House Intelligence Chair Assesses Threats Abroad
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 4:02PMBy Adrianna McGinley
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) pushed the importance of American leadership abroad in combating national security threats.
During an event Friday held by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Rogers addressed questions regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East and the military rise of China.
“We must be prepared for the potential threat that a rising China poses,” Rogers said. “We must keep a strong American presence in the region. We must understand the Chinese ambitions and tensions and capabilities and how they see their future. China will only surpass us if we let them.”
Questions were also posed concerning Iran and its potential threat to Israel.
“Iran’s leaders have clearly expressed their desires to annihilate Israel. We should take their leaders’ public sentiments and statements and intentions seriously,” Rogers said. “They speak volumes about their desires and how they maintain power and position, even in their own country. We must therefore recognize the strategic threat and position that Iran poses.”
Rogers expressed concern for political differences interfering with decision making on international involvement, and the effect it can have on America’s credibility abroad.
“If every decision on international engagement is made through your own domestic political troubles, we are never going to come to the right conclusion ever again on international engagement,” Rogers said. “In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in the rest of the world, our allies and our enemies must know that when America intervenes, we will not cut and run. Our enemies must know without a doubt that when America commits itself, we do not commit ourselves to artificial timelines of withdrawals or limits on troop levels. America commits itself to one thing, achieving a lasting victory.”
Panel Argues For "Super Committee" Cuts To Be Private Until Finalized
In a paneled discussion hosted by the Brookings Institute on Friday, three fiscal experts discussed the deficit’s impact on American national security and foreign policy.
Panelists included , and e at Brookings. Michael O’Hanlon, director of research for Foreign Policy and the 21st Century Defense Initiative, moderated the discussion.
“We have a new opportunity now to solve the real problem and this deal may be the first step towards a positive resolution,” Alice Rivlin, senior fellow of economics studies at the Brookings Institution, said about the new deficit-reduction bill.
The deficit-reduction deal, signed by President Obama on August 3, requires between $400 million and $1.5 billion of cuts from the national security budget, most of which is projected to come from defense.
According to Rivlin, there are three critical moves to reduce deficit spending; reduce the growth of entitlement spending, reform tax codes to ensure increased tax revenue and cap discretionary spending.
Rivlin explained that the fastest growing major category in the defense budget is healthcare and major cuts need to be made.
“The TRICARE For Life Program is an extremely generous and costly healthcare program that should be monitored,” Rivlin suggested.
TRICARE For Life is a Medicare supplement entitlement for medicare-eligible military employees and their dependents that have little co-insurance or deductible.
Former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley echoed Rivlin’s sentiments and said that it is not fair to the active military force that the retirees have as good of a deal as it does.
“We let people retire after 20 years when they are fairly young and they can get other jobs but they still receive military retirement. Let us lengthen the period of service… so we pay them but we also get something for it in terms of our contribution to the military. There is an interaction and a set of reforms that can both make the military better and more effective and less costly,” Hadley said.
But, according to Senior Fellow Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative, it is not as much about what to cut as it is about how to cut.
“We need to focus on the how question. What are the principles by which we might go about it smartly? Identify where real savings are versus false savings,” Singer said.
“We have to be willing to question 20th century assumptions about 21st century national security,” Singer continued. “We have personnel benefit system that is designed for the generation of mad men that is now the generation of google. It’s expensive and doesn’t fit their needs.”
Singer also suggested cutting areas in Pentagon spending, such as the National Missile Defense program.
“We have spent more on that project than we spent on the entire Apollo space project that put a man on the moon,” Singer revealed.
Over the past 27 years, the U.S. government has spent an estimated $150 billion on the National Missile Defense program and the success rate is a mere 8 out of 15, according to Singer. The Apollo mission, which successfully put man on the moon, cost an approximate $100 billion.
All three panelists agreed, however, that whatever the “super committee” decides to cut should be kept quiet until it is finalized. They suggested some form of a non-disclosure agreement so ideas will not be immediately shut down as they are circulated in the press and people won’t hear about various cuts without understanding the context they are made in or the strategic trade-offs.