As the United States election season heats up, campaign rhetoric questioning the value of U.S. alliances overseas has kicked off a furor of debate in foreign policy circles. At this critical juncture of the United States reassessing its international obligations, contributing scholars to the Brookings Order from Chaos project offer their analyses of the various U.S. alliances and security partnerships, along with the diverse economic, diplomatic, and security challenges that impact those critical commitments.

Setting the stage

America’s Alliances and Security Partnerships in East Asia: Introduction Alliances have been a critical part of the U.S.-led security order in East Asia since the early post-World War II period. As regional geopolitics evolve and respond to China’s revival as a great power, so too will American alliances and security partnerships. This series contends that alliances will remain a key element of U.S. national security in defending regional stability.

U.S. alliances and security partnerships

	The U.S.-Japan Alliance At a time when one of America’s closest allies is facing a variety of existential threats, John Allen and Benjamin Sugg argue that Washington must be able to assure Japan that its security is deep-seated in U.S. grand strategy and the balance of power in the region.
	The U.S.-ROK Alliance: Projecting U.S. Power and Preserving Stability in Northeast Asia Evans Revere argues that the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea, as well as rapidly changing security dynamics in Asia, make bolstering the U.S.-Korea alliance crucial for the next U.S. president to project American power and preserve stability in Northeast Asia.
	Australia and the United States: Navigating Strategic Uncertainty In these times of growing uncertainty in the global and Asian strategic environments, the U.S.-Australian security alliance seems a pillar of stability. Even so, Rory Medcalf proposes it requires a reality check if it is to stay resilient and durable in the difficult times ahead.
	The U.S.-Philippine Alliance in a Year of Transition: Challenges and Opportunities The presidential elections in the United States and the Philippines mark uncertain transitional periods for both sides. Sheena Chestnut Greitens assesses the U.S.-Philippine alliance in terms of its current status and possible future trajectories in light of the changing domestic political alignments in Washington and Manila.
	The U.S.-Singapore Partnership: A Critical Element of U.S. Engagement and Stability in the Asia-Pacific Lynn Kuok surveys the deep partnership between the United States and Singapore and finds that, though not formal allies, the two share the belief that a strong U.S. presence in the Pacific is vital for the region’s peace, stability, and prosperity. Yet, because Singapore is a reliable partner, the next U.S. administration must not take the partnership for granted if it is to flourish going forward.
	The United States Security Partnership with Taiwan Taiwan’s reliance on the United States as a security strategy will only be tested by China’s growing military capability. Richard C. Bush analyzes the United States’ unique relationship with Taiwan and its implications for Cross-Strait political disputes.

      

 

 

Event Information

Whether in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, or Latin America, the United States faces security threats on a number of fronts and by an array of actors, including extremist networks, rogue states, and emerging powers. The Central Intelligence Agency is charged with understanding these ongoing security challenges to the United States while also identifying emerging issues that will affect the nation’s security in the future. CIA has to evolve and innovate in order to effectively address today’s pressing problems without losing sight of those over-the-horizon issues.

On July 13, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence hosted the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John O. Brennan for an address on the emerging threats facing the United States and the CIA’s strategy for meeting those challenges. Brookings Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Center on 21st Century Security and Intelligence Gen. John Allen (USMC, Ret.) introduced Director Brennan, and Senior Fellow and Director of The Intelligence Project Bruce Riedel moderated a discussion following the director’s remarks.

Video

• CIA's strategy in the face of emerging challenges

Audio

• CIA's strategy in the face of emerging challenges

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160713_cia_brennan_transcript

      

 

 

Event Information

What defines the moral contract between a nation and its soldiers? This has been an American question since before the revolutionary war, and has become increasingly relevant since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the subsequent instability that has plagued the Middle East.

In our most recent Brookings Essay, National Book Award winner and U.S. Marine Corps and Iraq War veteran Phil Klay addresses these issues that are at the forefront of what shapes U.S. citizens’ perception of the modern military and modern warfare.

In the essay, Klay surveys the history of the often fraught relationship between those who fight our wars and the American citizenry they return home to, seeking answers not simply for veterans seeking recognition, reintegration, or atonement in the aftermath of war, but also for the broader public and how we can make sense of our relationship to the past fifteen years of conflict.

On July 12, Gen. John R. Allen (USMC, Ret.) joined Phil Klay to continue the conversation on the citizen-soldier of the past, present, and future. The looming questions of moral role of the military, and the role of the media in shaping citizens’ perceptions of these issues were discussed.

Audio

• The citizen-soldier: The evolving role of the soldier and the state

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160712_citizen_soldier_transcript

      

 

 

The United States needs to bear down on a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS globally in the aftermath of the terrible June 12 tragedy in Orlando, Florida. To be sure, no such effort can reliably prevent all such future attacks. But moments like these require that we reassess and reinvigorate our strategy against a serious, global threat to our nation and our allies.

Some will say that ISIS overachieved here, or that Omar Mateen was more a deranged individual than an ISIS operative, or that recent battlefield progress by the United States and its partners against ISIS in Iraq and Syria will soon lead to the group’s demise. None of these arguments is compelling as a case for complacency. What Mateen did, even if the bloodiest single shooting spree in U.S. history, is entirely repeatable by well-trained individuals with access to weapons like the AR-15. Mateen was perhaps deranged, but he also was apparently pushed over the edge by the allure of joining a broader ISIS-inspired movement that finds legitimacy in doctrines of hate, and takes purpose from creating mass-casualty events in the name of some perverted interpretation of Islam. It could, and probably will, happen again.

Yes, a combination of Iraqi forces, U.S. and coalition airpower, Kurdish fighters, Sunni tribesmen, and Shiite militias has taken back perhaps 40 percent of Iraqi territory and 20 percent of Syrian territory previously held by ISIS. ISIS may have lost up to half its revenue in those two countries as well. But the cities of Raqqa and Mosul remain firmly in ISIS hands. Over the last year or two, moreover, ISIS has deepened its roots from the Sinai Peninsula to Libya, established tentacles from Azerbaijan to Afghanistan and into Southeast Asia, and gained a powerful affiliate in the form of the Boko Haram movement in Nigeria. It may be down, but it is hardly out. 

[ISIS] may be down, but it is hardly out.

