Last Wednesday the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing on NNSA’s FY 2012 budget request.

The hearing prompted a very interesting and lively exchange between Subcommittee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the team of NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino and NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Don Cook on plutonium pit aging and production.  Jeffrey Lewis has a short write up about the discussion of pit corrosion over at Armscontrolwonk.

Of particular interest to me was NNSA’s rationale for why they need to produce new pits, Feinstein’s frustration with this explanation and NNSA’s unwillingness to tell her how many pits they plan to produce, and Feinstein’s general awesomeness.  Re: Feinstein’s awesomeness, below are my three favorite quotes from her from the hearing:

1. “I mean, it’s one of the reasons why I’m sitting right here, why I run for this office because I want my grandchildren and their children to grow up in a nuclear-free world. And I’m going to do everything I can to be helpful to get there.

So this is not something that I’m just going to fluff off and forget about.”

2. “And it’s fair to say that you guys wanted to develop new nuclear weapons. That’s what RRW essentially did. It was killed because of it. And I don’t want to see, you know, RRW in Mufti right now.”

3. (to D’Agostino) “I don’t want you to do it off the top of your head. As much as I think you’re terrific, I really — this is a big thing for me.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, DoD News Briefing with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright, April 21, 2011.  

Yesterday, Representative Barney Frank delivered a speech at the Center for American Progress on defense spending priorities.  Though (only hours after the president’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed) the issue may not have been the first on everyone’s minds, Frank made the case that it is all the more relevant in light of the US’ recent success.

Calling for a reduction of $200 billion a year from the current Pentagon spending amount of roughly $700 billion per year, Frank said that the United States should reevaluate its commitment to foreign military bases and large deployments of troops overseas, as well as the structure of NATO.  In addition, Frank would like to see a large chunk of that $200 billion reduction come from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who want us to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” said Frank, noting that this was a major victory for the president, who might want to “call President Bush and ask if he can borrow the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.”

Though the threat of terrorism is still very real, Frank argued that it is not exactly the type of threat that is fought using the most costly weapons.  “I wish you could defeat terrorists with nuclear submarines,” said Frank, “because we have a lot of nuclear submarines and they don’t have any nuclear submarines.”

Other lawmakers were less quick to seize on the Afghanistan angle.  “The urgency of finding those savings will remain there and won’t be affected by this,” said Senator Carl Levin, saying that the deficit would need to be reduced whether bin Laden was dead or alive.

On Wednesday April 20, the New America Foundation hosted a daylong event, entitled “Afghanistan War: Containing or Leveraging U.S. Power” which I attended.  

There were four panels, but the difficult-to-sit-on-chairs got to me after two.  Okay, I’ll admit,  the last panel was with Ann Coulter, who is both not an expert on Afghanistan and extremely stressful.  I made a conscious decision to skip it.   However, the first two panels were excellent (see end for a list of the panelists and their affiliation).

At this event, I came to grips with a sad realization:  the more I learn about Afghanistan, the more hopeless the situation seems.  I can better appreciate the range of consequences no matter what the U.S. decides to do, and find every proposed less-than-perfect.  

I’m sure I’m not the only one; it just took me longer.

The first panel at the event tackled the cost of the Afghan war. The cost is too high, in dollars and lives, and the war does not advance our national interests, the panelists said.  At a time when the U.S. Congress is quibbling about cutting $60 billion from the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the war in Afghanistan will cost $108 billion this year alone.  If Obama pulled the troops out, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and the U.S. public would not notice, Richard Vague argued.  

Only Peter Bergen said that the cost of the war was worth it.  He said that the U.S. has a moral obligation to remain and ensure security because “we overthrew their government.”  

Bergen’s argument is one that I used to subscribe to, but as the years have gone on, our continued presence in Afghanistan has only caused more U.S., Afghan and Pakistani casualties, served as a recruiting tool for the insurgency and created great instability rather than security, as Matthew Hoh said.  

Even though I was put off by Vague’s depiction of how unaffected most Americans are by the war (because the Afghans would notice American troops leaving), he is right that the costs are too high for a war with little benefit.  Ours is a basic strategic mistake, Katulis explained, we are not able to recognize what we cannot achieve.

We cannot “succeed” in Afghanistan because we are in a military stalemate, as the panelists on the second panel discussed.  The only realistic next step for Afghanistan involves a political solution.  

Panelist Ambassador Thomas Pickering co-chaired the Century Foundation’s report, “Afghanistan: Negotiating Peace,” which proposed a negotiated a settlement with all interested Afghan parties, including the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, the Karzai government and civil society.  

