Actually, it’s tahadiya, as opposed to hudna, which means calm or cease fire (sometimes spoken of as a truce). It’s interesting that in the Middle East, even a temporary, grudging condition-laden cessation in the fighting has to be negotiated. For the amount of time Israelis and Arabs (not to mention a host of other intermediaries, including US presidents) have spent at the negotiating table, they could have gotten through a lull, a calm, a cease fire, a truce, an armistice, a treaty, and moved on to solving world hunger, the energy crisis, and working out deals for Brad Pitt’s next dozen movies. They could have, that is, if it were anywhere other than the Middle East. But at least the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiation (this time under Egyptian auspices) has given rise to what experts are calling a “lull” in the fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Inshala.

I’m not just writing this to highlight the absurdity of drawn out negotiations over something as pessimistically titled as a “lull”—it almost invites speculation about who’ll manufacture a violation first, and take advantage of it to catch the other side off guard—but rather to offer you, dear reader, a bit of detail about the nature of this agreement that I find infinitely more revealing than the reams of colorful descriptions coming from the mainstream press. So, here goes. (These details, by the way, are courtesy of the loosely IDF affiliated Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Tel Aviv—hardly an impartial source, but their information is generally solid.)

(more…)

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for the first time in Boumediene v. Bush on whether “noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.”

Specifically, the court ruled in a 5 to 4 split decision that unlawful enemy combatants captured overseas and transferred to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) have habeas corpus rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Translation: the 270 remaining detainees held at Guantanamo can now legally challenge their detentions in a civilian court.

(more…)

Last Thursday five detainees accused of playing integral roles in the 9/11 attacks were arraigned in Guantanamo Bay.  Among these was the self described mastermind behind the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  What was particularly notable about this arraignment process was the responses that Mohammed provided to the court when questioned.  He adamantly stated that he was actively seeking the death penalty in the hopes that his death would cement his place in history as a martyr for his cause.  This, I believe, presents quite a dilemma for those that seek to bring accused terrorists to trial to face their charges.  If the court hands down a death sentence that the terrorist actually seeks is that truly the ultimate punishment?  Furthermore, if that death sentence leads to further notoriety and fame for the accused, is there the danger that such a punishment will further elevate terrorist acts in the eyes of potentially sympathetic converts?

This dilemma actually reminds me of a similar situation in the unforgettable film noir, Se7en, starring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman. 

Warning - if you have not already seen the movie and don’t want to know the ending, don’t read the next italicized paragraph. (more…)

Many observers, inside and outside the U.S. Government, believe we are at a critical juncture, some say a tipping point, in global efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles materials, technology and expertise associated with them.  While much progress has taken place over the past few years, the trend lines are not very promising and we may be falling behind where we need to be.  The next administration will be tested the first day it takes office.  It will need to prepare itself for the long haul with a policy agenda, an organizational structure, skilled leadership and adequate staffing to rally our country and our friends and allies to the cause, if it hopes to reverse this trend.

Controlling the spread of WMD is a bipartisan national priority. Improving the way we organize our arms control and nonproliferation structure to prevent WMD proliferation should be a bipartisan challenge as well. Dispassionate discourse on the strengths and weaknesses of past and current organizational practices can help shape the next administration’s strategy on stemming and reversing the proliferation of WMD.

(more…)

This morning, the Stimson Center hosted a small group to speak on a fascinating topic: jointly promoting US national security and commercial interests in the fields of defense and science through private-public partnerships. Experts from the Department of Energy, Boeing, The US-Russia Business Council, and others spoke on the innovative business and trade strategies United States firms and federal agencies seek to implement bilaterally and multilaterally, specifically designed to reduce the risks of global nuclear proliferation.

The talk naturally centered on US-Russia relations, given the FSU still presents a myriad of obstacles (weapons, loose fissile material, Cold War attitudes and structural obstacles) to successfully diminish the threat of nuclear terrorism. However, panelists focused on one specific and often overlooked subcomponent of the issue: human expertise. Namely, how can US firms and agencies channel the scientific expertise of Russian engineers to transform a labor force, once employed in offensive nuclear weapons production, into a civilian body capable of best contributing to Russia’s national economy? And how can we eke out the most lucrative trade policies and business relationships in the process?

