Newsroom

Wednesday, November  9, 2011[As prepared for delivery] “Thank you, Ken Weinstein. “It’s an honor to be here at the Hudson Institute.  For the last 50 years, your scholars and researchers have contributed to policy debates on a host of global issues. “Your perspective is firmly optimistic:  you believe that free markets and free people can develop the new ideas and technologies that can help more people prosper in every region of the world.  I agree with that perspective wholeheartedly. “My topic today is ‘Defending Defense,’ which is a turn of phrase I can’t take credit for.  Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative have gotten together to spread the word on how important America’s defense budget is to our national security.  ‘Defending Defense’ is the theme that they developed to coordinate their efforts, and which I’ve borrowed for own discussion today. “The questions before us are stark but simple:  What are the threats to America’s peace and prosperity, and to the peace and prosperity of other free peoples who are America’s allies, partners, and friends?  What’s America’s strategy to meet those threats?  And what capabilities do we need to implement that strategy successfully? “Every nation must ask – and answer – these questions.  They are the challenge for which governments were formed in the first place, including our own.  But today, Americans must answer these questions in the context of the most dynamic – and sometimes confusing – array of international challenges any nation has ever faced. “Of course, there’s lots of good news in the world as well, and as optimists we should celebrate all of it.  “Osama bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda has not successfully killed any Americans on our soil in the ten years since 9/11.  “Muammar Gaddafi is dead, and other dictators and tyrants are under siege from their own people who are boldly standing for their liberty.  “The threat of a major world war among great powers seems remote – at least in the short term.  And the prospect of a catastrophic nuclear confrontation, which was our constant fear during the decades of the Cold War, seems more unlikely – although it’s still a risk we need to take seriously. “So the case for optimism on several national security challenges is clear, but so are the causes for concern. “Al Qaeda remains a serious threat to the United States and other free peoples, as do other terrorist networks including Hezbollah, HAMAS, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.  “The Arab Spring faces an uncertain future in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere.  “U.S. troop withdrawals in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were ordered over the objections of some of our military commanders, and with very little consultation with the elected leaders in Baghdad and Kabul, could create sudden power vacuums in each of these countries that could further destabilize other nations. “Some nations already show signs of instability, such as Pakistan, which is currently armed with dozens of nuclear weapons. “North Korea and Iran also remain serious proliferation risks;  In fact, just a few days ago it was reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that Iran is now ‘at the threshold’ of its own nuclear capability. “China is modernizing its military.  Russia may be reverting back to its autocratic roots and its imperialist ambitions. “And economic and financial uncertainty represent huge unknown risks for Europe, for China, and ultimately for every nation in the world. “Now more than ever, we need a coherent and compelling vision for America’s role as a global leader:  how we can meet the threats, mitigate the risks, and seize the numerous opportunities for the expansion of liberty and prosperity around the world. “Yet despite the promise of such a vision when he took the Oath of Office in January 2009, President Obama seems more aloof than engaged in U.S. foreign policy.  In fact, earlier this year one of his advisors was quoted as saying that President Obama’s global strategy was to ‘lead from behind,’ which actually has the ring of truth to it. “Sure, the President shows up now and again to ‘spike the football’ when a major tyrant or terrorist is killed.  But there’s a sense that each of his decisions are “one-offs”; not tied to any specific strategy. “And despite his remarkable rhetorical gifts, he doesn’t seem interested in articulating America’s role in the world either to the American people, or to our allies, friends, and partners. “What kind of vision am I talking about?  I’m talking about the kind of vision the founders had when they wrote the United States Constitution, and created the institution of the Presidency, to give our Republic greater credibility with other nations in both war and peace. “It’s the kind of vision President Harry Truman had during the early years of the Cold War, when he accepted America’s new role as the leader of the free world, and helped create the alliances, institutions, and capabilities that ultimately defeated the threat of Communism.  “And it’s the kind of vision that President George W. Bush provided when I first came to Washington in 2002, and we were focused on how to defeat the threat of terror, and inspire a new generation of democratic reformers in the Middle East and beyond. “But today, 10 years after 9/11, we aren’t seeing the same kind of strategic thinking that allows us to make good decisions about investments in our national security.“Instead, our strategic thinking is being driven by dollars and cents and not common sense. “As you know, the Budget Control Act passed by Congress this past summer created a ‘Super Committee’ of legislators to try to find a way to reduce our deficit, and help our nation avoid the kind of financial catastrophe that we are seeing in Greece and other nations. “The Super Committee faces a deadline of November 23 to make their recommendations, a little more than two weeks from now.  And we’re all required to vote on those recommendations right before Christmas.“If this process fails, then “sequestration” would take place.  And the base defense budget would fall 14 percent in real terms over just three years, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, even as our troops continue to fight multiple wars, and other security threats loom on the horizon. “Keep in mind that these ‘sequestration cuts’ to our national defense would be in addition to the cuts already made under the Budget Control Act – which are up to $489 billion over 10 years, and the ‘efficiencies’ previously recommended by Secretary Gates, which are a little less than $180 billion over five years. “What about these cuts we’ve already made?  What do they mean for our men and women in uniform?  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, gave us one example.  He recently testified:  ‘Since 2000, the number of ships in the Fleet decreased by about 10 percent.  Yet, in the last four years alone, demand for carrier strike groups doubled, and reque