Mapping the threat

Several crucial aspects of the anti-ISIS campaign are lagging. Country by country, an agenda to address them might be summarized as follows:

Iraq. Here, government-led forces are making headway, but the pace is slow, and most worrisome of all, there is little reason to think that Mosul in particular will be well-governed once it is retaken from ISIS. We need to find a way to increase U.S. leverage in Baghdad to create the kinds of “hold” forces that can lead to a stable peace—as much a political problem as a military one. That may require a larger aid and assistance package from the United States—especially relevant given how much Iraq depends on oil revenue and how much oil prices have fallen.

Syria. Here, the political strategy does not really hold water. Peace talks are moribund; Bashar Assad is on the march, with Russian help. We need to lower our political goals—confederation, with protection of minority rights, may be a more appropriate standard for success. But regardless, we need to step up our game at helping not only Kurdish forces, but moderate Arab forces too. Quite likely, we will need to relax modestly our vetting standards on whom we help, and increase several-fold the number of Americans involved in the training and equipping efforts. Certain types of retaliatory measures against Syrian government aircraft that bomb declared no-go zones may be appropriate as well. Only by moving towards solving the civil war can we properly target the ISIS menace there.

Libya. With the unity government perhaps taking shape, the West now needs to be preparing an intensified aid and training program for a Libyan government force that can gain the strength needed to consolidate control, at least in ISIS-occupied areas in the country’s central coastal regions. This will require perhaps hundreds of Western advisors in the country when the moment is right.

Nigeria. With President Muhammadu Buhari making progress against corruption, it is time for an expanded American assistance program that may even, if Nigerians so request, involve deployment of small mentoring teams to the field to help the army in its fight against Boko Haram.

Afghanistan. President Obama should not make any further reductions in U.S. troop levels for the rest of his presidency, and should allow U.S. commanders considerable flexibility in how they employ airpower there against the Taliban.

The Homefront. ISIS is in fact a three-headed monster—with its core in Iraq and Syria, its various provinces and affiliates (or wilayats) around the broader region, and the global network that binds the pieces together. It is against this global network, both domestically and internationally, that we must double down, for it will be this network that will generate the attacks upon our homelands. Encrypted smart phones have complicated this effort when cells of extremists are actively plotting attacks. But the net effect of technology can still probably help us—if we intensify our pressure on the network through vigilance, rigorous investigations that blend law enforcement and intelligence, and disruptive, timely actions against suspects. New York City, London, and increasingly Paris have done this, but the methods are not yet generalized. This requires aggressive and unequivocal American leadership.

It is against this global network, both domestically and internationally, that we must double down.

These efforts would be significant. Yet none would be enormous. The overseas components, taken together, would involve no more than several thousand additional U.S. personnel and several billion dollars a year in additional aid of various types to groups that are doing the real fighting and dying in common cause with us. We must strike all three heads of this horrific creature, simultaneously and relentlessly. The United States and its coalition partners have made a modest amount of progress against ISIS, but now is a moment to intensify the effort before the next, possibly much worse, attack occurs.

      

 

 

Editors’ Note: For the United States to succeed in its mission in Afghanistan, it is essential that the Obama administration sustain the current level of U.S. forces there. Recognizing this, John Allen spearheaded a move to ask President Obama to do so, in the following open letter to which former leaders from the military and diplomatic corps signed on. This letter originally appeared on The National Interest.

Washington, DC

June 3, 2016

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing, as Americans committed to the success of our country’s Afghanistan mission, to urge that you sustain the current level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan through the remainder of your term. Aid levels and diplomatic energies should similarly be preserved without reduction. Unless emergency conditions require consideration of a modest increase, we would strongly favor a freeze at the level of roughly ten thousand U.S. troops through January 20. This approach would also allow your successor to assess the situation for herself or himself and make further adjustments accordingly.

The broader Middle East is roiled in conflicts that pit moderate and progressive forces against those of violent extremists. As we saw on 9/11 and in the recent attacks in Paris, San Bernardino and Brussels, the problems of the Middle East do not remain contained within the Middle East. Afghanistan is the place where Al Qaeda and affiliates first planned the 9/11 attacks and a place where they continue to operate—and is thus important in the broader effort to defeat the global extremist movement today. It is a place where Al Qaeda and ISIS still have modest footprints that could be expanded if a security vacuum developed. If Afghanistan were to revert to the chaos of the 1990s, millions of refugees would again seek shelter in neighboring countries and overseas, dramatically intensifying the severe challenges already faced in Europe and beyond.

In the long-term struggle against violent extremists, the United States above all needs allies—not only to fight a common enemy, but also to create a positive vision for the peoples of the region. Today, aided by the bipartisan policies of the last two U.S. administrations, Afghans have established a democratic political system, moderately effective security forces, a much improved quality of life, and a vibrant civil society. Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, and in our common battle against extremism, with more than five thousand police and soldiers laying down their lives annually each of the past several years.

Afghanistan is a place where we should wish to consolidate and lock down our provisional progress into something of a more lasting asset. It is a Muslim country where most of the public as well as government officials want our help and value our friendship. Afghanistan is also a crucial partner in helping to shape the calculations of Pakistan, which has been an incubator of violent extremism but which might gradually be induced to cooperate in building a regional order conducive to peace and economic progress.

You have rightly prioritized Afghanistan throughout your presidency and have successfully achieved several crucial objectives. You have prevented the reemergence of a terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan, from which attacks on Americans might emanate. You have helped Afghanistan develop security forces so that it is principally Afghans who are defending Afghanistan, thereby enabling a 90 percent reduction in the U.S. military presence relative to its peak (and a two-thirds reduction relative to what you inherited in 2009). You have established a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan that can address common threats from extremist groups based in Pakistan. To our minds, these are significant accomplishments. They have established much of the foundation for pursuing the ultimate goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and defeating extremism in the region.

To be sure, there have been significant frustrations in Afghanistan along the way. All of us have lived and experienced a number of them. All of us have, like you, deeply lamented the loss of each American life that has been sacrificed there in pursuit of our mission objectives and our national security.

Yet, though the situation is fraught, we have reason to be confident. President Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah, and many brave Afghans are working hard to rebuild their country. NATO allies and other partners remain committed to the mission. The level of support we must provide to enable continued progress is much lower than in earlier periods.

Our group is taking full stock of the situation in Afghanistan and will make a broader range of recommendations available to the next U.S. president on the interrelated subjects of governance, the economy, and security. But as an interim measure, and with the NATO Warsaw summit as well as other key decision points still looming on your watch, we urge you to maintain the current U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan through the end of your term. Based on longstanding experience in the country as well as recent trips to Afghanistan by some of us, this step would be seen as a positive reaffirmation of America’s commitment to that nation, its people and its security. It would likely have helpful effects on refugee flows, the confidence of the Taliban, the morale of the Afghan military and Afghan people, the state of the Afghan economy and perhaps even the strategic assessments of some in Pakistan. Conversely, we are convinced that a reduction of our military and financial support over the coming months would negatively affect each of these.

