NATO Secretary General  Anders Fogh Rasmussen termed the summit an outright success, declaring: “We [NATO] have focused on the future of Afghanistan; we have decided to invest smartly in our defense, even in times of austerity; and we have engaged with our partners around the world to address the challenges we all face in the 21st century.”

The progress achieved by the summit comes at a time when the organization faces an identity crisis and seeks renewed purpose amidst the end of operations in Afghanistan, dwindling financial resources, and a shift in US focus to the Pacific region.

The summit was the target of several large protests – some violent  - expressing the general dissatisfaction rife throughout much of the US and Europe, where economic recession and stagnating governmental performance have left citizens weary and angry.  Protestors with messages ranging from the anarchic to those of the Occupy Movement, capitalized on the opportunity to assemble before one of the largest gatherings of international officials on US soil in recent history.  Chicago 2012 marked only the third time NATO has held its summit in the US, and the first time it has convened outside of Washington, DC.

On the sidelines of the summit, the contentious relationship between the US and Pakistan over the latter’s failure to reopen ground transport routes to Afghanistan was on public display.  The US-Pakistan relationship continues to be critical to the development and security of Afghanistan.  A failure to mend the rift in relations could signal further destabilization of the Pakistani government, presenting opportunities for a hardline regime to assume power and jeopardize the already fragile security situation on the ground.

Overall, the Chicago summit demonstrated that there still exists a cooperative spirit within NATO, though the means and methods of implementing the resulting objectives remain unclear.  By reaching agreements on an exit from Afghanistan and initial smart defense projects, the membership has reaffirmed its commitment to the cooperative spirit of the organization.   Whether this renewed commitment is capable of withstanding the financial constraints of individual member nations as projects are implemented remains a significant concern.  The organization has clearly been impacted by the deepening Eurozone crisis; until a viable recovery plan is enacted by European officials, NATO will largely be at the mercy of its members’ not-so-deep pockets.

Conversely, the US may ultimately benefit from the agreements reached at the summit depending on how the smart defense initiative proceeds.  The program presents a key opportunity to rebalance the financial burden between the US and Europe.  If executed judiciously, this adjustment could allow for the US to allocate additional resources toward other strategic priorities.  The US still recognizes NATO as a key partner in security and will remain a staunch defender of its mission; however, it is essential that the US capitalize upon the opportunity presented by smart defense to evaluate and pursue its own defense initiatives both in cooperation with NATO and independently.

ASP Fellow Joshua Foust attended the summit and has been broadcasting daily from the event, covering the key issues and having candid discussions with those in attendance including NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, Senators Dick Durbin and Jeanne Shaheen, and Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, among many others.  Catch all of Joshua’s podcasts on ASP’s multimedia page.

For additional information on the summit, click the links below:

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s Remarks

NATO Official Document: Deterrence and Defense Posture Review

NATO Official Document: Summit Declaration on Defence Capabilities: Toward NATO Forces 2020

NATO Official Document:  Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Lisbon, 2010)

White House Fact Sheet

You can list to Josh’s first podcast report here:

Click here

Josh’s previous report can be found here:

NATO Summit May 21st 2012

NATO Summit May 20th 2012

You can list to Josh’s first podcast report here:

Click here

You can also see a BBC report on NATO and Afghanistan featuring Josh here

Josh’s previous report can be found here:

NAto Summit May 20th 2012

Each day he will be reporting on whats happening and the atmosphere around the summit.

Yesterday evening he was at the Cubs game – in which Gen Allen threw out the ceremonial first pitch (the photo shows the military procession).

You can list to Josh’s first podcast report here:

Click here

You can also see Anders Fogh Rasmussen prepared remarks yesterday here:

(1) the transition in Afghanistan;

(2) maintaining and improving capabilities in a new age of austerity (“smart defense”); and

(3) the operational flexibility afforded by deeper and broader partnerships.

The ongoing transition in Afghanistan is pressing in the short-term, as France’s President Hollande attempts to renegotiate his country’s exit date and Pakistan agrees to reopen ground transport routes following an invite to the Chicago summit.  However, the issue garnering the most attention is that of the strength of the NATO alliance itself.  The US has initiated a “strategic pivot” towards Asia and the Pacific, while the majority of European members have failed to meet the 2% GDP benchmark in defense contributions.  The “smart defense” initiative is designed to decrease the financial burden of defense through specialization and increased coordination, but critics suggest that rather than bolster NATO’s current capabilities, the initiative will leave the organization with significant capability gaps resulting from a lack of political will and financing.  NATO has persevered through difficult times before, and some do see the organization’s current challenges as an opportunity for reinvention.  Whether the Chicago summit will set NATO on the path towards reinvention and reaffirm its relevance in the current security climate is yet to be seen.

