Democrats Abroad New Zealand
5.28.2007
U.S. Africa Command Brings New Concerns (WashingtonPost.com)
Fears of Militarization on Continent Cited
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A13
The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.
The Africa Command (AFRICOM) was announced in February by the Bush administration and is scheduled to begin operations in October with temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM would have traditional responsibilities of a combat command "to facilitate or lead [U.S.] military operations" on the continent, but would also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges," according to the CRS study.
AFRICOM raises oversight issues for congressional committees, according to the report. "How will the administration ensure that U.S. military efforts in Africa do not overshadow or contradict U.S. diplomatic and development objectives?" the report asks. Similar concerns are being raised between Defense and State Department officials over the Pentagon's plans to take economic assistance programs begun in Iraq and Afghanistan and make them permanent and worldwide, with more than $1 billion allocated to them annually.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Africa)
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A13
The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.
The Africa Command (AFRICOM) was announced in February by the Bush administration and is scheduled to begin operations in October with temporary headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM would have traditional responsibilities of a combat command "to facilitate or lead [U.S.] military operations" on the continent, but would also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges," according to the CRS study.
AFRICOM raises oversight issues for congressional committees, according to the report. "How will the administration ensure that U.S. military efforts in Africa do not overshadow or contradict U.S. diplomatic and development objectives?" the report asks. Similar concerns are being raised between Defense and State Department officials over the Pentagon's plans to take economic assistance programs begun in Iraq and Afghanistan and make them permanent and worldwide, with more than $1 billion allocated to them annually.
(More ... Washington Post > World > Africa)
Labels: U.S. Military, Washington Post
¶ 21:29 0 comments
5.09.2007
Kansas Tornado Renews Debate on Guard at War (NYTimes.com)
By SUSAN SAULNY and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 9, 2007
CHICAGO, May 8 — For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared for the next local disaster, be it a tornado a flash flood or a terrorist’s threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then, last Friday night, a deadly tornado all but cleared the small town of Greensburg off the Kansas map. With 80 square blocks of the small farming town destroyed, Ms. Sebelius said her fears had come true: The emergency response was too slow, she said, and there was only one reason.
“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”
For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.
It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.
(More ... New York Times > News > U.S.)
Published: May 9, 2007
CHICAGO, May 8 — For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared for the next local disaster, be it a tornado a flash flood or a terrorist’s threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then, last Friday night, a deadly tornado all but cleared the small town of Greensburg off the Kansas map. With 80 square blocks of the small farming town destroyed, Ms. Sebelius said her fears had come true: The emergency response was too slow, she said, and there was only one reason.
“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”
For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.
It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.
(More ... New York Times > News > U.S.)
Labels: National Guard, New York Times, U.S. Military
¶ 22:27 0 comments
3.02.2007
National Guard Not Fully Equipped at Home (Reuters.com)
Fri Mar 2, 2007 1:58am ET
By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is not adequately equipping the National Guard and has not adapted to the increasingly important security role it plays in the post-September 11 environment, an independent commission said in a report to Congress on Thursday.
The report said the global war on terrorism had placed increased demands for the National Guard to provide forces for both overseas and domestic missions, but added that the Defense Department, or DOD, had been slow to adapt to the change.
"DOD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully ready to meet current and emerging missions," the commission concluded.
Among its findings, the 13-member panel said the Defense Department was not adequately equipping the Guard for its domestic missions.
The National Guard's 458,000 citizen-soldiers have a dual mandate to protect the United States both at home and abroad.
Nearly 90 percent of Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready," partly because of equipment shortages, according to Guard data and the findings of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, The Washington Post reported.
National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave large quantities of gear behind when they return home, the newspaper said.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
By JoAnne Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is not adequately equipping the National Guard and has not adapted to the increasingly important security role it plays in the post-September 11 environment, an independent commission said in a report to Congress on Thursday.
