Terror - Again

September 25th

After the most recent (multiple) terror attacks several commentators were quick to point out that the process from ‘explosion to arrest’ took less than 48 hours and that this demonstrated the great strides made since 2001.

The action of the various police and investigative organizations in identifying and tracking down the suspects was excellent police work. But…

It should be remembered that no action of any intelligence or police organization prevented the terrorists from succeeding. That these bombs went off and yet no one died is just a little short of a miracle. But banking on miracles is not a great security strategy.

That various terrorists have failed in their attacks because of incompetence (the ‘Underwear Bomber,’ the ‘Shoe Bomber,’ etc.) is hardly cause for celebration. We can thank God that such was the case. But, besides prayer, what can we do to prevent terror future attacks?

In the short term we can’t completely stop attacks. Whatever we start today won’t yield immediate and comprehensive results. Answers that ‘we need to copy Israel’ (the implication being that Israel has better security than the US) miss the point that the US is physically 400 times bigger than Israel with 40 times the population; the US is a much harder problem then Israel. And it’s a different one; it’s worth remembering that Israel suffers from regular terrorist attacks. The US can learn a great deal from Israel and others, but the US solution is going to be much different.

The US also has the benefit of the Constitution. That is something we absolutely don’t want to ‘throw out.’ But with the rights and freedoms the Constitution guarantees and protects, there is an associated cost. So, any solution must balance our security with those rights and freedoms.

So, how do we do that? Our candidates need to be asked this question. Any reasonable answer needs to address the following points:

First, recognize that any answer is going to be incomplete, that there will always be mistakes and gaps in our security. And, every answer will take time to implement. That we’re 15 years into this war against Islamic terrorists and we’re still asking these questions is a reason for criticism. The first 7 or 8 years or that period we seemed to perform slightly better. But in the past several years we’ve seen multiple successful terrorist attacks. Our security appears to be slipping. That suggests that, at a minimum, the people in charge right now need to be retired and new leadership and new strategies are needed.

Second, immigration reform – and that means better border security and immigration control – is a key element of our internal security. Trying to establish better security while maintaining open borders is nonsensical. We need to establish control first and then move on towards some sort of immigration reform. It is the sine qua non of the security problem. You can’t have open borders and high security. Pick one.

Third, intelligence agencies – working with the FBI, the state and local police and other agencies – can do a lot. They can probably do more then they are doing. Doing so will require intruding on personal liberties from time to time. And there will be mistakes. The intelligence agencies have no right to unchecked activities, or instant acceptance and loyalty from the citizenry. The nation needs more, and more aggressive, Congressional oversight. The intelligence community needs to be more forthcoming with Congress, and Congress needs to be much more aggressive and assertive in establishing detailed and comprehensive oversight.

Fourth, winning this war will require a very aggressive ‘away’ game. The root of this war is Islamic fanaticism. The way to fight them is with our Arab friends and allies who are in the same war as we, and who are suffering far more casualties than we are. We need to work with them to root out existing terrorist cells, but we also need to help them to do what is necessary to reform or stamp out those forces that promote fanaticism that threatens not simply the West, but threatens their own nations.

These are the big pieces: new leadership; immigration reform; meaningful intelligence reform and oversight; and attacking Islamic fanaticism at its roots. There are a thousand details. But whatever we do, every plan must include these elements.

US Foreign Policy: Off the Rails

September 18th, 2016

A recent commentary opined that, if elected, President Trump must find 'qualified' people for key positions; that only a few on his team have the necessary credentials.

Another article lauded Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy acumen, experience and inside knowledge. This was compared to Mr. Trump’s inexperience and lack of inside knowledge, concluding that Mrs. Clinton was the only possible choice for those serious about US national security policy.

So… let's begin with several simple assertions:

Mrs. Clinton is at least part-author of current US foreign and security policy.

Mrs. Clinton will, on the whole, maintain current US foreign policy and national security policy.

Mrs. Clinton will draw from the ‘established’ policy experts.

So how has US foreign policy and national security policy developed after 7 years of these experts?

