Advisors say Obama doesn't size up to McCain on Afghanistan

Experts discussed the Afghanistan policies of Barack Obama and John McCain during a conference call. Following Obama's recent foreign policy speech, the experts referred his record on the Afghanistan issue.

Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that McCain was able to come up with a strategy in Iraq that worked. Randy Scheunemann, a senior foreign policy advisor for the McCain Campaign, questioned the timing of Obama's foreign policy speech. Scheunemann noted that it is strange for Obama to discuss Middle East foreign policy when the senator has not visited Iraq in 900 days, has never been to Afghanistan, or met privately with Gen. David Petraeus.

Kori Schake, another senior foreign policy advisor for McCain, outlined McCain's strategy in Afghanistan. McCain will work with allies to make sure their is unity of leadership, appoint an Afghanistani official to better organize U.S. policy, and increase the amounts of troops by three brigades, Schake said. Two brigades would be for combat and one would be for training, Scheunemann said. McCain will also increase non-military assistance, such as counter narcotics strategy and regional diplomatic issues.

Scheunemann said Obama contradicted himself when he said that 10,000 to 20,000 additional troops would make no significant difference back in 2007, but then, in January 2008, argued that he said more troops would be beneficial. Obama has a commitment to leave Iraq, but not to win, Scheunemann said. Obama, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, chose to cut off funding for Afghanistan despite never holding a hearing about it.

Obama lays out his five-fold national security plan

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a speech on U.S. foreign policy, national security and strategy in Iraq at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. Obama was introduced by Wilson Center director Lee Hamilton who started jovially referencing an incident where Obama had to show ID at a DC gym.

Obama began his speech with a historic reference to the Marshall plan quoting from General Marshall's speech about rebuilding enemy nations, "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

The junior Democratic senator criticized the governmental response to Sept. 11 listing things "We could've done." He described the war in Iraq as one "that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks." He advocated a national security strategy that goes "not just in Baghdad."

He outlined his national security policy based on five points: "ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Obama defended his position on ending the war in Iraq. "George Bush and John McCain don't have a plan for success in Iraq. They have a plan for staying in Iraq." He defined victory as leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can care with its people and an enemy whose power cannot reemerge. He laid out a redeployment plan for U.S. forces to leave Iraq by 2010. He said he would shift power to Afghanistan putting two more combat brigades in Afghanistan as well as non-military aid.

He also called to stop "bankrolling the ambitions for Iran," by purchasing foreign oil. He classified global warming as a national security issue. He also called for an increase in foreign assistance to $50 billion for development as a means of security.

NIA report says that global warming may threaten national security

The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and Permanent Committee on Intelligence held a hearing to discuss the results of a National Intelligence report that gauged the potential risks global warming and climate change may have on national security from now until 2030.

The report, “National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030”, found both positives and negatives with the outcome of global warming. Dr. Thomas Fingar, deputy director of National Intelligence for Analysis, said that in North America, net cereal crop yields will increase by 5 to 20 percent between now and 2030. Also, the growing season in the U.S. and Canada has extended an average of two days per decade since 1950.

However, the report also found that the global mean annual average temperature has risen 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade during the period 1955 to 2005, which doubles the rate observed from 1906 to 2005. Since 1993, the global sea level has risen 3 mm per year, but for most of the 20th century, it rose only 1.7 mm per year.

Chairman Edward J. Markey asked Dr. Fingar if global warming will multiply existing international problems like “social tension, environmental degradation, and weak political institutions” that seem to be underlying causes of terrorism. Dr. Fingar said that the “laundry list” of problems listed by Chairman Markey resembles the list of “conditions and preconditions” that may lead to alienation and terrorism recruitment.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) asked Dr. Fingar what level of confidence he applied to the report. Dr. Fingar said his level of confidence is “low to moderate.”

“There was uncertainty about the climate change projections that we took as the baselines. There was uncertainty about the impact on the individual countries,” Dr. Fingar said. This “cascade of uncertainties” reduced the confidence level.

The report is different than a National Intelligence Estimate because Dr. Fingar and his colleagues depended on open sources and outside expertise. Currently, a portion of the report is classified, but Rep. Pete Hoekstra (D-Mich.) requested that the full report be made public.

National security served by 'legally suspect policies'

The investigation into the administration’s interrogation policies and legal justifications continued before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Chairman Jerrold Nadler was concerned that America’s national security and values have not been well served by ‘legally suspect policies.’

Witness Daniel Levin, former acting assistant attorney general to the Office of Legal Counsel, said that over time legal analysis regarding interrogation replaced policy analysis. He said many steps that the administration was taking, albeit legal, had costs which outweighed the benefits. Levin felt that some policies should have been adjusted. Levin also accepted full responsibility for any legal advice he gave and felt he should be held accountable if that advice turned out to be mistaken.

Witness Retired Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson said he knew how soldiers could ‘go astray in the heat of battle’ and he felt that leadership at the highest levels had fail in this instance. When questioned by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) as to whether interrogation tactics were pushed from the top down, Wilkerson affirmed that it was his view.

Nadler also announced that one of the expected witnesses, Douglas Feith of Goodwin Procter LLP, had pulled out of attending the hearing at the last minute due to his unwillingness to be near one of the other witnesses present who was unnamed. Nadler deemed Feith's actions 'a fundamental disrespect for Congress and the American people.'He gave the assurance that Feith would be called before the Subcommittee to testify before too much time had elapsed.

Sovereign wealth funds may not be “a real problem”

The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee held a full committee hearing on “Sovereign Wealth Funds: Foreign Policy Consequences in an Era of New Money.” The Chairman of the committee, Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.), said that although rising oil prices and the housing crisis are top concerns, there is also cause for worry in the use of sovereign wealth funds to accomplish political goals. Biden mentioned Saudi Arabia and China as having huge sovereign wealth funds from their export economies. He said that the possibility of those funds being used to make political changes is “a real problem.”

Jagdish Bhagwati, professor of law and economics at Columbia University, said that Biden’s concern was not unwarranted. He explained that a rapid reversal of roles put the U.S. in a position of dependency on foreign funds, which is cause for anxiety. But, Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, said that sovereign wealth funds are generally benign in their effects and that most are only used for maximizing rate of return, rather than for political tasks.

David Marchick, managing director and global head of regulatory affairs at The Carlyle Group, said that investments through sovereign wealth funds should be welcomed, but that any investments that may be threatening to national security should be heavily scrutinized.