The M.I.C. Rumbles On

With another new week comes another new round of notifications to Congress from the DSCA about new arms sales to various countries, mostly friendly, but others perhaps less so. Moral questions abound surrounding the sales of military weapons to various regimes throughout the world, not the least of which being whether a country can afford the expenditure, but perhaps more importantly, whether the weapons will be used to crush opposition, as may be the case in Kenya. It might also be the case that the 33 T-72's were bound for South Sudan, for the purpose of re-newing the civil war. Interfering with the transfer of arms, of course, is a dangerous game, and will probably not end well.

In Taiwan, the lack of arms sales are much more of a controversy. The Taiwanese government is being vexed by inter-department review in the Bush Administration of its desired arms package. Currently, the brouhaha is boiling down to a game of fingerpointing between the GMT and the former ruling party the DPP. Either way, this type of arms sales, including heavy duty equipment such as attack helicopters and surface to air missiles would certainly force the People's Republic of China to take notice and be concerned.

Guns by the Ton

Defense Secretary Robert Gates just finished a six day tour of Asia, selling weapons systems to India and Indonesia, primarily, completely ignoring Pres. Eisenhower's warning. (posted at bottom)

In a speech given to Indonesian Council on World Affiars (part 1 and part 2), Sec. Gates emphasized the role of Indonesia in leading the region, while affirming the U.S.' role as arms dealer. Since normalizing military ties in 2005, the Indonesian military has benefited from increasingly generous military subsidies, in an effort to compete with Vladmir Putin's 2007 negotiations. In particular, the Department of Defense has begun using "1206" authority and the Global Train and Equip program to help bolster Indonesian military capabilities against a supposed terrorist threat. Although I don't see what naval installations and F-16s have to do with fighting individual extremists.

In nuclear India, Sec. Gates sought expanded military ties, along with, as you might have guessed, more arms sales. Besides the much sought after F-16, negotiations are also reportedly underway to include India in the missile defense shield that the Pentagon is trying to set up around Asia. This foreign policy of trying to be allies with both India and Pakistan at the same time is going to come to a head at some point. The longer the establish waits to produce productive changes in policy, the more violent the anti-U.S. backlash in Pakistan. Any worries about how a dangerous arms race could emerge between the two largest emerging economies in the world, stem from overlooking the inherently profitable nature of arms races, as each side tries to outdo the other in expenditures of treasure.

In another sign of attempting to graft foreign governments into our informal empire and the machinery that powers it, the Iraqi Army is switching from the AK-47 to the M-16. Besides the obvious cultural and political ramifications of this, between spare parts and replacements, arms manufacturers in the United States stand to make a big pile of money off of this.

Two of these arms manufacturers are reporting profits based on foreign military sales. Boeing (NYSE:BA) and Raytheon (NYSE:RTN) might as well be paying the salary of the SecDef for as much as he contributes to their bottom lines. After all, there would be little money to invent better ways to drop bombs if no one was willing to buy them.

For some additional background information, here is an article about the world's military industrial complex, and the Western world's role in it, which is about 75% of the total by value. And, of course, long overdue, the speech that coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex.

Geopolitics: What Goes Bump in the Night

What is a threat? Is it a lone suicide bomber or a million man army on a hair trigger? The basis for this thought exercise, of course, is the size and quality of one's own forces. The quality and status of the American Armed Forces is beyond the scope of this current exercise, though. Therefore, for our purposes, we will assume that the U.S. is indeed the hyperpower beyond compare. So what is the biggest threat to the national security of the United States?

Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II feels not obtaining convictions in the military tribunals of terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray would be a threat to our national security. Former head of the prosecution of these prisoners, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, on the other hand, feels that opaque justice is the only way to see justice done. Even if these men were released today, how much would they still believe in the cause after up to six years of the strictly regimented and austere lifestyle afforded by Camp X-Ray's accommodations. I would be willing to bet that most of them would just go home and try to live out the rest of their lives trying to cope with what they've been through.

While Iraq may not be our 53rd state yet, the presence of 140,000 American troops means that our government throughout our continued presence in country will be forced to consider the security ramifications of a country in the middle of the most dangerous region of the world. So what a twisted web we weave when one of our NATO allies, Turkey, is potentially threatening the viability of the state that we're trying to carve out of the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. While the Bush administration characterizes the actions of the Turkish government as being responsible, this escalation will invariably agitate other regional powers, and stoke fears that Turkey seeks to impose its own order over Kurdistan.

