|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| July 18, 2002 |
Our Continuing National Priority
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
In unveiling his "National Strategy for Homeland Security" on July 16, President Bush declared: "Protecting Americans from attack is our most urgent national priority." A priority it may be, but the methods to be used to implement security cannot be allowed to subvert continued achievement of another national priority: preservation of individual rights -- which can also be expressed as freedom from unwarranted government intrusion.
The new strategy rests on two very questionable assertions: September 11 changed the world; and it is possible to provide complete, or near complete, security from future attacks by countries or by terrorists, whether home-grown or foreign.
September 11 did not change the world. It merely changed our perception of the world in relation to the United States. Americans vaguely knew there were countries and individuals hostile to our aims, our policies, and our economic, political, cultural, and military dominance. But because of this seeming dominance, too many in government and the population at large assumed that the United States was immune from many of the world's problems. But this comforting assumption was, by and large, merely the happy result of an accident of geography.
What the real lesson of September 11 should be is that we cannot shut out the world; if we are unwilling to engage (not dictate to or direct) the world, it will engage us. This means that we will be secure within our borders, physically and psychologically, only to the extent that we can foster a parallel sense of security among as many nations as possible. And we must recognize that this "sense of security" comes down to one fundamental point that intersects with the second (but not secondary) priority: being able to exercise accountable, reasonable control of one’s own life -- that is, freedom from overbearing government.
The mania for absolute security runs afoul of freedom. Security is, first and foremost, a psychological state that springs from a sense of order, of predictability in natural events and human relationships. But both nature and human interactions are fundamentally chaotic; although we might reasonably predict the course of each, they both are at bottom beyond our control. Thus, even before the debate is joined, it is imperative to understand that there is no plan of action that will assure homeland security.
This in turn suggests that the real challenge before the nation is deciding what is and is not broken in our current institutions, what can be reasonably changed (in terms of money, organization, time, human talent) to increase predictability and thus mitigate adverse consequences from unwanted events, and then leave alone those things that don’t need "fixing."
Predictably, given the battle between the executive and legislative branches for control of money, the extent of oversight, and now election-year politics, the focus of the debate will center on the proposed new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. The drive is on to complete action on proposed legislation by September 11 of this year. But to do so, given the month-long congressional recess in August, likely means less than due consideration of the proposal. Not only does the administration face opposition to the structure of the new department, it also faces resistance to its desire to minimize congressional oversight (a favorite Bush administration theme in other realms, both defense/security and non-defense).
But the real clash of priorities -- that between security and freedom -- lies elsewhere. Will the active duty military be given expanded powers to operate within the United States, including engaging directly in law enforcement? Will the emphasis on gathering information about terrorists erode protections against domestic spying put in place almost 30 years ago in response to systemic government abuse?
With regard to gathering information, the administration’s plan goes well beyond official government agents. Under the TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) rubric, the administration proposes "a nationwide program to help thousands of American truck drivers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, and utility workers report potential terrorist activity." While there may be merit in asking interstate truckers, Amtrak personnel, and ship captains to be watchful as they travel for unusual or out-of-place objects, targeting postal and utility workers suggests a system of mobile “block wardens” such as were used (and are still found) in communist countries. Moreover, the administration highlighted its "Citizen Corps," the program whose "mission" will be expanded from crime prevention "to incorporate terrorism prevention and education." In short, the plan is one that would encourage Americans to routinely spy on each other and report to government officials in the name of "security."
It is the reporting part that is most troubling. Legend and literature abound with busybodies, nosey parkers, snoops, and gossips. While irritating and meddlesome, they usually were not engaged by officialdom on a routine basis. The administration’s idea encourages the systematic privatization of information collection using non-governmental organizations (e.g., transport unions) instead of government employees, thereby sidestepping a direct government role in the surveillance of ordinary Americans without probable cause.
Americans need to keep in mind that everything we do or don’t do has repercussions on the world. Those who oppose us don’t hate our freedoms; they hate our power and influence. Those who wish us well respect our freedoms and principles, recognizing that these, combined with favorable geography and an abundance of human and natural resources, are the foundation of that power and influence.
We don't really need more defenses; we need different, more thoughtful, more effective defenses -- of our country (physically) in particular, of the world in general, and above all else of our freedoms. If we do the first and last together, the middle will be automatic. But sacrificing the last for the first would only be counter-productive, for us as individuals, for the nation, and for our place in the world.
Congress Critiques New Arms Control Treaty
Devon Chaffee, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow, dchaffee@cdi.org
Kicking off congressional discussions on the recently concluded Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), Secretary of State Collin Powel (July 9) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers (July 17) testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There were no signs of congressional opposition to ratification of the treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at the Moscow summit in May. The Senate committee did, however, make clear its intention to be involved in the implementation and verification process, bringing to light a number of concerns not addressed in the brief treaty’s language.
