Defense Priorities
Iranian retaliation is a reminder of risks to ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 13, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Iran fired drones toward Israel, beginning its retaliatory attack weeks after an Israeli strike on its diplomatic facility in Syria. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Iran sending drones to attack Israel is lamentable. The United States should condemn Iran for this act and criticize the Israeli government for picking a distracting and unnecessary fight with Iran by attacking its diplomatic facilities in Syria, even as they prosecute their war in Gaza. In any case, the United States should not go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel or anyone else. The United States has no obvious security interest at stake in that fight.

“Of course, American sympathies lie mainly with the Israelis, who are practically U.S. allies. But the Israeli government has courted a fight with Iran, perhaps encouraged by the prospect of U.S. help in going after Iran. Instead of talking about “ironclad” support for Israel, the president should have made clear the U.S. support is limited and does not extend to all circumstances.

“War with Iran would imperil U.S. security for no obvious pay off. Rather than continuing to egg on conflict in the region by offering support and weapons to various quasi allies, the United States should be reducing its role and removing its forces. We should be tamping down tension, not standing by as our friends settle grudges in assurance of our backing.”

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Securing U.S. interests while avoiding a war with Iran

Defense Priorities
75th NATO anniversary should mark a rethink of ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 4, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, on the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Ukraine will eventually join NATO. Defense Priorities Fellow Christopher McCallion issued the following statement in response:

“The 75th anniversary of NATO highlights the historical anomaly of a military alliance lasting three-quarters of a century. This is a sign of longstanding obsolescence, not of continuing vitality.

“This deviation from the historical norm is even more striking given that the key conditions which gave rise to the alliance have not been in effect for nearly half of its existence. The power of the Russian Federation pales in comparison to that of its predecessor, the Soviet Union, and while industrialized Europe was devastated in the immediate wake of World War II, it has long since rebuilt its economic capacity—and with it, its latent independent military potential. European members of NATO possess more than enough combined material capability to balance and deter Russia, an adversary which has not been able to decisively defeat one of the poorest states on the continent after more than two years of costly fighting.

“The U.S. role in NATO ultimately comes down to its commitment to use nuclear weapons—and thereby risk national suicide—to deter a Russian invasion of the industrialized core of Europe. The post-Cold War expansion of NATO to include the former states of the Warsaw Pact was, in George Kennan’s words, ‘a fateful error’ that simultaneously undermined the credibility of the alliance while souring relations between post-Soviet Russia and the West, setting them on a course that has reached a disastrous culmination in Ukraine.

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken today reiterated his conviction that Ukraine will someday join NATO. This move would be reckless and further undermine the credibility of the alliance, as the United States and its European allies have already shown they are not willing to fight for Ukraine when its national survival is at stake.

“Some who celebrate this anniversary misinterpret the alliance as being the guarantor of trans-Atlantic economic, political, and cultural ties. The truth is almost certainly the inverse. The United States can steadily remove its military presence from Europe and shift security burdens to its wealthy allies while retaining the strong bonds of friendship and cooperation that benefit both sides of the Atlantic.

“Europeans are rightly nervous about the future of the alliance. It is unwise for Europeans to outsource their security to the United States when the U.S. has higher priorities at home and in Asia. If the United States scaled back its presence on the continent—and thereby European reliance on U.S. military power—European leaders would have far greater incentive to make good on their stated intention to pursue ‘strategic autonomy,' which would be better for both Europe and the United States.”

DEFP explainer: Grand strategy: ‘Shield of the republic’

DEFP explainer: Reconfiguring NATO: The case for burden shifting

Defense Priorities
Retaliatory strikes punish but won't deter Shia ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 2, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. carried out strikes in Syria and Iraq as retaliation for the drone attack that killed three U.S. troops on the Jordan-Syria border earlier this week. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“The latest U.S. strikes on multiple militia targets in Iraq and Syria are meant in part to retaliate for the January 28 drone attack on a small U.S. facility in Jordan, which killed three U.S. troops and injured more than 40 others. President Biden is also trying to accomplish a bigger objective: degrade their capabilities to the point where the militias make the strategic decision to stop attacking U.S. forces in both countries.

