Weapons of Mass Destruction

Returned to Sender...

2006-10-22T19:57:00.000-04:00

After posting for a good bit of time over at Typepad, I packed it in there and took a couple of months off from blogging. Even though I am pretty busy teaching and finishing my dissertation, I am going to start blogging again at this site.

Grand Strategy in the Second Term

2005-01-18T13:49:00.000-05:00

I have long been a reader and admirer of John Lewis Gaddis. As an aspiring academic, I have admired his command of history and language, clear thinking, and ability to make reading in academics interesting and enjoyable. In this month's Foreign Affairs (see link above), Gaddis authors a piece entitled "Grand Strategy in the Second Term." As usual, he nails it.

George W. Bush has much to evaluate: he has presided over the most sweeping redesign of U.S. grand strategy since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The basis for Bush's grand strategy, like Roosevelt's, comes from the shock of surprise attack and will not change. None of F.D.R.'s successors, Democrat or Republican, could escape the lesson he drew from the events of December 7, 1941: that distance alone no longer protected Americans from assaults at the hands of hostile states. Neither Bush nor his successors, whatever their party, can ignore what the events of September 11, 2001, made clear: that deterrence against states affords insufficient protection from attacks by gangs, which can now inflict the kind of damage only states fighting wars used to be able to achieve. In that sense, the course for Bush's second term remains that of his first one: the restoration of security in a suddenly more dangerous world.

It has long puzzled me as to why there has been less of a consensus to emerge regarding grand strategy post 9/11. I realize that there is a lot of personal and partisan baggage that has infused this debate within the US. I also realize that the Bush administration has been somewhat tone deaf, slow to reach out, and obsessed with secrecy in terms of policy formulation and implementation. There is enough blame to go around ten times over for all parties concerned. Regardless, given the nature and scope of the threat, it seems we have failed to have a reasoned and rational debate that is truly in the best interest of the country as a whole.

THE NARROWEST GAP between Bush's intentions and his accomplishments has to do with preventing another major attack on the United States. Of course, one could occur at any moment, even between the completion of this article and its publication. But the fact that more than three years have passed without such an attack is significant. Few Americans would have thought it likely in the immediate aftermath of September 11. The prevailing view then was that a terrorist offensive was underway, and that the nation would be fortunate to get through the next three months without a similar or more serious blow being struck.
Connecting causes with consequences is always difficult--all the more so when we know so little of Osama bin Laden's intentions or those of his followers. Perhaps al Qaeda planned no further attacks. Perhaps it anticipated that the United States would retaliate by invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban. Perhaps it foresaw U.S. military redeployments from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Iraq. Perhaps it expected a worldwide counterterrorist campaign to roll up substantial portions of its network. Perhaps it predicted that the Bush administration would abandon its aversion to nation building and set out to democratize the Middle East. Perhaps bin Laden's strategy allowed for all of this, but that seems unlikely. If it did not, then the first and most fundamental feature of the Bush strategy--taking the offensive against the terrorists and thereby surprising them--has so far accomplished its purposes.

A less obvious point follows concerning pre-emption and prevention, a distinction that arose from hypothetical hot-war planning during the Cold War. "Pre-emption" meant taking military action against a state that was about to launch an attack; international law and practice had long allowed such actions to forestall clear and immediately present dangers. "Prevention" meant starting a war against a state that might, at some future point, pose such risks. In mounting its post-September 11 offensive, the Bush administration conflated these terms, using the word "pre-emption" to justify what turned out to be a preventive war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

It did so on the grounds that, in a post-September 11 world, both terrorists and tyrants threatened the security of the United States. Al Qaeda could not have acted without the support and sanctuary the Taliban provided. But the traditional warnings governments had used to justify pre-emption--the massing of armed forces in such a way as to confirm aggressive intent--would not have detected the September 11 attacks before they took place. Decisions made, or at least circumstances tolerated, by a shadowy regime in a remote country halfway around the world produced an act of war that killed more Americans than the one committed six decades earlier by Japan, a state known at the time to pose the clearest and most present of dangers.

Pre-emption in its older and narrower sense might have worked against the Japanese fleet as it approached Pearl Harbor--had it been detected in time. Pre-emptive arrests would have stopped Mohammed Atta and his 18 co-conspirators as they approached their respective airports if it had been possible to read their minds. No nation's safety, however, can depend on such improbable intelligence breakthroughs: as the Pearl Harbor historian Roberta Wohlstetter pointed out years ago and as the 9/11 Commission Report has now confirmed, detecting telltale signals in a world full of noise requires not just skill, but also extraordinary luck.

That is why the Bush administration's strategists broadened "preemption" to include the Cold War meaning of "prevention." To wait for terrorist threats to become clear and present was to leave the nation vulnerable to surprise attacks. Instead, the United States would go after states that had harbored, or that might be harboring, terrorist gangs. It would at first seek to contain or deter such regimes the familiar means by which the Cold War had been fought--but if those methods failed, it reserved the right to pre-empt perceived dangers by starting a preventive war.

The old distinction between pre-emption and prevention, therefore, was one of the many casualties of September 11. That event revealed a category of threats so difficult to detect and yet so devastating if carried out that the United States had little choice but to use preemptive means to prevent their emergence. John Kerry made it clear during the 2004 campaign that he would not have relinquished that option had he won the presidency. His successful opponent certainly will not do so, nor are his successors likely to. This feature of the Bush grand strategy is here to stay.

He is absolutely correct in discussing the (relative) demise of deterrence, the conflation of preemptive and preventive war, and that such a conflation is necessary in today's increasing globalized world.

The entire article is definitely worth a read. Regardless of where you fall on GW, the war in Iraq, the left-right spectrum, Gaddis gives a fair and honest opinion as to where we stand and where we need to go in the coming years.

Chinese Concerned About Nuclear Proliferation

2005-01-18T08:07:00.000-05:00

The BBC and others are reporting that the US is punishing Chinese firms for selling nuclear technology to Iran.

The penalties, which will remain in place for two years, include a ban on trading with, and receiving assistance from, the US government.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman dismissed the move, saying the "wanton launch of sanctions...without real evidence is not a wise choice".

A company from Taiwan and one from North Korea are also affected.

Iran has denied US accusations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear plans are for peaceful energy purposes.

Two of the largest Chinese companies named by the US, China North Industry Corporation (Norinco) and China Great Wall Industry, have been repeatedly penalised for violating various export controls. Both have close ties to the Chinese army.

The firms are being punished under the 2000 Iran Non-Proliferation Act, signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

The article hits on two points that immediately came to mind when I saw the headline. First, it is very difficult to seperate firms that sell military technology and the military who owns/controls them. Second, this is a problem that has predated Bush. Clinton, the president who was loved internationally, wrangled with many of these same issues during his time in office.

Musings on International Law

2005-01-13T13:19:00.000-05:00

In working on my dissertation, I have been reading a number of sources regarding treaties and international law. Treaties are international law for anyone who was not aware of this and, as such, are legally binding.

Impressed? Well, in theory, everyone should be. Entering into a treaty involves the creation of international law. Each treaty concluded and the more parties involved in each treaty (universality!) brings us closer to escaping the anarchic nature of international politics! We can only wish it were so.

Treaties and international law are often flouted by the strong and the weak. Would you classify Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Egypt, Taiwan, South Korea, and Syria as strong states? All of these states have violated international agreements and, thus, international law when it comes to their obligations under the NPT. You break the law and you get punished, right? Right....

If international politics is typified by the environment in which the strong do as they will and the weak abide what they must, what does it say when weak states (relatively) flaunt it with impunity and the world does nothing?

More on the IAEA

2005-01-09T20:15:00.000-05:00

Given that the IAEA appears to believe that Iran does not have a nuclear program and has resisted sending the Iranian case to the UNSC, this article raises some real questions about their thought process.

Defense News reports that:

Also up for review was South Korea's acknowledgement, prompted by aggressive IAEA inspections earlier in 2004 under an Additional Protocol agreement, that its military scientists had secretly conducted plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment experiments at various points during the past 22 years.
Yet South Korea, supported by the U.S. government, succeeded in convincing the IAEA Board of Governors that a referral to the U.N. Security Council was unnecessary, contending that its previous violations did not rise to the level of significance requisite for Security Council consideration.

First of all, it if takes up to 22 years to find out a country had a nuclear program, what good is the IAEA? Second, scope and scale should matter and when compared to the Iranians, this is small potatoes. Lastly, why should South Korea not be subject to patient negotiation and process rather than passed on to be dealt with by the UNSC?

Iran Gives in on Parchin

2005-01-09T20:05:00.000-05:00

In what will surely be touted as a positive development, Iran has agreed to open up the military base at Parchin to IAEA inspection. While not required to allow access to military bases under the NPT, the Iranians have apparently decided that it is in their best interest to do so.

The decision to open the military plant suggests that Iran has chosen to follow a very different strategy than the one pursued by North Korea, which threw out international inspectors two years ago and has not allowed them to return.
Iran, in contrast, has slowly opened a number of facilities, but only when forced to do so because of disclosures by exile groups. The opening of those sites has required Tehran to acknowledge that it hid much of its program for 18 years.

Iranian officials apparently decided that the risk of further disclosures, if there are any, was less than that of seeming to defy the international inspectors.

"The Iranians are playing a shrewd game of giving international opinion just enough to keep the wolves at bay," said Ashton B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project, a study group at Harvard and Stanford Universities, and a former assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. "At least they are showing a sensitivity to the perception they create, even though I don't believe that instinct will be enough to turn around Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Iran's agreement to allow inspection, the energy agency notes, does not guarantee that inspectors will be permitted into all the corners of the military base where they want to go.

American officials said they believed the inspectors would be permitted to see any location where there was no evidence of current nuclear work, or where such evidence had been removed.

"They are great at removing soil," said one American nuclear expert with long experience dealing with the Iranian program. "They have mastered the art of cat-and-mouse when it comes to inspections."

Still, Iran's agreement to allow access to the military base is something of a victory - perhaps temporary, perhaps not - for the agency. Its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, argued in an interview last month that applying slow, constant pressure on Iran would yield more results than immediately taking the country to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, the path the Bush administration has advocated.

This about sums the whole situation up. Iran's decision is part of a strategic process of refuse then reveal. Given that it is widely thought that they are approaching breakout status, the longer the delay the closer they are to project completion. Once armed, there is far less the world can do.

Accordingly, the IAEA sees this is a victory of process and negotiation rather than a strategy by the Iranians.

More Bad News for the Guard

2005-01-07T09:31:00.000-05:00

As someone who has friends in the Guard and Reserves, it is clear to me that something needs to be done about this. Its one thing to do your two years of active duty to fulfill your obligations if your country needs you. Its another to spend multiple tours in harm's way and serve beyond those two years without any choice in the matter.

The clearest solution is to increase the size of the Army. I always wondered why Bush never issued a call for volunteers post 9/11.

Its apparent that Rumsfeld and many in the DoD do not want to increase the size of the active duty force. However, Rumsfeld has acknowledged the strain this has put on the Guard and Reserves and promised steps to deal with this issue.

Its time to honor that promise, Mr. Secretary.

Another Blow to the Nonproliferation Regime

2005-01-04T20:57:00.000-05:00

The IAEA has reported the Egypt has been conducting research and experimentation aimed towards producing nuclear weapons dating back as far as twenty years and continuing up until a couple years ago.

The article in the Globe and Mail reports:

Vienna — The UN atomic watchdog has found evidence of secret nuclear experiments in Egypt that could be used in weapons programs, diplomats said Tuesday.
The diplomats told the Associated Press that most of the work was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s but said the watchdog – the International Atomic Energy Agency – is also looking at evidence that suggests some were as recent as a year ago.

Specifically said one of the diplomats, the Egyptians “tried to produce various components of uranium” without declaring it to the IAEA, as they were bound to under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Among the products were several kilograms of uranium metal and of uranium tetrafluoride – a precursor to uranium hexafluoride gas, said the diplomat, who demanded anonymity.

Uranium metal can be processed into plutonium, while uranium hexafluoride can be enriched into weapons grade uranium – both for use in the core of nuclear warheads.