One main concern expressed by the Senators was over number of warheads and delivery vehicles that the United States intends to maintain under the new regime, given that the treaty does not mandate any dismantlement. Powell estimated that, in total, the United States plans to keep 4,600 warheads, deployed and in reserve, resulting in a reduction of at least 1,400 warheads, though Rumsfeld said this number was not etched in stone.
Powell also suggested that the United States planned to remove some missiles, launchers and bombers from operational service, though he gave no specific figures for elimination of delivery vehicles. Rumsfeld filled in some of these specifics, stating that the Unted States plans to take out 50 Peacekeepers, each with 10 warheads, to move four Trident submarines out of the strategic force and not to maintain the nuclear capabilities on the B-1s.
Another issue raised by the committee was how SORT verification will be completed after the START treaty’s implementation measures end in December 2009. Though the administration has insisted that START procedures will be used to verify the new agreement, SORT will not end until December 2012 and there are no set benchmarks against which reductions can be verified in the interim.
When Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. D-Del. inquired why the administration did not address this clear obstacle to verification during treaty negotiations, Powell replied that the bilateral implementation committee would be responsible for addressing this issue. Furthermore, Rumsfeld noted that verification is less important given recent changes in U.S.–Russian relations, and that the lack of benchmarks was necessary for U.S. flexibility. Rumsfeld did, however, note several times the value of increased transparency through the treaty process.
Though SORT intentionally focuses on strategic weapons, several members, including Senators Biden, Richard Lugar R-Ind., and Ben Hagel R-Neb., voiced concern over the lingering issue of tactical nuclear weapons, which remain outside all existing arms control regimes. In response, Powell suggested that a portion of the $20 billion dollars that will be provided through a G-8 partnership for threat reduction efforts should be used towards resolving tactical nuclear weapons concerns in Russia.
Finally, Senator Russel. Feingold D-Wis., voiced concern in both hearings over the possibility of the White House pulling out of the treaty without consulting Congress. Either side may pull out of SORT simply by exercising its national sovereignty and giving three months notice, half the time required by most arms control treaties. Feingold supports the Congressional lawsuit against the current administration for pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty without formal congressional approval, though he was prohibited from participating in the suit directly. Powell maintained the administrations’ prerogative to withdraw from the ABM and SORT treaties without congressional consent.
Though it is likely that SORT will be ratified without significant opposition before the end of the year, the current congressional discussions are likely to influence Congress’ participation in the implementation process. Congress will have control over funds designated for any necessary deactivation or dismantlement of U.S. weapons as a result of the treaty. The authorization and appropriation of any Cooperative Threat Reduction funds designated to assist such processes within Russia will also require Congressional approval; assistance that Senator Lugar has suggested will be absolutely necessary for SORT implementation.
Hearings on the treaty will continue in the Senate next week.
GAO: Airborne Laser Needs Better Methodology for Determining Cost, Schedule
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
According to a new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), repeating the poor cost and schedule estimates which occurred early in the Airborne Laser’s (ABL) development program can only be avoided by the adoption of improved methodology for overseeing the program.
Air Force development of ABL began in 1996, and was transferred to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [later reorganized as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)] in 2001. The program calls for the development of a high-powered laser that can be carried aboard a modified Boeing 747 aircraft. It is intended to intercept ballistic missiles during their "boost phase" -- the moments immediately after a missile’s firing when the extreme heat of its launch make it easier to detect and track.
Originally the Air Force estimated that it would cost $2.5 billion to develop the ABL, with initial deployment scheduled for 2006. In August 2001, however, the Air Force determined that system development would take longer in order for critical technologies to mature. Development cost estimates grew to $3.7 billion -- a roughly 50 percent increase – and the scheduled initial operation date slipped to 2010.
According to the GAO’s report, "the Air Force was unable to meet the Airborne Laser’s original cost and schedule goals because it established those goals before it fully understood the level of effort that would be required to develop the critical system technology needed to meet the user’s requirements." It continues: "some critical technologies that the system’s design depends upon remain immature, making it very difficult, even today, for analysts to establish realist cost and schedule goals."
In order to overcome these problems, the GAO recommends that the Air Force fully implement a system of "knowledge-based practices" that characterize successful development programs. In his prepared testimony before the House Government Reform subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations on July 16, Robert Levin, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at GAO discussed such practices. According to Levin, "in successful developments, developers make decisions when the focus and cost of program activities is [sic] about to change. At these points, the developers decide whether they have the knowledge to begin new activities and whether investing further time and money in their product is the best use of their resources."
Specifically, the GAO recommends including in the ABL development program a series of pre-determined decision points at which program officials would determine if they are ready to move ahead to the next phase. The report recommends decision points as the program moves from technology development to system integration (linking subsystems and technologies), from system integration to system demonstration (testing and evaluation), and from system demonstration to production.
