Iran: A Rational Actor?

It seems that the murkiness behind Iran’s decision making is clearing. Realists always say that their theory has explanatory power when it comes to major policy decisions. We can safely say that a countries decision to halt or resume a nuclear weapons program is a major policy decision. The National Intelligence Estimate released on Monday concludes that Iran halted its program in 2003 in response to international pressure. This leads them to believe that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs."

If it is true that Iran makes decisions based on cost-benefit approach then it is a critical time for US policy makers. The good news is that we know which direction to start thinking. If Iran is rational then it will respond to pressure. The hard parts, though, are knowing what type of pressure—carrots or sticks—would be the most effective and how much pressure would be effective. The estimate comments on this: “some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.” The estimate gives the obvious conclusion that it is “difficult” to suggest what this combination could be.

HALT!

According to the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is overstated. The report, titled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities", assesses the status of its nuclear weapons program and provides a 10 year outlook. It paints a decidedly different picture than the 2005 NIE, and among its key findings are:

-Iran halted its weapons program in 2003 .
-Tehran is less determined to developed nuclear weapons than previously judged.
-Iran will not be technically capable of producing a nuclear weapon before 2015.
-Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to produce weapons if it chooses.

One reason why the new estimate reaches such a different conclusion is that the Directors of the Clandestine Service, DIA, NGA, NSA, and State INR are now required to submit separate assessments to highlight respective strengths and weaknesses. This change, instituted during the last year and a half, is important because these agencies often hold quite different opinions. For instance, in the 2007 NIE the INR states that "Iran cannot achieve nuclear weapons capability before 2013 due to foreseeable technical and programmatic problems", the other agencies believe the earliest concievable date is closer to 2010.

The 2007 NIE carefully defines its "estimative language" so when it attaches the phrase"high confidence" it means the agencies are in agreement and, further, the judgments are based on high-quality information. Therefore we can deduce that the Intelligence community, almost unanimously, believes that Iran halted its weapons program in 2003.

The report should have had domestic implications, specifically on the Bush Administration, who might want to temper the harsh rhetoric in the wake of this report. It would appear that, since the intelligence community is unified in these judgements, they can no longer selectively dismiss intelligence assessments. Amazingly, Bush has somehow spun the estimate as a warning, highlighting the unlikely "could happen" judgments of instead of the high confidence judgments of what has actually occurred.

Call Up the EDA!

In light of Russia's recent spell of odd behavior, perhaps it is time to think more seriously about the European Defence Agency.

This week, Putin suspended Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty which served to limit the size of standing armies in Europe. This all may have been simply a keen bit of political posturing prior to the Russian elections, but combined with the other ways in which Putin has been sabre-rattling of late, it should not be brushed aside too easily.

The stated goals of the EDA are to "develop defence capabilities, promote Defence Research and Technology, promote arms cooperation" and create "a competitive European Defence Equipment Market and strengthening the European Defence, Technological and Industrial Base."

With the United States bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet eye-balling Iran, the European nations need to aware of the fact that they are more vulnerable. As of now, the EDA has ongoing training and police mission throughout the world which are admirable. However, with an unruly Russia in their midst, now might be a good time to present a more united military front to Russia. Besides, something needs to usurp NATO and oblige the US to play less of a role in Europe militarily.

Slovakian police confiscated what they believe to be enriched uranium during a raid on arms dealers yesterday morning. The finding fuels suspicions that the former Soviet Republics are not properly safeguarding their nuclear materials. It is equally disturbing to note that the uranium was smuggled in what appears to be a mason jar cloaked in saran wrap.

The jar contained uranium of isotopes of both the 238 and rarer 235 flavors, a level of sophistication that proves the material was processed. Fortunately, uranium in powder form is particularly useful for the construction of a thermonuclear weapon. However, since it is ideal for use in a "dirty bomb". This makes the question "where did it come from?" far less intriguing than "where was it going?". Hungarian and Slovakian authorities cooperated in the raid so it is obvious that these smugglers had a multi-national operation, but it is not known which direction the arms were flowing. Since the arrests were made in the northeastern portion of Slovakia along the Hungary and Ukranian border we can reasonably assume that the material was procured from the Ukraine. From here we can imagine all sorts of delightful scenarios where arms dealers from Lithuania, Belarus, and elsewhere distribute similar goods to neerdowells like Syria.

If the value of the material could be determined it would be easier to venture who the buyer was, care to approximate the value of an enriched and powdered blend of U-235/U-238?

All they wanna do is overthrow the government of the largest democracy on Earth.

For the last 40 years, India has been plagued by a Maoist rebellion, which the Indian government seems to lack the will or the competence to extinguish.

Dubbed ‘Naxalites’ after a town in West Bengal called Naxalbari, which was home to a Maoist uprising some 40 years ago, these rebels have steadily expanded their numbers and their influence to the extent that today they engage in ‘operations’ in 14 of India’s 29 states. The origins and largest concentrations of the Naxalite movement lie in India’s eastern states, particularly those of Andrha Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand and West Bengal.

Rebel activities include such standard tactics as attacks on government security forces, assassination of political leaders and attacks against government aid and relief efforts aimed at caring for those displaced by the fighting. Naxalites have also set up parallel governments in the rural areas controlled by their forces, with the ultimate objective being the ousting of the Indian Parliament.

By some estimates the total Naxalite armed force consists of around 20,000 soldiers supported by local militia units. While this number seems fairly insignificant when compared to number of troops the Indian government has at its disposal, the Naxalites have displayed the ability to concentrate their forces and easily overwhelm local police units, showing that while the movement lacks the strength to oust the government, in a crisis situation the Naxalites may indeed be capable of seizing a significant portion of eastern India and setting up a Maoist state.

India’s government has not been blind to this threat. In fact, PM Singh has called the Naxalites, "The single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country." However, efforts by the government to quell the uprising have met with mixed results. Special para-military police units have had local success in killing and capturing hundreds of fighters as well as Naxalite leaders. But despite these setbacks, the Naxalite movement has continued to grow and expand.

The Indian national government must engage in counter-insurgency operations in all affected areas and halt the spread of the Maoist rebellion. Failure to do so in the long term could lead to an all-out civil war pitting the rural poor of India against the urban upper classes. Local governments lack the resources and ability to conduct these operations; a concerted national and sustained effort is required.

Successful Conference, What’s the Next?

War in Iraq was a whole disaster. Bush administration looked like a ship right before stranding as his term closer to the end. All hands strived well for its survival. The Middle East Peace Conference in Annapolis finished as successful. All the participated states sounded one voice: peace. Israel aspires to normalization with Palestine and the Arab world. In this conference, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas discussed over the Arab League’s peace initiative. This miracle is possible because “Bush didn’t give up the ship at last.” I still wonder why he did not do this in his earlier times.

What’s the post-Annapolis? A dominant thought is that Iran will be the next. According to Greg Bruno of Council on Foreign Relations, Martin Indyk, a former US embassador to Israel, described ‘Iran as an elephant in the conference room.’ All the visitors (participants) to this zoo (conference room) consider the ways to tease the elephant. The Sunni Arab states—especially, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—participated as the allies of the US. Syria’s participation will significantly influence the relations with Tehran. This US-driven peace coalition will pressure Iran not to expand its sphere of influence any more. Iran will be in a fine fix. However, this can also make the rat to bite the cats through nuclear teeth.

More Fun in Pakistan

So, things are continuing to develop in Pakistan, with Musharraf set to resign from his military post in order to pacify calls for Democracy and openness in his country. These calls are increasing, however, with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif re-returning from exile over the weekend. He filed for the upcoming elections, and like fellow PM Benazir Bhutto, he has criticized Musharraf and encouraged anti-government protests. Many in the US and the west in general have been critical of Musharraf and sympathetic towards both ex-PMs.

Now, certainly Musharraf has reacted harshly, but it appears that he is slowly releasing bits of control, and is moving in the right direction. However, his opponents played the media well, and Musharraf got painted, unfairly, as a ruthless dictator.

First, it's important to look at his critics - Bhutto's reign as PM was riddled with corruption charges and various accusations, so much so that she was forced into self-exile. Sharif was no better, with charges of corruption and ties to terrorism, his second term ended with a military coup and his arrest.

