6 Minutes to Midnight Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announced today that it had moved its Doomsday Clock from 5 minutes to 6 minutes before midnight.  The Doomsday Clock measures the progress being made to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and biotechnology—where midnight represents the total destruction of humankind, the end of civilization…a nuclear Armageddon.

It might sound a bit overwhelming but the Doomsday Clock has a long history, dating back to 1947. The same scientists, engineers, and other experts who had created the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project helped create the Doomsday Clock.  The minute hand has been moved a total of 18 times and was closest to midnight in 1953 when the United States and Soviet Union had each tested hydrogen bombs. The minute hand was just two minutes to midnight. 

Today’s decision to move the clock one minute further away from midnight represents both optimism and a realization that graves threats persist and immediate action is necessary.  In a statement from the board, the members explained:

It is 6 minutes to midnight. We are poised to bend the arc of history toward a world free of nuclear weapons. For the first time since atomic bombs were dropped in 1945, leaders of nuclear weapons states are cooperating to vastly reduce their arsenals and secure all nuclear bomb-making material…

…By shifting the hand back from midnight by only one additional minute, we emphasize how much needs to be accomplished, while at the same time recognizing signs of collaboration among the United States, Russia, the European Union, India, China, Brazil, and others on nuclear security and on climate stabilization.

The move away from midnight makes sense in light of President Obama’s efforts to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons.  That only sixty seconds were shaved off is somewhat disappointing though it does represent a challenge to the administration, Congress, and the Pentagon to turn back the Clock even more in 2011. The President’s nonproliferation agenda is ambitious, but if partisan politics can be put aside officials will finally be able to focus on reducing the nuclear threat.

Chop. Chop.  In the words of the Bulletin’s Board…”The Clock is ticking.”

START Talks to Resume, Despite Verification Hysteria Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Ellen Tauscher announced today that US and Russian negotiators will meet in Moscow this week and begin another formal round of START talks on Jan. 25 in Geneva.

Negotiators have kept a fairly tight lid on the details of the new agreement, which experts agree is standard protocol.  This secrecy has prompted some outsiders to erroneously suggest that the talks have gotten off track or that the negotiators will be unable to reach an agreement. According to the Global Security Newswire, however, “Tauscher confirmed reports that the deal is essentially complete but that some challenging treaty-verification issues remain unresolved.”

[Insert GOP hysteria here.]

The primary verification issues have surrounded telemetry—a data sharing verification provision that the Russian’s want to eliminate since the US isn’t testing new missiles—and concern over US missile defense programs. “While negotiations over this particular verification provision were left for last, telemetry is not necessarily more important than other points of disagreement that have already been resolved,” Tauscher told GSN. In part, the debate surrounding telemetry has been hyped because of alleged connections to US missile defense plans. Max Bergmann explains:

In other words, if telemetry is included, the Russians want to get something for it – and that something appears to be access to data on US missile defense tests. While US negotiators have been insistent that telemetry be included in a final agreement, they have also made clear that linking the START treaty to missile defense in any way is out of bounds for this treaty. Hence, the impasse.

The Cable quotes Tauscher as saying, "This agreement is about strategic offensive systems. Missile defense is a defense system.” That’s pretty clear cut:  not here, not now.  For those who are still quoting Putin, Kingston Reif rationalizes his remarks.

So what’s all the fuss about? Sure, telemetry is a difficult issue, but our negotiators know what they are doing and they’ve already successfully negotiated other tricky subjects. Furthermore, the US has made it clear that involving missile defense is a nonstarter.  Yet, the hysteria continues. That’s because the hubbub surrounding telemetry and missile defense has more to do with Jon Kyl and Co. attempting to derail Senate ratification than anything else.

Don’t let critics fool you. Verification issues will be worked out and a follow-on agreement will be reached. Mark my words.

Contributing to the Haiti Relief Effort Posted by The Editors

For those who want to help by donating to the humanitarian effort in Haiti the you can donate to the Red Cross here or by texting "HAITI" to 90999 for a $10 donation; the Center for International Disaster Information here; Mercy Corps here; UNICEF here; or the UN Foundation here.