Iraq was recovering in 2009, declared a great success by VP Biden in 2011, but now wars with ISIS, and drifts further into the Iran – Russia camp everyday.

Egypt has been through two non-constitutional changes in government and is fighting a nasty shadow war with Islamic extremists.

Libya, not a friend in 2009, but being helpful, was turned into a failed state and a breeding ground for radical Islamists. This is arguably Mrs. Clinton’s particular achievement.

Syria’s civil war emerged from the ‘Arab Spring,’ an event misunderstood by the Mrs. Clinton and the Administration. 5 years later 300,000 Syrians are dead, the war continues, and a refugee crisis threatens Europe.

Russia rises, despite Clinton’s ‘Reset.’ Putin seized Crimea, is slowly seizing eastern Ukraine, has applied heavy-handed pressure on Georgia, and has successfully exploited the vacuum in the Middle East - caused by the partial US withdrawal - to keep Assad in place in Syria, and stake out a new power position for Russia.

Iran exploited the same power vacuum and helped to undermine the government of Yemen, leading to civil war in that country - now 5 years in duration. Now, flush with cash, Iran ‘flexes its muscles’ in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea.

North Korea transitioned into the 3^rd generation of the Kim dynasty, has conducted scores of missile tests, and accelerated nuclear weapon development; the US has done nothing to slow that nuclear weapons program. Within a couple of years the North will probably have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them regionally. Within 3 or 4 years they may be able to reach the US.

China continues expanding, with Chinese naval forces now on patrol in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, Chinese bases built or building in Pakistan and Djibouti, and seeking a naval port in the southern Atlantic Ocean.

The Philippines’ new president is bowing to Chinese presence, and, recognizing American fecklessness and the situation in the South China Sea, it’s looking increasingly that he will cede de facto control of key Philippine islands to China.

Cuba’s leaders mocks us; Mexico builds a border wall to keep out those crossing its southern border (really); Chinese commercial interests have moved into Panama, and want to move into Nicaragua; Venezuela has collapsed; and Brazil and Argentina are facing economic and political crises.

Many US policies are diametrically opposite to that which came before. From Israel to Japan, Great Britain to the Philippines, the US has retreated from longtime friends, and courted new friends (e.g. Cuba and Iran) who’ve turned around and mocked the US even as the White House chases more agreements.

These political and economic situations, if not caused by the US, have all been seriously exacerbated by US policies in the last 7 years, many of which were first implemented by Mrs. Clinton.

Meanwhile, the US economy remains stagnant; and our military, according to those across the political spectrum, has grown weaker; investments are needed in a host of capabilities, and it will require years to recover.

Yet, those who created this mess wish to remain in power. These are the people the intelligentsia insists President Trump must have on his team.

As this disaster unfolds in slow motion we’re told that Mrs. Clinton can fix it. But Mrs. Clinton helped create this catastrophe. Can we really afford to give her another chance?

Perhaps Mr. Trump can’t fix it. But if ever there were an argument for Donald Trump, this is it.

A Nuclear North Korea: Now What?

September 10th, 2016

North Korea detonated a bomb September 9^th.

If you haven’t been following closely, during the past year the North has conducted multiple missile tests – short, medium and long-range missiles, and also tested a sea-launched ballistic missile. And last Friday they detonated a 10 – 30 kiloton weapon (that is, 10 – 30 thousand tons of TNT).

(The test was underground; because of the limits of seismology, while it can be determined with a high degree of certainty that it was a man-made event, determining the actual size of the explosion is limited by knowledge of the specific geology where the explosion took place, hence the estimate: at least 10 kilotons, but probably not more than 30 kilotons. For reference, the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15 kt and 20 kt, respectively.)

How did we get here?

For decades the US has been in on-again, off-again talks with Russia, China, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan vis-à-vis North Korea and, among other things, how to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. China and Russia have direct contact with North Korea so there was always communication with the North.

Following revelations of a substantial North Korean nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s, the Clinton Administration entered into negotiations to try to end the North’s development program. This resulted in an agreement: the North Korean – US ‘Agreed Framework,’ signed in October 1994 to end the weapons program, and build 2 nuclear power stations in North Korea.

