Charlie Duelfer and Me
Just for the record, Charlie Duelfer, who just issued his report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I served together in the State Department's old Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs during the Bush I administration under then-Assistant Secretary of State Richard Clarke (of Against All Enemies fame). I was working on the Missile Technology Control Regime and other missile proliferation issues, and I forget what Charlie was working on, but I think it had to do with technology transfer issues, and so we talked when there were problems with missile-related technology transfers.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
More Unrest in Pakistan
A bomb attack in Pakistan today that killed almost 40 Sunnis is evidence of the continuing unrest there. The Sunnis then went on a rampage against the Shiites, which prompted the government to ban all such gatherings. Is this a country that can adequately care for its atomic bombs?
A bomb attack in Pakistan today that killed almost 40 Sunnis is evidence of the continuing unrest there. The Sunnis then went on a rampage against the Shiites, which prompted the government to ban all such gatherings. Is this a country that can adequately care for its atomic bombs?
Brits First to Connect Bin Laden to Pakistani Nuclear Help
According to Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, in late November 2001, Britain's CIA, MI6, found that a Pakistani nuclear weapons designer was willing to sell a nuclear bomb design to a British undercover agent posing as a terrorist. He offered information on a dirty bomb as well as on a relatively sophisticated nuclear bomb. Woodward says that CIA agents found a diagram of a dirty bomb when they overran a bin Laden sanctuary in Afghanistan. As a result, Woodward says that Bush sent then-CIA Director Tenet to peel "back the eyeballs of" Pakistani General Musharraf. The CIA asked the Washington Post to sit on a story about the Pakistani connection because it might cause the Pakistanis to stop cooperating. Woodward concludes, "Four months later, the senior CIA official said the agency 'didn't find what we feared in Afghanistan, but is it somewhere else? I don't think we're to the bottom of this yet.'"
In a footnote, Woodward says, "This was the beginning of the operation that in 2004 uncovered the clandestine sale of nuclear technology by the head of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who later confessed to aiding Iran, North Korea and Libya." I'm not sure that this was the operation that led to exposing the A.Q. Khan network, although it may have contributed important information which allowed intelligence analysts to figure out what was going on when Libya turned its nuclear program over to the West. I think Libya's move was what exposed A.Q. Khan, and that Libya was motivated by its desire to settle the PanAm 103 incident and return to the West's good graces.
According to Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, in late November 2001, Britain's CIA, MI6, found that a Pakistani nuclear weapons designer was willing to sell a nuclear bomb design to a British undercover agent posing as a terrorist. He offered information on a dirty bomb as well as on a relatively sophisticated nuclear bomb. Woodward says that CIA agents found a diagram of a dirty bomb when they overran a bin Laden sanctuary in Afghanistan. As a result, Woodward says that Bush sent then-CIA Director Tenet to peel "back the eyeballs of" Pakistani General Musharraf. The CIA asked the Washington Post to sit on a story about the Pakistani connection because it might cause the Pakistanis to stop cooperating. Woodward concludes, "Four months later, the senior CIA official said the agency 'didn't find what we feared in Afghanistan, but is it somewhere else? I don't think we're to the bottom of this yet.'"
In a footnote, Woodward says, "This was the beginning of the operation that in 2004 uncovered the clandestine sale of nuclear technology by the head of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who later confessed to aiding Iran, North Korea and Libya." I'm not sure that this was the operation that led to exposing the A.Q. Khan network, although it may have contributed important information which allowed intelligence analysts to figure out what was going on when Libya turned its nuclear program over to the West. I think Libya's move was what exposed A.Q. Khan, and that Libya was motivated by its desire to settle the PanAm 103 incident and return to the West's good graces.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Was Kerry Wrong to Criticize Allawi?
In the vice-presidential debate, Cheney jumped on Edwards for Kerry's criticism of Allawi after his address to Congress. Kerry criticized him because Allawi was campaigning for the Republicans. The Repubicans, not Kerry, started the debasement of the Iraqi government by using it as a Republican campaign tool. A number of comparisons on TV showed the similarity between Allawi's speech and his subsequent remarks, and Bush's stump speeches on Iraq. The Washington Post reported that the Bush administration and the Bush campaign had been involved in writing Allawi's speech. Since Allawi was campaigning for Bush, it was abolutely appropriate for Kerry to criticize him. The Republicans bought and paid for Allawi, and thus they can make him jump whenever they pull his strings. The Americans are still running Iraq (at least the parts not in open rebellion). It's not like he is the head of a real government.
In the vice-presidential debate, Cheney jumped on Edwards for Kerry's criticism of Allawi after his address to Congress. Kerry criticized him because Allawi was campaigning for the Republicans. The Repubicans, not Kerry, started the debasement of the Iraqi government by using it as a Republican campaign tool. A number of comparisons on TV showed the similarity between Allawi's speech and his subsequent remarks, and Bush's stump speeches on Iraq. The Washington Post reported that the Bush administration and the Bush campaign had been involved in writing Allawi's speech. Since Allawi was campaigning for Bush, it was abolutely appropriate for Kerry to criticize him. The Republicans bought and paid for Allawi, and thus they can make him jump whenever they pull his strings. The Americans are still running Iraq (at least the parts not in open rebellion). It's not like he is the head of a real government.
