Playing Politics with National Security

There is a deeply disturbing trend regarding national security risks, both in the official government response to new developments and the media reaction to them.

Both civilian and military leaders appear shocked and surprised at the growing technical and numerical prowess of America’s adversaries. The media, when news such as Russian satellite killer missiles and Chinese hypersonics are revealed, tend to underplay the seriousness of the issue.

The answer to why Washington has been less than adequate in their ability to foresee worrisome trends has much to do with the politicization of intelligence agencies.

In 2016, Dan Harris, writing in Cipher Brief, noted “The U.S. Intelligence Community’s (IC) clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT) services are experiencing an erosion of their core mission and values, with consequences to our current and future collection capability…” Speaking of the Obama Administration, but stressing that this has been an ongoing problem, Harris explained that “the increasingly common practice of deferring core mission decisions to the National Security Council and a shifting vision of intelligence to ‘in support of’ rather than ‘independent of’ policy, have led to questions whether a disregard for the unique requirements of clandestine HUMINT [human intelligence] are so pervasive as to require an entirely new and dedicated service…I believe the issue …is not the need for a new service but the need for experienced mission-enablers, not vice political loyalists, at the command level.”

Several recent events demonstrate the increasing threat level, unforeseen by Washington, and, when finally revealed, underplayed by the media.

More than any other nation, the United States is dependent on satellites for defense. In 2007, China, and just recently this year, Russia demonstrated the ability to destroy those orbital assets with killer missiles. These were not only a threat that could render the Pentagon deaf, dumb and blind in a potential conflict. They produced an immediate danger to the planetary orbital infrastructure of commercial and navigational satellites, and in the case of the recent Russian test, the International Space Station. Astronauts were forced to take refuge in safety chambers until it was determined where the debris would strike.

Quite a large number of males are dependent on the functioning of generic levitra usa the liver. Comparing the delivery process, fees, client services, added fees with other various sites would enable you to online levitra figure out the Best stores to buy your medicine. Medications that are used to viagra uk shop treat these health conditions are also responsible for bad erection. However, viagra ordination there are some men who immediately aim for the penetration.

The U.S. Defense Department was similarly unaware of how far China had progressed in hypersonic missiles. Both civilian and military leaders expressed surprise when Beijing performed a very successful test of a hypersonic weapons delivery system that circled the globe and delivered a payload to a target site.

Some have noted the disturbing failure to recognize China’s meteoric increase in military power. In a recent interview with the Washington Times Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements stated “One of the most interesting things about being a China-watcher over maybe the last 10, 15 years has been it’s the only country certainly in my memory, and I’ve had people in the intelligence community tell me that they’ve never seen a country that consistently accelerates faster than we estimate…The Soviets didn’t do that. Certainly not North Korea or Iran, anything like that. But China has done a good job of taking their economic power… and applying that to acceleration of military capability. And this is why you’re seeing things like the hypersonic test…”

The media has not been eager to pursue the issue. Intense discussion of Beijing’s extraordinary military prowess would lead to calls for more adequate funding for the Pentagon. That would put pressure on the Biden Administration to limit its push for massive spending on social welfare issues, some of which have been masked as infrastructure, as well as on actual infrastructure spending itself.

The powerful progressive caucus in Congress, which many maintain dominates the Biden Administration, ignores the dire information, and advocates cutting defense spending by at least 10%.

Photo: The ship formations of China and Russia sail in the Western Pacific on October 19, 2021.(eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Sun Jingang)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.