Retired four-star Marine general John R. Allen resigned his position as president of the Brookings Institution just days after reports emerged that Federal investigators accused Allen of secretly lobbying for Qatar.
“John Allen has resigned to ensure Brookings can continue to pursue its mission without distraction,” a Brookings spokesperson told Responsible Statecraft.
Allen — the former commander of NATO and allied forces in Afghanistan — had allegedly obstructed the investigation into his lobbying activities, provided a “false version of events” to federal agents, and used his Brookings email account to conduct secret lobbying work at the height of an economic embargo against Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
“I request that [sic] Board of Trustees of the Brookings Institution accept my resignation from the presidency of the institution as the Chief Executive Officer,” Allen wrote in a letter obtained by Responsible Statecraft dated June 12, 2022. He made no direct mention of the warrant accusing him of his illegal lobbying activities but said he was proud of his work at the think tank.
His resignation letter concluded:
While I leave the institution with a heavy heart, I know it is best for all concerned in this moment. I also know the institution will be wisely guided by the Brookings Board of Trustees and will be admirably and competently led by the management that remains. The Brookings Institution is a national and international asset, and always will be. I wish the Board and every member of the Brookings family the very best in the challenging days ahead.
Allen’s letter of resignation can be viewed here. He has denied the allegations made by Federal investigators.
Federal investigators have not claimed that anyone at Brookings, other than Allen, was involved in the alleged secret lobbying for Qatar. But his alleged use of Brookings’ resources to conduct his work for Qatar raises questions about Brookings’ lucrative relationship with Qatar and the ethical implications of maintaining close ties to a foreign government. Qatar contributed tens of millions of dollars to Brookings over 14 years before the funding relationship ended last year.
“The integrity and objectivity of Brookings’s scholarship constitute the institution’s principal assets, and Brookings seeks to maintain high ethical standards in all its operations,” the co-chairs of Brookings' board of trustees said in an email to the “Brooking Community'' confirming Allen’s resignation. “Our policies on research independence and integrity reflect these values.”
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
ISAF Commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen (C) waits to testify before the House Armed Services Committee about "Recent Developments in Afghanistan" on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 20, 2012. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS MILITARY)
The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing America’s already enormous Pentagon budget.
Its angle — presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan — is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars over five years for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.
Before addressing the Ukraine conflict directly, it’s worth looking at the security outcomes of high Pentagon spending during this century. As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has found, the full costs of America’s post-9/11 wars exceed $8 trillion. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions have been driven from their homes, thousands of U.S. personnel have died in combat, and hundreds of thousands of vets have suffered physical or psychological injuries. And this huge cost in blood and treasure came in conflicts that not only failed to achieve their original objectives but actually left the target nations less stable and helped create conditions that made it easier for terrorist groups like ISIS to form.
Any call for ratcheting up Pentagon spending needs to reckon with this record of abject failure for a military first, “peace through strength” foreign policy. The new AEI report fails to do so.
As for its central thesis — that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require a sharp upsurge in Pentagon spending — neither part of the argument holds up to scrutiny.
Russia’s performance in Ukraine makes it abundantly clear that Moscow’s armed forces are deeply flawed. They are in a stalemate with a much smaller neighboring country that has parlayed superior morale and an infusion of U.S. and European weaponry into a fighting force that can hold its own against Russia’s much larger military. The only prospect for a Russian victory would be a long war of attrition in which Moscow’s advantages in population and arms production “win” the day.
But even a prolonged war is unlikely to result in total military victory for a Russia, and governing whatever portions of Ukraine it might control will be extremely costly, both economically and in terms of personnel. As a result, even if Moscow were to eventually win a Pyrrhic victory in Ukraine, it would be in no position to take on the 31 member NATO alliance. And it is long past time for our European allies to finally build a coherent military force that can defend its territory without a major U.S. supporting role.
The AEI report is wildly out of touch with current realities, which are tilting towards an approach that would pair continued support for Ukraine’s defensive capabilities with the beginnings of diplomatic track, an approach my colleagues at the Quincy Institute have been advocating since early in the conflict.