Their proposal is controversial for several reasons. Previous negotiations with religious extremists have not gone well (Paul Bergen); the Taliban will be allowed to return to politics;  and a settlement could roll back human rights.   Additionally, if you believe, as Ambassador James Dobbins does, that the U.S. has improved the situation in Afghanistan and that the Karzai government and U.S. troops are popular, negotiations are unnecessary or at least premature.  Dobbins’ rosy view of Afghanistan comes from public surveys that may be questionable.

I have my own misgivings about a negotiated settlement.  I agree that negotiations with religious extremists historically do not go well.  But neither do wars of attrition.  

More worrisome to me is the likelihood that Afghan women will be excluded from these negotiations, judging by the track record of U.N. and U.S. negotiations and the role of women in Afghan society.  

Joshua Foust, also a member of the Century Foundation’s task force, did not ease my fears when he said that Afghans do not want the West dictating their values. This belittles and denies the work of many Afghan human rights advocates and ignores the fact that pre-Taliban, Afghan women were fully integrated into public society.  I worry that through negotiations, we might unintentionally perpetuate and codify the exclusion of women, who are victims in this war and deserve a seat at the table. (more on this here)

The real problem with ending this war is that the solutions are not perfect; all have political and social costs.  However, the current situation is untenable and unbearable. There may still time to promote  solutions and make a political settlement work.  The time for any military success though has run out, so let Obama bring the troops home as promised.

Panel 1 “The Afghanistan War: A-Cost benefit analysis” panelists:
•    Thomas R. Pickering, Co-Chair, Century Foundation International Task Force on Afghanistan, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Department of State and former US Ambassador to the United Nations
•     James C. Clad, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South & Southeast Asian Affairs
•    Joshua Foust, Fellow, American Security Project
•    Richard Vague, Co-Founder, Afghanistan Study Group
•    Paul R. Pillar former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia, National Intelligence Council Member, Afghanistan Study Group

Panel 2 “Next Steps in Afghanistan: What are the Options?” panelists:

•    Matthew P. Hoh, Director, Afghanistan Study Group (Council for a Livable World board member)
•    James Dobbins, Director, International Security & Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation
•    Peter Bergen, Director, National Security Studies Program, New America Foundation
•    Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
•    C. Christine Fair, Assistant Professor, Center for Peace & Security Studies

You can watch it later this week here.

As has been rumored for some time now, President Obama is expected to announce this week his decision to appoint Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta to replace Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  The move comes as part of a significant restructuring of the president’s security team.  General David Petraeus will reportedly replace Panetta at CIA, General John Allen will replace Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker will replace Karl Eikenberry as US Ambassador in Kabul.

Gates has been on his way out for some time now and will officially depart this summer, leaving behind some big shoes to fill, in more ways than one.  Above and beyond Gates’ admirable legacy, Panetta will face the issues left behind: Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya on top of a massive deficit and impending defense cuts.  The job won’t be an easy one.

Choosing Panetta, former head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), signals the president’s commitment to taking a hard look at the Pentagon budget at a time when few, certainly not the Republican leadership, are even willing to offer it up for discussion.

Panetta will be the first Democrat in the post since William J. Perry left at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term. Panetta’s long history as a Democratic congressman, impressive budget track record, and close connection with the ongoing wars make him uniquely suited to the job.  He was no doubt chosen for his close connections with both the White House and Capitol Hill.

But beyond the credentials, here’s my honest two cents: I’ve heard rumblings of discontent from those who fear Panetta may not take a big enough ax to the Pentagon’s budget.  There is not, in my honest opinion, a SecDef on earth that would cut Pentagon spending the way some would like… Panetta represents a choice who is highly informed on budget issues, coming into the position with a goal, clearly set out by the president, to cut the budget.  To me, that’s great news.

A bigger ax is not always better.  The Pentagon budget has grown without restraint, and as Gates said, the “gusher” has to be turned off.  But this isn’t just a spigot that can be quickly turned in the other direction.  What is needed now is someone to take a very close, responsible look at where the waste lies, conduct an audit, a comprehensive review, and make a well informed decision about the security of the United States.  This will, no doubt, involve cuts, but the strategy has to come before the math.  

Again, I don’t mean to use the phrase in the same way Gates did.  His comments during the ongoing budget debates in congress were directed at those who wanted to cut more than he did no matter the cut, something that is equally irresponsible.  Though Gates made great strides in cutting inefficient and wasteful programs, there are, no doubt, more than a few left over.  The new SecDef’s job is to find those programs, and if any realistic candidate for the job can and will, this is the one.