Afghanistan: Where You Can Get Something for Nothing Posted by Patrick Barry

While I enjoyed Michael ‘Chekhov’ Cohen’s wry send-up of the Gromov\Rogozin op-ed in today’s New York Times, I do think it glosses over something pretty important. What Michael misses is that Russia really does have a legitimate interest in not seeing Afghanistan totally fall apart.  Say, hypothetically, that Central Asia does become a turgid sea of Islamic extremism following the collapse of the Afghan government.  There’s good reason to presume that such instability would likely touch Russia’s sphere of influence (another Chechnya?) before reaching European capitals.  And what about “the coffins of Americans and Europeans who were killed by Taliban heroin in their own countries?”  Last time I checked, which was 5 minutes ago, Russia still has a pretty bad heroin problem itself. 

So given that some of Russia’s interests in a stable Afghanistan are equal, if not greater than those of NATO and the U.S., why haven’t they been more helpful instead of hoodwinking General Petraeus on basing agreements? Is it as Michael (or was it Dmitry?) says, that Russia would rather European and American leaders be “bogged down in South Asia than poking their heads into the Caucuses or Ukraine?” Probably.  But I think what we’re really talking about here is not misdirection, but free-riding.  Russia simply doesn’t have much incentive to take better care of matters in its own backyard so long as the U.S. and NATO will do it for them.  The way things stand now, Russia can limit the flow of heroin into its borders, tie up militants who might otherwise turn against kleptocratic rulers under Moscow’s control, and keep potential rivals embroiled in endless conflict.  Sounds like a pretty good deal. 

As I’ve said before, this is the basic predicament facing the U.S. in Afghanistan, and it illustrates the silliness of thinking that we’ll get out of it it by signaling resolve or toughness.  Afghanistan’s long-term stability hinges on the productive involvement of its neighbors. This is indisputable. But there isn’t really much hope of that happening, so long as NATO and the U.S. give them what they want for free!

The Story of Boris and Dmitry - A Play in One Act Posted by Michael Cohen

Boris Gromov (governor of the Moscow region and commander of the 40th Soviet Army in Afghanistan) and Dmitry Rogozin (Russian Ambassador to NATO) are having a drink in a smoky Moscow bar.

Boris: So Dmitry you look well. How are things in Brussels?

Dmitry: Well you know Boris, Brussels is lovely this time of year but I am increasingly worried.

Boris: Tell me more Dmitry.

Dmitry: Well it seems the Europeans are increasingly concerned about the war in Afghanistan; they are no longer convinced that it is in their national interest to fight an intractable war with the Taliban. I worry Boris . . . they might want to bring their troops home.

Boris: You don't say.

Dmitry: Yes, it is very concerning. After all if NATO isn't bleeding themselves in Afghanistan they might turn their attention to Mother Russia. Better to be bogged down in South Asia than poking their heads into the Caucuses or Ukraine. 

Boris: Yes, yes. Quite true.

Dmitry: I have a thought. Let's write an op-ed for the New York Times in which we argue that NATO must stay in Afghanistan . . let me say . . . what's the right phrase . . .

Boris: How about, "until the necessary conditions are provided to establish state local authorities capable of independently deterring radical forces and controlling the country." 

Dmitry: Yes, that's it! And what's more, we could challenge the very manhood of NATO; call them "peace-loving" and selfish for not sending their young men to fight in a country that is of tangential importance to their national interests.

Boris: But Dmitry, that will take forever and cost the Europeans billions of dollars.

Dmitry: Precisely.

(Much laughing and guffawing ensues)

Dmitry: How about we say that if NATO doesn't stay and fight it will be a "moment of truth" for NATO and the alliance might not survive. We can ever use the phrase "raison d'etre." I love that expression!

Boris: You know maybe it's the vodka talking, but why don't we also write that a "pullout would give a tremendous boost to Islamic militants, destabilize the Central Asian republic and set off flows of refugees, including many thousands to Europe and Russia

(More merriment ensures)

Boris: You know Dmitry this is a brilliant idea. But as long as we are arguing that NATO should stay why don't we also whitewash the history of the Soviet occupation Afghanistan.

Dmitry: Interesting. What do you have in mind.

Boris: Well we could say that "we were fighting against the father of today's Taliban militants face-to-face, whereas Western armies prefer to fight from air."

(A long pause)

Dmitry: But Boris, this is not correct. Everyone knows that we dropped millions of mines on Afghanistan, specifically targeting civilians. We conducted air strikes and regular artillery barrages that killed ever more civilians. An estimated one million people died. The Americans try to do the opposite. Why would a fine paper like the New York Times allow us to make such an argument in their pages?

