Structuring Military Software Acquisitions for Adaptability and Advantage in a Competitive Era
- Author:
- Jason Weiss and Dan Patt
- Publication Date:
- 12-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Hudson Institute
- Abstract:
- You would not be reading this if you did not realize that it is important for the Department of Defense (DoD) to get software right. There are two sides to the coin of ubiquitous software for military systems. On one side lies untold headaches—new cyber vulnerabilities in our weapons and supporting systems, long development delays and cost overruns, endless upgrade requirements for software libraries and underlying infrastructure, challenges in modernizing legacy systems, and unexpected and undesirable bugs that emerge even after successful operational testing and evaluation. On the other side lies a vast potential for future capability, with surprising new military capabilities deployed to aircraft during and between sorties, seamless collaboration between military systems from different services and domains, and rich data exchange between allies and partners in pursuit of military goals. This report offers advice to help maximize the benefits and minimize the liabilities of the software-based aspects of acquisition, largely through structuring acquisition to enable rapid changes across diverse software forms. This report features a narrower focus and more technical depth than typical policy analysis. We believe this detail is necessary to achieve our objectives and reach our target audience. We intend this to be a useful handbook for the DoD acquisition community and, in particular, the program executive officers (PEOs)1 and program managers as they navigate a complex landscape under great pressure to deliver capability in an environment of strategic competition. All of the 83 major defense acquisition programs and the many smaller acquisition category II and III efforts that make up the other 65 percent of defense investment scattered across the 3,112 program, project, and activity (PPA) line items found in the president’s budget request now include some software activity by our accounting.2 We would be thrilled if a larger community—contracting officers, industry executives, academics, engineers and programmers, policy analysts, legislators, staff, and operational military service members—also gleaned insight from this document. But we know that some terms may come across as jargon and that not everyone is familiar with the names of common software development tools or methods. We encourage them to read this nonetheless and are confident that the core principles and insights we present are still accessible to a broader audience.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, National Security, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Software
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
48. Manufactured Crisis: “Deindustrialization,” Free Markets, and National Security
- Author:
- Scott Lincicome
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Both the American left and right often use “national security” to justify sweeping proposals for new U.S. protectionism and industrial policy. “Free markets” and a lack of government support for the manufacturing sector are alleged to have crippled the U.S. defense industrial base’s ability to supply “essential” goods during war or other emergencies, thus imperiling national security and demanding a fundamental rethink of U.S. trade and manufacturing policy. The COVID-19 crisis and U.S.-China tensions have amplified these claims. This resurgent “security nationalism,” however, extends far beyond the limited theoretical scenarios in which national security might justify government action, and it suffers from several flaws. First, reports of the demise of the U.S. manufacturing sector are exaggerated. Although U.S. manufacturing sector employment and share of national economic output (gross domestic product) have declined, these data are mostly irrelevant to national security and reflect macroeconomic trends affecting many other countries. By contrast, the most relevant data—on the U.S. manufacturing sector’s output, exports, financial performance, and investment—show that the nation’s total productive capacity and most of the industries typically associated with “national security” are still expanding. Second, “security nationalism” assumes a need for broad and novel U.S. government interventions while ignoring the targeted federal policies intended to support the defense industrial base. In fact, many U.S. laws already authorize the federal government to support or protect discrete U.S. industries on national security grounds. Third, several of these laws and policies provide a cautionary tale regarding the inefficacy of certain core “security nationalist” priorities. Case studies of past government support for steel, shipbuilding, semiconductors, and machine tools show that security‐related protectionism and industrial policy in the United States often undermines national security. Fourth, although the United States is not nearly as open (and thus allegedly “vulnerable”) to external shocks as claimed, global integration and trade openness often bolster U.S. national security by encouraging peace among trading nations or mitigating the impact of domestic shocks. Together, these points rebut the most common claims in support of “security nationalism” and show why skepticism of such initiatives is necessary when national security is involved. They also reveal market‐oriented trade, immigration, tax, and regulatory policies that would generally benefit the U.S. economy while also supporting the defense industrial base and national security.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, National Security, COVID-19, Free Market, and Deindustrialization
- Political Geography:
- China, North America, and United States of America
49. Protectionism or National Security? The Use and Abuse of Section 232
- Author:
- Scott Lincicome and Inu Manak
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- With several Section 232 tariffs still in place, and the status of other investigations unclear, the law presents an early test for the Biden administration and a signal about its future trade policy plans. President Biden took office at the height of modern American protectionism. The trade policy legacy he inherited from the Trump administration puts the United States at a crossroads. Will Biden go down the problematic path of executive overreach like his predecessor, or will he forge a new path? We may not need to wait long to find out. In his first trade action, President Biden reinstated tariffs on aluminum from the United Arab Emirates under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the president to impose tariffs when a certain product is “being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair national security.” Though infrequently used in the past, Section 232 was a favored trade tool of the Trump administration, which was responsible for nearly a quarter of all Section 232 investigations initiated since 1962. While Congress has constitutional authority over trade policy, Section 232 gives the president broad discretion to enact protectionist measures in the name of national security. Why is this law a problem? First, the statute’s lack of an objective definition of “national security” permits essentially anything to be considered a threat, regardless of the merits. Second, the law’s lack of detailed procedural requirements encouraged the Trump administration to cut corners in applying the law, thus breeding cronyism and confusion. Third, President Trump took advantage of the law’s ambiguity to shield key Section 232 findings from Congress and the public, undermining both transparency and accountability. The Trump administration’s abuse of the rarely used Section 232 has allowed the statute to become an excuse for blatant commercial protectionism, harming American companies and consumers and our security interests. It’s unclear whether the Biden administration will continue this troubling trend or seek reform. The best course of action would be the latter: Biden should avoid using Section 232 and support congressional efforts to rein in presidential power, thus ensuring an end to the calamitous episodes that were common during the Trump era.
- Topic:
- National Security, Trade Policy, and Protectionism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
50. Counterterrorism Under the Trump Administration A Fractured Response to a Diversified Threat
- Author:
- Matthew Levitt
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- The administration's achievements were counterbalanced by a striking lack of alignment among three U.S. national security strategies and the discouraging rapid rise of far-right extremism at home. The Trump administration has a mixed record on counterterrorism, overshadowed by troubling trends. On the positive side, it continued the Obama administration’s efforts to defeat the Islamic State on the battlefield while pressuring other jihadist groups in Syria and aggressively pushing back on Iran and its terrorist proxies. But these achievements were counterbalanced by a striking lack of alignment among the U.S. National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Counterterrorism Strategy, hobbling effective policy execution. Still more discouraging has been the rapid rise of far-right extremism at home, a development President Trump has refused to denounce and even stoked. The ninth volume of The Washington Institute’s Counterterrorism Lecture Series, edited by Matthew Levitt, covers the period November 2018 to March 2020. Its pages include the assessments of officials and experts seeking to understand the full scope of the CT challenge and develop sophisticated methods to address it.
- Topic:
- National Security, Counter-terrorism, Donald Trump, and Non-Traditional Threats
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America