Armchair Generalist

Neocons Say, Beware of China

SHORTER Bob Kagan: "Obama's being a pussy about confronting China's massive military build-up."

China's defense budget in 2008 was $57 billion, or just under one-tenth of the US defense budget. In 2009, China will spend around $70 billion - or just over one-tenth of the US defense budget. It's a funny thing, Bob - when nation-states have a booming economy and a large geographical area with lots of well-armed neighbors, they tend to buy more weapon systems. Neocons view this as "threatening" and want to negotiate over the barrel of a gun. Realists understand it as a natural progression of an evolving superpower and want to negotiate as a potential partner.

Jones Talks On Afghanistan

It is with some relief that I read Der Spiegel's interview with Gen (ret) Jimmy Jones, the National Security Adviser, and find his words to be straightforward and logical. But ugh, he has to start off with the heavy rhetoric about "terrorists getting nuclear weapons..."

SPIEGEL: What is the gravest threat to the American homeland today?

Jones: I worry most about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in such a way that they could be acquired by non-governmental organizations, like terrorist groups, especially the radical groups that we know are trying to get these weapons. We're convinced that if they were to get them, they would use them. When a nation state has a nuclear weapon, it's a little bit easier to control the use of it, but for non-governmental groups it's much more difficult. We are obviously worried about North Korea and Iran, but the threat that's hardest to control is the non nation states, groups of individuals who could acquire such a weapon and what they would do.

I wonder if there's a translation issue here, I don't think he meant to imply that terrorist organizations are NGOs or "non-nation states." What the general meant to say was "non-state actors." Come on, James. You say this, SecState Clinton and the president have said this, but you don't really act like it, and I know the DOD doesn't think so. It's certainly not where all the money and attention is focused these days, and you know it. I suppose this rhetoric offers the president some type of argument to push for his nonproliferation agenda. 

SPIEGEL: The Obama administration is reviewing the strategy for Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, is asking for additional troops.

Jones: Generals always ask for more troops. Take it from me.

SPIEGEL: You would know. You're also a general and you were in Afghanistan from 2003 to almost 2007 ...

Jones: ... and of course when I was there I asked for more troops. When we started in 2003, we had to develop a plan. So by definition, you have to ask for people.

Heh. You always voice the position from the seat you're sitting in.

SPIEGEL: Afghanistan is famously referred to as the "graveyard of empires."

Jones: I know and that's why I say we cannot solve the problems with only military forces. You can keep on putting troops in, and you could have 200,000 troops there and the country will swallow them up as it has done in the past. There are many empires who tried to make Afghanistan a stable and different country, and there have always been neighbors which were not interested in a stable and centralized government. That's why I think it's not a US or European reconstruction program exclusively. We should encourage all of the neighbors to participate.

Gen. Jones is a very smart man. I hope others inside the Pentagon are listening.

Chem Demil Update

The US Army Chemical Materials Agency notes that an Oregon judge has ruled in favor of continuing incineration of its chemical munitions. Color me unsurprised.

Petitioners had challenged Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality on the approval of a Temporary Authorization Request for the trial burn of mustard agent containing elevated levels of mercury. Petitioners had questioned the use of incineration as the best available technology, claiming other, safer methods were readily available and should be used instead. Petitioners had also alleged that the state agency had allowed the Army to operate in violation of hazardous waste laws, without a Clean Air Act Permit, and without adequate characterization of wastes. Hearings began on Oct. 26, 2009, and, after three days of testimony and argument, Judge Marcus ruled against petitioners on all counts.  
 -----------
 “We are confident in our technology in terms of eliminating the stockpile and in doing so safely and effectively,” said Col. Robert B. Billington, Project Manager for Chemical Stockpile Elimination at the CMA. “Scientifically, our technology continues to withstand these kinds of legal challenges and Judge Marcus’ ruling once again shows that the best available technology is truly in place to ensure public safety and environmental protection.

“Now we can shift our focus out of the courtroom and back to the mission at hand—safe, total and complete elimination of the stockpile and the risk it poses to our communities.” 

The next time you wonder why the Army's chem demil program is over budget and behind schedule, take a look at all the failed lawsuits that these idiotic critics of the program have brought forth. Certain members of Congress use these critics to get federal pork in their states, which adds to the waste of time and money. So instead of completing the stockpile destruction by 2012, it's going to extend to beyond 2017 primarily because of the actions of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Repub Pols Hate Veterans

Here it is, with Veterans Day coming up, and the Republican politicians are playing games with veteran's benefits. 