The report acknowledges that, given the technical complexities of developing such a highly sophisticated system as ABL, "there is no one approach that ensures that a developer can deal successfully with [all] the unknowns." According to GAO, however, the adoption of the recommended improvements in overseeing the development process make it "much more likely" that the MDA can determine realistic cost and scheduling targets for the ABL program.
For additional information, see "Missile Defense: Knowledge-Based Decision Making Needed to Reduce Risks in Developing Airborne Laser," GAO-02-631, July 12, 2002.
FBI Official Says Bin Laden is Dead -- FBI Executive Assistant Director Dale Watson, the bureau’s head of counterterrorism, told a national conference of police officials that while he has no specific evidence to prove it, he personally believes Osama bin Laden is dead. This is the first time a high ranking government official has stated publicly an opinion about bin Laden’s fate, something Bush administration officials have avoided doing. The FBI has not commented on the statement, while White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer has said that "nobody knows" whether bin Laden is alive.
British to Restructure Army -- The British Government is planning a major overhaul of the army in order to increase its mobility and deployability, according The Telegraph of London. British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to outline the plans before Parliament on July 18, to correspond with the publication of a government White Paper. According to reports, the army will eliminate three heavy armored regiments, while the current two divisions will become three as a result of the merging of a number of light infantry units, including possibly the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marine commandos in a special light division. The 3 Mechanised Division, based in England, will replace its heavy Challenger 2 tanks with new lighter tanks and armored vehicles. This will leave just one heavy division -- 1 Armoured Division based at Herford, Germany.
Navy Gets Go-Ahead for Use of New Sonar -- The U.S. Navy is permitted to deploy a controversal new sonar as the result of a waiver granted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) exempting them from federal rules protecting marine mammals. The Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS LFA) is an low-frequency active sonar system designed to detect quiet submarines at very long ranges. Critics of the system say that it is harmful to sea life, particularly marine mammals, and the Navy admits that the extremely high decibels emitted by the sonar can cause death in marine mammals, but says that restrictions on the use of the system -- no closer than 12 miles of the shoreline and not when mammals are within 1.1 miles of the system -- will safeguard the animals. The waiver is for five years and will be reviewed annually.
South Koreans Protest U.S. Military -- Nearly 1,000 South Koreans took part in protests July 14 outside the U.S. Army base in Uijongbu in the outskirts of Seoul, demanding that the U.S. military hand over two American soldiers whose armored vehicle allegedly hit and killed two South Korean teenage girls last month. The incident occurred during a training mission near the North Korean border on June 13. The armored bridge carrier driven by the two soldiers struck and killed the 14 year-old girls on a public road. On July 5 the U.S. military it had filed negligent homicide charges against the soldiers after days of protests. Initially the military announced that it would not court martial the soldiers. If convicted in a U.S. military court, the soldiers could face up to six years in prison.
Quotation of the Week -- "I don't think anybody is holding up [the current weapons acquisition system] as a model of efficiency, but I think it has been a model of transparency and oversight. And one of the reasons we are having this hearing today is that if this [reorganization of the Missile Defense Agency] continues to go forward as the way the Pentagon has proposed it, I fear and others fear that you can kiss that goodbye. You won't be having meaningful oversight hearings any more, because you won't have any method by which to measure progress or costs as things go on," Rep. John Tierney D-Mass., Hearing of House Government Reform Subcommittee for National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, July 16, 2002.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "Iraq Attack?"
SUPERPOWER, together with foreign experts from around the world, examines the timely issues that affect the United States. Superpower explains the foreign take on world events and their relationship to the world's only superpower.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "Iraq Attack?"
This week, Superpower examines the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike by the U.S. on Iraq. Will countries in the Middle East support a U.S. invasion of Iraq? How about the rest of the world?
This week's episode will feature a discussion of Bush administration's plan to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Guests Janine Zacharia, Washington Bureau Chief for the Jerusalem Post; Umit Enginsoy, of NTV (Turkish Television); Jurek Martin, The Financial Times; and Charles Duelfer, Visiting Resident Scholar, at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
WHERE TO SEE SUPERPOWER:
SUPERPOWER is aired in the Washington, DC area on Wednesday at 8:30pm on MHz, and again on Sunday at 12:30pm on MHz2 (check local listings at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html).
Superpower is broadcast nationwide:
WorldLinkTV, Channel 9410 on Echostar Communications Corporation's DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system. Superpower and WorldLinkTV are available on Channel 375 on DIRECTV® satellite TV service.
Broadcast times for Superpower: Global Affairs TV on WorldLinkTV
Saturdays: 6:30 p.m. EDT
Sundays: 2:30 a.m., 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. EDT
To see when Superpower broadcasts on WorldlinkTV and your DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system or your DIRECTV® satellite TV service, please visit: http://www.worldlinktv.com/cgi-bin/displayProgram.cgi?code=superpower
For more information, please send an e-mail to: info@superpowertv.org. For free transcripts of past shows, go to www.superpowertv.org