Stimson’s Cooperative Nonproliferation Team, sponsoring the event, also touched on an important point related to nonproliferation strategy, and more broadly, US national security issues; namely, that our foreign policies are multifaceted, and our strategies must mirror this complexity. Issues like nuclear terrorism should be addressed by a variety of players, using a variety of tactics. The Stimson Center’s experts noted this:

“What has been….underappreciated is that the unique scientific talent of the FSU also affords potential commercial opportunities that could support US foreign policy goals by contributing to the containment of extremism, increasing stability in an oil-rich region of the world, fostering democracy and the rule of law by encouraging free enterprise, and promoting innovation in critical sectors like public health, energy, and national security. While underemployed scientific talent continues to represent a proliferation challenge to security experts, it also presents tremendous, though poorly understood, commercial opportunities that would benefit the for-profit sector and advance sustainability of our threat reduction investments.”

PSA, in tandem with other non-proliferation experts, advocacy organizations, and think tanks like the Stimson Center, continues to search for the best way to convey the continued imperative in developing and implementing a national nonproliferation strategy, as well as evolving our current international nonproliferation practices to meet the geopolitical challenges posed in 2008 and beyond.

As a follow up to PSA’s Public Discourse Project, The Partnership for a Secure America will publish critical sections of the 9/11+6 Project this June. Brian Finlay, a member of Stimson’s Cooperative Nonproliferation Project, has authored a subsection of the project, addressing the WMD threat. Stay tuned for upcoming details regarding public release of the 9/11+6 Project.

The New America Foundation hosted a seminar last Friday on US counterterrorism policy. The seminar was jointly sponsored by the Better World Campaign, an advocacy branch of the United Nations Foundation, and the Center for Global Counterterrorism Cooperation, a nonpartisan research group working to improve internationally coordinated responses to evolving terrorist threats. Experts contracted by the two groups unveiled a paper they had produced, offering strategies for improving international cooperation on counterterrorism policy, which could enhance perceptions of the US abroad while promoting America’s own national security agenda.

In terms of proscriptive policy, the paper did not break new ground. Much of the advice echoes that of prominent US homeland security figures such as Michael Chertoff, as well as the leading presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. The authors offered suggestions for ways in which the US could re-engage the UN and other multilateral bodies in creating and implementing counterterrorist policies, while providing sound justification for such re-engagement strategies. As a thesis, they offered the following:

“A robust military and effective covert intelligence gathering capabilities must remain at the cutting edge of our efforts to capture and defeat terrorists. Focusing on these measures alone, however, is not sufficient to address a multifaceted and adapting global threat. International cooperation on a broader range of approaches using a wide array of tools deserves greater attention and resources to improve collective efforts to address emerging threats. To protect America against another major terrorist attack, the new Administration will have to make strengthening international cooperation, including reasserting American leadership in the UN… a top priority.”

The suggestions offered by the group focused on creating human levers, strategically placed in the US government, to implement this ambitious campaign of international cooperation. Authors mentioned creating a white house “czar” for international counterterrorism policy, appointing a diplomat as the State Department’s Counterterrorism Coordinator, enduring ambassadorial level leadership on counterterrorism at the UN, and calling for the establishment of a global anti-terrorism organization.

These people, the authors argued, would be more effective, expedient instruments of change than using a resource-shifting strategy. Their reasoning is pragmatic, if pessimistic, given the difficulty (as 9/11 continues to recede in our minds) of convincing Congress to shift federal appropriations from well funded agencies with have neither the time nor manpower for such projects (such as DOD), towards more relevant would-be actors, such as the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau.

One cannot logically argue against the justification the authors provided. Multilateral bodies such as the UN could accomplish many things the US cannot, working unilaterally or bilaterally. For instance, the UN can implement legal frameworks for cooperative counterterrorism policy. It can enable technical cooperation between countries, working as both informational and operational hub. It can assist states in capacity building, and reduces the burden or onus for any one country in fighting the war on terror. Perhaps most importantly, it can transcend the political realities that ground the US time and again in multinational enterprises, by engaging with non-traditional allies.