The diplomat said the Vienna-based agency has not drawn a conclusion on the scope and purpose of the experiments.

Well, its pretty clear when a country is conducting peaceful nuclear research and pursuing measures to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Egypt has just been caught, even if the IAEA is (cough cough) to polite to say so.

Anyway, when a country can cheat under the NPT for many years like this, it does not send a reassuring message to anyone who thinks the NPT is the frontline in preventing nuclear proliferation.

If we cannot verify compliance with any degree of certainty on the NPT, what chance does the CWC or a beefed up BWC (down the road) have in making a measurable contribution to nonproliferation?

Seasonal Greetings

2004-12-27T09:00:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas (for those who celebrate it), Happy Holidays, and a wonderful New Year to everyone.

I will be back January 2nd.

Cheers.

Why Kyoto Will Never Work

2004-12-16T19:28:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Hat tip to Instapundit for the link confirming the title above. Talk about the final nail in the coffin.

The Kyoto accord could never have delivered meaningful emissions cuts and progress on climate control because it exempted the bulk of the developing world. In a globalizing world, the number of countries achieving modern economic development has increased and will continue to increase in the years to come. Regardless of what the industrialized north does in terms of emissions, the cuts will be swamped by the growth in emissions from the remaining 4/5 of the world.

China is an excellent example of this. Yahoo News reports:

The International Energy Agency said it was not asking China to reduce its energy consumption in years to come, nor its greenhouse gas emissions which increase with economic growth.

"The IEA clearly knows that China is going to have to increase its energy consumption considerably and thus its CO2 emissions in the coming years," said IEA chief Claude Mandil.

"Our scenarios take into account China's future," he added, "What we are asking of China -- and it is doing so already -- is for it to reduce its ... energy consumption per production unit."

Mandil spokes on the sidelines of the annual UN climate change conference here.

Monday, the head of the Chinese delegation Gao Feng said "there are some who say we should reduce our energy consumption, That is unacceptable and totally wrong," he told AFP pointing at the IEA.

"In the long term," Mandil said, by around 2050, "all of the world's countries must lower their CO2 emissions considerably" to have a chance at stabilizing the greenhouse effect.

Until there is a truly global effort on climate change, emissions will continue to rise and rise steadily. Given that newly industrializing countries have less rigid emissions standards, they will be especially dirty polluters in the years to come.

China Goes Nuclear

2004-12-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

China's booming economy is requiring an ever expanding supply of fuel. Given the rising demand and price of oil and other fossil fuels, it makes sense to consider the nuclear option. Since China is far less dependent on public opinion (understatement alert) than the US, the nuclear option can move ahead quickly.

MSNBC picks up the Reuters report that:

China has big plans for nuclear power, hoping to build 27 new reactors at a cost of $1 billion each in order to quadruple capacity by 2020.

That should take China to 36,000 megawatts, according to Zhang Huazhu, chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority.
“It is not easy to realize the target of 36,000 megawatts by 2020. It means we should build 27 nuclear power generators each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts by then,” said Zhang, also vice minister of the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense.

With nine nuclear power generators in operation, China had a total nuclear power capacity of 7,010 megawatts by the end of July, he said.

Capability would reach 9,130 megawatts by the end of 2005 when the Tianwan plant in the eastern province of Jiangsu came online, Zhang said.

He said the goal is for nuclear power to account for about 4 percent of China’s total output by 2020 compared with just 1.7 percent at present.

$27 billion dollars invested into nuclear power in one fell swoop. Wow.

Barring a major breakthrough in alternate fuels, the nuclear options is looking more and more like a necessity rather than a luxury.

Woefully Unprepared for Bioterror?

2004-12-16T14:08:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports that despite dramatic increases in funding to prepare for bioterror attacks, the country and most states remain woefully underprepared.

The article claims:

The United States remains woefully unprepared to protect the public against terrorists wielding biological agents despite dramatic increases in biodefense spending by the Bush administration and considerable progress on many fronts, according to government officials and specialists in bioterrorism and public health.
Although administration officials have spoken at times about bioterrorism's dangers, they are more alarmed than they have signaled publicly, U.S. officials said. As President Bill Clinton did, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrust themselves into the issue in depth.

"There's no area of homeland security in which the administration has made more progress than bioterrorism, and none where we have further to go," said Richard A. Falkenrath, who until May was Bush's deputy homeland security adviser and is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Unlike many other areas of domestic defense, which are centralized in the Department of Homeland Security, responsibility for biodefense is spread across various agencies. It is coordinated by a little-known White House aide, Kenneth Bernard, whose power is relatively limited.

Biological and nuclear attacks rank as officials' most feared types of terrorist attacks. Because of the technical difficulties in creating such weapons, they reckon the chances of a devastating attack are currently small. But the consequences of a big biological strike could be epically catastrophic, and rapid advances in science are placing the creation of these weapons within the reach of even graduate students, they said.

It is virtually impossible to reach a level of readiness for a major biological strike. Steps can be taken (and have been) to improve first responder and health care providers recognition and training for such a scenario. Community hospitals around the country have been purchasing protective suits, decontamination facilities, and updating plans. For example, my local community hospital has purchased suits, run numerous exercises, briefed doctors and nurses on the challenges of chem-bio terror, updated plans, improved coordination with the state and federal authorities, and considers their progress since 9/11 to be "dramatic."

The great majority of U.S. hospitals and state and local public health agencies would be completely overwhelmed trying to carry out mass vaccinations or distribute antidotes after a large biological attack. Hobbled by budget pressures and day-to-day crises, many health agencies say they cannot comply with federal officials' urgent demands that they gear up for bioterrorism.

How much more prepared can they be? If a major biological strike were to occur in my geographical area, the surge of patients would simply overwhelm the hospital. As was the case with the sarin attacks in Tokyo (see this), the number of people exposed coupled with the large numbers of "worried well" simply dwarfed the available health care infrastructure. No plans can really change this, except to hopefully be able to spread the patients out over a wider medical service area. This could be problematic and time consuming if you are dealing with an infectious disease. It also runs the risk of spreading the disease beyond the immediate area of infection. It is also compounded by the fact that it often takes up to a week for symptoms of a bioterror attack to occur.

On top of this, how many substances should they be prepared for, even if you assume preparation is possible? Anthrax? Ebola? Influenza? Smallpox? Plague? Q Fever? Tularemia? VEE? Typhoid? Brucellosis? How about variants of these agents? How bout modified agent of the type produced in the former Soviet Union? It is literally impossible for all hospitals in the US to be able to deal with this. Already, the CDC has storage facilities and mobile treatment labs strategically placed throughout the country.

Despite considerable progress since the 2001 attacks, the National Institutes of Health, which has the lead role in researching biological warfare vaccines and antidotes, remains largely wedded to its traditional role of doing basic research and is not producing enough new drugs. Large drug firms with track records of developing medications have little interest in making bioterrorism vaccines and treatments.

Due to liability issues, most US pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to produce vaccines of any type. For every vaccine, there will be a small percentage of patients who have an adverse reaction. It is a simple fact of life. It cannot be avoided. This will not improve until vaccine makers are protected from lawsuits resulting from these adverse reactions. If the threat is so severe from the agents, we need vaccines and the ability to create new vaccines for emerging threats. Until we remove the major blocking point for vaccine production, it is not going to be an area that companies will venture into.

All in all, the threat of biological terrorism will likely come in the form of smaller scale attacks, designed to frighten and confuse the government and population. The focus on catastrophic attacks makes sense in a worst cast scenario preparation scenario. However, our ability to reach the optimum level of readiness for a massive bioterror attacks is unlikely no matter how much money we devote to it.

Richard Falkenrath, cited in the article, does an excellent job discussing the threat of covert attack on American in a pre 9/11 work he co-authored entitled America's Achilles Heel. It is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the subject.

Progress in Afghanistan

2004-12-16T13:56:00.000-05:00

This is actually a pretty amazing story. Frankly, the progress that has been made in Afghanistan has proven me wrong in terms of what is possible when it comes to democratization in a ethnic/tribally divided society.

For the first time, all of the militia fighters in an Afghan region have been disarmed as fighters loyal to two northern commanders gave up their guns under a U.N.-run drive to demilitarize the country.

The disarming of Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s numerous militia factions is seen as a crucial step as the country emerges from decades of conflict and its U.S.-backed government attempts to impose its authority over strongmen and their loyalists nationwide

"The Afghanistan 'New Beginning Program' was able to declare for the first time the complete disarmament of all units in a region," a U.N. spokeswoman, Ariane Quentier, told reporters in Kabul, referring to the disarmament program.

But despite the disarming of 3,000 fighters loyal to ethnic Uzbek commander General Rashid Dostum and a similar number loyal to his bitter rival Mohammad Atta around the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, many more men remain under arms.

In all nearly 29,000 irregular fighters have been disarmed under the program, the United Nations (news - web sites) says, but that figure is about 60 percent of the total number of men the United Nations hopes to see disarmed.

This is an impressive start and bodes well for the region and all of Afghanistan. Lets hope it continues...

Japan Officially Remains Part of Iraq Coalition

2004-12-15T15:28:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the Japanese contingent remaining in Iraq. The article places the recent Japanese decision to remain in Iraq for another year in the context of a decreasingly pacifist Japan emerging on the regional and world stage.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet agreed on Thursday to extend the deployment of Japan's 600 non-combat troops in Iraq for up to one year, despite condemnation of the mission by more than half of the Japanese public and opposition political parties.
The mission, the largest overseas deployment of Japanese soldiers since World War II, is part of what many experts view as a reemergence of Japan's armed forces in world affairs.

In a further step in that direction, Japan is set to unveil a new national defense strategy Friday that calls for closer military ties with the United States as well as better training and transport capabilities for future deployments of forces abroad, according to a draft copy obtained by The Washington Post. The document also calls for Japan to move toward building an antimissile shield in conjunction with the United States.

Highlighting a slow but steady shift away from more than half a century of pacifism, Japan will give its armed forces, known officially as the Self-Defense Forces, a more conventional command structure, putting its land, sea and air forces under a joint command.

North Korea and, for the first time, China are named as potential security concerns.

Japan has long focused its security strategy on defending the home islands. The new approach significantly broadens the officially recognized scope of national interests to include a vast area from the Middle East to East Asia.

Although Japan plans to cut defense spending slightly over the next five years, some analysts say expanding the geographic range of its security interests is likely to spark criticism from Asian nations, where many people retain harsh memories of wartime Japanese occupation.

I mentioned the Japanese were going to remain in Iraq on here the other day. This piece dovetails nicely with that post and the one in response to Chrenkoff's discussion of strategic maneuvering in Asia.

It will be interesting to see the effect of Japan's more assertive role in the region. I have always understood the regional dynamic as being one in which an American presence is largely welcomed throughout the region. China, the biggest state, has traditionally been on board with this because it was assumed that a US presence and security guarantee for Japan keeps the Japanese down and quiets a major threat to China. A United States and Japan working closely together in the context of a Japan that appears to be adopting a more muscular military posture would be worrisome for the Chinese . Instead of the US presence keeping Japan down, the Chinese would likely assume that the US and Japan are working together to keep the Chinese down. This would greatly alter the regional security dynamic.

North Korea Threatens Japan

2004-12-15T15:09:00.000-05:00

North Korea has threatened Japan with war if Japan imposes sanctions on North Korea. The Japanese are very upset that North Korea has apparently tried to scam the Japanese into accepting the falsified remains of a kidnapped Japanese citizen.

The BBC reports:

Pyongyang admitted in 2002 to abducting 13 Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 80s, who were to be used as cultural trainers for North Korean spies.

Five were allowed to return to Japan in 2002, while North Korea said the others had died or never entered the country.

and

North Korea has warned that it will regard any economic sanctions imposed by Japan in response to an ongoing kidnap row as a "declaration of war".

and

"If sanctions are applied against the DPRK (North Korea)... we will regard it as a declaration of war against our country and promptly react to the action by an effective physical method," a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The statement said North Korea would also reconsider taking part in six-nation talks on its nuclear programme if Tokyo halted aid shipments. The Japanese government said earlier this week that as a result of the abduction row, it would hold back half of the 250,000 tonnes of food aid it promised North Korea in May.