ASP Fellow Joshua Foust will be attending the Chicago summit and providing daily podcasts summing up the day’s events.  Be sure to check ASP’s website to keep up on the latest.

The offensive comes at the heels of a new executive order issued by President Obama authorizing the Treasury Department to freeze any US-based assets in Yemen to curb financing of elements seeking to derail the ongoing political transition in the country.  Yemen has been a key partner in the War on Terror and there are concerns that political instability in the nation has provided a safe haven for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to carry out operations and expand its influence.  A recent attempt to strike the US originated in Yemen, further reinforcing these concerns.  Preventing destabilizing elements from affecting Yemen’s political transition while simultaneously seeking out and eliminating terrorist strongholds will allow for a democratic transition in Yemen, a stronger US partner in the fight against al-Qaeda, and a more secure Arabian Peninsula.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Featuring:

Joshua Foust, Editor of the Collection & ASP Fellow specializing in Asymmetric Operations

and Special Guest:

Philip Shiskin, the Asia Society

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN

PODCAST

Listen to other podcasts in our series:

Afghanistan

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development

Energy Choices, Climate Change and CAFE Fuel Standards

A Farewell from Dr. Jim Ludes and a Discussion on National Security

Rare Earth Metals and Development in Afghanistan

Nuclear Security and the Future of the Marine Corp

Expeditionary Economics and Libya

“Are We Winning?” 2010 Report

In the podcast we discuss the Afghan conflict, the implications of the SPA, and what next for Afghanistan and it’s people.

ASP’s is joined by Joshua Partlow from the Washington Post, in a personal capacity. He spent over 3 years covering Afghanistan as the bureau chief in Kabul, and before that was in Iraq.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Featuring:

Stephen A. Cheney, ASP’s CEO

Matthew Wallin, ASP Policy Analyst

and Special Guest:

Joshua Partlow

Joshua is a former Kabul bureau chief for the Washington Post, has written from all over the world, and is presently writing a book on the politics of Afghanistan

He joins us in a personal capacity. 

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN

PODCAST

Listen to other podcasts in our series:

One Year On

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development

Energy Choices, Climate Change and CAFE Fuel Standards

A Farewell from Dr. Jim Ludes and a Discussion on National Security

Rare Earth Metals and Development in Afghanistan

Nuclear Security and the Future of the Marine Corp

Expeditionary Economics and Libya

“Are We Winning?” 2010 Report

The panel discusses the collection and strategic implications of the war going forward. 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Featuring:

Joshua Foust, Editor of the Collection & ASP Fellow specializing in Asymmetric Operations

Terri Lodge, ASP Director of Nuclear Security

Matthew Wallin, ASP Policy Analyst

Bryan Gold, ASP Adjunct Junior Fellow

Moderated by:

Paul Hamill, ASP Director of External Relations

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN

PODCAST

Listen to other podcasts in our series:

Humanitarian Intervention, Energy and Gas Prices, plus the latest on Iran

The Growing Research and Development Gap

2012: Look Ahead

The Future of Afghanistan

Central Asia: What’s Happening and How It Impacts US Foreign Policy

Energy and Nuclear Power

Afghanistan: Are We Winning

Covering Conflict as a Journalist, Libya and Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Central & South Asia – energy, mining and private sector development

Energy Choices, Climate Change and CAFE Fuel Standards

A Farewell from Dr. Jim Ludes and a Discussion on National Security

Rare Earth Metals and Development in Afghanistan

Nuclear Security and the Future of the Marine Corp

Expeditionary Economics and Libya

“Are We Winning?” 2010 Report

A War Lesson to Learn, Still

By Mitchell Shivers

Back in November of 2007, then Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, delivered a landmark speech on national defense at Kansas State University.  At the time, the Secretary’s Landon Lecture was noteworthy for his call to more adequately fund our State Department’s so-called “soft power” capabilities.  During the current debate over the future of America’s national security budget, it’s worth noting his call once more.

Traditionally, Defense and State, sometimes called “Mars” and “Venus” by Washington foreign policy insiders, have been rivals for congressional funding.   Gates knew that that wouldn’t do in today’s more complex world.  He made the case that both agencies would need adequate resources to deal with national security challenges emanating from failed and failing states around the globe.  Dealing with asymmetric wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary Gates understood the need to use both guns and butter.

