[Quote Obama's NSS marked a significant change in the amount of attention it devoted to the importance of both strengthening the U.S. economy - described as "the wellspring of American strength" - and building "a just and sustainable international order" that, among other things, accommodates the ambitions of "21st century centres of influence", such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia. Unquote
Any policy document has got to be read in two ways: (i) in a stand-alone mode - on its own terms, (ii) wrt the earlier position(s) and thereby to delineate the dynamic element, to map the "shift", if any. And, then, the two be correlated in a meaningful way.] I/II. http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.aspx?new=7676 <http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.aspx?new=7676> Obama Security Strategy Stresses Economy, Multilateralism Jim Lobe* *WASHINGTON, May 27 (IPS) - In his first National Security Strategy (NSS), President Barack Obama Thursday pledged to maintain Washington's "military superiority" but stressed that the persistence of the nation's global power will depend more on the health of its domestic economy and international cooperation.* In sharp contrast to the NSS released by former President George W. Bush six months before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the 52-page document underlined the limits of military power and the kind of unilateralism that characterised Bush's first term, in particular. "The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone - indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power," Obama wrote in the NSS's introduction. "We are clear-eyed about the challenge of mobilising collective action, and the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he went on in one of a number of many implicit criticisms of Bush's record that studded the document. At the same time, the NSS asserted, Washington will not shy from the use of military force "unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests..." If and when it does so, however, "We will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force." The NSS, which the executive branch is required to issue periodically under a 1986 law, has traditionally focused primarily on military, or "hard", power. In that respect, Obama's NSS marked a significant change in the amount of attention it devoted to the importance of both strengthening the U.S. economy - described as "the wellspring of American strength" - and building "a just and sustainable international order" that, among other things, accommodates the ambitions of "21st century centres of influence", such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia. "This really is a national security strategy in the sense that it covers a lot of ground and tries to be quite synthetic in dealing with traditional security issues, geo-economics, and the domestic sources of American power all in one fell swoop," noted Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "The document states quite clearly that the source of American power begins at home with education, with democracy, with prosperity, with fiscal responsibility," he added. "These are all important messages." "The idea of grounding national security in a strong economy borrows a page from President (Dwight) Eisenhower's playbook," said William Hartung of the New America Foundation (NAF) who praised the document as a "huge improvement over the Bush approach, which advocated a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to foreign policy". Indeed, the new NSS differs from the two issued by Bush in 2002 by stressing the increasing multipolarity of global power and the need for Washington to look beyond both its ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and what it called the "global campaign against al-Qa'ida and its terrorist affiliates" in bolstering its security. "(T)hese wars - and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism - are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America's engagement with the world. Terrorism is one of many threats that are more consequential in a global age," it asserted, citing nuclear weapons, cyber-warfare, U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, climate change, disease, and failed states among other threats. "More actors exert power and influence," according to the NSS, which noted that the administration has already helped shift the focus of global economic management from the Group of Seven (G7) Western powers to the Group of 20 (G20), which includes a number of emerging nations. "(T)he very fluidity within the international system that breeds new challenges must be approached as an opportunity to forge new international cooperation," it said. "We must rebalance our long-term priorities so that we successfully move beyond today's wars, and focus our attention and resources on a broader set of countries and challenges." In addition to frankly recognising the world as multi-polar, the most striking difference between the new NSS and the two issued by Bush - the more aggressive 2002 NSS, which, among other things, attempted to justify the preventive use of force and vowed to maintain military superiority against any potential adversary was softened somewhat by a 2006 edition - was its treatment of military power. "(W)hen we overuse our military might, or fail to invest in or deploy complementary tools, or act without partners, then our military is overstretched," the new NSS warned. "Americans bear a greater burden, and our leadership around the world is too narrowly identified with military force," it went on. "And we know that our enemies aim to overextend our Armed Forces and drive wedges between us and those who share our interests." "It's a refreshing antidote to the Bush years in making quite clear that military power is only one component of America's strength and could under some circumstances even prove counter-productive," Kupchan noted. At the same time, however, Obama, partially echoing Bush, pledged in his introduction that Washington "will maintain the military superiority that has secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades". Andrew Exum, a counterinsurgency specialist at the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS), said he had difficulty squaring that "bold claim" with the document's "acknowledgement that the United States must address its deficit to ensure our future security". "(T)he United States might not be able to pursue all of our national security goals as vigorously as we might like in part due to spending constraints," he said, adding that the document left him "unsure of what the administration's true priorities are heading into the rest of its term in office". "The problem is there is much in Obama's current policy that seems to contradict the document's rhetoric of restraint - from continuing increases in an already huge military budget to the reliance on a troop surge and drone attacks as central elements of U.S. policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan," added Hartung. II. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/politics/28tell.html?src=mv House Votes to Allow Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Law By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/david_m_herszenhorn/index.html?inline=nyt-per> and CARL HULSE<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Published: May 27, 2010 WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/dont_ask_dont_tell/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> .” The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time. It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1. The House vote was 234 to 194<http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/317?ref=politics>, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats. Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per> were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda. “On Memorial Day<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/memorial_day/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>, America will come together and honor all who served our nation in uniform,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per> said in a floor speech, noting the symbolic timing of the debate. “I urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and make America more American.” Separately on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal. The vote, in a closed session, was 16 to 12, with one Republican, Senator Susan Collins<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/susan_collins/index.html?inline=nyt-per> of Maine, in favor of the repeal, and one Democrat, Senator Jim Webb<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/james_h_webb_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per> of Virginia, in opposition. Senator Carl Levin<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/carl_levin/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the committee, said he believed that the full Senate would support permitting the repeal. Like the House amendment, the Senate measure, which is expected to come up for a vote soon, would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per> and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, Adm. Mike Mullen<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_g_mullen/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.” Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal. In a statement, Mr. Obama said he was “pleased” by the votes. “This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,” he said. But chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_air_force/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and Marines<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/us_marine_corps/index.html?inline=nyt-org> have objected. In letters solicited by Senator John McCain<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per> of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they urged Congress to delay voting on the issue until after the Defense Department completed its report. After the committee vote, Mr. McCain said he would continue to fight a repeal when the bill reached the Senate floor. “I think it’s really going to be really harmful to the morale and battle effectiveness of our military,” he said. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/joseph_i_lieberman/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, independent of Connecticut, who sponsored the repeal measure, said, “The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy doesn’t serve the best interests of our military and doesn’t reflect the best values of our country.” “Bottom line,” Mr. Lieberman, added, “thousands of service members have been pushed out of the U.S. military not because they were inadequate or bad soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen but because of their sexual orientation. And that’s not what America is all about.” The Armed Services Committee approved the broader policy bill by a vote of 18 to 10, with Mr. Webb and Senator Scott Brown<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/scott_p_brown/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, Republican of Massachusetts, who also opposed the repeal, supporting the broader measure. With liberals in Congress being asked to vote on an unpopular war spending bill, Democratic leaders there have been pushing to finally do away with a ban that many in their party view as discriminatory and unpatriotic. The Senate approved the spending bill Thursday night and the House is expected to vote on it early next month. As the House headed toward the vote, the debate was often emotional. In a floor speech on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/barney_frank/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the policy that requires gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to keep their sexual orientation secret if they want to serve. Mr. Frank noted that the Israeli military, which he called “as effective a fighting force as has existed in modern times,” does not bar gay men or lesbians from service. Mr. Frank, who is openly gay, also said that he would be criticized — rightly, he said — if he were to suggest that gay men and lesbians be exempted if a military draft were needed. Representative Mike Pence<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/mike_pence/index.html?inline=nyt-per> of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.” Other Republicans said the military was a unique institution and its rules sometimes had to differ from civilian society. “We are dissing the troops, that is what we are doing,” said Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Republicans also questioned if the military leaders who would make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the ban. Democrats who backed the repeal compared the vote to the racial integration of the military and hailed the action as allowing all Americans who wanted to serve to do so. “In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is long past time for Congress to end this un-American policy,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is openly gay. Democrats accused Republicans of mischaracterizing the proposal, by suggesting it would unsettle the troops. “This policy will happen only when the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stay that it is the right thing to do for this country,” said Representative Robert E. Andrews<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/robert_e_andrews/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, Democrat of New Jersey. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
