The Dear Leader Exacts Revenge

It seems as though the Dear Leader has not forgotten the Department of Treasury's successful 2006 bulwark of North Korea from the international financial system. The AP is reporting that North Korea is suspected of cyber-attacks against our Department of Treasury, Secret Service, and a few other agencies. I guess this is Kim Jong Il's attempt at revenge. Revenge you may ask? If you don't know the story - you should.

Daniel Glaser is known the architect behind the throttling of North Korea's illicit financial networks. Glaser works as the Department of the Treasury's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes. It serves as the offensive branch of the treasury which protects the international financial system from funding the activities of rogue nations, drug cartels, and terrorist organizations. They are the unsung financial warriors of our current GWOT (or overseas contingency.... whatever Barry and Napolitano call it.) They also have constructed mechanisms to keep rogue nations like Iran and North Korea out of the international financial system, thus hurting their chances of financing a war of annihilation against the United States and its allies. Needless to say I am thankful for their efforts.

One of the greatest efforts put forth by the TFI and the program under it FINcen (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) a program designed in 1989 to counter the use of the international financial system as a tool of criminals. Essentially FATF is a coalition of large first-world economies which monitor each others financial dealings and places restrictions on those that deal with less than savory characters. Since membership is voluntary, it takes some convincing to persuade nations to give up the free flow of financial capital.

Originally, the program targeted drug cartels as a part of the crusading war on drugs. We learned in the post 9-11 world that the system was also effective against other illicit networks; including FTO's and rogue states.

Glaser, serving as the head of the U.S. delegation to FATF, convinced member nations that it was not within their economic interest to allow banks in their territory to deal with the money laundering- counterfeiting- Hennessey drinking-Rambo loving- Kim Jong Il regime. These banks had a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to insulate themselves from North Korea. It did help that section 311 of the patriot act allowed FINcen to target specific banks and order US banks to halt their dealings with them.

The most notable bank was the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) which crumbled under the financial isolation. This sent a clear message - stop dealing with North Korea or your financial institution may be next. This is the best "kickass" moment I think the Department of Treasury will ever experience.

Stuart Levey commented on the real impact of the financial restrictions was that,

"many private financial institutions worldwide responded by terminating their business relationships not only with [BDA], but with North Korean clients altogether".

Within a short period of time, North Korea found their hands financially tied. Thus we gained leverage over the North's nuclear program. Leverage that we quickly wasted - this was THE window of opportunity for the United States to take a meaningful shot at Kim's illegal nuclear program. Instead the Bush administration valued the six party talks as almost an end.

Robert Joseph (professor at DSS) commented in a WSJ article,

"For a short period, a matter of weeks, the approach seemed to produce results. But when Pyongyang announced its willingness to return to the negotiations, the Bush Administration, in an abrupt reversal of its policies which I opposed and could not support, rushed headlong into the snare. By February 2007, the Talks were becoming the strategy, and an end in themselves. There would be no more “pressure” placed on the North. Strengthening interdiction capacities and even implementing the mandatory UN sanctions were seen as too provocative, as threatening the prospects for diplomacy. It soon became apparent that the Administration would endure any humiliation to keep the Talks going. The spectacle of American diplomats pleading for foreign banks to facilitate the return of the assets from Macao, some of which were known to stem from the North’s proliferation activities, could not have been more pathetic or, ironically, more damaging to the prospects for diplomacy. "

So we lost an opportunity. We did however make inroads to discovering a meaningful tactic against rogue nations. If we can strangle finances, rogue states will come to their knees. Note that FATF is currently targeting Iran.

So it looks like Kim Jong Il is exacting his revenge against the United States Treasury in the form of cyber attacks. I'm not certain that his "revenge" will have a lasting impact on the United States, but I do know that the combination of the Patriot Act, FINcen FATF did.

Although I'm sure his advisers informed him that the attack was a resounding success.

Just as a side note, if you ever get the chance, take a look at Bradley Martin's Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. I'm in the process of reading it now - the stories of the two Kim's - father and son - are unreal.