“It’s unlikely to succeed. While the U.S. always reserves the right to defend its troops, it’s clear that previous U.S. strikes in Iraq and Syria over the last three months failed to deter much of anything and in fact contributed to the ongoing tit-for-tat dynamics we see today. This has less to do with a lack of U.S. resolve and more to do with the inherent difficulties of influencing the decision-making of non-state actors, who don’t have to worry about defending territory, regime preservation, or maintaining a favorable balance of power. For the militias in Iraq and Syria, their years-long desire to expel U.S. and foreign forces from both countries is unlikely to change regardless of how much firepower the U.S. employs and may even strengthen after this round of strikes.

“If reports are accurate, the U.S. aims to conduct similar strikes over a period of days, if not weeks. This military action may relieve some domestic political pressure, but it will not achieve the desired outcome of neutralizing the problems these militias represent. It will, however, undermine attempts to deescalate and avoid a broader war in the region.

“This episode should serve as a wake-up call to the futility of the current U.S. force posture in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where nearly 3,500 U.S. troops continue to operate in harm’s way on behalf of a counter-ISIS mission that was achieved nearly five years ago. With ISIS’s territorial caliphate destroyed nearly five years ago, the Iraqi government increasingly inclined for U.S. troops to leave, and a state in Syria that is too weak to matter, there is no justification for our current policy. The risks and costs simply outweigh the rewards.”

DEFP report: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

Defense Priorities
U.S. soldiers killed in Jordan-Syria border ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 28, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, three U.S. troops were killed in a drone attack launched by Iran-linked militants. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“The soldiers killed and the service members wounded in an outpost on the border of Jordan and Syria should not have been there. The outpost attacked seems to be attached to the U.S. mission in Syria, which is unauthorized, increasingly foolish, and an invitation to war with Iran.

“The militia that killed U.S. forces should be held accountable. But we should ask why U.S. forces in the area were left in range of repeated drone, missile and rocket attacks. What cause justified this predictable danger? The answer is none. The U.S. government put them in harm’s way in service of a murky and pointless mission.

“The Biden administration claims these forces are there to fight ISIS, but ISIS was thoroughly defeated years ago and remains a target of most local forces, including those attacking our troops. The outposts near the Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi borders, including the one attacked, are in fact something else, an effort to police the border against Iran-linked forces. But we never hear any larger rationale for that aim which justifies risking American lives. Congress does not perform oversight and the executive branch does not tell us.

“Many U.S. leaders are already calling for war with Iran in response. We should hit the brakes on the march to another war. For one, it is not obvious that Iran was directly involved in this attack. Their links to militias in the area should not be equated with command and control and vary considerably among the different groups they loosely support. Second, launching a massive war in response to this awful attack might feel good, but it would not serve U.S. interests. Remember that the U.S. avoided a war after the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, which exposed the futility of their mission. There are better ways to hit back than starting another massive war in the Middle East and signing up for exponentially more death and destruction.”

DEFP report: Don’t fear vacuums: It’s safe to go home

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

Defense Priorities
In Taiwan, stability remains the U.S. interest

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 13, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Taiwan’s presidential election results show that the candidate representing the current ruling party has secured a victory. Defense Priorities Director of Asia Engagement Lyle Goldstein issued the following statement in response:

“Taiwan’s election result poses major challenges for regional and global security. China has repeatedly made it clear that it regards DPP rule as anathema, since DPP leaders insist that Taiwan has already achieved independence. Taiwan’s current leader, Tsai Ing-wen, has adopted a rather cautious approach, and hopefully her successor Lai will do the same.