Sincerely,

Ambassadors to Afghanistan

Ryan Crocker

James Cunningham

Robert Finn

Zalmay Khalilzad

Ronald Neumann

Military Commanders in Afghanistan

John Allen

David Barno

John Campbell

Stanley McChrystal

David Petraeus

Special Representatives for Afghanistan/Pakistan

James Dobbins

Daniel Feldman

Marc Grossman

      

 

 

Editors’ Note: The call to action is clear, write Dean Kamen and John Allen: U.S. students are falling behind internationally, ranking twenty-ninth in math and twenty-second in science among industrialized nations in standardized testing. The future will be determined by students of STEM. This post originally appeared on the National Interest.

Our society practically worships two groups of individuals: athletes and entertainers. It has been this way a long time, but the trend has reached its pinnacle in the modern era. We swoon over pop stars and movie stars; we pay the best pro athletes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps most significantly, in terms of what it says about our culture and how it shapes future generations, we send messages to our kids from early in their lives that sports are what count most at school, at least in terms of after-class activities. We often emphasize sports facilities, large coaching staffs and homecoming games over other types of extracurricular activities.

Not all of this is bad. We admit to liking sports ourselves. Strong, healthy bodies complement bright minds; exercise gets the blood flowing in ways that ultimately can help the brain, too. Done right, sports can develop teamwork skills and a strong sense of camaraderie.

But as a society, we need to rethink our approach. Kids will spend many hours a week learning to bounce or punt or throw or strike a ball correctly, partly for the fun of it but partly in the hope of becoming the next LeBron James or Cam Newton. And in many of the country’s neighborhoods and schools, it is often such figures who are the only prominent role models. Alas, for the vast majority of these aspiring young superstars, hours spent in the gym or on the playground are largely irrelevant to their career prospects and their life prospects.

Our intent is not to denigrate athletics. Indeed, advocates of science education can take a page out of the sports handbook, with the concepts of organized, after-school, team-oriented activities. The call to action is clear. U.S. students are falling behind internationally, ranking twenty-ninth in math and twenty-second in science among industrialized nations in standardized testing. Would the United States tolerate an Olympic team that ranked internationally twenty-second to twenty-ninth? Of course not. Yet it probably will not be Olympic athletics who will cure cancer or build the next generation of supercomputers or command the Mars mission. Our athletes and our performers are hugely important to this country, but they won’t determine the future of the United States. The future will be determined by students of STEM—young men and women from every part of America.

The term STEM is popular these days, and for good reason. It stands for science, technology, engineering and math. These are, as noted, areas of academic pursuit where American students rank among the lowest for the world’s major advanced economies. To be sure, America has the best universities, most innovative high-tech sectors, and best aerospace and medical innovation capabilities of any nation on Earth, to cite just a few of its strengths. But in the twenty-first century, excellence among our nation’s best 10 percent is no longer good enough. And in an era when Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are reflecting many middle-class economic anxieties, greater proficiency in technology offers hope. There are literally millions of jobs in the United States waiting for properly qualified individuals.

Schools in the United States today do try to teach the S and the M of STEM—science and math—fairly diligently. But math is abstract for most. And science often seems disconnected from reality. What does dissecting a frog, however cool, have to do with one’s future?

We need to do better with the T and the E. Technology and engineering. Today’s American children will likely watch astronauts go to Mars, cars learn how to drive themselves, new sources of energy displace hydrocarbons and humans routinely live beyond one hundred years. They have a choice to be bystanders as technology and engineering make such giant strides, or to be participants.

That’s where FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) comes in. It is a hands-on, mentor-based STEM program that one of us founded a quarter century ago. Presently operating in several thousand schools nationwide, just under 10 percent of the nation’s total, it tries to emulate the concept of a sports team but with a focus on realms like robotics that most children otherwise would consider abstract and remote. By making technology and engineering accessible to these students, and by helping them try to experiment and invent from an early age, we can literally change the culture of American society—and its economic prospects as well.

Today, FIRST is funded primarily by corporate and private sources. That’s allowed it to expand enormously. But it means that a school district in a remote or disadvantaged part of the country has to hope that a guardian angel will emerge to take interest in it.

Fortunately the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was passed with strong bipartisan support and signed into law last December, contains provisions that could enable school systems in disadvantaged areas of our country to create FIRST teams. However, we need to ensure that this legislation is fully implemented and funded. It is essential at this critical time for government to help scale this concept to every school. Agencies like the Department of Defense and NASA have already funded several hundred FIRST teams, and continue to grow their involvement because of the well-documented success of this program. But it’s time for the next step. Simply by funding an after-school stipend for a science coach, akin to what schools give sports coaches already, the government could take the idea of FIRST to scale, helping it reach all schools in the country.

The cost is far from prohibitive. A stipend plus modest material costs of $5,000 per school translates into a total nationwide cost in the low hundreds of millions of dollars per year. By Washington standards, this is a tiny expense for a lifetime of more technically fluent and curious future American professionals. And for a presidential race in which candidates should rightly be expected to have serious economic visions for the country, this idea could be a crucial contributor to a broader road map for the future.

      

 

 

Event Information

On May 9, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence (21CSI) at Brookings hosted NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Dean Kamen, founder of FIRST, for a discussion of the future of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in America. With increasingly complex problems emerging throughout government and with economic competitiveness at the fore of so many public debates, STEM education has the potential to deliver mission success and continued prosperity. But questions remain about how STEM programs should be implemented and which skills should be promoted and where.

As leaders in areas of the public and private sectors that rely heavily on STEM-related skills and knowledge, Bolden and Kamen spoke to the state of STEM education across the country, why making it a national priority is critical, and how educators and policymakers can better promote STEM in the nation’s future workforce. John Allen, senior fellow and co-director of 21CSI, moderated discussion.

Audio

• STEM education and future generations of American inventors, technologists, and explorers

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160509_stem_education_transcript

      

 

 

Event Information

The Center for 21st Century Security Intelligence seventh annual military and federal fellow research symposium

On March 1, the seventh annual military and federal fellow research symposium featured the independent research produced by members of the military services and federal agencies who are currently serving at think-tanks and universities across the nation. Organized by the fellows themselves, the symposium provides a platform for building greater awareness of the cutting-edge work that America’s military and governmental leaders are producing on key national security policy issues.

