Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Eisenhower's vision is ElBaradei's goal today
Britain says no nuclear weapons on ships sunk in Falklands war
Argentina rejects British statement on Falklands, insists on apology
Germany holds crisis talks over atomic exports to China: reports
Iran pledges to sign up to tougher nuclear inspections
Nuclear plan aims to ease tensions
Argentina worries British nukes sunk in Falklands War
ElBaradei Aims to End Nuclear Threat
A new era of nuclear weapons
Kucinich to Ask for Investigation of Air Attack in Afghanistan
MILITARY
UK arms human rights abusers
Huge defence cuts to fund intelligence war on terror
Iraq delays hand Cheney firm $1bn
How a Shady Iranian Deal Maker Kept the Pentagon's Ear
Covert war in Iraq includes Israel, former Baathists
Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD
Army Will Face Dip in Readiness 4 Divisions Need to Regroup After Iraq
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
From Tommy Franks, a doomsday scenario
ACTIVISTS
Japanese attack museum over atomic bomber
-------- NUCLEAR
Eisenhower's vision is ElBaradei's goal today: an end to the nuclear threat
WILLIAM J. KOLE,
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, December 7, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/07/international1307EST0477.DTL
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- It was a bold response to a fearsome menace: erasing the threat of nuclear annihilation by establishing a global agency to keep nations from abusing the power of the atom.
But 50 years after President Eisenhower's landmark "Atoms for Peace" speech on Dec. 8, 1953, the U.N. nuclear agency born of his address is still struggling to contain the threat and move the world "out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light."
Nuclear weaponry poses even more of a danger than it did during the arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, conceded in an interview marking Monday's anniversary of the speech.
When Eisenhower addressed the U.N. General Assembly, there were just two nuclear powers. Today, there are at least seven: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India and Pakistan. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, and North Korea says it has them, a claim that has not been verified. Washington accuses Iran of covertly developing atomic arms, a charge the Tehran regime denies.
"I'd like us to see nuclear weapons the way we perceive slavery or genocide -- that it's taboo," ElBaradei told a small group of reporters at his agency's sprawling headquarters overlooking the Danube River.
"I would not be surprised if we see more countries acquire nuclear weapons," he said. "We need to change that environment -- to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, which have no place in our defense arsenals of the future."
This year alone, the IAEA has convened emergency meetings on Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- the Bush administration's "axis of evil" and the countries that pose the most immediate threat.
Not that ElBaradei, an Egyptian, caters to Washington. His inspectors angered U.S. officials before the war in Iraq by declaring they had found no signs of an active nuclear weapons program.
Coalition troops have not uncovered any evidence since toppling Saddam Hussein, although ElBaradei is pressing for the return of his U.N. inspection teams to make sure.
The IAEA also has clashed with Washington over how best to deal with Iran. Convinced that keeping Iran engaged is better than driving it back underground with an explicit threat of U.N. sanctions, the agency last month withstood American attempts to toughen a resolution demanding greater Iranian openness to inspections.
ElBaradei also has criticized Congress for releasing $6 million for U.S. research into "mini-nuke" weapons. "Far from aiming for nuclear disarmament, the United States is looking to improve its arsenal," he told the Paris newspaper Le Figaro.
Eisenhower believed the best way to deal with the nuclear threat was to get countries to commit to using atomic technology for purely peaceful purposes. ElBaradei said in the interview that the IAEA is supporting efforts to develop a new "proliferation-free" fuel cycle that would produce waste unfit for reprocessing for weapons use.
The U.N. agency also is focusing on ways to minimize the risks of terrorists acquiring nuclear material that could be used to make "dirty bombs" -- conventional explosives that would scatter radioactive material -- a menace he said didn't occur to the IAEA until after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Now we're spending a great deal of time working on this threat," ElBaradei said.
Eisenhower's speech, anchored in his belief that "if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all," envisioned a U.N. nuclear agency that would control the world's atomic stockpile by putting it "into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace."
The IAEA, created four years later, didn't turn out that way.
It doesn't have the world's uranium and plutonium under lock and key. Instead, the agency polices more than 900 facilities in 70 countries to ensure they comply with their commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other international accords.
IAEA inspectors regularly visit nuclear facilities to check records on the whereabouts and inventories of nuclear materials, looking for signs that uranium and plutonium at reactors or laboratories might be diverted to military uses.
"The vision is still as valid today as it was 50 years ago. We're working diligently to rid ourselves of the destructive force of nuclear weaponry," ElBaradei said.
"But we're not there yet. `Atoms for Peace' is still a work in progress. We need to do better."
On the Net:
IAEA: www.iaea.org
-------- britain
Britain says no nuclear weapons on ships sunk in Falklands war
LONDON (AFP)
Dec 07, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031207130236.g6oyujaj.html
Britain insisted Sunday that none of its ships sunk during the 1982 Falklands war with Argentina could have been carrying nuclear weapons, after Argentine President Nestor Kirchner demanded an apology over the issue.
"The United Kingdom must ask our forgiveness," Kirchner said on Saturday, a day after Britain's Ministry of Defence said warships used during the war had carried nuclear depth charges, although not inside Falklands waters.
A Foreign Office spokesman -- while refusing to comment on the specific demand -- reiterated that no nuclear weapons were taken anywhere near Argentina.
"Nuclear weapons on board ships were carried routinely at that time, but there were no nuclear weapons in Argentine waters," he told AFP.
"They were taken off before they got to Argentine waters."
Asked whether any of the British ships sunk during the 10-week conflict had been carrying nuclear weapons, the spokesman said this was not possible.
"As I indicated before, the nuclear weapons were taken off en route to the South Atlantic."
He added: "What I would categorically say is that there was no question of us using nuclear weapons in the Falklands dispute."
On Friday, London said that while no nuclear arms entered the Falklands' territorial waters, it was likely they entered a 200-mile (322-kilometer) exclusion zone set up around the islands in 1982 by the British navy.
The conflict, sparked by Argentina's invasion of what is considers its own territory, claimed the lives of 648 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops.
----
Argentina rejects British statement on Falklands, insists on apology
BUENOS AIRES (AFP)
Dec 07, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031207172302.0hxgiblx.html
Argentina Sunday repeated its demand that Britain explain and apologize for the possible presence of nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic during the 1982 Falklands war between the two nations.
Britain "must apologize not only to Argentina but also to humanity," cabinet chief Alberto Fernandez said, repeating a demand made a day earlier by President Nestor Kirchner.