It consistently amazes me that North Korea relies on many of its so called enemies for food and other aid, yet tosses around threats and assorted provocations like they were candy. Even more amazing is that this transparent strategy of bad behavior followed by threats galore usually results in more aid for the North. Is ity any wonder they keep repeating this pattern of behavior?

A Must Read from Helprin

2004-12-13T13:53:00.000-05:00

A great op-ed by Mark Helprin on the rise of China.

China is on the rise and will almost certainly present the central challenge to US power in the next fifty years.

Discussion of the Grand Game? I Must Weigh In!

2004-12-10T22:13:00.000-05:00

This is fascinating stuff. Chrenkoff has the most fascinating posts lately and this one is no exception. When it comes to big picture strategic stuff, I am all ears and cannot be silenced. Anyone reading, please weigh in with comments, criticism, and so on.

In regards to Japan, I think it is wonderful news. I realize that in Australia and throughout most of Asia, people do not recall Japanese military forces fondly. However, I think that in Japan's actions, we are seeing the quickening steps of a state throwing its lot in with the US.

Given that most states in the region fear and distrust Japan, it makes their partnership with the US even more important. By stepping up (albeit with baby steps) they are making the case that they are with the US and can be counted on.

As time goes on, it would not surprise me if the Asia Pacific area is marked by bandwagoning and balancing. States I feel will be in the US orbit will be Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Strongly interested but kept at a distance will be Taiwan. I need to do some more thinking, but I also expect to see the Philippines and Vietnam as well. I am less certain about South Korea. The other side will largely be China, North Korea, and many of the smaller states in the region who see friendship with China as their best long-term interest.

Although this might play out on a global scale, it will largely be determined on a regional one. I cannot see the Europeans doing what is necessary to truly play games of power. They might talk the talk, but I do not see the willingness to spend on defense or sacrifice necessary to do more than bluff.

This largely leaves the US, China, and Russia as the big players. Russia always does what is in its interest - so it would not surprise me to see them play the role China played for the later half of the CW, tilting one way but not too far depending on the circumstances.

That leaves the US and China, regardless of economic interest, drifting inexorably into a new era of security competition.

The role of emerging powers like India will be to choose the side that promises the most for them - it will be interesting to see how they hedge their bets and the choices they make over the next decade.

I know this is not the height of cool, but I love this stuff (smile)...

Cooperation? Maybe Next Time

2004-12-10T19:46:00.000-05:00

The French and Germans are at it again. Joined by the Spanish, they are refusing to allow their troops to serve as part of a NATO force heading to Iraq for an alliance training mission.

Colin Powell, working to mend fences between European states and the US, lashed out at the refusniks. Powell recognizes that if members of a formal alliance fail to honor their commitments if they do not like the missions, then the alliance is coming apart at the seams.

As the Post notes:

In a fresh sign of lingering tensions over the Iraq war, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Thursday criticized European allies who declined to assist a NATO-led training mission in Iraq as "hurting the credibility and cohesion" of the military alliance...

The transatlantic rift reemerged as U.S. officials were trying to signal a new approach in their dealings with Europe. The White House announced Thursday that Bush would visit NATO headquarters here and meet with European leaders on Feb. 22, in what Powell called an effort to "mend these breaches."

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Poland, Hungary and the Netherlands had agreed to provide more personnel for the training mission, which is to take place in the heavily fortified area in Baghdad known as the Green Zone. NATO also plans to set up a military academy outside the city but has received no commitments of staff yet...

"When it comes time to perform a mission, it seems to us to be quite awkward for suddenly members in that international staff to say, 'I'm unable to go because of this national caveat or national exception,' " Powell said. "You are hurting the credibility and the cohesion of such an international staff or organization."

It is wonderful to see Poland, Hungary and the Netherlands committing to send additional troops. I cannot help but wonder how much the Dutch decision is based upon recent problems with their own Islamic minority.

As for the French and Germans, it would be nice (just for once) if they were not so predictable.

Human Rights Trumped by Euros?

2004-12-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

Once again, France and Germany are pursuing a foreign policy apparently aimed at two goals - irritating the US and lining their pockets. Once again, the altruism and committment to human rights that is supposed to distinguish the EU from the rest of the world is conspiciously absent.

Given that the weapons, if sold, could be used against Chinese democracy activists, the citizenry of Taiwan, and/or US troops, it is hard to fathom why France and Germany would be pursuing this now.

So much for the spirit of cooperation and mending of fences with the US...

At some point, we are going to have to accept that France and Germany are orienting their foreign policy toward opposing the US as a matter of strategy rather than a mere difference of opinions over a succession of single issues.

Japan Keeps Troops in Iraq

2004-12-09T10:01:00.000-05:00

The Japanese government and PM Koizumi continue to back the US in Iraq. Japan extended its troop commitment in Iraq for another year, despite opposition among the Japanese public.

The AP reports:

"We must not give in to terror," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said in a nationally televised address. "The Iraqis are trying to build a government with their own hands. We must support this. The Self-Defense Forces are needed for this end."

The extension of the mission, which was to expire next Tuesday, had been widely expected, despite polls that show about half of Japan's citizenry oppose the deployment for fear the troops could be drawn into the fighting...

"We must not isolate the United States. We must create an environment in which the United States can cooperate with the world," Koizumi said. "I emphasize the importance of this every time I meet President Bush."

"Japan cannot ensure its peace and independence on its own," he added. "I recognize the importance of the Japan-U.S. alliance."

Although the Japanese have only a small force (550) and are only providing humanitarian assistance, it is still a significant deployment given Japan's history and pacifist constitution.

In a government often criticized for lacking the ability for decisive leadership, PM Koizumi has shown an admirable willingness to try to provide just that.

Blinded by the Light

2004-12-07T20:13:00.000-05:00

I was doing some research on some work stuff and came across this article in the Washington Post.
It is somewhat dated, as it originally appeared in the post this past June. However, in reading it, it seemed very relevant to what we are currently going through with Iran today and the broader differences between the US and EU.

NINE MONTHS AGO, as a confrontation loomed between Iran and the United Nations over Iran's illicit nuclear programs, three European governments staged a preemptive operation. Flying to Tehran, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany struck a deal with Iran's Islamic regime: The Europeans would block a referral of Iran's violations to the U.N. Security Council and provide technical cooperation, and in exchange Iran would stop its work on uranium enrichment, fully disclose its nuclear programs and accept a new U.N. protocol giving inspectors greater access. The Bush administration was upstaged; some in Paris and Berlin smugly suggested that it had been given an object lesson by the Europeans in how "soft power" could be used to manage the rogue states in President Bush's "axis of evil."

This week, with the world's attention focused on the troubled situation in Iraq, the European version of preemption is yielding its own bitter -- if less bloody -- result. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have reported that Iran never honored its agreement; it has stalled and stonewalled the inspectors while continuing to work on elements of a nuclear program that could soon allow it to produce weapons. The Europeans have responded by drafting for approval by the 35-member IAEA board a stern statement demanding Iranian cooperation; Tehran has replied with threats to restart uranium enrichment and suspend negotiations with the West.
Probably there will be no such rupture, and IAEA inspectors and European officials will resume their efforts to obtain Iranian cooperation. But there can be no disguising the fact that the European strategy for handling one of the world's most dangerous proliferation problems is proving feckless.

It is amazing that even today the European powers continue to dignify the Iranian lie that they are not working on nuclear weapons. Each time the Iranians refuse to comply, issue more unrealistic demands, and tell them that up is down and down is up, the Europeans simply press on with the process and act like nothing bad has happened.

It is one thing to believe that collective diplomacy and the process of negotiation can bear results and often be an end in itself, but how far can one go propping it up when the result is nuclear proliferation?

Given that weapons grade higly enriched uranium (HEU) has been found at multiple locations (in trace amounts) in Iran, it is reasonable to state as fact that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons. There is simply no reason outside of developing nuclear weapons to have uranium enriched to such levels. It is a smoking gun in determining whether a state is developing nuclear weapons.

A wonderful resource for following this issue is available at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey. From their chronology, we see the following:

26 August 2003
IAEA Inspectors find traces of highly enriched uranium (HEU) at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. Iranian officials claim the traces came from equipment imported from "another country" [unidentified] which included centrifuges used to enrich uranium and machinery associated with them. Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the IAEA says Iran has "a large and sophisticated nuclear program".
—"Iran nukes still a concern-IAEA," CNN, 26 Aug 2003, .
2 April 2004
An unidentified Western diplomat divulges that HEU has been located at sites other than Natanz and Kalaye, raising further questions regarding Iran's bomb-making ambitions.
—Louis Charbonneau, "More Bomb-Grade Uranium Found in Iran," Reuters, 2 April 2004.

Certainly, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is problematic for the US, EU, and the entire world. However, there is a grave risk in indulging the Iranian's in the refusal to admit their goals.

Dare We Hope?

2004-12-07T18:00:00.000-05:00

For years, critics had been claiming Yasser Arafat represented the biggest obstacle toward serious effort at a Middle East peace deal. Israel and the US had reached the point of waiting for him to die or be removed from power before any serious and lasting peace deal could be discussed. In the days and weeks since his death, there has been a growing optimism that peace might be much closer than anyone anticipated.

The Washington Post is reporting that:

The death of Yasser Arafat four weeks ago has brought a flurry of diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East by Arab, Palestinian and Israeli leaders aiming to strengthen the hands of moderates, repair strained relations among themselves and revive long-stalled peace negotiations on several fronts.

On Monday, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad and vowed to resume high-level contacts and policy coordination after more than 10 years of frayed relations.
srael and Egypt conducted an exchange of prisoners on Sunday that leaders from both countries said was a sign of warming relations after more than four years of tension.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reportedly is considering returning his ambassador to Tel Aviv for the first time since withdrawing him in November 2000, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that he is considering releasing additional Palestinian detainees as part of the prisoner swap.

Syria is seeking to reopen negotiations with Israel over the Golan Heights that have been frozen for four years, and Egypt has offered to mediate. Israel has rebuffed the overture.

Last week, Abbas ordered a halt to anti-Israel incitement in government-controlled media, and Sharon said he was "going to make every effort to coordinate" the proposed withdrawal of Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip with the new Palestinian leadership that is taking the place of Arafat, who died Nov. 11 at a hospital outside of Paris. Previously, Sharon said that what he calls his disengagement plan would be implemented unilaterally because there was no partner for peace on the Palestinian side.

and

A more moderate and pragmatic Palestinian leadership has begun to emerge since Arafat's death, but it has yet to win the endorsement of the Palestinian public through elections...

"The end game of the dialogue going on in Gaza, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon is to have all the Palestinian factions adhere to a cessation of violence against Israelis anywhere, as stipulated in the road map, and we hope that Israel will do the same" by ending attacks against Palestinians and stopping the expansion of Jewish settlements, said Palestinian Minister for Negotiations Saeb Erekat. The road map is a U.S.-backed peace plan that has been dormant for more than a year.

Ziad Abu Amr, a member of the Palestinian parliament from the Gaza Strip, said that it was not just Arafat's death, but the reelection of President Bush in November and the continuing fighting in Iraq that gave rise to the new initiatives .

The early returns suggest that a single death has opened the way for thousands of lives to be saved and the chance for a region to move beyond a history of bloodshed.

I hope all parties involved keep this in mind as they move forward. I hope we will someday soon see a Palestinian democracy flourishing next to an Israeli one.

Great Post by Arthur Chrenkoff

2004-12-06T22:19:00.000-05:00

I enjoy reading a number of blogs, but few more than Chrenkoff blog. For anyone on here that has not read him, check out the post linked in the title. He is spot on when it comes to pretty much anything on the WoT.

One point made by Arthur stands out to me:

The Islamist rage is supported by the twin pillars of deep-seated resentment and totalitarian vision. There is the general sense of shame and humiliation that an once powerful Islamic world is now dominated by the infidels, politically, militarily, economically, and culturally. The second and connected issue is the desire to re-create a theocratic Caliphate that will first encompass and subsequently expand the Islamic world. The West has to be fought because its vision is totally incompatible with the Islamist one - in this context the Great Satan essentially means the Great Seducer, and thus ultimately a spiritual threat. Its democracy, liberalism, and materialism will always lead good people astray from the one true path; hence for the fundamentalist Umma to survive and thrive the temptation has to be permanently eliminated - either by the annihilation or, preferably, the ultimate conversion of the infidel world.