With presidential primary season well underway, it’s clear that whoever emerges in November 2016 as the next commander-in-chief will have their hands full with a number of foreign policy and national security choices. This year’s panels explored these developing issues and their prospects for resolution after the final votes have been counted. During their keynote conversation, the Honorable Michèle Flournoy discussed her assessment of the strategic threat environment with General John Allen, USMC (Ret.), who also provided opening remarks on strategic leadership and the importance of military and other federal fellowship experiences.

Video

• Opening remarks and The future of the All-Volunteer Force
• The next generation of terrorism
• Harnessing technology in the future force
• Keynote discussion: Assessing the strategic environment
• To intervene, or not to intervene?

Audio

• Beyond 2016: Security challenges and opportunities for the next administration

      

 

 

Event Information

A conversation with Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken

One year after the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, the United States continues to adapt its efforts to blunt the appeal of violent extremism. As part of this effort, the State Department is launching a series of new initiatives to better coordinate the U.S. response to terrorist propaganda and recruitment.

On February 16, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings hosted The Honorable Antony J. Blinken, deputy secretary of state, for a discussion of the United States’ civilian-led initiatives to counter the spread of the Islamic State and other violent extremist groups. Blinken will chart the path forward, to include partnerships with industry and civil society, and outlined the challenges that lie ahead.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott offered welcoming remarks. General John Allen, senior fellow and co-director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings, introduced Deputy Secretary Blinken, and Tamara Cofman Wittes, senior fellow and director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, joined Deputy Secretary Blinken in conversation following his remarks.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #CVE

Video

• New frameworks for countering terrorism and violent extremism
• American diplomacy best instrument against extremism
• Islamic State numbers lowest since 2014
• Common denominators of violent extremists
• Progress in Syria against Islamic State

Audio

• New frameworks for countering terrorism and violent extremism

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160216_cve_blinken_transcript

      

 

 

Event Information

Afghans will go to the polls on April 5 to vote for the next president of their country, the first person who will lead Afghanistan since President Hamid Karzai took office following the overthrow of the Taliban. The election will also mark the first democratic transition of power in Afghanistan’s history. But with many candidates in the running, a clear winner may not emerge -- perhaps leading to a runoff election later in the year. At the same time, U.S. and NATO forces continue drawdowns ahead of a deadline at the end of 2014, while attempts are made to secure a lasting presence of a smaller footprint to help ensure Afghan forces can keep the country secure.

On March 31, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings hosted a discussion on the upcoming elections in Afghanistan as well as the planned drawdown of foreign troops by the end of 2014. Participants included General John Allen (USMC, Ret.), former commander of NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan and Brookings distinguished fellow; Ronald Nuemann, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005-2007 and currently president of the American Academy of Diplomacy; and Najib Sharifi, senior analyst at Afghanistan Analysis and Awareness, a Kabul-based think tank. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, recently back from a trip to Afghanistan, moderated the discussion.

Audio

• A Pivotal Year in Afghanistan: 2014 Presidential Election and the Planned Drawdown of U.S. and NATO Forces

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140331_afghanistan_election_transcript

      

 

 

Former ISAF commander General John Allen and Michael O'Hanlon call for patience and resoluteness in American policy towards Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond, writing that Washington should be willing to wait for a Bilateral Security Agreement with the Afghans until the spring, if necessary.

MEMORANDUM TO: President Obama FROM: Michael E. O’Hanlon and Gen. John Allen (USMC, Ret.) DATE: January 23, 2014 SUBJECT: Solidify the U.S.-Afghanistan Alliance

Summary and Recommendations

The United States should remain steady in its Afghanistan policy—despite all the challenges associated with doing so. In the crucial years ahead, a time of great transitions, we need to sustain an adequate American Enduring Force, as well as support for a robust Afghan army and police. President Hamid Karzai’s continual introduction of hurdles to the signing of a U.S.-Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) is surmountable. Maintaining a U.S. troop presence after 2014 is critical to Afghanistan’s ability to build on the success that we have had in recent years. But the Afghanistan mission has become unpopular domestically; sustaining it will require resolve and an investment of your political capital.

The BSA is needed to provide the legal foundation for a sustained American, and thus NATO, military presence in Afghanistan after the current International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission ends this December. We need to stay patient and wait Karzai out—signing the BSA, if need be, with his successor in late spring or even early- to mid-summer. The last increment of some 10,000 U.S. troops, what is currently envisioned as an Enduring Force after 2014, could, if necessary, always be redeployed back home in the latter half of this year if Karzai’s successor proves unwilling to sign. Such a change would not be trivial, but it would not be insuperable either.

The risks associated with this course are minimal. Moreover, nearly all the candidates for Afghanistan’s presidential election scheduled for April support the BSA, as well as a sustained international military presence after 2014. We believe that we will get the BSA that we need to maintain a U.S. and NATO presence.

Background

Karzai can be maddening to understand. He has the United States, leading a coalition of some 50 nations, willing to stay on and help his country succeed. And that after a war that has lasted a dozen years and cost the United States more than $600 billion and 2,000 fatalities. Yet the Afghan president keeps throwing up roadblocks.

His latest obstacle was his decision to hold off on signing the BSA on the grounds that his successor should have that prerogative later this year. Karzai has also thrown in new demands—just when we thought the security agreement was a done deal. For one, he wants to compel the United States to release all Afghan detainees in the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay.

Part of Karzai’s attitude can be explained by the umbrage he has taken at various Americans, especially in recent years. Some U.S. officials made mistakes in their handling of the complex Afghan leader, such as lecturing him in public about matters such as government corruption. There can be little doubt, though, that Karzai’s own peevishness and ingratitude have played a large role.

In addition, Karzai believes—somewhat accurately perhaps—that the BSA provides him with his last remaining leverage with Washington. He is wrong in thinking that Afghanistan remains a center of geopolitics, the location of a modern-day “great game” like the 19th-century competition in his country between Britain and Russia, or the 1980s Cold War struggle pitting the Soviet Union against the United States and others.

