Good Article on Israeli Influence on US Foreign Policy

In an earlier post, I said that one reason I support Ralph Nader is because John Kerry's position on Israel is almost indistinguishable from George Bush's. This article in the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida) describes the situation well. The article quotes Duncan Clarke, professor of international relations at American University as saying, "Both of them [Kerry and Bush] have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests...."This is an area where both candidates, at least in their declared policies, agree solidly.... Both of them have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests." Later the article says, "Publicly, there is little daylight between the candidates. Both support a Palestinian state but call Arafat a 'failed leader.' Both support Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Both appeared at AIPAC's annual conference."

The article goes on to say, "'President Bush adopted the Arab position of a Palestinian state despite the sustained and murderous execution of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority,' says Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 'Having said that, George W. Bush does have the reputation of being the most pro-Israel president" in two decades.' The administration's ardent support is widely presumed to be rooted in the influence of the 'neocons' or neoconservatives - a group of top officials and advisers with longtime ties to the Jewish state. Among them are Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board."

It adds, "Even before the neocons became a factor in U.S. foreign policy, Israel enjoyed almost unqualified support in Congress. One big reason is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].... Those familiar with AIPAC say it enhances its aura of power by picking battles it knows it can win. It was credited with - or blamed for - the 2002 defeat of incumbents Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hilliard of Alabama, both seen as hostile to Israel."

I would add, many years ago it defeated Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, when he was seen as a Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee who was not pro-Israel enough. The article goes on to point out that AIPAC has recently been accused of acting on behalf of Israeli intelligence and may have "crossed the line between lobbying and acting as an agent for a foreign government."

Finally, the article points out the role of evangelical Christians in molding the Bush administration's Israel policy: "The Bush administration's failure to push its 'road map for peace' stems in part from fear of alienating Jewish voters in an election year. But some experts say it is also because Bush doesn't want to anger a key Republican constituency: evangelical Christians.
Among them are the millennialists, who prophesy Israel's occupation of all of its 'biblical lands' and other scenarios that could lead to holy war with Islam. The Christian right 'has a very clear idea what it would like to see happen in the Mideast, and that's not based on Israel's pragmatic security but on theology - what could be called an apocalyptic foreign policy,' says Gorenberg of the Jerusalem Report.

Eight Candidates for Congress in Colorado Faced Draft. Only One Served.

Of the eight candidates for Congress in Colorado who faced the draft in the Vietnam era, only one served, John Salazar, according to the Denver Post. The most questionable escapes were by Pete Coors and Bob Beauprez, who got medical deferments for minor medical problems. The elite in this country do not fight for it, but they sing loudly the praises of defending and promoting democracy in war.

New York Times Endorses Kerry, Points Out Bush Non-Proliferation Failure

In its editorial on Sunday endorsing John Kerry for president, the New York Times said, "Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves." This is in addition to the lesson for non-rogue, large states -- like Brazil and India -- that the way to great power status is to acquire nuclear weapons.

MTCR Criticizes Missile Proliferators

At the conclusion of its meeting in Seoul, the Missile Technology Control Regime issued a statement critical of countries suspected of developing nuclear capable missiles, according to Space Daily. The MTCR said:

"Partners expressed their serious concerns over missile proliferation in Northeast Asia, the Middle East and South Asia, and reaffirmed their determination to continue discouraging missile programs and activities of proliferation concern."

Reportedly the meeting especially focused on missile proliferation by Iran, Syria, India and North Korea. I think they also should have focused on Pakistan; it would be interesting to know if the US blocked that because of its need for Pakistani cooperation in the war on terrorism. The conference came amid growing concerns about North Korea's missile development. Pyongyang stunned the world in August 1998 by test-launching over Japan a Taepodong-1 missile with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers. Of course, Pakistan tested its Hatf-V missile with a range of about 1,500 kilometers during the meeting.

"Since the 1998 launch, there has been no information on North Korea's new missile development but it is always possible because North Korea could develop new missiles without [test firing]," said the meeting chairman Oh Joon, a director general of South Korea's foreign ministry. North Korea declared a moratorium on missile tests in September 1999 and in May 2001 extended the decision until 2003 and beyond. But the cash-strapped country has refused to stop missile exports, a major source of hard currency earnings.

The MTCR was established in 1987 to control exports of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.

IAEA Says Nuclear-Related Items Missing In Iraq

In a letter to the UN Security Council, IAEA Chief ElBaradei reported:

"As a result of its ongoing review of satellite imagery acquired on a regular basis, and follow up investigations, the IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear programme and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the IAEA. The imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment (such as flow forming, milling and turning machines; electron beam welders; coordinate measurement machines) formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high strength aluminium) from open storage areas.

"As indicated previously to the Council, the IAEA, through visits to other countries, has been able to identify quantities of industrial items, some radioactively contaminated, that had been transferred out of Iraq from sites monitored by the IAEA. However, none of the high quality dual use equipment or materials referred to above has been found. As the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any State that has information about the location of such items should provide the IAEA with that information."

This missing equipment is of relatively low-level significance; however, it is remarkable that after citing nuclear proliferation as the initial main reason for its invasion of Iraq, the US has been so cavalier about protecting nuclear-related materials and equipment. It's ironic that after some much excitement in about Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes, one of the items missing is high strength aluminum. It's certainly possible that part of the reason for this report is the UN's pique at being diss'ed by the US. But the US should recognize that if you spit in someone's face, they might be critical of you later. The IAEA could have told us this privately, instead of making it public; perhaps they did. The US should take care of its business in Iraq, and apparently it has not been doing so.

Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile

According to Reuters, Pakistan test-fired an intermediate-range, nuclear-capable ballistic missile on Tuesday as part of efforts to boost its defenses, but the test was not a show of strength for rival India, the military said. The test came at the start of two days of talks between Pakistani and Indian border officials in the Indian city of Chandigarh, their second meeting this year since regular contacts were revived to discuss frontier issues.

