Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Project on Defense Alternatives Author Carl Conetta

1. Fundamental Design Principles of Confidence-Building Defense

Author:
Carl Conetta and Lutz Unterseher
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
A selection of slides prepared for seminars held in Holland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Belarus in 1994. The seminars were organized and co-sponsored by the Study Group on Alternative Security Policy (SAS) and the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA). Twenty-five years later the principles of Confidence-Building Defense remain relevant to the efforts of North and South Korea to construct a “peace regime” after many decades of enmity and military standoff.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Defense Policy, National Security, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
South Korea, North Korea, Hungary, Czech Republic, Holland, and Belarus

2. Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less Spending

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The United States must partner with other nations in addressing challenges like climate change, epidemics of disease, nuclear proliferation, and human rights and humanitarian crises. None of these challenges are best dealt with by military force. Rather, they will depend on building non-military capacities for diplomacy, economic assistance, and scientific and cultural cooperation and exchange which have been allowed to languish in an era in which the military has been treated as the primary tool of U.S. security policy.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Climate Change, Economy, Sustainability, and Hybrid Threats
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

3. Something in the Air: "Isolationism," Defense Spending, and the US Public Mood

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
10-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The report analyzes current and historical U.S. public opinion polls on global engagement, military intervention, and defense spending, finding significant fluctuation in public sentiments. The report assesses these in light of changes in policy, strategic conditions, and the economy. A comprehensive review of opinion surveys shows a trend of growing public discontent with aspects of post-Cold War U.S. global policy. This has been misconstrued by some as evidence of "neo-isolationism." In fact, a solid majority of Americans continue to support an active U.S. role in the world. Public dissent focuses more narrowly on U.S. military activism and the idea that the United States should bear unique responsibility for the world's security. Official policy along these lines has weakened public support for global engagement generally, but the public does not prefer isolation. On balance, Americans favor cooperative, diplomatic approaches to resolving conflict and they tend toward a "last resort" principle on going to war. Still, Americans will support forceful action against aggression when vital U.S. interests seem at risk. And, in prospect, they express a willingness to stem genocide. The public's initial impetus to war may be strongly emotive, tied to a catalytic event. However, polls show that more pragmatic considerations soon come into play. Ongoing support requires that the costs of war match the perceived benefits. Domestic economic conditions are key in determining the perceived "opportunity cost" of war. To gain and sustain support, military goals must be perceived as realistic, pragmatic, and cost-effective. Generally speaking, Americans do not favor involvement in most third-party interstate wars or in any civil wars. They also do not now support regime change efforts, armed nation-building, or persisting constabulary roles. On balance, the U.S. public lacks a "crusading spirit" with regard to the use of force abroad – whether the aim is posed in moral, humanitarian, political, or geopolitical terms. The current spike in support for bombing ISIS is consistent with the limits and precepts outlined above. Support will waver if the mission grows or fails to show real progress. Opinion surveys show a chronic gap between elite and public views on military intervention and America's global role. A preference for military activism and dominant global leadership finds greater representation among foreign policy elites than among the general public. Among the public, there is greater representation of selective engagement, cooperative security, and isolationist views (although the latter view is not predominant). Elite-public differences may reflect differences in how costs and benefits are experienced. Singular events such as the 9/11 attacks can temporarily close the gap, but it re-emerges if and when the public begins to feel that the costs of military activism are exceeding its benefits. One consequence of public displeasure with recent wars is reduced support for defense spending. Counter-balancing this is an enduring desire for superior defense capabilities – a preference that does not imply support for military activism. The public will support relatively high levels of defense spending as a deterrent and an insurance policy, while not intending to write a blank check for military activism. Public perceptions of security threats and of the health of America's defenses are pivotal in determining sentiments about defense spending. They also are quite malleable. Partisan political dynamics are another factor significantly affecting public opinion on defense spending. Military spending is a perennial political football, and public preferences about spending are partly determined by partisan allegiances. Today, opinion continues to favor reduced spending, although this may soon change. Looking back over a 40-year period, there have been several "pivot points" during which attitudes about spending rapidly changed from "spend less" to "spend more." Conditions characteristic of those pivot points are increasingly evident today. With the advent of intensely polarized electoral campaigns, now and historically, the security policy debate shifts in a hawkish direction. Political actors desiring increased Pentagon spending and/or a more confrontational posture abroad have at their disposal several effective "issue framing" devices for biasing public debate and opinion. One effective framing device is to pose the defense budget discussion in terms of the putative danger of a "hollow military." Another is to define current security challenges and choices using Second World War metaphors – such as references to Hitler, Munich, appeasement, and isolationism. Both devices are now fully deployed, making it likely that leading presidential nominees will advocate significant boosts in Pentagon spending in 2016. Although public opinion may swing into support for higher spending levels as an acceptable assertion of national strength, historical precedent suggests that the public will not soon support a return to big protracted military operations abroad. Precedent also suggests that increased support for spending, should it emerge, will not last long if national leaders continue to over-reach internationally, as already seems likely.
Political Geography:
United States and America