Now, all of a sudden, the two are back, seeing Musharraf's uneasy situation as a golden opportunity to grab power for themselves. They are not just calling for political dissent, but for revolt against the government. Is healthy Democracy their real goal, or are they just being self-serving and opportunistic? Add in the fact that Musharraf was re-elected by parliament, and the opposition parties withdrew from the vote to try to undermine it's validity. Basically, opposition forces don't have the votes to force Musharraf from office, so they are resorting to other means.

Under Musharraf's rule Pakistan has improved in terms of government corruption, has improved its economy and its relations with India. Add that to the fact that Musharraf has been the first Pakistani Prime Minister who has been willing to combat terrorism, and it is clear that it is not only in America's best interests, but in Pakistan's best interests that he remain in power, and that opposition leaders run for office, instead of encouraging anti-government revolts. Bhutto and Sharif are power-hungry, and have their own interests at mind instead of those of their country. American politicians and the Bush Administration should continue to urge Musharraf to loosen restrictions on free speech, but publicly they need to move past the pictures the media has painted and deal with the real situation.

Turkey offers Love to Rebels

News regarding the situation between the Turkish government and Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq has recently quelled. In the past few weeks, however, soldiers have been massing along the border. Surprisingly, it also seems as though Turkey is making an attempt of amnesty toward Kurdish Rebels. Dogan, a private news agency, reported that Turkish military helicopters are dropping leaflets on mountain paths in northern Iraq that are aimed at persuading PKK rebel fighters to surrender. The leaflet shows a picture of a smiling Turkish commando and a PPK rebel and it reads, "make your decision and leave the organization. Go to the nearest military unit or police station. You will be welcomed with love." Another one reads, “the road to freedom is very close." A Turkish government official commented that thousands of the leaflets had been dropped around the Turkey, Iran, Iraq borders. It will be interesting to find out if these efforts lead to any surrenders.

Putin Strikes Again

So Putin has now said that the US is meddling in the upcoming Russian Parliament elections. Hmm. The US mess with an overseas election? Never, but his claims are not that the US is tampering with ballots or anything of that nature. His claim is that the US State Department has asked a group of election observers, Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who recently cancelled their trip to Russia, not to show up to monitor the election. A State Department official has commented that there was no interference from the US. His argument is that the US wants to call the legitimacy of the election into question because there is no one there to monitor it to make sure that it is being held properly.

There is a history though between this group and Putin. Putin's government delayed the visas that the monitors were supposed to receive and said that the group must be cut down to 70 people, from the 400 that were used in the last Parliamentary election. It is evident that this group probably got fed up with dealing with Putin. In the 2004 election, this group concluded that the election had not been conducted fairly at all, so it is obvious why Putin would not want them present. He has an even more hard line approach than he had in 2004, and he probably has concerns about the legitimacy of this election.

It does not help a group associated with Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, when you have been known to put your dissenters in prison. The latest example was seen this past weekend when Garry Kasparov, leader of the Other Russia movement and former chess champion, was arrested after trying to deliver a letter calling into question the methods that were being used for the elections. The rallies and marches that his group had implemented earlier had been broken up by riot police officers as well and hundreds were detained. The international community has called for his release, but it was to no avail. The Soviet-style dictatorship that Kasparov has been warning about seems to now be a reality. So who could blame a group of election monitors, who champion human rights, for not wanting to go into a country who does not want them there and who has a history of treating dissenters with such disdain.

Stagecraft and diversionary theory

Let's call it the benefit from the diversionary theory. Mahmoud Abbas lost its power after losing the election in June against the Hamas. The meeting will be held in Annapolis is reflecting Abbas regime's growing concerns over the Hamas.

Abbas should do something for his domestic popularity. To do this task, he is diverting people's attention to international affairs-Mideast peace conference. People used to say that he is a 'moderate' leader. But, his attitude is not only caused from his political philosophy, but also from his intention to reverse his political situation. Because 'moderate' means that there is enough room for changes.

In turn, Bush administration was benefited from the so called 'diversionary theory.' You're right and the author of this article from the NYT is right. It is surely stagecraft, not statecraft.

Statecraft or Stagecraft...

This Tuesday, all the usual suspects will meet in Annapolis, Maryland in an attempt to broker a Middle East peace agreement. In an overt reversal of Mr. Bush and his closest advisers previous "hands-off" position, the administration now feels it is in its best interests to become active in the the Middle East peace process. Why do they feel it necessary to now become involved with the process, after maintaining for the previous seven years that U.S. involvement only made things worse for the region? Is this truly an altruistic reversal or is there an alternative motive? Given the the extremely low expectations for anything significant to be resolved at the meetings, I would speculate that the gathering is somehow geared towards advancing the administration's Middle-East agenda and less towards fostering a peace deal that serves the Palestinian and Israeli people.

In a strange twits of irony, Secretary of State Rice has now actually evolved from her previous neo-conservative foreign policy stance into an actual diplomatic one. I can't help but think this change resulted from her meetings with European and Arab leaders whose support is essential to any Iranian statecraft measures. So in other words, although these meetings are not likely to produce any substantive resolutions, aside from some interesting photo-ops now that Syria has decided to attend, they could increase the administration's currently weak leverage in regards to Iran. Call me sinister, but I see no other feasible objective or motivation in regards to this administration's complete reversal in its desire to be involved in the Middle East peace process.

The Double-Edged Sword of Human Rights

Beating the human rights drum can be a great tool for garnering support for policy. After all, what sort of monster would not want to help the folks in Darfur? ...or Burma/Myanmar? ......or end the rule of a tyrant like Saddam Husein? Human rights give the accusor the moral high ground to criticize nations and governments without end and it is hard to argue against policy that plays the human rights card.

The problem is when human rights issues come around full circle. The United States is great at shining the light of moral responsibility on others, but rather poor in accepting blame for its own slip-ups. The recent rape case in Saudi Arabia is a good example. A 19-year-old girl was found sitting in a car with a man not related to her. A gang comes along and rapes both of them. The girl gets six months in prison and 200 lashes for her indiscretion. That's terrible, but does it affect the flow of oil?

Our saviors, the Democrats, are of course widely condeming Saudi Arabia for this. They get to wave the human rights sword around next as they seek office. However, will they condemn or sanction the Saudis once in power? Will the next president cease the flow of money into Saudi Arabia for human rights issues? Does anyone really care about the human rights situation in Arabia, or is it just good chatter?

Ultimately, leaders, institutions, and policy-makers need to either play the moral card uniformally, or not at all. Perhaps China could be our guide, as they do business for the sake of busines and leave morality out of things. In a perfect world, there would be atonement for such atrocities, but until then, nations will continue to do business as usual and use human rights issues as a tool of policy, not of morality.

Still Long Ways to Reunify Korea

It's a pretty good opportunity to verify the effectiveness of the 'spill over effect' or ‘functionalist theory’ from the Korean case. Economic integration slowly absorbed into political and security integrations. In the late 1980s, Germany was well prepared for their unification. However, situation is different for the two Koreas. They are not ready! The problems are caused from not only North Korean situations, but also South Korean political/economic affairs.

Most of the North Koreans are poor and its territories are wasted. It will probably take several decades to reconstruct the whole infrastructures for stable economies. South Korea has the world 11th largest economy; however, it will cost much more efforts to recover North Korean economy. IMF financial crisis in 1997 proved the severity of South Korea’s bubble economy. South Korea overcame successfully that crisis; however, the weak financial infra will result in a more disastrous outcome in the future. Still, South Korean economy is instable. Many experts used to saying Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) as a blueprint for integration of the two Korea. However, it is simply a symbolic in its size and investment rather than substantial. Unification of Germany was possible because of the thorough preparation of West Germany from establishing the basic infrastructure to the complex industries.

Political situations are more vulnerable than economies. South Korea is incompetent to play a leadership role to accommodate the impoverished North Koreans. Of course, South Korea is continuously developing its stable democracy after the first civilian government took office in 1987. However, its politics showed inconsistent and even severely corrupted. To be successful the reunification, South Korean political leaders should establish ‘norms’ to promote stable democracy. But, they lost their political trust. For example, South Korean President Roh, Moo-huyn elected as president through anti-Americanism. Still, many South Koreans remember the two middle school girls who killed by the USFK armored vehicle which make Roh successful in presidential election. After he became a president, Roh changed his attitude toward pro-American without considering the voters. Elite politicians also used to shift their political colors so frequently according to the situations. If South Koreans cannot give beliefs to North Korea, political integration is impossible. Social norms to construct a unified state are needed to prevent the political disorder.
Without the thorough studies and preparations, reunification would harmful to both Koreas.