Earlier, Britain insisted that none of its ships sunk during the war could have been carrying nuclear weapons.
The controversy was sparked Friday when Britain said warships used during the war had carried nuclear depth charges, although not inside Falklands waters.
The conflict, sparked by Argentina's invasion of the British-held island chain it claims as its own, killed 648 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops.
-------- europe
Germany holds crisis talks over atomic exports to China: reports
BERLIN (AFP)
Dec 07, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031207144208.gcpuacus.html
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder held crisis talks with his foreign minister Sunday on a simmering row over the planned sale of nuclear power technology to China, German media reported.
DPA news agency and several newspapers said Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the strongest voice of the ecologist Greens, junior partners in the ruling coalition, had arranged a lunchtime meeting to discuss the controversy.
Government sources confirmed the meeting on what they said was a range of current political issues but declined to discuss the outcome of the talks.
Schroeder has come in for sharp criticism by members of the coalition over apparent plans by the government to approve the export of an atomic energy facility to China by electronics giant Siemens at the same time Germany is phasing out nuclear power.
The Greens, the key force behind Germany's atomic energy pull-out, have demanded formal coalition talks on the 50-million-euro (61-million-dollar) deal, which Schroeder announced during a trip to China this month.
They see political hypocrisy in Germany exporting an energy source deemed too unsafe for its own backyard -- nuclear energy is scheduled to be phased out here by 2020.
While officials insist no decision has been made, Schroeder, who views China as a strategic and booming market, has said he sees no grounds to block the sale.
Fischer, for his part, acknowledged sometimes "bitter decisions" have to be made on foreign trade.
But fellow Greens are angered by what they see as their most vocal member's passivity. "I want to see Fischer fight," legislator Winfried Hermann told the daily Die Welt.
SPD parliamentary group leader Franz Muentefering, a key aide to the chancellor, told German radio Sunday that he saw no contradiction.
"Dismantling atomic energy in Germany was never linked to putting on the pressure worldwide so that no other country can use nuclear power," he said.
He said that "all the members of the cabinet were informed about the export contract in time" and that there was no need for coalition talks over the dispute.
"The Greens have got to work it out among themselves -- it's all a bit of artificial excitement."
Muentefering noted that China had already guaranteed that the plant would only be for civilian use, addressing fears the facility could be used to help produce weapons-grade plutonium.
The plant at Hanau, western Germany, was built by Siemens in 1991 but never went into production, although the technical equipment remains on site.
A previous bid to sell it to Russia collapsed two years ago under pressure from, among others, the Greens.
-------- iran
Iran pledges to sign up to tougher nuclear inspections
TEHRAN (AFP)
Dec 07, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031207104504.yq2vy14n.html
Iran's foreign ministry vowed Sunday that the Islamic republic would sign up to tougher inspections of its nuclear programme by the UN's atomic watchdog, but did not give a date for signing the additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"We have agreed to do it, so from our point of view it is definite. Now the issue is in its preliminary phase and the cabinet is finalising the signing of the text," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
"After the signing there is another process and it will be presented to the Majlis (parliament). We are sticking to our obligations and we will sign it," he added.
Signing the additional protocol would subject Iran to surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities, which Washington claims are used by Tehran as cover for an atomic weapons programme. The allegations are fiercely denied by the Islamic republic.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month condemned Iran for 18 years of covert nuclear activities but stopped short of bowing to US demands of hauling Tehran in front of the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Iran escaped a tougher line by the UN watchdog after it agreed to fully disclose its activities to the IAEA, sign up to tougher inspections and suspend uranium enrichment.
On Thursday, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said he expected Iran would sign the additional protocol in the "next couple of weeks" -- although Iran has been accused of stalling on the issue.
Asefi also reiterated that Iran's suspension of its controversial work on the nuclear fuel cycle -- seen as putting it on the path to eventually developing nuclear weapons -- was only temporary.
"The issue of stopping the enrichment of uranium is not the question. The question is of a voluntary and temporary suspension," Asefi said.
"The question of stopping is not up for discussion. Iran will not give up its right to use peaceful nuclear energy," he added.
And the spokesman also brushed off suspicions that Iran had sourced much of its nuclear equipment -- especially centrifuges -- from neighbouring Pakistan.
"I deny such reports we had any cooperation with Pakistan on the nuclear issue," he said.
-------- korea
Nuclear plan aims to ease tensions
December 07, 2003
By Sang-hun Choe
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031206-105930-5659r.htm
SEOUL - The United States, Japan and South Korea have worked out a joint proposal on how to ease tensions over North Korea's nuclear weapons program and will ask China to relay it to the communist North, a senior South Korean official said yesterday.
If Pyongyang accepts the proposal, a second round of six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis will convene in Beijing, Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck told South Korean reporters upon returning home from a trip to Washington.
Ahead of the Washington talks, South Korean officials said the proposal would deal with the main sticking point: when the United States should give written security assurances to North Korea. The North wants Washington to issue the assurances simultaneously with a North Korean renunciation of its nuclear weapons program, but the United States wants the North to move first.
"The three countries have reached an understanding on the wording of a joint statement and agreed to give it to China," Mr. Lee said. "China will send it to Pyongyang, and then there will be a response."
"The next few days are crucial. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic," he added.
He did not give details on the proposal, drawn up in talks with his Japanese counterpart, Mitoji Yabunaka, and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly. The three are their countries' top negotiators at the nuclear talks, which also include China and Russia.
The six-nation talks had been expected to convene in Beijing on Dec. 17, but officials in Washington and Seoul had indicated that they might be delayed, particularly because of differences over the security assurances.
If Pyongyang does not signal it is willing to abandon its arms program, the United States may take the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions to the United Nations Security Council, a Japanese newspaper said yesterday, Reuters reported. The daily Yomiuri Shimbun quoted an unidentified senior U.S. official as saying Thursday there still were significant differences among the countries involved in the talks.
The official said there could be a breakthrough if North Korea says it has the intent to scrap its nuclear program but added the issue could be brought before the U.N. Security Council without such progress.
Since the first round of the six-party talks in August in Beijing, North Korea has made demands for concessions, including the security guarantees, to be extended simultaneously with a drawdown of its nuclear program instead of after the program has been shut down.
North Korea rejects a U.S. demand that it first renounce its nuclear weapons program, saying it would "rather die" than submit to conditions that amounted to slavery.
-------- latin america
Argentina worries British nukes sunk in Falklands War
Sunday, December 7, 2003.
ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1005005.htm
Argentina wants a fuller disclosure from the British government following London's admission that British warships carried nuclear arms during the 1982 Falklands War between the two countries.
Argentina said it was "very troubled" by Britain's deployment of nuclear arms with its navy during the conflict over the disputed South Atlantic islands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas Islands.
"We are very troubled by the admission that nuclear arms were brought into the conflict area. We are worried about what could have occurred, and want to know if any nuclear material is in the Argentine Sea (South Atlantic Ocean)," cabinet head Alberto Fernandez told local radio.
He noted that several British ships were sunk during the conflict and questioned whether they had nuclear arms on board.
The Argentine government said in a statement that it is seeking "precise and complete information about what has been revealed".
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has not said if the British destroyer HMS Sheffield was carrying nuclear arms. The ship was sunk by Argentina in May of 1982.
Six other British ships were also sunk by Argentine forces around the islands during the war.
Argentina made its demand one day after the MoD said ships sent to fight in the war had carried nuclear arms.
The MoD said Friday that an undetermined number of WE177 nuclear depth charges had been on board vessels in its naval task force, but stressed the weapons had not entered the Falklands' territorial waters.
British naval ships routinely carried such weapons at the time but the MoD said they were transferred at sea to other ships before reaching the Falklands.
The MoD also said that some of the arms were damaged during ship-to-ship transfers.
Aside from the nuclear depth charges, Britain also had at least one nuclear submarine on patrol around the Falklands during the war.
The submarine sunk the Argentine cruiser Belgrano.
The diplomatic spat is threatening to renew long-simmering tensions over the islands' sovereignty.
The two countries have long contested the desolate islands' sovereignty.
The islands were occupied by Britain in 1833.
Argentine President Nestor Kirchner urged British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July to resume talks on the status of the disputed islands.
The 10 week 1982 conflict claimed the lives of 648 Argentine soldiers and 255 British.
-------- un
ElBaradei Aims to End Nuclear Threat
Sunday December 7, 2003
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3475257,00.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - It was a bold response to a fearsome menace: erasing the threat of nuclear annihilation by establishing a global agency to keep nations from abusing the power of the atom.
But 50 years after President Eisenhower's landmark ``Atoms for Peace'' speech on Dec. 8, 1953, the U.N. nuclear agency born of his address is still struggling to contain the threat and move the world ``out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light.''
Nuclear weaponry poses even more of a danger than it did during the arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, conceded in an interview marking Monday's anniversary of the speech.
When Eisenhower addressed the U.N. General Assembly, there were just two nuclear powers. Today, there are at least seven: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India and Pakistan. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, and North Korea says it has them, a claim that has not been verified. Washington accuses Iran of covertly developing atomic arms, a charge the Tehran regime denies.
``I'd like us to see nuclear weapons the way we perceive slavery or genocide - that it's taboo,'' ElBaradei told a small group of reporters at his agency's sprawling headquarters overlooking the Danube River.
``I would not be surprised if we see more countries acquire nuclear weapons,'' he said. ``We need to change that environment - to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, which have no place in our defense arsenals of the future.''
This year alone, the IAEA has convened emergency meetings on Iraq, Iran and North Korea - the Bush administration's ``axis of evil'' and the countries that pose the most immediate threat.
Not that ElBaradei, an Egyptian, caters to Washington. His inspectors angered U.S. officials before the war in Iraq by declaring they had found no signs of an active nuclear weapons program.
Coalition troops have not uncovered any evidence since toppling Saddam Hussein, although ElBaradei is pressing for the return of his U.N. inspection teams to make sure.
The IAEA also has clashed with Washington over how best to deal with Iran. Convinced that keeping Iran engaged is better than driving it back underground with an explicit threat of U.N. sanctions, the agency last month withstood American attempts to toughen a resolution demanding greater Iranian openness to inspections.
ElBaradei also has criticized Congress for releasing $6 million for U.S. research into ``mini-nuke'' weapons. ``Far from aiming for nuclear disarmament, the United States is looking to improve its arsenal,'' he told the Paris newspaper Le Figaro.
Eisenhower believed the best way to deal with the nuclear threat was to get countries to commit to using atomic technology for purely peaceful purposes. ElBaradei said in the interview that the IAEA is supporting efforts to develop a new ``proliferation-free'' fuel cycle that would produce waste unfit for reprocessing for weapons use.
The U.N. agency also is focusing on ways to minimize the risks of terrorists acquiring nuclear material that could be used to make ``dirty bombs'' - conventional explosives that would scatter radioactive material - a menace he said didn't occur to the IAEA until after the Sept. 11 attacks.
``Now we're spending a great deal of time working on this threat,'' ElBaradei said.
Eisenhower's speech, anchored in his belief that ``if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all,'' envisioned a U.N. nuclear agency that would control the world's atomic stockpile by putting it ``into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.''
The IAEA, created four years later, didn't turn out that way.
It doesn't have the world's uranium and plutonium under lock and key. Instead, the agency polices more than 900 facilities in 70 countries to ensure they comply with their commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other international accords.
IAEA inspectors regularly visit nuclear facilities to check records on the whereabouts and inventories of nuclear materials, looking for signs that uranium and plutonium at reactors or laboratories might be diverted to military uses.
``The vision is still as valid today as it was 50 years ago. We're working diligently to rid ourselves of the destructive force of nuclear weaponry,'' ElBaradei said.
``But we're not there yet. `Atoms for Peace' is still a work in progress. We need to do better.''
On the Net:
IAEA: http://www.iaea.org
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
A new era of nuclear weapons
Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress
James Sterngold,
San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer,
Sunday, December 7, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/07/MNG5Q3GH941.DTL
Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.
"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted." Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry vehicles to deliver them.
"This is a fairly radical new way of thinking about things," Brooks said, adding that it amounted to "a more fundamental shift in the way we look at this than many people realize."
That the change is indeed both "radical" and "fundamental" is about the only thing critics of the administration agree with.
"It hasn't been perceived as such, but this is a nuclear revival," said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Deeply disturbing to critics on both sides of the political spectrum is how little public or congressional discussion has taken place, and how little detailed information the Bush administration has provided on its strategies and plans.
"I'm totally offended by this administration," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R- Pa., a onetime White House ally on nuclear issues, and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I happen to think they're out of bounds on this. There's an important sea change in the world, and we have no idea what our policy is.
"It's a major national scandal in the making," Weldon said in an interview with The Chronicle last week. "I'm totally frustrated."
