Two years ago most pundits thought that they knew what the impact of the election results would be on military operations. They were mistaken. What should we expect the results of the recent election to be?
In 2008 pundits and Democratic loyalists expected:
An end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
A repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.
The closing.
A real shift away from President George W. Bush’s military strategies.
But now two years later, those same supporters and pundits are wondering whether the Democrats’ loss of control of the house without accomplishing any of those goals will see them go unfulfilled. Let’s look at each in turn.
Iraq and Afghan wars. A divided Congress won’t be able to send more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, or pull them out any quicker. That decision will rest with the President though funding for those efforts might be effected. But one should expect the Republicans in the house to hold hearings on those kinds of troop moves, giving them a stronger public forum to second-guess President Obama’s war strategy, whatever it may be. The House hearings will make it more difficult for the Senate to be a cheering section for the President’s policies. One should expect the July 2011 draw down from Afghanistan to receive intense scrutiny—especially given both Pakistan and General Petraeus’s opposition. Republicans have questioned whether the withdrawal target is based more on political considerations than sound strategy, and repeated hearings on the issue could reinforce that assertion. There are also indications that lawmakers can be expected to take a similar look at the mission in Iraq. The focus there will be whether the US should be pushing Iraqi officials to extend the US presence there beyond the scheduled December 2011 withdrawal.
Don’t Ask, Don’t tell (DADT) Recently Secretary of Defense called upon the “lame duck session of Congress to pass the repeal of DADT. Given that the House passed effort failed in the Senate it is unlikely that Republican Senators will change their position. Given the nation’s movement to the political right and the influx of new Senators it is unlikely that it will pass and thus it will be years before the law faces a serious repeal threat in the legislature. Even if it should pass the Senate, the budget bill that contains the law’s repeal will have to be approved again by the House before it can become law. House Republicans have said they’ll push for a temporary budget until the start of the new Congress next year, creating another hurdle for a repeal of the law. President Obama could include a DADT repeal in his budget proposals next year. But repeal advocates admit that if Congress can’t pass the bill with liberal supporters in control of both chambers, the legislative branch likely won’t pass a repeal with conservatives in control of the House and the Senate more evenly divided.
Defense spending cuts As noted in several articles Defense Secretary Gates has made increasing defense efficiencies as a way of reining in defense costs his top target. He has sought to cut major weapons systems acquisition costs and even the number department personnel. Some Democrats have been openly resistant to those moves, experts said Republicans will likely be even more difficult to win over. The Republican may still see efforts to rein in wasteful spending, but they’ll want to reinvest some of those savings back into other defense programs. It should be noted that House Republicans have pushed in recent years to tie the Pentagon budget to a percentage of America’s gross domestic product, to ensure national security funding keeps pace with the country’s other spending priorities. Given the fiscal constraint advocated by the tea party there is every possibility that the Republicans may have difficulty reaching consensus on defense spending.
Closing of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay Given past reluctance of Congress to fund such a closure there should not be expectation that the new more conservative Congress will support such an activity.
Other priorities
Missile defense programs have always been a favorite of GOP Republicans., Funding for those programs has dropped under President Obama. Given the recent NATO decisions on missile defense this area may see renewed interest.
The reset policy with the Russians of the Obama Administration could also be in trouble if the START treaty is not ratified by the Senate during the “lame duck” session. Presently it might have enough votes to get it ratified after Senator Kyle removes his hold on the bill which he has in place until the White House agrees to fund nuclear weapon modernization. It is also possible that some more liberal republicans like Senator Lugar could have a change of mind. This is too close to call. As readers may remember we have questioned the gains from the rest policy with Russia as giving much and getting little in return. If the republicans are also questioning it then the easiest way to kill it is to not ratify START.
Watch soon for an article on Senator Jim Webb’s (D-VA) proposal to cut ground forces and expand the Navy.
Perhaps the most significant change for active-duty troops will be the new faces representing them in Congress. The new House will include several new member with military experience in Iraq or Afghanistan. This will add more personal insight to lawmakers’ debates on war strategies. Joe Miller’s possible winning of the Alaskan Senatorial election will also bring such insight to the Senate.
What kind of military advocacy and programs do you expect from the new Congress?
Read more: News
No comments:
Post a Comment