Everything I have learned in school, through my own research, and in following this issue over the years backs this up. I remember reading years ago that the Ottoman Empire was so unprepared for the shift in power between it and the perceived barbarians in the West that they had no concept for diplomacy in the European sense. Prior to this reversal in fortunes, Ottoman diplomacy was simply dictating the terms to the opponent. If the opponent accepted, that was fine. If not, they were conquered. They actually had to study European bureaucratic diplomacy when things started to fall apart for them.

After 9/11, I attended a panel discussion where one of the panelists was Alan Wolfe from Boston College. On a panel full of IR types, Doctor Wolfe seemed a bit out of place. He primarily studies the intersection of politics and relgion in American public life. However, on this day, he was discussing the possibility to rapproachment with the terrorists or some of the regimes that supports them. He argued that this was simply not possible and that it was a good thing. His argument and supporting points, as I remember them, were:

The reasons the terrorists hate us are actually the best things about the US and liberal democracies in general. To meet their demands would destroy so much about ourselves that we would gain peace, but at a terrible price that would result in the destruction of our virtues.

First, Islamists hate our tolerance of religion. It is an anathema to them and represents a fundamental to challenge to their view of the world, which breaks down to the believers and the unbelievers.

Second, we treat women with equality. In a liberal society, a women is like a man - an end to herself, rather than a means to an end. This is a challenge to their entire social order. For every movie beamed into the Islamic world that shows strong, liberated women, there is a corresponding rise in the hatred of America. From Britney Spears to Madonna to Baywatch to movies and TV, this is the case.

Lastly, we welcome in those that dare to speak out and stand up against their vision for a Islamist based society. We welcome these people in and provide them with safety, opportunity, and the continue to spread their messages.

Wolfe argued this passionately and convincingly. It is one thing to desire peace. After all, who would not wish to see a world without war, the threat of terror, and a peace of all nations. However, there is a tremendous difference between seeking peace and accepting peace at any cost.

Tis the Season for Giving: Books for the Holidays

2004-12-06T17:25:00.000-05:00

I do not know how many people really care what books I have to recomend, probably not too many when you consider that few people have ever commented on this blog (though I know it has a steady number of visitors). Anyway, here are some books that I have read in either recent months or over the years that I think would make great holiday reading.

The Balkan Wars: Conquest, Revolution, and Retribution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century and Beyond by Andre Gerolymatos. This is just an amazingly enjoyable read. It flows like a novel and is full of murder, betrayal, manipulation, sorrow, and rage. If you ever wanted to learn about the Balkans and do so in a pleasing to read fashion, then this is the book for you.

The Middle East by Bernard Lewis. Its an easy and fairly entertaining read. It gives you the history of an entire region in a succint, well-written, easy to understand format.

Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman. I have not finished this one yet, but its very enjoyable. It is the best book I have read on terrorism from the liberal perspective. It makes me laugh (alot) and also reconsider alot of different things I had previously taken for granted.

From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. Its an older book, but an excellent one. Friedman is an amazing writer. He teaches through storytelling - a veritable Jewish Jesus when it comes to the use of parables :) If you want to learn about the Lebanese Civil War, the PLO, the Arab-Israeli dilemma, and the part the US has and should play, then this is the book for you. Friedman manages to catch all of these threads in their sadness and horror and turn them into a deep and soulful look into the people and policies of the region.

The Persian Boy by Mary Renault. Oliver Stone's Alexander was a marvelous conqueror, erotically conflicted, and boring as all hell. Mary Renault's Alexander is bisexual, interesting, compelling, and at the same time larger than life and oh so human. Just an amazing novel.

The Kingdom of Thorn and Bone series (The Briar King and the followup The Charnel Prince) by Greg Keyes. Fantasy the way it is meant to be written (and o so rarely is). Interesting storyline, complex characters, and a magical world. One cannot ask for much more in a fantasy series.

I will add a few more over the next couple of days. Unfortunately, all my dissertation reading and writing has really cramped my brain when it comes to recalling non-dissertation reading unless it is right in front of me...

The Becker-Posner Experience

2004-12-06T14:29:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to Asymmetrical Information for steering me towards the discussion of this post from the esteemed duo over at Becker-Posner blog.

I would love to see a broader discussion of the merits of prevention/preemption. The lack of such has truly hindered analysis of the Iraq war, the WoT, and the broader merits/failures of the Bush Doctrine as a new grand strategy for the post 9/11 world.

The problem with the Iraq war is that, at first glance, it is a preventive war that has been discussed largely in the context of preemption. On top of this, a compelling argument can be made that in this era of globalization (of technology, travel, and weaponry), the line between preemption and prevention has become increasingly blurred.

Preemption was always based on the idea that the threat was war was inevitable and immediate (very short term), while in the case of prevention war was inevitable but not immediate.

How can we really make sense of the immediacy of a threat in a world of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? It used to be treated as near gospel that such threats could be deterred. How do you deter a terrorist group or a state sponsor hiding behind plausible deniability? How about a state that has behaved irrationally or unpredictably and has a strong anti-status quo bent to its foreign policy?

In a world where deterrence is seen as less credible and the costs of its failure increasingly high, it is only logical that such topics as preemptive and preventive war come to the fore.

I just wish we could have a better discussion of the issues, which Posner and Becker have done an admirable job of starting.

A Fundamental Question

2004-12-06T13:14:00.000-05:00

Michael Barone has an interesting opinion piece over at Townhall.com. I have always found him an interesting writer, who rarely gets caught up in the left-right bs that kills most serious political discussion in the media.

In his discussion of the elections and the future for Bush, Barone observes:

Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has written that Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the serious threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any other president since Harry Truman transformed American foreign policy in response to the serious threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Gaddis, no Bush acolyte, regards Bush's transformation as a serious enterprise, worthy of serious study. Not many Democrats in election year 2004 took the same approach.

Barone and Gaddis get it. As someone who works in academics, I have been amazed at the lack of serious discussion pertaining to the Bush Doctrine. Among my colleagues, Bush is viewed with near universal scorn and his policies dismissed without consideration. The Bush Doctrine seems memorable only for ridicule and to bring up the term "axis of evil."

The problem that I have observed as an undergrad, graduate student, and professor is that in academia, where 97% of the faculty are far left of center, there can be no real discussion of the Bush Doctrine. In diagnosing the problems of Democrats when it came to the Bush Doctrine, Barone also delivers (without realizing it) a striking critique of academia.

Truly, this is just another reason why we need more balance in academics.

Update: Powerline has now chimed in on the subject, linking to a story in the Economist.

I read the story the other day, but did not comment on it because it was a little outside the purview of the blog. Further, it is a difficult subject for me, working in academics and having many, many friends in the ivory tower that see diversity as for everyone but conservatives. As one of the tenured professor's at my current place of employ told me after a faculty panel earlier this year, "It was really interesting to hear your take on the whole Iraq war...I have never known anyone in academics to lay out a conservative viewpoint like that." Needless to say, I had given a middle of the road presentation largely arguing that the Bush Doctrine deserved to be given serious consideration rather than instant dismissal.

This has been one of the more difficult realizations regarding my chosen career. I left a career in state government to return to school for my PhD in the hope of become a college professor. In grad school and in my teaching, I have never met anyone in academics who self-identifies as an a conservative or Republican. It still amazes and disappoints me. All in all, academics is a pretty unwelcoming place for a conservative.

Soldiers for Truth

2004-12-05T22:22:00.000-05:00

I found this link via Powerline. I took a brief look at it and found it to be very interesting. I downloaded a powerpoint on the chemical lab found in Fallujah. I had not seen any of the pictures or the level of detail anywhere else in the media.

It is definitely worth a look. I wish that we could get better coverage from the MSM.

Thompson says goodbye and wonders why terrorists have not been smarter...

2004-12-05T22:03:00.000-05:00

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appeared to deviated from his script a little bit during his resignation press conference.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," he said...

The former Wisconsin governor has warned about food safety issues since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and pushed for more money for safeguards. Spending on food security has increased from $800,000 to $150 million during Thompson's tenure, and there are eight times as many food inspections now as in 2001, according to HHS figures.

I realize that this is a pet issue for the Secretary, but does it really make sense to broadcast before the what he perceives as a glaring weakness in our homeland defense efforts. Certainly, the food chain is a fairly easy target for terrorists. In fact, the Rajneeshees, a cult located in Oregon, actually carried out a bio attack that targeted salad bars. The result turned out to be over 700 people becoming ill.

There is plenty of evidence that the food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attack. From food imports to food processing plants to restaurants, the number of targets is extremely large and the difficulty of contamination remains fairly low.

This is certainly well known to anyone who takes a few minutes to read up on the issue or studies terrorism/counter-terrorism. Sadly, there is probably not much that can be done to remedy this deficiency.

Its rare that a book on terror and liberalism makes me laugh out loud...

2004-12-03T18:14:00.000-05:00

I picked up Paul Berman's book called Terror and Liberalism. I had heard a few good reviews on it. It was supposedly funny and well-written. Although I have only read the first chapter today before teaching, it did make me laugh. Berman was discussing the first Gulf War coalition and the elder President Bush's diplomatic manuevering and one passage in particular stood out:

Bush the Elder labored earnestly at assembling his coalition, and did so with enormous skill, too, until, by the time he had finished, his alliance stretched all the way, ideologically speaking, to the Baathis dictatorship in Syria, which was not much different from the Baathist dictatorship in Iraq. The medieval despots of Saudi Arabia took their place in the grand coalition. The alliance turned out to be a pirate crew of terrorists, dictators, kings, anti-Zionists, oil moguls and one eyed gangsters. It was terrifying to behold. It was the United Nations General Assembly...

As I am sitting here reading the newly released UN reform report, I cannot get this passage out of my mind. Once I finish the report, I will post some thoughts on it. Hopefully, I will have something up by tomorrow morning.

UPDATE: Chrenkoff has a nice post on the UN and dynamics that drive it. In reading his post, the Berman quote came immediately to mind.

Proliferation Threat: US Sanctions Chinese Firms

2004-12-02T21:45:00.000-05:00

The New York times reported today that the "U.S. government has imposed sanctions on three Chinese firms and a Chinese citizen accused of violating American restrictions on supplying Iran with weapons-related goods or technology."

The US sanctioned the Chinese firms and also one North Korean company for the illegal sales of unidentified goods to the Iranians. It is interesting to note that China, North Korea, France, Germany and Russia have consistently been aiding would-be proliferators in recent years, while working to block any US-UK action to stem the tide.

A spokesperson for the Chinese government, Zhang Qiyue, commented on the sanctions by stating that "China stands firmly against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.''

More Details on Tomorrow's UN Reform Report

2004-12-01T22:37:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to the Powerline trio for the heads up on the article. As is usually the case, they are right on the money. As the Big Trunk states, "Who could reasonably object to giving France, Russia or China a veto over the right of the United States to defend itself?" Indeed.

However, there is more to be mined from this article and, I suspect, the report. One quote, in particular, stands out:

The findings reflect persistent international unease over last year's U.S. invasion without an explicit council endorsement, noting, "There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single even benignly motivated superpower."

It is really quite interesting and rather humorous to read something like this. The machinations in the Security Council leading up to Iraq and since the invasion reflect the relevance, utility, and enduring nature of balance of power. How else can one explain the cooperation of Russia, France, and China in working to hinder, block, and isolate the US over this issue.

It is also only fair to point out that the UN itself was formed partly as a result of and operates to this day based on the relevance of balance of power, at least on the level of the Security Council. Otherwise, why would it be necessary to have a Security Council with five permanent members that can veto any action? Why would discussions about expanding the number of permanent members generally center around inviting newer regional powers rather than a random grouping of states?

Balance of power occurs in international politics on a number of levels, rarely reaching the level of actual war. To deny that it exists seems rather naive or, at worst, hypocritical.