Big Thanks King Abdullah

This past week OPEC met for only the third time in the past 47 years and “pledged to provide the world with reliable supplies of oil and fight global warming;” whatever that means. The meeting was called, despite what the official rhetoric, to discuss the sliding dollar and its impact on the income of the OPEC states since most of the oil revenue is in US dollars. The dollar has fallen about 15% in the past 12 months. Also Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (surprise, surprise) made claims that oil could hit the $150-200 dollars a barrel.

This is a logical “realist,” if you will, move by OPEC. They have an economic problem—the weak dollar—and they want to fix it; no biggie, but there are two scary parts to this. First, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of the leading people trying to convert oil money out of American dollars. Any plan presented by Ahmadinejad would be a direct attempt to harm America, not just help OPEC, if he the mastermind of this plan. Secondly, Chavez, and his Ecuadorian counterpart, Rafael Correa, called for a more political agenda for the group.

If OPEC decided to become an even more of a political player on the world stage America could be in a BAD situation. This plan was balked at by Saudi King Abdullah "Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely. Oil shouldn't be a tool for conflict; it should be a tool for development." So thanks King Abdullah, you’re America’s hero for the week!

Iraq: post-postwar planning

Violence in Iraq has diminished over the last couple months, down 55 percent since the summer force buildup. However, officials remain guarded in their analyses, as if a mere optimistic thought might be enough of upset the positive trend.

Nevertheless, it seems as though Iraq is slowly trudging, British style, toward a national governance that is more or less tenable—though less “muddle” and more “through” would be nice.

But if the biggest operational mistake of the 2003 invasion was the lack of postwar planning, failure to prepare adequately for the future governance of “post-postwar” Iraq would be equally injurious, for the US and for the region.

As Iraq’s post-Saddam society forms, three concerns or obstacles to future tranquility stand out: sectarian impulses, an armed populace, and the Kurdish question.

The chief danger of sectarianism is the tendency for the three major groups, skeptical of the government’s viability, to seek special favors from the government instead of supporting its role as protector of the rights of all the people. If sectarianism continues, the US practice of arming Sunni groups and the disposition of the Iraqi Kurds are likely to become consequential challenges as well.

For these reasons the US must use political and economic engagement to lay the foundations for lasting stability in Iraq. In short, Iraq’s sectarian groups must become convinced that there is real benefit in using legitimate government processes for effecting change, rather than resorting to extra-governmental coercion. Encouraging the establishment of transparent and equitable political processes should be priority number one for Iraq and the US. Not only should sectarian-based policies be eschewed, but equitable policies should secure tangible rewards. Making room for deeper economic and political interaction between Iraq and the EU and other Middle Eastern states could strengthen the political effect of US engagement.

Decreasing levels of violence in Iraq may be propitious, but US and Iraqi interests lie more in long term tranquility. In a democratic society, this requires that people abide by established political procedures and that they have confidence in them. This is what the US should seek to instill.

A United Korea??

This sounds like it is the most improbable of situations, and it still might be, but there have been great strides made to greatly enhance the relationship between North and South Korea. North Korea has finally acknowledged that their economy is weak and can gain plenty of help from their neighbors to the south.

There has been an agreement made between the prime ministers of the two countries to start a freight train service that will cross both borders. This is the first time this has taken place in more than 50 years. The two countries will also work together off of their coasts in their fishing boats. South Korea also wanted to build an industrial complex for cargo ships near the North Korean border, and North Korea has decided to pull all of its naval ships from a port near the border to a port that is further north. Most of the money being poured into these efforts is from South Korea, but North Korean cooperation has played a large part in it as well. An expert on North Korea in a university located in Seoul has been quoted as saying:
“These projects will chip away at the DMZ. They are steppingstones toward what we hope will become a confederation of the two Koreas before eventual reunification.”
This declaration may seem like unification is evident, but most of the open supporters of unification have come from South Korea, but by cooperating with such programs, North Korea has shown that they may also be interested in a unified Korean Peninsula. Maybe there will be a day when Kim Jong-Il has a Broadway play in his honor take place in Seoul. We can only hope.

Nuclear Tech Theft?

Currently the worlds attention seems affixed to Iran's nuclear weapons program and the civil unrest in Pakistan that could endanger their nuclear arsenal. Clearly it is in the worlds interest to make sure that nuclear weapons technology does not become widely available due to the obvious dangers associated with this. It would seem, however, that the specific focus on these two crises has significantly reduced the amount of attention the world pays to other nuclear threats.
Apparently last week a "military style" attack was launched on a nuclear facility in Pelindaba, South Africa in which two armed groups working in conjunction managed to breach the facility and tried to remove a computer. The security personnel apparently intervened at the last second and a fire fight ensued that left several guards dead, the computer abandoned, and the assailants fleeing. Although the South African government has been silent as to the possible motives of the attackers they have acknowledged that it was very unlikely that it was the hardware which the men were after. Accusations have been leveled against the security guards on duty of complicity or negligence.
Considering the sophistication of the attack and the fact that South Africa was in the process of developing nuclear weapons in the late 80's it would be possible that the assailants wanted to secure some of the left over research data that might have still been stored in the plants database. Although the computer was abandoned it is still not clear whether the attackers were able to access any of the files or whether they had simply taken the hard drive for simplicities sake. With the South African government silent everything is possible.
It seems worrying that this event garnered almost no international attention at all. If stopping the spread of nuclear weapons was the goal of current policies toward Iran and Pakistan then maybe other countries with nuclear technology should be closely monitored as well. Especially very poor countries with nascent nuclear weapons technology lying about with little sophisticated protection. While the world is focused on containing Iran and stabilizing Pakistan it would not be unreasonable for terrorist to shift their nuclear weapons procurement attempts to other regions.

The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed its oft delayed, much maligned, and questionably capable pet project, the V-22 Osprey, to Iraq. On paper it is an engineering marvel, a tilt rotor vehicle that can function as both a helicopter and a fixed-wing craft. However, in practice it exhibits behaviors that you wouldn’t associate with either a plane or chopper. Critics charge that after a quarter century (and hundreds of billions) we are left with a bizarre amalgamation: a helicopter that is unstable in hover, a plane with finicky flight characteristics and prone to stall, and a troop transport without the necessary firepower to clear a landing zone.

It should be noted that the deployment has received little publicity. This is, in my opinion, a reflection of what little faith the Pentagon brass has in the Osprey. If attention is drawn to the project the first public failure of the craft in combat (which is, in my opinion, inevitable) will be met with sharp criticism. The decision to deploy the unproven aircraft in Iraq is puzzling. In addition to being an unproven combat vehicle the Osprey has, as noted by the Pentagons top tester "a tendency to generate a dust storm when it lands in desert-like terrain." Yes, you heard that correctly, we are using an aircraft that has a tendency to generate dust-storms to transport our troops around Iraq. Now, mere days before the Osprey will begin its combat operations, a V-22 went up in flames after an engine malfunction during a training flight.

The Osprey is still an impressive piece of equipment, but what is even more impressive is that the vehicle even made its way to combat deployment. The program is infamous as one of the most intensely politicized projects in the sordid-history of DOD’s cost-plus system. Development of the V-22 encountered nearly every bureaucratic obstacle imaginable (Dick Cheney in particular voiced his contempt) and the project was killed and then revived on several occasions. However, the steadily rising costs, 30 year development cycle, and two fatal crashes could not even prevent the project from continuation. Why? A huge contract with money spread evenly across the districts of some of the most powerful representatives in Congress. It might be a flawed piece of hardware that places our troops at risk, but at least it puts money in the pockets of good, hardworkin' Americans!