The missile was a Hatf V, a type of Ghauri missile with a range of 940 miles -- capable of hitting most Indian cities and which can carry a payload of 1,985 lb.

Reuters added that Pakistan tested its first nuclear bomb in May 1998 and says its weapons program is a response to that of India. In March, Pakistan test-fired the Shaheen II ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles and capable of carrying nuclear warheads to every corner of India. The Pakistani Hatf series of missiles, named after an ancient Islamic weapon, includes the Shaheen and Ghauri missiles.

Reuters further reported that the Ghauri was formally inducted into the military in January 2003. It was developed by Khan Research Laboratories, Pakistan's main uranium-enrichment facility, which was named after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the country's atomic bomb. Khan was sacked this year from his job as a special government adviser after he admitted to exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. According to Reuters, some experts say the Ghauri missile was developed with North Korean help in return for nuclear know-how (probably related to Pakistan's expertise in uranium enrichment), but Pakistan denies the link and says it is indigenously produced.

Brazil Vows to Continue Space and Nuclear Programs

Space Daily reported that Brazil does not want the world to misunderstand its space or nuclear programs, because both have only peaceful and civilian objectives in mind, according to Eduardo Campos, Brazil's Minister of Science and Technology. Since our space program was born during the years of military rule, we have to make sure that we make the transition to a fully civil program, with a focus on showing our society that it is just as important to predict the weather as it is to build a road, Campos told United Press International.

Space

Campos also indicated that Brazil is determined to pursue development of its VLS national rocket program, despite previous failures and U.S. concerns about ballistic-missile, dual-use technology [i.e., under the MTCR]. The president has made a commitment to launch the VLS by 2006, Campos said, and it is an important program to our nation.

The United States shouldn't have any worries about the development of the VLS. He called the United States a great partner in the development of our intellectual capital in this regard, and added that the U.S. government has technical cooperation with us in all the areas that you can imagine. They also know that Brazil has the conditions to have a program such as the VLS.

Campos said Brazilian officials currently are in discussions with the United States about a new Technology Safeguards Agreement, which would permit U.S. rockets or payloads with U.S. components - such as satellites - to be launched from Alcantara, the country's space facility. Brazil previously had signed a TSA with the United States, but the agreement was not ratified by the Brazilian Congress when objections were raised - both in the legislature and the media - that certain restrictions included in the agreement infringed upon the country's sovereignty. (When Brazil talks about its sovereignty, it is serious, but it also means, "We're not going to agree to anything less than other countries are allowed to do, including the United States, China and India.")

Nuclear

Campos went out of his way to emphasize that the United States and the world should also not be concerned about Brazil's nuclear program, despite a recent dispute concerning U.N. inspections of one of the country's uranium enrichment facilities.

Brazil's nuclear program began in the same environment as the space program, Campos said, but later the Brazilian constitutional revision of 1989 established that it was to be a program with peaceful purposes. Brazil is one of the few nations in the world that has all of its installations - civil and military - licensed by all the international agencies.

Campos said Brazil has adhered very strongly to international, nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Last week, Brazil reached an agreement with the United Nations to allow inspections of its uranium enrichment plant outside of Rio de Janeiro, although the limited inspections will not permit access to certain areas. The limitations are meant to protect the country's proprietary technology, according to the country's Ministry of Science and Technology.

Indian Prime Minister Rejects Joining NPT

The Hindu newspaper reported on Friday that, "The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, said today that the circumstances were 'not ripe' for India to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) 'right now'. Dr. Singh, however, said that India was voluntarily fulfilling the commitments that went along with being a responsible nuclear power acting with 'due restraint'". Answering a question at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dr. Singh said, "We are a nuclear power.... We have a no-first use doctrine in place."

He continued, "Also, we have an impeccable record of export controls so that any unauthorised use of sensitive nuclear materials can be effectively prevented." As the Hindu said, India has consistently taken the position that the NPT is unequal and discriminatory and that it will not sign the treaty. The pressure on New Delhi to sign it mounted after the May 1998 nuclear tests, but there has been no change in India's position on the issue.

The Prime Minister made it clear that India was interested in working with like-minded countries in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation system. Without referring to Pakistan or the A.Q. Khan network by name, he said that India had seen the clandestine export of nuclear materials in "our" region.

My Anti-Bush is Nader

The Democrats think their call for anybody but Bush means voting for Kerry. But for me it means voting for Nader. I don't like Bush, but I don't like Kerry either. Why I don't like Bush should be pretty clear from other postings on this blog.

There are two main reasons that I don't like Kerry. As a Vietnam veteran, I didn't like his accusations that all Vietnam vets are war criminals, although his campaign says that he didn't believe this, that he was just reporting what other people said at some Detroit anti-war conference. I don't buy it. He may not have believed it, but he was using those accusations, which were well received by the left in those days to advance his career. It obviously worked; he's the Democrats' candidate for President.

The second reason I don't like Kerry is his position on the Middle East. The main reason for the unrest in the Middle East is Israel, and America's unquestioning support for Ariel Sharon. George Bush's obsequious, puppy-like devotion to Sharon's every whim is embarrassing to the United States. The latest is Dov Weisglass' statement that Sharon's Gaza policy is intended to freeze the peace process, and Bush's cowardly acceptance of it. Unfortunately, Kerry's position on Israel, as on Iraq, is almost identical to Bush's. In Israel, it appears that there is some lively debate about Sharon's hard line policy. In America, the Jewish community is solidly behind Sharon, which apparently means that both major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, unquestioningly support his bloodly, oppressive policies. Senator Edward's answer to Gwin Ifill's question on Israel during the Vice Presidential debate showed how devoted they are to Israel regardless of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians.