We are confronted with an almost mystical belief in official Washington that the first answer to any tough security problem is to increase Pentagon spending and spin out scenarios for addressing a potential war, rather than crafting a strategy in which preventing or ending wars takes precedence.
A cold, hard look at the wars of this century definitively shows that a military first foreign policy is a fool’s errand that does far more harm than good. How long will the American public sit still for this misguided, immensely costly conventional wisdom?
It’s long past time to take a fresh look at America’s military spending and strategy. Unfortunately, the new AEI report does little to reckon with the actual challenges we face.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Diplomacy Watch: US empties more weapons stockpiles for Ukraine ahead of Biden exit
The Biden administration is putting together a final Ukraine aid package — about $500 million in weapons assistance — as announced in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s final meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates weapons support to Ukraine.
The capabilities in the announcement include small arms and ammunition, communications equipment, AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles, and F-16 air support.
“We all have a stake in ensuring that autocrats cannot place their imperial ambitions ahead of the bedrock rights of free and sovereign peoples,” Defense Secretary Austin remarked to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group before announcing the aid. “Ukraine is waging a just war of self-defense. And it is one of the great causes of our time.”
The Defense Contact Group was formed by Austin; its future remains unclear as administrations prepare to change hands.
Indeed, incoming President Donald Trump has increasingly critiqued Biden's Ukraine strategy. In a news conference from Mar-a-Lago earlier this week, the president-elect said that the Biden administration’s talk of Ukraine’s possible NATO ascension played a role in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.
"A big part of the problem is, Russia — for many, many years, long before Putin — said, 'You could never have NATO involved with Ukraine.' Now, they've said that. That's been, like, written in stone," Trump said.
"And somewhere along the line Biden said, 'No. [Ukraine] should be able to join NATO.' Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that."
Trump’s comments about Russia’s invasion rationale follow other critical remarks regarding war. In particular, Trump recently emphasized there had to be a “deal” on Ukraine, as people are “dying at levels nobody has ever seen.” He had also said in his 2024 Person of the Year Interview With TIME that “the number of people dying [in the Ukraine war is] not sustainable…It’s really an advantage to both sides to get this thing done.”
Trump's pick for Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg, meanwhile, has postponed a trip to Ukraine, originally set for early this month, until sometime after Trump’s inauguration. According to Newsweek, reasons for the postponement have not been made public, and a new trip date has yet to be determined.
— Ukraine launched a second Kursk offensive this week, according to ABC News. "We continue to maintain a buffer zone on Russian territory, actively destroying Russian military potential there," Zelensky said about the offensive. Ukraine also hit a Russian air force oil depot in Engles, in Russia’s Saratov territory, hundreds of miles within the country’s borders on Wednesday, where a state of emergency has been declared in response.
— Russia says it’s captured the Ukrainian town of Kurakhove; Ukrainian forces say the city is still being fought over, according to AFP. Russia also bombed Ukrainian city Zaporizhzhia on Wednesday in an attack injuring 100 and killing 13.
— The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared on X that Ukraine could replace Hungary’s role in NATO or the EU “if Hungary chooses to vacate it in favor of membership in the CIS or CSTO.” The Ukrainian MFA’s tongue-in-cheek statement, showcasing growing tensions between Ukraine and Hungary, was made in an X thread accusing Hungary’s leadership of “manipulative statements” about Ukraine’s recent decision to end gas transits from Russia to Europe. Namely, Hungarian FM Péter Szijjártó had threatened to block Ukrainian EU ascension over the gas transit halt, which he said could hurt Europe’s energy security.
"A country that signs an Association Agreement with the EU or aspires to become an EU member must contribute to the EU's energy security by providing transit routes. Therefore, closing gas or oil routes is unacceptable and contradicts the expectations associated with EU integration,” FM Péter Szijjártó said.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Houthi fighters parade in Sana a amid tensions with USA and Israel. Houthi fighters parade during a mobilization campaign, in Sana a, Yemen, 18 December 2024.IMAGO/ Sanaa Yemen Copyright: xHamzaxAlix via REUTERS
The ineffective U.S. military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen is now a year old.