Yet for all their misgivings, influential Republicans like Weldon managed to impose only minuscule cuts of less than $20 million on the programs for new warhead development, leaving plans for jump-starting the U.S. nuclear arsenal and warhead production capabilities largely intact.
"We know we're getting rolled," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a vocal opponent of the new nuclear push. "All we did was give the president a sizable victory instead of a complete victory. They got everything they wanted as far as the significant issues. It is a huge ideological victory."
"Nothing that happened in Congress stops (the Bush administration) from doing what they want to do at this point," said Robert Civiak, a nuclear physicist and former weapons analyst at the Office of Management of Budget. "The message that got across is that the country is ready for new kinds of nuclear weapons."
Nuclear-weapons opponents argue that the country has little idea about the direction it is taking with such weapons of mass destruction.
"There's no debate on this at all," said Andrew Lichterman, program director of the Oakland-based Western States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group that favors arms reductions. "These programs are not being questioned in the political mainstream at all."
The Bush administration has argued that the new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, the administration argues, there are new, regional menaces from such countries as North Korea and Iran.
To deter those threats, the administration is seeking a new stockpile of both some Cold War-era warheads and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks and for destroying caches of weapons of mass destruction, especially in buried bunkers, without causing indiscriminate destruction and loss of life. It has also proposed a policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.
A recent study entitled "Missiles of Empire: America's 21st Century Global Legions," by Lichterman of the Western States Legal Foundation highlights not only the administration's push for new kinds of warheads, but also the billions it is planning to spend on reducing the time it would take to launch a nuclear strike and on a new generation of missile re-entry vehicles, among other things. The re-entry vehicles would allow the military to steer warheads toward targets, even moving targets, entering the atmosphere from space.
Even GOP hawks upset
It is precisely those kinds of provocative new weapons capabilities -- at a time when the administration seeks to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere -- that worries even hawkish Republicans.
"We have more nuclear weapons now than we know what to do with,'' said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water subcommittee, which controls the nuclear weapons budget. "I'm concerned about our image in the world when we're telling others not to build these things, and then we push these new programs."
Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., a senior member of the Armed Services Committee who voted against funding some programs, argued in an interview, "We don't need new weapons, and in fact we cause more harm than good in our relations with other countries and in our moral position on nuclear proliferation. I think that they're almost obsolete. I'm not convinced that we have to have that capability."
The Republican lawmakers conceded that their defiance had been more symbolic than substantive. Among other things, the administration succeeded in pushing through the repeal of the law banning the development of smaller, more usable low-yield warheads, and it got approval to begin research into advanced weapons concepts for the future. Congress also provided funding for study of a new "bunker-buster" warhead.
A number of the new initiatives also bring the promise of increased spending in the future. For instance, Congress approved increasing the readiness of the Nevada Test Site, where weapons were tested underground until a ban was put in place in 1992. The NNSA has estimated it would cost as much as $83 million over three years to increase the level of readiness, and an additional $25 million to $30 million a year to sustain that level.
Congress also approved with virtually no debate $320 million for manufacturing new "pits," the plutonium cores of warheads, almost $90 million more than last year. More than $135 million was appropriated for a program to keep tritium, a radioactive gas used to boost the power of warheads, ready for weapons use and another $265 million for a broad campaign to refurbish the facilities used to produce and maintain the nuclear arsenal.
Republicans acknowledged that the few cuts they did make were achieved in the face of intense White House pressure -- and, as Brooks acknowledged, amounted to only "one-tenth of a percent of my budget." "I'm trying to send messages about priorities and what is important to the long-term future of this country," said Hobson. "We sent some messages, and the question will be whether they get them or not."
The GOP critics, all advocates of a strong defense, also admitted that they did not attack the broader array of programs on the congressional floor.
"I guess my feeling is that I would not want us to unilaterally disarm and get rid of our nuclear potential," said Hefley. "But at the same time I'm not comfortable with seeing us maintain all of the nuclear weapons arsenal. How can we in good conscience upgrade and develop new nuclear weapons?"
'An insurance policy'
Even Democrats who have been passionate in their criticisms of Bush's policies admitted that they felt they had to vote for the bulk of the programs.
Tauscher, when asked why she did not fight the billions of dollars in other budget items, such as rehabilitation of the warhead manufacturing capability and the development of the next generation of missiles and bombers, said some nuclear weaponry had to remain in the nation's defensive arsenal.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's an insurance policy," she said.
But even inside the administration, questions have been raised about the rationale for the new nuclear posture. The Pentagon, notably, is not pushing for the new warheads. A classified study conducted this summer by the Defense Science Board, which was leaked last month, stated, "Current (Department of Defense) structure provides neither clear requirements nor persuasive rationale for changing the nuclear stockpile."
John Harvey, director of the policy planning staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a division of the Energy Department, remarked in an interview earlier this year, "We need to tell the military what's possible, even if they haven't asked the question yet. Sometimes the services don't know the right questions to ask."
Weldon said that the best he could do was wait and wage a bigger battle next year. He said he was trying to put together a group to study the entire arsenal and examine how it might be transformed to deal with the new threats.
"The debate was on the smaller things this year," he said. "I think next year you'll see that debate widen. Next year will be different, I assure you."
The administration does not seem concerned. Asked if the lawmakers' small budget cuts or expressions of concern altered the administration's direction, Brooks of the NNSA replied, "No, it doesn't."
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.
-------- us politics
Kucinich to Ask for Investigation of Air Attack in Afghanistan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2003
Kucinich for President
http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_120703.php
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich will ask for an investigation of last night's air attack by the United States-led military against a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan, which killed nine children as well as the intended target, according to the Central Command.
Kucinich released this statement:
"I will ask for an investigation to determine the circumstances in which the nine children died. This incident is damaging to world peace. Last year an American flying gunship attacked a wedding party in Afghanistan killing 48 people.
"In the name of fighting terrorism, the Bush administration has killed thousands of innocent civilians, including many children. The Bush administration turned what should have been an international criminal investigation into a war. It has set aside international laws. It has not found Osama bin Laden.
"Considering the amount of time the Bush administration allegedly spends on surveillance, the deaths of these nine children cry out for an explanation -- and an investigation."
Kucinich is the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. He will ask the Subcommittee to hold an investigation of last night's air attack. Kucinich will be contacting members of the Subcommittee to ask them to join in this call for an investigation.
For more information: http://www.kucinich.us
For Rep. Kucinich's Schedule: http://www.kucinich.us/schedule.htm.