So, Nader is my man.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, Me, and the Bomb

On October 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Brazilian Minister Celso Amorim while Powell was visiting Brazil. When I was assigned to the US Embassy in Brasilia as science officer during the 1980s, Celso Amorim was serving as the Foreign Ministry representative in the Ministry of Science and Technology. According to his bio, he held this job from 1985-88.

The US wanted to have a big meeting in Brazil to discuss scientific and technological cooperation, with the US side led by President Bush I's science adviser, Allan Bromley of Yale. Celso Amorim was not a big fan of the US, was not enthusiastic about the meeting, and stonewalled for a long time. Eventually we held the meeting, but there was not much agreement on joint projects. There was a lot of hand waving and agreements to agree later on specific projects.

During Powell's visit, there was discussion of Brazil's cooperation with IAEA inspectors who are scheduled to come to Brazil. There has been a question whether they would be allowed to inspect Brazil's plant for making uranium fuel for its nuclear power reactors. Brazil bought a huge nuclear fuel cycle plant from Germany before I was there in the 1980s. Then there was concern that Brazil would use it to highly enrich uranium to a level useful for bombs. That uranium enrichment process was very inefficient and cumbersome. Recently there have been rumors that Brazil purchased a more efficient centrifuge enrichment system from A.Q. Khan and Pakistanis, and for that reason would restrict the IAEA inspection.

When asked about the nuclear issue, Powell said, "I don’t think Brazil could be talked about in the same vein or put in the same category as Iran or North Korea.... In the case of Iran, Iran has been not forthcoming with respect to what it has been doing and we have seen the IAEA prying information out of Iran and our judgment is that Iran’s program is not just for power, but is also designed to move in the direction of a nuclear weapon. In the case of Brazil, this is simply not the case."

Following Secretary Powell's remarks, Celso Amorim said, "I won't go into the technical details, because I have no expertise to do that. But, it’s a simple matter. Brazil has nothing to hide in terms of its uranium enrichment process except for the technology that Brazil has acquired, and which Brazil naturally wishes to protect. It's perfectly possible, and this has been discussed very productively in Vienna. I, myself, was on the telephone with the director of the Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. El Baradei, who was very pleased with the contacts that he had made with our technical people. And, therefore, I believe it is perfectly possible to conciliate the objectives of the Atomic Energy Agency, to give them the certainty that the entire enrichment process is only for peaceful purposes, that there is no deviation of uranium, while at the same time protecting the Brazilian technology.

"Specifically how that's to be done has to be discussed between the Agency's technical people and the Brazilian authorities in the sector, specifically at the Resende plant that will be visited. It is in our interest to solve this problem, because we want to put the Resende plant into operation, as we have economic needs. Brazil is such a huge country, we cannot do without any source of energy. Brazil has major uranium reserves, and it's only natural that we do not want to have to send our uranium abroad to be enriched, to then have to have to come back to Brazil. That just doesn't make sense....

"Now, in terms of the Additional Protocol, I'll repeat one thing that I've said many times: Brazil has never said that it would not sign, but there is a process of negotiation here I think that we will soon come to an agreement on the Resende plant. And that will help consolidate the subject for the future. But, I want to reiterate, as I said to Secretary Powell, that when Brazil adhered to the Nonproliferation Treaty we actually accepted the package deal. There are three basic elements there: nonproliferation, as such; the possibility of peaceful use of nuclear power with no restrictions, unless there is some specific suspicion on the country but now Secretary Powell has said that there is none; and, third, concrete steps towards disarmament. Within that spirit we will continue to work on these matters. And, I'm certain that as in all the other situations, Brazil has always shown its desire to cooperate with the global goals of nonproliferation and of disarmament, and will continue to work in that direction."

The Additional Protocol which Amorim mentioned gives the IAEA stronger authority for inspections than originally granted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Brazil did not join the NPT for years because it said that the NPT was discriminatory, giving more rights to nuclear powers like the US than to non-nuclear countries. When it finally joined, it did not agree to the additional protocol, and now will probably argue that the international community is trying to change the terms of the agreement after it has been signed. This happened to Brazil when it bought its first nuclear power reactor from Westinghouse in the US in the 1970s. After the billion dollar deal was signed, Congress passed a law saying that the US could not supply fuel for the reactor unless Brazil agreed to "full scope safeguards" (more intrusive than those Brazil had already agreed to) under the NPT. Brazil did not agree then and turned to Germany for future reactors and nuclear technology. Brazil bristled when the US refused to supply the fuel that it had agreed to supply, which was especially harmful coming on the heels of the OPEC embargo that had cut off Brazil's petroleum supply.

Part of my job in Brazil during the 1980s was to get Brazil to be more forthcoming on the nuclear safeguards issue. I was not very successful until the President of Argentina invited the President of Brazil to visit Bariloche, known to be the location of the primary Argentine nuclear research center. Removing an element of Argentine-Brazilian nuclear competition helped both countries move toward more responsible nuclear programs. But Brazil has always been nationalistic. It still did not join the NPT until years later. If the world allows India and Pakistan (not to mention Israel, North Korea, and perhaps some other countries) to join the nuclear club, then Brazil may well insist that it also has the right to join. I don't think there is any indication that Brazil would want nuclear weapons to threaten anybody, but it would not easily consign itself to second-class status in the world by giving up the nuclear option, if nuclear weapons are seen as a sign of great power status.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Why Do Republicans Hate Veterans, Especially Marines?

Apparently the Swift Boat Veterans have another commercial out. As a Vietnam veteran, I have had enough attacks on my patriotism. I don't like Kerry because he attacked veterans in the 1970s, but now I don't like Bush because he is attacking veterans vehemently today. An attack on Kerry because he is a veteran is an attack on all veterans. Claiming that it is an attack on him because of how he got his medals or what he did during some particular 15 minutes in country does not make it any less an attack on him because he is a veteran. Veterans deserve support from their country. I pity the poor soldiers in Iraq who have to come back as veterans reviled by Bush.