Democratic Security for Pakistan

The touchy situation in Pakistan is of great concern for the world community. General Musharraf's recent abolishment of the government should be widely criticized and denounced by all concerned, regardless of political alignment in the Terror War. Besides, if he were such a staunch ally, why is it that the border with Afghanistan is still uncontrolled and UBL still at large? It seems that our millions in aid to Pakistan should be buying us more. Instability in Pakistan is a great threat to the security of the region. To date, Musharaff's regime has been able to control the country through strong-man tactics and the promise of future democratic elections. To no-one's surprise, this has not happened and probably never will. So, the pivotal question here is how to shore up Pakistan and re-establish peace in that country and the region. Continued backing of Musharraf is NOT the answer. Yes, his iron-fisted control of Pakistan does create control, but it is an ethereal control that could collapse with any popular uprising or inner-governmental coup....not to mention any hostilies with India. Would it not be better for all if Pakistan were allowed to get back on track as a democracy, the path that it was on before Musharraf's 1999 take-over? A democratic Pakistan would mean better relations with other democracies, and especially with its neighbor, India. The only true ties that the Unites States has with the Musharraf regime is the cooperation in the Terror War which was gained through direct threatening by the US. Throw in Pakistan's dodgy history of weapons proliferation and you have a regime that has not been the shining beacon of friendship in the Middle East that some pundits might have us believe. Besides, isn't terribly hypocritical of the US to champion democracy in the world and continue its support of a dictator? Without question, a democratic Pakistan would be a much better bet for security, stability, and even better cooperation in the War on Terror.

Democracy is the Least of Our Worries

So, there's been a great deal of talk about the recent situation in Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf has taken extreme measures to maintain his hold on power and stifle opposition. Much of the talk thus far has been about the Democratic process and how Pakistanis need to be given more freedom. However, this argument is missing several key points.

First, Musharraf has been a key US ally. Right now, Pakistan is one of the most important battlegrounds in the War on Terror. We need a government in place that will allow the US military to enter its country and continue the fight against terrorists. Unfortunately, it is a delicate balance, because unpopular dictatorships tend to encourage more terrorism. Basically, we need to keep him in power, while ensuring that opposition leaders are placated as much as possible.

Second, and most important, is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Having a stable government, even if it is a dictatorship, is preferable to anarchy or unstable democracy when a nation has nuclear weapons, as Pakistan does. The United States needs to do everything in its power to keep a stable government in Pakistan, to prevent nuclear weapons from being in questionable or unknown hands.

Overall, the situation is far from ideal. But presently, our concern should be ensuring that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure, and that we are able to use their country to base attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, for the moment, pressuring for democratic reforms must take a backseat. We should do our best to encourage freedom and democracy in Pakistan, but not to the point where it will disrupt our other priorities.

Pakistan Panic

For those of you who might have missed what is going on in Pakistan The Reader’s Digest version is that over the past several months the leader of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf has been attempting to maintain control over the military and the government, while subduing political opposition. In his attempts to maintain pseudo-dictatorial powers Musharraf has, among other things, deported opposition leaders, suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and (not that I am complaining) raided militant Mosques. Needless to say opposition party members were/are not happy.

These problems all came to a head last night when Musharraf declared emergency rule over Pakistan. This action curtailed constitutional safeguards on life and liberty, restricts freedom of movement, banned the Pakistani Supreme Court from rescinding emergency order, and a few other things; basically Pakistan is Musharraf-land now. In response Condi Rice and the White House gang demanded “a quick return to constitutional law” and opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto commented that “this is not an emergency…this is martial law.”

This situation creates a very interesting conundrum for the Bush Administration. Musharraf has been a supporter of The War on Terror, receiving billions of dollars of American aid since 2001, but it is very debatable how effective he has been. So does democracy loving America support a friendly dictator or a new possibly anti-American government that comes about via the will of the people?

Rice has already has stated that “obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid.” That could be a bluff or a serious threat, only time will tell. But, this is a major but, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated the emergency declaration ``does not impact our military support of Pakistan'' …so what Codi targeted sanctions against Musharraf’s favorite booze?

Maybe the course of Musharraf’s and America’s actions in the coming days and weeks will come down to a very simple equation: does Musharraf need America more? Or does America need Musharraf more?

Half As Big, Twice As Mean

A line in the sand is being drawn between those who favor a lean, high tech US military and those who favor manpower over technology. Proponents of more manpower claim that the beefing up of US forces in necessary to fight the counter-insurgency or so called "fourth generation" wars.

Those in favor of jettisoning the strategy pursued by Rumsfeld point to the chaos that has followed in Iraq and Afghanistan as justification for increasing the size of US forces. According to them the US military can destroy, but can not create (a nation that is). And they are absolutely correct, the military's job is to fight wars and destroy, and no one does it better than the US military. It is claimed by the nation builders that more recruits will automatically translate into success. They could not be more wrong. The United States can bring all the jobs and development it wants to Iraq and Afghanistan and it will still find itself knee-deep in an insurgency. This is because the US is fighting religious fanatics (ie the Taliban) who will stop at nothing to prevent the modern western world from taking root in their would-be Caliphate or whatever ultimate goal they are pursuing.

Just how is the US supposed to drum up the recruits to fight a hugely unpopular war anyway? Much to the dismay of American male population, the answer is conscription and that is not going to happen. Much is made of the fact that many in the US know someone currently serving in Iraq and the psychological damage it has inflicted on loved ones. Increasing the size of the military would only exacerbate this situation.

Counter-insurgency aside, how is the US to successfully engage in a future war against a numerically superior opponent such as China or India? In a war of attrition, the superior technology is the only way for the US off-set the disadvantage of facing an opponent that can put more boots on the ground. Some say that war with India or China is unlikely, and that is the case. However, it is wrong to conclude that the US can afford to surrender its technology lead. Doing so could enable China to pursue a more belligerent foreign policy.

Instead of choosing between a lean and mean and big and stupid, maybe the US should just avoid nation building wars altogether.

Response to Atticus's "New Iranian Sanction"

The U.S. Foreign Policy: Which Options on the Table?

The sensation derived from the failure of Iraq War narrowed the breadth of selection. As Putnam (1988, 437-8) explained, the win-set size should be broad enough to have a room for negotiation. However, the U.S. has narrowed its win-set size to negotiate with Iran. What can be the best option for the U.S.? I suggest following: the U.S. invasion of Iran, nuclear armament of Iran, sanctions by the International Institutions and by the U.S., and remove the willingness and capability on nuclear weapons.

1) The U.S. Invasion of Iran: If the U.S. invades Iran, it can successfully deter the nuclear program? Bomb-Iran-Now is a military option suggested by the neoconservatives. However, the U.S. would blamed again whether it success or not, because people are jealous of the war in this region. Presidnt Bush’s invasion concluded with failure in Afghanistan and in Iraq - brought about another conflict (let say, civil war), cost much money and lost the U.S. soldiers. This option sound not so good to solve real problem. And, the relative weaknesses of neoconservatives after the last year's mid-term election might make it difficult to persuade the Democrats.

2) Nuclear Armament of Iran: Let Iran to repeat the history of Israel? As Israel did during the 1950s-60s, the U.S. just let them to develop nuclear bombs? In fact, Iran can easily acquire the related technological assistance from Russia. North Korea and Syria also are good partners. Forced resignation of Iranian top nuclear official means that the Iranian government would directly control its nuclear program. Iran rejected the international inspections itself, or disturbed inspectors. So, it is evident that Ahmadinejad intend to produce nuclear arms, even though he kept saying that it's only for "peaceful purpose." If Iran’s nuclear program turned out to be successful, we do not have answers to deter them from using it through various means such as terrorist groups. This option also not a good thing: it looks too pro-Iranian view.

3) Sanctions by the International Institutions and by the U.S.
The cooperation with the international institutions, such as IAEA and Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are required for the legitimacy of inspections. Iran has a vast territory, which is the eighteenth largest country in the world, so locating the nuclear evidence will not be an easy task. The purpose of close inspection, however, is to pressure Iran. However, the use of international institutions is not a strong means to change Iran's attitude. We should understand this question: Why Iran does not answer the critical questions on nuclear program by the IAEA for five years? They just accepted the mild U.N sanctions accordingly not answering the truth to the IAEA. Why? Because, the sanctions by the institutions are not so powerful.
Hower, there was an announcement by the U.S. State Department that regards any trade with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will be considered like terrorist-supporting activity. This is a strong sanction that can prevent Iranian nuclear ambitions. Nobody know what the outcomes will be, however, I anticipat this might have a big influence - as the U.S. did on North Korean missile test. The sanctions should strongly threatening Iran to change its courses.

