notsoforeignpolicy

Bush's DNC surprise goes awry

As Josh Marshall points out, Pakistan today announced the capture of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a high level al Qaeda operative, much as The National Review predicted they might.

Apparently, the Bush administration was putting the thumb screws to the Pakistanis to deliver during the DNC, and they appear to have obliged.

In an unexpected twist, however, The Los Angeles Times coverage suggests that the early announcement of the capture may have undermined efforts to extract useful intelligence from Ghailani:

"Another U.S. counterterrorism official said Ghailani's capture would have been even more significant if not publicized so quickly.

"He's been on the run since 1998 so you have five years of critical intelligence that can be mined: where he has been, who he has been with, how his operations worked," said the counterterrorism official.

"Now, anything that he was involved in is being shredded, burned and, thrown in a river. Those things are all going away as we speak," the official added. "We have to assume anyone affiliated with this guy is on the run . . . when usually, we can get great stuff as long as we can keep it quiet."

Several U.S. officials said it was unclear why Pakistan publicized the arrest, and a spokeswoman at the Pakistani embassy in Washington said she had no information on such details."

So the real surprise appears to be less the capture and more the mainstream press' willingness to examine the possibility that the Bush administration might (gasp) play politics with our nation's intelligence and national security interest. You can paint me happily surprised.

About Those Security Scandals

Much is being made in the media about the investigation into former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger's breach of security protocol. It is evident that the story is the result of a calculated leak, but while it is consuming political oxygen, it seems worthwhile to consider some of the other security lapses that might be more deserving of all this attention.

It goes without saying that who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak might be more worthy of scrutiny, but it that case there is a significant campaign of misdirection that, if not fully successful in changing the subject has at least got a lot of people asking the wrong questions.

Then, of course, there is the question of who might have told Ahmed Chalabi that the US had broken secret codes used by Iran. Or what else, for that matter, they might have told him.

What has received considerably less attention, however, is the fact that Los Alamos National Laboratory has apparently lost two portable disk drives containing classified information about US nuclear weapons. All classified work has been suspended at the lab, and twenty scientists have had their security clearances suspended.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham issued this statement Tuesday. The Washington Post describes the statement as "harshly worded," but it reads like so much bureaucratese to me. I guess it is unfair of me to expect the Energy Secretary's language to reflect an appropriate level of alarm that OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS ARE MISSING!

Meanwhile, stay tuned for more speculation about whether Berger put documents in his pockets, or stuffed them in his socks.

Back from vacation

My apologies for the lapse, but I have been on a much needed vacation. Unfortunately, it coincided with a lot of action in Congress that bears on foreign policy. I will do my best in the next week or so to offer updates on some of the highlights.

Senate Votes to Deploy Untested Missile Defense

Incredible.

The Senate rejected today, 57-42, an amendment, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), to the 2005 Defense Authorization bill that would have allowed deployment of the President's proposed missile defense system only after the mission related capabilities have been confirmed by realistic operational testing. Republican Olympia Snowe (ME) joined Democrats in voting for the amendment. Democrats Bayh (IN), Clinton (NY), Landreiu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE). Not voting was John Kerry (D-MA).

Shortly afterward, the Senate approved, 55-44, an amendment by Armed Services committee Chair John Warner (R-VA) to an amendment offered by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). The Warner amendment would "require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe and apply criteria for operationally realistic testing of fieldable prototypes developed under the ballistic missile defense spiral development program." Warner effectively undemined Reed's efforts to put testing under the supervision of Thomas Christie, Pentagon chief weapons tester. Clinton, Lieberman and Nelson (FL) changed course and voted against the Warner amendment. Here's the roll call.

The Warner amendment is window dressing. What happened today is simple: the Senate voted today to deploy a missile defense system that has never been tested. In a Senate hearing in March, the Pentagon's own Thomas Christie said it was uncertain whether the system would work against a North Korean missile threat. I have no idea how these people can claim they are "strong on defense."