It is also interesting to note that the report once again locates the only legitimacy of war as being the stamp of the United Nations. The UN is composed of member states, all of which maintain the characteristics and the defining criterion of the Westphalian state system - sovereignty. It certainly makes sense to condemn clear cases of aggression for aggression's sake as there are a host of common moral and practical reasons for doing so. Arguing that states lack the right to defend themselves, protect their borders and citizenry, or order their own affairs shows a real confusion among panel members and the UN hierarchy.

It is naive to think that just because the UN speaks the language of collective security it is actually a working collective security organization. Collective security assumes that all member states of the organization prize peace above all else and will present aggressors with an imbalance of power rather than the more traditional balance. In order for collective security to work, an attack on one member state must be met by a timely and massive response by the member states to defend the state in question. Does anyone believe the UN works this way? Will the world act to preserve peace? Do great powers behave this way? Does anyone believe that the UN has demonstrated the ability to shape state and great power behavior in this way? This is less a failure of the UN leadership and more of a reflection that sovereignty, national interest, and self-defense trump the desire for a more idealistic and peaceful world.

More to come on this when time permits and when I have seen the full report.

The Near Abroad Versus the Far Abroad

2004-12-01T11:03:00.000-05:00

Hat tip the the ubiquitous Instapundit for this one.

Its an interesting piece worth reading and reminds me of the early days after the Cold War when the terms "near abroad" and "far abroad" were used to discuss Russian foreign policy. The idea was that the Russian's would look to maintain influence and even regain control in the closer Soviet and more Russified republics.

I do not think they have ever really stopped trying to do this, but merely kicked it up a notch under Putin. It certainly makes sense to preach strength, security and pursue power abroad when the economy is in the dumper, the government is corrupt, the people are demoralized, and international prestige is dropping.

The UN Weighs in on the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

2004-12-01T10:09:00.000-05:00

Stating the obvious, the UN is set to issue a report tomorrow on the increasing weakness of the world's nuclear non-proliferation regime.

The report...will recommend the UN Security Council slow the spread of weapons using an explicit pledge of collective action against any state or group that launches a nuclear attack or even threatens such an attack on a non-nuclear-weapon state.

This is hardly earth shaking news. However, it is highly unlikely that the UN can get beyond a vague sense of what collective action would entail. For example, if the US used nuclear weapons for some reason, would the UN take "collective action" against the US? How about Russia? China? Great Britain? France? One of the virtues of possessing nuclear weapons is that they are pretty much the ultimate in defense and also provide a strong element of deterrence.

Given that the five permanent members of the Security Council are all recognized Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) under the NPT, how could the UN take anything more than token "collective action" against one of these states?

As for the threat of a nuclear attack, how will "threat" be defined? Could statements intended to deter be taken for threats? After all, deterrence is based on a clear and credible threat to punish disproportionately if your opponent does X.

Kofi Annan, UN secretarygeneral, last year established a panel of 16 veteran politicians and diplomats from around the world to identify the main threats facing mankind. It identifies nuclear proliferation as a particular danger and it warns: The nuclear proliferation regime is at risk because of lack of compliance with existing commitments, a changing international security environment, and radical advances in technology.

The nuclear proliferation regime is at risk because of four distinct groups: [1] states who have not joined it such as India, Pakistan, Israel [2] states who have joined and still pursued nuclear weapons - North Korea and Iran [3] states who have tried to profit from this including France, Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, and Germany and [4] non-state actors seeking nuclear weapons that do not pay any attention to such a regime.

Secretary Annan's reference to the "lack of compliance with existing committments" paints a bulls eye on the UN. After all, it is under the rubric of the UN and its umbrella groups that the regime is maintained. Failure to hold a state to its commitment is a failure by member states and the organization in general. The failure of Kofi Annan to make this a priority to this point demonstrates that the UN has proven itself a weak reed in dealing with this issue to this point. If it cannot agree on whether states are cheating or how to take effective action to preserve the regime, how can we expect the UN to take collective action when states use or threaten to use nukes? Will the UN be taking action against North Korea for its repeated nuclear threats against the US? Somehow, I doubt it.

We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nuclear regime could become irreversible, and result in a cascade of proliferation. In 1963, only four states had nuclear arsenals. Today eight states are known to have one, and several others are suspected of developing them. Close to 60 states operate or are building nuclear power or research reactors, and at least 30 possess the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons at relatively short notice. Terrorists are also believed to be seeking them.

Interestingly, the biggest proliferation risk in the world is a US that drastically reduces its commitments around the world. US withdrawal from Europe or Asia would likely cause horizontal proliferation (Germany, Japan, South Korea) and vertical proliferation (China and North Korea).

The above statement, while true, is nothing new. Arguably, since the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan in the 1990s, the regime has been greatly weakened. With India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea having nuclear weapons and all being outside the regime, it highlights that four states have nuclear weapons outside the NPT and five have it within the NPT. Given that the states still seeking nuclear weapons are doing so within the NPT, it reveals a crisis from within the regime and a challenge from without. This is not likely to change any time soon.

It argues that nuclear weapons states must honour their commitments to move towards disarmament, and reaffirm promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. The Security Council pledge for collective action could help ease non-nuclear states' concerns. All de facto nuclear states, including Israel, Pakistan and India (which are not named), should pledge a commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament, ratify the comprehensive test-ban treaty and support talks on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. In order to reduce supply, the panel says the IAEA's additional protocol should become the standard, and urges a new system whereby peaceful nuclear technology users could be guaranteed fissile material although the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes must be preserved.

The idea that the designated NWS will move toward disarmament is highly unlikely when new states are developing nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons are still being pursued by rogue states and terrorists, and the international community appears to lack the collective will to stop it.

I suppose it will generate some nice press coverage about the vision and commitment of the UN, but barring a miraculous change in international politics, this problem is far more likely to become worse rather than better.

The Iranian Missile Program

2004-11-11T21:30:00.000-05:00

The Center for Defense Information released a report on the progress of the Iranian missile program, which has been somewhat lost amidst all of the attention devoted to the regime's quest for nuclear weapons.

It is certainly worth a read and contains a link to a chart that shows the flight paths of the various missiles.

What stands out when you look at the list is that it is the same countries over and over selling or transferring missiles and missile technology to the Iranians. The countries include...China, Russia, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

It is really no surprise that Libya and Syria took part in these transfers over the past decade, though it now appears that both have changed their tune. North Korea makes most of its cash from selling weapons, so it is likely they will continue to do so.

In the case of Russia and China, both of these states have continued to sell all types of military technology to rogue states throughout the world.

Its a disturbing pattern to continually find two members of the Security Council engaging in this behavior. Actually, its three. France just has not been selling to Iran lately.

American Legitimacy at What Price?

2004-11-10T10:32:00.001-05:00

I just finished reading Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson's "The Sources of American Legitimacy," in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. The authors argue that:

The United States' approval ratings have plunged, especially in Europe -- the cooperation of which Washington needs for a broad array of purposes -- and in the Muslim world, where the United States must win over "hearts and minds" if it is to lessen the appeal of terrorism...

Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm. Ultimately, however, legitimacy is rooted in opinion, and thus actions that are unlawful in either of these senses may, in principle, still be deemed legitimate...

How to restore legitimacy has thus become a central question for U.S. foreign policy, although the difficulty of doing so is manifest. At a minimum, restoring international confidence in the United States will take time...If the United States is going to be successful in recapturing legitimacy, it will have to abandon the doctrines and practices that brought it to this pass.

Despite the legal and moral aspects of legitimacy as they define it, the authors admit that is largely based on the most fickle of things, opinion. This can be driven by the most base side of human nature, interpretation of events, media coverage, and governmental manipulation.

The authors admit that opinion plays a significant role in legitimacy, recognizing that opinion can cause people to overlook the immorality or illegality of an action if they believe it to be the correct decision. The authors fail to recognize that the same is true when it comes to illegitimacy - people can overlook the legal and moral case for action because they believe it to be wrong, not in their interest, or because they are ignorant/manipulated to a certain viewpoint.

This alone makes it exceedingly difficult for the US to recapture legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Does it mean doing what others want, regardless of what the cost is for the US? Does legitimacy trump security? Does international legitimacy trump the opinion of Americans? Does it mean the US must abandon the War on Terror? Is it worth the cost?

The author claim 4 pillars of US legitimacy dating back to the end of WWII:

US commitment to international law and belief in the illegality of aggressive war.
A commitment to consensual-decision making that stemmed from the nature of US democracy and the creation of international institutions.
An acquired reputation for moderation in policy. This moderation reassured allies around the world that, despite its great power, the US was not a thread.
Washington's success in preserving peace and prosperity within the community of advanced industrialized nations.

Of course, the collapse of US legitimacy is not tied to anything other than the failure of the Bush administration. Certainly, the Bush administration did not help itself with some of its public pronouncements regarding international law. However, the policies of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 differed relatively little to those of the Clinton administration. Post 9/11, it is far easier to accept a change in US policy to focus more on the necessities of wartime rather than the niceties of peacetime.

The author's claim:

A new doctrine of preventive war, misnamed the "strategy of preemption," took the place of the doctrines of containment and deterrence that had preserved the nuclear peace during the long contest with the Soviet Union.

This quote captures the ineptness of the study of post Cold war foreign policy that is prevalent in much of the discussion of these matters today. What use is containment when there is no longer a Soviet Union to contain? How well can containment of a state like Iraq work when your allies in Europe are violating the sanctions regime and spending political capital to undermine the legitimacy of your actions? Is it possible to deter terrorists? The concept of rogue states also raises real questions when it comes to deterrence. These very idea of rogue states undermines the assumption of rationality that deterrence is based upon. Further, the idea of preemptive war had taken root in the D0D during the early 1990s, based on a belief that deterrence did not work so well in the post Cold War world. Clinton considered preemption in North Korea before buying time via the Agreed Framework.

I have considered giving up my subscription for Foreign Affairs because of these types of articles.

American Legitimacy at What Price?

2004-11-10T10:32:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson's "The Sources of American Legitimacy," in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. The authors argue that:

The United States' approval ratings have plunged, especially in Europe -- the cooperation of which Washington needs for a broad array of purposes -- and in the Muslim world, where the United States must win over "hearts and minds" if it is to lessen the appeal of terrorism...

Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm. Ultimately, however, legitimacy is rooted in opinion, and thus actions that are unlawful in either of these senses may, in principle, still be deemed legitimate...

How to restore legitimacy has thus become a central question for U.S. foreign policy, although the difficulty of doing so is manifest. At a minimum, restoring international confidence in the United States will take time...If the United States is going to be successful in recapturing legitimacy, it will have to abandon the doctrines and practices that brought it to this pass.

US committment to international law and belief in the illegality of aggressive war.
A committment to consensual-decision making that stemmed from the nature of US democracy and the creation of international institutions.
An acquired reputation for moderation in policy. This moderation reassured allies around the world that, despite its great power, the US was not a thread.
Washington's success in preserving peace and prosperity within the community of advanced industrialized nations.

A new doctrine of preventive war, misnamed the "strategy of preemption," took the place of the doctrines of containment and deterrence that had preserved the nuclear peace during the long contest with the Soviet Union.

Terrorism and Poverty: Decoupled at last?

2004-11-10T10:02:00.000-05:00

Interesting story. A Kennedy School of Government at Harvard study has shown that there is no link between levels of poverty and terrorism. Interestingly, the environment which breeds terrorism appears to be one that falls in between an authoritarian and democratic system.

Interestingly, this phenomenon has been noted before from a different angle. Jack Snyder wrote a book entitled From Voting to Violence in 2000, which looked the problems posed by democratizing states. It was an interesting if not convincing piece of work, though now it looks like it might carry a bit more weight.

As an academic, I have heard this link between terror and poverty repeated as an undergrad, graduate student, and endlessly in talks and articles. It is largely accepted as fact within academia. Curiously, I have heard no one mention this in the halls at work. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

So It Begins

2004-11-04T07:36:00.000-05:00

The Hillary for president stuff kicks off before Kerry has even fully shut down his campaign. Poor John Edwards, what is a fella to do? He needs to find a job and his high profile opponent is already being flattered by the NYT...