Iran Claims More Powerful Missile
While the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is meeting in Seoul on how to control missile proliferation, Iran has announced that it has a missile with a range of 2,000 km, or about 1,250 miles. CNN does not say how heavy a payload it can carry to this range, which could be important in deciding whether it could carry a nuclear warhead that far. In any case, the report indicates that the new missile is almost twice as powerful as Iran's previously most powerful missile, the Shahab-3. The new missile would be capable of reaching Israel and parts of southeastern Europe.
While the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is meeting in Seoul on how to control missile proliferation, Iran has announced that it has a missile with a range of 2,000 km, or about 1,250 miles. CNN does not say how heavy a payload it can carry to this range, which could be important in deciding whether it could carry a nuclear warhead that far. In any case, the report indicates that the new missile is almost twice as powerful as Iran's previously most powerful missile, the Shahab-3. The new missile would be capable of reaching Israel and parts of southeastern Europe.
US Vetoes UN Resolution Criticizing Israel
Reuters reported that the United States on Tuesday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Israel stop its major offensive in the Gaza Strip that has cost at least 68 Palestinian lives. Eleven nations voted in favor. Britain, Germany and Romania abstained on the measure, which was drafted by Arab nations.
Blindly supporting Israel's offensive against the Palestinians is not going to help us in Iraq, or anywhere else, except in Israel and with some constituencies in the US. Bush had it backwards; the road to peace in Baghdad runs through Jerusalem. We are only asking for more Arab and Muslim hatred.
Reuters reported that the United States on Tuesday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Israel stop its major offensive in the Gaza Strip that has cost at least 68 Palestinian lives. Eleven nations voted in favor. Britain, Germany and Romania abstained on the measure, which was drafted by Arab nations.
Blindly supporting Israel's offensive against the Palestinians is not going to help us in Iraq, or anywhere else, except in Israel and with some constituencies in the US. Bush had it backwards; the road to peace in Baghdad runs through Jerusalem. We are only asking for more Arab and Muslim hatred.
Bush Is a Liar, Or Something Is Rotten in the White House, Say Dean and the NYT
Howard Dean pulled a few punches on Letterman last night, but he still spoke more clearly and honestly than anybody else, including Kerry. He spoke at length about the Sunday New York Times article on the aluminum tubes that Bush and his subordinates (Cheney, Rice, Powell) said were for centrifuges for nuclear purposes, but that the intelligence community knew were for conventional weapons uses.
Today the NYT followed up its article with an editorial saying that the administration had plenty of evidence that the tubes-for-bombs theory was baseless. The editorial says that Colin Powell "gravely damaged his reputation" by using the faulty information in his UN briefing, and that either Condi Rice fell down badly in keeping the President informed about this issue and should resign, or the President "terribly misled the public."
Howard Dean pulled a few punches on Letterman last night, but he still spoke more clearly and honestly than anybody else, including Kerry. He spoke at length about the Sunday New York Times article on the aluminum tubes that Bush and his subordinates (Cheney, Rice, Powell) said were for centrifuges for nuclear purposes, but that the intelligence community knew were for conventional weapons uses.
Today the NYT followed up its article with an editorial saying that the administration had plenty of evidence that the tubes-for-bombs theory was baseless. The editorial says that Colin Powell "gravely damaged his reputation" by using the faulty information in his UN briefing, and that either Condi Rice fell down badly in keeping the President informed about this issue and should resign, or the President "terribly misled the public."
Monday, October 04, 2004
MTCR Meeting in Seoul
A meeting of the members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which I helped create while I was working at the State Department, is being held in Seoul, South Korea. I'm glad it's still around and hopefully doing some good.
A meeting of the members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which I helped create while I was working at the State Department, is being held in Seoul, South Korea. I'm glad it's still around and hopefully doing some good.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
New York Times Studies Iraqi Aluminum Cylinders
A huge article in today's New York Times, "How the White House Used Disputed Arms Intelligence," describes at length how the Bush administration used questionable analysis of intelligence to support its plan to invade Iraq. The White House knew that there was disagreement within the Intelligence Community about what Iraq intended to do with the aluminum tubes, but chose to ignore the disagreement and use only the interpretation that the tubes were intended to be used only in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. According to the article, this administration interpretation was mainly supported only by one junior analyst at CIA, and was opposed by analysts at the Department of Energy who had the most expertise on the subject.
The article is a strong indictment of the current intelligence structure, because George Tenet, the then-Director of Central Intelligence, claimed that he had no role in settling this dispute between intelligence organizations, despite the fact that this dispute was intimately related to the US decision to go to war with Iraq.
In addition, experts at the IAEA (the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency) also strongly discounted the CIA interpretation. According to the article, when the CIA analyst championing the nuclear use went to Vienna to make his presentation to the IAEA, the presentation was a disaster.
A huge article in today's New York Times, "How the White House Used Disputed Arms Intelligence," describes at length how the Bush administration used questionable analysis of intelligence to support its plan to invade Iraq. The White House knew that there was disagreement within the Intelligence Community about what Iraq intended to do with the aluminum tubes, but chose to ignore the disagreement and use only the interpretation that the tubes were intended to be used only in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. According to the article, this administration interpretation was mainly supported only by one junior analyst at CIA, and was opposed by analysts at the Department of Energy who had the most expertise on the subject.
The article is a strong indictment of the current intelligence structure, because George Tenet, the then-Director of Central Intelligence, claimed that he had no role in settling this dispute between intelligence organizations, despite the fact that this dispute was intimately related to the US decision to go to war with Iraq.