In particular, I pity the Marines, whose courage has been called into question by their tours in Iraq. The Marines were the main troops in Fallouja and Najaf, where the US ran into serious resistance and chickened out. It makes the Marines look like cowards, but I doubt that they are. The decision to retreat was probably made by somebody else, but, nevertheless, the Marine Corps' valor is called into question by their conduct in Iraq. An article in the L.A. Times says the whole Marine approach to Fallouja has turned out to be a "fiasco," quoting a Marine colonel. The article says that the Iraqi force that replaced the Marines was created "to avoid a bloodbath," which of course I don't wish on the Marines, but it looks like when they were faced with a bloody battle, the Marines chickened out. The Marines should not allow themselves to appear as cowards because of decisions made by others, who are probably civilian policy makers who have never seen combat and probably avoided service in Vietnam like Bush and Cheney, if they were old enough to face that prospect.

Although the Marines in the field may not be to blame, their senior commanders in Washington certainly are for knuckling under to their cowardly political overseers. The current Marine Corps commandant should resign. The only senior military commander who displayed the courage to stand up to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and company was former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who was viciously attacked by them for standing up for his troops.

Why Do Some Christians Put Israel's Interests Ahead of America's?

Following up on the previous posting, I don't understand the position of many fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel's future is more important than America's. One of these is apparently House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

According to his own Congressional website, "DeLay has increasingly taken a leadership role in foreign affairs through his work to expand freedom and his articulation of democratic principles. He was a forceful advocate of President Bush's decision to confront Saddam Hussein's aggression and received the Friend of Israel award this April from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews."

According to MSNBC, during the Republican Convention, DeLay staked "the Republican appeal to Jews on Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein, his commitment to Israel and his ongoing crusade against Islamic fanatics. 'My friends, there is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is only the global war on terrorism,' DeLay told the crowd at the Plaza Hotel Monday." The report continued, "'If Israel falls to the terrorists, the entire free world will tremble. To forsake Israel now would be tantamount to forsaking Great Britain in 1940,' DeLay declared Monday. 'It is unthinkable, and it is unthinkable because the world wants to know if we believe freedom is worth fighting for.'"

As a Christian, I don't see why the the US should tie itself so tightly to a country that is based on non-Christian ideas. Certainly Christianity includes a lot of Jewish ideas, e.g., the Ten Commandments, but it also goes beyond these ideas, e.g., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Why do fundamentalist Christian Americans reject Jesus' teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount? I don't get it. These uniquely Christian ideas go to the heart of what America is about, or used to be about. Maybe that's why torture upsets me, but not the majority of Americans, who seem to have forsaken Christianity for Judaism, with its eye-for-an-eye morality, unlike the Christian turn-the-other-cheek morality.

Soldiers in Iraq Are Fighting for Israel, Not America

In an article in the New York Review of Books, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., makes no bones about the Israeli/Jewish basis for the war in Iraq. He cites the influence of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago on many of the neo-conservatives who pressed for the war. He quotes from Anne Norton's book, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. She says the post-September 11 strategic plan of Paul Wolfowitz was "built conceptually and geographically around the centrality of Israel.... This strategy could be understood as advancing American interests and security only if one saw those as identical to the interests and security of the state of Israel."

Then he cites James Bamford's book, A Pretext for War. Bamford says that "despite the fact that Israeli intelligence, like that of the United States, had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Israeli government, along with the media, deliberately hyped the dangers of Iraq before the war." Schlesinger does not note that one component of the Israel media, the Jerusalem Post, had a virulent, anti-Iraq neo-con on its editorial board, Richard Perle. According to Schlesinger, Bamford further suggests that the Mossad and Ranaan Gissin, "Sharon's top aide," rivaled Ahmed Chalabi in sending Washington phony intelligence designed to frighten President Bush.

It worries me that it was so easy to frighten Bush. We need a courageous President, who is not necessarily John Kerry, but is certainly not George Bush.

Torture Is a Bad Thing

The papers report that Iraq is not a problem for George Bush, but it is for me. Not only am I disappointed that WMD have never been found and that there is no clear link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, but I am very upset that the administration has not reacted strongly to distance itself from the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib and other locations, inside and outside of Iraq. Today, the New York Times reported that the CIA has hidden many more prisoners than at first believed.

As far as I am concerned, this administration went wrong when it first decided that the Geneva Convention did not apply to prisoners in Guantanamo, and then went on to fail to apply the Geneva Convention to other prisoners outside of Guantanamo. I think the whole group that decided not to apply the Geneva Convention should go, presumably including President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as White House and Justice Department staffers. Many high ranking military officers have dirty hands, starting with General Miller, who used to be incharge of Guantanamo, and now is in charge of Abu Ghraib. The recent military claims that many more low ranking soldiers were involved is just a smoke screen to protect high ranking officers. How can America use torture as a political tool? It's awful. The people who do it and approve it are awful.

I've believed since the start of the war that the CIA was using torture, but I thought it was probably sending prisoners to places like Morocco, so that it could claim that Americans were not torturing prisoners. Now, it turns out that nobody cares. It's fine for Americans to torture people. I don't think so. Where is the outrage? Why does American have to follow Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's example? They were the people we wanted to get rid of, and now we are saying that they were using the right tactics!

Spy In The Pentagon Raises Serious Policy and Loyalty Issues

The fact that many of those arguing for war in Iraq were Jews has been crystalized by the reports of security breaches by Pentagon officer Larry Franklin, who reportedly passed classified information to Israel via AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many of the neoconservatives, particularly those connected with the American Enterprise Institute, such as Richard Perle, were Jews. Apparently Franklin is not a Jew, but a strong supporter of Israel.