4. Keep Pentagon Cuts in Perspective: What the administration proposes is hardly dramatic

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
Despite the hyperbole surrounding it, the proposal to roll back the DoD budget plan for 2013-2017 by $260 billion, asserted by Defense Secretary Panetta last fall, doesn't amount to much of a reduction from recent spending levels – about 4 percent in real terms. The roll back does appear more significant when measured against the administration's earlier spending plans for 2013-2017. But that's only because those earlier plans had aimed to continue the real growth in the Pentagon's base budget that had been underway since 1998.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Government, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States

5. Going for Broke: The Budgetary Consequences of Current US Defense Strategy.

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The sharp rise in the Pentagon's base budget since 1998 (46% in real terms) is substantially due to strategic choice, not security requirements, per se. It reflects a refusal to set priorities as well as a move away from the traditional goals of military deterrence, containment, and defense to more ambitious ends: threat prevention, command of the commons, and the transformation of the global security environment. The geographic scope of routine US military activity also has expanded.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States

6. The Pentagon's New Mission Set: A Sustainable Choice?

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
Today, the United States enjoys an abundance of military power, but it is a uniquely expensive asset. During the past 20 years we have sought new ways to put this asset to work. Reviewing the change in the Pentagon's mission set, several broad trends are discernible: Mission objectives have grown much more ambitious, generally. The geographic scope for intensive US military efforts has widened significantly. Across the globe, the focus of US military action and investment has become less discriminate and more sweeping or comprehensive. Missions that put US “boots on the ground” in foreign nations in either a direct action, advisory, or capacity- building role have grown much more prominent. US policy continues to emphasize multinational approaches to addressing security issues, however the trend has been for the United States to play an ever more prominent role as the convener, governor, and quartermaster of joint action.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States

7. Pentagon cuts in context: No reason for "doomsday" hysteria

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
Recent Obama administration defense budget requests and proposals all fall within a narrow range of possible expenditures for the 2013-2023 period. All have kept the Pentagon's base budget above Cold War spending peaks. The President's 13 April proposal is no exception. It is a modest step that, at best, aims to retract future budget plans by 6.5 percent or $400 billion. The resulting average annual Pentagon base budget f or 2013-2023 would be close to today's level in real terms. The President's slice into non-security discretionary spending plans is audacious by comparison, reversing the proportionately suggested by his Fiscal Commission, and increasing the proportion of discretionary spending allocated to the Pentagon. The President's proposed new constraints on Pentagon budget growth hardly risk America's role in the world, as some contend, and by themselves do not necessitate a strategic review. Still, the President's launch of a such a review is a welcome development. It can help return America' s military posture to a reasonable and sustainable footing – provided that it elicits broad debate, solicits alternative viewpoints, and reaches beyond a $400 billion crease in the Pentagon's future budget plans.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Cold War, and Debt
Political Geography:
United States and America

8. An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
The rise in US defense spending since 1998 has no precedent in all the years since the Korean war. It most readily compares with two earlier, but lesser spending surges: the 1958-1968 surge of 43% and the 1975-1985 surge of 57%. The post-Cold War retrenchment of the US military reached its limit in 1998 with DoD's budget settling at an ebb point of $361.5 billion (2010 USD). If we treat the 1998 budget level as a “baseline” and project it forward to 2010 (adjusting for inflation), we find that the total amount of funds that have been given to DoD above this level during the years 1999-2010 is $2.15 trillion (in 2010 dollars). This figure constitutes what we call the post-1998 spending surge. (All told, DoD budget authority for the period was $6.5 trillion in 2010 dollars).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
United States

9. Forceful Engagement: Rethinking the Role of Military Power in US Global Policy

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
A key objective of the new administration will be to "rebalance" America's foreign and security policy "tool kit", giving greater prominence to diplomacy and other elements of "soft power". And it is easy to see why. The surge in US defense spending and military activity that began ten years ago, and then sharply accelerated after the 11 September 2001 attacks, has had disconcerting results-to say the least. But setting an effective alternative course for US policy will not be as easy to accomplish as some assume.
Topic:
Foreign Policy and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States

10. America Speaks Out: Is the United States spending too much on defense?

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
03-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
On 1-4 February 2007, the Gallup polling organization asked a representative sample of US citizens if they thought the United States was spending too little, too much, or just the right amount on defense and the military.{1} For the first time since the mid-1990s, a plurality of Americans said that the country was spending too much. The surprising result of the survey shows current public attitudes to approximate those that prevailed in March 1993, shortly after former President Bill Clinton took office. Today, 43 percent of Americans say that the country is spending “too much” on the military, while 20 percent say “too little”. In 1993, the balance of opinion was 42 percent saying “too much” and 17 percent saying too little.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Economics, and War
Political Geography:
United States and America