The RAND Blog

This commentary appeared on USA Today on October 21, 2012.

The current unrest in Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East, is mistakenly being blamed on the Arab Spring. Even before the recent violence, many observers were quick to declare that spring had rapidly turned to winter in the Arab world. Here at home, and just before the presidential debate on foreign policy tonight, a Pew Research Center poll showed that Americans are increasingly skeptical that the Arab Spring will lead to lasting change. The survey, released last week, found that 57% of Americans (up from 43% in April 2011) do not believe that the uprisings will improve the lives of people in those countries.

But the roots of the unrest are not in the desire to cast off authoritarian regimes that took expression in Arab Spring protests. The roots came before the uprisings, and progress will take longer than we wish.

Al Qaeda is back.

Over the past several weeks, the terrorist organization has been involved in lethal bombing campaigns in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—to name just a few examples. Most disturbing, operatives from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and several allies assassinated U.S. Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya last month.

Based on these developments, it is imperative for both U.S. presidential candidates to address al Qaeda's expanding global presence. Tonight's final presidential debate affords President Obama and Gov. Romney an excellent opportunity to outline the threat—and explain how they would counter al Qaeda and its allies.

This commentary appeared on The Washington Post on October 18, 2012.

The four military services in the Defense Department differ in their roles, missions and skills - which are good reasons to retain their separate identities. But as the duties of the uniformed service chiefs have converged with those of the civilian secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, the latter have become redundant appendages. Eliminating those positions would save money and streamline management, a good example for the rest of government. In today's climate of fiscal austerity, cutting overhead is better than cutting defense programs.

Reciprocal loyalty between a civilian secretary and a military service chief represents the best relationship. The secretary can present the service's case to the defense secretary and Congress while shaping the military organization to fit better into national strategy. In principle, the secretary provides an extra layer of civilian oversight and political insulation. But typically, that person is little more than a mouthpiece for his military subordinates; otherwise, the military goes around him to the media or contractors who have the ear of lawmakers. Any political insulation is undercut by the provision of law granting the military chiefs direct access to Congress.

This commentary appeared on Education Week on October 24, 2012.

As Thomas Friedman put it in a recent New York Times column, globalization compounds the urgency for students to develop the skills and knowledge they need for economic and civic success in the 21st century. Yet despite widespread agreement among parents, educators, employers and policymakers worldwide that students need skills like critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork and creativity, these skills are stubbornly difficult to teach and learn.

The "transmission" model, through which teachers transmit factual knowledge via lectures and textbooks, remains the dominant approach to compulsory education in much of the world. Students taught through this method typically do not practice applying knowledge to new contexts, communicating it in complex ways, solving problems or developing creativity. In short, as our new paper lays out, it is not the most effective way to teach 21st century skills.

CBS News's Bob Schieffer, moderator of the upcoming presidential debate on foreign policy, has made clear that he will be asking the candidates to delve into the nature of America's role in the world.

The topic could not be more ripe for debate. American leadership and influence have been defining factors on the global scene for more than seven decades. At various times during that stretch we have heard speculation, in the U.S. and abroad, of an inevitable American decline—only to watch American influence come roaring back.

We appear now to have entered another period of declinist thinking—a changing global landscape, China's rise, a struggling American economy, a population tired of war, a vague vision of America's future.

This commentary appeared on GlobalSecurity.org on October 18, 2012.

Since taking power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has overreacted to criticism of the organization. The events in Cairo, in which MB supporters are battling demonstrators that criticized President Mohamed Morsi, are just the latest in a larger pattern.

When the Brotherhood-led parliament faced demonstrations this past winter, the MB dispatched its youth to shout down the protests. When journalists dared to criticize President Morsi, the MB pressed charges, relying on the Mubarak-era legal framework that criminalizes the insulting of the President. And when secular liberals recently took to Tahrir Square to protest the Brotherhood's consolidation of power, MB supporters were bused in as a counter.

This commentary appeared on U.S. News & World Report on October 18, 2012.

The recent spate of attacks by Afghan police and military forces on their coalition partners and advisors has drawn renewed attention to the future of U.S. forces in Afghanistan—something CBS News's Bob Schieffer has promised to ask President Obama and Governor Romney about at Monday's final presidential debate.

The attacks are not only causing the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to rethink its approaches, but have also focused attention on wider worries about the capabilities, loyalty, and staying power of the Afghan National Security Forces. While these concerns are very real, I have at least one reason to think that the Afghan forces might be more capable than we expect.

The second "town hall" presidential debate on Tuesday featured a lengthy discussion on China, including the assertion by President Obama and Governor Romney that Beijing is failing to "play by the rules" of international trade by artificially holding down the value of China's currency. This downward pressure keeps prices on Chinese goods lower than they otherwise would be, the candidates agreed, giving China an unfair advantage in the global marketplace.

When Obama and Romney meet again on Monday—for their final debate, on foreign policy—the discussion will almost certainly return to China's growing influence in Asia, and in particular to trade relations between Washington and Beijing.

In discussing the latest Iran-Israel dynamics, you can't get away from red lines. They concern the line Iran would have to cross in its nuclear program to prompt a military attack. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu went so far as to literally draw a red line on a poster at the UN General Assembly last month. The moderator of the forthcoming U.S. presidential debate on foreign policy said he intends to ask the candidates about these red lines.

What is at stake? Netanyahu's UN address suggested that Israeli military action against Iran is not likely until next spring, buying some time for policies like sanctions and diplomacy to play out—and for the U.S. presidential election to be resolved. But Netanyahu's red line signaled that Israel is not giving up on a military option to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and will continue to press the United States to do the same.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. military has been fighting the longest war in the nation's history—and many Americans don't understand why. The final presidential debate on Monday affords President Obama and Governor Romney an excellent opportunity to provide answers.

A number of servicemen and women now on their first deployments were just seven years old when the war began, and the reasons for invading over a decade ago are not the same reasons that might justify the continued loss of lives and the spending of billions of dollars today.

America's next Commander-in-Chief has a chance to explain to the American people, both those who risk their lives in uniform and those whose taxes pay for the war, exactly what they can expect in the years to come. Specifics would be welcome.