“Chemical weapons are illegal for a reason and if Assad used them, there must be serious consequences. We applaud the President’s decision to increase support for the rebels. Advocates for more aggressive action need to explain how their plans address the danger of chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Thankfully the president is being cautious about his military options — this is not a place where America can go it alone. We’re always stronger when we’re working with friends; they share the cost and burden. We’re already working with other countries on Syria and that’s got to continue.”

Guidance for Communicators & Elected Officials

Drones are an evolution of military technology that isn’t inherently good or bad

Many people react strongly to drone technology. Drones, though, are just a tool – a new technology that isn’t inherently moral or immoral. We should focus instead on the rules that govern the use of the tool.

We need to update old rules with 21st century ones that meet our values

It is very difficult to apply 20th century rules to a battlefield with unclear borders.  That means we need new rules that are out in the open and meet the legal and ethical challenges counterterrorism poses.  On issues like this, the world looks to us for leadership.

The Constitution means Congress gets access and oversight

Intelligence information should be secret. But the rules about when we can use military force can’t be secret and should be overseen by the Congressional committees that deal with the military and justice. Oversight by Congress and the judiciary ensures that the next President can’t rewrite the rules all by themselves.

When American citizens are involved, the burden should be higher

The power to kill an American citizen off of a traditional battlefield is worrisome and potentially dangerous. Clear and public rules should ensure that citizens’ rights are respected.

DEVELOPING A DETAILED POSITION

Know where your fight is. When developing a responsible position on targeted killing, consider specifically what concerns you have:

The lack of geographic and time limitations on the president’s power to wage war against terrorist groups. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not limit authority for the use of force to Afghanistan. Rather, it authorized force against those who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their affiliates. This means the President can wage war against al Qaeda no matter if they are in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere outside America.  It also has been interpreted to mean that there is no end to this statute, as al Qaeda continues to be in a declared state of war against the U.S. Those worried about the global breadth and possibly-endless nature of this conflict should look to the 2001 AUMF.

The process by which any people outside a traditional warzone are targeted. International law recognizes the right of a nation to defend itself against a country or individual, even to respond preemptively to an imminent threat. The question to consider is how the President exercises war powers against threatening individuals and how that might change depending on how immediate the threat is.

The process by which American citizens can be targeted.  In the context of “traditional” wars, Americans who raised arms against their country on a battlefield weren’t considered specially from other combatants unless captured. The Obama administration’s treatment of Americans who have joined al Qaeda affiliates beyond a traditional battlefield has been different, as seen in the recently-leaked memo justifying the attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki. A number of ideas have been floated to bring judicial review into the process of targeting Americans outside the country.

Is targeted killing an intelligence community program or a military task? What is the role of the Department of Justice? Programs run by the CIA and overseen by intelligence committees tend to be much more secretive and have much less public disclosure than those overseen by House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC in the parlance). During his confirmation hearing to head the CIA, John Brennan was supportive of running the targeted killing program out of the Department of Defense rather than CIA. The Department of Justice is heavily involved in writing the rules and legal justification for targeted killing, but as seen recently, those memos are often kept secret, when instead the judiciary committees should be closely involved. Laws – even in the form of memos that interpret powers – should not be secret.

The issue of sovereignty.  Over 90% of current drone strikes have been in Pakistan, a sovereign country and a supposed ally.  Nations such as China, Russia, and North Korea fight to defend sovereignty and the right to do whatever they want within their borders.  Some national security experts believe that sovereignty must be altered: countries have a right to sovereignty if they have working systems that can bring terrorists and criminals to justice; otherwise, other countries should have the right to self-defense.  Another argument goes further, saying that sovereignty should be limited if a country abuses its own citizens, as with Syria.  Given the proclivity of terrorist groups to work within sovereign but weak countries that cannot or will not root them out and deliver them to justice, we need a better set of accepted rules on what intervention is allowed in sovereign countries.

Understand why the military and the President like unmanned vehicles

Unmanned vehicles are attractive tools for a number of reasons. They are precise, meaning we can get the bad guy with fewer civilian deaths than with alternative weapons. They are affordable compared to manned aircraft. Unmanned vehicles also put  fewer American lives at risk compared to manned aircraft or ground troops, though ground support is often important in determining where to target an attack.

Understand why many worry about unmanned vehicles

The fact that drone strikes pose less risk of American loss makes it an easier choice for a President to take. So while they may cause fewer civilian casualties per strike, their ease of use encourages frequent use and may lower the threshold for the use of force, meaning that civilian deaths could still be significant in the aggregate despite individual strikes’ accuracy.