House Appropriations Committee Finishes Defense Bill

The full House Appropriations committee finished today its markup of the 2005 Defense Appropriations bill, sending it one step closer to a floor vote. The full committee made two amendments to the subcommittee's bill, most notably an amendment introduced by Rep. David Obey requiring the President to submit to Congress a report on the long term costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the Appropriations committee website:

The fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations bill reported by the Subcommittee on Defense will contain $416.9 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005. This amount includes $25 billion requested by the President for early fiscal year 2005 costs associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining $391.1 billion reflects an increase of $24.3 billion over amounts provided in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act.

The bill includes, among many other things, $9.7 billion for missile defense (an increase of $632 million over FY04, but $458 million less than the administration's request). The Bush administration intends to deploy a missile defense system before the end of the fiscal year despite reports that the system is untested.

It will be interesting to see if what, if any, amendments will be ruled in order during the floor debate on this bill.

Senate Tables Amendment on Civilian Contractors

The Senate voted today 55-43 to table an amendment offered by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that would have limited the use of civilian contractors for certain DoD activities. Democrats Miller (GA), Nelson (FL) and Rockefeller (WV) joined all Republicans in voting to table. Not voting were Dems Bingaman (NM), Edwards (NC) and Kerry (MA). Check out the roll call.

Here's the actual language. Here's a link to some of the floor debate.

Senate Defense Authorization Votes

The Senate voted down 55-42 an amendment introduced by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy to cut funding for several new nuclear weapons programs. Republican Lincoln Chafee (RI) crossed over to vote for the amendment. Democrats Bayh (IN), Hollings (SC), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL) and Nelson (NE) voted with Republicans against the amendment. Democrats John Kerry (MA) and Patrick Leahy (VT) and Independent Jim Jeffords did not vote. Check the roll call.

In happier news, the Senate passed two other amendments, one to require the Pentagon to reimburse soldiers and their familes for purchases of items like body armor. The second provides federal assistance in the local prosecution of hate crimes.

If you live in FL, IN, NE, SC or GA, you might want to give your Senator a call and ask them why they are supporting the development of new nuclear weapons.

Key Votes in the Senate Today

The Senate resumed consideration of the 2005 Defense Authorization bill yesterday. Today, after 100 minutes or so of debate, they will vote on amendments on new nuclear weapons funding, war profiteering, limiting the use of contractors in Iraq, and hate crimes.

While it has not received as much attention as issues of war profiteering and civilian intelligence contractors, the Bush administration's push for the development of a new generation nuclear weapons has, for my money, the most troubling long term consequences. The vote on the Feinstein/Kennedy amendment to cut funding for these programs is particularly important, as it comes on the heels of the House Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee reporting out a bill that cut ALL the funding for the administration's request for the new weapons programs.

Below are the amendments likely to be considered today:

Nuclear Weapons

Sens. Feinstein (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Reed (RI), Lautenberg and Feingold have offered amendment No. 3263 to delete funds in the bill for R&D on the nuclear bunker buster ($27.6 million) and advanced concepts ($9 million), money that could be used for research on small nuclear weapons. The Committee approved full funding for these two programs requested by the Department of Energy. These weapons are not needed because the U.S. already has 6,000 deployed nuclear weapons. Moreover, a U.S. decision to proceed with a new generation of nuclear weapons will undercut non- proliferation efforts.

War profiteering

Sen. Reid offered for Sen. Leahy (D-VT) amendment No. 3292 to establish a fine of $1 million for war profiteering in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contracting out interrogations in Iraq

Sens. Dodd (D-CT) and Feinstein (D-CA) offered a modified amendment No. 3313 to block the use of contractors for interrogations in Iraq or from joining routine U.S.-led combat missions that are likely to result in direct combat. The modification permits the President to waive these restrictions in certain circumstances. According to a May 5 story in the Washington Post, there are at least 60 private security companies employing 20,000 workers operating in Iraq. These contract employees are involved in providing security (including security for the Coalition Provisional Authority) and managing prisons. There is a lack of clarity about the chain of command for private security forces and who is responsible for disciplining employees involved in prison abuses. The Committee bill contains several reporting requirements concerning military contractors.

Hate crimes

Sens. Smith (R-OR) and Kennedy (D-MA) introduced amendment No. 3183 dealing with hate crimes, providing a federal involvement in solving hate crimes -- defined involving race, color, religion, or national origin -- particularly where those crimes occur in more than one state or in a rural area.

