Obama and Kim - Pledge to "Hang Out More"

In an apparent reversal of White House policy, United States President, Barack Obama met with North Korean Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il early this morning. The two apparently struck up a relationship quite quickly as Kim suggested to begin breakfast with Champagne. According to White House Staff, Obama responded with, "hell its 5 o clock somewhere."

The two leaders decided to go bowling, upon request from DPRK General Ri Yong-Ho, who is apparently the country's "Dear Bowler." Obama swept the North Korean envoy, which was seen by the international community as an upset.

Obama responded to his bowling critics with a turkey in the 10th frame, placing punctuation on his accomplishment with a loud "Booya." Clearly frustrated, the Dear Leader suggested the two move on to more pressing matters: the diplomatic gift giving session.

Obama, clearly excited by his choice of gift first presented the North Korean envoy with snuggies, the popular blanket gown. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented on the gifts "these are no normal snuggies, they are the designer kind. I really think President Obama outdid himself on this one."
The North Korean dictator apparently loved the gift and decided to sport it in his latest military photograph. Kim Jong Il apparently liked the designer garb so much that he will now allow his working class to wear them, as long as they are affixed with the traditional Kim badge.

After the gift exchange, the two pledged to "hang out more." Obama subsequently released a statement declaring the two countries as future bowling allies. The statement also mentioned that President Kim "knows how to party." The two are scheduled for a follow up hang session early next week.

Happy April Fools, folks.

Read more...

Mr. Obama Goes to Moscow

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are meeting in Moscow to discuss a successor to the soon-to-expire Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). On the table for consideration (according to U.S. and/or Russian officials) are levels of deployed and stockpiled strategic nuclear warheads, strategic delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, and bombers), and missile defense. Off the table are nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which the Russians hold in abundance.

Truly understanding the situation between Washington and Moscow requires a brief look at the numbers:
U.S. - 2,200 strategic nukes deployed (~2,500 reserve)
U.S. - ~1,000 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers
U.S. - 400-500 tactical nukes
Russia - 2,700 strategic nukes deployed (unknown thousands in reserve)
Russia - ~650 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers
Russia - 3,000-5,000 tactical nukes

In terms of strategic delivery systems, the U.S. still has decades before most of its systems will need replaced, while many Russian systems will reach the end of their service lives within the next decade, reducing their numbers to around 330.

The Obama Administration, in its rush to conclude the START follow-on by the current treaty’s expiration date on December 5th, is therefore playing into the Russians’ hands. By pushing for deep warhead cuts (the Russians will not go below 1,500 deployed) and considering a further reduction in the permitted number of strategic delivery vehicles, U.S. negotiators are essentially getting nothing for something. Since the Russians will have to eliminate many of their aging warheads, missiles, and bombers with or without an arms control treaty, they are trying to maintain parity with the United States through a new START accord. In return, the U.S. is getting something it would have gotten without having to reduce the survivability and flexibility of its nuclear arsenal.

Until recently, the Obama Administration was seemingly giving credence to Russian objections to a third missile defense site in Central Europe. Even former Secretary of Defense (and nuclear abolitionist) William Perry (D) stated in House testimony that trading missile defense for Russian promises was absolutely unreasonable. The president’s special assistant, Michael McFaul, stated last week the U.S. was “not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.” This is a step in the right direction. Tying defensive conventional systems to offensive nuclear systems, which President Medvedev is still insisting on, is a relic of the Cold War “mutually assured destruction” thinking.

Therefore, the U.S. approach to the START follow-on has been fundamentally flawed. By agreeing not to include nonstrategic nuclear weapons in the limits, the U.S. allowed Russia to maintain its biggest geopolitical advantage. Many experts believe it is these “battlefield” nuke stockpiles that will be the likely source of any future nuclear terrorism or nuclear use by a state (Russia explicitly states they would be used to “de-escalate” an invasion of their homeland). Furthermore, once U.S. warhead and delivery system levels have been drastically reduced, Washington will little leverage to urge Moscow to reduce its tactical nukes.

