The national security issues of 2010
Greetings from Afghanistan! We just wanted to wish all of you dear readers a Happy New Year! The past 12 months have been fascinating for us at N&S – most notably because we began covering a new administration as it tackled the ever-evolving national security issues of our time. In addition, Jonathan, Warren and I all traveled to the war fronts this year (Jonathan and I to Afghanistan; Warren to Iraq). We have seen these conflicts in the most intimate way, in the faces of the troops and in the Afghans and Iraqis who find themselves living alongside them. Throughout the year, wherever we were, we felt your support, and for that we thank you.
In the next year, we will likely focus on the U.S. shift from Iraq to Afghanistan. By this summer, there will be more troops in Afghanistan than Iraq for the first time since 9/11. On the ground we are already seeing the shift, both by the U.S. military and the forces they face. December was the first month in Iraq when there were no hostile U.S. troop deaths since the war began. Conversely, the U.S. lost 319 troops in Afghanistan in 2009, making it the deadliest year of the war for forces here.
We also will likely find ourselves talking more about countries like Yemen and Somalia, where the war against extremism appears to be spreading; Iran and North Korea, which are contemplating nuclear warfare; and China, which is expanding its military apparatus. Simply put, national security matters will become more complex and nuanced in the next year. I think one of the most important questions we here at N&S must ask as we cover all this is: Is the United States properly focusing its resources on the threats it faces? That is, is the United States fighting the next war or the last one?
Sadly, we will also cover the death of fellow Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, both uniformed and civilian in the year ahead. We will see new tactics and a new kind of warfare in Afghanistan as groups like the Taliban respond to the U.S. surge plan. And we will also see heroism on the battlefront, likely by people who didn’t even know they had it in them.
My own personal prediction is that we will see many new faces in the Obama administration’s national security team. And with that, I expect changes to how the United States approaches national security.
I hope you will join us again in 2010 as we cover these issues. Please know we welcome the ongoing dialogue that happens through this blog. We love hearing back from you, and we hope you will continue to leave your thoughtful comments to our postings. They encourage us to think about these issues in a new way, and as such, make us better journalists.
Dear Weldon and Philip: Happy New Year! I hope this finds you well. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I hope you will forgive my late response but I have been sick and out of work for the past three weeks. In fact, today is my first day back and I am eager to see your insightful comments. Weldon, you are right; nuclear warfare was not the best phrase. It implies that Iran is seeking to not only obtain nuclear weapons but detonate them. I should have said nuclear weapons because there is nothing to suggest they want to use them. Alas, thank you for your kind words and for keeping me on my toes. I appreciate it.
And Philip, it is great to see you here again. Thank you for the link. It was an interesting commentary indeed.
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | January 18, 2010 at 05:13 PM
There may be a different approach to counterterrorism in the works - an approach which addresses the rising populations of terrorist and terrorist wannabes. It has been suggested by Joyce Davis (1) that the opposition in Iran may signal the end of "political Islam" in Iran and also may lead to the Iranian people's rejection of terrorism. We have seen such 'good news' efforts fomented with the Iraqi Awakening and actually, the last decade was been fruitful for such 'peacebuilding' efforts. Joyce Davis' op/ed is definately worth the read
(1)
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/01/could_the_world_witness_the_en.html
Could the world witness the end of political Islam in 2010? By Patriot-News Op-Ed
January 07, 2010, 6:08AM
Posted by: Philip Henika | January 09, 2010 at 10:32 PM
I've followed all the Nukes & Spooks writers for years, beginning when Landay and Strobel were producing by far the best reporting in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and continuing with your and Hannah Allam's sometimes astonishing and always worthwhile reporting from Iraq. There was a time when I thought KR's Washington Bureau should assume the CIA's duties because you all sometimes seemed to know more about what was going on than they did. And when I think of the old NY Times tag line, "without fear or favor," you and Allam and Landay and Strobel are who come to mind.
So: I am seriously disappointed to see you saying that "Iran and North Korea ... are contemplating nuclear warfare". ¿Qué?
North Korea, I'll give you that, I have no idea what they're up to, but Iran? By all appearances, if they're contemplating nuclear warfare it's in terms of what it would be like to be on the receiving end of it since they don't actually have nukes and the countries threatening them do.
I realize that this is a blog post and not a story and that's just part of one sentence in it, but still, that's the sort of line that got picked up and amplified into conventional wisdom back in 2002 and early 2003, and one of the things that distinguished Knight Ridder from most other news sources in those days was your caution and skepticism with respect to those kinds of statements.
By all means pass it along if you know something, but if not, exercise the caution and care that make your entire team such excellent reporters. Next thing you know you'll be showing up on some blog as "McClatchy's former Baghdad bureau chief says Iran contemplates nuclear war!"
Stay safe. I'm looking forward to another year of fine work from you all.
Posted by: Weldon Berger | January 01, 2010 at 11:53 AM