BASIC FACTS

Founding. The Center for National Policy was founded in 1972 by a small group of policy leaders. The Truman Project was founded in 2005 by Rachel Kleinfeld and Matthew Spence. Dr. Kleinfeld remains the President of Truman.

History of leadership. Both Truman and CNP have a long history of policy and political leadership and association with the senior leaders. Current and past Presidents, Board Members, and Advisors of Truman and CNP include or have included: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (CNP President ‘90-‘93, Truman Advisory Board), Former White House Counsel Greg Craig (Truman Advisory Board), President Emeritus of the Council on  Foreign Relations Les Gelb (Truman Advisory Board), Senator Gary Hart (Truman Advisory Board), Former Chief of Staff to the Vice President Ron Klain (Truman Governing Board), Secretary of State Senator Edmund Muskie (CNP Chairman ’85-‘94), Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (CNP Chairman ’00-‘03, CNP Advisory Board Chair ’02-‘09), Former Secretary of Defense William Perry (Truman Advisory Board), Chair of the Center for American Progress John Podesta (Truman Advisory Board), Ambassador Tim Roemer (CNP President ’03-‘09), Former State Department Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter (Truman Advisory Board),  Former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (CNP Chairman ’83-‘85).

Staffing and Budget. Truman and CNP together total more than 30 staff members and a budget of approximately $5 million.The two organizations will share staff and have a single Executive Director.

Websites. The Truman Project’s website is www.TrumanProject.org. CNP can be found at www.CNPonline.org. An updated web presence that reflects the partnership is under development.

COMMON QUESTIONS

Why are the Truman Project and the Center for National Policy partnering?

We are partnering to create a preeminent national security organization which combines the political power, community building, and leadership development strengths of the Truman Project with the policy heft and heritage of the Center for National Policy.  Truman and CNP have been longtime friends and allies. As an example of that relationship, the Truman Project’s first office space was actually a sublet from CNP.

Is either organization changing its issue or ideological focus?

No. Truman and CNP share a set of values that drive everything we do. We are fundamentally forward-leaning, embracing the challenges of a changing world, and helping define America’s role in it. We are driven to improve the national and economic security of the United States through strong alliances, a robust military, international engagement, and support for democracy, human rights, development and trade.

Who leads this new organization?

As required by law, the two organizations maintain separate Boards of Directors while sharing staff. Rachel Kleinfeld remains the President of the Truman Project and Scott Bates remains President of the Center for National Policy; both serve as Senior Advisors to the sister organization. Michael Breen is Executive Director of both organizations, Sarah Bruno is COO, Michael Moschella is Chief Organizer, David Solimini is Vice President for Strategic Communications, and Robin McQueen is Vice President of External Relations. Complete staff biographies can be found here (Truman) and here (CNP).

Legally, what happened? Is this a merger?

The Truman National Security Project and the Center for National Policy are partner organizations with a shared staff, single Executive Director, and separate Presidents and Boards of Directors. Legally, The Truman Project’s sister organization, the Truman Institute, merged with the Center for National Policy and adopted the name and its leadership.

Will this partnership result in any staffing consolidation or cuts?

No. Because this partnership represents growth for the two organizations, our shared staff will stay on and continue to grow.  New employment opportunities are available here.

Is Truman or CNP changing their name?

No.  In a setup typical to c3 and c4 sister organizations, the Truman Project and the Center for National Policy will retain their names.

What does this mean for Truman Project Members?

Truman Security Fellows, Political Partners, and Veteran Leadership Academy graduates will remain Members of the Truman Project. Those programs will continue to recruit, train, and position the next generation of national security leaders.

How are Truman and CNP funded?

We are funded by a wide range of individual, foundation, and corporate donors. There is no primary funder or “angel” donor for either organization.

Are Truman and CNP moving offices?

We are currently exploring joint office space options. For the time being, mail can continue to be directed to Truman at 1050 17th Street NW, Washington DC 20036 and CNP at One Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC 20001.

I have more questions.

Media inquiries should be directed to Stephanie Dreyer, Director of Media Relations, at 202-216-9723 ext 320.

“Today’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense is a strong, bipartisan choice. Senator Hagel is a statesman with decades of experience working across the aisle and around the world. And as a twice-wounded combat veteran, he knows what it’s like to live at the sharp end of American security policy. Hagel has been a strong proponent of all of the tools of American power – from a strong military to robust diplomacy and development, reflecting a 21st century internationalist approach to American leadership that rests on the best lessons of the Greatest Generation.

John Brennan’s nomination also deserves confirmation by the Senate. Brennan, who has decades of experience in the intelligence community, has aggressively pursued America’s enemies around the world. At the White House, he has ensured increased cooperation between the military and the intelligence community, which is essential to ensuring American security.”