But Karzai is right that we are concerned enough about Afghanistan’s future to wish to maintain a presence even after NATO’s combat mission expires at the end of the year. He also rightly perceives that the United States wants to maintain a presence in Afghanistan in order to keep a vigilant eye on extremist groups in tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Against this backdrop, we need to stay patient. It would be a mistake to let the foibles of one man like Karzai—increasingly detached from Afghan public and political opinion—determine the future American role in South Asia. Even with Osama bin Laden dead, the stakes remain high: Extremist groups from al Qaeda to Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Pakistani group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terror attack) could easily put down roots again in Afghanistan if the country were to fall to the Taliban after NATO’s departure.

Last November’s assembly of Afghan tribal elders, a loya jirga, again demonstrated what we already knew—that the Afghan people want a continued U.S. military presence. After the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, civil war, state collapse and Taliban victory followed. The Afghan people have seen this movie already; they do not want the sequel.The loya jirga thus urged Karzai to sign the agreement; he demurred.

The main candidates in Afghanistan’s presidential election also want us to stay. An October poll by the Moby Group in Kabul, Afghanistan’s largest private media organization, suggests the two leading contenders are former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah and former finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Both are pro-Western, smart and competent. The same is true of Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul, said by some to be Karzai’s choice to succeed him after the elections scheduled for April. Other candidates also support a continuing American and international presence.

We thus can wait and tell Karzai that, if he wants to reinforce Afghan democracy by deferring the BSA signing to his successor, we can live with that. In the meantime, we should work with his ministers and others and plan on staying—precisely as if the accord were already in place—with several significant force concentrations in the country, complemented by other foreign troops.

Of course, the United States can make contingency plans. We would need a Plan B in any event. Even as we anticipate alternate scenarios, we can continue discussions with Karzai on the other “conditions” that he has introduced. But our aim should be to prepare for a late signature by Karzai’s successor.

Meanwhile, to support the April voting, the United States should temporarily deploy an election support task force of several thousand tailored troops, additional to current forces.

Conclusion

The United States has achieved much in Afghanistan. Girls can go to school, an affront to the Taliban; women are increasingly emerging as an important factor; and ethnic minorities are finding a place and their voice in a more modern, forward-looking country. The economy has progressed dramatically. The security forces are holding their own.

The United States has achieved this progress through a decade and more of war. We should not permit Karzai’s pique to flush this down the drain. We can ride this one out. In the end, this is about American security interests and the Afghan people, not about Hamid Karzai.

Read last year's related Big Bets and Black Swans memo, "Chaos in Kabul" by Vanda Felbab-Brown »

Downloads

• Big Bets & Black Swans: A Presidential Briefing Book

     

 

 

Downloads

• Big Bets & Black Swans: A Presidential Briefing Book

     

 

 

What is going on with President Hamid Karzai? The world’s only superpower, leading a coalition of some 50 nations, is willing to stay on in his country after a war that has already lasted a dozen years and cost the United States more than $600 billion and more than 2,000 fatalities — and yet the Afghan president keeps throwing up roadblocks.

The latest insult is his decision to hold off on signing a bilateral security agreement, the legal basis for American forces to remain in his country past 2014, on the grounds that his successor should have that prerogative next year. Mr. Karzai has also thrown in new demands — just when we thought the security agreement was a done deal. For one, he now seems to believe he can compel the United States to release all Afghan detainees in the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay.

Certainly, part of Mr. Karzai’s attitude comes from the umbrage he has taken at various Americans, especially in recent years. Some United States officials did make mistakes in their handling of the complex Afghan leader, lecturing him in public too stridently about matters such as Afghan government corruption. There can be little doubt, though, that Mr. Karzai’s own peevishness and ingratitude have played a large role.

In addition, Mr. Karzai believes, accurately perhaps, that the talks over the bilateral security agreement provide him with his last remaining leverage with Washington. He is wrong in thinking that Afghanistan remains a center of geopolitics, the location of a modern-day “great game” like the 19th-century competition between Britain and Russia, or the 1980s Cold War struggle pitting the Soviet Union against the United States and others. But Mr. Karzai is right that we are concerned enough about Afghanistan’s future to wish to maintain a presence even after NATO’s combat mission expires in just 13 months. He also rightly perceives that the United States wants to keep a vigilant eye on extremist groups in tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Against this backdrop, American officials should stay calm. It would be a mistake to let one man — increasingly detached from Afghan public and political opinion — determine the fate of the American role in South Asia. Even with Osama bin Laden dead, the stakes remain high: Extremist groups from Al Qaeda to Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Pakistani group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terror attack) could easily put down roots again in Afghanistan if the country were to fall to the Taliban after NATO’s departure.

The recent assembly of Afghan tribal elders, a loya jirga, again demonstrated what we already knew — that the Afghan people want us to stay. After the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, civil war, state collapse and Taliban victory followed. The Afghan people have seen this movie already; they do not want the sequel. The loya jirga urged Mr. Karzai to sign the agreement; he demurred.

The main candidates in Afghanistan’s 2014 presidential election also want us to stay. A poll by the Moby Group in Kabul, Afghanistan’s largest private media organization, suggests that the two leading contenders are former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani. Both are pro-Western; both are smart and competent. The same is true of Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul, said by some to be President Karzai’s choice to succeed him after elections in April. Other candidates also support a continuing American and international presence.

So the United States should stay patient. It can say to Mr. Karzai, If you want to reinforce Afghan democracy by letting your successor sign this security deal, we can live with that; in the meantime, working with your ministers and other leaders, we will plan on staying — precisely as if the accord were already in place.

Of course, the United States can make contingency plans; it would need a Plan B in any event. Even as it anticipates alternate scenarios, it can continue discussions with Mr. Karzai on the other “conditions” that he has just introduced. For American leaders, we counsel patience and flexibility in the talks on a security deal.

Let us remember the girls who can go to school — an affront to the Taliban — and the Afghan women who are increasingly emerging as an important factor in the future of their country. Let’s remember, too, the ethnic minorities who have found a place and their voice in a modern, forward-looking Afghanistan.

And finally, let’s not forget the progress purchased so dearly in this decade and more of war. We must not permit Mr. Karzai’s pique to flush all this down the drain.

The United States can ride this one out. And given the enduring American strategic interests in this part of the world, as well as our huge sacrifice, that’s exactly what we should do.

In the end, this is about the American and the Afghan peoples, not about Hamid Karzai.

Editor's Note: This op-ed was published in the New York Times under another title.

     

 

 

The basic character of the future U.S.-Afghan relationship is in doubt — and will continue to be even if a security agreement is reached — because the talks over that agreement and other elements of the bilateral relationship have at times played into the hands of those who seek to profoundly limit or even sever it. That could lead to a general defeat for all we have collectively tried to accomplish over the past dozen years.