4) Remove the Willingness and Capability of Nuclear Bombs: Nuclear program can be resumed at any time if they have willingness (keep ambiguity policy) and capability (nuclear technology and resources). The sanctions might be useful to obtain short-term goal, not long-term goal of removing the willingness from developing the program. Deep-rooted nuclear willingness expected to be prevented under the improved relations with Iran. It looks almost impossible to make the theocratic fascist state Iran change their attitude.
Though Iranian nuclear capability is not a developed level, however, there are many sources which it can depend on. Russia is an awkward friend to dealing with. Because Russia continuously helped Iran for decades in a military sense. Even Putin, an eternal leader of Russia, publicly blamed the U.S. operation in Iraq and possibility of invasion on Iran. The U.S. should take Russia seriously, because it is still a second nuclear power state in the world. The possibility of technology assistance from North Korea is low after the successful negotiations from the Six-Party Talk. Unfortunately, however, we can’t believe such a communist state one hundred percent getting involved in rhetoric. Syria and Pakistan is a possible candidates. Bilateral deal might be helpful as alternative ways to change the current frameworks with the rogue regimes.

So what?
Iran can develop its nuclear program secretly like that of Israel. It is obvious to predict the result of the future when Iran has nuclear bombs. To prevent the disastrous situation, the U.S. should prevent the recent Iranian nuclear armament. It is not an easy task, but not impossible. Even though Iranian activities went too far from the maginot line, negotiation is still possible at any time. Attacking Iran and admitting nuclear armament of Iran is the worst options. Sanctions by the U.S. rather than by the international institutions might be strong. But, the institutions can endow us with legitimacy. Multilateral diplomatic solution is the best option to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. So, the normalized American – Iranian relationship must be accomplished to solve this issue peacefully and permanently.

Oh Blackwater, Keep on Rollin'

The days when this sparked thoughts of a peaceful Doobie Brothers song are over. Now, this statement refers to the blatant disregard for life that Blackwater USA has gotten away with in Iraq. After the shooting of 17 Iraqis, Blackwater guards have been granted immunity by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Funny story though: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have the authority to grant immunity. The Justice Department claims that they did not know beforehand that this immunity would be granted, and the Justice Department DOES have the authority to grant immunity. The argument of what kind of laws American civilians in Iraq have to abide by has become even more cloudy. Since Blackwater is not military, none of the employees can be tried in military courts, and in 2003, because of the American occupation, a law was passed that no American can be tried under Iraqi law. There are currently some measures within Congress that are trying to fix this problem, but until then, it is obvious that Blackwater, and any other mercenary group, will be able to break whatever laws and commit whatever human rights violations they want. They can even continue to treat American troops as useless and unimportant, which has been a common complaint fired at Blackwater. Maybe next time the US will think twice about sending a bunch of thugs in to do the job of our military.

New Iranian Sanctions

Why is America using (more) sanctions against Iran? Will new sanctions get America anywhere? Have sanctions worked with Cuba? The answer is a resounding NO in both cases. Not to sound pedantic but the Bush Administrations is hitting a new low in stupidity. I understand the urge to prevent the Revolutionary Guard from interfering in Iraq, but unless these new sanctions are oddly effective they won’t work. What they will do is give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more rhetorical firepower.

Look here is the deal with sanctions: they sound GREAT in the nation that is doing them, drumming up national pride and all, but often sanctions increase national pride/resolve in the sanctioned nation as well. I really believe that Castro’s regime would have fallen long ago if he was not able to blame Cuba’s economic plight on America. What America is doing is giving the pro-America Iranian population a reason to hate America. Seriously there is stupid and then there is stupid.

I did not agree with everything our recent speaker Jeremy Jones said, but he made a very valid point when he noted the lack of productivity when a nation only negotiates with its friends. Normalizing relations with Iran (i.e. talking with Iran) right now would be painful, and would give Mr. Ahmadinejad a lot to talk about, but talks are the only way the good ‘ol US of A and Iran will be happy bed fellows again. Somehow I think this concept might be far too complex for the Bush Administrations so I will sum up my feelings this way: IRAN SANCTION BAD! IRAN TALK GOOD! ARRG!

Missile Defense Shield Bad mmmkay.

The Bush administration just won't let the idea of missile defense shield. "We need to protect ourselves from Rogue states like Iran!," they say. Well, Rogue states like Iran and Syria don't survive by being stupid. No threat from a rogue nation from Iran or any other rogue state is so pressing as to create a shield to prevent such an attack. While Iran may possess the technology to attack Europe, they would most certainly refrain from doing so out of the possibility of being reduced to a pile of radioactive ash were they to strike with a nuclear weapon (should they ever acquire one).

Of course I'm not the only one who should stop making a fuss about the value of missile defense shield. As mentioned above, the US's current plans for basing interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic are specifically meant to counter the remote chance of Iran firing a handful of primitive missiles at the state of Europe an in no way signify hostile intent towards Russia. You can relax, Mr.Putin. Anyways, your missiles can be launched from land, sea and air, and you have lots of them to hurl.

Hopefully the US will decide that the missile defense shield is a bad idea before pissing billions of greenbacks away.

The Teeth of Diplomacy

Condoleezza Rice’s response to several Republican Representatives concerned about American negotiations with North Korea was that she was “using the teeth of diplomacy, not just the carrots.” (article)

After commercial satellite photos showing the beginnings of a possible nuclear reactor in Syria were released and circulated, some of the more hawkish and conservative members of congress accused Rice of valuing diplomatic negotiations with North Korea over our national security. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida wrote an opinion article, criticizing the administration for continuing negotiations and accusing the administration of creating a “veil of secrecy” around the Israeli airstrike issue.

A nascent Syrian nuclear program does not pose an immediate threat, and there is no need to call of negotiations because of it. It is quite obvious that Israel will not let the program grow enough to become a threat.

Both Rice (finally) and Christopher Hill understand that negotiating with North Korea is not going to be a zero-sum-game. If North Korea is responsible for Syria’s nascent nuclear reactor then that means that negotiations will be more difficult, not that negotiations should be called off. The most important time to talk and negotiate with North Korea is when it is behaving in a way in which we do not approve. Condemning North Korea for its actions and calling off negotiations is a juvenile and ineffective policy. What will it lead to? Diplomatically condemning North Korea’s actions in negotiations (with our big teeth) and having our top diplomats consistently and strongly offering it carrot after carrot is a proactive policy that could possibly to lead to a nuclear free North Korea.

Maybe Lt. General McChrystal is not a "Kook"

A couple of weeks ago, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal advocated for military planners and leaders to declare a "Victory Declaration" for operations in Iraq. While I vehemently opposed such an idea then, and still do now, maybe the Lt. General was more aware than many gave him credit. Last week, OBL released a video criticizing Al-Qaeda insurgents. OBL chastised the insurgents for straying from the main mission of combating U.S. forces and instead focusing on advancing their personal allegiances at the cost of the primary cause: defeating the Americans Occupiers. He went on to further condemn the Al-Qaeda insurgents for using brutal tactics against the Iraqi people, who have grown tired of them and have begun assisting American troops. Many feel the cooperation of the local Iraqi leaders with the coalition forces have been key to the recent American successes.

I may be wrong, but this is the first time I can remember OBL publicly and blatantly chastising his own Al-Qaeda fighters through a released video tape. He usually saves that mechanism for delivering his anti-western propaganda or, as some feel, delivering hidden messages. While I feel it would be premature and extremely detrimental to active troops in Iraq to make a "victory declaration", maybe there are signs that Al-Qaeda has been weakened. After four and a half years of fighting: any objective, positive reports should be welcomed by everyone regardless of political party. However, I feel it important to treat the analysis as a postive sign but not go overboard in making an premature declartions. If anyone should feel different, I implore them to remember our President and the speech he gave under the now infamous banner approximately two months after the Iraq invasion began in March of 2003.

Kurdish Hellions, Turks screaming "Rebellion!"

Turkey, apparently feeling diplomatic pressure from all sides, has entered a deal to cooperate with the Iraqi government to confront the Kurdish problem. This has bought both Iraq and the U.S. valuable time to alleviate tensions, but the harsh rhetoric continues.