The report said the global war on terrorism had placed increased demands for the National Guard to provide forces for both overseas and domestic missions, but added that the Defense Department, or DOD, had been slow to adapt to the change.
"DOD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully ready to meet current and emerging missions," the commission concluded.
Among its findings, the 13-member panel said the Defense Department was not adequately equipping the Guard for its domestic missions.
The National Guard's 458,000 citizen-soldiers have a dual mandate to protect the United States both at home and abroad.
Nearly 90 percent of Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready," partly because of equipment shortages, according to Guard data and the findings of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, The Washington Post reported.
National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave large quantities of gear behind when they return home, the newspaper said.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
Labels: GWOT, National Guard, Reuters, U.S. Military
¶ 21:39 0 comments
2.09.2007
Big Rise in Russian Military Spending Raises Fears of New Challenge to West (Guardian.co.uk)
· Moscow anxious over US missile defence plans
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
· Hawkish minister outlines $189bn hardware revamp
Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels
Friday February 9, 2007
The Guardian
Concerns were growing yesterday over a new bout of east-west confrontation, after Russia unveiled a big increase in military spending in the wake of the American decision to site parts of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.
Russia's hawkish defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, revealed an ambitious plan for a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Moscow also intended to revamp its early warning radar system. This major overhaul of Russia's military infrastructure would cost $189bn (£97bn) over eight years, he said, adding that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".
The sharp rise in expenditure comes at a time of growing coolness in US-Russian relations. Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Bush administration's intention to site missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The US says the installations are being built to shoot down possible long-range missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Mr Putin has dismissed this claim as ludicrous, and has said the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal. In a speech tomorrow in Munich, the president is expected to deliver Russia's scathing response.
Defence and security leaders are to meet in the German city over the weekend to wrestle with issues such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iran. President Putin and Mr Ivanov will deliver speeches, as will the new Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Ali Larijani, the key Iranian official for Tehran's suspect nuclear programme.
Yesterday analysts said Moscow was worried the defence shield in eastern Europe could turn into a Trojan horse.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Report > Russia)
Labels: Guardian, U.S. Military
¶ 20:10 0 comments
1.06.2007
Weaning the Military from the GOP (LATimes.com)
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR: ROSA BROOKS
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007
BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.
The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.
For most of U.S. history, issues of national security rarely divided Americans along sharp party lines: The old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge" generally held true. The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party. But somewhere between the end of the Vietnam War and the middle of the Clinton era, the U.S. military began to look like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.
The rightward shift was dramatic: In 1976, 25% of civilians characterized themselves as Republicans, while 33% of military officers were Republicans — a military-civilian "gap" of only 8%. By 1996, the military-civilian gap on party affiliation had grown to 33%; while 34% of civilians self-identified as Republicans, so did a whopping 70% of military officers.
In Britain, the Anglican Church used to be snidely described as "the Tory Party at Prayer." In the United States over the last 30 years, the military became, to a significant extent, the Republican Party at War.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > Opinion > Op Ed)
A less partisan military is good for democracy and allows a more frank debate on national security.
January 5, 2007
BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.
The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.
For most of U.S. history, issues of national security rarely divided Americans along sharp party lines: The old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge" generally held true. The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party. But somewhere between the end of the Vietnam War and the middle of the Clinton era, the U.S. military began to look like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.
The rightward shift was dramatic: In 1976, 25% of civilians characterized themselves as Republicans, while 33% of military officers were Republicans — a military-civilian "gap" of only 8%. By 1996, the military-civilian gap on party affiliation had grown to 33%; while 34% of civilians self-identified as Republicans, so did a whopping 70% of military officers.
In Britain, the Anglican Church used to be snidely described as "the Tory Party at Prayer." In the United States over the last 30 years, the military became, to a significant extent, the Republican Party at War.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > Opinion > Op Ed)
Labels: LATimes, Opinion, U.S. Military
¶ 19:48 0 comments