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is blocking critical legislation that will provide health care, counseling, and a stipend for caregivers.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) tried to say that military vets would rather have private health care than VA care. 

I just don't understand how the "national security" party can turn its back on the soldiers that it sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congratulations to Germany

Twenty years after the Wall fell, the Germans let loose with some heavy partying. I thought I could summarize a few words that weren't cliche, but Matt Yeglasius does it so much better.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan has a nice story on the Cold War history of Berlin.

Listen to Massa

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), a former Navy officer and Naval Academy graduate, makes the argument that it's time to conclude the conflict in Afghanistan.

Let's Waste A Lot of Money

One of the more frustrating things for me is how easily the Obama administration continues the Bush administration's homeland security paranoia in the execution of its programs. The proliferation of radiation detectors across the country, along our borders and in our seaports, continues unabated - even though the chance of a nuclear bomb being smuggled into the country is just about the most absurd thing possible to imagine as a threat.

Radiation portal monitors (RPMs)—installed by the DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—are capable of detecting radiation emanating from nuclear devices, dirty bombs, special nuclear materials, natural sources and isotopes commonly used in medicine and industry. The technology offers CBP a non-intrusive means to scan 100 percent of vehicles and cargo containers for radiation entering the country while facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and trade.

Completing this project ahead of schedule—the final installation of RPMs finished on Oct. 29 at the Trout River, N.Y., port of entry—represents another critical step in the Department’s efforts to strengthen the interconnected U.S. border security network by installing new technology, deploying personnel to key locations along borders and upgrading aging port infrastructure to meet modern-day security needs.

Using a system that operates without emitting radiation—much like a radio receiver—RPMs respond to certain types of energy and indicate the strength of the received energy to the trained operator. In the case of any alert by a portal monitor, CBP follows strict protocols to quickly determine whether the source of radiation is a potential terrorist threat, a natural source or a legitimate medical/industrial source of radiation.

There was a rumor a while back that DNDO was going away - no such luck. Instead, we're going to continue the heightened paranoia and stop border crossings every time a radiation monitor goes off, for whatever trivial reason it is. What a great thing it would be if someone in the White House (forget about Congress) had the courage to say, hey, let's get rid of the jersey barriers, let's get rid of BioWatch and these radiation detectors, let's stop treating every visitor to the United States as if they were a potential terrorist, and just focus intelligently to real threats that have a real probability of killing people. One could start with domestic hate groups and indigenous diseases, for instance... 

Preparing for Anthrax Attacks

About two weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security released guidance on how first responders should act if (not when) a terrorist attacks a city with aerosolized anthrax. 

The proposed guidance recommends protective measures such as personal protective equipment and decontamination and hygiene procedures for first responders, public health and medical professionals, skilled support personnel, essential workers in critical infrastructure sectors, certain federal and private sector employees, and volunteers.

The guidance - developed by a federal working group consisting of experts from more than a dozen agencies relating to biodefense, infectious diseases, and occupational health and safety - reflects the most current understanding of the unique environment that would exist after a wide-area anthrax attack. It comes in response to a 2008 Homeland Security Council tasking requiring the development of appropriate measures for responders in the immediate post-attack environment of an aerosolized anthrax attack.

If you go to the draft guidance, it's interesting that the scenario against which this is planned envisions a wide-area attack of aerosolized anthrax, not weapon-grade or modified, but covering hundreds of miles. That is to say, completely unlike the attack we saw in Oct-Nov 01. 

This guidance applies to a particular scenario:  a wide-area anthrax attack in a large U.S. city.  These recommendations may not be appropriate for all biological attack scenarios, or even for all anthrax attack scenarios.  A wide-area, outdoor aerosol attack employing B. anthracis spores would present different challenges than a smaller scale or indoor anthrax attack or attacks involving other agents.  Specifically, these recommendations apply to a scenario in which a quantity of B. anthracis spores in a liquid or dried preparation is disseminated as a small-particle aerosol generated by a spraying device.  The spores could be released from a single point or along a dissemination line from either a ground-based (e.g., truck mounted sprayer) or an airborne (e.g., crop-duster) delivery vehicle.  The scenario assumes meteorological conditions that would favor maximum plume dissemination and could result in an affected area that could encompass hundreds of square miles and potentially expose hundred of thousands to spores. 

On the one hand, I find it interesting that, for all the anxiety and talk about smallpox being the biggest BW terrorist threat, here's the first draft guidance coming out on anthrax instead. I don't believe that this guidance is doing any service being so specific to anthrax and to a (let's face it) worst-case scenario, rather than a more generic biological threat. But it does provide a vehicle for the states to purchase lots and lots of hazardous material gear and other items with DHS grants, and I suppose that's the real underlying purpose. It's not that the threat is probable, but the states want to spend that federal government money.