Technical details are the focus of much discussion regarding an agreement to govern U.S.-Afghan security cooperation after the current international mission ends next year. Will U.S. forces be liable in Afghan courts for any crimes they might commit against Afghans? Will the United States promise to help protect Afghanistan from its neighbors? Will U.S. forces, in certain circumstances, be authorized by Kabul to strike at al-Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Often the talks and, by extension, the relationship seem to resemble a zero-sum dispute among attorneys. This is a mistake that both sides must seek to avoid repeating.

Without a bilateral security agreement, U.S. forces cannot remain in Afghanistan past the end of next year — and absent American logistical enablers and a follow-on NATO security agreement, other allies also would leave the country. Aid efforts and diplomatic engagement would be severely curtailed, potentially handing the Taliban a victory that it cannot secure on the battlefield or at the ballot box. Reports that the two sides are close to a deal following the recent visit by Secretary of State John F. Kerry are encouraging, but the contentious nature of the negotiations and Washington’s looming deadline for completing an agreement present a real danger of failure.

The U.S.-Afghan relationship should be more than a partnership of convenience. Rather than parse our respective motives in the war and nation-building efforts, it should be underscored that both sides wish for a sovereign, stable, secure, increasingly democratic and prosperous Afghanistan that can protect its people and territory. This would be good for both the Afghan people and a region badly in need of an example of political and economic development and a platform for regional economic integration.

The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been considerable. The United States had never before waged war with one nation against a common foe for 12 straight years. To be sure, the common foe is largely from within Afghanistan and gains its strength and support largely from mistakes and weaknesses of the Afghan state (as well as U.S. errors). But balanced against these negatives are many positives — the remarkable younger generation of Afghans, the diaspora that returned home to try to rebuild Afghanistan after 9/11, the huge improvements in women’s rights and children’s access to education that inspire people worldwide. Afghans remain far more pro-American than Pakistanis, Iraqis, Egyptians or most other major majority-Muslim states. As such, regardless of President Hamid Karzai’s public rhetoric on any given day, the Afghan people can be an important partner for the United States, which needs true friends in this volatile region.

For Afghanistan, the United States is the key enabler of its lifeline to the outside world. The U.S.-led effort has helped galvanize a presence of some 50 nations in the international coalition and set the conditions for related development activities. Never before has a superpower worked so hard to help Afghans gain sovereign control of their country, and the United States has asked for little in return beyond an enduring relationship. Washington learned from its mistake in 1989, when the Soviets were defeated and America went home. It has persevered, spending $700 billion, losing more than 2,000 American lives and suffering more than 10,000 seriously injured.

It does not matter whether the United States and Afghanistan codify this shared history in a formal treaty. Indeed, the existing Strategic Partnership Agreement provides a solid and equitable framework to guide future relations. Several close U.S. security partnerships are with non-treaty allies — Taiwan, Israel, Singapore, the Persian Gulf states. More important are the narratives that each side tells itself about the other and the bonds that ensue among the two governments and peoples. A protracted and unnecessarily acrimonious negotiating process, often interrupted or held hostage by disputes, negatively colors the perspectives that each side develops. This moment should present an opportunity to commemorate our partnership to date, all the blood spilled by the troops and other committed citizens of both countries who have waged war shoulder to shoulder — shona ba shona — against some of the world’s most brutal and oppressive killers, and to lock in our gains so that we can build together for the future.

The hour is late for such a change of heart, messaging and spirit across our two nations. But it is not yet too late.

     

 

 

Washington, D.C. – General John Allen (USMC Ret.), former commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, has joined the Brookings Institution as a distinguished fellow, President Strobe Talbott announced today.

At Brookings, General Allen will affiliate with the Foreign Policy program, specifically the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence (21CSI).

“We are honored that General Allen has joined the Brookings ranks as a distinguished fellow,” Talbott said. “He has served our country and the U.S. military with distinction for more than 35 years. We look forward to his contributions to public policy work at Brookings.”

General Allen, who recently retired from the U.S. armed forces after completing a 19 month tour as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, brings a strong intellectual and governmental background to Brookings. Allen graduated with military honors from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1976, receiving a Bachelor’s degree in operations analysis. He holds a Master’s degree in national security studies from Georgetown University, a Master’s degree in strategic intelligence from the National Defense Intelligence College, and a Master’s in national security strategy from the National War College.

Allen was recently named senior advisor to the U.S. secretary of defense, focusing on security in the context of Middle East Peace. Among General Allen’s notable accomplishments was the development of the contemporary Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, the premier training regimen for infantry officers in the Marine Corps, and the first and only Marine ever to serve as commandant of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. General Allen served as director for Asia-Pacific Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, deputy commanding general in al-Anbar province during the “surge” in Iraq, and deputy commander for United States Central Command.

“General Allen is one of the finest military leaders and strategists of his generation,” said Peter Singer, senior fellow and director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. “He has served his country with great distinction and, now at 21CSI, will serve as a thought leader on defense and security issues.”

Brookings recently launched 21CSI to address the key issues that will shape security policy over the coming decades, from defense policy and new military technology to intelligence-gathering and cybersecurity. Especially relevant to General Allen’s expertise, 21CSI also serves as a hub for collaborative work on security issues with Brookings’ regional studies centers, most notably the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He has recently published a report on future Afghanistan policy, along with Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon and former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy.

Brookings’s distinguished fellows are individuals of particularly noteworthy distinction whose work across several fields of public policy puts them at the pinnacle of worldwide research and policy impact. Distinguished fellows are actively engaged in the life of the Institution, often with more than one of Brookings’s five research programs. In assuming the title, General Allen joins David Dreier, longtime chairman of the Rules Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives; Jean-David Levitte, former French ambassador to the United States; Sadako Ogata, former president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and United Nations high commissioner for refugees; Jon Huntsman, former ambassador to China and Singapore and governor of Utah; Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and former U.S. secretary of health and human services; Itamar Rabinovich, an Israeli diplomat, scholar, and university president; Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania; Thomas Pickering, a career U.S. ambassador and former under secretary of state for political affairs; and Javier Solana, former secretary general of NATO and the European Union’s high representative for foreign and security policy.

     

 

 

Editor's Note: In his retirement remarks delivered at the U.S. Naval Academy, General John Allen recognizes the sacrifice of American forces over the last 13 years of conflict as well as the Marine Corps’ dedication to the country since its founding. After nearly 35 years of service, General Allen’s most recent assignment was as commander of ISAF and US Forces in Afghanistan.