Recent news reports say that AIPAC has been under investigation for years because of national security concerns, presumably something to do with Israel. This indicates that while AIPAC is supposed to be an American organization, it was suspected by the FBI of more sinister activities against the interests of the US. Also, one report said that despite Israel's denials, the US is a principle focus of Israel's intelligence efforts. Dennis Ross, who was the chief US negotiator for the Middle East under both Presidents Bush I and Clinton, now apparently works for AIPAC. So, who has he really been working for during the last 10 or 12 years?

A Wall Street Journal editorial on September 1 said of the scandal, "Nor is it part of a Zionist conspiracy run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith." It went on to criticize the original CBS News report about Franklin's ties to Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The editorial said, "You don't need a secret decoder ring to know that this sentence [in the CBS report] is meant as a bit of innuendo against the Pentagon's 'neoconservatives,' who in this case happen to be Jewish (though Mr. Franklin is not)."

I totally disagree with the Wall Street Journal but compliment it for crystalizing the issues. It does look like Feith is running a Zionist conspiracy made up of neoconservatives, both Jewish and Gentile, that is not in the best interests of the US.

General George Marshall and the Politicization of the US Military

General George Marshall was the most senior Army general during World War II, the man who selected and commanded the other senior generals during the war, including General Eisenhower. At the end of the war, President Truman called him the greatest living American. Because of his loyalty to the country of the United States, he did not vote in Presidential elections, so that he could serve whoever was elected with equal loyalty. He would no doubt have been either party's choice to run for President rather than Eisenhower, but he would not run. He did serve as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense after he left the active military service.

As I see former senior military officers running for office, like Wesley Clark, or being used as tools and backdrops in this Presidential campaign, like Tommy Franks, I see the wisdom of General Marshall's position. Both parties make overt appeals to serving military personnel, as they do to firemen and policemen.

Last Friday on PBS' Washington Week, Gwen Ifill made the point that with the bitter polarization of politics, politicians have ceased to see themselves a public servants. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, I think she is right. That means as the military becomes politicized, it will become less a profession of public service, creating the possibility that the military will become a domestic tool of the serving President, as in many dictatorships.

When Zell Miller and John Kerry Meet in Heaven

Well, I don't think Zell Miller is likely to make it to heaven. Zell Miller's speech at the Republican Convention tonight must be some kind of record for a Democratic Senator's personal attack on a fellow Democratic Senator, John Kerry. People talk about the dignity of the Senate, that it's the world's greatest deliberative body. It's obviously home to some maniacal haters. It's hard to imagine how much Miller must hate Kerry, and what an impolite, ungracious man Miller is. But such conduct seems to be typical of Georgia Senators, since his Senate colleague, Saxby Chambliss, got elected by attacking the patriotism of the former Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam. How dirty and filthy Georgia politics and politicians must be!

George W. Bush Is A Coward

I got tired of hearing during the Republican Convention tonight how brave George W. Bush is. Since he did not go to Vietnam and never faced combat, the test of his bravery was his reaction when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. After he finally quit reading some children's story about a goat, according to Fahrenheit 911, he got into Air Force One in Florida and flew to Louisiana and then to Nebraska, and finally, after everything was over, he flew back to Washington. If he was the Commander-in-Chief, why didn't he fly straight back to Washington and take charge of the defense of the his country. He was scared to death. He was afraid to go back to Washington. The White House defense is that the Secret Service told him he couldn't go back to Washington until they could make sure it was secure. Neither Bush nor the Secret Service believed that the multi-billion dollar military that we pay to protect him and us was up to the job. But whether the military was up to the job or not, it was Bush's job to lead, and he fled. He was tested and found wanting.

Richard Perle's Bad Character Revealed

A report of a special committee the Hollinger International Corporation board has excoriated Richard Perle for poor conduct as a member of the board, enriching himself and CEO Conrad Black at the expense of the corporation and its stockholders, according to the New York Times. The criticism couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. It was through his contact with Conrad Black that he was on the editorial board of the Jerusalem Post.

I first encountered Richard Perle when he was a hard line, right wing Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. More recently he was one of the most outspoken neo-cons promoting the war in Iraq, appearing on almost every news show in the run-up to the war. During that period, however, he had to resign as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board because of conflicts of interest. Hopefully, this terrible report criticizing his competence and integrity will end his public career, but that is probably too much to hope for.

Dregs of Society Running for President

As a Vietnam veteran, I find myself caught between the Swift boat veterans for Bush and the Swift boat veteran/anti-war protestor running as the Democratic candidate. I share the Swift boat veterans' contempt for John Kerry because of his denunciation of all Vietnam veterans when he returned from Vietnam (after a cushy assignment finishing his Navy tour of service by accompanying an Admiral around the country). But I also respect Kerry for volunteering to serve in Vietnam, in close combat (after an earlier cushy tour cruising off the coast of Vietnam on a big Navy ship).

The Democrats did this to themselves by nominating someone who brings out the best and the worst of military service. Republican Senators John McCain or Chuck Hagel don't carry this "worst" of Vietnam baggage. I don't know of a Democrat who carries the "best" like they do. But as a Deaniac, I would have preferred that the Democrats nominate someone who did not conjure up these black and white Vietnam passions. I would have preferred someone passionate about today's issues, like the war in Iraq. Kerry is milk toast on Iraq. If they wanted someone wishy-washy, they could have nominated Gephardt, who is a decent, if colorless, man, and they would have avoided the Vietnam pit.

My own theory is that Kerry only got the nomination because Dean and Gephardt killed each other off in Iowa, and left the number three candidate, Kerry, standing. He did not get the nomination because of any great preference for him by Iowa and New Hampshire voters. But now the Democrats are stuck with him. He does represent contradictions, although not exactly as portrayed by the Republican negative ads. He is a Vietnam war hero who opposed that war, just as he was a senator who supported the Iraq war, but voted against the money to fight it.

