National Security Network: Difference between revisions
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "counterproliferation" to "counterproliferation") |
mNo edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*We will restore America's international competitiveness by ending crippling [[budget deficit]]s and aggressively investing in education, technology, and research. | *We will restore America's international competitiveness by ending crippling [[budget deficit]]s and aggressively investing in education, technology, and research. | ||
*We will work with our allies to revive moribund [[international economics|global trade negotiations]], ensuring a global trading system that is free, fair, and serves the interests of American workers. | *We will work with our allies to revive moribund [[international economics|global trade negotiations]], ensuring a global trading system that is free, fair, and serves the interests of American workers. | ||
*We will actively prevent and resolve conflicts, promote the growth of [[democracy promotion|democratic civil society]], respond to emerging environmental, | *We will actively prevent and resolve conflicts, promote the growth of [[democracy promotion|democratic civil society]], respond to emerging environmental, public health, and economic threats, and [[democracy promotion|foster freedom]] and economic opportunity around the globe. | ||
===Rebuilding Effective American Leadership=== | ===Rebuilding Effective American Leadership=== | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] |
Latest revision as of 06:00, 24 September 2024
This article may be deleted soon. | ||
---|---|---|
Formed in 2006, during the George W. Bush Administration, the National Security Network was formed to bring "... cohesion and strategic focus to the progressive national security community." It convenes expert groups to create what it considers ideologically and pragmatically reasonable solution, converts them to public and political messages, and distributes them.[1] As with many such interest groups and think tanks, more can be inferred from their leadership, affiliations and publications than their position statements. Please pay close attention to National Security Network/Related Articles and the bibliography and external links. Broad program elementsThe organization presents broad program elements on their "What We Believe" page;[1] again, as with many groups, it is best to link the slogans to various components of grand strategy. "Waging a Smarter, Stronger Fight Against Terrorists and Hostile States
Confronting Tomorrow's Challenges
Rebuilding Effective American Leadership
Restoring America's Moral Authority
Honoring America's Fighting Men and Women
National Security DiscussionIn the organization's blog, Michael Cohen reviewed the controversy regarding General Stanley McChrystal's public statements on strategy in Afghanistan, and if they are within reasonable limits of respecting civilian control of the military]]. " I don't have a problem with General McChrystal expressing his views even when I think he is wrong. And I wouldn't feel comfortable accusing him of explicitly leaking his strategic review to force the president's hands. But somebody leaked it; and some folks have been leaking some variation of McChrystal's argument for the past several months - and that puts undue pressure on the president to follow a particular course in Afghanistan. And it's coming from an institution that is nominally supposed to be above such public intervention in policy discussions." My concern is when those views become part of the national discussion about Afghanistan policy and end up politicizing that debate, which as near I can tell is precisely what is happening. And just to be clear this is not a partisan viewpoint. [2] Cohen pointed out this is not a Democratic view; similar comments came from Peter Feaver at Foreign Policy's blog.
AfghanistanAccording to their executive director, Heather Hurlburt, a successful reconstruction will be even harder than in Iraq. “In Iraq, the development challenge was much less severe...You had infrastructure that was beaten down or destroyed but could be rebuilt. In Afghanistan, you have this 90% illiteracy rate, with people who have never seen a doctor. And Afghanistan has never had the level of governance Iraq had.”[4] References
|