Contact: David Swanson 301-772-0210, cell 202-329-7847, fax 301-772-7293, swanson@kucinich.us
-------- MILITARY
-------- arms
UK arms human rights abusers
By Richard Norton-Taylor, London
December 7, 2003
The Sydney Sun-Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/06/1070625585018.html
The British Government is selling arms and security equipment to countries whose human rights records it has strongly criticised, lists of weapons cleared for export and obtained by the London-based The Guardian newspaper reveal.
The countries include Indonesia, where the UK Foreign Office (FO) has reported allegations of extrajudicial killings; Nepal, where it has reported summary executions; and Saudi Arabia, where torture is just one abuse of basic human rights attacked by the FO.
Licences have been approved this year for the export to Saudi Arabia of "security and paramilitary goods", hitherto unpublished figures show.
The list of items under this category is: "Acoustic devices . . . suitable for riot control purposes, anti-riot shields . . . leg irons, gang chains, electric shock belts, shackles . . . individual cuffs . . . portable anti-riot devices . . . water cannon . . . riot control vehicles . . . portable devices for riot control or self-protection by the administration of an electric shock".
The UK Government's arms export guidelines say that licences will be refused if there is a "clear risk [they] might be used for internal repression".
The exports to Saudi Arabia, which also include a wide range of military hardware and weapons systems, were cleared despite sharp criticism of the country in the FO's latest annual human rights report, published earlier this year.
"We continue to have deep concerns about Saudi Arabia's failure to implement basic human rights norms," it said, referring explicitly to capital and corporal punishment and restrictions on freedom of movement, expression, assembly and worship," it said.
It added: "We believe that between January and December 2002, the Saudi authorities executed about 46 people, one of the highest figures for any country in the world."
The Government also approved export licences for categories of arms including machine guns, rockets and missiles to Indonesia.
Indonesian forces are engaged in fierce fighting against pro-independence rebels in Aceh, where British equipment is being used despite assurances from the Government it would not be used for offensive or counter-insurgency measures.
After foreign observers were refused access to Aceh, the UK Government told members of the British parliament last month that it "remained concerned about the situation in Aceh".
British-built Saracen armoured vehicles were being used by Indonesian forces in Aceh, Tapol, the Indonesia human rights campaign group, and the Campaign Against Arms Trade said this week.
Next week human rights activists in Indonesia are planning to challenge the legality of British arms exports to the country.
There have already been reports of Hawk jets and Scorpion tanks deployed in Aceh.
The FO said in its report that while the professionalism of the Indonesian security forces had improved, "serious problems remain, with allegations of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, rape, torture and mistreatment of prisoners".
The Government has also approved big increases in the sale of arms to Nepal, where security forces are fighting Maoist guerrillas. Last year Britain provided Nepal with two military helicopters from its "conflict prevention" fund.
Yet the FO accuses the Nepalese army and Maoists of "widespread human rights abuses". Its annual report said: "The security forces were responsible for extensive and systematic illegal detentions, torture and summary executions".
The Government's arms export criteria state it "will not issue licences which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts".
The list of export licences was provided by Nigel Griffiths, the British Trade Minister, in response to questions from Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat party's foreign affairs spokesman.
-------- britain
Huge defence cuts to fund intelligence war on terror
By Andy McSmith Political Editor
07 December 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=470848
Ministers are planning big cuts in military hardware in order to pour extra money into high technology intelligence operations. The plans are likely to provoke a bitter political war with service chiefs.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, is convinced that the main threats to Britain come from terrorists and insurgents, who have to be attacked with pinpoint accuracy, rather than conventional armies.
Mr Hoon is due to publish his long awaited Defence White Paper on Thursday but the cuts will not be made explicit because he wants to minimise political reaction. They will, however, emerge over the next few months.
Service chiefs fear they will lose millions of pounds worth of promised hardware. The controversy will be heightened because of the spectacular failure of the intelligence services in assessing whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Before sending British troops to war in Iraq, Tony Blair claimed in a published dossier that Saddam Hussein's regime had a "useable chemical and biological weapons capability" which presented a "serious and current" threat to the West. Since March, hundreds of inspectors have combed Iraq in search of these weapons, without success.
One casualty of the new policy could be the £50bn Eurofighter, Typhoon, being developed jointly by BAE Systems, Finmeccania of Italy, and Eads, the pan-European aerospace combine. The first batch of the 620 planes is already under construction, but there are fears that the final 236 may be at risk.
The Royal Navy is also resigned to experiencing an outbreak of what wags call SCS - "shrinking carrier syndrome". Improved technology means that new aircraft carriers can lose 10 per cent of their size without damaging their effectiveness. There is suspicion that the shrinking carriers will hit the Joint Strike Fighter that is due to enter service early in the next decade. The number of aircraft purchased could be 40 fewer than originally planned.
Explaining the philosophy behind the White Paper in a speech last July, Mr Hoon said: "The experts call this approach Effects-Based Operations. They focus on undermining an opponent's ability to exercise effective command and control of his forces rather than simply on battlefield attrition."
He also used a speech to the City of London last month to counter fears that thousands of army personnel could be made redundant as the Army's presence in Northern Ireland is cut from 14,000 to 5,000 over the next two years. He insisted that he wants to keep the Army at its present level of 103,000 trained soldiers. Even that will leave the Government open to complaints that they are asking too few soldiers to do too much.
Last week, Field Marshal Peter Inge, the former Chief of Defence Staff, said in the House of Lords: "Our armed forces are too small for the tasks that are laid upon them. The Army needs a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 men and women to increase certain units to make them more robust... We are increasing the risk of operational failure."
Keith Simpson, a Tory defence spokesman, claimed: "They haven't yet done the detailed work required because they were hoping that Uncle Gordon Brown was going to be more generous than he has been. I fear the White Paper will be a long essay which the MoD will be using as a smokescreen to cover up what will, at the end of the day, be painful cuts."
Unlike that in Iraq, most future operations are likely to be more like those in Afghanistan or Sierra Leone, where there was no large standing army to be overcome.
Mr Hoon was delighted by the success of a computerised "game" based on satellite pictures and intelligence from MI6 which tested five options for taking Basra, in southern Iraq, last March. A team of MoD computer experts created a computer model which included information on the positions of Iraqi troops, their weapons, and even the buildings and alleyways where they might hide.