Quick Thoughts on the Election

2004-11-03T18:42:00.000-05:00

Real life has been whaling away on me - making it largely impossible to blog. However, the election begs for some words, hopefully of wisdom.

My quick thoughts:

The Dems will hopefully take the lesson from this election that they need to recapture the policies, the attitude, and message of the Clinton years. Less Angry Left and more southern/mid-western charm.
My prediction, the Clintonistas try to put Hillary front and center as the face of centrism and the best chance for the Dems to regain the White House. However, due to her location (NY), her gender (female), her negatives (people love or hate her and it has been resistant to change) and the need to win southern or mid-western states she will likely not be the best person for this job.
Despite this, its 50-50 that she gets pushed forward anyway. Edwards wont be able to stop her and will likely end up the candidate of the Angry Left (with a smile). My early pick is that Evan Bayh becomes to best person to emulate and build upon the Clinton legacy.
Guiliani will have real trouble getting the nomination due to his pro-choice/pro gay rights views. The recent election and past history (Bill Weld says hi) shows that its very difficult to get far in the party with those views. As a result, its going to be a slugfest for the nomination and for the direction of the party as moderates will likely seize on Rudy.
Tom Daschle is not looking so smug today.
Dan Rather finally proved to me that he no longer belongs on the air. As his age increases, so does his partisanship. The only thing declining is his willingness/ability to hide it.
Tom Brokaw really shined last night. I am not a big fan of the MSM, but have always liked Brokaw and Rather. Both covered their last presidential elections last night and it will be Brokaw that is remembered as the "giant" of journalism from this era.
Congrats to the President, Vice-President and their families. You earned it.
Condolences and well-wishes to the Kerry-Edwards team. I am not a democrat and am even less of a Kerry fan, but I feel for the man. Having a family member that worked as a consultant with the campaign in MA, I found out firsthand how joy turned to heartbreak for them. Based on the exit polls, for 5-8 hours yesterday they were convinced they had won the election.

Hopefully, more to follow later.

He Will Be Missed

2004-10-20T22:30:00.000-04:00

Paul Nitze, one of the foreign policy giants of the twentieth century, has passed away at the age of 97.

Just a few of the positive words on a life well lived can be found below. I am certain we will be hearing a lot more about this over the next few days.

In a speech last week at SAIS, as the Johns Hopkins school is known, Secretary of State Colin Powell called Nitze "an icon to those of us who are in the State Department."

"It was like having Moses at the table. This man who had 50 years under his belt when I was just trying to figure out how to be National Security Adviser," Powell said of his tenure in the Reagan administration.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who wrote a book on Nitze entitled "The Master of the Game," called him a "really major figure both of the Cold War era and of the transition to the post-Cold War era."

"He was a man at the center of things — both when he was in government and outside government — on the toughest issues of nuclear war and peace. He was a hard-headed analyst and a ferocious negotiator and solution-maker (as well as) a ferocious opponent of policies he disagreed with," said Talbott, now head of the Brookings Institution.

When only 43 years old, Nitze became principal author of a highly influential secret National Security Council document, which provided the strategic outline for increased U.S. expenditures to counter the perceived Soviet threat.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who once headed SAIS, told a recent conference the document was a "landmark contribution to national security" and Nitze's "foresight produced a plan for the postwar world characterized by creativity and boldness."

My prayers go out to his friends and family. He was truly an amazing man.

Tom Friedman on Iraq

2004-10-19T20:55:00.000-04:00

Tom Friedman spoke at Brandeis University last night. Friedman, a member of the class of 75, spoke on the topic of Iraq. Specifically, he said he wanted to try to fit the events there into a larger perspective and make sense of our successes, failures, and future there.

I had intended to try to live blog the event, but there was no wireless access in the venue and I only had one battery in my laptop. Instead, I took five pages of notes and starting typing them up this afternoon. I will post all of them on here.

In the places where he went too fast or I wrote too slow, I made notes. I also inserted some comments/questions that occured to me during the presentation. Everything should be clearly marked and my presentation is as accurate and unbiased as humanly possible.

Before I begin, I just want to say that Friedman is someone I really admire. I respect his approach to journalism, his desire to make sense of the world, and his ability to relate that to millions of people around the world in an interesting and understandable manner.

I use From Beirut to Jerusalem in one of my introductory classes and The Lexus and the Olive Tree in a upper level IR theory class. I have used these books three years running and I have never had a student express any dislike for them. In fact, time and time again, students love the Friedman books and say they are the best books they have read in college.

Ok, Friedman worshipping completed, here goes...

(Friedman's words in plain text - mine in bold. I use bold just so no one will confuse the two and there are lot more of his than mine).

I never believed there were WMD in Iraq. If you go back and look at my columns, you will not find a single column on this written by me. I did believe that anything Saddam did have was deterrable and therefore did not necessitate invasion for those reasons.

This did not make a whole lot of sense to me. He started out by saying he didnt think they had any, then went on to say what they did have was deterrable. I could not figure out exactly what he meant based on the comments so I just left them as is.

I did believe something needed to be done with Saddam and in regards to the Islamic world. It is important to view 9/11 in a far broader context that we have to this point. If you view Iraq in this context, it is then possible to make sense of and draw conclusions from Iraq.

I view 9/11 as the beginning of battle of the Third Totalitarian Era in international politics. The first was the challenge from the Soviets and communism. The second was the war against Fascism/Nazism which used Germany as a vehicle for its ideology. The third is the battle against radical Islamists who use globalization to impose their view of the perfect faith – political Islam.

People ask me, how the threat posed by AQ can be compared to that of the Soviet Red Army, which was backed by tens of thousands of tanks and nukes. I believe AQ poses a threat more dangerous and more pernicious than the USSR ever did.

There are three reasons for this:

1. Soviet threat was deterrable

2. US and Soviets shared assumptions on what was acceptable, what was civilized, what the rules of the game were.

3. With AQ and radical Islam, there are no shared assumptions – the boys of 9/11 hated the US more than they loved life. How can you reason with or deter that?

The threat posed by AQ is so scary because it cant be deterred plus because it uses the instruments of daily life (planes, cars, shoes) and uses them as weapons to attack the essence of what keeps open societies open. They target trust.

I trust you not to be strapped with an explosive vest. You trust me in the same way. I trust the person next to me on a plane not to have a shoe bomb etc. He used a number of examples here.

It is impossible to guard everything in an open society. AQ and radical Islam aim at the heart of open society. This must serve as the starting point for any discussion of 9/11.

Where did the boys of 9/11 come from?

They came from 2 sources:

The Saudi’s or sitting around guys
The Europeans

Sitting Around Guys

These were the muscle and drawn from OBL’s rolodex. There is a vast pool of these people throughout the Middle East.

The Middle East has the highest birthrate and unemployment rate in the world. (He reeled off a bunch of stats here). This serves as the raw material for the Bin Laden’s to shape, mold and use.

They are created by the Wheel of OBL, which has three spokes:

deficit of freedom
deficit of popular education
deficit of women’s empowerment

The ME is the only region of the world where there is not one single democratic government. For these regimes to gain legitimacy, they prop up anti-modern clergy who in exchange for a platform bless the regime in place. The one thing these regimes and the clergy are good at producing is people who lack the ability to thrive and even survive in a modern, globalizing world.

The ME and Arab world are suffering a crisis of human development of serious serious proportions. He used the example of patents. Over the past 20 years, the ME has produced 267 patents. In the same period, South Korea produced over 16 thousand. Hewlett Packard produces 11 per day. In less than a month, HP produces more patents than the entire ME produces in 20 years.

The Europeans

These were the brains of the operation, opposed to the muscle. All of them were radicalized in Europe. Add on to this, Richard Reid, the assassins of Massoud in Afghanistan and any number of other terrorist plots and you find a common theme – they are coming out of European mosques.

This represents a failure of the melting pot in Europe. In the US, we have a poorly working melting pot, but one that is at the heart of the American experience. In Europe, there is no such thing.

Arabs were invited to Europe post WWII for labor much the same way that Mexicans were/are invited to the US. There has been little effort and much resistance to integrating them into their host societies. Now, we are in the third generation of Arabs that have grown up in Europe. The young especially are angry, disaffected and resentful. They gravitate toward mosques where they are radicalized by clerics selling a vision that is attractive to them.

There is an incompatibility to Islam and modern life. For Muslims, the Koran is more than a religious book and Islam more than a religion – it is the precise and accurate world and will of God.

I often try to describe this incompatibility and its consequences in computer terms. Think of it like this:

Muslims raised with view of Islam as God 3.0
They view Christians as God 2.0
They view Jews as God 1.0
They view Hinduism as God 0.0

Young Muslims are raised in this way yet as they grow up they cannot figure out how and why God 3.0 came to be below the other inferior operating systems. Radicals explain it as either 1.0 and 2.0 have cheated and keep the Muslims down or the leaders of ME states have sold Muslims out to the other operating systems.

The other non 3.0 versions have achieved multiple and improved releases – 1.01 or 2.02 etc. They have grown and transformed and modernized and this has had important repercussions for their followers, the religion, and the ability to survive in a globalizing world. For 3.0, there has been no updated release. It is important that Muslims do this and do this on their own.

This moves us to the discussion of Iraq. It provides a context and if I have learned anything in my career it is the importance of context.

The context within which people live their lives is vital. For many Muslims, this context is producing rage. Yet, if you can change the context this changes. Look at India, the world’s second largest Muslim country. There were no Indian Muslims involved in 9/11 or any that we now of involved in AQ. (He told several stories to illustrate them but I couldn’t get them all down).

The US has ignored context in the Arab world for the last fifty years. Our view of the Arab world has been similar to that of run down, dumpy gas stations. For much of this period, we wanted them to keep the pump open, keep the price cheap and otherwise do what you want. The only thing that changed was an addition to this – be nice to the Jews.

On 9/11 we got hit with everything that was growing and living in that context. I borrow this analogy from Larry Summers – “In the history of the world, no one has ever washed their rented car.” The same is true for countries. The Iraqi people and the people of the ME in general have rented countries, first from imperial powers and then from their own dictators.

I believe changing this context was worth invading. I am not a neo-con and do not believe all their nonsense… (I fell behind here but he took some shots at the neo-cons and their vision).

We ran into trouble due to Turkish domestic politics and the Bush administrations bungling of diplomacy with Turkey. This meant the war was never finished. The Sunni triangle was largely untouched and two divisions of Republican Guard took of their uniforms and went home. They now are key to the insurgency.

The second major mistake was in not establishing our authority. Zell Miller railed about calling US troops occupiers. Well, we needed to be occupiers. We needed to control the country to fix it. You cannot liberate what you do not control.

We have never had enough troops in Iraq based on these two mistakes. Rumsfeld’s view of this as a lab test has really hurt us.

There is no army in the world that can defeat our own. There is no country in the world we can rebuild on our own.

The result was looting on an epic scale – unless you saw it take place, it is near impossible to fathom the scope of it.

Hugh Hewitt's Symposium: Why Vote for GW?

2004-10-18T13:23:00.000-04:00

Hugh Hewitt asks "Why vote for Bush, and whats wrong with Kerry?" In the briefest possible form, here is my answer.

As someone who works in academics, I can say this is a question most faculty and administrators have never asked themselves. On a daily basis, I listen to the shots, snipes, and broadsides directed against the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, and the United States in general. Most of the time, I pay little or no attention to this stuff. If it were thoughtful and/or rational criticism, I would have to consider it. In fact, I have a laundry list of my own regarding this administration and its failures. Despite those criticisms and the candidacy of John Forbes Kerry for President, I plan to vote for President Bush come November.

In the past, I would compare candidates based on my political preferences and decide who to vote for. In this election, my calculus is even simpler. My vote is being cast solely on the basis of foreign policy. Even though Bush has been from fair to poor (at various points) on all of the above, it is his consistent foreign policy vision (not application) that has convinced me that he is not only the best man to lead the US going forward, but perhaps also the only one capable of doing so at this time.