“Taiwan should increase its self-reliance, by readjusting its defensive strategy in an asymmetric direction, while simultaneously boosting defense expenditures and strengthening its long-neglected reserve forces. It should reduce its tendency to rely on external aid. Unfortunately, efforts, largely driven by Washington, to increase the salience of Taiwan-U.S. ties, mean that U.S.-China ties remain dangerously close to the brink of military conflict. In recent years, such deleterious steps have included increased numbers of high-level U.S. officials visiting Taiwan, increased arms sales that don’t meet Taiwan’s defensive needs, and even the deployment of some U.S. troops to Taiwan, as well as a vastly increased pattern of military exercises in the proximate areas. Washington should help safeguard the peaceful status quo, maintaining strategic ambiguity, along with reassurances that it does not seek Taiwan’s indefinite separation from China.

“A U.S.-China war over Taiwan would mean catastrophic consequences, war between two nuclear superpowers. This can be avoided, but only with skillful diplomacy on all sides. Washington should reaffirm the original One China policy and abjure the increasingly fashionable idea in the U.S. of using Taiwan as ‘a cork in the bottle’ of China’s maritime expansion. Above all, the U.S. should seek deep and broad engagement with China and limit its preparations to fight a war to defend Taiwan. It’s time to stop sleepwalking into a war with another nuclear power over an island of no particular strategic importance.”

DEFP report: How militarily useful would Taiwan be to China?

DEFP explainer: Semiconductors are not a reason to defend Taiwan

Grand Strategy needed before Pentagon spending boost

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 12, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—TODAY, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford will testify before the the House Armed Services Committee. They will then testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on Wednesday, and the House Appropriations defense subcommittee on Thursday. They will explain President Trump's proposal for $574 billion in base budget funding and $64 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for fiscal year 2018.

Throughout these scheduled testimonies, we urge Mattis and Dunford to explain how the increase in Pentagon spending supports our overall grand strategy by answering the following questions:

  1. Will our allies take more responsibility for their own security, as President Trump has demanded? How can this administration get them to do so?

  2. How does President Trump set priorities for advancing America's national security?

  3. What's the strategy underlying the proposed level of defense spending?

  4. When will the administration share its plan for conducting national security policies with Congress?

At Defense Priorities, we believe that a secure and prosperous America requires a realistic grand strategy and updated defense and related policies for the modern world. An effective national security strategy must ensure that defense funds are spent efficiently to achieve strategic goals in coordination with other tools of statecraft and alongside allies and partners abroad.

The overall budget, in which defense is a declining share, must also be sustainable. As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen once said, the greatest threat to America’s national security is our debt. Defense Priorities could not agree more.

Explanation needed for Trump’s Pentagon spending boost

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 24, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Yesterday, President Trump proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2018 that, if enacted, aims to balance the federal budget over the course of 10 years. With more than $20 trillion in debt, our current levels of spending are not sustainable and endanger the security of our nation.

Therefore, Defense Priorities commends the Trump administration for proposing a budget that prioritizes growing the economy and putting the federal government on a path to solvency. We believe, however, that proposed increases in defense spending and reductions to foreign affairs programs require further explanation.

“An effective foreign policy requires that all tools of statecraft have appropriate resource levels and clear missions. President Trump has suggested his vision for America's role in the world differs significantly from his predecessor. The American people, their representatives in Congress, and our fellow citizens who serve in the military and other foreign affairs roles deserve a well-articulated strategy that explains how the proposed budget allocations would advance Americans' freedom, prosperity, and security. We look forward to working with Congress and the administration as the FY 2018 budget process continues,” said Kurt Couchman, Defense Priorities Vice President of Public Policy.

More defense spending doesn't guarantee increased military strength or security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 28, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—This week, President Donald Trump announced plans to increase discretionary defense spending by $54 billion, a significant shift from then-candidate Trump’s smarter defense platform in which he promised to utilize his business expertise to more efficiently manage our government agencies—the Pentagon included.