Thank you Commandant for consenting to this event and supporting it so magnificently.

In the same breath, Colonel Cabaniss, the commander of these magnificent Marines who stand before you today, the Marines of our Oldest Post in the Corps, the Marines of Marine Barracks Washington, thank you for your enormous support of this event.

Secretary of the Navy Mabus, ADM Greenert, and VADM Miller, thank you for permitting this ceremony to occur at the Naval Academy, this incomparable institution that has such meaning to our Navy and Marine Corps.

This day … retirement … comes for all of us eventually, and while often it is viewed in a manner akin to the coming of the Grim Reaper, I can tell you for my family and for me, this day marks a new beginning for the Allens.  Our distant horizon is bright.  Many of our dearest friends have gone aloft, high into the rigging, and are helping us to see what’s ahead and to plot a course into the future.

It would not be possible to put into words what I’m feeling this afternoon.  I grew up in a Navy family … a Navy junior … and enlisted in April 1971, shortly after I turned 17, and from the day I was born to this moment, I’ve known only the naval service and more recently the Joint Force.  Throughout, even accounting for some the challenging and dark moments, and 33 months in combat, it really has been the best of times. 

My career has spanned portions of five decades, a period in our Nation’s history fraught with challenge and danger, a period which has seen our forces in action against the nation’s foes, from the end of the Vietnam War, the Cold War, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Desert Shield and Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Through this period I’ve been blessed to be entrusted with a number of special assignments in East Asia, the Middle East and Central and South Asia.

I have been humbled to be part of all this.  Humbled to hold the commission of an officer of Marines.  Humbled to lead Marines and Sailors, and more recently the Soldiers, Airmen and civilians of the Joint Force.  Ladies and gentlemen, let me talk about them for a few moments for they are magnificent, all of them, and I have treasured, truly treasured, every moment I have had with them. 

It is often lost on the American people that the security of our nation and our freedom, and frankly that freedom of much of the rest of the world, is secured by the smallest fraction of our people- less than one percent of US population.  On the broad and strong shoulders of these young men and women we’ve just fought two major wars, and kept the wolf from the door in the Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, in East Asia, and in places too numerous to mention where we strive with the dark forces of evil seeking to destroy us and our way of life. 

In his landmark book The Anatomy of Courage, Lord Moran spoke of courage in war.  From his own long experience in the trenches of the western front, he learned that war has no power to transform a person, rather war – combat – only has the power to reveal.  “A man of character in peace is a man of courage in war.”  War is not about some heroic, mystical, transformative force.  Indeed, combat strips away the superficial trappings of society, and at that hard, uncompromising moment, the moment of truth, war reveals us all for what we are.   And more than a decade of conflict, war has revealed to us that these troops are noble, they are selfless, they are courageous in mind, in body, and in spirit. 

And when America sleeps tonight, it will not know what was done this day, in a 100 un-named places by our precious young men and women who protected us while we slept.  So tonight America will rest peacefully likely unaware of the sacrifices of that day and the horrendous price paid by some for our freedom.  It has been the greatest my honor of my life to lead these young warriors. 

Across the years I’ve keenly felt their loss; each one was personal to me, and in Afghanistan it didn’t get easier at the head of a field army.  It was harder.  When I was notified of our casualties, my thoughts ran immediately to a home somewhere in America where a young wife and her tiny children sleep peacefully in the hopes a precious husband and darling father will come home to them safely, whole in body and in mind.  And I always knew in a few hours, a knock on the door would change their lives forever and ever. 

This decade plus of war has exacted a heavy price from our forces.  All of us in uniform have given something, but many have given much, and some, several thousand, have given everything.  In my time in Afghanistan, more than 5500 of my troops were wounded, many of them amputations, but 561 of my precious troops were killed.  I will bear that responsibility to my grave, and not a day goes by, nor the passing of a night, without my seeing the faces or hearing their names.  They are with me constantly.  They are the best of us, they are the new “greatest generation,” and I miss them so!

Laurence Binyon in For The Fallen captured the very essence of this sacrifice and indicted all of us to understand this heavy toll and to keep faith with this sacrifice, to make it mean something.  He would write one of the most moving poems of sacrifice and about the dead of the Great War. In this poem, in so few lines, he captured it all.  The first four lines I’ll read you’ve perhaps never heard, but they are as relevant today as then.  The last four lines are well known to many of us, especially each year on Veterans Day.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

And so, borrowing from the final scene of the epic film Saving Private Ryan, I say to our leaders of government, to our learned elite, to those whose decisions cash in on the lives of our blessed youth, I say to them and to the people of America, live that we deserve this greatest sacrifice from the youth of America.  Deserve this!

Let me talk about the Corps for a moment, and not to the exclusion of our other services.  In most of my adult life, all I have known is the Corps.  For over two centuries our US Marine Corps has embodied the very essence of all that is right and true in America.  Our standards are high and uncompromising.  Indeed, in ways essential to who we are and what we must do for America, Marines are animated by a spiritual truth, that while we may be called upon to kill, indeed the real source of our strength and power comes from the more poignant reality: that we are prepared to die, to sacrifice all we have, indeed to sacrifice all we are, in a cause greater than ourselves.

As our Marines emerge from 13 years of war, I am encouraged, indeed I’m optimistic, about the future of our Corps, the nation’s 911 force.  Seated here today, and embodied in the presence of our Commandant and his First Lady, is the transformational leadership that will carry the Corps into the next 50 years.  With Jim Amos and others at the helm I am optimistic about our future.  And America can continue to count on its Marines.

This ceremony today embodies the sweep of my career and my life, so powerfully represented by the Marine battalion on line before you here in Alumni Hall.  While I’ve been a Marine for nearly 4 decades, I was reared at the US Naval Academy.  For my guests here today, the entire sweep of the history of America’s Naval Service is revealed on this campus, the 338 acres called, in the tradition of our Navy, simply:  The Yard.  In many ways, this is hallowed ground for our Navy and Marines.  And in that vein, I am truly blessed to have with me today over 100 members and family of my class, the great Bicentennial Class of 1976. 

Kathy and I are so honored and blessed to have you all with us today.  And you are led by our great Class president and my company mate from 34^th Company, Kevin Stone.  We entered the Academy 1329 strong on the 1^st of July 1972, and graduated on 2 JUN, 1976 with 832 in ranks.  Each of us was shaped profoundly by our experiences here.  And whether we went on to submarines, or Navy air, surface warfare or SEALs or the Marine Corps, our lives were inextricably and forever linked by what happened here in the Yard. 