Bush will forever live in a post 9/11 world. 9/11 shaped and molded this man, recasting his politics, his purpose, and his presidency. In his speeches and actions, he has put the US on a course designed to place us in the best possible position to prevent another 9/11. It can be said simply that Bush deserves to be reelected because he lives in a post 9/11 world. If you believe this, then the many failures and missed opportunities under Bush can be accepted (not excused or ignored) as such by this supporter. The reason is simple. Even a Bush who struggles translating his vision of the post 9/11 world into reality is better than a Kerry who insists that, regardless of 9/11, the security environment of the US has not and did not fundamentally change on that fateful day.

Big News on Climate Change!

2004-10-18T07:04:00.000-04:00

I found this link via Andrew Sullivan, but cannot find a permalink on his blog.

I am not an expert on climate change and I am a walking statistics disaster. That out of the way, this appears to be major, major news that should have dramatic repercussion on the discussion of climate change.

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn’t settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

Critics of climate change have always argued that the data and science on climate change is very weak and propped up more my politics than empirical evidence. This will provide the critics of climate change some real evidence, as it appears the scientists who came up with the "hockey stick" made some critical and, perhaps, unexcusable errors.

McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on?

The short answer appears that we know a lot less about climate change than we did prior to this evidence coming out. The study of climate change, always somewhat difficult, just took a significant hit. While the activists will not acknowledge this and the opponents of climate change will seize on this news, it certainly suggests that until further research is completed we all ought to be somewhat leery of grand claims on climate change.

China Supporting Sudanese Genocide?

2004-10-17T10:02:00.000-04:00

A tip of the cap to Glenn Reynolds, whose Instapundit blog is my favorite, for the heads up on this story from the Independent.

In short, the story claims that China is using diplomacy to water down and/or prevent the UN from taking action in Sudan. Why run cover for genocide? Oil. The Chinese use diplomacy to generate favor and to continue purchasing Sudanese oil for China's rapidly industrializing economy.

The key paragraphs:

China was identified by diplomats as the member responsible for watering down last month's Security Council resolution which threatened to halt Sudan's oil exports if it did not stop atrocities in the Darfur region, where Arab militias are terrorising African villagers.

Beijing oil imports jumped 35 per cent this year and its reliance on a growing number of rogue states to meet its needs is putting it on a collision course with the United States. Sudan and Iran together supply 20 per cent of China's oil imports, and if economic sanctions were applied to either, Beijing would be unable to sustain its high growth rates.

As China industrializes, cheap and plentiful oil are necessary to fuel economic growth. Given the recent instability of the global oil markets, this might seem hard to engineer for anyone. However, China has sunk a significant amount of capital, in the form of trade agreements, cash, loans, and diplomatic support, into Sudan. It seems that even wholesale slaughter is not enough to stop this.

The article then goes on to sum up China's not so nice foreign policy partners:

Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.

The future of China is an important one for the entire world. Glenn Reynolds is correct in showing that this demonstrates again the limits of multilateral diplomacy. Correctly, he points out that it can only work in a world and on specific issues where all the great powers have a common interest. Unfortunately, this is not often the case and does not appear likely to become a more frequent occurence in the future.

On a larger note, the US has invested significantly in China. We have delinked trade and human rights after the Chinese called Clinton's bluff on MFN. American companies have invested and will continue to invest as much as possible in China. We have worked, even under Bush, to keep China as a friend and done much to accomodate them. The US is heavily invested in the strategy of engagement paying off with China.

As someone who watches China from afar, I am not so certain this will work. The Chinese have shown themselves to excel at foreign policy. They consistently seem to take the long view, which we struggle with in an electoral based democracy. The Chinese have ties with some of the world's worst regimes. They have assisted in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, much of the time, work at cross purposes with the US. Engagement might come back to haunt us in the future.

More on this later.

Iran: No Signs of Backing Down

2004-10-16T21:03:00.000-04:00

The AP is reporting that Iran remains committed to continuing down the road towards developing nuclear weapons.

Iran said Saturday it would reject any proposal to stop uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel, the central part of a package Washington's European allies are proposing to avoid a showdown over Iran's nuclear program.

The European countries notified the United States on Friday that they intend to offer Iran a package of economic incentives next week in hopes of persuading the country to permanently give up uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

While the U.S. administration did not endorse the offer to Tehran, they also did not try to stop the Europeans, said a U.S. official, who spoke Friday on condition of anonymity. The U.S. is pushing for U.N. sanctions against Iran.

"Iran will not accept any proposal which deprives it of the legitimate right to the cycle of (nuclear) fuel," state-run television quoted Hossein Mousavian, a top nuclear official, as saying.However, Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said his government would study any proposal that would allay concerns over its nuclear program as long as it respected Iran's right to enrich uranium.

I mentioned in a previous post that it is highly unlikely Iran will agree to any significant compromise that would prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. They might be willing to consider delaying it or, perhaps, making and breaking an agreement to delay progress in the program. However, the Iranians believe that going nuclear is a vital strategic interest and are unlikely to negotiate that away for any price.

Update: The Washington Post has more on this, here. The article contains this cheerful section:

The initiative emerged not only because the Europeans want to try at least one more time, but also because of the potential difficulties of winning agreement at the IAEA meeting next month and then at the U.N. Security Council if Iran does not comply, European envoys said. Non-aligned countries such as South Africa, Brazil and Malaysia fear that any move against Iran would set a precedent limiting their potential to develop nuclear energy programs, thediplomats said.
"It's one thing to say we'll go to the Security Council," said a European informed about the new diplomacy, "and another thing to get there."

That's what I call determination...

Marines Attack Fallujah

2004-10-15T07:54:00.000-04:00

So much for the big letup in the weeks before the election. Over the past week to week and a half, it appears our major attacks are increasing.

So far, I have not seen anyone admitting that the earlier stories were wrong. I am not stupid enough to hold my breath while waiting...

Bush Administration and Congress Tackle Nuclear Proliferation

2004-10-14T13:58:00.000-04:00

A PDF of the language can be found here.

The legislation calls for the program to undertake the following:

(A) Accelerated efforts to secure, remove, or eliminate proliferation-attractive fissile materials or radiological materials in research reactors, other reactors, and other facilities worldwide.
(B) Arrangements for the secure shipment of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment to other countries willing to accept such materials and equipment, or to the United States if such countries cannot be identified, and the provision of secure storage or disposition of such materials and equipment following shipment.
(C) The transportation of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment from sites identified as proliferation risks to secure facilities in other countries or in the United States.
(D) The processing and packaging of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment in accordance with required standards for transport, storage, and disposition.
(E) The provision of interim security upgrades for vulnerable, proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment pending their removal from their current sites.
(F) The utilization of funds to upgrade security and accounting at sites where proliferation-attractive fissile materials or radiological materials will remain for an extended period of time in order to ensure that such materials are secure against plausible potential threats and will remain so in the future.
(G) The management of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment at secure facilities.
(H) Actions to ensure that security, including security upgrades at sites and facilities for the storage or disposition of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment, continues to function as intended.
(I) The provision of technical support to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), other countries, and other entities to facilitate removal of, and security upgrades to facilities that contain, proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment worldwide.
(J) The development of alternative fuels and irradiation targets based on low-enriched uranium to convert research or other reactors fueled by highly-enriched uranium to such alternative fuels, as well as the conversion of reactors and irradiation targets employing highly-enriched uranium to employment of such alternative fuels and targets.
(K) Accelerated actions for the blend down of highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium.
(L) The provision of assistance in the closure and decommissioning of sites identified as presenting risks of proliferation of proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment.
(M) Programs to— (i) assist in the placement of employees displaced as a result of actions pursuant to the program in enterprises not representing a proliferation threat; and (ii) convert sites identified as presenting risks of proliferation regarding proliferation-attractive fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment to purposes not representing a proliferation threat to the extent necessary to eliminate the proliferation threat. (2) The Secretary of Energy shall, in coordination with the Secretary of State, carry out the program in consultation with, and with the assistance of, appropriate departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government. (3) The Secretary of Energy shall, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, carry out activities under the program in collaboration with such foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and other international entities as the Secretary of Energy considers appropriate for the program.

Good news - lets hope it becomes reality.

Our Friends the Russians

2004-10-14T13:51:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post is reporting that the Russians have finished building a nuclear plant in Iran. Please! Do not worry. After all, as the Post reports:

Russia has been building the Bushehr plant since the early 1990s. Both Moscow and Tehran maintain Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful.

Right. The Russians, (along with France, Germany, and China) continue to profit by assisting proliferators while maintaining a holier than thou attitude that these differences with the US are the result of philosophy and nuance, instead of cold hard cash.

Taiwanese Nuclear Program

2004-10-14T01:12:00.000-04:00

This is not too big of a story. The events in question took place back in the 1980s. One piece stands out:

Questions about Taiwan's past nuclear ambitions resurfaced in August after an editorial in one of the island's leading newspapers suggested that nuclear weapons would be an effective deterrent for the threat posed by mainland China, which considers the island a renegade province and refuses to renounce the use of force to assert its sovereignty.

If the US ever withdraws its support for Taiwan or appears to be pulling out of the region, it is likely Taiwan will attempt to acquire/develop nukes immediately. The same would also be true of South Korea, which has dabbled with such a program in the past. Finally, Japan would also quickly go nuclear. The Japanese already have the ability and could do so in a matter of months.

It is truly frightening to consider what repercussions would follow from Japan going nuclear. To me, there is no better argument for keeping US troops abroad and engaged throughout Asia than simply discussing the nuclear scare scenario if they were to be brought home.

More News on Iran

2004-10-13T21:09:00.000-04:00

U.S., G-8 Nations to Discuss Iran Penalty

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. It is unlikely to see much bending on the US, European, or Iranian sides in the weeks to come.

The US, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons

2004-10-13T20:38:00.000-04:00

Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association weighs in on the nuclear crisis in Iran in this months Arms Control Today. The article in question, entitled “Iran: Getting Back on Track,” criticizes US policy on Iran and suggests an approach more in sync with the European model - incentives and negotiations.

Kimball argues that:

The United States must recalibrate its strategy to complement, not complicate, the European diplomatic initiative to reduce Iran’s incentives to acquire the bomb and keep it within the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

The problem with this statement is that Iran, like North Korea before it, appears determined to acquire nuclear weapons. For Iran, the development of nuclear weapons is in Iran’s national and strategic interest. The reasons why Iran is determined to develop the bomb are numerous, but some of the most important are:

Pakistan might have developed the “Islamic bomb” first, but Iran would also gain credibility within the Islamic world and power in the Middle East.
Developing nuclear weapons would bolster the case that Iran is a great power and deserves to be treated accordingly.
Nuclear weapons would provide a powerful deterrent to any American, Israeli, or Iraqi actions against Iran.
Nukes, coupled with improve missile technology, would allow Iran to project power beyond what it currently can.
Given the removal of Saddam and the subsequent weakening of Iraq, nuclear weapons would raise the prospect of Iran becoming a regional hegemon in the Middle East.

Given these and other reasons why the bomb makes sense for Iran, it is hardly surprising that Iran has put considerable effort, money, and other resources into acquiring the components and materials necessary to produce nuclear weapons. It is unclear to me why they would willingly give this process up as it nears completion for economic and diplomatic concessions. A short term respite might be purchased, but compliance would be questionable and Iran would eventually end up producing nuclear weapons.

Kimball goes on to say:

Last year, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom persuaded Iran to agree to voluntarily and temporarily halt its uranium-enrichment program and aceept tougher International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. The deal created valuable diplomatic breathing space and the opportunity for the IAEA to gather detailed information about the full extent and nature of Iran’s program.

As I mentioned above, it is unlikely that any deal struck to delay Iran achieving nuclear weapon capability would have any long term success. As was the case with the Agreed Framework, it is likely that we might be a couple years. However, it does nothing to solve the problem and address the reasons why Iran wants the bomb.

Kimball is forced to acknowledge the difficulties of such an approach, especially given that Iran is committed to acquiring the bomb:

Iran has grudgingly allowed the IAEA extensive access and information about its covert projects. But several questions remain, including whether Iran has already enriched uranium. And, last spring, Iran began to undermine confidence by delaying the entry of inspectors and by continuing to manufacture parts for centrifuges for the enrichment process.

