NSN Daily Update 3/18/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update, here.

What We’re Reading

Russia signals interest in a deal with the U.S. to work on halting Iran’s nuclear program.  Russian news agencies report, however, that a senior Russian defense official confirmed that Russia has a contract to sell air-defense missiles to Iran.

In response to Binyam Mohammad’s allegations, Britain will release new “no torture” rules for intelligence officers interrogating overseas detainees.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates prepares big cuts and restructuring in the Pentagon’s weapons portfolio, but he faces a fight with members of Congress whose districts will be affected by the cut.

The World Bank finds 17 major nations have erected protectionist trade barriers.  The World Bank lowered its China growth forecast.

Commentary of the Day

The LA Times looks at Pakistan’s bigger problems and the rivalry between President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif.

Stephanie Cooke argues that energy reform cannot occur unless the nuclear portfolio is removed from the Department of Energy, including both weapons-related and energy-related nuclear projects.

Lily Burana, a military wife, discusses military privacy and applauds the Pentagon’s decision to lift the ban on photos and video of returning caskets at the family’s discretion.

Can Robert Gates Walk the Walk? Posted by The Editors

This is a guest post from Gordon Adams, former senior White House official for national security budgeting.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is said to be seriously considering cutting major weapons programs in the new defense budget.  If so, it is a worthy step.  The budget is over-burdened with systems we no longer need (more F-22s) and some that are bearing no promise (FCS, for example).  The question is whether Gates’ intentions are real or trial balloon.  The other question is whether the Congress would let him do it, or argue, instead, as the defense industry is trying to do, that these programs are great economic stimulus; killing them now would be a disaster in a recess/depress-ion.

I think Gates is serious, but the services are not.  The Air Force wants the F-22 and the Army wants FCS; they are systems at the core of how the services continue to see their missions. Gates is also a canny Washington, DC player; he has already heard from Murtha and the cast of thousands supporting the F-22.  And he knows that Congress will try to put back in what he takes out.  Welcome to Washington, Mr. Smith.

The economics of military hardware does not make the case for continuing the program.  There is no reason to continue a weapon system that is not needed, or does not work.  In reality, military hardware makes for bad stimulus, unless you work in the plant or the immediately surrounding community (where it is a real job and real local demand).  Extensions of hardware programs, and rushed efforts to fund new ones do not meet the stimulus test - slow contracting process, slower ramp-up to production, add-ons at the end of contracts that don’t happen now, the inevitable program delays, - all slow down the stimulative effect of military systems.

Moreover, the employment effects of not continuing a program are routinely overstated.  Even Lockheed is coming down off the 95,000 number they claimed for the F-22. Defense jobs are high paying, high technology jobs, not like road and bridge-building.  These technical workers are very fully employed people right now and, given the rough doubling of the procurement budget over the past eight years, the opportunity for shifting from program A to Program B (see F-22 and F-35) is high.

It is sometimes said that other types of federal spending create more jobs than defense.  That is right, and it is statistically predictable.  Defense employment is high wage; health employment is not, so of course you create more jobs per dollar on the latter. The one is not "better" than the other except in this pure mathematical sense.

The key to stimulus is putting money into the economy and creating jobs where the unemployment is, not in stringing out production programs for systems that are marginal to our national security (missile defense), of which we already have plenty (F-22), un-wanted by the services, themselves (Marine expeditionary vehicle, DDG-1000). 

Defense needs to focus on real requirements, not on this game of rhetorical dodge-ball. If Gates is doing that, more power to him.

NSN Daily Update 3/17/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete Daily Update here.

What We’re Reading

China could emerge from the financial crisis stronger than before, using stimulus for growth.  China’s companies are purchasing assets around the globe in the worldwide fire sale set off by the economic crisis.  Mexico strikes back at the U.S. with tariffs in an ongoing trade spat.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech on nuclear nonproliferation, saying that the UK will “reduce its arsenal of nuclear weapons as part of a coordinated move with other nuclear states towards disarmament.” Meanwhile, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will rearm and develop its nuclear forces as NATO expands near its borders.

China is trying to export carbon emissions, arguing that international demand for Chinese goods means that the counties that import the goods are responsible for the emissions created during their manufacture.