The agreement broke down in 2002 when we accused North Korea of continuing uranium enrichment, violating the agreement. The North countered that the US had no definitive proof. In December 2003 all work ceased on the reactors. Talks resumed and by 2005 some in the State Department were hopeful that the North would adhere to the agreement.

That didn’t quite play out. And whatever the interim truth, the recent detonation shows that they in fact have a successful weapon program.

Previously, the US, Japan and the ROK would meet with Russia and China and they would use ‘carrots and sticks’ (‘carrots’ mainly consisting of fuel and food, sticks mainly being targeted sanctions on bank accounts and the moving of money into and out of North Korea) to get North Korea ‘back in the box.’

That has unraveled. Sanctions – on paper – are now very tight. But there seems to be a reasonable conclusion that China is not really enforcing the sanctions. And, there is informed speculation that China has assisted in at least elements of the nuclear weapon and missile programs.

Why would China support the North? Because, despite rhetoric otherwise, the last thing China wants is a unified Korea. A unified Korea would leave a true capitalist state, and a US ally, on China’s border. That’s clearly not in China’s national interest. In fact, such an outcome is unacceptable to China. Nor can they let North Korea fall apart. So, whatever is necessary to sustain the North – and prevent unification, is justifiable.

How does a nuclear North Korea help China? Simply, nuclear weapons make North Korea ‘too dangerous to fail.’ Without nuclear weapons the world could, arguably, let the North collapse economically and politically: ‘let China and the ROK fix it.’ It would be ugly, but it could happen.

Adding nuclear weapons into the mix changes the equation; it is arguably too dangerous to let a nation fail when armed with nuclear weapons. So, with nuclear weapons, North Korea must be ‘saved,’ and China need not worry about a unified Korea.

China will, however, use this situation to ‘stir the pot’ and call for steps to reduce tensions, which they will equate to reducing US presence in Korea and the Western Pacific, while continuing calls for the US to remove ballistic missile defense systems from the region.

What should the US do?

The US needs to recognize the primary issue isn’t North Korea; the primary issue is China. North Korea survives, and North Korea has a viable ballistic missile force and a nuclear weapons program because, in the end, China has aided and abetted the programs and sustained North Korea’s ruling regime.

China is looking after what it perceives as its interests.

It’s time the US does the same. There are many steps to take, to include modernizing our deterrence forces, and strengthening our missile defense capabilities. But we need to begin by recognizing that China’s interests clearly are not ours.

The G-20: A President in Search of a Kingdom

September 3rd, 2016
 

In the summer of 1191, the army of Richard the Lion-hearted captured the city of Acre, then moved on towards Jaffa, prepatory to assaulting Jerusalem. But things weren’t going smoothly for Richard and on June 28^th he sent a message to Salahdin, asking to meet and negotiate a settlement. The two never met, though Richard did meet with Salahdin’s brother Sayf ad Din. It was, arguably, the first attempt at a great power summit in modern history.

Like many summits, little was accomplished. However, that hasn’t diminished the appetite many leaders – kings and presidents – have for such meetings.

Beginning on the 3^rd, the leading politicians of the world are meeting in Hangzhou, China, part of a complex, and often confusing, series of institutionalized summits: the G-7, G-8, G-20, etc. The numbers change, but the agenda remains the same: the titular leaders of various nations get together and act, well, not exactly presidential. More accurately, they act imperially, much like Richard and Salahdin.

The first G-7 meeting was held in 1974, when the presidents and prime ministers of Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US met to discuss what might be done about the oil crisis. Following the discussions nothing was done that actually addressed the oil crisis – such as producing more oil. Economies weren’t fixed, oil wasn’t produced, and no alternatives were generated.

More summits followed. Such is one of the legacies of summits.

From the G-7 sprang the G-8: Russia was added. And then came the G-20 in 1999.

At these various summits they’ve met, and they’ve talked. They’ve cancelled a number of debts from developing nations, and they’ve pontificated on how to fine-tune short-term economic actions by their governments. There were a number of meetings in the 2008 – 2010 timeframe that addressed the global recession. The global recession more or less churned on and the actions recommended by global leadership accomplished little, except perhaps slowing the recovery. But that didn’t slow the appetite for these meetings.

