When it comes to defending defense, the “right” may be getting its mojo back.
James Carafano | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
James Jay Carafano is a leading expert in national security, defense affairs, and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. He has testified before the U.S. Congress many times and has provided commentary for ABC, BBC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, SkyNews, PBS, National Public Radio, the History Channel, Voice of America, Al Jazeera, and Australian, Austrian, Canadian, French, Greek, Hong Kong, Irish, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish television.
His editorials have appeared in newspapers nationwide including The Baltimore Sun, The Boston Globe, The New York Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and The Washington Times. He is a weekly columnist at the DC Examiner. Carafano is a member of the National Academy's Board on Army Science and Technology, the Department of the Army Historical Advisory Committee, and is a Senior Fellow at the George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute. He was the creative director for the feature-length documentary 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age. An accomplished historian and teacher, Carafano was an Assistant Professor at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and served as director of military studies at the Army's Center of Military History. He also taught at Mount Saint Mary College in New York and served as a fleet professor at the U.S. Naval War College.
He is a visiting professor at the National Defense University and Georgetown University. He is the author of many books and studies. Carafano coauthored Winning the Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom. The first to coin the term, the "long war," the authors argue that a successful strategy requires a balance of prudent military and security measures, continued economic growth, the zealous protection of civil liberties and winning the "war of ideas" against terrorist ideologies. Carafano joined Heritage in 2003. Before becoming a policy expert, he served 25 years in the Army.
A graduate of West Point, Carafano also has a master's degree and a doctorate from Georgetown University and a master's degree in strategy from the U.S. Army War College.
Does President Obama even do foreign relations anymore? To all appearances, he checked out of the global leadership scene months ago. It’s almost as though, after making the call to off Osama bin Laden, he pumped his fist and said, “That’s it. I’m done.”
It was a golden opportunity for President Obama. He could make peace with conservatives in Congress, set the foundation for a bipartisan agenda in Washington and burnish his image as a man who led from the middle. He blew it.
Last night’s presidential candidate debate in Washington was great — for wonks like me. For 120 minutes, eight leaders of the GOP’s Occupy the White House movement sparred over foreign policy and national security.
America isn’t as well defended as it should be. To understand why, you have to go back a little over a decade.
Today the Palestinians will poke President Obama in the eye with his Nobel Peace Prize. And he has no one to blame but himself.
Conservatives had a number of goals in pursing a debt deal: protect our defenses; decrease spending (including entitlement spending); keep taxes down; and protect the country’s creditworthiness. To date, none of those objectives has been met.
Politico’s Alexander Burns trumpets President Obama’s newly minted reputation as a tough-on-national-security leader. In “President Obama dashes ‘Jimmy Carter’ label” he notes: “Obama’s overall approval numbers have rallied since May 1, when he announced Bin Laden’s death from the East Room of the White House.”
The freshmen class roared into Congress vowing to get federal spending under control. And even though many of them recognize and revere the constitutional requirement to “provide for the common defense,” they refused to take the defense budget “off the table.” Good for them.
What do Islamic dictatorships like Libya and Iran, authoritarian regimes such as Egypt, and kingdoms like Bahrain have in common? Not much, except their people hate their governments.
# 10. An Out-moded, Unreliable Nuclear Arsenal Is No Deterrent. New START offers no assurance that the U.S. nuclear force will be an effective deterrent in the future. President Obama has already declared he won’t replace and modernize the nuclear arsenal. Yes, he said he would spend billions on the supporting infrastructure and called that “modernization.” But that’s like saying you’ll take your car to Jiffy-Lube and calling it a transportation system “modernization” initiative. Furthermore, Obama’s budget still underfunds our nuclear support structure — and delays most of the funding to out-years after the president’s term expires. Obama’s claim to the mantel of nuclear modernization is bogus.
Marc Ambinder, the politics editor of The Atlantic, seems worried that Bob Woodward is poaching on his turf. In an unusual parody piece, he takes Woodward to the woodshed for suggesting that President Obama might ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden to trade places for the 2012 election run.
Colin Clark misses the mark in his latest piece for DOD Buzz. Even the title, "GOP To Tea Party: Don’t Cut Defense," is wrong.
Josh Rogin took note when a major Tea Party group rallied against New START, the arms control treaty Obama signed with the Russians.
With concern over the arms control agreement President Obama signed with Russia growing, those pushing for ratification are devising increasingly far-fetched reasons why the Senate should rubber-stamp New START rather than give the treaty the serious and deliberate scrutiny a nuclear arms deal deserves. From the beginning, arguments for the treaty have sounded like scare tactics, an impression only reinforced by the recent allegations that New START will compromise national security.
If William Hartung really believes what he wrote about the New START treaty, he ought to be dead set against it. Seriously.
William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, has come up with what he seems to think is a clincher argument for why the Senate should approve the New START treaty: Conservatives are against it.
The rallying cry of the Tea Party Movement has been fiscal responsibility and limited government. It appeals across a broad spectrum of the electorate, but falls far short of addressing core issues of governance.
There’s a lot of speculation that Tea Partiers may jump on the Left’s “cut defense spending” bandwagon. Doubtless the White House would love to bring fiscal conservatives on board with its effort to slash the Pentagon’s budget.