The leaders of energy-rich Iran insist these activities are for peaceful purposes and are allowed under the NPT. Their assurances are hardly reassuring. Uranium-enrichment technology cannot only be used tro produce low-enriched fuel for power reactors, but also weapons grade nuclear material.

Even after increased inspections have occurred, it is still not clear whether Iran is, in fact, cheating. Will it be possible to conclude with anything approaching 95% confidence that Iran is not developing nukes via these inspections? It seems highly doubtful to me. Iranian attempts to stall inspectors and prevent access to facilities reduce confidence, as Kimball notes. Regardless of the level of Iranian compliance, Kimball and other arms control advocates will continuously push an agenda that consists of inspections and incentives followed by more inspections and incentives. In the case of determined proliferators, this approach simply will not work. If this is ever acknowledged by anyone in the arms control community, it will be a first :)

Arguably, it makes sense for Iran to engage in some diplomatic games to stave off the possibility to major sanctions or preemptive action until nukes have been developed. At that point, sanctions and preemption make far less sense.

Regardless, European – American consensus on sanctions and/or preemptive action will prove near impossible. The likelihood of France, Russia, or China allowing either to occur in the Security Council is slim.

Given the inability of the IAEA to verify compliance, even with increased inspections, it is clear that the NPT can vouchsafe that states are not working on developing nuclear weapons. Again, the regime is in trouble.

Kimball concludes by saying:

Even if Iran complies with NPT commitments now, it may still choose to follow the nuclear weapons route in the future. Given the stakes, the United States must counter arguments from Iranian hard-liners who wrongly believe that nuclear weapons will enhance Iran’s prestige and counter Israel’s nuclear arsenal. To help do so, Washington should reiterate its long-standing commitment to achieve a Middle-East nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Time is running out. The situation demands a new and more sophisticated US strategy that increases Iran’s incentives to halt its dual-purpose nuclear projects and reinforce the view within Iran that it does not need and will not benefit from nuclear weapons.

There is no silver bullet for this issue. Incentives and negotiations only work when you have a partner committed to the process. Iran, due to its own conception of the national interest and its understanding of its strategic environment, is not likely to back down from its decision to acquire nukes. Short of force, Iran will be a nuclear power. All the negotiations, incentives, and diplomatic grandstanding in the world will change this.

It is only a matter of time until Iran joins the nuclear club.

About Face on Iran?

2004-10-13T10:37:00.000-04:00

Apparently, the Bush administration is considering positive incentives to encourage Iran to free its nuclear weapons development program. The story, found here, potentially represents a major shift in US policy towards Iran. It will likely be spun as a significant setback for the Bush team based on failed policies.

The problem with the blame game is that it ignores the real problem of dealing with states determined to acquire nuclear weapons. The closer they get, the options become grimmer and grimmer. Short of military strikes, what other choices is left to the Bush administration or a Kerry administration? The Clinton team, which talked very tough on North Korea, was forced into the Agreed Framework. Everyone knew it was a bad deal and had little chance of long term success, but what other choice was there? The costs were just too high for other alternatives.

In the case of Iran today, the likelihood of American preemption remains low. With US troops busy stabilizing Iraq, we cannot afford another major conflict in the Middle East. If anything, we need to keep relations on friendly (relative when speaking of US-Iran) terms with Iran to solve the problems of Iraq. Further, military strikes on Iran by the US would likely inflame nationalism in Iran and shore up the crumbling base of the ruling government there. The worst case scenario would be Israeli preemption on Iran's nuclear facilities.

When compared to the above, the two options are to do nothing and talk tough or to hash out the best deal we can for the time being. Make no mistake, Iran wants nuclear weapons and sees it as a strategic imperative to acquire them. They will go nuclear at some point, unless physically stopped by the US. It will be interesting to see whether, if Bush strikes a deal with the Iranians, he is hailed for his diplomatic coup as the Clinton administration was when the Agreed Framework was signed.

On a broader note, the old nuclear nonproliferation regime is crumbling. The NPT has taken hammer blows from nonmember states developing nukes (India, Pakistan and most likely Israel) and from member states (Iran and North Korea) using the treaty as a shield as they worked on nuclear weapons programs. The NPT recognizes five nuclear weapon states (NWS) - US, Russia, France, Britain, China - and now we can add India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and possibly Iran to that list. That represents a doubling in less than 10 years of the number of nuclear weapon states. South Africa, which developed nukes then gave them up, did so without anyone being the wiser.

A number of other states (Germany and Japan) could easily develop nuclear weapons if they so desired and do so in a very short time. Only their current security guarantee and place under the nuclear shield of the US renders this unnecessary.

In the case of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), it is possible for states to develop nukes without physically testing a bomb. South Africa, Israel, and (most likely) North Korea have already done this.

The future is dark indeed when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The old regimes are failing in the aftermath of the Cold War. New measures are required. Preemption was held up by the Bush administration, but we have already seen its limitations and, dare I say, failings? Absent other effective policy options, short term agreements to delay rather than end a states nuclear aspirations might be the best we can hope for...

Australia to Preempt!

2004-10-13T10:17:00.000-04:00

Australia will preempt when necessary. It appears newly reelected PM John Howard views the vote as a mandate on support for the US and the Bush Doctrine.

Which is it?

2004-10-12T20:47:00.000-04:00

On the one hand, we have stories discusisng increased US military activity in Iraq prior to the elections (here) and on the other we have stories saying such attacks are unlikely prior to the election (here).

Personally, I hope the LA Times (no major offensives leading up to elections) turns out to have egg on its face on this one...

Good News from Syria: Part II

2004-10-08T19:28:00.000-04:00

In what appears to be another piece of good news (see link here) regarding US-Syrian relations, Syria is poised to take dramatic steps to improve its relations with the US.

WASHINGTON - Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq (news - web sites), a former senior State Department official said Wednesday.

"Something is going on in Syria and it is time for us to pay attention," said Martin Indyk, assistant secretary of state for the Near East and U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration...

On peacemaking, Assad offered to hold talks with Israel without preconditions, Indyk said, and had made several overtures to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) that Sharon rebuffed.

In the past, Indyk said, Syria had insisted that any peace talks should resume where they left off during the Clinton administration — with Israel offering to give up all of the Golan Heights, a strategic area Israel won in the 1967 Mideast war.

And, Indyk said, Assad had dropped a demand that Israel reach an agreement with the Palestinians before Israel could resume negotiations with Syria.

On the domestic side, Indyk said, Assad spoke "about the need to reform the government."

This certainly represents a dramatic change in Syrian foreign policy. It was less than a year ago that Syria was still being considered as the next target on the US "regime change" world tour. Syria appeared to be a charter member of the "nearly" Axis of Evil, along with Libya. Now, Libya represents a powerful example of the ramifications of the Bush Doctrine. Syria is apparently moving down a very similar road, driven by fear of being the next Iraq or Afghanistan.

Relations between the US and Syria need to be followed closely in the coming weeks and months. If Libya and Syria are frightened into changing their behavior by the Bush Doctrine, it makes a powerful case that it can succeed where traditional diplomacy, engagement, and positive inducements have failed for years.

If George Bush loses the upcoming presidential election, it will be interesting to see whether Syria and Libya will continue down this path to international respectability with a President Kerry in charge of the US.

A Worthy Read

2004-10-05T20:33:00.000-04:00

Check out Jane Galt's thoughts on global warming/climate change. Since finding Jane's blog, Asymmetrical Information, I have become a big fan. She is a great writer and someone who always has a clear argument to make, whatever the issue.

Some highlights from her blog entry include:

When most westerners talk about living "sustainably", they certainly aren't thinking about what this would really mean: living with rotten teeth, frostbite in winter and heatstroke in summer, once-a-week baths, the majority of the population working as farmers or manual labourers, washing 10 or 12 dirty diapers every day with water you heat yourself on the stove (hell, washing all your clothes in water you heat yourself on the stove . . . and washing the floor that way . . . and the children . . . ), going for years without eating a meal you didn't cook at least some part of, living within walking distance of where you work (and think, in New York City, of what close quarters this would entail in midtown!) Most people, I think, imagine themselves buying a hybrid car and doing a little gardening. But for carbon to stay in balance, everyone on the planet would be able to consume about, oh, what Americans did in 1900. People can't imagine that, for two reasons. First, because they are not educated; they have no idea how big the gap between their consumption and ours really is. But also, people who are at all educated about the era are generally educated by novels . . . but the novels are almost always written about the upper-middle class, or above. So that even someone with a more-than-passing familiarity with the era has little emotional grasp of how many people had to live in really quite abject poverty in order to support the thin layer of affluent Edwardians they've read about. Also, they tend to overgeneralise from their experience of spending a few weekend hours clearing brush or canning strawberries to what it was actually like to spend your whole life working on a farm. I'm really astonished at how little grasp women seem to have of the fact that what has freed women to work outside the home is not the feminist movement, but General Electric and the processed foods industry.

And

the biggest worry for environmentalists right now isn't the US -- it's the fact that China has 1.2 billion people getting richer very fast. They'll surpass the US as the leading emitters of carbon dioxide sometime in the middle of the next decade, and their government lacks even America's cordial disinterest in environmental protection. Not only that -- it looks like it's getting ready to get rid of the one-child policy. Then there's India's 900 billion coming up fast from the outside. It seems quite unlikely that these countries will endorse emissions reduction while they still have people living in dire poverty. There may be literally nothing the West can do about climate change short of invading two nuclear powers.

She captures the core of the climate change debate. The only way to address the issue is to take drastic action. There are two problems with this. First, there is no way an American politician is going to advocate this type of action, regardless of party. Second, the likelihood of crafting a global agreement that everyone can get on board with is about nil. Even Kerry was forced to admit this fatal flaw in the Kyoto accord (I wish I had the link and the quote but I threw out the magazine and its not available online) in the October issue of Field and Stream magazine.

US - Syrian Relations: A Win for the Bush Doctrine?

2004-10-02T09:53:00.000-04:00

A Washington Times story from October 2 claims that US-Syrian relations are improving and it just might be due to the Bush Doctrine.

The article, found here, reports that:

Syria seeks to curry favor with the Bush administration...

Powell had what he described as "good, open and candid meeting" with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa on the sidelines of last week's United Nations General Assembly meeting.

He praised Syrian pledges to do more to control the notoriously porous border with Iraq, which U.S. officials say has been a primary crossing point for Islamist radicals fighting U.S.-led forces.

The Bush administration also praised Syria's decision -- under heavy international pressure -- to redeploy some of the estimated 20,000 Syrian troops in neighboring Lebanon...

Syria under Mr. Assad is desperate for economic growth; it watched the U.S. military campaign against Saddam Hussein with growing alarm.

If these promises and pledges become reality, it will certainly be a coup for the administration. Syria, previously defiant in the face of US criticism and threats, is now apparently willing to play ball and, apparently, is looking for the best possible way out of a bad situation.

Any Syrian crackdown on cross border traffic to Iraq would ease the task currently faced by US-Iraqi authorities in closing off Iraq to foreign fighters. Clearly, this would not solve the problem (even along the Syrian border), but would provide some breathing room for the US to get this situation under control.

It would indeed be a major accomplishment and vindication for Bush if this were to happen. The invasion of Iraq would have produced dramatic changes in two rogue states that have sought to acquire WMD and have sponsored terrorism. Outside of the formally named Axis of Evil, Libya and Syria would be next on any list of problem states. Both publicly changing longstanding behavior due to the US military actions post 9/11 would provide solid evidence that the Bush Doctrine is working.

The two areas that present potential bumps in this scenario are, of course, Israeli actions and the reaction of the neo-conservatives in the US.

And Mr. Landis said Mr. Powell's relatively benign remarks about Syria's recent moves are rejected by hard-liners in the Pentagon and elsewhere, who feel that a weakened Syria is now even more likely to bow to direct pressure rather than diplomatic rewards.

If it is possible to induce Syria to change its behavior (via diplomatic pressure, the threat of force, and even some incentives) and Syria will demonstrate this by taking tangible/verifiable steps in this direction, it is important that the US respond to these overtures. Failing to do so would weaken the Bush Doctrine and potentially turn a bad situation into one with a lot of upside without firing a bullet.