 One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.

Landon Lecture, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, November 26, 2007.

 Well, has Secretary Gates’ clarion call been heeded?  No.

The projection of America’s abundant soft power is still wholly inadequate.  Tally the scorecard in Afghanistan – you’ll see the consequence of our inadequacy in misspent treasure and tragic human sacrifice.  When we fail with our soft power, we rely more heavily on hard power to achieve our goals, placing an undue, and unfair, burden on our armed forces men and women.

As a nation, we dare not face our global national security challenges without the latest hi-tech armaments – and we’ll readily commit to making multi-hundred-billion dollar, multi-year commitments to ensure our safety.  We know such weapons expenditures help to deter war, and that they also ensure our success when we go to war.

But why is it, when the stakes are so high, that we still can’t tap into our vast, abundant reservoirs of national soft power resources?  Where’s our sense of urgency on this?

Our private sector’s prowess is the envy of the world.  But relatively little was done to harness that power to our benefit in Iraq and Afghanistan – and certainly not on a scale that might have made a decisive difference.  Our soft power possibilities have been mired in government red-tape, bound by well-intentioned but counter-productive congressional mandates and limited by plenty of  protected self-interests.

The little we’ve done to address our soft power weaknesses is timid and ever-protective of bureaucratic sensitivities.  Reforms, so far, have been incidental – lacking the heft needed to totally re-cast the delivery of this crucial ingredient to prevailing in asymmetric warfare.

Now, with greater federal budget constraints, the prospect for significant reform is even more remote.  But, reform we must.

Dr. Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart of the Institute for State Effectiveness, a think-tank dealing with how to remediate broken nations, estimate that there are some 50-60 failed or failing states around the world.  These tottering nations, hosts to large ungoverned spaces within their borders, provide fertile fields for exploitation by extremists of varying threats.

Afghanistan, and this legion of other troubled nations, will continue to brew threats so long as they remain unable to perform the minimum tasks of governing.  Our collective weariness with the ten year plus Afghan war will not lessen those threats.  Proactive interventions will be needed from time-to-time.  Whenever possible, our first tool of choice should be diplomacy and, ideally, our diplomacy will need to be paired with solid soft power.

Effective use of soft power can shorten or even deter wars.  Currently our attempt at soft power is often just money tossed down the drain.  We’re still using a centrally planned methodology to apply our foreign aid and our State Department aid overseers are no more effective at pulling this off than yesterday’s repudiated Soviet commissars.  No, a centrally planned model is just not any good at quickly mobilizing a failed or failing state’s economy.

For now, though, it’s the only model we have.  No one has dared to think outside the box about our foreign aid.  How might we achieve success in standing up a once failed state?  When called upon, how might we mobilize the full potential of our nation – all the elements of soft power and just the needed inputs of hard power – to achieve our national objectives?

I’m not suggesting we intervene all around the world to fix everyone else’s problems.  We should have limits on our willingness to help other countries.  But, when its in our self-interest to help another nation, we should be able to do just that – help.  Not squander our riches on well-intentioned, but hapless, aid programs that actually do little to move the ball down the field.

As a start, our government must expand its circle of soft power reformers.  Engage and exploit the best of our private sector to help develop new soft power methodologies.    Unleash its brain power and love of country.  If need be, damn the bureaucracy – this, after all, is about prevailing in war.

It’s time to re-think development risk taking in a chaotic wartime environment – no doubt some clever hedge fund managers might be able to shed some welcome light on treating conflict, and immediate post-conflict, aid like a diversified portfolio of investments with uncorrelated risks – all aimed at lessening the disruption to overall progress caused by the chaos of war.  Diversification, and decentralization of decision making, both the antithesis of central planning, hold great promise in improving aid outcomes during war.  Our current, centrally planned method of aid dispersal, concentrates risk – that’s foolish in war.

Secretary Gates was right.  We need to seriously invest in correcting this critical shortfall in our national security capabilities.  Soft power needs to become a whole-of-nation effort.  This is a skill set we’ll surely need for the rest of this century.

Mitchell Shivers is a former senior policy official at the Department of Defense in the George W. Bush Administration and the former senior advisor for economics and finance to US ambassadors Zalmay Khalilzad and Ronald Neumann at the US Embassy in Kabul.  He is currently an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the American Security Project in Washington, DC.