Boris: Dmitry, the Americans have short attention spans - our war was more than 20 years ago. Who remembers these things? 

Dmitry: Maybe you are right.  But you know if we're going to write something like that; we should really double down and also say that we "managed to deter the onslaught of Islamic fundamentalists for a full 10 years."

Boris: Oh Dmitry; now you go to far. Didn't our war in Afghanistan actually encourage and embolden Islamic fundamentalists?

Dmitry: Oh Boris, you're so naive.

It's 2010 - Must be Time for a Team B Posted by Patrick Barry

Josh Marshall rightfully throws water on Frank Gaffney and Fox News' idea that we need what's known as a 'Team B' to analyze the threat posed by Islamic extremism, in order to challenge the soft views held by the Obama administration.  For those of you who don't speak neocon, a Team B, put charitably, is an alternate intelligence assessment performed on a given threat (Islamic extremism in this case) meant to challenge the intelligence community's orthodoxy.  Put bluntly, it is the neoconservative equivalent of someone throwing a temper tantrum at their birthday party when it looks like they might not get their way.  Marshall's take below is spot on (though he misses the Rumsfeld Commission, as well as the uproar over the 2007 Iran NIE):

Frank Gaffney is on Fox right now making his argument that Obama needs to appoint a 'Team B' to come in and analyze the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to make sure that Obama -- as Gaffney thinks -- isn't radically underestimating the threat. The Fox spot goes on to draw the analogy to the first 'Team B' -- which emerging neoconservatives got appointed to double-check what they then deemed to be the CIA's grave underestimate of Soviet power. Really? You've got to be kidding, I thought. All the above is reasonable history up till that point. What they somehow failed to mention was that we later got a chance to do what amounted to a post-mortem of the Soviet Union -- something seldom wholly possible in intelligence work. And it turned out that the neocons and the fabled 'B team' hadn't the slightest idea what they were talking about. Not only were the neocons off base, even the CIA had greatly overstated Soviet military and especially economic power in the 1970s.

The CIA's failure to correctly diagnose Soviet economic decrepitude of course later became a tool for the neocons to further attack the US Intelligence Community. In other words, you couldn't trust the CIA because the CIA had to a small degree partaken of the crazy miscalculation that the neoconservatives had used to make their name.

The second incarnation of the 'B Team' was of course during the build up to the Iraq War. And we all know how well that worked out.

So by the most conservative measure this is like the third time the same folks have rolled out the 'B Team' concept, with the other times both being failures of almost unimaginable proportions.

Now, I know Gaffney's having to hawk the idea on Fox on day time. It's not exactly ripe. But how many crazy failures are required before this club is put permanently out to policy pasture?

 

The Soothing Words of Stanley McChrystal Posted by Michael Cohen

One of the many things that I really enjoy about reading and watching the practically dozens of interviews done with America's top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is their unvarnished and optimistic nature. I always feel reassured when I hear him speak and there is never any sense that what he is saying masks a more nuanced and complicated reality on the ground.

For example, consider the General's soothing words to Diane Sawyer in an "exclusive" interview: 

"The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said he believes he is making good on his promise of a quantum shift on the battlefield. I believe we're doing that now. I believe that we have changed the way we operate in Afghanistan. We changed some of our structures and I believe that are on our way toward convincing the Afghan people that we are here to protect them.

"We've been at this for about seven months now and I believe we've made progress. It's not a completed mission yet," he said.

See, aren’t these words reassuring: don’t they make you feel like everything is going to be A-OK in Afghanistan. It’s almost like this stuff just never happened:

Ten civilians, including eight schoolchildren, were killed in an attack by Western forces in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai said Monday.

The second episode of civilian deaths within a week was under investigation Thursday by the Afghan government and NATO officials after reports that up to seven civilians had been killed in Helmand Province in a NATO missile strike.