 

But there’s another piece to these meetings, what has percolated out of these various summits, something that’s become more prevalent in the last 5 or 6 years: the announcement of various agreements. Some mean very little; at the G-20 summit last November, world leaders announced they were united against terrorism. (I thought they’d announced that in September of 2001.)

 

But yesterday President Obama announced – as he arrived for the meetings – that the US would, according to multiple news sources, ‘ratify’ the Paris Agreement on Global Warming. He then turned over documents to the UN General Secretary as to exactly how the US would comply.

There is, however, one small problem: the President doesn’t ratify treaties, the Senate does. Per the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: the president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” 

The President asserts that it isn’t a treaty. So, the Senate doesn’t need to approve it. But despite what the President says, the ‘agreement’ binds the nation, under terms of international law. Call it what you will – a rose by any other name – it’s a treaty, detailing what steps each nation will take to reduce various emissions, and how much money each nation must pay into a global clean-up fund.

 

We may argue about what causes climate change, and we may argue about what’s the best course of action to limit change. But the specifics of the Constitution are clear: the President is the executor of the nation’s laws, he doesn’t create them. Yet this is exactly what happens at these summits: the President meets with senior figures of other governments, they talk, they reach some sort of understanding, and then believe that, because they’ve reached an understanding, that our nations are bound by that understanding. That is called imperialism.

The G-20 is another opportunity for the President to act like a king. But the President has no authority to bind the nation to an agreement with another nation. Such an agreement is called a treaty. And that power rests very specifically with the Senate. It’s time we turn a jaundiced eye towards these summits and demand thorough oversight by Congress.

China, the South China Sea, and the and the League of Nations

August 27, 2016
 

September 18^th, 1931: a young Japanese army lieutenant, Suemori Kawamoto, acting under orders of Col. Seishiro Itagaki, surreptitiously detonates a small bomb next to a railroad track just outside of Shenyang, Manchuria.

The Japanese used the fabricated ‘Mukden Incident’ to justify invading and occupying Manchuria, claiming the attack represented a threat to security.

Roll the clock forward…

Beginning in 1991, as the Philippines demanded removal of US military bases, and as US presence in the South China Sea (SCS) began to shrink, the US began shifting naval assets to the Middle East, while shrinking our navy as part of the ‘peace dividend’; no serious effort was made to address the power vacuum in SE Asia.

Meanwhile, the Chinese had already been making waves about the ‘9 Dash Line,’ a map (with a line made up of nine segments – ‘9 Dashes’) that marked out Chinese territory in the SCS, to include most of the islands. China didn’t quite have the navy to do anything about it, so things went more or less unchanged for the next decade or so.

 

But 4 or 5 years ago things started changing: the Chinese navy was larger and more capable, the US had sent a clear signal that it viewed trade with China as perhaps our number one foreign policy issue, and there was no one else to challenge China. And China had plans to expand their footprint in the SCS.

 

In January 2013, as China staked a claim to what was clearly Philippine territory, the Philippine government brought its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague (established under the UN), seeking a ruling on ownership of the islands.

 

The Chinese asserted the court had no jurisdiction and in 2014 (and again in 2015) refused to submit a counter argument.

By 2014 the Chinese were already well into a major construction effort, dredging around the islands and pouring tens of thousands of tons of concrete.

Nevertheless, on July 12^th, 2016 the court issued its decision, finding the Philippine position was correct, undermining China’s entire claim to the ‘9 Dash Line.’

 

Since then China has made it very clear it vehemently disagrees and has no intention of abiding by the Court’s findings. The Philippines finds itself unable to confront the Chinese navy (or air force, now flying routine patrols over the SCS) and appears to be headed towards some sort of de facto accommodation with Beijing.

 

It’s worth remembering that through the SCS passes 25% of the world’s international trade, to include some 15 million barrels of oil per day.

 

All of which leads us to wonder what happens next.

But, this kind of thing has happened before.

Consider: in February of 1933 the League of Nations issued a report calling for Japan to leave ‘occupied Manchuria.’

