So, by my reckoning the main questions are, who sold these nuclear secrets? And which nuclear secrets were they? Does Israel have the information to make the bunker buster nuke?
The more valid question, though, is how fast can this be ignored by the mainstream media?
On a lighter note, here is a list of close calls involving nuclear weapons during the cold war. #4 is my favorite.
As always, there is a firestorm of news and protest surrounding U.S. foreign arms sales. And, of course, the countries involved are potential flashpoints for future conflicts.
From Iraq comes news that the Defense Department is bolstering its foreign military sales staff in Baghdad. In a program that was already plagued with problems of corruption and mismanagement, the problems were further compounded when the program realized the ridiculous leap in funding levels, from $200 million to $3 billion in only one year. The corruption in the acquisition process already has the potential to sour relations with our NATO ally, Turkey, as weapons bound for Iraqi troops have showed up in the hands of militant fighters fighting for an independent Kurdistan. However, due to the personnel shortage that accompanied the increased workload, the Iraqi government was forced to buy weapons from other countries. Now, members of Congress reportedly want to know whether American money was used to buy Chinese weapons for the Iraqi Army.
Arms sales, in fact, also provide one of the main sticking points between the United States and China, mainly weapons sales to the island of Taiwan. The economic problems that are the most prominent in the domestic, national discourse in U.S. relations with the PRC have been "underlined by the U.S. for years." However, the issue of Taiwan and the foreign arms sales are the basis for the other point of contention between the two superpowers. In fact this year, Section 1206 in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007, the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee establishes some pretty firm policies. Emphasis has been added by author.
More importantly, the committee believes that maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress adopted an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes China’s Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee is concerned that this law, in conjunction with an excessive military build-up by China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. The committee believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully.
Considering that Chinese military spending is growing to make the PLA one of, if not the, strongest land forces in the world, the logic of the policy is almost self-defeating. The amount of equipment and money necessary to maintain the vision of deterrence expounded by this doctrine is well beyond the means of the United States. Look for this policy to cause problems in the future, as the U.S. is left groping for a new tact to maintain the stability in the region that is so vital to the international shipping lanes. The real question that would help one in thinking of this problem is, what event could happen that would leap the PRC's political elite to abandon the current Nash Equilibrium enjoyed by all parties in the region, in favor of a military strike? To which, the U.S. is bound under law to look upon with "grave concern," as per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.
There is a new arms race brewing in South Asia, although not the usual type. In this case, the developed countries of the world are falling over themselves to provide India with the next generation of military equipment. Looking at potential spending reaching $40 billion dollars, it's not hard to imagine why countries would feel interested in the competition. Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs feels so strongly about the subject of U.S.-Indian ties that he wrote an article for the current issue of Foreign Affairs. I particularly enjoy who he actually tries to make the article sound sincere in believing that ideology trumps the buying power of the Indian rupee. Again, the subtext to the entire discussion is long-term ties with India, in the fact of a emerging threat from China in Asia.
Before going onto the next topic, enjoy a little video goodness.
Now, the JDAM is going on sale to countries in the Gulf region, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has caused quite a bipartisan reaction on Capital Hill. One should consider, though, that Israel and its lobby aren't protesting the sale in and of itself, only the fact that sales of this type reduce the strategic and technological edge enjoyed that enforced deterrence and brought stability to the region. The sale is practically dead on arrival.
Finally, in Pakistan, an assassin has taken the life of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, but that shouldn't stand in the way of ever-stronger ties developing between the U.S. and Pakistan. In particular, this event will not interfere in anyway with the proposed $2.1 billion arms deal in progress. Pakistan is slated to purchase18 F-16s of the C and D variants.
The end result of all of this is that American foreign policy, especially in the case of Pakistan, is being pulled into a cycle of arming one side to counter another threat that may or may not be of its own creation. And while arms sales and military relations reach new highs, things such as civil society and rule of law tend to be left by the way side. The Military Industrial Complex isn't exactly a democratic institution, after all. Those who are in a strong position to regulate this very important facet of foreign policy are focusing on other priorities, to say the least. Instead of controlling the number of arms distributed internationally, they are worried about the transfer of sensitive information, and the ramifications of Globalization on the MIC, but more on that later.
As part of Condoleeza Rice's new push for world peace, or just not being seen as a neo-conservative lapdog who didn't do anything but exercise and get lectured by her peers, Condi got all of the leaders from Africa's various troubled places together in Addis Ababa to get a lecture in American diplomacy. Or is American diplomacy more about lecturing? I can never keep that straight. But, anyways, in the course of a day, Condi told all the leaders that would shop up (Joseph Kabila, President of the DRC chose not to make an appearance) that they had better play nice and look good and keep the windows closed... There was no "or" or "else." Thanks for clearing all that up, Condi in your whirlwind one day of talks.
In a case of trying to have one's cake and eat it, too, the Bush Administration, through the Departments of Justice and State (re: more political interference in the federal bureaucracy) is pushing Congress to not adopt the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, which appears to be the brainchild of savedarfur.org . As loathesome as the conduct of the Bush Administration may be at times, this is by far the worst case of hypocricy and ineptitude that has been demonstrated thus far. I mean, it may not seem like the most pressing issue in the world to some, and I'm not going to touch upon the obvious question that this viewpoint raises. However, in this situation, even a little practical U.S. support in the form of even an AWACS or two tasked to administer a no-fly zone to support the UN Peacekeepers, could go a long way toward bringing about a sustainable resolution to the issue. Given the strong response that the crisis drew from the administration in the past, notably in the speeches of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, one would think that they might consider more than just their political backing. Which brings me to, perhaps, the most important question raised by this entire affair, just who is the administration protecting? Whose stock price stands to take a tumble after retirement funds and pension boards all over the country divest themselves of corporations doing business in the Sudan?
Rage is clinically proven to be a better stimulant than a morning cup of coffee.
First, These people dont deserve a special meeting with the Secretary of State, anymore than a random grouping of 6 citizens, or worse 6 corporate execs. The heads of government should not be having listening sessions where they allow special religious intrests air their opinions on non-religous issues. I know they think its a religious issue but thats the problem. There are enough people in the administration that think they need to bring on the rapture and the end of the world. Remember, in these peoples minds the end of the world is a good thing. It gets them to God faster.
Over the course of the Bush administration, there have been many famous cases of personnel management, such as the case of Valerie Plame. However, there has also been pretty severe staffing problems. Readers may remember, this Oct. 14th story in the New York Times about issues at the "Level I" level, but the problem goes much deeper than that. In the course of politicizing every political appointment in the federal bureaucracy, the Bush administration has pushed or otherwise drove highly qualified people from career positions in the various departments. From the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, to the State Department's Foreign Service Corps, from the Transportation Department's Transportation Security Officers (and the Homeland Security Department's Procurement staff), to Patent and Trademark Office's examination workforce, there is a common story of staffing problems. There is a recurrent question in recent times about whether the U.S. can survive the Bush administration, but I think the real question is whether the Bush administration can sustain itself in the one year, two months, and twenty two days that it can legally retain its authority.
In addition to driving down the unemployment rate in the greater Washington metropolitan area, this phenomenon has combined with another alarming trend in the Bush administration, that of over-classification (and more) and retroactive classification, a trend that supposedly found its origin in 9/11. Because of the volume of classified material and the resultant increase in demand for clearances, there is a backlog for security clearances that could force wait times to be most easily measured in months or years. If positions requiring security clearances are being filled by less than the best, it might explain why the Bush administration's approaches to sensitive intelligence work range from the illegal to the dysfunctional.
And the punch line is that the DHS can't properly comply with the Vacancies Reform Act.