In addition, experts at the IAEA (the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency) also strongly discounted the CIA interpretation. According to the article, when the CIA analyst championing the nuclear use went to Vienna to make his presentation to the IAEA, the presentation was a disaster.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Is Pakistan's Nuclear Threat Manageable?
In the October Atlantic Monthly magazine, Graham Allison argues that while Pakistan is perhaps the greatest threat to American security today, it can be defused. Allison says that he was more frightened by the reports of A.Q. Khan's nuclear supplier network than he has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. He says that once Khan's activities were discovered -- "a 'Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation' -- a decades-old illicit market in nuclear materials, designs, technologies, and consulting services, all run out of Pakistan," the Pakistani response was to grant Khan a pardon. Allison continues, "Pakistani investigators have reportedly questioned a grand total of eleven people from among the country's 6,000 nuclear scientists and 45,000 nuclear workers, and have refused to allow either the United States or the IAEA access to Khan for questioning."
Allison says that in August 2001, Osama bin Laden met with two former officials of Pakistan's atomic energy program, where bin Laden and his second-in-command Zawahiri grilled them about how to make weapons of mass destruction. Then Allison raises the issue that has most alarmed me, "that a coup might topple Musharraf and leave all or some of Pakistan's nuclear weapons under the control of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other militant Islamic group (or, indeed, under the control of more than one)."
Allison proposes that Pakistan generally follow the model of the Soviet Union as it was disintegrating; the USSR pulled most of its nuclear weapons back from states that were on the verge of becoming independent, leaving them only in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, from which they were removed later. Another move would be for the US to help Pakistan install "permissive action links" (PALs) on all nuclear weapons, requiring Musharraf's personal approval before a nuclear weapon could be used. Allison argues that Pakistan would be unlikely to tell the US where all of its nuclear weapons are, but it might tell the US about some and China about the remaining ones.
Pakistan is unlikely to agree to either course of action proposed by Allison. As he says, Pakistan's main nuclear rival is India, and while peace talks between the two are ongoing, they will have to get a lot better, as will the situation in Kashmir, before Musharraf can be perceived by the Pakistani population as caving to international pressure to impose stricter controls on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
As I noted earlier, it's unlikely that anything will happen on this front until there are some serious arms control negotiations among all the powers possessing nuclear weapons, including the US and Israel. One of the underlying assumptions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that the old nuclear powers, the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, etc., would engage in serious disarmament negotiations, which has not happened. Bush has shown contempt for such negotiations, and further undermined the concept by withdrawing from the ABM treaty. If anything, the Bush administration's conduct has shown how important it believes the possession of nuclear weapons is in order to be a superpower. Other countries are likely to follow the US example and ignore disarmament as an option.
In the October Atlantic Monthly magazine, Graham Allison argues that while Pakistan is perhaps the greatest threat to American security today, it can be defused. Allison says that he was more frightened by the reports of A.Q. Khan's nuclear supplier network than he has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. He says that once Khan's activities were discovered -- "a 'Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation' -- a decades-old illicit market in nuclear materials, designs, technologies, and consulting services, all run out of Pakistan," the Pakistani response was to grant Khan a pardon. Allison continues, "Pakistani investigators have reportedly questioned a grand total of eleven people from among the country's 6,000 nuclear scientists and 45,000 nuclear workers, and have refused to allow either the United States or the IAEA access to Khan for questioning."
Allison says that in August 2001, Osama bin Laden met with two former officials of Pakistan's atomic energy program, where bin Laden and his second-in-command Zawahiri grilled them about how to make weapons of mass destruction. Then Allison raises the issue that has most alarmed me, "that a coup might topple Musharraf and leave all or some of Pakistan's nuclear weapons under the control of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other militant Islamic group (or, indeed, under the control of more than one)."
Allison proposes that Pakistan generally follow the model of the Soviet Union as it was disintegrating; the USSR pulled most of its nuclear weapons back from states that were on the verge of becoming independent, leaving them only in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, from which they were removed later. Another move would be for the US to help Pakistan install "permissive action links" (PALs) on all nuclear weapons, requiring Musharraf's personal approval before a nuclear weapon could be used. Allison argues that Pakistan would be unlikely to tell the US where all of its nuclear weapons are, but it might tell the US about some and China about the remaining ones.
Pakistan is unlikely to agree to either course of action proposed by Allison. As he says, Pakistan's main nuclear rival is India, and while peace talks between the two are ongoing, they will have to get a lot better, as will the situation in Kashmir, before Musharraf can be perceived by the Pakistani population as caving to international pressure to impose stricter controls on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
As I noted earlier, it's unlikely that anything will happen on this front until there are some serious arms control negotiations among all the powers possessing nuclear weapons, including the US and Israel. One of the underlying assumptions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that the old nuclear powers, the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, etc., would engage in serious disarmament negotiations, which has not happened. Bush has shown contempt for such negotiations, and further undermined the concept by withdrawing from the ABM treaty. If anything, the Bush administration's conduct has shown how important it believes the possession of nuclear weapons is in order to be a superpower. Other countries are likely to follow the US example and ignore disarmament as an option.
What About Abu Ghraib?