In response, on February 24^th, Ambassador Yosuke Matsuoka walked out of the League assembly in Geneva, and Japan withdrew from the League. Matsuoka stated: "Japan will oppose any attempt at international control of Manchuria. It does not mean that we defy you, because Manchuria belongs to us by right.”

Now, the words President Xi of China used just 7 weeks ago in responding to the ruling by the Court:

“China is committed to resolving disputes through direct negotiations, but its national sovereignty and maritime interests will not be influenced under any circumstances by the South China Sea ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal of The Hague.”

Later, while meeting with the EU President, Xi added: “The South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times, and China refuses to accept any claims or activities based on the arbitral ruling.”

Following Japan’s quitting the League of Nations there was a good deal of talk, but little action.  Two years later (1935) Italy, equally contemptuous of the League, invaded Ethiopia. The League did nothing. Several years later, the world was at war.

Decisions have consequences. The decisions made by the foreign policy elite over the last two decades, and in particular those made since 2010, have led us to this situation. It’s unreasonable to assume that those who got us into this situation will get us out of it. And to a certainty, this will get worse before it gets better.

Gold, Silver, Bronze and US Foreign Policy

August 20, 2016
 

The Olympics are interesting; despite the new-age, ‘everyone wins’ psychology, the Olympics really celebrates only one thing: winning. Medal counts, and especially gold medals, are at the center of every event. It doesn’t even matter if you’re the second best in the world, everyone wants that gold medal. Winners and losers.

Not quite like academia, or government bureaucracies. But a lot like the real world. The US, and President Obama’s foreign policy team – to include Mrs. Clinton, got a lesson in that last week.

 

It’s pretty easy to miss these kinds of things (they tend to get brushed off the front page fairly quickly, replaced by the latest remark from the leading candidate, or the latest fashion statement from some reality star), but Russians bombers are flying out of Iranian air bases.

 

Let me repeat that: the Russians are flying bombers out of Iranian air bases.

 

So, let’s just put this all in perspective:

 

The Obama – Clinton – Kerry team spent 6 years putting together a nuclear deal with Iran, giving Iran the right to maintain a nuclear research program and, at the end of 15 years do whatever it pleases with that program, in exchange for which we returned $150 billion in frozen assets. We lifted trade sanctions and released frozen assets and they promised to suspend certain activities for 15 years, during which they can continue research.

 

And the US received?

 

Since then, the Iranians have been more aggressive in the Gulf when they confront the US Navy (remember those sailors grabbed and humiliated?); and the US has become more passive.

 

Iran moved into Iraq (recent press reporting suggests there may be as many as 100,000 Iranians in Iraq fighting against ISIS).

 

And they’ve cosied up to the Russians.

 

The Russians (and their alter egos, the Soviets) have had their eyes on Iran and the Persian Gulf) for several hundred years. US (and before us the UK) presence in Iran through 1979, and our support for the Shah, was to prevent just such an occurrence.

 

Now we find the Russians and the Iranians working together to defeat ISIS in Iraq and bolster a pro-Iran Iraqi government, working together to support Assad in Syria, and the Russians working with the Iranians to improve their military and their defense posture.

 

The Russians have sold Iran state-of-the-art surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and other modern weapons, and now Russian bombers are flying out of Iranian air bases. We have to assume Russians are servicing and at least in an oversight role manning these SAMs.

 

About a year ago I suggested that a de facto “Damascus Pact” had been created that would give Russia a presence spanning from the Mediterranean to the Mountains of Afghanistan. It appears to have happened. A Russian air base in Syria, Russian advisors in Iraq, Russian bombers and advisors in Iran; Russia sits astride any possible pipeline from the Middle East to Europe; they sit astride trade routes from East Asia to Europe; Russia has staked out a position that could give them control of the heartland of Asia.

And where is the US?

The US is lost in the Mid-East. Whether Iraq, or Syria, or Yemen, or Afghanistan or Libya or Egypt, US security – and US interests – have deteriorated substantially in the last 7 years. The foreign policy errors of the last 7 years are coming home to roost. And Washington foreign policy wonks, in particular the former Secretary of State, appear to be oblivious to it all.