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...

Virtual Army Experience

I wrote a story for the Washington Times this week on the Virtual Army Experience, the Army's new tool to shape public conceptions of the Army. The 19,500 square foot arena is designed to give players a real feel for the combat situations that our military experiences every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told - nothing can emulate real combat in my opinion, but the simulator harps on the more glorified aspects of being a soldier. If you want to read more about it, take a look at the article.

The highlight of my day was meeting Sergeant Jason Mike, a silver star recipient for his service in Iraq. Sgt Mike is a part of the Army's "Real Heros" program which is designed to put a heroic face to the Army.

Sargeant Mike is truly a hero.

When his convoy was on a patrol mission to clear supply routes of hostile targets and IED's, Sgt Mike's three hummer convoy was ambushed. Sgt Mike, a combat medic, proceeded to encounter the threat head on, fending off over over 50 insurgents while treating three injured soldiers. At one point Sgt Mike faced the enemy alone, wielding two weapons, an m249 light machine gun and an m4 assault rifle. Because of his heroism, Sgt Mike's convoy escaped the ambush with no casualties.

This man could not be more awesome. He even has his own action figure, which true to the story, has him wielding two weapons. Just as an aside, I was let down that the action figure was made in China.

His full story is here



The VAE was being showcased during a Joint Forces open house at Andrew's AFB. The tarmac was covered by aircraft from each o the services. I snapped a few photos, so here they are for
your enjoyment.















The B17 Memphis Belle. Probably the most famous bomber from WWII.















The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. RIP






Sikorsky HH-53 "Super Jolly Green Giant"















The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon

Read more...

America's Strategic Posture

In the past several weeks, two key reports came out that analyzed the strategic posture and nuclear weapons policy of the United States. The one put out by the Strategic Posture Commission that was chaired by William Perry and James Schlesinger and included panel members Keith Payne and James Woolsey can be found here. The Council on Foreign Relations published a report on the U.S. nuclear weapons policy, which was chaired by William Perry and Brent Scowcroft, can be found here.
While the reports carry key differences, it is remarkable the amount of congruence between them. Some of the major similarities concerning the role of nuclear weapons include:

• Nukes assure U.S. allies through extended deterrence
• Geopolitical conditions for a "world without nuclear weapons" do not currently exist
• Nuclear hedging is an appropriate strategy in an uncertain world
• Ambiguity has been, and continues to be, good for U.S. deterrence
• Importance of assurance/consultation with allies before changes in nuclear posture
• Nuclear terrorism is more likely to take place than deliberate use by a state

There are also major similarities concerning modernization and arms control:

• Article VI of the NPT calls for "nuclear as well as general" disarmament
• Modernization of nuclear warheads can take place simultaneously with reductions
• Both reports recognize that all other P5 states are modernizing their arsenals
• The nuclear infrastructure and human expertise is decaying through lack of funds and a shortage of people entering the career field
• Support for the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and strengthening of the NPT

I encourage you to read the reports (at least their "findings" and "recommendations" sections) in order to reach your own conclusions and see what the experts are saying. The reports were divided on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which could be coming before the Senate in the next year. Also, the NPT Review Conference is set to take place in 2010 (with a preparatory session this month), so this debate is only going to get more important in the very near future.

Read more...

In Defense of Defense

In order to win the debate over funding, the pentagon must urge the president to reevaluate his duties to the state and prioritize these responsibilities, reflecting their importance in our annual budget. There are rich historical and philosophical traditions which influenced the debate and ratification of our constitution. It serves as the highest authority in the United States, and should serve as a compass in defining our government’s responsibilities as a state. The preamble gives the clearest inventory of the federal governments responsibilities.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Each of these responsibilities is contingent upon the ability of the federal government to defend itself from internal and external threats. We would not be able to guarantee the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our children should we be overcome by a foreign adversary. This includes the defense of our border, as well as the free flow of energy and assets abroad.