I was disappointed that neither Kerry nor Bush mentioned Abu Ghraib in the debate last night. While no clear paper trail of orders has been traced to senior administration officials, the fact that the Bush administration decided from the creation the Guantanamo prison not to apply the Geneva Convention implicates the very highest levels of the administration in the Abu Ghraib atrocities. I find the failure to honor the Geneva Convention so offensive that it sullies the reputation of everyone in the Bush administration. The lower ranking soldiers who are being court martialed for their role in Abu Ghraib should have known better, but the administration that created the atmosphere of acceptance of torture is certainly to blame as well. It's possible that in a few years, Bush, Rumsfeld, maybe even Powell, and some of their subordinates will be branded as war criminals, and they, like Pinochet in Chile, will be unable to travel outside of the US without fear of being arrested.
I was disappointed that neither Kerry nor Bush mentioned Abu Ghraib in the debate last night. While no clear paper trail of orders has been traced to senior administration officials, the fact that the Bush administration decided from the creation the Guantanamo prison not to apply the Geneva Convention implicates the very highest levels of the administration in the Abu Ghraib atrocities. I find the failure to honor the Geneva Convention so offensive that it sullies the reputation of everyone in the Bush administration. The lower ranking soldiers who are being court martialed for their role in Abu Ghraib should have known better, but the administration that created the atmosphere of acceptance of torture is certainly to blame as well. It's possible that in a few years, Bush, Rumsfeld, maybe even Powell, and some of their subordinates will be branded as war criminals, and they, like Pinochet in Chile, will be unable to travel outside of the US without fear of being arrested.
US Deploys Anti-Satellite Weapon
The Rocky Mountain News reported today that Air Force Brigadier General Larry James announced that Air Force Space Command has deployed a new weapon to attack enemy satellite communications at the 76th Space Control Squadron in Colorado Springs. James did not say how the anti-satellite weapon works, whether it destroys the offending satellite or just interferes with it. Depending on how it works, it could create questions about space arms control, which probably don't interest the Bush administration, or if arms control is out of the question, could trigger some sort of arms race in space, particularly with the Russians, but perhaps also with the Chinese.
The Rocky Mountain News reported today that Air Force Brigadier General Larry James announced that Air Force Space Command has deployed a new weapon to attack enemy satellite communications at the 76th Space Control Squadron in Colorado Springs. James did not say how the anti-satellite weapon works, whether it destroys the offending satellite or just interferes with it. Depending on how it works, it could create questions about space arms control, which probably don't interest the Bush administration, or if arms control is out of the question, could trigger some sort of arms race in space, particularly with the Russians, but perhaps also with the Chinese.
Cyber Security Chief Abruptly Resigns
The abrupt resignation of Amit Yoran, Richard Clarke's replacement (once removed) as cyber security chief in the Homeland Security Department, indicates that all is not well in Homeland Security. This tends to support Kerry's contention that Bush has focused too exclusively on Iraq and ignored other, more pressing threats to the US.
This abrupt resignation tends to reinforce the impression that Tom Ridge has been a failure as Homeland Security Secretary. His main activities seem to have been changing the color of the alert level, and recommending that people buy duct tape, while cargo security at ports and airports largely remains at pre-9/11 levels. Could Homeland Security find one of those atomic bombs that A.Q. Khan may have helped Osama bin Laden build?
The abrupt resignation of Amit Yoran, Richard Clarke's replacement (once removed) as cyber security chief in the Homeland Security Department, indicates that all is not well in Homeland Security. This tends to support Kerry's contention that Bush has focused too exclusively on Iraq and ignored other, more pressing threats to the US.
This abrupt resignation tends to reinforce the impression that Tom Ridge has been a failure as Homeland Security Secretary. His main activities seem to have been changing the color of the alert level, and recommending that people buy duct tape, while cargo security at ports and airports largely remains at pre-9/11 levels. Could Homeland Security find one of those atomic bombs that A.Q. Khan may have helped Osama bin Laden build?
Does Bush Think Pakistan's A.Q. Khan Has Been Brought to Justice?
Last night in his first debate with Senator Kerry, President Bush said, "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He later said, "We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya." They (various people and organizations -- the US, the British, the IAEA) did catch A.Q. Khan mainly because they stumbled over his activities in Libya when Libya renounced its WMD activities. Did Libya renounce its WMD because of US pressure. We'll probably never know exactly what motivated Qadhafi, but it's likely that he was motivated more by trying to settle Lockerbie-PanAm bombing under pressure from the British than because of any American breakthroughs.
So, what about A.Q. Khan? After the debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Karen Hughes about Bush's statement. He asked, "Do you believe that A.Q. Khan, who delivered nuclear materials to North Korea, to Libya, to other countries, has been a brought to justice?" Karen Hughes replied, "Wolf, his ability to trade on the black market nuclear materials has been severely damaged and compromised, yes." Wolf followed up, "But I get back to A.Q. Khan. He's a free man in Pakistan, he was pardoned by President Musharraf. Does that mean he has been brought to justice, after all that he did in circulating banned nuclear equipment around the world?" Karen Hughes replied "Well, again, Wolf, what I can tell you about A.Q. Khan is that his ability -- the president has made anti-proliferation a centerpiece of his initiative. The A.Q. Khan network's ability to deliver and trade in nuclear materials on the black market has been shattered."