What happens next is up to the gold-medalist Putin. He’s been strengthening his forces immediately adjacent to Ukraine. It’s reasonable to expect that he’ll further tighten the screws on Ukraine over the next several months. Elsewhere, silver-medalist China will continue to ramp up pressure in the South China Sea. Bronze-medalist Iran will continue to push against our Arab allies in the Mid East.Gold, silver, bronze.

And the Obama – Clinton – Kerry foreign policy?

Not in the medal count.

Global Elites and America

August 13, 2016

In June Great Britain voted to leave the European Union, what’s become known as ‘the British Exit’ or Brexit. Many predicted that Brexit would mean the collapse of the British economy and a whole host of other horrors. None of that has happened - but the doomsayers remain hopeful.

In parallel, we’ve seen the rise of Donald Trump as the GOP candidate for president.

Meanwhile, the ‘ruling elite’ is trying to explain just what this all means. In one of the major business magazines, the CEO of one of the largest US corporations (and a member of the elite) recently suggested this really isn’t about anything more than a failure of large bureaucracies and the lack of leaders with clear vision.

His inference is that with the right ‘leaders’ and the right ‘management’ the bureaucracies can all be fixed up and everything will be great. With respect, the CEO is simply flat-out wrong.

The bureaucracies that have grown up in the US (and Europe) since World War II haven’t failed; arguably, they’ve succeeded.

This isn’t the failure of bureaucracies, this isn’t the failure of the process, and it isn’t about a Constitution that no longer works. The British essayist GK Chesterton once noted the problem with Europe ‘…wasn’t that Christianity had been tried and found wanting, but that Christianity had been tried and found to be difficult, so it was abandoned.’ The same might be said about how many – particularly on the left – have viewed the Constitution in the last 60 years, and the notion of a free and participatory government: the Constitution was found to be difficult, and so they have abandoned it. It’s much easier to find the right judge, and better yet the right agency and the right bureaucrat, and eschew the slow, painful process of a referendum and perhaps some legislation to affect change. Find a convenient ‘leader’ (dictator) to issue some new court order, regulation, or executive order and to hell with democracy and the Constitution.

Simply put, they didn’t, and don’t, want limited, participatory government. They want an elite (them) that rules by fiat, because they believe they are better than us. And that’s how the bureaucracies have grown.

As Peggy Noonan points out, the ‘leaders’ – the elites who have ever more money and influence – have grown into a global aristocracy. They believe they’ve the right to decide everything for us: where we’ll work, where we’ll live, what we’ll eat and how, in detail, we’ll live. But none of these boundaries placed on you and me will affect them. They live outside of – above and beyond – the reach of bureaucrats and local political entities. They live how and where they want. They lecture us on carbon footprints, demand the ‘end of coal’ and close coal mines and put thousands out of work, then climb into private jets, fly off to New York to give a speech - for $250,000 - to Wall Street elites who think just as they do, then fly to the South of France for a vacation, producing more CO2 in a single day then some of us will in a lifetime.

The point of Brexit is that the English recognized the elites of the European Union, to include England’s elites, don’t really care about them – at all. The same is happening in the US, with voters recognizing that the elites in Washington and in the media and the universities, have no loyalty to them, to the US, to our Constitution or to our culture or our origins. Simply put, they aren’t really Americans.

As Miss Noonan noted, there’s now a vast ‘detachment’ between the elites (who globally associate, thinking of themselves as ‘citizens of the world’) and the average citizen, the inhabitants of ‘fly-over country,’ as it’s derisively termed by the establishment.

The elites label as racist the trucker with a Confederate battle flag on his truck, while they disdain most Americans, exploit the lexicon of racism for political gain, expand bureaucratic programs that have created a black unemployment rate twice the national average for most of the last 40 years, leaving black-on-black crime at horrific levels (while they maintain they’re own security behind well-armed private security guards), cynically locking millions of blacks into tightly controlled voting blocks.

But, for the global elite, that’s not racism, that’s just what they do. After all, they’re better than us.