National Security Network: Difference between revisions
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) (PropDel) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "counterproliferation" to "counterproliferation") |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*"...build coalitions with our allies whenever possible, but we will act independently if necessary to confront imminent threats to American security." | *"...build coalitions with our allies whenever possible, but we will act independently if necessary to confront imminent threats to American security." | ||
*"We will reach out to the Islamic world, isolating extremists..." | *"We will reach out to the Islamic world, isolating extremists..." | ||
*We will prevent terrorists and hostile states from building or acquiring [[weapons of mass destruction]]...through [[WMD stockpile security]], | *We will prevent terrorists and hostile states from building or acquiring [[weapons of mass destruction]]...through [[WMD stockpile security]], counterproliferation, "and eliminate the transnational networks that sell WMD materials and technologies to the highest bidder. | ||
*We will put into action a well-funded [[homeland security]] strategy that protects all Americans, including our most vulnerable citizens. We will prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and natural disasters by implementing the recommendations of the [[9-11 Commission]]. | *We will put into action a well-funded [[homeland security]] strategy that protects all Americans, including our most vulnerable citizens. We will prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and natural disasters by implementing the recommendations of the [[9-11 Commission]]. | ||
===Confronting Tomorrow's Challenges=== | ===Confronting Tomorrow's Challenges=== |
Revision as of 09:34, 12 June 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
|