Based on new reports, based on two sources in the Jerusalem Post, there are hints that that the incoming Trump administration may be planning to escalate it. The paper says the Biden administration is reportedly planning to intensify the bombings before Jan. 21. Then, according to the Post, Trump will be looking to ramp up the military campaign even more once he is sworn in.
Former Trump administration Iran envoy Elliott Abrams told the Post, “Trump will not stand for having US Navy ships attacked every day by the Houthis using Iranian missiles. … He will hit the Houthis harder, and he will threaten Iran that if a missile [that] Iran supplied kills an American, Iran will get hit directly.”
Trump did not have anything to say about the bombing campaign against the Houthis during his presidential campaign, but escalation in Yemen would be consistent with the general hawkish leanings of his national security team and it would be in line with Trump’s approach to Yemen when he was last in the White House.
Biden’s unauthorized war in Yemen began last January in response to Houthi missile and drone attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis launched their attack as a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza, and they are likely to continue them as long as that war lasts. Unsurprisingly, the bombing campaign has not deterred the Houthis from launching additional attacks on commercial shipping.
Judged on its own terms, the U.S.-led intervention in Yemen has been a failure.
The conflict has received relatively little attention over the last year, but it is still consuming U.S. resources and contributing to the U.S. Navy’s overstretch. U.S. forces struck targets in Yemen again last week. Meanwhile, the Houthis and Israel have continued exchanging blows over the last several months. Israel launched strikes on the international airport in the capital Sanaa and on several ports in late December after another Houthi missile launch into Israeli territory.
In addition to possibly escalating the military campaign, the Trump administration may also place the Houthis back on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. When the outgoing Trump administration designated the group in early 2021, the director of the World Food Program at the time, David Beasley, said, “We are struggling now without the designation. With the designation, it's going to be catastrophic.”
The Biden administration removed the group from this list after the United Nations and aid groups warned that the designation would have devastating effects on Yemen’s economy and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.
Hawkish critics condemned the Biden administration’s removal of the Houthis as “weakness,” and they have been clamoring for redesignation ever since. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has been a vocal advocate of redesignating the Houthis since the first weeks of the war in Gaza.
Now that the U.S. is directly fighting the Houthis, it seems likely that Waltz would be even more adamant in pushing for this change. Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), has also been a proponent of redesignation. Placing the Houthis back on the FTO list would still have all the same severe downsides as before, but Trump and his team may not care about the destructive consequences that designation would have for the people of Yemen.
If Trump believes that redesignation will make him look “tougher” than Biden, that might be all that Waltz and Rubio need to get him to agree.
Congress never debated or voted to authorize a bombing campaign in Yemen. While the Biden administration claims that the president has Article II authority to conduct these operations without congressional approval, there is no real legal justification for keeping U.S. ships engaged in hostilities for a year unless Congress has explicitly authorized it. The lack of authorization is unlikely to matter to the incoming Trump administration. During the first term, Trump presided over unauthorized U.S. involvement in a different military campaign in Yemen, namely the Saudi coalition intervention. When Congress passed a war powers resolution to demand an end to U.S. involvement, he vetoed the measure.
The incoming president had a habit in his first term of escalating the wars he inherited, from Somalia to Yemen to Afghanistan (though he eventually passed a deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from that country). Based on his previous disregard for Congress’s role in matters of war, Trump is unlikely to be bothered by the illegality of the war in Yemen.
Escalation in Yemen would be a mistake. It is unlikely to achieve anything except to kill more Yemenis, put U.S. sailors at risk, and waste more expensive munitions. The Houthis have not been discouraged from launching attacks after more than a year of military action, and they are unlikely to respond differently once Trump is in office.
The U.S. ought to be using all its influence and leverage to bring the war in Gaza to an end in order to wind down the wider regional conflict with which it is interwoven. Beyond that, the U.S. should be looking for ways to extract itself from Middle Eastern conflicts rather than finding excuses to expand them.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.