Madagascar’s president will resign and hand power over to the military, after troops stormed the presidential palace yesterday and installed the opposition leader.

Commentary of the Day

Anne Applebaum wants a targeted legal investigation, not a Congressional “circus,” to seriously pursue those who authorized and carried out torture as described by Mark Danner’s New York Times piece.

Thomas A. Schweich outlines essential pieces of a comprehensive solution in Afghanistan and urges the Obama administration to work with Hamid Karzai.

Bret Stephens slams elements of the left who supported Afghanistan as the “necessary war” in contrast to Iraq but are now against the war as “another Vietnam.”

The LA Times praises the elections in El Salvador and sees a chance for the U.S. to mend fences.

Slow Down Lieberman is Not Foreign Minister Yet Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

There has been a fair bit of reporting in the U.S. press today saying that Avigador Liberman has agreed to be the Foreign Minister of Israel as part of a deal to join Netanyahu's right wing coalition in Israel.  That does not appear to be fully accurate as Haaretz reports:

Enlisting his first coalition partner as prime minister-designate, Netanyahu signed up Yisrael Beitenu, a widely expected move that left the right-wing Likud party leader still short of a governing majority in parliament.

The agreement stated that Likud and Yisrael Beitenu favored the creation of a wide coalition, leaving the door open for centrists to join, and raised the possibility that someone else may become foreign minister if other parties join the coalition.

Likud officials have said a "unity government" including the middle-of-the-road Kadima party led by current Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni could help avoid friction with U.S. President Barack Obama, who has pledged to pursue Palestinian statehood.

Addressing Kadima legislators after the Netanyahu-Lieberman deal was announced, Livni reaffirmed one of her party's main conditions for joining a broad coalition: the continuation of land-for-peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Livni does not appear to be backing down from her demands and there is reasonably high likelihood that Lieberman will in fact be the Foreign Minister.  But it's premature to call this a done deal.

The silver lining of AIG's European bank payments Posted by Max Bergmann

You just knew it wasn't going to be good when lawmakers on the Hill were demanding to know where AIGs bailout money was going. The fact that the company and the Obama administration refused to initially disclose, clearly meant that there were some politically uncomfortable disclosures that would not be helpful in the Administration's efforts to get more bail out money from Congress.

No doubt populist and faux populist outrage (see Politico's screaming headline) will be directed at U.S. taxpayer dollars going to bailout European banks. But wasn't this obvious? Lawmakers are claiming  to be shocked, shocked! to find out that the some of the money used to bailout of a GLOBAL company, was used globally. It was inevitable that much of the bailout money would be transferred by AIG abroad. As the still the largest global power and as the biggest stakeholder in the global economy - not to mention the fact that we were at the root cause of the global crisis - the U.S. was going to have to take action to prop up the global economy. Both administration's should have acknowledged this upfront and made the case that this was about saving a company that was not just vital to our economy but to the global economy.

But now that the cat is out of the bag, it is important to note that there is a silver lining to this revelation internationally.

The Obama administration has been calling for a global stimulus effort, in which wealthy countries  take action to stiumlate their economies and economies in their region. Gordon Brown called for this as well. But there are doubts about whether there will be any agreement at the G-20 summit, as large economic powerhouses like Germany have been reticent.

Well, now at least the Obama administration can beat stingy international leaders over the head with the fact that the U.S. has done its part in propping up the global economy. The Obama administration can now aggressively point the finger at Europe, noting that we have spent $30 billion - at tremendous political cost domestically - to prop up a German, French, and British bank, while many EU leaders have hardly done a thing - I am looking at you Merkel. 

NSN Daily Update 3/16/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Protests in Pakistan led by opposition leader Nawaz Sharif forced President Asif Ali Zardari to back down and reinstate an independent-minded Supreme Court judge.

Iran’s former president, Mohammad Khatami, will reportedly withdraw from the presidential race and endorse another reformist candidate, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The health care “value gap” hurts the United States in global economic competition.

Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has signed a coalition agreement with Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right Yisrael Beitenu party. 

Commentary of the Day

Fareed Zakaria pushes against back criticism of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, arguing that an “imperial” foreign policy can no longer work.