-------- business
Iraq delays hand Cheney firm $1bn
Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday December 7, 2003
The UK Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1101341,00.html
Halliburton, the engineering group formerly run by US vice-president Dick Cheney, has been given $1 billion worth of reconstruction work in Iraq by the US government without having to compete for it, thanks to repeated delays in opening up a key contract to competition.
The Houston-based company was controversially awarded a contract to repair Iraq's damaged oil infrastructure without competition in February.
The cost-plus contract means the amount spent by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is running the work, is open-ended, rather than being fixed at the outset, because the scope of the damage was unknown. The USACE described the contract as a 'bridge to competition', but original plans to award the work competitively in August have repeatedly slipped. So far, $1.7bn has been made available to Halliburton for the work.
Figures obtained from the USACE by Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman indicate that on 21 August, around the time the contract should have been opened to competition, the amount made available to KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary involved, was $704m. Since then the total has risen by $1.011bn.
Waxman said: 'Since August, when the follow-on contracts were supposed to be awarded, the administration has obligated more than $1bn to Halliburton under the oil infrastructure contract. These inexplicable delays may be good for Halliburton; they are costing taxpayers a bundle.'
The figures have emerged as the UK Government and contractors reacted with dismay to news this week that competitive tendering had again been pushed back to between 15 December and 17 January. Previously it was delayed to mid-October, late October, then year-end.
One leading UK contractor, which made strong representations in Whitehall this week, said: 'We are very disappointed that it has been put back again,' adding that the longer the delay, the more KBR benefited.
Brian Wilson, the Prime Minister's special representa tive on reconstruction, wrote to Blair in advance of President Bush's recent visit, urging him to press for a level playing field in Iraq.
Wilson said: 'These are very important contracts for the future of the Iraqi oil industry. We think keeping a level playing field is very important, and the further delay is regrettable.'
USACE says that the August date was not a deadline for contract award, but for tenders to be submitted. However, in a letter dated 2 May to Waxman, a US army general states the 'best estimate for the award of the contract based on this schedule is approximately the end of August'. According to contract rules, Halliburton can make a margin of up to 7 per cent on the work.
-------- spies
How a Shady Iranian Deal Maker Kept the Pentagon's Ear
By JAMES RISEN
December 7, 2003
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07INTE.html?ei=1&en=d4f8a0699fc11be4&ex=1071765324&pagewanted=print&position=
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - When clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents were first revealed last summer, the Bush administration played down the importance of the contacts, particularly with one participant - a discredited Iranian deal maker who had played a role in the Iran-contra affair in the late 1980's.
But now officials say the initial meeting with the Iranians was organized with the knowledge of a top national security adviser to President Bush, who also informed George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is examining the December 2001 and June 2002 meetings, which were initiated by Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian who acted as a middleman in the Iran-contra affair during the Reagan administration and was long ago labeled a fabricator by American intelligence officials. One important question is whether any senior administration officials were aware of his involvement before the meetings.
Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's deputy national security adviser, raised no objection when Pentagon officials told him of plans to meet with the Iranians in late 2001, several officials said. A senior administration official familiar with Mr. Hadley's version of events said Mr. Hadley did not remember being told that Mr. Ghorbanifar would be at the meeting.
When the contacts with Mr. Ghorbanifar and other Iranians were first reported in the press last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that nothing came of the meetings and that beforehand, "Everyone in the interagency process, I'm told, was apprised of it." But the high-level attention the meetings received at the White House and other agencies was not disclosed then.
The fresh details about the contacts also illuminate a schism between American intelligence agencies and more hawkish officials at the Pentagon and in the White House who pursued the contacts.
As part of its review of intelligence agencies' work before the war in Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee is also examining the influence of a small group of analysts working for Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy and planning. The Pentagon officials who met with Mr. Ghorbanifar worked in Mr. Feith's policy office.
Mr. Ghorbanifar's involvement caused concern within the Bush administration because it evoked memories of Iran-contra and questions about whether the Pentagon was engaging in rogue covert operations. The Pentagon has conducted its own internal review of the Ghorbanifar matter, officials said.
In the 1980's, Mr. Ghorbanifar repeatedly sought contacts with the C.I.A. and other agencies in order to act as a go-between with Iranian officials in what became known as Iran-contra affair. The arms-for-hostage scandal was a series of secret maneuvers to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages in Lebanon and financing for contra fighters opposing the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. It led to lengthy Congressional and criminal investigations.
One result of the Iran-contra scandal was a decision by the C.I.A. that it could not trust Mr. Ghorbanifar. A 1987 Congressional report on Iran-contra said that after Mr. Ghorbanifar failed C.I.A.-administered polygraph examinations, the agency issued a rare "Fabricator Notice," warning that he "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and a nuisance." He has been considered a con artist by the C.I.A. ever since.
But he has been persistent. Two years ago he found a way to act as an intermediary again - this time with the Pentagon. The secret meetings were first held in Rome in December 2001, and were brokered by Michael Ledeen, a conservative analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has an interest in Iranian affairs and close ties to many hard-line conservatives in the administration.
At first, Mr. Ledeen was skeptical of Mr. Ghorbanifar's offer. "Ghorbanifar called me, and at first I said, `Are you insane?' " he said. "But he said he could arrange meetings with Iranians with current information about what Iran was doing. It wasn't information coming from him. He was just arranging the meetings."
Mr. Ledeen's role in the meetings also raised concerns in the administration, since he too had played a role in Iran-contra. At that time, he was a consultant to the National Security Council and sought to act as a go-between with Israeli officials to explore potential Israeli-American cooperation on Iran. Since then, Mr. Ledeen has gained a reputation in Washington as a prominent advocate for changing the leadership in Iran.
Mr. Ledeen said in an interview that Mr. Ghorbanifar contacted him in late 2001 and said that several Iranians with knowledge of Iran's activities in Afghanistan were willing to talk with American officials. Mr. Ledeen told Pentagon officials that the Iranians had information about Iran's involvement with terrorists in Afghanistan, where American forces were battling Al Qaeda. Several administration officials said Mr. Ledeen then approached the Pentagon to set up the meetings.
Administration officials said a senior Pentagon official then contacted Mr. Hadley at the National Security Council. After hearing about the overture, he expressed no reservations about the meeting and informed Mr. Tenet and Mr. Armitage of the plans, officials said.
But the Pentagon officials did not notify the United States Embassy in Rome of their plans to meet with the Iranians in Italy, thus violating interagency procedures, officials said.
When they found out about the meetings - apparently from Italian officials - the embassy officials, including the C.I.A.'s station chief in Rome, sent cables to Washington alerting their superiors about the meetings with Mr. Ledeen, Mr. Ghorbanifar and the Pentagon officials.