Most interesting are the words of Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan who flatly stated that “Ceasefires are possible between states and regular forces - the problem here is that we're dealing with a terrorist organization". This is telling because 9 years ago Turkey showed us that a ceasefire with a “terrorist organization” was not only possible, but that they would enter into one. They brokered an agreement with the PKK that brought relative peace to the region, until 2004 when the violence resumed.

This option has been taken off the table because Turkey no longer views such an agreement as viable, and it appears they are not only prepared but downright giddy with the thought of military intervention. By show of hands, who sees a diplomatic resolution to this issue? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? …it will not work and the tensions in the region will continue to escalate militantly.

Luckily, it looks like Iraqi forces will be utilized to close the PKK camps in the North, possibly with Turkish assistance. This is excellent news for the U.S. because increased involvement in Kurdistan would be viewed with suspicion in Ankara and, to be honest, the U.S. military has more pressing problems further south (and east, and south east too) . However, I am not inclined to believe that Turkish, Iraqi, or a combination of Turkish and Iraqi forces are capable of effectively engaging the PKK. The Iraqi military has consistently underachieved and the Turkish forces have seen only moderate success against the determined rebels. Oh me of little faith.

Who Needs a Power-Sharing Deal? I have Emergency Powers!

Yesterday in Karachi over one hundred people were killed and hundreds more injured when two explosions rocked Ms. Bhutto's motorcade. Ms. Bhutto's arrival in Pakistan is almost certain to cause more instability in the country.

Musharraf could gamble on using emergency powers now to stay in office. Although Mr. Musharraf's constitutional legitimacy as president is questionable, Ms. Bhutto can not claim the high ground either. She is pushing for a third-term as prime minster, which is currently illegal. Idealist may point to the agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto as a step towards true democracy, but it looks like business as usual in Pakistan. Pakistan could now have two dictators. One would like to think that maybe two individuals could squash the problem with militants in the tribal areas, but given that both of Ms. Bhutto's terms as prime minister were riddled with corruption and incompetence, the situation looks bleak.

I hope that nuclear arsenal is secure.

Save Us From the Democrats

8 months ago, the democratic party campaigned endlessly on ending the war in Iraq. But alas, it is October, and the war continues with no end in sight. But its not all the fault of the Democrats, right? They do control Congress, but Bush is unwaivering in his convictions regarding the war and would certainly veto any bill calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. And, despite the majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate, the Democratic party lacks the numbers to overturn any veto issued by President Bush.

The spineless jellyfish who make up the rank and file of the Democratic party would love for America to think that they are doing all they can to end the war, but they're not. They could do a number of things, such as holding a filibuster. But all that bloviating takes away from valuable face to face contact with the special interest groups that many of them serve, such as...oh, I don't know...the Armenian Lobby.

The Democrats can't can't force the end of the war through "official" direct means or indirect means (i.e cutting off funding for the war). So... the Democrats have decided get behind a resolution calling for the recognition of a genocide of the Armenian people in 1915. Turkey, a key NATO ally and critical logistical staging ground for the Iraq war is obviously pleased. I guess the Democrats think that it is in the interest of the United States to lose the support of a key ally in the region in order to end an unpopular war.

The Democrats must be taking crazy pills. We already have our hands full battling insurgents in Iraq. It would incredibly stupid to give Turks any more reason to invade the only peaceful portion of Iraq and possibly ignite a wider regional conflict.

A Unified Iraq?

A recent Washington Post article quotes Iraq's Deputy Prime minister M Barham Salih, a Kurd as saying "I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such". This brings us back to the issue - why are we insisting upon the survival of a unified Iraq, and is this still possible.

We must remember that Iraq is a very artificial country - yes, it was all part of ancient Babylon, but its borders were drawn by the British Empire after it colonized the area (along with the rest of the world, of course). It seems that the only Iraqis who are determined to cling on to a unified Iraq are those who would not control the nation's oil reserves. Their only desire comes from personal economic desires, not from a lofty Iraqi nationalism or anything of the sort.

The question remains, why has US policy remained that we insist on a unified Iraq? If our concern is truly security, why are we trying to force groups who have no desire to coexist to within the same borders and share power?

I know it’s shocking that there are massive logical fallacies in US Iraq policy, but it’s sad that the concept of dividing Iraq is seemingly not even being considered by any policymakers. One would think that after 4 years of mostly frustration and an inability to make significant political progress in Iraq, all options would be on the table, or at least discussed openly.

Interrogation is useful Pt. 2: So is torture (and its legal!)

AP 10/9/2007 - WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed. Full story

The United States will not allow legal proceedings where state secrets may be revealed, period. Even if the CIA kidnap, strip, beat, diaper (wtf?) and drug an innocent person. No criminal prosecution can occur so long as we call it a "secret". Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed Supreme Court, this does not make sense. Chewbacca lives on Endor. It is disconcerting to see that between 1953 and 1976 the state secret doctrine was invoked 6 times, and the Bush administration, in less than half that time, has seen fit to invoke it on 39 occassions. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that this world is 80 times more dangerous than the Cold War period.

The rogue elephant is back, and this time hes drunk. It's time to gather up the surviving members of the Church Committee for a reunion tour of our intelligence community.

Oh Glorious Opium

So Afghanistan has just had its largest harvest of opium poppy in history, and who does the US blame. Afghanistan of course. Why would the US not blame them? I mean it is obvious that blame must be placed on a country that has found a cash crop that makes it a major source of revenue. The fact remains that this large amount of opium poppy harvested and the amount of opium produced makes the US look bad in many different ways. First of all, one thing the Taliban was successful in doing was cutting down on the opium production. Since the US has taken out the Taliban, both poppy harvest and opium production has greatly increased. So much for a "war on drugs." Another reason why this makes the US look bad is because a country should not be able to make money on such disgraceful acts that Americans happen to be the most abundant users of. It would be a dream if the blame would actually go on the demand for once in the US. Of course Afghanistan will keep harvesting and producing opiates when they know that the US will always be there as a customer. The only way to cut down on production is to take the money out of it. If demand were to decline, there would be less desire to produce the amounts that are being produced right now. We will see if this actually happens. I tend to doubt it.

Interrogation is useful

Using information gained from detainees, the US...[1]

· In 2002 disrupted a scheme of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (9/11 mastermind, aka KSM) to attack West Coast targets with hijacked airplanes

· In 2003 derailed another KSM-plot involving hijacked airplanes, this one directed against Heathrow Airport

· In 2003 began an investigation that culminated in the capture of Hambali, leader of Jemaah Islamiyah and al Qaeda’s representative for South Asia

· In 2003 arrested Iyman Faris, who was involved in a plan to destroy New York’s Brooklyn Bridge

· In 2004 broke up a planned attack against urban targets in the UK

Interrogation is useful. Whether or not the methods used above amounted to “torture” is irrelevant. The point is that they were used for the advancement of policy—in this case, the suppression of terrorism—and were neither aimless nor indiscriminate.

What I am still waiting to hear is an argument why torture/interrogation is bad (assuming, of course, that the underlying policy is just, which most people take counterterrorism to be).

Is it because it’s “uncivilized?” Suffusing people with shrapnel seems also somewhat uncivilized, yet this is legitimate in war. Is it because the international community says it’s unacceptable? Or is torture just plain wrong? Someone tell me.

[1] http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/09/hivaluedetainees.pdf

To Torture or not to Torture

Today the New York Times reported on a US Justice Department memo issued in 2005 approving the use of torture after previously denouncing such methods in a an earlier memo in 2004 as "abhorrent". This new, revised memo endorsed methods such as head-slapping, simulated drowning, and exposure to frigid temperatures.

I know torture has its advocates and they make many nebulous claims to its effectiveness effectiveness in eliciting information. If someone could site a specific, compelling example I would love to hear it. I guess it is tempting to be seduced by the iron-clad logic that someone would never tell their torturer exactly what they wanted to hear in order to terminate the gruesome proceedings as soon as possible. And of course terror suspects have all the incentive in the world to divulge all their information...spending the rest of my days languishing in a concrete cell as an expended intelligence asset sounds great to me.

If someone shoved a snarling attack dog in my face or threatened to attach electrodes to my genitals, I think I'd say just about anything to make it all stop.