Below are amendments that may come up today, more likely tomorrow or later in the week:

Spotlight on the Media: The Opposite of Winning

So the NYT finally got around to reporting that a key State Department report had wildly underreported global terrorism. The Los Angeles Times broke the story on Wednesday (as I commented in an earlier post).

Now, I understand it has been a big news week, what with laying the Gipper to rest, the G8 summit, the UN resolution on Iraq, and the torture memos, so maybe the media can be forgiven for not dedicating more column inches to this. What is unforgiveable, however, is willfully refusing to do the math on this story, which is effectively what the Times does.

Some credit to the AP, whose unedited version actually nods in the direction of the real story here. Here is what the Times cut from the story:

"One of Bush's major foreign policy claims is that his post-Sept. 11 strategy to counter terror was showing success.

Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, said in April, "Ultimately the most important thing that people want to see on the war on terror is, what is your vision for dealing with it and what is your record."

"Obviously one of the most important issues in this election is the question of how do we continue to fight and win the war on terror so we keep our homeland safe," Mehlman said.

At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mehlman have questioned whether Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was qualified to conduct a war against terrorism.

When the annual report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence the war was being won under Bush.

J. Cofer Black, who heads the State Department's counterterrorism office, cited the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003 as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue this year.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said at the time, "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

His office did not respond Thursday to a request for a statement in light of disclosures some of the findings in "Patterns of Global Terrorism" were inaccurate and understated."

OK, so this is where you weigh in.

1) Send a letter to the Times letters@nytimes.com

2) Write an alternate headline for the story (i.e. US Losing War on Terror, Says State Dept. Report)

A Huge Victory on Nuclear Weapons

Amidst the hubbub surrounding Reagan's departure, the chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio) announced today his markup of the 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.

What is remarkable about this is that this Republican committee chair issued a stunning rebuke to the administration, completely cancelling all the funds Bush et al had requested for new nuclear weapons programs.

Within the Weapons Activities account, the Committee provides no funds for advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP) study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness, but provides significant increases for nuclear warhead dismantlement and for security upgrades across the complex.

The total of the funding Bush requested was not huge: $28 million for RNEP, $29 million for the modern pit facility, $9 million for "advanced concepts", and $30 million for enhanced test readiness.

Beneath the bureaucratic labels, however, lurks a really frightening agenda that has largely eluded media coverage or pulic debate.

"Advanced concepts" is a polite name for what are elsewhere referred to as "mini-nukes," or nuclear weapons with a yield less than 5 kilotons. Congress banned research and development of these weapons in 1992 because it felt they blurred the line between conventional and nuclear war. Along with the "mini-nukes" RNEP fits in the administration's ambitions to develop "more useable" nuclear weapons in order to strengthen our defense posture. There has been a quiet feud between uniformed military on one side, and civilian Pentagon and lab scientists on the other, over the desireability of these weapons. The modern pit facility would be designed to build up to 900 plutonium pits per year. Plutonium pits are the central component of nuclear warheads. Current pit production capacity is believed to be sufficient to meet the needs of maintaining the existing nuclear stockpile. Finally, advanced test readiness means money to speed up the amount of prep time necessary to resume underground nuclear testing. Bush's father instituted a moratorium on underground testing in 1992, and Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. Connect the dots and you get a disturbing picture.

Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee passed the 2005 Defense Authorization Bill, authorizing the administration's entire request for these programs (for info on the authorization/appropriations distinction try here). The House Rules Committee ruled out of order virtually all Democratic amendments to the bill, but there was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) to redirect RNEP and advanced concept funds to intelligence and conventional weapons. It lost 204-214 (to see who voted how, try here)

The Senate Armed Services Committee will take up their 2005 Defense Authorization Bill next week, and among the amendments they will consider is one fron Senators Feinstein and Kennedy cutting funding for RNEP and advanced concepts (more on that later).

It remains to be seen what will happen. It is quite possible that efforts will be made to restore the funding in the subcommittee, the full Appropriations committee, or in the floor debate on Energy and Water Appropriations, although it would be a pretty significant breach of protocol for a Republican to challenge the authority of a committee chair from his or her own party.

In either case, the administration's dangerous foreign policy has been dealt a significant setback today, and it is all the sweeter since it came at the hands of his own party.