So, A.Q. Khan is not selling nuclear materials at the moment, but he's walking around a free man, with millions of dollars in the bank from his past activities. And, we don't know exactly what he was doing before we stumbled on his operation, because Pakistan's president won't let US agents talk to him, and Bush won't pressure Musharraf to let them. Did Khan help Al-Qaida with nuclear weapons? We don't know.
Last night in his first debate with Senator Kerry, President Bush said, "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He later said, "We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya." They (various people and organizations -- the US, the British, the IAEA) did catch A.Q. Khan mainly because they stumbled over his activities in Libya when Libya renounced its WMD activities. Did Libya renounce its WMD because of US pressure. We'll probably never know exactly what motivated Qadhafi, but it's likely that he was motivated more by trying to settle Lockerbie-PanAm bombing under pressure from the British than because of any American breakthroughs.
So, what about A.Q. Khan? After the debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Karen Hughes about Bush's statement. He asked, "Do you believe that A.Q. Khan, who delivered nuclear materials to North Korea, to Libya, to other countries, has been a brought to justice?" Karen Hughes replied, "Wolf, his ability to trade on the black market nuclear materials has been severely damaged and compromised, yes." Wolf followed up, "But I get back to A.Q. Khan. He's a free man in Pakistan, he was pardoned by President Musharraf. Does that mean he has been brought to justice, after all that he did in circulating banned nuclear equipment around the world?" Karen Hughes replied "Well, again, Wolf, what I can tell you about A.Q. Khan is that his ability -- the president has made anti-proliferation a centerpiece of his initiative. The A.Q. Khan network's ability to deliver and trade in nuclear materials on the black market has been shattered."
So, A.Q. Khan is not selling nuclear materials at the moment, but he's walking around a free man, with millions of dollars in the bank from his past activities. And, we don't know exactly what he was doing before we stumbled on his operation, because Pakistan's president won't let US agents talk to him, and Bush won't pressure Musharraf to let them. Did Khan help Al-Qaida with nuclear weapons? We don't know.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Pakistan Stiffs the IAEA
According to a recent AFP report of a BBC interview, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that Pakistan has refused to let the UN atomic watchdog IAEA interview disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, ringleader of the Pakistani nuclear smuggling network. The AFP report continued, "Asked why Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf reportedly said that nobody had asked to question Khan, ElBaradei said: 'I can tell my Pakistani friends that I will be happy to send a team tomorrow to talk to him if we can, absolutely.'"
If there was any doubt that Bush's friend Musharraf was stonewalling about what A.Q. Khan was up to before he was caught providing nuclear assistance to Libya, this comment by ElBaradei should eliminate it. The big question, of course, is whether he was talking to terrorists like Osama bin Laden. And, if so, what sort of help did he provide them. This could be of greater importance than the help we know he provided to Iran and North Korea.
According to a recent AFP report of a BBC interview, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that Pakistan has refused to let the UN atomic watchdog IAEA interview disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, ringleader of the Pakistani nuclear smuggling network. The AFP report continued, "Asked why Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf reportedly said that nobody had asked to question Khan, ElBaradei said: 'I can tell my Pakistani friends that I will be happy to send a team tomorrow to talk to him if we can, absolutely.'"
If there was any doubt that Bush's friend Musharraf was stonewalling about what A.Q. Khan was up to before he was caught providing nuclear assistance to Libya, this comment by ElBaradei should eliminate it. The big question, of course, is whether he was talking to terrorists like Osama bin Laden. And, if so, what sort of help did he provide them. This could be of greater importance than the help we know he provided to Iran and North Korea.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Are Pakistan and Russia Dependable American Friends?
Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf, is Bush's good friend, as Vladimir Putin is in Russia, but maybe the rest of us should look at this friendship a little more closely. Neither Musharraf nor Putin seems to be leading his country toward greater democracy, and both countries are among the most likely to increase nuclear proliferation. Musharraf recently hinted that he may not step down as military commander while he keeps his job as president. Putin has imposed a number of undemocratic changes following the massacre of children in Beslan by Chechen terrorists.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons; it has tested them for all the world to see. Pakistan also has Islamic terrorists in close proximity to its atomic bombs; the American commander in Afghanistan just said that Osama bin Laden is more likely to be hiding in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. There have been two attempts on Musharraf's life that were likely carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. In addition to problems on his Afghan border, where in the past the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI supported the Taliban, Musharraf has the Kashmir crisis on his border with India. Pakistan's rivalry with India was the driving force behind its development of nuclear weapons, but now it's the Muslim state with the Muslim bomb to counter Israel's atomic bomb.
Pakistan's A.Q. Khan was out selling nuclear equipment to any buyer, regardless of their terrorist credentials. He sold to North Korea and to Libya. It was only after Libya turned state's evidence that we found out about this aspect of Khan's activities. When we did, Pakistan only lightly slapped his hand, since he is a national hero for developing the Pakistani bomb, and the Pakistani government has kept our intelligence agents from talking to him to find out who else he may have been selling to.
Meanwhile, Russia has many nuclear weapons left over from the Cold War, some small enough to fit into a suitcase. In addition, it has many unemployed or underemployed nuclear scientists who might be willing to work for bad guys in order to keep their families fed. The Nunn-Lugar Act was designed to deal with the these problems in the former Soviet Union, but in the last few years the Bush administration has done little to implement it, leaving much exposed risk in Russia.
Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf, is Bush's good friend, as Vladimir Putin is in Russia, but maybe the rest of us should look at this friendship a little more closely. Neither Musharraf nor Putin seems to be leading his country toward greater democracy, and both countries are among the most likely to increase nuclear proliferation. Musharraf recently hinted that he may not step down as military commander while he keeps his job as president. Putin has imposed a number of undemocratic changes following the massacre of children in Beslan by Chechen terrorists.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons; it has tested them for all the world to see. Pakistan also has Islamic terrorists in close proximity to its atomic bombs; the American commander in Afghanistan just said that Osama bin Laden is more likely to be hiding in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. There have been two attempts on Musharraf's life that were likely carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. In addition to problems on his Afghan border, where in the past the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI supported the Taliban, Musharraf has the Kashmir crisis on his border with India. Pakistan's rivalry with India was the driving force behind its development of nuclear weapons, but now it's the Muslim state with the Muslim bomb to counter Israel's atomic bomb.
Pakistan's A.Q. Khan was out selling nuclear equipment to any buyer, regardless of their terrorist credentials. He sold to North Korea and to Libya. It was only after Libya turned state's evidence that we found out about this aspect of Khan's activities. When we did, Pakistan only lightly slapped his hand, since he is a national hero for developing the Pakistani bomb, and the Pakistani government has kept our intelligence agents from talking to him to find out who else he may have been selling to.
Meanwhile, Russia has many nuclear weapons left over from the Cold War, some small enough to fit into a suitcase. In addition, it has many unemployed or underemployed nuclear scientists who might be willing to work for bad guys in order to keep their families fed. The Nunn-Lugar Act was designed to deal with the these problems in the former Soviet Union, but in the last few years the Bush administration has done little to implement it, leaving much exposed risk in Russia.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
One Party Democracy in Iraq?
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said Thursday that if elections in Iraq couldn't be held in 100% of the country, "So be it." Because the no-go areas are in the Sunni triangle, it means a lot of Sunnis don't get to vote, thus favoring the Shiites and the Kurds of the three major Iraqi factions. Shia Grand Ayatollah Sistani was a big help in settling the conflict in Najaf; so, it makes political sense for the US to pay him back by favoring the Shias in the election, although it's not very democratic. But hey, even if the elections are not much more democratic than they were under Saddam, at least our guys are winning.
It's not clear, however, whether the Shias are our guys. They are very close to the Shias in Iran, who seem bent to building an atomic bomb against America's wishes. It seems that the short term benefit of holding an election (of any kind) in Iraq trumps the long term threat of nuclear destruction.
Rumsfeld was quickly upstaged by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, who said that elections would be held on time, while not contradicting Rumsfeld's statement that they might not be held throughout the whole country. Secretary of State Powell was sent out to the Sunday talk shows to smooth the rough edges of Rumsfeld's remarks.
But the truth is sometimes hard to hide. Today, according to the BBC, Jordan's King Abdullah said, "It seems impossible to me to organize indisputable elections in the chaos we see today.... Only if the situation improved could an election be organized on schedule." Maybe friends don't let friends hold meaningless elections.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said Thursday that if elections in Iraq couldn't be held in 100% of the country, "So be it." Because the no-go areas are in the Sunni triangle, it means a lot of Sunnis don't get to vote, thus favoring the Shiites and the Kurds of the three major Iraqi factions. Shia Grand Ayatollah Sistani was a big help in settling the conflict in Najaf; so, it makes political sense for the US to pay him back by favoring the Shias in the election, although it's not very democratic. But hey, even if the elections are not much more democratic than they were under Saddam, at least our guys are winning.
It's not clear, however, whether the Shias are our guys. They are very close to the Shias in Iran, who seem bent to building an atomic bomb against America's wishes. It seems that the short term benefit of holding an election (of any kind) in Iraq trumps the long term threat of nuclear destruction.
Rumsfeld was quickly upstaged by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, who said that elections would be held on time, while not contradicting Rumsfeld's statement that they might not be held throughout the whole country. Secretary of State Powell was sent out to the Sunday talk shows to smooth the rough edges of Rumsfeld's remarks.
But the truth is sometimes hard to hide. Today, according to the BBC, Jordan's King Abdullah said, "It seems impossible to me to organize indisputable elections in the chaos we see today.... Only if the situation improved could an election be organized on schedule." Maybe friends don't let friends hold meaningless elections.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Nuclear Non-Nuclear Powers
If the Bush Administration is going to make the world safer from weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is going to have to figure out how to handle nuclear proliferation, which is the most serious type of proliferation in terms of the number of lives that are threatened by it. There is much talk of revising the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been relatively successful, but which has failed to prevent proliferation in a few very important cases -- India, Pakistan, and Israel.
The NPT differs in its treatment of nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. Nuclear weapons states are those that exploded a nuclear devices before 1967 -- the US, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. Russia took on the Soviet Union's designation as a nuclear weapons state. Everybody else is a non-nuclear weapons state. Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan have not signed the NPT, which is where the rub comes in, because India and Pakistan have both exploded nuclear devices, and Israel is widely known to possess a number of nuclear devices, although it may never exploded one. Israel may have tested one in South Africa in 1979, but exactly what happened when a US satellite reported that it saw a nuclear explosion in 1979 has never been unambiguously explained.
One problem is that the nuclearization since 1967 of these previously non-nuclear states has never been satisfactorily dealt with by the NPT. Their possession of nuclear weapons has been de facto accepted by the world, and they are not in violation of the NPT, because they never joined it. Iran is a member, and North Korea was a member.