Once again, maybe deservedly, we Vietnam veterans are left holding the bag, looking bad on both sides. The Swift boat veterans look bad for their attacks on Kerry, which are not supported by the written, historical record; they appear to be motivated by hatred of him because of anti-war statements after his return. Kerry looks bad because of his unfounded attacks on all Vietnam veterans as war criminals after his return.

I would like to support a Vietnam veteran like Kerry, but not one who has vilified other Vietnam veterans as he has. So, despite my contempt for the Swift boat veterans and their ads, I may still support Ralph Nader, who is at least honest, a man of integrity, even if this vote helps Bush, whom I now despise for his "pre-emptive" war on Iraq, certainly one of the most horrible foreign policy adventures of our generation, one motivated by hatred, hubris, fear, and every other bad motive you can imagine.

The atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib under his command only illustrate his depravity. He is commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and the whole war, not just the parts he likes. I am outraged, not that the Abu Ghraib atrocities occurred (horrible things happen in war), but that Bush and other senior officials were so slow and spineless in responding to them. If Bush were a true Christian, he would have taken strong actions up and down the chain of command immediately to show his revulsion, instead of hiding behind a long, drawn-out series of studies and reports, and show trials of low-ranking individuals.

State Department Has Vietnam Veterans; Pentagon Doesn't

As a Vietnam veteran and a retired Foreign Service officer, I found the article in today's Washington Post, "Old Vietnam Hands in Charge in Iraq," an interesting comparison between the State Department and the Pentagon. The State Department has quite a few people who served in Vietnam now serving in Iraq. The senior civilian leadership of the Pentagon is devoid of Vietnam veterans. What's wrong with this picture? To me it means that more people at the State Department are concerned about their country than people at the Pentagon. People at State answered their country's call in the 1960's, while those at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz and company, had better things to do. (Of course, Wolfowitz served at State, too, in previous administrations.) Retired General Barry McCaffrey particularly points to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as someone who did not serve in Vietnam, and thus who is first-hand unfamiliar with the problems encountered there. However, Rumsfeld did serve in the military during peacetime. Of course, the military leadership at the Pentagon probably has a lot of Vietnam veterans, but they are aging and may be retiring too fast to remain in the military leadership. The one general I felt some connection with was Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinsheki, who served in the same general area of northern I Corps (near the DMZ) that I served in, and who was vilified by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for calling for more troops to occupy Iraq.

I think it is significant that the leadership of the State Department, which has the reputation of being dovish, actually has more combat experience than the civilian leadership of the Pentagon.

Is Carnegie Endowment Still Wedded to Neoconservative Pre-Emptive War?

Recently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a conference on nuclear nonproliferation, which I thought at least started a useful discussion. Bush has called for major reforms to the nonproliferation treaty regime, and IAEA chief ElBaradei has echoed Bush.

However, in an article in the Washington Post on the failure of Bush's pre-emptive foreign policy, Robin Wright quotes Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment as an unrepentant Neoconservative. So, that makes me worry that the Carnegie nonproliferation initiative is pre-emption under a different name. After all the first justification for our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation is an important issue, but maybe we shouldn't yet throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the existing nonproliferation regime.

Diplomats vs. Bush

While I have not seen the text of the letter signed by a number of senior American diplomats, I support what I have heard about it. I never understood why the US thought it had to go it alone in Iraq. If we had gotten some international organization on board -- the UN, NATO, or some regional organization (unlikely, but conceivable) -- to support our intervention, we would now be in a much better position to defend what we did, Abu Ghraib and all. If we had had some partners, the Red Cross might have used them to get our attention to stop Abu Ghraib before it got out of hand, as it did. Now we are really hanging out there all alone. We need someone besides Bush, someone nicer, someone more devoted to the US constitution, and someone with higher class advisers, particularly as Secretary of Defense and Attorney General.

US Review of Death Penalty Cases Under Vienna Convention

I strongly support the view in today's New York Times editorial that the US comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice calling on the US to review the convictions of foreigners in the US who were denied access to consular officials from their home countries, which is a right granted under the Vienna Convention, to which the US is a signatory. As the editorial points out, the main concern is that US consular officials be granted access to US citizens arrested in foreign countries, who are much more likely to be subjected to torture or lesser mistreatment, than foreigners are in the US. It is a simple matter of protecting Americans. I suppose Bush's solution, given his contempt for law and diplomacy, is to forget the law and instead send in US troops to kill the foreign prison guards and release any Americans who he thinks have been arrested and treated improperly.

Woodward Book

I am glad that Secretary of State Powell appears to be getting his view out in Bob Woodward's new book, although the book is apparently not released, yet. Powell is probably worried about his place in history, since he has spent his career at State surrounded by a bunch of uneducated idiots in other parts of the government, i.e., Bush and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not idiots, but they have not used their minds in their current positions. According to Woodward on "60 Minutes" last night, President Bush is totally uninterested in his place in history. He told Woodward, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." Bush probably never read a history book anyway.

Casey at the CIA

In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's Against All Enemies, he describes Bill Casey's role at CIA in supplying Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But it reminded me of my tour in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) before Clarke was there. I worked on National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-12-80 "Prospects for Soviet Military Technology and R&D" which has since been almost entirely declassified. I was concerned that this NIE tended to make the Soviets look too powerful, and was not an accurate depiction of their military technology and R&D. I was surprised to find that then Secretary of State George Shultz shared that opinion of the intelligence produced by Casey's CIA. What was happening then was not unlike what happened with the CIA's intelligence on Iraq prior to the Iraq war, but Shultz was aware of it and took account of it better than his successors did.

