Discussion of the Southwest Assembly report:

1. What is the most novel idea in the report?
2. What are the trade-offs in the strategic goals?
3. If you could change one thing about the report, what would it be?
4. What's not in the report that should be?
5. What policy remedies flow naturally from this report?

Comments

Deputy Director, Next Generation Project Written by jbusby on 2006-11-05 23:02:48 I was perhaps most surprised that (1) proliferation was seen as a larger security threat than terrorism and that (2)China was viewed more through the lens of an economic competitor than a potential enemy.     I expected perhaps more discussion of Jihadist-inspired terrorism as an existential threat to the nation, what some have referred to as "World War IV." To the extent that terrorists potentially are able to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they have the potential to pose grave risks to the nation, but a focus on proliferation of WMD rather than the Middle East per se potentially inspires a different focus in policy in the years to come. It might mean that counter-proliferation like the Proliferation Security Initiative or some renewed focus on non-proliferation take center stage.    I also thought we might have heard more hardline discussion of the significance China's rise.    One of the most interesting observations I found is that it is increasingly difficult, across a range of issues, to separate domestic from foreign policy. Whether it be economic issues and competitiveness to homeland security and intelligence to public health and pandemic disease to energy policy and climate change, what happens internationally affects America and what the United States does has international ramifications.     I'm not sure we fully understand what this means, how this mutual vulnerability is different in kind from what we've seen historically.    There was a sense that I think comes through in the report that we have been chastened by the events of the last few years, that there is a collective feeling across the political spectrum that we have yet to find the right footing to deal with the complex threats and opportunities before us. We recognize that there are limits to our good intentions and capabilities to remake the world in our image, and yet, this cuts against our character as an optimistic and forward-looking people.    A major concern I have is that the American people may want a break from world affairs in the coming years, when this is less and less easy to accomplish without significant cost.

Principal, Concept Elemental Written by JWarren on 2006-11-06 17:50:37 For me, policy issues loom large, question five. Several key areas need to be addressed domestically which will fuel our ability to respond to and strategize about 21st C. global opportunities and threats.     One, the entitlement/health care conundrum needs real attention and action—a lack of action and populist prescriptions literally (recently adding a new expensive benefit to Medicare), will become a drain on the economy, sooner than later. The numbers don’t add up. Baby Boomers are set to retire in 2010, with many pushed out of jobs early. The support ratios of workers-to-beneficiaries are becoming quite low—from 3.3 workers supporting one retiree’s social security benefits reducing to 2:1 throughout the next few decades. To the extent that we ignore the elephant in the middle of the room, our ability to fund pressing new priorities will be reduced, including: adequate national security; education for the more competitive landscape vis-� -vis globalization; and international development to encourage economic growth that helps reduce marginalization, violence, and inequalities.     Two, energy policy, both in formulation and implementation, needs addressing. Our vulnerabilities from supply from unstable regions and consumption largess, with global environmental consequences, are motivation enough. A serious national debate with actions following accordingly should be waged with goals addressed first and followed by strategies to get there. The days of cheap oil are vanishing. As such a dynamic nation, surely both public and private sectors can come together.     Three, a strategic framework that fosters agility and flexibility in planning and action seems in order for our defense and intelligence communities to deal with the increasingly flat hierarchies of Al-Qaeda-type organizations using all the modern technologies we’ve created.     Four, international development via trade, and aid in some cases, should have a higher priority on the domestic agenda. Americans can now see how the worst of our world—terrorism, trafficking, and genocide—can become rooted where there is no opportunity for citizens to participate in a productive economy with transparency and market incentives. A dose of economic prevention might cure many ills.    Starting with the budget behemoths, Social Security and Medicare, we could free up resources and/or find efficiencies to re-direct funds toward education, technological development with public/private partnerships, and other domestic programs. We need to have a serious discussion about the trade-offs, about whether we can afford to pay generous benefits to retirees of all income levels in a world which has changed dramatically since these programs were enacted. This upcoming generation sees through a post-9/11 and knowledge economy lense rather than the post-World War II era of Cold War politics, the ascendancy of consumerism, and a paternalistic government. And yet, we care deeply, I believe, about supporting the needs of all generations, just not at the expense of others.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!