Post-Convention Lay of the Land

The conventions were the physical manifestation of a long, ongoing, and massive shift in the political landscape: Conservatives no longer own national security. Welcome to the new normal. It’s a shift that’s over a decade in coming  — caused by conservative failures to articulate a durable post-Cold War view of the world, and accelerated by the failures of the Bush administration.

Approach. This shift has happened and now it’s time to make sure everyone knows it. The convention distinctions were stark: Romney didn’t mention veterans or Afghanistan while Obama had 40 veterans up on stage in prime time.

Must reads:

• The Kerry-ization of Mitt Romney, Politico.
• Obama’s Plan to Use National Security as a Cudgel, Buzzfeed.

The “Experience” comparison

The question of Romney/Ryan’s foreign policy experience has entered full spin in the conservative media.  On Fox and Friends Monday morning, Dana Perino said she had more foreign policy experience in 2008 than Barack Obama because she’d been press secretary to Bush.

Approach. Don’t take the bait – this isn’t about years of experience, it’s about values. These guys aren’t running against 2008 Barack Obama, they’re running against 2012 Barack Obama and he’s ruthlessly taken out America’s enemies. This is about being Commander-in-Chief, not about a resume.

This isn’t 2008, it’s 2012. And time after time Romney and Ryan have made us wonder if they understand the service and sacrifice of our military or what it takes to keep us safe in the 21st century.

Romney, Vets & Afghanistan

Mitt Romney didn’t mention veterans or Afghanistan during his acceptance speech, a fact that is now well-known. He’s made his problem worse this weekend by saying that he couldn’t give a “laundry list” of issues in his speech, so he decided to talk about the things he things are “important.” Seriously, here’s the quote: “When you give a speech, you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important…”

Approach. Disappointment is really all you can feel here – for 12 days he’s had the chance to clarify why he didn’t talk about veterans and ‘they’re not that important’ seems to be his best answer. It’s insulating and disappointing.

Being Commander in Chief requires respect for service and sacrifice. Mitt Romney wants to command the men and women of our military, but he won’t talk about them or the war they’re fighting in his speeches. That’s not how a Commander-in-Chief behaves.

9/11 Anniversary

This anniversary is when we can take stock of the last 11 years – remembering the loss and sacrifice and the successes along the way, and ensuring that we’re doing the right things so it doesn’t happen again.

Own the successes of the last 4 years with a focus on being an American, not a partisan.

Sequestration on the Hill and Around the Country

This week, the House will vote on a bill that eliminates the trigger on DOD spending, putting all the cuts on the non-security side – programs that the American people are less willing to cut than defense. In addition, we have Mitt Romney coming out and saying that the sequester was a mistake by Congress – by members of his own party. He is also trying to blame the President for the sequester, even though it was forced by the GOP’s debt ceiling hostage-taking.

Approach. Political process posturing is ridiculous; focus on the outcomes. It’s ridiculous that Romney would endorse a spending plan that puts millionaires before the military, bring on the guy who planned the whole thing as his VP, and then turn around and try to blame someone else. Challenge Romney to own the consequences of his own decisions.

For the Hill: Remember that the American people are more willing to cut defense spending than they are to cut Medicare, social security, or education funding.

Respect for service and sacrifice.

In his nomination acceptance, Mitt Romney didn’t even mention Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, and where we have over 65,000 men and women uniform serving today. These are, of course, the troops that Mitt Romney wants to lead.

Approach. Our value focus is respect. A candidate for president with respect for service and sacrifice would have talked about Afghanistan in his biggest speech ever – the speech where he tells the American people why he is qualified to lead the US military.

On the night Mitt Romney asked Americans to make him Commander in Chief, he didn’t even mention the Afghanistan War or the 65,000 troops who are fighting there. It should make us question his respect for their service and sacrifice if he can’t find 1 word for them out of 4000 in his speech.

Making the tough calls

We know that neither Romney not Ryan have security experience. In addition, both have made comments which call into question whether they understand what it is like for a President to send other people’s children into a fight. Romney, when asked about the bin Laden raid, said it woudl have been an ‘easy call.’ And Ryan, when pressed for his national security credentials offered “well, I voted to send people to war.
Approach. The toughest part of being President is sending young people to fight. And there’s nothing easy about sending SEALS into Pakistan on a night raid that, if it fails could mean the end of your presidency.

Keeping faith with our veterans

Governor Romney did not mention America’s veterans during his convention remarks, either. Today, though hundreds of thousands of new veterans have come home from Iraq and tens of thousands more are coming home from Afghanistan. While he mentioned those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, he didn’t talk about those who live with trauma and injuries, or even talk about their families sacrifice.