As one of the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, the United States must be willing to reevaluate its spending habits. Though many take issue with the amount of money we spend on the GWOT, its budget is eclipsed by non enumerated responsibilities including social security, federal education, and housing and urban planning. If we are serious about our constitution, our congress needs to reevaluate and ultimately increase funding provided for the defense of the United States as our combatant commanders, not politicians see fit.

On a very basic level, I believe Secretary Gates has a firm grasp on the needs of the United States defense community and tackles the problems in a fiscally responsible manner. His beliefs in a strong balanced approach are consistent with the four goals of the defense community, to dissuade, deter, defend against our enemies and assure our allies. Though in my assessment his views are not perfect,though the thrust of his argument is certainly commendable.

The difficulty is that Gates must face is cabinet level peers are not playing the same game, and are vying for funding in a zero sum game. If Gates does not battle for his rightful share of the pie, the defense of our homeland may become marginalized in its funding because of Washington politics.

Read more...

Deep Thoughts (By Jack Handey)

Just a random one I thought I should share:

"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have."

Read more...

Sergey Kislyak

As a part of the William Van Cleave guest lecture series, DSS was graced with the presence of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak on Thursday April 30^th. The ambassador addressed a crowded room, comprised of a healthy mix of students, academics and politicians. The event, graciously coordinated by faculty member Robert Joseph, was the most well attended of the lecture series this academic year. Hats off to the faculty for such a well produced event.

Kislyak addressed a variety of topics, ranging from strategic arms agreements to the recent success of Russian players in the Nation Hockey League. Though his lecture was quite informative as well as persuasive, I came away certain of one thing - Kislyak has an enormous amount of pride for his motherland. His enthusiasm was not tempered either; the ambassador spoke of Russia much like I would boast of America.

Ambassador Kislyak’s lecture highlighted several opportunities for cooperation between the United States and Russia, but he was most contentious over the 2008 South Ossetia War. The ambassador made clear his disapproval of United States’ unsympathetic reaction, bemoaning Russia’s victim status in the conflict. His arguments were framed quite convincingly, but failed encompass the entire portrait. Kislyak used the same tactics throughout his lecture to understate the misdeeds of the Russian Federation, while exaggerating those of other nations.

Ambassador Kislyak demonstrates the breadth of his sympathy for the Georgians.

The event culminated in a Q&A session, in which the ambassador surprisingly fielded unfiltered questions from the audience. This is where the ambassador truly earned his stripes as a diplomat. Kislyak confronted issues of the INF, Iran’s nuclear program, and the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes in an impressive fashion, while accomplishing the seemingly impossible task of placing Russia in a positive light in each case.

The evening concluded with a reception, which gave the audience the opportunity to interact with Ambassador Kislyak on a more casual basis. I left the lecture impressed with what a good sport the ambassador seemed to be.

Students of strategy should be taking notes from the ambassador, who’s skills as a diplomat were on par with our own Dr. Joseph. This leads me to believe that though the geopolitical prestige of the Russian Federation has dropped over the years, they certainly do not suffer from a lack of diplomatic talent.

Read more...

Yes we can!

No im not talking about Obama. I'm done writing on his presidency for a while. Too many headaches coupled with endless frustration.

Instead, I'd like to take a minute at how viral his campaign was. In fact it was so catchy that the president of Iran decided to use the campaign slogan "yes we can" as a part of his latest bid to the Iranian presidency.

"Yes we can, Iran." Catchy isn't it?

Perhaps one of the most telling lessons from this forgery is that the public, whether in America or Iran, often craves style over substance; catchy slogans over sound political ethics. If Ahmadinejad can be reelected with the same drone-like chant, it will prove my point.

Although the name Ah-mad-in-e-jad does not flow off the tounge like the tri-syllable name O-ba-ma.

If only I could find the video...

Read more...

Irony?

For all the work that Obama put into his campaign to distance himself from Islam, the monicker for his new economic plan seems quite ironic. Obama just announced a "five pillar strategy" which, he hopes, will change the tide of this economic recession.

tact - tækt/
–noun
a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination.

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...