Conservatives Can't Tell Afghanistan from Pakistan Posted by Patrick Barry

Over the last few weeks, conservatives have exhibited a gap in their understanding of foreign policy so massive it's hard to imagine how it could get worse.  But apparently it did.  Last week, it was arguing that using the word terrorism more would keep Americans safe. Now, it's confusing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today, Jim Hoft at First Things uses a flashy video setting Martha Coakley's debate statement that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan against footage of CIA bomber Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, to attack Coakley for being weak on terrorism.  Of course, one glance at the video reveals a BUNCH of really big problems with this accusation. Take a look:

See that guy to al-Balawi's right? That's Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud. You know where he's based? Pakistan.  Where do you think the video was probably filmed then? I'd bet on Pakistan. Why might Mehsud be interested in attacking a drone base in Afghanistan? Perhaps it's because those drones have been targeting extremists now congregating across Afghanistan's border in PAKISTAN.   Don't believe me? Al-Balawi even says as much in the video.  ABC News:

In the 1 1/2 minute video, the bomber said he attacked the CIA to avenge the death of Baitullah Mehsud, the longtime leader of the Pakistani Taliban who was killed in August..

..."We will never forget the blood of our emir Baitullah Mehsud," said al-Balawi.

So let's get this straight, Conservatives are using footage taken in Pakistan, of a Jordanian suicide bomber collaborating with a group based in Pakistan, to attack a CIA base responsible for sending drones into Pakistan, in reprisal for the killing of an insurgent leader also based in Pakistan, in order to criticize Martha Coakley for saying the 9-11 terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan?   It's pretty clear who doesn't get the big picture here.

Update: Apparently Hoft also cut out the crucial part of Coakley's remarks where she said Al Qaeda had shifted operations to "Yemen and Pakistan," going on to call for the U.S. to "focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is."  There are a lot of seasoned counteterrorism hands who think even the Obama administration has not sufficiently dealt with that complexity. Seems like Coakley meets their standard, just not the fantastical one set by certain conservatives.

A New START on Arms Control Posted by The Editors

The following post is by William D. Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation.

Ariel Cohen's essay on the Obama administration's approach to nuclear arms reductions ("A Nonstarter on Arms Control," New York Times, January 8th) is both alarmist and misleading. It is alarmist because it suggests that even relatively small steps towards reducing the world's arsenal of over 20,000 strategic nuclear warheads could somehow put us in danger. And it is misleading because it understates the value and purpose of practical arms control measures like the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) now under negotiation between Washington and Moscow.

The bottom line with respect to arms control is that the fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be.  In a world where Al Qaeda would like to get its hands on a nuclear weapon or the materials to make one, and where nuclear wannabes like Iran and North Korea threaten to spark a race to get the bomb in their own regions, getting rid of these devastating weapons as soon as possible should be our most urgent priority.  That's why a growing bipartisan roster of current and former presidents, prime ministers, defense and foreign ministers, and retired military officers are calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  This shift in elite opinion began with a January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Sam Nunn making the case for a world free of nuclear weapons, and it has snowballed ever since, for good reason.

But enough about reality. Let's get back to the arguments made by the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen in his article of last week.

Cohen's first false claim is that since the START agreement expired on December 5th of last year, we have somehow been cast adrift in a world without limits on nuclear armaments. He chooses to ignore the fact that Washington and Moscow have agreed to abide by the basic terms of the START agreement while they are putting the finishing touches on a new one.  Furthermore, even if they chose not to abide by START's provisions, it is absurd to suggest that either side could gain a strategic advantage in the few weeks (or in the absolute worst case, months) it will take to hammer out a new treaty.

Cohen makes much of a recent statement by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin suggesting that U.S. missile defense efforts can be seen as an "aggressive" act by Moscow.  This appears to be political posturing on the part of Mr. Putin, a way to suggest that he remains a proponent of a "strong" Russia.  In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussions of the START follow-on accord.  At the negotiating level - not the rhetorical level - there is nothing to suggest that any significant limits on U.S. missile defense efforts will be part of the new treaty.  The notion of giving up missile defense in exchange for a new START arrangement is simply not on the table. To suggest otherwise is misleading in the extreme.

Cohen then turns to the question of whether a new START treaty can get the 67 votes needed get it through the Senate.  But this is about politics, not about the merits of the agreement.  While it is true that 41 Senators (40 Republicans and 1 Independent) have written to President Obama indicating that they will not support a treaty if it sacrifices efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the letter ignores the fact that the U.S. already has a robust modernization program. The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Life Extension Program (LEP) continually refurbishes the U.S. stockpile of nuclear warheads. Delivery systems and production facilities are also regularly modernized and refurbished.