The arms control process is also misguided in the link some are attempting to make between a new START and “global zero,” the nuclear abolitionist movement. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission determined that complete nuclear disarmament required a “fundamental transformation of the world political order.” Guiding a new treaty along what optimists consider a decades-long goal is a recipe for miscalculation and bad decisions. The Obama Administration needs to take a step back, assess U.S. interests over the long term, and proceed with a modest START follow-on from there. Idealism is one thing. Dealing with the Russians about nuclear weapons is entirely different.

Read more...

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" Memos Released

I recommend everyone check out the four memos that Obama declassified yesterday. No matter which side you're on, they add a really important aspect to the debate by defining exactly what we're all arguing about - a key detail we didn't really have before this.

Three dealt with specific techniques and how they were applied to detainees. These offer an important insight - adding context to the debate over whether this treatment was justified, simply by defining just what that treatment was.

The fourth looked at, in depth, the legal justification for why this treatment did not violate both the U.S. Constitution and the UN Convention Against Torture. It's really fascinating.

These memos are only lightly redacted, a rarity for such recently created top secret stuff, and I hope they will better ground the debate over the treatment of suspected terrorists in more than the rampant conjecture present on both sides.

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Check out my detailed analysis of the fourth memo here. 

Read more...

Who is in charge?

Although I hate to admit it, the Chinese are extremely adept at exposing our vulnerabilities. Their recent investment in technologies to nullify our conventional forces should alarm the defense community.

Over the past century, the United States has projected its military power with a naval fleet, sending envoys worldwide. From humanitarian missions, to regional conflicts, aircraft carriers have been the backbone of our ability to gain air superiority abroad. Disputes in Cambodia, Iran, Grenada, Libya, and both gulf wars (just to name a few) have demonstrated the awesome power that the aircraft carrier brings with it.

However, the age of technology has brought with it the ability to eliminate barriers of entry to military power. What I mean by that is it is now much easier for a state to gain an advantage over a once very expensive technology. The invention, and subsequent advances in ballistic missile technology has created instant power projection. In fact, the Chinese military is replacing the need for manned aircraft, most notably directed at Taiwan, by building more ballistic missiles.

The pentagon recently submitted their annual report on the "Military Power of the People's Republic of China." If you don't think China is a growing threat to US strategic interests, I suggest you peruse the report. It outlines China's efforts to rapidly expand and modernize their forces, as well as significantly augment their stockpile of ballistic missiles.

Perhaps the most alarming report was confirmed today by the US Naval Institute which reports of the development of the PRC's capabilities: The Anti Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM),

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers...

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

This development marks the first time a ballistic missile can target a vessel at sea.

These facts provide a fairly clear image of what the PRC is attempting to do: compete with, and even position itself to defeat, US military preeminence.

The question is, can Obama step up to the plate to defend our vulnerabilities. Ballistic Missile Defense spending has, and is going to continue to be hamstrung by this administration. I expect that he will follow in the footsteps of Clinton and cut billions in military spending, thus increasing our vulnerabilities to China.

Couple all of this with the leveraged position China has in trade, as well as in our national debt, one thing is clear; we are not wearing the pants in this relationship.

I encourage you, President Obama, to put on some pants. Here is what they look like.

Read more...

A True Statesmen

Where have all the statesmen gone?

It seems that true leadership from both the democratic and republican parties in congress have been quashed by the executive. Unfortunately, we must look elsewhere for the portrait of a true statesman. Daniel Hannan of the British Parliament gave a rousing speech just yesterday on the state of the United Kingdom.

His words ring true here; just replace Gordon Brown and United Kingdom, with Barack Obama and the United States.

Read more...

Embracing the Instability Paradox

Consider this scenario: This weekend thousands of protesters took to the streets in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, marching to the house cum prison of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan's supreme court. The group was led by the leader of the opposition party, Nawaz Sharif. A subsequent movement of protestors was about to descend on the capital. The protestors were not giving in until either Chaudhry was reinstated to his previous post, or the military persuaded them to retreat with batons, gas, and perhaps guns.

Recall, Chaudhry was fired twice in 2007 by then-President Pervez Musharraf for filing judgments against Musharraf's increasing incursion on Pakistan's constitution. The streets flooded with lawyers who were then beaten heavily by police. It was then the most significant challenge to Musharraf's rule. The United States, putting their counterterrorism and Afghanistan objectives ahead of democratic ideals, did not withdraw support from Musharraf, perhaps giving him the confidence to stand firm.