Helping Those at Fort Hood

From the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:

In the aftermath of Thursday's tragedy at Fort Hood, our community and our nation continue to mourn for those who lost their lives.

During this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, as well as with their friends and families.

If you are looking for a way to help, our friends over at TAPS (Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors) are providing crucial services to those affected, including a toll-free crisis hotline open 24 hours a day, where survivors can share their grief with those who have experienced similar tragedies.

Click here for more information on TAPS, or to make a contribution to support their work for those at Fort Hood and around the country.

Thank you for your support.

Just in case you want to reach out.

Casual Fridays

I have nothing but praise for Brian Jenkins' book, "Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?" This book takes the very rare step of critically looking at terrorists and saying, hey, let's look past the rhetoric and see what they really are doing. Unlike many technical experts such as Michael Levi who examines the difficulties of nuclear terrorism from the side of materials, Jenkins takes a long view - since the 1970s - and examines the people who've been involved in terrorism analyses as well as the terrorists. 

The most interesting aspect of this book is the idea that there is a difference between nuclear weapons capability and nuclear terror - the latter being an ability to cause terror without a nuclear weapon. Jenkins explains this is a cumulative effect, starting with scientists and analysts who all believed that future terrorists were masterminds who would hold cities hostage with NBC weapons. He calls them the "apocalyticians." Instead of working out the most probable threat - nuclear fizzles of less than 1 kiloton, which could still bring down a building - they focused on 10 kT city busters. Why? Well, why not, say the apocalyticians. Obviously all terrorists are masterminds who can craft diabolical plots, get access to expert scientists and unlimited fissile material, and only have the destruction of Western civilization on their minds.

Now add to this mix those critics of nuclear energy and wants to use the specter of nuclear terrorism as an excuse to shut down nuclear power plants; an American population who is already susceptible to terror flashes because of historical, cultural, and religious reasons; US politicians pushing fear to drive votes and government agencies pushing fear to gain budgets; and a mass media that thrives on sensationalistic newstories and unchecked rumors. Result - nuclear terror writ large. The terrorists never have to get a bomb, all they have to do is say, "sure, we're thinking of it" and the system does the work for them. 

This is a deep book. Jenkins looks at a history of bin Laden and the Chechen terrorists, as well as A.Q. Khan. He investigates the "red mercury" and "suitcase nukes" as well as the notion that terrorists could purchase fissile material or obtain it from countries with nuclear power plants. He talks about wargaming both sides of the issue - what exactly would a terrorist group do with a nuclear weapon? How are its demands going to be met? How would a government deter a terrorist organization from seeking out this capability? At the end of the book, he walks the reader through a scenario where the president of the United States has to face a situation where a nuclear bomb does go off in Manhattan. The reader is bombarded with questions - what will you do? - as two staffers, representing the extremes of the issue (a hawk and a dove) battle over the options.

There is some irony that Jenkins thought in 1979 that the fact of nuclear terrorism might provoke a crackdown on civil liberties, to include increased police actions and the use of "previously prohibited interrogation techniques." He admits that he never contemplated waterboarding, or that the bar would be so low today. Here's the bottom line:

Terrorists will never have enough nuclear weapons of sufficient destructive power to destroy an entire country. More likely, their arsenal will be limited to one or two  low-yield devices. The losses would still be tragic, but the republics will survive - wounded, angry, determined, and very dangerous.

This is not to say that we should not do anything. There are certainly actions that can and should be taken: continuing nonproliferation activities, securing highly enriched uranium, clearly stating deterrence goals, focusing on intelligence activities, and strengthening international cooperation. But at the end of the day, we cannot allow ourselves to be terrorized by the thought of "it's only a question of when, not if."

Twelve Dead at Fort Hood

There's just not much to say about the tragic news yesterday - twelve 13 dead and 30 injured as a result of a "lone gunman," now identified as an Army major. MAJ Nidal Hasan was a psychiatrist who had graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 and spent six years at Walter Reed Army Medical Clinic before moving to Fort Hood. He was not a happy man.

In an interview, his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military.

"I know what that is like," she said. "Some people can take it, and some cannot. He had listened to all of that, and he wanted out of the military, and they would not let him leave even after he offered to repay" for his medical training.
--------------
He had been affected by the physical and mental injuries he saw while working as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed for nearly eight years, according to his aunt. "He must have snapped," Noel Hasan said. "They ignored him. It was not hard to know when he was upset. He was not a fighter, even as a child and young man. But when he became upset, his face turns red." She said Hasan had consulted with an attorney about getting out of the service.

