WHWG | White House Writers Group » Defense

The Dangers of Obama’s Nuclear Disarmament Promise

G. Philip Hughes — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:56:28 +0000

The Obama Administration is reportedly studying further, drastic reductions in U.S. nuclear forces — unilaterally or negotiated with Russia – later this year, possibly down to a few hundred operationally deployed nuclear weapons. Would the U.S. remain a super-power, defending and deterring attacks on our allies worldwide, with a nuclear arsenal the size of Pakistan’s? Wouldn’t it be ironic — not to mention dangerous — if U.S. reductions intended to point the way to Obama’s goal of a nuclear-free world ended up encouraging wider nuclear proliferation, a build-up of rogue nation nuclear capabilities, and a heightened risk of nuclear conflict?

To read the rest of Mr. Hughes’s article, see his U.S.News.com post here.

A Reckless Gamble

Mark W. Davis — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:06:28 +0000

Did you know that the United States is the only nuclear power in the world that lacks the ability to make new nuclear weapons? This means that as the Obama Administration contemplates further deep—and unilateral reductions—in the US nuclear arsenal, we will have no ability to rebuild our forces if world conditions worsen.

In this piece, Mark Davis and Philip Hughes draw on their White House experience to suggest a “pause and plateau”–a pause in nuclear negotiations, and a plateau at current agreed-upon force levels for five years.

To read the full article in The Hill, please click here.

Cuba Is Reforming, But Not Nearly Enough

G. Philip Hughes — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:43:21 +0000

After a week of visiting Cuba in early February with a group of former U.S. Ambassadors, I was both impressed — and appalled. Change is definitely under way in Cuba — with small businesses being allowed to start up in a few sectors of the economy and people are allowed to buy and sell home and autos for the first time in 53 years. But over half a century of ‘revolution’ have left the country a physical wreck. Even its vaunted health care system proved remarkably hollow on closer inspection. And the living conditions of Cubans aren’t visibly different from, and in significant ways appear poorer than, their neighbors in the poorest Caribbean islands — except that, unlike their Caribbean neighbors, Cubans are not at all free. The irony is: Cuba is changing — economically — precisely to avoid and forestall changing politically. But that’s precisely the change the Cuba needs: a management change at the top, to relieve the country of the crew that’s been running the show for over half a century.

You can read more in my column at US News and World Report, here.

The Nuclear Pause

Mark W. Davis — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:29:12 +0000

Two White House Writers, G. Philip Hughes and Mark Davis, in a groundbreaking piece express concern about continuing reductions in U.S. nuclear forces in a world in which China and Russia are rapidly modernizing their forces, and proliferation is increasing. This is a special concern, since the United States is the only nuclear power in the world that has relinquished its ability to serially manufacture new nuclear weapons. Hence, their call for a “Nuclear Pause” on new reductions agreements, and a “Plateau” in overall force levels.

Dealing with Defense Contraction

WHWG — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:12:04 +0000

As the DoD budget declines, contractors are going to have to look beyond what they are now hearing from the customer (the Pentagon, the military services and Congress) and think hard about what their customers will likely need in the near future. In this Defense News piece, WHWG’s Philip Hughes and Mark Davis look to the challenge contractors face.

Cryptic Ads Confuse DC Commuters

Sabrina Schaeffer — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:56:13 +0000

Despite calls for drastic spending-cuts, government contractors are advertising at record levels. In fact, DC’s local WTOP-FM, which targets government managers, reports an increase in government contractor advertising by as much as 15 percent this year.

There’s one problem though: no one can understand the ads.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal this week, an increase in competition has led like Northrop Grumman and Quinetic North America to expand their marketing efforts in a way that has touched the broader public.

The “wooing” of government procurement officers used to be “conducted mainly in private.” But as the advertising has become more widespread, many Washington-area residents are utterly confused by cryptic ads plastered across metro cars and local buses.

The ads talk in governmentese, using “mysterious acronyms” the WSJ says gives “the ads the flavor of coded Cold War era shortwave radio broadcasts: ISR, F136, IPV6 and ICD-10.” And it seems the more obscure the ad the better. Take one for instance, that simply reads: “THOSE WITH A NEED TO KNOW, KNOW.”

But it may be that these enigmatic ads are a bit too unintelligible: even procurement officers claim they often can’t understand them.

According to the article, Northrop Grumman ran an ad in a metro stop picturing a “bombed-out city neighborhood,” followed with the text, ‘By the time you’ve identified the threat, we’ve already taken it out of the picture.’ In the lower, right-hand corner, a single clue: ISR.”

A lengthy online conversation ensued in which viewers revealed they “still don’t even get what they mean.”

Read the full article here.

C4ISR: A “Growth Stock”

G. Philip Hughes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:04:48 +0000

As pressure on Discretionary Federal spending – the largest chunk of which resides in the Defense budget – mounts under the impact of recession-related deficits, wartime spending, and the Obama Administration’s ambitious social spending agendas, DoD planners are looking for ways to get more combat capability out of the military services’ existing weapons inventories. One answer, likely to come in for enhanced DoD spending even in a challenging budget environment, is the entire field of C4ISR.

Every aspect of this somewhat opaque acronym is bound to be a near-term priority for the military services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The ISR part – intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance – is what our forces overseas rely on to find and target a stealthy enemy moving within a civilian population. It’s a set of capabilities critical to avoiding or minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians from strikes against enemy, terrorist targets. And it’s critical to detecting and foiling the most successful weapons of terrorist adversaries: improvised explosive devices (IEDs), planted to target U.S. or friendly forces on the move or civilians in marketplaces or other gatherings.

And the C4 part – command, control, communications, and computers – is key to maximizing the combat potential and lethality of the services’ existing panoply of weapons systems, as well as new acquisitions. In today’s environment, OSD will be looking increasingly for solutions in the C4 domain that enable weapons systems and forces to work together more effectively – across system or service lines – to achieve greater combat lethality, to improve situational awareness, and to deliver prompt support to embattled units. Whether it’s C4 capabilities to break down the traditional “stovepipes” of air defense systems so they can interoperate more effectively in defending against a wider range of incoming targets or capabilities like Blue Force Tracking that simultaneously enhance combat effectiveness while minimizing casualties, the DoD market for these C4ISR capabilities is only going to grow – even with constrained budgets.

The trouble is: these systems and capabilities are often not well known to – and, indeed are opaque to – many combat commanders, and to many Senators and Congressmen. Moreover, innovative offerings in this domain run the constant risk of “treading on toes” – either of individual military services who may see threats to their future programmatic aspirations from a C4ISR innovation that enables existing hardware to address the treat more effectively, or from incumbent contractors who have vested interests in marketing their own system-specific solutions to a new combat challenge.

The upshot is that C4ISR innovations often have to be sold more creatively than major combat systems. This requires focused advocacy that effectively addresses the audiences who will be key to deciding the fate of a new program or innovation. If it’s a combat soldier in a senior command position, this will require discussing and advocating the initiative in terms that he can relate to in his command responsibilities – not just in technical or performance terms. If it’s a Member of Congress or their staff, it will sometimes require “breakthrough” data or arguments that command their attention despite the looming, attention-absorbing importance of major new weapons systems acquisition programs. Failure to effectively advocate for your latest C4ISR “force multiplier” can easily lead to a still-born project.