The situation this weekend was much more dire. The new president, Asif Ali Zardari, is certainly not as sure in his new role as Musharraf was for a variety of reasons. The protests were far more organized and organized by the political opposition, magnifying the danger of a coup. Surely, the failure of Zardari to fulfill his campaign promise by delaying the restoration of Chaudhry to his previous post, would be the last straw on Pakistan's failing back.

But, an interesting thing happened in Pakistan this weekend: nothing. The government backed down. Christian Science Monitor attributed this to two factors: Zardari did not have the full backing of the military and the Pakistani Army was not likely to step in and stop the protest march to Islamabad. The second factor CSM cites is Zardari no longer had the full, unconditional support of the United States.

Many on the right would blast this decision. Pakistan is a key part of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Certainly, the United States should support any regime in Pakistan - instability and unrest in Pakistan would spell doom for regional security and U.S. national security. This was the policy of the previous Administration who supported Musharraf right or wrong because that was the perceived key to stability in the country.

This weekend, Obama and Clinton took a different tack. It would appear they put systemic determinants over personal ones. They correctly recognized that Zardari was not as strong as Musharraf and likely not the sole path towards a stable future in Pakistan. Rather, the reconciliation of a gross wrong and the restoration of some semblance of judicial independence, a key to democratic stability was the only way to ensure Pakistan would become more stable. To do so, the current Administration had to fight the urge to provide temporary stability by backing Zardari and instead embrace instability not knowing how the protests would turn out, hoping Zardari would rationally recognize his weakness and capitulate before irrationally ordering a crackdown.

Indeed, Pakistan has many more problems to resolve before they can be considered stable by most measures, but this weekend was an important step - both for Pakistan and the United States. The Pakistani people found that there were more avenues for change than just through force. The United States realized that a little instability in the short term could actually create more stability in the long term.

The paternalism that kept Musharraf in power may have been more destabilizing than the Wilsonianism that allowed Pakistan to settle their own problems this weekend. Hope, here, was indeed a foreign policy. In the same way neoconservatives have faith that democratic institutions and free markets will bring stability, so too liberals hoped that Pakistan's protests, left unaltered by Western intervention, would bring a more stable country. The departure between the two camps is encouraging. In Pakistan's case, it appears that Western interventions have postponed democracy and stability while, at least this weekend, Washington's absence led to a step towards liberal goals.

Photo:
AFP via BBC (16 MAR 2009)

Background:
Christian Science Monitor (18 MAR 2009)
Economist.com (16 MAR 2009)
International Herald Tribune (25 MAR 2007)
Washington Post (17 MAR 2009)

Read more...

March Madness

College basketball and national defense are oddly similar.

Lets be honest, the Month of March is good for only one thing- March Madness. From a field of 327 division-1 basketball teams, only 64 are chosen to attend the NCAA tournament.

The month is filled with anticipation as sports pundits predict the tournament based on an inexact science known as bracketology. After selection Sunday (just two days ago) subsequent weeks are filled with classic matchups, glorious victory, and humiliating defeat.

Similarly, the Obama administration's "selection sunday" is close at hand. The coming days, weeks, and months will tell us how this administration is planning the future of a variety of US weapons systems including the F22, the airborne laser program, and a variety of missile defense and nuclear initiatives.

Obama has tipped his hand here in a campaign video in which he promises to cut defense spending and decrease the size and reliability of our nuclear deterrent.

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates is in on the action as well. The Boston Globe reports,

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said.

The Obama administration has already passed a bare-bone defense budget which will eventually be revised to include what is left of our new weapons programs.

Admittedly, the United States is screeching through a recession, which has devastated the ability for the government to generate revenue. Government agencies should be expected to cut back when every other American is doing the same. This goes for every agency, from the Department of Education to the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Instead, we have passed a grossly irresponsible 1 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus package which inflates government in almost every arena, while defense spending is projected to decline.

Its almost as if the leadership in this country thinks that national defense is a game.

Basketball is a game. If you lose, you go home, but there is always next season.

If we lose a strategic capability, there is no next season.

Read more...