On the rare occasions when he spoke of his work in any detail, the aunt said, Hasan told her of soldiers wracked by what they had seen. One patient had suffered burns to his face so intense "that his face had nearly melted," she said. "He told us how upsetting that was to him."

It's clear that this was not a simple case of "Vietnam Vet" syndrome. He was a prior enlisted soldier who got a commission through ROTC, and was promoted to major last year. Hasan had not deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, but he was faced with the aftermath of that conflict on a very personal basis. In a big organization like the Army, and on a huge and busy base like Fort Hood, it's clear that his colleagues and other people who probably saw his behavior worsen didn't see the opportunity to intervene. With big organizations, sometimes the system fails the individuals who need the most help. It's a horrible situation, but this is what war can lead to - the injuries aren't limited to the battlefield. Thoughts and prayers with the families of the victims at Fort Hood.

UDPATE: Via Pat Lang, Hasan was not a ROTC commission but rather got his degree direct from the medical community.

Awesome Game Coming

Is This "Population-Centric" COIN?

Journalist Sean Smith of the UK Guardian offers fantastic video and commentary on the US Army's 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment as they conduct operations in Afghanistan. Ask the question, are these COIN tactics supporting the overall operations and national strategy? Hard to tell.

Make sure to watch the last two minutes for an interesting view of the medium-sized MRAPs - breaking down constantly, not helping the mission success much at all. Wow, such a good thing that DOD rushed out and bought $20 billion worth of these vehicles...

Options With the Karzai Brothers

The NY Times has a series of short op-eds from various defense analysts on the current situation in Afghanistan, given the re-election of President Karzai and his brother's ties to the drug industry and the CIA. I think Andrew Bacevich's view is the only one worth reading.

In fact, of course, the ineffectiveness, corruption, and doubtful legitimacy of the Karzai government matter quite a lot. They render that much more difficult the already imposing task of trying to pacify Afghanistan. Nation-building there is a task that we will undertake using bricks without straw.

To what end? Even if possible, pacifying Afghanistan will require many years of effort and will cost several hundred billions of dollars while consuming hundred if not thousands of American lives. Does anyone seriously think that such a “victory” if gained will drive a stake through the heart of violent jihadism? All the evidence points in just the opposite direction: the mucking around of the United States in the Islamic world, whatever our intentions (and they have seldom focused on spreading freedom and democracy), simply makes matters worse. 

At the least, this is crystal clear as compared to Fred "the madman" Kagan's point of view.

More important, though, are the following questions: Where is the equivalent work on the political side of the equation? Where is the assessment of the key changes the U.S. must insist upon in the way the Afghan government is organized and run? Where is the detailed strategy, with the list of necessary resources, for persuading President Karzai to make those changes?

One might object that any such strategy should remain secret, which is true. But, then, the details of General McChrystal’s proposed military strategy and force requirements should also have remained secret. General McChrystal has proposed a strategy to regain the initiative from the Taliban and drive change within the Afghan government.

Kagan doesn't have any answers to the political mess in Afghanistan, and neither did General McChrystal's report. McChrystal did, however, identify it as a major issue that needed to be addressed if the US government is to be successful. That's a more honest view than what Kagan can attempt.

New DHS S&T Director Confirmed

Ah, shit. Congress decided to ignore Dr. Tara O'Toole's many, many challenges, as they have voted to approve the president's nomination to the DHS Science and Technology Director. From CQ (subscription required):

The Senate confirmed the nomination of Tara O'Toole by voice vote Wednesday night to lead the Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, after Democratic leaders were able to bypass an attempt to block the nomination.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., stressed the urgency of filling the position and pushed the confirmation vote to the head of the Senate's agenda, despite recent criticism of O'Toole's political ties.

"Janet Napolitano, the secretary, called me and said, 'I am desperate for this woman to come and work for me,' " Reid said. "The country is not capable of doing all the things that need to be done as a result of not having this job filled."
----------
O'Toole has also been under fire for not reporting that she was an adviser for the Alliance for Biosecurity, a group funded by the pharmaceutical industry that conducts lobbying efforts on drug development and research.

The Homeland Security Department said no disclosure was necessary because the alliance is not an incorporated group.

What a load of horseshit from Sen. Reid. But what are you gonna do? It's done. So gird your loins for battle, let's all watch carefully how DHS works its S&T program this year. I predict... pain. Besides, Glenn Beck says she is a Marxist. But then again, he's an idiot.