The C.I.A. and the State Department raised objections, both to the way the meetings had been conducted and to the involvement of both Mr. Ledeen and Mr. Ghorbanifar, administration officials said. Mr. Hadley, who received a trip report after the Rome meeting from Mr. Ledeen, agreed to make sure that the meetings were ended, the officials added.
Yet after that decision, Pentagon officials met again with Mr. Ghorbanifar and the Iranians in Paris in 2002, without White House clearance, administration officials said. Senior administration officials said the White House was still uncertain how that meeting came about.
Mr. Ledeen blamed the C.I.A. and the State Department for the administration decision to abandon the contacts. He said he was later told by officials that the information provided by the Iranians had "saved American lives" in Afghanistan. He said he believed that it was a mistake to abandon the contacts.
----
Covert war in Iraq includes Israel, former Baathists: report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Dec 07, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031207200835.lij0a0bu.html
US special forces fighting a covert war in Iraq are receiving help from both Israel and former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime, according to a report released Sunday.
The report by Seymour Hersh is published in the December 15 issue of the New Yorker magazine.
The report cited unnamed US and Israeli intelligence sources as saying Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been helping US special forces train for operations in Iraq and are expected to secretly advise them in the field.
Both the US and Israeli governments have decided to keep their cooperation secret, the report said.
The report also cited an unnamed former Central Intelligence Agency official with extensive Middle East experience as saying US officials are relying on a former Saddam loyalist for intelligence on opponents of the US-led occupation.
Farouk Hijazi, former director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, "has cut a deal" since being captured in April, the source is quoted as saying.
US officials "are using him to reactivate the old Iraqi intelligence network," the source said.
----
Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes
By Con Coughlin
07/12/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/wirq07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/07/ixportaltop.html
An Iraqi colonel who commanded a front-line unit during the build-up to the war in Iraq has revealed how he passed top secret information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the battlefield against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes.
Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.
He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage".
The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of Baghdad, were delivered to the army by the Fedayeen and were distributed to the front-line units under cover of darkness.
In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government's controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
"I am the one responsible for providing this information," said the colonel, who is now working as an adviser to Iraq's Governing Council.
He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam's battlefield WMD capability was correct. "It is 100 per cent accurate," he said after reading the relevant passage.
The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.
"Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."
Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon," he said.
The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said.
"If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."
Col al-Dabbagh, who was recalled to Baghdad to work at Iraq's air defence headquarters during the war itself, believes that the WMD have been hidden at secret locations by the Fedayeen and are still in Iraq. "Only when Saddam is caught will people talk about these weapons," he said.
During the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, said that the information contained in the intelligence dossier relating to the 45-minute claim had come from a single "established and reliable" source serving in the Iraqi armed forces. Privately British intelligence officers have claimed that they believe the original source was killed during the war.
Dr Kelly killed himself last July after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC radio report claiming that the Labour Government had included the 45-minute claim against the wishes of MI6 to "sex up" the intelligence dossier.
Col al-Dabbagh, who spied for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a London-based exile group, for several years before the war, said, however, that he provided several reports to British intelligence on Saddam's plans to deploy WMD from early 2002 onwards.
The INA, which was made up of retired and serving Iraqi officers and Ba'ath party officials, is known to have enjoyed a close relationship with MI6 and America's Central Intelligence Agency.
Dr Ayad Allawi, the head of the INA who is now a prominent member of the Governing Council in Baghdad, confirmed that he had passed Col al-Dabbagh's reports on Saddam's WMD to both British and American intelligence officers "sometime in the spring and summer of 2002".
Apart from providing intelligence on Saddam's WMD programme, Col al-Dabbagh also provided details of Iraq's troop and air defence deployments before the war.
Although he gave details of Iraq's battlefield WMD capability, he said that he had no knowledge of any plans by Saddam to use missiles to attack British bases in Cyprus and other Nato targets.
In the build-up to the conflict, Tony Blair was criticised by intelligence officials for giving the impression that Saddam had developed ballistic missiles that could carry WMD warheads and hit targets such as Israel and Britain's military bases in Cyprus.
But Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. "I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield."
Col al-Dabbagh, who received two death threats from Saddam loyalists days after his interview with the Telegraph, said that he was willing to travel to London to give evidence to the Hutton inquiry. "I was there and I knew what Saddam was doing before the war," he said.
An official close to the Hutton inquiry said: "What Mr Dabbagh has to say sounds very interesting and it is certainly new evidence that we will want to look at."
-------- us
Army Will Face Dip in Readiness 4 Divisions Need to Regroup After Iraq
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40059-2003Dec5?language=printer
Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.
The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.
Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.
C-3 means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight a major regional war.
A fifth division, the 3rd Infantry, which returned from Iraq in August, is still not fully ready to return to combat, the official said.
While the Army had been using 120 days as its standard for "resetting" divisions returning from overseas deployments, overhauling the divisions returning from Iraq could take as long as 180 days because of the extreme weather in Iraq and the unprecedented magnitude of the planned troop rotation.
The four returning divisions will bring 650 helicopters, 5,700 tanks and other tracked vehicles and 46,000 wheeled vehicles with them, the official said. "This is not Hertz rent-a-car, where you drive [vehicles] for two years and you get rid of the fleet," he said. "We have to take good care of our tanks . . . and all the other equipment. Because we don't get to buy new."
Once those divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since then, Army officials have tried to keep divisions at the highest, C-1 readiness level.
This dip in readiness could have political consequences for President Bush, who sharply criticized the Clinton administration during the 2000 campaign for allowing two Army divisions to fall to the lowest readiness category in 1999 because of peacekeeping obligations in the Balkans.
"Obviously, this is much worse in terms of the numbers," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has called for increasing the size of the Army. "This is an indication of the stress the Army is under."
With all of the Democratic presidential candidates criticizing Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and his overall stewardship of foreign policy, the strategic implications of the Army's low readiness rates could also become an issue in the campaign.
"It's called dangerous," said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who has been calling for 40,000 more Army troops -- the equivalent of two divisions -- since 1995. "The purpose of the military is to stand ready, to face dangers as they appear. Afghanistan came out of the blue, and fortunately we were able to respond."
The Army official acknowledged that four divisions rated C-3 or C-4 represent a "risk" in the nation's strategic posture. But he added: "It's a manageable risk. We've looked at this thing several ways from the joint [inter-service] perspective. It's a manageable risk."
