Both parties agree on one thing: More money for the military
Political divisions stand in the way of most legislation, but both sides of the aisle are happy to keep feeding the beast at the Pentagon.
Dr. Gordon Adams is a Distinguished Fellow at the Quincy Institute, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University’s School of International Service, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center. From 1993-97 he was Associate Director for National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget, the senior White House official for diplomacy, foreign assistance, defense, and intelligence budgeting. He received the Defense Department’s Medal for Distinguished Public Service in 1997, was a member of the Defense Policy Board of the Department of Defense (1998-2001), He has been Professor International Relations and Director of the Security Policy program at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and Deputy Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He was founder and Director of the Defense Budget Project in Washington, DC, predecessor of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970; is author of The Iron Triangle, the Politics of Defense Contracting (Transaction Press 1980), and co-author of Transforming European Militaries: Coalition Operations and the Technology Gap (Routledge 2006) and Buying National Security: How America Buys and Pays for its Global Role and Safety at Home (Routledge 2010). He is co-editor of Mission Creep: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy? (Georgetown, 2014). He has written on defense and foreign policy for The New York Times, Foreign Policy, Washington Spectator, Lobelog, War on the Rocks, The Conversation, and The Hill, among other publications.
Political divisions stand in the way of most legislation, but both sides of the aisle are happy to keep feeding the beast at the Pentagon.
The US needs to think outside the box and help create a new security architecture that not only includes Russia but perhaps replaces NATO.
It required a ‘whole of government’ response, but DC wasn’t firing on all cylinders. There is plenty of blame to go around.
We stand almost exactly where we did nearly 50 years ago: leaving a failed war behind with little to show for it but pain and regret.