In his memoir, Turmoil and Triumph, Secretary Shultz wrote that he was displeased by the way that Casey cooked intelligence to reflect his personal views. Shultz wrote:

I was also increasingly uneasy about CIA director Bill Casey. He had very strong policy positions, which were reflected in his intelligence briefings. He claimed he was objective. But his views were so strong and so ideological that they inevitably colored his selection and assessment of materials. I could not rely on what he said, nor could I accept without question the objectivity of the “intelligence” that he put out, especially in policy-sensitive areas. (p. 691)

Battleship New Jersey

In Chapter 2 of Against All Enemies, Dick Clarke writes about the battleship New Jersey firing "shells as big as Volkswagens" from off the coast of Lebanon to protect the American Embassy in Beirut. I remember shooting with the New Jersey in Vietnam. My heavy artillery battery was stationed with the 101st Airborne at LZ Sally near the coast, south of Quang Tri. The 101st got into a big firefight not far to the north, and since the New Jersey was in the area, someone invited them to join us in shelling the North Vietnamese in this firefight. When we would talk on our little radios to the infantry in the field or to our artillery battalion headquarters, the signal would be weak and full of static. When we talked to the New Jersey, it was like listening to a powerful, clear FM station back in the States. We could see the firefight clearly; the sky to the north was full of tracers. However, after we fired our guns, we all ran out to see the New Jersey's shells land. When you fire near friendly troops, you always give "Splash" over the radio about 5 seconds before the shells land, so that our troops know to duck. The New Jersey gave "Splash," but we never saw or heard any shells land a few seconds afterwards. I've always wondered where those shells went.

Diego Garcia

In chapter 2 of Dick Clarke's book Against All Enemies, he writes about President Reagan's decision to get involved in the Middle East, which included setting up an American base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. One of the classic State Department telegrams I remember was a reply to a worried inquiry sent to a number of American embassies about how their governments would respond to our setting up such a base. One embassy replied, "Our government thinks Diego Garcia is a cigar."

Powell Admits Iraq Intelligence Flawed

I am pleased that Secretary of State Powell has admitted that the US intelligence on Iraq that he presented to the UN a year ago was flawed. According to reports, he singled out the intelligence on mobile chemical weapons laboratories as some of the most misleading, apparently because the CIA told him that it had several sources for that information, but it did not. I doubt that Powell would have made such a statement if others in the administration, such as Richard Clarke and David Kay, had not begun to break through the cone of silence on the issue. Powell is a team player, as he demonstrated in the run-up to the war on Iraq. The administration paraded him at the UN for a presentation that has ended up making him look foolish and unprofessional, a stark contrast to Adlai Stevenson's presentation during the Cuban missile crisis. However, I think Powell, although he was wronged by this episode, would have stayed quiet, if others had not started screaming their heads off about it. I imagine that Powell is just biding his time until he can leave this administration gracefully, having had his fill of seeing the President do the bidding of wild men like Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, his deputy Wolfowitz, and Vice President Cheney, while Powell recommended a more prudent course of action that the President rejected.

Dick Clarke & Me

For the record, I worked for Richard Clarke, of Against All Enemies and 9/11 commission fame, for two years when he was Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, from 1988 to 1990 on missile proliferation. We were not exactly two of a kind. He was a much more ruthless and efficient bureaucratic operator than I was. In any case, it was an interesting time for me, since Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Condi Rice (then NSC staffer for the old Soviet Union) were involved in missile proliferation issues, as was Charlie Duelfer, who is now the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, but then was also a State/PM staffer.

World Court Decision and US Adherence to the Vienna Convention

As a former Foreign Service officer, I am pleased that the World Court has ordered American courts to review the death sentences of 51 Mexicans who have been sentenced to death in the US without being advised of their right under the Vienna Convention to consult with a Mexican consul. See New York Times article on the decision.

My first Foreign Service assignment was to Sao Paulo, Brazil, as a consular officer, where one of my jobs was to visit Americans who had been arrested in Brazil, to assure that they were treated properly. Shortly before I arrived, there were allegations that an American in Recife had been tortured after he was arrested. So, we tried to make sure that we were granted immediate access to all arrested Americans as provided for under the Vienna Convention. I am disappointed that while the US has traditionally insisted on this right for Americans overseas, we have not granted the same rights to foreigners arrested in the US.

The World Court did not claim to reverse any of the convictions, but it did say that the US erred in not advising the Mexicans of their rights under the Vienna Convention, or in not automatically notifying Mexican officials when one of their nationals was arrested. I am not worried that foreigners will be tortured in the US (athough that is more of a possibility with John Ashcroft as Attorney General), but I am worried that if the US disregards the Vienna Convention, we will not be able to insist that other nations obey it, and thus American citizens may be subject to poor treatment in foreign jails.

Kerry, Bush and Vietnam

It will probably be pretty clear that I am not a George W. Bush fan, mainly because of his use of "pre-emptive" war. War is such a serious thing that it should not be entered into lightly, as the Iraq war illustrated by its failure to win international support for invading to prevent Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction, and then failing to find any. See my thoughts on Iraq during the run-up to the war there a year ago. I was so disgusted by the result that I haven't updated the site recently.

However, I am also not a John Kerry fan because I am a Vietnam veteran who believes that I did not commit any atrocities in Vietnam. I basically allowed myself to be drafted out of law school, when the draft board ended my student deferment, in part because I believed then, and still do, that in a democracy everybody should share the hardships as well as the benefits of government. I spent a year in the artillery (1969-70) on the DMZ of Vietnam, where fortunately the war was more conventional (more uniformed men and fewer women and children combatants), but in any case, as far as I know, I didn't kill any civilians intentionally or by accident.

When I returned to the US from Vietnam, I was disappointed that all anybody wanted to hear about were atrocities. Other students could have cared less that I went to Vietnam so that one of them didn't have to, or maybe even to prevent some poor South Vietnamese peasant from being killed by the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese Army, at least for one year.

