re: "Court Gives State Department Deadline to Resolve FTO Status of Iranian Group"

Robert Chesney at Lawfare ("Hard National Security Choices")informed that the Department is now under a deadline.

Money quote(s):

"A DC Circuit panel has issued an opinion giving the State Department four months maximum to make a final decision on PMOI’s petition to revoke its status as a designated foreign terrorist organization. The issue has been somewhat high profile, as that status is the predicate for material support liability under 18 USC 2339B and various immigration-law constraints…and because PMOI is an entity hostile to the government of Iran, with a considerable amount of support in Congress for its delisting."

6/3

re: "This is no time to cut defense"

Paul Miller at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") can think of several reasons not to cut defense.

Money quote(s):

"There are two major families of threats to U.S. national security today. First, at one end of the state spectrum, are the nuclear-armed authoritarian powers: Russia, China, soon Iran, North Korea as a junior partner, and Pakistan if it falls to jihadists. The latter three are (or will be) new to the nuclear club since the Cold War, and China is vastly more powerful today than it was in 1989. Second, at the other end, is the aggregate global consequences of state failure and anarchy across much of the world -- such as the rise of terrorist groups, organized crime, drug cartels, human traffickers, nuclear smugglers, pandemic disease, and piracy -- that will collectively erode global stability and raise the cost of U.S. leadership. State failure, with its effects magnified by globalization, is also a vastly greater threat that during the Cold War. These two families are the threats we face in the 21st Century."

Pretty good summary of these two "families" of threats.

"Nuclear war with Iran or North Korea would be almost equally dangerous, especially after they have acquired longer-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. allies and even the U.S. homeland. (Yes, the Soviet Union had thousands of warheads, but you only need a few nukes to cause more damage to us than all the wars we have fought in history, combined, and only a few dozen to effectively wipe out the United States. And if I were a new nuclear power, I wouldn't announce my capability until I already had a few dozen to make sure I could withstand an attack on my arsenal. Which means that North Korea and Iran (when it announces) will almost certainly be existential threats). The difference is that war with them or their proxies may be more likely to actually happen. The latter two countries may be less deterrable, less predictable, and more prone to transfer nuclear technology to proxies and non-state groups, given their history of erratic behavior, sponsoring terrorism, and proliferation."

A multi-polar world is, by definition, a more complex one.

"Militarily, the Allies have underinvested in defense for decades-nothing new there. But the situation is actually getting worse, not better."

And it'll get even worse before it gets better.

(That's if there are any allies left at the end of the "worse" part.)

"What worries me is that I am increasingly convinced that we do not have the capabilities to meet the various threats we face today. We don't need to be omnipotent, but we do need to be able to protect ourselves. Can we stave off state failure in Pakistan? Can we prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or contain it afterwards? Could we prevent Russia from doing to Ukraine what it did to Georgia in 2008? Can we defeat the drug cartels wreaking havoc in Mexico and Columbia? Is al-Qaida really nearing "strategic defeat," as Panetta claims? Are we prepared to handle a collapse in North Korea -- possibly having to fight a sudden war with a desperate regime, contribute to a multilateral occupation and reconstruction afterwards, and handle the delicate diplomacy with the Chinese?

Until we can, this is no time to cut defense."

10/17

re: "National Security Part 5: The Power Elite"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a dim view of where we're headed.

Money quote(s):

"(C)itizen morale is an important -- nay, indispensable -- component of the national security. It determines how many of us will answer a "call to the colors," and how ardently we'll undertake the tasks it demands.

For most of its history, the United States was a high-morale society. Indeed, Albert Jay Nock, one of the premier cynics of his time, described our morale as like unto "an army on the march." It was so high that it sent millions of men into combat to protect and liberate faceless others, not once but twice."

"From the standpoint of the private individual, convinced by the words and deeds of the power elite that he is merely fodder for the State's schemes, disaffiliating from the nation and concentrating on personal security and gain is both reflexive and purely rational. Why should he take up arms to defend something that ceaselessly strives to shackle and mulct him? Why should he accept a politician's plea that he sacrifice for the greater good? He's been persuaded that a sacrifice is all he'll ever be. There's no future in it."

"Matters become particularly grave when the power elite acquires a general reputation for considering itself above the law. Law in a Western nation is nominally superior to any individual; that's the basis of republican governance. Lawbreakers are supposedly conceded no immunities because of their station in life. But in recent years, the practice has diverged greatly from the theory.

Should the power elite manifest a disdain for the requirements of the law through its actions, it will be exceedingly difficult to conceal that attitude from the citizenry. As no one ever thinks of himself as "below" anyone else, the inevitable consequence is the evaporation of respect for the law as such. Citizens will ignore, evade, and outrightly break the law whenever it's possible, safe, and to their advantage. Even the most popular laws will be indifferently enforced, as the enforcers will progressively more often "sell exemptions" -- i.e., look the other way for a consideration -- than act according to the black-letter law and their public responsibilities. They, too, have their individual interests to serve.

Domestic law and the prevailing level of respect for it might not seem relevant to national security. Yet there are forces, some overtly hostile, that exploit our willingness to break our own laws. The general incoherence of our attitude toward illegal immigration provides an excellent case study: it's not just job-hungry Mexicans that flow across our borders. The ongoing traffic in illegal drugs, and the intentions of those whom it funds, provide another." (Bold typeface added for emphasis.)