A second problem is that the possession of nuclear weapons remains an indication of national greatness. Countries that aspire to world stage greatness, such as Brazil, are unlikely to say it is okay to accept India's nuclear status, but deny it to us. The NPT regime either has to sanction countries that go nuclear, or it has to allow other countries to go nuclear.
The third problem, then, is that the NPT calls on all nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, or at least to work toward disarmament, but they have not done so. There was progress for a while with the various SALT and START negotiations, but these are now ancient history. So, it's been accepted that once a country goes nuclear, it can stay nuclear.
The are a number of proposals to update or strengthen the NPT, but they don't deal with this problem. Until they do, it is unlikely that the NPT will be able to deal with the issue of new nuclear powers, which could include North Korea in the short term, Iran in the medium term, and perhaps Brazil in the long term.
If the Bush Administration is going to make the world safer from weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is going to have to figure out how to handle nuclear proliferation, which is the most serious type of proliferation in terms of the number of lives that are threatened by it. There is much talk of revising the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been relatively successful, but which has failed to prevent proliferation in a few very important cases -- India, Pakistan, and Israel.
The NPT differs in its treatment of nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. Nuclear weapons states are those that exploded a nuclear devices before 1967 -- the US, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. Russia took on the Soviet Union's designation as a nuclear weapons state. Everybody else is a non-nuclear weapons state. Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan have not signed the NPT, which is where the rub comes in, because India and Pakistan have both exploded nuclear devices, and Israel is widely known to possess a number of nuclear devices, although it may never exploded one. Israel may have tested one in South Africa in 1979, but exactly what happened when a US satellite reported that it saw a nuclear explosion in 1979 has never been unambiguously explained.
One problem is that the nuclearization since 1967 of these previously non-nuclear states has never been satisfactorily dealt with by the NPT. Their possession of nuclear weapons has been de facto accepted by the world, and they are not in violation of the NPT, because they never joined it. Iran is a member, and North Korea was a member.
A second problem is that the possession of nuclear weapons remains an indication of national greatness. Countries that aspire to world stage greatness, such as Brazil, are unlikely to say it is okay to accept India's nuclear status, but deny it to us. The NPT regime either has to sanction countries that go nuclear, or it has to allow other countries to go nuclear.
The third problem, then, is that the NPT calls on all nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, or at least to work toward disarmament, but they have not done so. There was progress for a while with the various SALT and START negotiations, but these are now ancient history. So, it's been accepted that once a country goes nuclear, it can stay nuclear.
The are a number of proposals to update or strengthen the NPT, but they don't deal with this problem. Until they do, it is unlikely that the NPT will be able to deal with the issue of new nuclear powers, which could include North Korea in the short term, Iran in the medium term, and perhaps Brazil in the long term.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Is Richard Perle Really Fagan from Oliver Twist?
Two commentaries on Pat Buchanan's book Where the Right Went Wrong (which I haven't read) have called him anti-Semitic for comparing Richard Perle to Fagan in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. The first was in an editorial in the L.A. Times by Jacob Heilbrunn. The second was in a review of the book in the New York Times Book Review by Michael Kazin.
I hadn't read Oliver Twist in a long time, and Fagan is a very unflattering portrait of a Jew. But if there is anybody who deserves an unflattering portrait, it is Richard Perle.
Dickens describes Fagan as, "a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair." Later Bill Sikes says to Fagan, "What are you up to? Ill-treating the boys, you covetous, avaricious, in-sa-ti-a-ble old fence?... I wonder they don't murder you! I would if I was them. If'd been your 'prentice, I have done it long ago, and -- no I couldn't have sold you afterwards, for you're fit for nothing but keeping as a curiosity of ugliness in a glass bottle, and I suppose they don't blow glass bottles large enough."
So, let's hear what Richard Perle's benefactor had to say about him. Lord Conrad Black, the CEO of Hollinger International Inc., was the subject of a study by his company of his misdeeds during his reign. The Washington Post headline for its report of the Hollinger study was "Report Details 'Kleptocracy' at Newspaper Firm." The article went on to say, "A report by a special board committee singled out director Richard N. Perle, a former Defense Department official, who received $5.4 million in bonuses and compensation. The report said Perle should return the money to the Chicago company."
Even more damning is an article in MSNBC's Slate about Conrad Black's personal comments about Perle:
Two commentaries on Pat Buchanan's book Where the Right Went Wrong (which I haven't read) have called him anti-Semitic for comparing Richard Perle to Fagan in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. The first was in an editorial in the L.A. Times by Jacob Heilbrunn. The second was in a review of the book in the New York Times Book Review by Michael Kazin.
I hadn't read Oliver Twist in a long time, and Fagan is a very unflattering portrait of a Jew. But if there is anybody who deserves an unflattering portrait, it is Richard Perle.
Dickens describes Fagan as, "a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair." Later Bill Sikes says to Fagan, "What are you up to? Ill-treating the boys, you covetous, avaricious, in-sa-ti-a-ble old fence?... I wonder they don't murder you! I would if I was them. If'd been your 'prentice, I have done it long ago, and -- no I couldn't have sold you afterwards, for you're fit for nothing but keeping as a curiosity of ugliness in a glass bottle, and I suppose they don't blow glass bottles large enough."