Finally, I'm not so sure about Kerry's getting three Purple Heart medals in four months without ever going to the hospital. I'm not saying he didn't get wounded three times (three more times than I did), but medals require a recommendation by superiors, as well as an act of bravery. Because of his patrician background, Kerry's superiors seemed to jump at the chance to recommend medals for him, more so than for some poor grunt in the boonies. To see how this played in World War II, see a cartoon from Bill Mauldin's Up Front. I'm glad Kerry went (unlike George W.), but if he had been serious, he would have spent more than four months in combat (for the sake of the men under him who needed some continuity of leadership, if not for himself or his country). He no doubt found that Vietnam was a messy war, morally and physically, and he understandably wanted out, but when he came back, he should have had more consideration for the men who served there, not branding them indiscriminately as immoral war criminals.

However, as a retired Foreign Service officer, I have to give Kerry credit for being the son of a Foreign Service officer, something many people probably count as a liability, rather than an asset.

Is Bush a Nice Man?

I was very pleased when Jon Stewart asked Karen Hughes on the Daily Show on March 31 why President Bush is so mean. Of course, her answer was that he's not mean, but he certainly comes across that way to me. He may be nice to people he likes, such as Karen Hughes, but he sticks his finger in the eye of people he doesn't like, such as all Democrats or the population of France. I'm disappointed that Karen Hughes' interview is not available on the Comedy Central web site (as Richard Clarke's is) to check on exactly what they said, but it was not a great interview, since she dodged most of Jon's serious questions.

Non-Proliferation Experience

I spent a considerable part of my State Department career working on non-proliferation matters, either nuclear proliferation or missile proliferation. I never worked specifically on chemical or biological weapons proliferation. President Reagan was elected after I had been in the State Department for about five years and was working on non-proliferation in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which is the part of the State Department that works closely with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The Carter Administration had begun working on the problem of missile proliferation, but with the change of administration, the senior people who had been working on this issue for Carter all lost their jobs. Although I was pretty junior, I was one of the few people who knew anything about it. Thus I had a larger role than I normally would have had in the creation of what eventually was called the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This was my introduction to the competition between the State Department and the Defense Department.

At that time, missile proliferation fell under the control of a man named Richard Perle at the Defense Department. You may recognize his name as the chairman, and then member until recently, of the Defense Advisory Board, and as one of the main hawks favoring war with Iraq. Back then he was an assistant secretary of defense, which is not particularly high ranking, but his influence was much greater than his title would indicate. Some of Perle’s staff from those days is still around, including the #2 at the NSC, Deputy NSC Advisor Steve Hadley.

State was seeking a missile non-proliferation regime that we could get other countries to join. Perle was seeking an extremely tough regime that would cut off almost all trade in anything having to do with either missiles or peaceful space launch vehicles, since space launch vehicles incorporate a lot of missile technology. At first we only sought the cooperation of our closest allies – Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and a few other countries. Back then, Donald Rumsfeld’s “new” Europe was still Communist Europe. Anyway, our allies would not buy on to a regime that was too tough on peaceful space cooperation, and within the US Government, the Pentagon would not buy on to a regime that allowed too much peaceful space cooperation. So, we negotiated with our allies and within the government until I got assigned to Bangkok, Thailand. When I got back from assignments in Bangkok and Brasilia, Brazil, they had reached agreement on what they called the MTCR, which turned out to be one of those things designed by committee that generally pleases no one.

It did not please me, because while I was in Brazil, I helped an American company win a multimillion-dollar contract for satellite tracking stations to allow Brazil to use satellites to monitor environmental conditions in the Amazon. A few months later, however, the Pentagon vetoed the deal because it said the tracking stations could be used to track missiles if Brazil tried to develop them, although they would have been poorly suited for this purpose. The US eventually approved licenses for the ground stations, but my Brazilian contacts were furious with me because of my role in persuading them to buy American. They said that they would have bought a similar Japanese system if they had known the US would have created so many problems for their environmental satellite program. However, the State Department office in Washington that had been created to handle the MTCR asked me to come back and help them get it working. So, I spent another two years trying to get more rich countries to sign on to it, and to get better enforcement of what we already had in place against poorer, potentially proliferating countries. The MTCR still exists, has much wider membership, hopefully has stronger controls, and is being supplemented by other agreements on missile control. My boss during this assignment was Richard Clarke of "Against All Enemies" book fame.

In the early days, one of the most contentious issues was what to do about SCUD missiles, which were at the lower limit of what the regime controlled. SCUDs were first produced by the Soviet Union, but the Soviets sold not only the missiles themselves, but also the technology to build them. So, today they are produced by a number of unsavory countries, including North Korea. You may remember that during the first Gulf War, Iraq fired SCUDS at Israel and US troops in Saudi Arabia. They were one of the weapons of mass destruction that we expected Saddam Hussein to use in the second war. But they were not used and like other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, Iraq’s SCUDS have gone missing, although before the war UN inspectors did find and destroy components for a more advanced missile based on the SCUD.

One sad thing I learned at State is that it’s easier for the government to do easy things than for it to do hard things. This may sound simplistic, but I found that it was often easier to take action against moderate countries that were not so bad, like Brazil or Argentina, than against tough countries that were really misbehaving, like Pakistan or China. It looks to me like this still going on today. Despite all that we have learned in the last few months about A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and possibly Iraq, the US remains on good terms with Pakistan because we need their help in Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden.

Pakistan built its atomic bombs using uranium enrichment technology; Pakistan is the developing country that has the best expertise in uranium enrichment. The latest big flap in our relations with North Korea is over their building a uranium enrichment facility. But because of our terrorist problems in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are reluctant to crack down on Pakistan. So, we recently sanctioned North Korea for its relatively low-grade missile proliferation activities in helping Pakistan with missiles. But we have not sanctioned Pakistan, because of political considerations.
Russia and China remain problem countries. Russia stands accused of supplying somewhat similar nuclear technology or equipment to Iran. Russia and Iran have nuclear cooperation going back years and years. China appears to have been the source of some crucial nuclear technology acquired by the Pakistanis. But because of our huge trade relationship with China and our need for China’s help with North Korea, we remain quiet about China’s other activities.