Approach. America must keep faith with the sacred commitment we’ve made to our veterans – to care for them upon their return. This requirement does not line up well with Governor Romney’s proposal to turn VA healthcare into a voucher program or Ryan’s budget, which cuts funding that keeps homeless veterans off the street.

“Tonight was Mitt Romney’s opportunity to tell the American people why he should be Commander-in-Chief. Instead, we were treated to the shallow bluster of a man who has no experience with the threats to America’s security.  The time for skating by on platitudes has passed because tonight Mitt Romney failed the Commander-in-Chief Test.

Mitt Romney couldn’t even manage a photo-op in England without embarrassment.

President Obama’s first goals were keeping America safe, confronting our enemies, and retaking our leadership role in the world. Today, the Iraq War is over, Iran is isolated, dictators have fallen, our alliances are stronger, Osama bin Laden is dead, and our veterans are cared for.

Romney really had to stretch all the way to Poland to find anything to criticize about the president’s record.

In the face of those successes, and with no experience of his own to claim, Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan, who would cut the funding that keeps homeless veterans off the street and nuclear terrorists away from our shores, has claimed his national security credentials as ‘I voted to send people to war.’

We face new threats and new challenges in the 21st century, threats which require all of the tools of American power. The Greatest Generation taught us that diplomacy, development, and defense, paired with support for democratic values, made America a world leader – that America earned its leadership role through doing great deeds and living out exceptional values. Yet the tools of American power that made us the leaders of the 20th century are threatened in the 21st by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.”

The Truman National Security Project is a leadership institute promoting 21st century national security policies.

# # #

The Big Picture — The 10,000-foot view

Conservatives are arguing on a number of fronts when it comes to national security. Their arguments may boil down to simple rhetorical lines about “weakness” and “appeasement,” but they start at an intersecting list of specific policies towards Iran, defense spending, Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel.

Your approach. The public discussion tends to ignore the elephant in the room: Successes against terrorism, an essential and built-in validation. Because President Obama does not fit well into the traditional caricature of liberals when it comes to national security, there is leverage to pivot into related security topics.

Iran & Expected Hits

The argument about Iran is tied closely to the neoconservative wing of the Conservative base – the same folks who told us that Iraq would be easy. Their argument is simple: “Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon every day and the Obama Administration has been weak in its response – sanctions won’t work and we’re being duped if we think they will negotiate. At this point, we probably have to attack before they can get a nuke.”

Your approach. The basic assumptions of the conservative argument are wrong for a number of reasons. The biggest problem is that they have created false time pressure and used it as leverage to make traditional attacks on a Democratic president. They assume it’s a winning issue for them – assumptions you should not make as well.

Military Spending & Expected Hits

The discussion over defense spending coming from the right is predicated on two big assumptions: First, is that you can still tar a progressive over defense spending, and second that the right is winning the fight over taxes. Neither of these assumptions are true.

Your approach. The national narrative on spending and taxes has focused on the forced choice between any given program or priority and tax cuts for the wealthy. This forced choice works for defense spending while reminding Americans that we have a strong record on national security. The GOP has slowly painted itself into a box on this issue.

The Big Picture. This is how we change the debate, from “more money is better” to “buying the tools to match the threats,” which is a winning and more correct approach. It also acknowledges that people are generally open to changing defense spending as long as we retain capabilities that keep America safe.

Swiftboating Obama?

Over the past few months, a couple of small groups of conservative military veterans have sought to undermine the President’s clear advantage on national security issues. Each of these groups has imploded, largely because they were quickly exposed as right-wing advocacy organizations with birther tendencies, rather than actually representing anyone in the military. Then, this last week, the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of US Special Forces criticized the groups for using the uniform to engage in politics. The most prominent of these groups, OPSEC, is expected to hold an event in Tampa.

Your approach. Very senior military leaders have already said all that needs to be said with more credibility than anyone else could.

BONUS TOPIC: Energy

The energy space is moving quickly right now, even on the Hill. Senators who oppose the navy’s innovative biofuels programs are starting to back off. At the same time, Romney/Ryan announced an energy plan which stands in stark contrast to policies that will keep America safer. Your approach. 

Military and national security validators have long made clear that clean energy keeps America safe. Not only is the Romney plan bad for our national security narrowly, but also because it doesn’t invest in the technology America needs to lead the world in new energy sources.

Policy Proof Points

• CAFE Standards. New standards mean less gas used and less oil purchased from countries that don’t share our values.
• Wind Production Tax Credit. Governor Romney opposes tax credits for wind power, even though GOP Senators from the Midwest have supported them strongly.
• DOD Energy Innovation. New legislation spearheaded by the Truman Project’s Operation Free campaign is making it easier for military bases to get off the grid and create their own clean energy sources.