If the Senators think modernization means building new warheads like the ill-considered Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) -  a system that has been rejected by Congress several years running as well as by the Obama administration - that would be cause for serious disagreement.  But if it means making sure that existing U.S. warheads are reliable for the foreseeable future, this issue should pose no obstacle to either the START follow-on or to the next major item on the U.S. nuclear arms control agenda, the push for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  As a well-respected scientific advisory panel known as the JASON group has indicated, current U.S. nuclear weapons will remain reliable for decades to come, thereby eliminating the need for a new warhead.  If the weapons work, there is no need to build new ones, particularly not if the ultimate goal is to get rid of them. There's no question that there could still be heated debate on the modernization issue with respect to both the START and test ban treaties, but that doesn't mean either treaty is doomed to failure.

The rest of Cohen's arguments deal in one way or another with the unsupportable notion that there is a resurgent Russian bear out there, and that it cannot be trusted and should not be cooperated with in any substantial way.  They're going to cheat, Cohen argues.  They're going to build tremendous new missiles that we won't be able to defend against, even as they hide them from us, he claims. They're going to make nuclear weapons the centerpiece of their national security strategy, says Cohen. They're going to win a new nuclear arms race (this is the ultimate subtext of Mr. Cohen's argument). This is all old Cold War thinking that bears little resemblance to the world we now live in.

Even if these overheated claims were true - which they are not - they would be arguments for a new arms control agreement, not against it.  The best way to know what the other side is doing is to conclude a legally binding, verifiable agreement for mutual reductions in nuclear weapons.  Under such an agreement, Russia could not "cheat" in a way that would shift the strategic balance. It could not build new missiles at levels that could possibly threaten the United States and its unmatched arsenal.  And Moscow would begin the process of devaluing nuclear weapons as an instrument of national security policy.

It is ironic that many of the critics of the Obama administration's efforts at concluding a new START agreement had no argument with the Bush administration's 3-page Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), an agreement with no verification procedures.  Similarly, with respect to Mr. Cohen's concern that the U.S. will be withdrawing from a monitoring station near Russia's most important ballistic missile plant, this was already agreed to under the Bush administration, and drew little criticism from President Obama's current anti-arms control critics.  This suggests that perhaps Mr. Cohen and his colleagues are playing politics with arms control rather than assessing the Obama administration's approach on the merits.

In conclusion, new START agreement is not a "gift" to Russia as Mr. Cohen seems to suggest; it is a step that is in both America's and Russia's interest.  As the nations that possess 95% of the world's nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia need to make reductions if they are to persuade other nations to curb their nuclear aspirations or reduce their nuclear arsenals.  And given their mutual vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, Washington and Moscow should be equally committed to the goal of reducing global nuclear weapons stockpiles to the lowest possible levels, and, ultimately, to zero.  This will be a long-term process that involves many practical and verifiable steps along the way.  We need to get down to work, and not get hung up on ill-considered arguments like those presented in Ariel Cohen's essay.

Nigeria is the New Yemen Posted by Patrick Barry

Just kidding!  Josh Rogin notes that while many are discovering that the U.S. actually has a policy toward Yemen, the State Department is expanding its gaze to include Nigeria:

...according to a new report made public Monday, Nigeria is at risk of becoming the same type of breeding ground for violent extremism that America is now battling in so many other places around the globe.

"Government neglect is provoking disaffection that, if left unchecked, could lead to the growth of insurgency or even terrorism," the report states. "Increased desertification in the North and a growing population mean increased competition for already scant land and water resources. In the South, where unemployment among youths is widespread, vandalism against infrastructure such as pipelines is almost a way of life. Newly armed groups of youths readily join in the sabotage activities and kidnappings, upping the stakes for control of the energy resources of this area. Nigeria is also haunted by ethnic and political conflicts that have erupted in violence on multiple occasions in recent years. Despite all these issues, Nigeria is crucial as a U.S. partner and regional leader."

The problems Nigeria faces are no doubt serious, and instability there does raise concerns about the country turning into an extremist hot-spot, but what I think this story illustrates more than anything is the problems of extremism-centric thinking.  If the U.S. has interests in Nigeria, it is primarily because Nigeria is one of 22 emerging markets in the world, the 2nd largest economy in Africa (not including Egypt) and the U.S.' second largest trading partner south of the Sahara.  Extremism in Nigeria is important to the extent it impacts these other things, but not so much as something independent from them.