&

"(A) set of dynamics have operated, since the end of World War II at least, to reduce American national security. In part, it's because we've accepted more external commitments than we can honor, whether because of the finity of our forces or the strains on our pocketbooks. But in greater part, it's because of the social, economic, and political deterioration we've allowed here at home.

Your Curmudgeon must reluctantly assess America's national security as low, perhaps dangerously low. The extreme risk-aversion of our major foreign enemies is our main protection at this time. Even a small chance that the awesome military power we command might be deployed against them is enough to deter them...for now. But individuals and groups already within our borders that have acted to undermine our law, our economy, and our morale from within are exposed to no such risk -- and their successes to date have emboldened still other persons and groups, including some that are nominally, but in no other way, American."

re: "How We Became a Nation of Warriors"

Stephen Glain published a condensed version of his new book at Salon ("the award-winning online news and entertainment Web site").

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):

"State vs. Defense, the century-old competition between those who would confront America's overseas challenges through diplomatic means and those who would subdue them by force of arms, is all but decided. The economic and political resources commanded by the latter group are vast and powerful, while the former has been reduced to a cadre of supplicants forced to beg before the lavish table of the national security state. Such a lopsided state of affairs has been abetted by a citizenry generally uninterested in the policies carried out in its name and unwilling to share in the burden of their prosecution. Only now, with the specter of bankruptcy looming over the national accounts, are some in Washington daring to contest the bill for, if not the value of, unchecked global hegemony."

_____

Hat tip to The SWJ Editors

re: "Morally Reprehensible People Aren’t (Necessarily) Stupid"

Mark Stout at On War And Words ("War, Thoughts about War, Books about War") offers some good advice to national security professionals.

Money quote(s):

"A woman in the audience has just challenged Plokhy’s belief that Stalin was very intelligent by arguing that nobody who killed so many people as Stalin did could possibly be intelligent, that murder was incompatible with smarts."

"I also recall how often Saddam Hussein has been called “incompetent.” Jeffrey Record, John Robb, among others have done this.

(On Saddam: I believe he was a man of remarkable capabilities. Not many people I know could have clawed their way to the top of such a murderous political system as existed in Iraq and survived there for 25 years. Admittedly, his performance against the United States wasn’t exemplary, but he optimized his military and security apparatus to deal with what, reasonably enough, appeared to him as more proximate threats: internal challenges, and Iran and Israel."

&

"I am hard-pressed to think of a more dangerous mistake than assuming that those of whom we do not approve must be stupid. Laymen can, perhaps, be forgiven for making such mistakes but those of us who think about security-related topic must never, ever engage in such flabby, self-righteous thinking."


_____

Hat tip to COMOPS Monitor ("The latest links from the blogosphere on Strategic Communication, Terrorism & Public Diplomacy").

re: "Autopsy of the Effort to Expand Membership in the Visa Waiver Program"

NoDoubleStandards at Calling a Spade a Spade ("Rants of a Foreign Service Officer on the things that matter to you -- and matter to you not at all") shared some analysis.

Money quote(s):

"The 9/11 Act fundamentally changed (at least temporarily) the philosophy underpinning VWP. Prior to the passage of the law, VWP was a fairly effective tool facilitating travel of citizens from countries deemed low risk as sources of illegal immigration for economic reasons. The 9/11 Act made security the paramount concern. The Bush administration pushed the idea that citizens of countries who had been allies in the "War on Terror" who do not pose a threat to our national security should be allowed to travel visa-free to the U.S."

re: "Regarding Chas Freeman"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") takes a much more balanced view of this appointment.

Money quote(s):

"Freeman, Bush 41's ambassador to Riyadh, has a deep understanding of the Middle East and the Saudis in particular. He has used that understanding to recycle a lot of petrodollars, both in the service of American geopolitical objectives -- that money killed a lot of Soviet soldiers back in the day -- and his private clients. Since regular readers know that I believe that businessmen who recycle petrodollars to American advantage are making an important contribution to the economic health of the country, it stands to reason that I think that Freeman's results are positive even if I do not agree with many of his publicly expressed opinions."

&

"If you read the righty critics of Freeman, particularly as they relate to China policy, they say that he is a sort of hyper realist in the sense that actual power is far more relevant to him than principles. I do not know that is true, but I do think Barack Obama ought to have at least one such person on his national security staff."

re: "Obama's national security team"

Colonel Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis ("(A Committee of Correspondence) ") evaluates the incoming administration's national security team.

Money quote(s):

"It must be remembered that the professionals at CIA, NSA, DIA, the armed forces, etc. are the actual capability of these agencies and parts of government. Agency leadership provides vision, purpose, moral guidance, all the higher functions of management. Top leadership does not conduct operations.

From that point of view the team that Obama has assembled looks good."

JO - MacMillan to get security ministry

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

MacMillan to get security ministry

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Former soldier and police commissioner, Colonel Trevor MacMillan, is to be named the new minister of national security, the Sunday Observer has been reliably informed.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"(T)the Government, facing increasing criticism for seeming lethargy in the face of rising crime, announced a raft of new and old measures to combat the problem. Among them were the immediate implementation of cordons and searches, curfews, vehicle checks and, in general, a zero tolerance approach to all illegal activities."