Roger Cohen looks at pragmatism in Iran and how the U.S. can use that to end their nuclear program.

Iranian-American activists – and newlyweds -- Mariam Memarsadeghi and Akbar Atri say human rights in Iran must come first in U.S. Iran policy.

Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai hopes President Obama will inspire a new generation of African leaders.

Technical Difficulties Posted by The Editors

We were down yesterday for a few hours due to technical difficulties.  But are now back and running.  Sorry for any inconvenience. 

Snake Oil and Missile Defense Posted by The Editors

This is a guest post from Alexandra Bell and Ben Loehrke of the Ploughshares Fund

Missile defense is on the chopping block.  Carried through the Bush years by obsessive theology and highly staged tests, the new administration is now insisting that the weapons prove their effectiveness, affordability and necessity.

This level of accountability is apparently unacceptable to the far-right. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), the minority whips in their respective bodies, advocated missile defense this week in Politico, saying, “Our systems have shown through numerous tests that they work – that is not in doubt.” 

This statement is grossly untrue, and they know it. Long-range ballistic missile defense DOES NOT work yet.  Period.  Anyone asserting that our current ballistic missile defense systems are operational may have some snake oil to sell you, as well. Someday it might, but we have a long way to go.
Long-range ballistic missile defense is still in the development phase and has not dealt with realistic testing scenarios that involve countermeasures. The previous administration worked at a frenzied pace to make sure European missile defense bases were constructed, even though the system is not yet functional. 

It is part of a charade called spiral development. The idea is that a system is deployed and eventually the technical details will work themselves out.  You have never heard of spiral development?  That is probably because it is the Ponzi Scheme of weapons development.   The real reason that the bases were put on the fast track is that once in place, future administrations would have difficulty in scaling back program.  Bases on the ground equals a steady stream of funding for missile defense Madoffs. 
Here is the chasm of doubt that Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kyl papered-over. Independent missile defense experts, scientists, and the Pentagon’s own test director have all drawn similar conclusions on the current efforts:

•    Charles McQueary, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, reported in the annual assessment of missile defense systems that “Although the MDA has plans to test over a wider range of intercept conditions and threat battlespace, until this is accomplished, there will be insufficient data to accredit the models and simulations needed to assess GMD operational effectiveness.”  This is Pentagonese for saying we don’t have any idea if any of this works.
•    MIT Professor and missile defense expert Ted Postol is more direct.  He says that missile defense’s “performance is unproven, it requires unending additional resources, and it faces problems that cannot be solved with existing science.”
•    David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees: “The overall system has no demonstrated capability: The U.S. missile defense system is still in early stages of development, and has had no operational tests and no tests in a realistic attack scenario… The intercepts achieved in the tests so far say nothing about the system’s effectiveness under real-world conditions.”
•    Former DoD director of operation testing, Philip Coyle, told Congress, “U.S. missile defenses have not demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or the U.S. under realistic operational conditions.  U.S. missile defenses lack the ability to deal with decoys and countermeasures, lack demonstrated effectiveness under realistic operational conditions, and lack the ability to handle attacks involving multiple missiles.”

Mr. Kyl and Mr. Cantor cite possible threats from North Korea and Iran as the reason to push forward with missile defense funding.  Though neither nation has demonstrated a grasp of long-range ballistic missile technology, no one denies that the recent provocative actions of these countries are concerning.   However, the real danger does not come from delaying deployment of proposed missile systems in Europe; it comes from allowing the American people to believe that there is a tested, certified and reliable system in place protecting them.

Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, warns that the same people that insisted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 are now pushing missile defense technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist.  It is now time that they come clean with the American people and admit that this is a system that they hope will work, but it does not, in fact, work yet.  

The Obama Administration and Congress should continue to support research and development on missile defense, but should demand realistic testing scenarios, greater transparency and independent reviews.  Most importantly, we should be working with Russia and all of our allies to make sure there are no Iranian or North Korean missiles on the ground, much less in the air. 

NSN Daily Update 3/13/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

China is worried about the value of U.S. Treasuries, and urged the Obama administration to guarantee the bonds’ security.  Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao also said that China is also prepared to use new economic stimulus measures at any time, and has plenty of “ammunition” against the global financial crisis.