Today, with more than $20 trillion in debt, our current levels of spending are not sustainable and endanger the security of our nation.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen famously said, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Fiscal conservative and former Sen. Tom Coburn observed, “Our nation's [then] $16 trillion debt is the new red menace, posing perhaps a greater threat to our nation than any military adversary.”

Defense Priorities recognizes that national defense is the most important responsibility of our federal government. That's why the United States desperately needs a wiser foreign policy that keeps us safe without unnecessarily risking American lives or our financial future.

Just as more education spending by the government doesn't always lead to better schools, more defense spending does not always lead to a stronger military and a safer homeland. In fact, it often leads to more government waste and abuse while delaying reforms of bad policies that weaken our armed forces.

“Over the last 16 years, we have increased defense spending by 50 percent, and it is not clear America is any safer. Rather than just throwing more money at the problem, Defense Priorities encourages the administration to first re-evaluate how our defense budget is being used to protect our homeland,” said Defense Priorities President, Edward King.

Defense Priorities statement on spending issues for new Budget Director

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 19, 2016
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Defense Priorities believes that American power is built on our economic strength and our commitment to the U.S. Constitution. With our national debt approaching $20 trillion, our security is at risk. As such, we must be mindful of the fiscal consequences of our foreign policy, and critical decisions must be made about how to allocate limited resources to ensure America maintains the strongest military in the world.

That's why, if confirmed, President-elect Trump's choice for Budget Director, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), must bring to the process his record of opposing government waste and budget gimmicks related to both domestic and defense spending.

As Vice President of Public Policy Kurt Couchman explained in The Hill, America must set priorities for defense spending to end bad budget deals.

"To truly tackle wasteful spending, the Trump White House should demand the Pentagon finally complete the full audit it has evaded—including a BRAC evaluation—and use that information to create a lean, efficient military designed to fulfill its constitutional purpose of defense," said Couchman.

Obama's expanded war with Al-Shabaab is unconstitutional and unwise

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 28, 2016
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In case you missed it, President Obama unwisely and illegally expanded the war on terror over Thanksgiving weekend. The New York Times reported the administration is again torturing and twisting the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The new target is Al-Shabaab, an Islamist militant group based in Somalia and whose primary objectives are local.

After the sharia-law-promoting Islamic Courts Union was defeated by Ethiopian, African Union, and Somali forces in 2006 with U.S. assistance, Al-Shabaab emerged to fight "enemies of Islam," meaning the Federal Government of Somalia and the African Union Mission to Somalia. Al-Shabaab has been pushed out of the cities and is limited to rural areas now.

Defense Priorities opposes this expansion for it is unconstitutional and unwise:

Unconstitutional: Al-Shabaab did not exist in 2001. Its objectives have been focused on Somalia and the immediate region. Animosity toward the United States would have been less if our government had not aided its opponents.

Claims that this action protects Americans in the region is baseless. If American diplomats and soldiers were not deployed (without congressional authorization) to Somalia, Al-Shabaab couldn't threaten them.

The 2001 AUMF does not apply to Al-Shabaab, and thus this expansion is illegal and unconstitutional.

Unwise: Even if Congress passed a new AUMF against Al-Shabaab, the President would be foolish to get America involved in the internal affairs of yet another country.

The Somali government needs to improve its own capabilities. With support from the African Union and from neighbors such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti, it can contain and defeat Al-Shabaab both through military force and with economic and political reforms. What happens in Somalia is practically irrelevant to U.S. interests—security and otherwise—but it is a major interest for those in the region.

Concerns with Islamist jihadists are not trivial and should not be minimized. Their views and practices are barbaric. But interventions often have unintended and indirect but predictable consequences such as breeding resentment and fueling backlash. That can be far worse than keeping a close eye on them with intelligence assets and related law enforcement while maintaining strong commercial and diplomatic ties with nearby responsible actors.