The Yard is full of the silent messages of the essential values of our naval service, such as “Don’t’ Give Up the Ship” or “I have not yet begun to fight” messages of courage, sacrifice and fortitude.  But none of those messages speaks more directly to what we are, to the selflessness of our profession, than the words on the massive bronze doors of our Naval Academy Chapel.  In the ancient Latin of our Roman forebears, the midshipmen of Annapolis and the graduates, young and old, are called upon to live the very essence of sacrifice and selflessness: “Non sibi sed patriae … not for self, but country.” Not for self, but country.  And the Class of 1976 has lived and embodied those words of courage, of sacrifice, of selflessness.  Vinny Smith was killed in action in Beirut in 1983, and many others have fallen in the line of duty serving with the Fleet and Fleet Marine Force at the far flung edges of American influence.  I honor their memory today. 

In my career I would be both an instructor here at Annapolis, but also the Commandant, and while our football team struggled each of those seasons I stood on the sidelines, at least we beat Army both years. 

We’d hoped that my Classmate, Jim Stavridis, would be here today to help pipe me over the side, but the call of duty and intensity of Syria and other challenges kept him in Europe.  In my last tour, Jim was a God send as both my NATO commander as SACEUR, but was as close a friend and confidant as I could ever have hoped to serve. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Naval Academy Alma Mater, Navy Blue and Gold is so precious to us.  We were literally raised on the first verse and there’s not a grad living, no matter how white the hair or dim the vision, who cannot rise to his or her feet, place hand over heart, and recite from memory Navy Blue and Gold.  But today it is the third verse that I will recite- mercifully for you I won’t sing it.  For in these words was the reason Jim and I had hoped to appear together this morning and why I wanted to end my career in the Yard at Annapolis, surrounded by friends and family and Classmates and Marines.  And the last verse goes:

Four years together by the Bay where Severn joins the tide.
And by the service called away we’re scattered far and wide.
But then when two or three shall meet, old stories be retold
From low to highest in the Fleet … we pledge the Blue and Gold.
Go Navy

And finally, my precious family.  I made a decision earlier this year that it was time to go home to Virginia, my birthplace and the place where I will live out my days.  The last six years had been very challenging for my family.  But through it all, Kathy was a great stalwart.  Kathy has always been a hero to me.  The ultimate example of selflessness, she’s spent her years raising our two wonderful daughters while I was gone for so much of their young lives, but she also provided as much as she could for the families of our Marines and Sailors, and then later the families of our Joint Force. 

She comes by this sense of duty honestly and easily.  And I’d like to review the record briefly.  Her grandfather, Merton Jennings Batchelder, was a Marine General Officer and a highly decorated and celebrated combat leader from both WWI and II.  He would serve on the Western Front in the Great War and lead the 25th Marine Regimental Landing Team at Saipan and Tinian (where he would receive the Navy Cross), culminating in his leading the assault waves of the 4^th Marine Division at Iwo Jima as the Division COS. 

Kathy’s grandmother, Kate Jolliff, was an Army nurse in a field hospital in France in WW I.  Her grandparents would meet and marry a year after the war. 

Kathy’s mother, Betty, the oldest of the three children of Brigadier General and Mrs. Mert and Kate Batchelder would meet and marry a dashing young Marine captain, Archie Norford, when she was 19.  With only four months together, he deployed to the Pacific and to the 2d Battalion, 4^th Marines.  He distinguished himself in battle on Guam, and just days before the end of the fighting on Okinawa, leading his rifle company from the front in some of the most vicious combat on the island, he was killed in action. 

Kathy’s mother would marry a second time also to a Marine, Robert Glickert, who was Kathy’s father.  He would land on Tulagi with Edson’s Raiders, clearing that island of the Japanese defenders, then shift into the desperate fighting against the Japanese on Guadalcanal. 

Last week I had the great honor of reading the eulogy at the funeral for Kathy’s Uncle, the youngest child and son of Mert and Kate Batchelder, Merton Jennings Batchelder, Jr.  He graduated from the Naval Academy Class of 1951 and followed his father into the Corps.  As a Marine Second Lieutenant Mert plunged head-long into the North Korean and Chinese forces during the desperate fighting of 1951 and 52 in Korea along the outpost line. 

Kathy and my precious daughters, Betty and Bobbie, have more Marine green pumping in their veins than most Marines I know.  With my retirement today as the last living Marine in our family, we proudly mark well over 100 years of service in and to our Corps and Country, but we do so humbly, having been honored to wear the precious icon of our Corps: the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. 

Yes, Kathy and Betty and Bobbie come by their characters and their love of family and country honestly and naturally and it is with that in mind and the sacrifices they have made that I made the decision to retire.   So I’ll end where I began: we see only the bright light of promise on our horizon.  Each of you here today has been precious to us in your own unique ways and we’re so grateful for your love and friendship, something we will always treasure, always. 

As the shadows of our lives begin to lengthen, Kathy and I will draw upon the happiness and pleasure and the memories each of you has brought us in such great abundance.

Let me close with a quote of parting from the great Shakespeare play Julius Caesar.  Two Roman generals, dear friends, are uncertain of the future as the certainty of battle loomed hard upon them.  They knew this could be a final parting, and while I hope with all my heart this is not our final parting, please know with these words how I feel about you all now. 

And whether we shall meet again I know not.
Therefore our everlasting farewell take:
For ever, and for ever, farewell, Cassius!
If we do meet again, why, we shall smile;
If not, why then, this parting was well made

Ladies and Gentlemen, by your presence today you have honored Kathy and me.  Thank you for coming.  Semper Fidelis.

Authors

• John R. Allen

Publication: U.S. Naval Academy

Image Source: © Mohammad Ismail / Reuters

     

 

 

]]>

Event Information

On March 26, Foreign Policy at Brookings hosted General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, for a discussion of the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Prior to his current assignment, General Allen served as deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command from June 2008 to July 2011. Senior Fellow Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at Brookings, provided introductory remarks. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon, director of research for Foreign Policy, discussed the U.S. and allied mission with General Allen and moderated the discussion, including some questions from the audience.

Video

• Pivotal Year in Afghanistan
• Increase in Insurgent Activity
• Security of Afghani People is Paramount
• U.S.-Pakistan Cooperation
• Full Video: The U.S. Mission in Afghanistan

Audio

• The U.S. Mission in Afghanistan

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20120326_afghanistan_allen