Another threat that the Bush Administration is keenly aware of is the potential legal ramifications of the application of the Bush Doctrine. Thus, while Iran is alleged to pose a very real nuclear threat, members of the Coalition of the Willing are meeting to write and produce the 'third strike' resolution against Iran, ala the prequel to the invasion of Iraq. This incident smacks of another leading problem in the administration of the American National Security strategy, the human element of information interpretation. Documents the U.S. is using as the "smoking gun" are, predictably, be denounced as complete forgeries by the Iranian government. Curveball told the administration everything that they needed and wanted to hear about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, the accuracy of this information was criticized at the time by German Intelligence, and later by every other respectable intelligence agency that was worthy of the name. Remember this? Perhaps the thinkers in the Administration aren't creative enough to come up with another method to draw the world into another conflict that will further destabilize the energy infrastructure the world economy relies on. At any rate, there probably will be a third UN Resolution denouncing Iran. The reason for this is that the UN Security Council is about the only organization in the world that can legitimately overrule Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear energy program under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

One of the most dangerous positions in the world, though, is to be without friends. Thus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the best salesman for the Military Industrial Complex, is touring Asia, and is currently enjoying two days of talks with Indian leaders. While the stalled nuclear deal will only be tangentially discussed, one can be sure that the U.S. Military's involvement in Pakistan and India's recent sea-based missile test will be near the top of the agenda, beneath promoting weapon sales. While military relations may be the goal of this trip, see China's agreement to release information on American POWs, one has to wonder whether this will actually be realized with the white elephant of historical tensions between Pakistan and India in the room. The lingering question, though, is whether the United States can successfully balance punishing Iran for violating the NPT while at the same time rewarding India with a nuclear agreement that will allow it to continue to develop nuclear weapons and delivery platforms.

Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and presidential candidate, Dmitry Medvedev, warned in a campaign speech that the U.S. is placing Europe in a difficult position by recognizing Kosovo, yet is not taking any of the risk because of the intervening ocean. Given Russia's long term plans for Serbia, expect this issue to remain prickly.

But, of course, everyone knows that killer robots will be the primary threat of the 21st Century.

Ka-Blammo!

Why would we blow up our own satelite that we had put in orbit recently?
Why would the military deny they were blowing up a spy satelite to protect its secrets?
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Missile Defense until the exercise was over?

In deference to the prior post about not being conspiracy minded I want to say that I believe that the military has our best interest at heart with everything they do. Every soldier I have ever known has an intense sense of duty to American civilians, the American people, and to America itself.

Perhaps I am too cynical but these were all thoughts I had within 30 seconds of hearing the first news blurb on the malfunction of the satelite. I just think this kind of situation generates wild speculation from the people and requires acknowledgement of the most obvious assumptions and honest discussion from a legitimate representative of the military. That would at least begin building a trust among the more cynical American citizens like myself.

Now for a serious question; how many of our tax dollars were waisted in this fiasco?

Tons o' Guns

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 purchase 18 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.

Staring Down the Gunsights

These days there's been a lot of mention of the problematic relationship between the US and China. However, in new developments, the People's Liberation Army is reportedly seeking military nuclear cooperation with the United States. Which enemy do we have in common? Here's a brief background of the latest complications between the Eagle and the Dragon. Here, a pundit from the BBC stumbles through a discussion in the economic problems that have recently surfaced in the form of toy recalls, and at the end interestingly equates it to the military problems. Here, another pundit from the Economist raises the theory that the PLA is not necessarily under direct control of the Party's political leaders. The PLA, of course, has enjoyed a rather privileged position in the hierarchy of power, given it was the proving ground for the first generation of CCP leaders, restored order after the Cultural Revolution, and suppressed the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. Considering the anti-satellite test, it could mean that the PLA feels entitled to more of a free hand in deciding policy and weapon acquisitions.

Establishing a Christian nation

Heres another blog that explains why the concept should be scary to every normal person.

http://www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html#below

Basically the born again types believe that Jesus will return only when Israel is returned to its biblical boarders and there is then a massive war in the region, triggering the rapture and the end of the world.

So its not just the self serving ignorance bemoaned in these articles that we should fear,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=19049
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/SOFA2007results.pdf
http://www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html#below
but that we have these maniacs in the government and the military and want to start war in the middle east. Not for anything that makes sense like control of oil but to bring about the end of the world. They think the Bible is an instruction manual.

There is so much willful, self serving, ignorance among people out there that they would probably not even care if this were being reported in the old media. But CNN would rather report on skateboarding dogs than risk offending the 50% of maniacs out there who believe they are right and 26% who believe noone else has the right to think differently.