Followers

Friday, December 5, 2014

America’s next defence secretary: Fit for purpose | The Economist

America’s next defence secretary: Fit for purpose | The Economist

America’s next defense secretary

Fit for purpose

Ashton Carter is well-qualified to lead the
Pentagon, if he is allowed to




http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21635484-ashton-carter-well-qualified-lead-pentagon-if-he-allowed-fit-purpose
ASHTON CARTER once urged the pre-emptive
bombing of North Korea’s nuclear facilities. (It was in an article he wrote in
2006, while out of office.) He also wanted American troops to stay on in Iraq
after 2011. Yet Barack Obama, who is hardly known for his hawkishness, appears
poised to name him as defence secretary.


He would replace Chuck Hagel, a decorated
veteran with a profound aversion to the ill-considered use of force. Mr Hagel,
a Republican, was inarticulate, flummoxed by detail and floundered in the job,
particularly when faced with the complex challenge of taking on the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria. Relentless micromanagement from the White House made
things worse.


Insiders praise Mr Carter’s competence and
experience. A physicist by training, he was deputy defence secretary under Leon
Panetta, responsible for controlling a $600 billion annual budget. Such was his
indispensability that Mr Obama asked him to continue in the job for a year
after Mr Panetta left in 2013, to help Mr Hagel—an uncomfortable period for
both men.


Before that, Mr Carter was the head of
acquisitions, restructuring the bloated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme
and cancelling costly under-performing or outdated programmes. Soldiers in the
field called him “the Deliverer”, for his ability to cut through the Pentagon’s
copious red tape and get urgently-needed kit to the front line, such as MRAPs
(mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles) to shield troops from roadside
bombs.


In Bill Clinton’s first administration, Mr
Carter was in charge of America’s vast nuclear arsenal and led the effort to
dismantle and remove more than 8,000 nuclear weapons from states that had been
part of the old Soviet Union. He also helped build security relationships with
countries in eastern Europe that paved the way for them to join NATO.


Although some complain that Mr Carter’s
intellectual self-confidence and command of the most esoteric technical details
can make him appear arrogant or aloof, his confirmation hearings on Capitol
Hill should be much easier than the grilling Mr Hagel received. Both Mac
Thornberry and John McCain, the Republicans who are about to take the helms of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, are likely to see Mr Carter as
an ally in reforming the Pentagon’s sclerotic procurement practices. Mr McCain,
an arch-foe of wasteful defence spending, often clashed with Mr Carter over the
JSF; yet he developed a grudging respect for him. Kori Schake, a former Bush
administration security official now at the Hoover Institution, a think-tank,
describes Mr Carter as “able, intelligent, effective and energetic”.


Mr Carter will need all those qualities and
more if he is to make his mark over the next two years. He will want to forge a
deal with Congress to bring more stability to the defence budget and undo some
of the cuts mandated under sequestration. Since the world looks scarier now
than it did a year or two ago, the military budget ought perhaps to grow a bit.
However, Todd Harrison of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in
Washington reckons that the political compromises needed for a long-term fix
are unlikely.


Mr Carter will also attempt to persuade Mr
Obama and his ever-meddling team of advisers that some new thinking is needed
to deal with the situation in Iraq and Syria. In particular, Mr Obama’s habit
of deliberately constraining military options (for example, by ruling out the
use of combat troops on the ground or, as in Afghanistan, setting timetables
unrelated to conditions) makes the task of any defence secretary immeasurably
harder.


For all his knowledge and experience of
strategic issues, however, Mr Carter may still find himself excluded from real
influence. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, says
that when the decision was made to get rid of Mr Hagel, Mr Obama and his team
on the National Security Council wanted someone personally close to the
president who had worked his or her way up through their own ranks. To get a
hearing from this inner circle, says Mr O’Hanlon, Mr Carter will have to decide
“how much china he’s prepared to break and how many political risks he’s
prepared to take”.

  
COMMENT:

Having just gone through the article, herein
briefly highlighting both the salient positive and negative side of Mr. Carter
the replacement of Mr. Hagel the US Defense Secretary.


 it is evident
that Mr. Cater would like to run his Ministry aggressively, and if he does so this
without taking into consideration the past background of the Republican
Congress in power during G W Bush's regime squandering the money by Vice
President leading the gang to loot the Government treasury.


He would make a blunder while he is very much
aware of those looters that they literally threw the Country Economically &
Financially in a devastated state looting the money under the plea of war
spending through various agencies noteworthy of mentioning the HALLIBURTON and
a killer SECURITY COMPANY etc.


Therefore, a detail well calculated financial
estimate of requirement to run the war against ISIS for the period and not a
day more is essential. It is to keep the country on the safe side. If it is not
done then the improving financial sector would dip down to catastrophic
condition throwing the nation's survival in jeopardy.


From the description therein in the article
and prevailing situation, that Carter would receive undaunted support and
encouragement from the Congress to go aggressive and make room to go for war so
that once again they could repeat the incident of squandering money to
ultimately loot the treasury and blame Democrat.


 Obviously,
with special emphasis to Blaming on the President with racist intent to avenge
the failure of Republican Party to set right its political position over
Democrats during the forth- coming Presidential election.


 It is
not possible to discuss the prose and cones in details of the political impacts
with regard to the issues confronting the world and US in 5000 words. Particularly
with the direct involvement in Israel’s latest activities of committing
Genocide and the US congressional representatives publicly open support to
Israel's horrendous heinous criminal act against humanity.


In addition, with the US Republican Congress
threatening the UN Secretary General and all top officials of dire retaliatory
action against them if one tries to open a genocide case against Netanyahu and
Israel, has disastrous bearing and impact on this war with ISIS.


It is because the ZIONIST congressional
Representatives are working hand in hand with Israel’s PM and with all the
probability of try to defame the US President as they did try to conspire with
Mitt Romney the then Presidential election in the last election.


However, GOD saved the situation when the
conspirators were caught red handed. Out of the three main conspirators, one is
gone and two top guns are there with very important posts.


However, a very humble suggestion for the New
defense Secretary is to go ahead tackling the problem with proper permission and
thorough deliberation on the issues and sanction of finance by the congress.


Otherwise no step should be taken on own
accord together with all steps taken should be brought to the notice American
public without fail having received the congressional permission to take action
in appropriate cases without fail. No action ever is taken where Republican
Congressional approval and permission is not given.


We all pray and wish to be free from ISIS
Hegemony...Amen





Post a Comment