Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Satellite Shooting

The U.S. Navy is going to shoot down a malfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office (spy) satellite that is due to hit earth in March. A missile fired from an Aegis cruiser will do the deed.

The official reason for doing this, according to Aviation Week, is that:

The spacecraft carries a full tank of hydrazine — a toxic propellant — that would have been used to reposition the satellite in orbit. Government analysts say the odds are that the tank will crack open during re-entry or that it will land in the ocean, which makes up 70 percent of the area where the breaking-up satellite might land.

Hydrazine, a widely used rocket fuel, is certainly hazardous. But suspicious minds are bound to wonder whether the motive behind this action is not what we are told, especially because satellites crash to Earth frequently without harm.

It could be, as Aviation Week speculates, that sensitive technology on the satellite might survive reentry, land in the wrong place, and reveal U.S. secrets.

Another possibility is that the safety concern may provide a rationale for those in the Pentagon who want to conduct an anti-satellite test, a business that the U.S. has been out of for decades. Even if that is not the case, observers in China and other foreign states may believe it anyway.

Business Travel Group Seeks Change to REAL ID

The Association of Corporate Travel Executives recognizes the problems that the Department of Homeland Security will cause if it follows through on the threat to make air travel inconvenient for people from states that refuse the REAL ID Act’s national ID mandate. That’s why ACTE has released a statement asking for change to the REAL ID law.

An ACTE release published on etravelblackboard.com says:

“The traveling public needs more time to consider how these new regulations will affect them, and to be made aware of alternative efforts that may serve the same security objectives with less stress,” said Gurley. “Divisive activity by pressuring states into accepting a mandate at the risk of inconveniencing travelers is not conducive to the best policy-making.”Gurley is referring to the Identification Security Enhancement Act S.717, described as a “compelling alternative to Real ID,” and is cosponsored by four senators from both parties. A companion bill, H.R. 1117, introduced by Tom Allen (D-ME) has been cosponsored by 32 representatives. It has been stated that these bills would produce a more secure identification program, faster than the implementation date (2017) given by DHS.

As I wrote in the American Spectator a week ago:

With enough states saying “Hell No” to the REAL ID mandate, the feds will back down from their threat to make air travel inconvenient. The airline industry will be up on Capitol Hill faster than you can say “You are now free to move about the country.” Congress will back the DHS off.

I was close. It turns out to be an air travelers group making the first to move to end DHS’s brinksmanship.

Iraq War Spending: 2001-present

The CBO has issued a report titled “Analysis of the Growth in Funding for Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere in the War on Terrorism.”

I ran the figures through the Net Present Value calculator I use at WashingtonWatch.com. (The amount you’d have to put in the bank for future spending, or the amount you’d have in the bank but for past spending.)

The results? A little over $8,600 per U.S. family, or $2,700 per person.

The Fear Factory

Via Hit and Run, the article from the February 7 Rolling Stone that Ben Friedman blogged about recently is now online. “The Fear Factory” discusses multiple cases where the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces have brought cases against defendants who “posed little if any demonstrable threat to anyone or anything.” Crucially, the story illustrates how information about the JTTFs’ activities are shrouded behind claims of secrecy.

This is no way to do law enforcement - or to secure a free country.

Nuclear Terror: How Big a Threat?

Steve Chapman has a typically smart piece describing John Mueller’s provocative “who’s afraid of nuclear terror?” argument. (.pdf)

The events required [for nuclear terror to] happen include a multitude of herculean tasks. First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia’s inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing.

Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not scrupulously maintained (as those have not been) quickly become what one expert calls “radioactive scrap metal.” If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally—for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. The terrorists, notes Mueller, would then have to spirit it “hundreds of miles out of the country over unfamiliar terrain, and probably while being pursued by security forces.”

Then comes the task of building a bomb. It’s not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment—plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. And if Al Qaeda could make a prototype, another obstacle would emerge: There is no guarantee it would work, and there is no way to test it…

Chapman concludes:

None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the worst eventuality is one that will never happen.

My eyebrows went up an inch or three the first time I heard this argument at the APSA convention last year, but as with so much of John Mueller’s work, when you stop to think about his arguments, it’s hard to find a genuinely weak link in his logic. In any event, it’s a discussion that deserves to be had.

Airport Security Technology Stuck in the Pipeline

The Washington Post has a story today on the slow pace of progress in airport security technology. We would see faster development of better, more consumer-friendly security technology if the airlines were entirely responsible for it. Here’s a glimpse of what I said about this in an written debate hosted by Reason magazine a few years ago:

Airlines should be given clear responsibility for their own security and clear liability should they fail. Under these conditions, airlines would provide security, along with the best mix of privacy, savings, and convenience, in the best possible way. Because of federal involvement, air transportation is likely less safe today than it would be if responsibility were unequivocally with the airlines.

Musical Chairs

How much will Russia change when Vladimir Putin hands over the presidency to Dmitry Medvedev in the spring?  Putin’s chosen successor has suggested in campaign speeches this month that his regime will be different. Medvedev has eschewed the anti-Western rhetoric of his boss and promised to crack down on corruption. He has even made nice noises about non-government organizations. Putin, of course, imposed tough restrictions on NGOs, especially those of foreign origin or funded by foreign sources, a policy he adopted after seeing the crucial role NGOs played in the Orange Revolution in neighboring Ukraine.

Last month, two government officials appeared to break ranks with Putin’s Kremlin and called for a change in the country’s strident foreign policy. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, the deputy prime minister in charge of economic policy, told an investment conference in Moscow that the government “should adjust [its] foreign policy goals in the nearest future to guarantee stable investment.” His comment was supported by Anatoly Chubais, head of state utility Unified Energy System.

So, will there be a Moscow Spring after the foregone presidential election puts Medvedev in the Kremlin?

Cato’s Andrei Illarionov warned recently that Putinism will not end with Putin relinquishing the presidency. “I don’t think so, because we are talking about the policy and philosophy of aggression against Russian people, against Russia’s neighbors, against other countries in the world,” he told the BBC’s Hard Talk program.  “It does not and should not be attributed to one particular person. This is the philosophy and ideology of a group of people, of the Corporation, of the organizations that exist in the country for a long period of time, almost for a century.”

And news out of Russia suggests that the “Corporation” – constituted predominantly by former state security officials and others linked to the so-called “power ministries” – is tightening its grip on Russia business, government agencies and the media with a host of new appointments and nominations to company boards being announced. For example, Igor Sechin, the deputy chief of staff at the Kremlin, has been nominated for the board of Rosneft, the massive state oil company. Viktor Zubkov, the prime minister, has been nominated for the board of Gazprom, and he is likely to become the next chairman of the natural gas business when Medvedev relinquishes the post on becoming the Russian President.

The list goes on and the flurry of appointments is reminiscent of the early days of Putin’s presidency when the neo-KGB state started to form. Medvedev may not come from a KGB background but the state security men will be all around him with their hands on key levers of power. Even if he is independent minded, how can he withstand the interests of the security services and of his likely Prime Minister, one Vladimir Putin?