So, let's hear what Richard Perle's benefactor had to say about him. Lord Conrad Black, the CEO of Hollinger International Inc., was the subject of a study by his company of his misdeeds during his reign. The Washington Post headline for its report of the Hollinger study was "Report Details 'Kleptocracy' at Newspaper Firm." The article went on to say, "A report by a special board committee singled out director Richard N. Perle, a former Defense Department official, who received $5.4 million in bonuses and compensation. The report said Perle should return the money to the Chicago company."
Even more damning is an article in MSNBC's Slate about Conrad Black's personal comments about Perle:
Lord Black is no anti-Semite; he owned the Jerusalem Post and put Perle on its editorial board. While Richard Perle may not have red hair, according to Lord Black he was "covetous" and "avaricious." He is certainly close enough to a Fagan to warrant Pat Buchanan's comparison.Unchastened by the [previous] losses, Perle started his own private equity firm, Trireme Partners, which he founded in 2001 along with Gerald Hillman, a fellow member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Perle tried to hit up Hollinger for a $25 million commitment, with $2.5 million up front. Black resisted, in part because Black, a world-class chiseler himself, felt he was getting chiseled by Perle. On Feb. 1, 2002, Black wrote a memo questioning Perle's habit of submitting personal bills for reimbursement: "I have been consulted about your American Express account which has been sent to us for settlement. It varies from $1,000 to $6,000 per month and there is no substantiation of any of the items which include a great many restaurants, groceries and other matters."
In late 2002 and early 2003, negotiations between Black and Perle grew heated. Ultimately, Black seems to have concluded that $2.5 million was a small price to pay to get rid of Perle. In a Dec. 28, 2002, e-mail, he told colleagues the Trireme investment was, in the report's words, "a means to remove Perle from Digital's payroll."
And while the report documents how Black spent company cash on himself, he resented it when Perle did the same. The report, again: Black "told [Hollinger executive Peter] Atkinson in an e-mail dated [Dec. 29, 2002] that he was 'well aware of what a trimmer and a sharper Richard is at times.' " Black wrote about Trireme. "As I suspected, there is a good deal of nest-feathering being conducted by Richard which I don't object to other than that there was some attempt to disguise it behind a good deal of dissembling and obfuscation." (In Black's book, it was OK to feather your nest but not OK to lie about it.)
Black admired—in a grudging way—how Perle worked on him. Black explained in a Jan. 7, 2003, e-mail to a colleague: "I have been exposed to Richard's full repertoire of histrionics, cajolery, and utilization of fine print. He hasn't been disingenuous exactly, but I understand how he finessed the Russians out of deployed missiles in exchange for non-eventual-deployment of half the number of missiles of unproven design." After discussing compensation with Perle, he wrote: "My feeling is that we are finally dealing with Richard Perle of Reykjavik and the Zero Option, who realizes that mental agility must be applied to bringing us into the coalition and not straight-arming us like a bunch of NATO-ninny psuedo-allies."
In the end, Hollinger did invest $2.5 million in February 2003 in Trireme Partners. True to its name, Perle's venture firm has set about to try to ream its partners. According to the Breeden report, Hollinger's $2.5 million investment in the fund is worth only $1.5 million—a loss of 40 percent in one year.
Marine General Opposed Fallouja Attack
In fairness to the Marines regarding my previous posting, the Marine general in charge of Fallouja says he opposed the original Marine attack, in which the Marines were defeated. The description by Marine General Conway in the L.A. Times of what happened in Fallouja, after the killing of American private security guards and the desecration of their corpses, tracks with what I thought probably happened. The draft dodgers in Washington gave the Marines the order to attack Fallouja, and then when the fighting got tough and Arabs around the world began to protest the deaths, the draft dodgers told the Marines to stop fighting, making them take the rap as cowards, when in fact the cowards were in Washington, or at least in the safety of the Green Zone in Baghdad.
First, the Marines did not refuse to fight when told to do so, and secondly, they were not the ones who decided to run from the fight when the fighting got tough. To me the key quotation in the L.A. Times article from the general is this: "I would simply say that when you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, that you really need to understand what the consequences are, and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," Conway said. "Once you commit, you've got to stay committed."
What about Bush's promises to stay the course, challenging the forces fighting the US in Iraq (whoever they are) to "bring it on." They brought it on, and we ran like cowards. But the Marines were not the cowards.
In fairness to the Marines regarding my previous posting, the Marine general in charge of Fallouja says he opposed the original Marine attack, in which the Marines were defeated. The description by Marine General Conway in the L.A. Times of what happened in Fallouja, after the killing of American private security guards and the desecration of their corpses, tracks with what I thought probably happened. The draft dodgers in Washington gave the Marines the order to attack Fallouja, and then when the fighting got tough and Arabs around the world began to protest the deaths, the draft dodgers told the Marines to stop fighting, making them take the rap as cowards, when in fact the cowards were in Washington, or at least in the safety of the Green Zone in Baghdad.
First, the Marines did not refuse to fight when told to do so, and secondly, they were not the ones who decided to run from the fight when the fighting got tough. To me the key quotation in the L.A. Times article from the general is this: "I would simply say that when you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, that you really need to understand what the consequences are, and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," Conway said. "Once you commit, you've got to stay committed."
What about Bush's promises to stay the course, challenging the forces fighting the US in Iraq (whoever they are) to "bring it on." They brought it on, and we ran like cowards. But the Marines were not the cowards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)