All of the experts were well aware a new President will not necessarily find this proposal any more palatable than the current Administration. However, their point is that pessimism cannot keep us from lobbying for what we believe is the best course of US action. Their paper concludes: “While no American President should ever put alliances and international cooperation before the security of the American people, failure to provide the leadership needed today to strengthen counterterrorism alliances around the world…undermines the security of the United States.”

I’m going to do something not a lot of people outside the Clinton campaign have been willing to do: I’m going to defend Hillary Clinton’s threat to “obliterate” Iran if it should attack Israel. I’d take issue with Senator Obama’s dismissive response, too: Hillary’s clear, tough message is exactly the language that’s needed right now, and as for sounding like George W. Bush, who cares? The Bush Iran policy is defunct and dysfunctional, and what matters now is what the next President is going to do about it.

Here’s what Hillary actually said:

“Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.” (more…)

We hosted a dinner for Andy Worthington, the author of Guantánamo files, a few weeks ago and something he said struck a cord with everyone in attendance. During a back and forth pertaining to the positive statements made by Senator McCain, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton vis-à-vis Guantánamo – all seem keen to close it - Andy asked us to consider the end game for the U.S. Specifically he asked what would happen to the prisoners.

Of course the first reaction of most of the individuals in attendance was predictable – these prisoners would be repatriated back to their home countries. However, as Andy prodded us to consider that assumption we all stumbled upon the problem that he was grappling with. It became clear that there would be many countries that would refuse to take back their citizens. After all, the U.S. has been stating since the first prisoner transfer to Guantánamo that it is holding the worst of the worst. With that statement on the record it seems fair to assume that some countries will choose to wash their hands of the matter. Why risk internal strife by bringing back someone who is a radical, has become radicalized or is likely to embarrass his home government by questioning why they did not do more to seek the release of an innocent national. What will the U.S. do if it ends up with a group of prisoners who have no where to go and are not deemed to have committed acts that warrant a trial?

The three candidates for President seem to understand that Guantánamo is a blot on the U.S. image in the world and I am convinced that all of them would like to close it. However, in an incredible irony, it seems possible that the next U.S. President may find that closing Guantánamo proves to be harder than it was for the Bush Administration to open it.

I am going to start making a few calls on this issue to see what the latest thinking is within Defense department circles and will report back in the days ahead.

Well, I was going to blog about the resignation of Adm. Fallon but as Raj Purohit and Eugene Gholz have already done so I think three would be a crowd so I will refrain.

Besides I think Fallon’s resignation has a lot less to do with Iran and more, as Fred Kaplan in Slate notes, to do with Iraq.

So let’s turn to Iraq and dwell on those items that may have flown below your radar.

First, and sadly, because I really, really, like the PBS show The Newshour with Jim Lehrer there was a journalistic lapse in the March 11 show when he discussed the “surge.” One of his guests was Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and more importantly, the author of the surge strategy, currently being implemented in Iraq.

Jim Lehrer never mentioned this which is inexcusable when you ask questions like this:

Mr. Kagan, to you first. You agree with the president that the surge has been successful, correct?

FREDERICK KAGAN, American Enterprise Institute: Absolutely.

What was more interesting was this comment from the other guest, Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security, and someone who spent more than two years in Iraq reporting on the Coalition occupationand, and Iraqi sectarian violence.

But what’s really frightening is that, indeed, when that sectarian fighting will resume — and it will — there’s going to be nowhere to run to, because Syria and Jordan have closed their borders to Iraqi refugees; 11 of Iraq’s 18 governors have closed their borders to internally displaced Iraqis. So when the fighting resumes intensively, it’s going to be a slaughter.

(more…)

According to the New York Times, a donors’ conference in Paris today pledged a record $7.4 billion of aid for the embattled Palestinian Authority over the next three years. That’s a big number, and it is intended to support critical government functions in the Palestinian territories, while jump-starting economic growth to help provide Palestinians with a tangible “peace dividend.”

As observers of the conflict have learned by now, there is a direct and critical correlation between political stability and economic growth, so that neither can last long without the other. I hope, in particular, that the latest infusion of charity to the Palestinian territories will be quickly followed by for-profit investment, especially from wealthy Arab states, demonstrating the concrete benefits of stability to Palestinians, and helping to deflate the bloated state bureaucracy by offering attractive private sector employment. (more…)