American envoys try to defuse the political tension in Pakistan between Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif.  A drone strike killed 24 alleged local Taliban in Pakistan.

As the Obama administration works on its strategic review of the situation in Afghanistan, the new strategy is expected to include more emphasis on Pakistan and talking to some elements of insurgents.

Commentary of the Day

Les Gelb writes about how the U.S. can get out of Afghanistan without losing, but says that ensuring that Afghanistan is not a sanctuary for terrorists is not an achievable goal.

Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, and Kimberly Kagan look at how to “surge” in Afghanistan and win decisively.

The LA Times explains how U.S. involvement helped bring Somalia to the crisis it’s in now.

William Tucker thinks closing Yucca Mountain is an opportunity to redefine nuclear waste and develop a complete reprocessing capability.

Open Letter to President Obama on Supporting Democracy in the Middle East Posted by Shadi Hamid

Earlier this week, a group of more than 100 experts and scholars released an open letter to President Obama, urging him to make support for democracy in the Middle East a top priority. A diverse spectrum of names signed on and lent their support to the initiative, including Francis Fukuyama, Mort Halperin, Matt Yglesias, Peter Beinart, Jennifer Windsor, Reza Aslan, John Esposito, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Anwar Ibrahim, Rachel Kleinfeld, Will Marshall, Larry Diamond, and Robert Kagan. To view the text of the open letter, see here. (I am also including the full text after the jump). I was a co-convenor of the initiative (along with Radwan Masmoudi) as well as one of the letter's drafters, so I'm, well, biased. But I wanted to take an opportunity to explain what we're trying to do, because we really are facing an uphill battle in resuscitating the notion that the U.S. can and should pro-actively support Middle East democracy.

In his first two months as president, Barack Obama has been very impressive on the foreign policy front. He has taken some promising first steps to revive America's image in the world and to send a strong, unmistakable message that we aim for a new kind of partnership with the Middle East. However, there is a concern - more than that, a worry - that democracy promotion will not figure prominently in the administration's long list of competing priorities. Considering the political context - with the economy in shambles and our continuing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan - many would say that we do not have the luxury to worry about democracy promotion. I would say that we no longer have the luxury not to worry.

The letter is premised on a few things, among them that U.S. policy toward the region has been "fundamentally misguided" for decades. We have actively and consistently supported repressive dictatorships in the interest of so-called "stability." Needless to say, such a longstanding approach, based in part on realist assumptions about the irrelevance of the internal character of states, did not produce a stable Middle East. Moreover, it destroyed any credibility we might have otherwise had as an international supporter of human rights, rule of law, and political openness. One of Arab and Muslims' fundamental grievances against us is that we support their dictators, often to the tune of billions of dollars. This grievance, unlike some others, is wholly legitimate, because that is exactly what we have done.

Some might say that some of the rhetoric and arguments used in the open letter bear some similarity to that of neo-conservatives. In some sense this is not totally untrue. But there are two main differences that distinguish the letter. First, we make very clear that force should not be used to promote democracy in the region. Support for democracy should only be pursued through peaceful and nonviolent means (i.e. economic incentives, aid conditionality, dialogue with opposition groups, and other forms of diplomatic pressure and leverage).

Secondly, the letter is unequivocal about the right of all nonviolent actors - including Islamist parties - to participate in the political process. Islamists must be included, and that is something the U.S. needs to make clear in its efforts to promote political openness in the region. As the letter says, "We may not agree with what [Islamists] have to say, but if we wish to both preach and practice democracy, it is simply impossible to exclude the largest opposition groups in the region from the democratic process." A prerequisite for a successful democracy promotion policy is a willingness to resolve America's longstanding "Islamist dilemma." We want democracy in theory but we fear its outcomes in practice. This dissonance has paralyzed us long enough, and, often, with tragic consequences (i.e. Algeria 1991-2). I was worried that the section on Islamists would make it more difficult for people to sign the letter, but it's increasingly clear that there is a consensus that, whatever else we think about them, Islamist groups cannot be excluded and that America must change its policies on this front.