We're told that the War on Terror is being fought to protect civilization from those who would destroy it. Are we being civilized?

North Korea Does Care

Just when everyone thought that North Korea was a desolate rogue state that only cares about finding a place of importance in the world, they prove that they actually care about their people. WOO HOO. Everyone take a picture because this does not happen often. It was officially announced today that North Korea has reached a deal with Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan to complete dismantle all of its nuclear facilities by the end of the year. This includes the reactor in Yongbyon which produces plutonium. In exchange for this disabling of nuclear facilities, North Korea will receive 950,00 metric tons of fuel oil or its equivalent in ECONOMIC AID. Yes economic aid. Kim Jong-il might actually have decided that starving his people to death is not a the best viable option. Or maybe the North Koreans got a hold of the picture that shows how lit up the rest of the Korean Peninsula and China is at night. Either way, things are looking up for the North Koreans.

Now this deal does not require North Korea to get rid of all of the technology and parts that have already been acquired already which could pose a threat if another state were to get their hands on them. In order to gain full support of the United States, North Korea must also disclose whether or not they have been supplying Syria with nuclear materials. If this condition is met along with full disabling of facilities by the end of 2007, then the US says it will "enhance mutual trust."

This is also seen as a major victory for the Bush adminstration. This administration, which has suffered through the debacle in Iraq, has shown signs of effectiveness. Not only has they worked with North Korea to disarm, they have also done the same with Libya early in the administration. These smaller victories certainly do not overshadow Iraq, but they do show some credibility, for what it's worth.

The Torture Taboo

Why does tough interrogation get such a bad rap in the US? Certainly, much of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was senseless and shameful, but this should by no means push the US to tone down its interrogation techniques.

One commonly hears this protest: “How can anyone take seriously US pronouncements on human rights in light of how it treats its own prisoners?” At best, this is rather flimsy logic. In times of war, an army’s chief objective almost always involves killing its enemy. Why is killing OK in war, but tough interrogating—which is less terminal than killing—to gain strategic advantages not?

But what if the tortured prisoner had no valuable intelligence to begin with? The nature of war, even a just war, makes collateral damage unavoidable. General Sherman’s statement “War is hell” was prescriptive as much as descriptive.

There are plenty of documented cases where intense interrogation has yielded crucial information, so the onus is on the dissenters to explain why torture should not be used. What worthwhile value or moral principle does an anti-interrogation stance promote? And why—in the political world of value tradeoffs—does that principle outweigh the advantages that tough interrogation has been known to produce?

Why do we fear?

Amid Protests, President of Iran Speaks at Columbia

Damon Winter/The New York Times
[Protesters, including students bused in from other schools, swarmed Columbia University to demonstrate against the speech.]

I think, first of all, we need to listen directly and carefully on his opinion on what’s wrong and what’s right on the situation in the Middle East. And then, we can judge his argument how he is biased or not based on his remarks. Protests are a good means of representing the American ideology. Even without it, Ahmadinejad would keep look down on the U.S. and so called the Western democratic countries. National security can be obtained only when we sought the true values. If he does not exactly know on those values, we have to le him know ho to maintaining a stable national security. If somebody who is not content with him, how about to say in front of his speech table that “you are a terrorist!” To obtain true values, we need to know to withdrawing one step, and then it will make us to go further.

Speaking of Values

Since we have just concluded our discussion of values and how these tie into national security I found it rather intriguing that The Economist began a series this week that examines how terrorism has affected civil liberties. In the first installment The Economist examines arguably the worst assault on civil liberties by exploring the use of torture to secure information deemed to be of vital interest to national security. The report looks specifically at how 9/11 has changed some of the attitudes in western countries about the appropriateness of some level of torture to extract information from terror suspects.
The article lays down some of the international laws to which most countries are signatories and how they define torture. According to the article it the different interpretation of what constitutes torture that has allowed several countries most notably the US and England to engage in or sponsor some level of torture by allies. The moral dilemma with torture is of course discussed as it can potentially save many lives in return for small concessions in civil liberties. Dick Chenney is quoted as having recently suggested that "dunking" a terrorist in water to save lives was a "no-brainer". This blunder was later altered by a press release stating that he was not referring to "water-boarding". Also in 2004 the English Court of Appeal ruled that evidence acquired through torture was admissible in court. Although later overturned by the House of Lords.
The nature of terrorism, according to the article, has made the need for information that much more important to defending against the enemy. Polls presented in the article also show that a large numbers of people around the world believe that "some degree of torture is permissible". However, in the same polls we also see that in all countries a majority of the population are "against all torture". Clearly a divide has developed since the rise of terror that has changed some peoples perception as to what national security is and how important civil liberties are to it. Governments have responded to these changes in public attitude by permitting it in some form through elaborate schemes.
Also, the article touches on some aspects from the nuclear taboo article from last week. The Economist seems to espouse the view that torture should also remain a taboo to modern societies as it poses a slippery slope just like the use of nuclear arms. Once the practice of torture becomes accepted, even in only a minor role and extreme cases similar to the use of tactical nukes, it will lead to escalation as there is no clear boundary that can be established in its implementation. The article argues that the erosion of civil liberties in this direction is a dangerous development but also makes note that in many places legislation has been developed to curb many of the torture practices that emerged directly after 9/11 and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This seems to coincide with reduced support for torture at home.

Disaster at Sea?

On Friday Robert Kaplan—a journalist currently writing for The Atlantic—wrote and op-ed piece in the New York Times, arguing that the Iraq war may be the event which brings about the Asian Century. Throughout the article, Kaplan predicts scenarios and points out trends about Asian naval power.

A trend: Kaplan argues that the balance of naval power in Asia is changing. Specifically, he mentions China. It has five times as many submarines as America, and it is focusing on naval mines, G.P.S. satellite blocking technology, and ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting moving objects at sea. Kaplan also mentions that India’s Navy is on its way to being the 3^rd largest, and Japan’s Navy is also increasing, soon to be 4 times larger than Britain’s Navy.

A forecast: As the Indian and Chinese middle classes grow, and consequently, as the demand for energy grows, the narrow bodies of water in and around the Indian Ocean will become clogged with tankers transporting oil and with the warships protecting the tankers routes. Kaplan calls this is a dangerous situation prone to terrorist attacks.

A trend: While pointing out that a willingness to use military power can be based on nationalism, Kaplan compares the level of nationalism in America and Europe to that in Asian countries. Kaplan calls the West post-nationalistic, seemingly ashamed for needing nuclear weapons. Contrastingly, the Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese are prideful about possessing nuclear weapons, and certainly the Iranians are passionate about their right to poses nuclear weapons. Kaplan brings the discussion back to the Iraq war by blaming it for worsening the European trend towards pacifism.

A forecast: Several territorial disputes in the Asian seas remind Kaplan of the same sort of territorial dispute that “often led to war in early modern Europe.”

Kaplan goes on with more predictions and trends, describing what sounds like a recipe for disaster, but how possible are his predictions?

Montpelier: to the President of the United States

Dear Mr. President,

I have sympathy for the aspirations of the Second Vermont Republic (SVR) movement, and though it has generated a media maelstrom, I think it would be wise to consider circumspectly its goals and ideals. At the very least, the Vermont issue should shed some light on American values.

Press reports have censured the SVR movement with words "threat," "treason," and "radicalized." These are inaccurate.

That the SVR movement seeks to harm or overthrow the United States government (which would be treason) is nonsense; it simply wishes to reinvigorate the American ideals that government proceeds from the citizen and, in the United States, that the federal government should operate within a limited scope. That the United States government has claimed prerogatives outside its constitutional mandate (see Bill of Rights, 10th amendment) is undisputed.

Would the SVR be a threat? No more than Canada. Would its secession harm the nation? Vermont has the smallest gross state product of the fifty states--about 0.2% of US GDP--and has a similar share in the national population. Perhaps one could say the SVR threatens the value of unity. But unity is desirable only when centered on virtuous principles, and SVR supporters believe that United States' policies that erode self-government pose the larger threat--a noble argument that sadly got entangled in the slavery issue in the 1800s.

Are they radical? In their pursuit of self-determination, perhaps. The "treason" and "threat" labels, however, are unwarranted. Then again, they would be quite familiar to people such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Before cursorily classifying the SRV movement as inimical to the United States, Mr. President, please consider the fundamental values for which the United States stands, or more appropriately, stand.

Respectfully,

An American citizen

Death to Ameri..er, Pakistan!

Reports now say the the next video out of the bin Laden camp is going to call for jihad against...Pakistan.

Welcome to the party, Pakistan.

Apparently, UbL is hacked off by the Musharraf government for its management of the Red Mosque issue and by his dodgy rule as a whole (read: cooperation with the Great Satan). Things are really up in the air in Pakistan now with the good general's relinquishing control of the military if elected properly...or whatever his mindset happens to be this week. Either way, UbL has chosen a tricky period in which to get into fisticuffs with Pakistan.

Seeing as how the Taliban and perhaps UbL himself managed to stay alive by hiding along or even inside the border with Pakistan, it might not be the best move to tamper with this relationship. Isn't there a saying about not pooping where you sleep? If not, there needs to be.

Montpelier Delenda Est!

While our attention has been focused on our enemies in the Middle East, there has been a threat growing within our own national borders. The Second Vermont Republic (SVR) has been growing in power and notoriety over the past few months and has been gaining fame both domestically and abroad.


The SVR is a secessionist movement bent on pulling the state out of the United States a la South Carolina in 1860-61. SVR leaders claim that the right to secession is real and justified by historical precedent (just when you thought the Civil War was a bad thing...). According to the SVR, a state and its people have the right and the duty to secede when a government has lost the authority to rule. Ironic how they use the reasoning of the founding fathers to support their cause. Furthermore, the United States' government is immoral and disrespectful of the individual states.

To date, the separatist movement is not militant. In fact, one of the hallmark ideas of the movement is that a state can secede peacefully. As evidence, they cite the newly independent states born of the break up of the Soviet Union. Of course, the Soviet bloc fell apart and did not stand idly by while a section of it radicalized politically and opted out.


A seceding state from the US, especially one on the border, is too great a threat to national security to be permitted.


Granted, any red-blooded American would love to see the hyper-liberal state hit the road, but it simply is too dangerous. With its growing international fame, how long would it be before the SVR is contacted by the greater terrorist network? How long until Osama is hiding out in the mountains of Vermont instead of in the mountains of Afghanistan? A rogue state on the border is too tasty a morsel for the enemies of America to ignore.


The practical means to rectify the problem are less clear. Perhaps the residents of Vermont could be relocated to Texas for re-Americanization? Pacify the Vermonters by legalizing marijuana in their state?

Either way, the South is now officially exculpated and the Northeast has taken over the mantle of treason. One course of action is clear: Montpelier Delenda Est!

The Penguin, err...Dick Cheney, strikes again

Speaking at a GOP fundraiser this week, the Vice President felt compelled to weigh on the moveon.org controversy involving its ad in last week's NY TIMES. (Is it me, or does it seem like the only time the VP comes out of hiding is to raise money, but I digress.) In the article, the organization questions whether General Petraeus was "cooking the books" during his Capitol Hill testimonies last week. Whether you agree with Moveon's tactics or not, this administration has proven its resolve to "cook the books" to advance their agenda. Given that former Bush cabinet officials (Paul O'Neill, George Tenet, etc.) have publicly stated that this administration was only concerned with intelligence that supported their agenda, the question is at least worthy enough to be investigated. Further damning to the administration, the respected by all, former FED Chairman Alan Greenspan came out this week and stated that the Iraq War was all about oil. Back in 2003, the Bush-Cheney team sacrificed Colin Powell at the UN, when they sent him to deliver the "cooked-up" evidence supporting their pre-determined war, sidetracked only by the events of 9/11. And now, they expect all Americans to unequivocally support all of this administrations proposals for Iraq or they label them as un-patriotic. Given this week's topic on Values and National Interests, along with having heard Greenspan's opinion on the motive for the Iraqi invasion, I think a true patriot would do anything but go along with the status-quo of this administration.

Further, when I heard the VP state, "No one in politics should hesitate to object when an American soldier at war is mocked and insulted." I couldn't help but remember the confrontation that Cheney engaged in with Max Cleland, the former Vietnam Vet and Georgia Senator who lost both of his legs and one arm during battle, in 2004. Or, in that same year at the Republican National Convention in NYC, Cheney permitted and supported the use of band-aides as way to "mock and insult" Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam, while he continuously and cowardly avoided the same draft in which Kerry served. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Second Summit Meeting in the Korean Peninsula

What are the meanings of the second inter-Korean summit meeting?

Second summit meeting will be held on 2 – 4, October, 2007. This will be a meaningful in many ways as I suggested below. Let me compare the two meetings.

The first summit meeting in June, 2000 was come about when there was no trust between North and South. And there was no contact between government officials. Rather, the Hyundai’s role as intermediary was devotional.

First of all, however, the second summit meeting will be held with the results of frequent dialogues and negotiations--owing to the U.S. and multilateral conversations. Second, Kaesong Industrial Complex and other economic projects are being carried out in positive senses. Third, as I mentioned above, the government’s official channel made it possible to have the second meeting.

This summit meeting will be meaningful in its contents. This meeting will definitely deal with the nuclear issue first. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the basic premise of the successes of the 13 February, 2007 Six-Party Talks. For two Koreas, security is the most important issue to be solved for the further progress in a bilateral relation. If the nuclear problem solved, South Korea have enough intention to assist North Korea in a various ways.

In this sense, South Korea can play a crucial role in securing stability and finally the reunification of the two Koreas. In regard to security issue, NLL (Northern Limitation Line) issue—the most urgent problem is expect to be suggested. North Korea does not recognize the existence of this line; whereas South Korea is firmly insist on the existence of this line, so there are many possibilities of conflict in the West Sea, as some North Korean Navy skirmish cases showed. Summit meeting will deal with this line seriously. Of course, this will not be easily solved in one time, but gradually there will be much more specific meetings. Accordingly, I expect this second summit meeting will institutionalize the inter-Korean summit meeting further.

It’s easy to criticize US policy in Iraq. Even the president has expressed disappointment with the lack of political reconciliation and security enhancement, and the chorus of war critics is as clamorous as ever. But merely pointing out policy flaws—especially obvious ones—is unhelpful, unless one is advocating viable alternatives.

One popular alternative: skedaddle. But this is not a strategy; it’s a reaction. Those who advocate pullout need also to demonstrate how steadily drawing-down forces in Iraq, irrespective of events on the ground, is the best policy option for the US. True, it would bring many US troops out of harm’s way and decrease expenditures, but what would be the larger ramifications? How would US interests in the region be affected? What balance of power shifts might occur? Those who assert—correctly—that US war planning pre-invasion gave inadequate attention to future scenarios should also consider what consequences a precipitate withdrawal might produce.

Some war critics cite declining Iraqi optimism—documented in a recent BBC pool—as proof of US failure and an argument for pullout. But the poll shows also that security is still the number one concern for Iraqis. Those who advocate withdrawal out of sensitivity to Iraqi opinion should explain how this policy would address Iraqis’ primary misgiving. The BBC poll shows also that over 50 percent of Iraqis wish the US to remain until security is improved.

Merely hollering that the light bulb has burnt out does not fix the light. Of course, if you’re the US you can just walk out of the room. But those who are staying behind don’t like the dark either and would probably prefer that you replace the bulb rather than just complain that it doesn’t work. Some intent thinking on enhancing US war policy--not merely carping--is in order.

Endnote: to those who assert—correctly—that this blogger has ignored his own advice and failed to present a viable alternative policy, it shall come in a future posting.

It's working! Or, it was until today...I think...

According to General Petreaus the troop surge in Iraq has made significant progress, "it's working" we were told a scant 4 days ago. The Iraqi people however disagree, and voiced their opposition to the General's assessment. In a bbcnews poll released the same day 70% of Iraqi's believed that the security situation in Iraq had deteriorated despite our increased presence in their country.

There was political wrangling and much gnashing of teeth in Washington as pundits debated who was closer to the truth, Petraeus or the Iraqi people.

Today, the point is moot. We now have fairly conclusive evidence that the latter was far more accurate, and that Iraqi's understand their country better than we do. Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who met with President Bush last week and was widely credited with the "Anbar Awakening", has been assassinated.