A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the forces would be available if they were needed. "The fact that you have personnel, for example, on leave, or in school, does not mean that they could not be reconstituted in units on rather short order," said the spokesman, who asked not to be quoted by name. "So the idea that you're placing the country at risk is probably an inaccurate and inappropriate way to look at it."
Military analysts differ over the significance of divisions scoring low on the Army's readiness rating system.
Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."
"We have a potential huge challenge from North Korea," McCaffrey said. "So by definition, at this point, we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It's an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about readiness, said the Army's system for gauging readiness is suspect and should not be overemphasized.
Although overhauling 650 helicopters used in Iraq will be a lengthy process, O'Hanlon acknowledged, the job of resetting four divisions back from Iraq would at most delay the Army's ability to respond to a major provocation by North Korea by a month or two.
"It's sort of like the New York Yankees in January," O'Hanlon said. "Their readiness is lower because they haven't gone back to spring training. But they're still a damn good baseball team."
The Army's dip in readiness will almost certainly be used by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill pushing for an increase in Army troops, which Rumsfeld has thus far opposed.
Earlier this week, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they, along with Rumsfeld's staff, are still trying to determine whether the requirement for Iraq, which now stands at 130,000 soldiers, is a "spike" that will soon come down, or an ongoing commitment.
If it is a spike, they said, increasing the size of the Army may not be necessary.
Critics of the administration respond that even the most optimistic military commanders believe 50,000 or more U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for three to five more years.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- justice
From Tommy Franks, a doomsday scenario
By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
December 7, 2003
St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/07/Columns/From_Tommy_Franks__a_.shtml
The doomsday scenario was laid out by Gen. Tommy Franks, the recently retired head of CentCom, in of all places the December edition of Cigar Aficionado magazine.
"What is the worst thing that can happen in our country?" Franks asked rhetorically. "Two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction . . . and terrorism." The second step would be "the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."
Franks suggested that a "massive casualty-producing event" might cause "our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country."
For those tapped into the alternative media world of the Internet, the quotes bounced around faster than a Paris Hilton sex video. Franks, a four-star general, was warning of a future he sees as possible if not likely. Our economy might survive another terrorist assault, so might our mass culture - it'll take more than a nuclear device to shut up Jessica Simpson - but the prognosis for the Constitution is bleak.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman repeated the alarm in a recent column when he said that virulent terrorism "is the most serious threat to open societies, because one more 9/11 and we'll really see an erosion of our civil liberties."
We ain't seen nothing yet, according to the experts. If terrorism's sting is felt again, fascism may be its aftermath.
These pundits and prognosticators are saying out loud what anyone who has been following the government's actions since 9/11 already senses.
Consider how far down this road we've already moved: The passage of the USA Patriot Act has given the government extraordinary powers to spy on Americans without cause. The FBI has been unleashed to surveil Americans engaged in antiwar protests. Immigrants have been secretly detained and deported by the hundreds. And two Americans have been imprisoned indefinitely and without charge as "enemy combatants." (Only last week did the Defense Department agree to grant one of those, Yaser Esam Hamdi, access to a lawyer.) To all this, the courts and Congress have barely blinked.
In Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, we are holding more than 600 prisoners from 42 countries who are being refused prisoner of war status or any other formal legal designation. The Bush administration believes these prisoners should have no access to American courts to challenge the legitimacy of their detention and the president alone, as commander in chief, has the power to decide each man's fate. The Justice Department will argue this in two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term.
In essence, the administration is asserting something unprecedented - that the kinds of emergency powers that might flow to the military on the battlefield should be available in the "war on terrorism."
But combating terrorism is not the same as prosecuting a traditional war. As the administration itself has explained, with terrorism there is no discrete enemy, place of battle or anticipated end to hostilities. Emergency powers take on a very different sheen when the emergency is permanent and everywhere.
Egypt has slouched toward totalitarianism in this way. Since 1981, the country has used fighting terrorism as a justification to repeatedly renew emergency laws that allow the government to hold suspects without charge and try civilians in military courts - with the U.S. State Department objecting the whole way. Conveniently, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has also used the laws to thwart prodemocracy efforts and dispatch political enemies.
It was the Nine Years' War in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that facilitated the seizure of power by the world reformers who then took control of nearly all human and social development. In 1984, George Orwell described Oceania as in a constant state of war with a changeable enemy who "always represented absolute evil." These inventors of the great dystopias understood the way governments use war and its associative fear and instability to consolidate power. Despotism thrives on insecurity. Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts safety right behind food, water and sleep. Humans naturally crave stability and are willing to sacrifice values such as liberty in its pursuit.
Within the current government there are those who would exploit this weakness. Before it was leaked to the Center for Public Integrity, a bill dubbed the Patriot Act II was in development at the Justice Department. The draft would have allowed for the stripping of American citizenship and the secret detention of citizens; and popular conjecture had it that Attorney General John Ashcroft was just waiting for another terror attack to roll the bill out. In that moment of national panic, a malleable Congress wouldn't resist.
So, will another major terrorist attack on American soil lead, as Franks warns, to the end of freedom and democracy? There aren't many hopeful signs to the contrary.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Japanese attack museum over atomic bomber
JULIAN RYALL IN TOKYO,
Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1342562003
JAPANESE anti-nuclear protesters have called on the US government to include details of the terrible aftermath of the 1945 attacks on Hiroshima at an exhibition that is to include the Enola Gay.
They claim the display of the B-29 bomber, which dropped the bomb that killed 66,000 people and injured 69,000 others, is a glorification of the nuclear age.
The bomber, which has been completely reassembled for the first time since 1960, is to be one of the highlights of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's new exhibition centre in Washington from December 15.
The atomic bomb - nicknamed Little Boy - exploded above Hiroshima at 8.16am on August 6, 1945.
The Japan Confederation of A-Bomb and H-Bomb Sufferers has called for details about the number of deaths and photographs of the damage caused to Hiroshima by the bomb to be included in the exhibition, but has been rebuffed.
"As victims of the atomic bombs, we can't bear to have the Enola Gay, which killed thousands of Hiroshima residents, on public display without details of the destruction it wrought," said Terumi Tanaka, the organisation's director.
But museum spokesman Peter Golkin said the exhibit "does not glorify or vilify the role this aircraft played in history", and will feature similarly labelled warplanes. He said a sign beside the aircraft would "tell visitors what it is and the basic facts concerning its history", including its size, technological advances and missions.
The demonstrators have also received e-mails saying their protest is misguided. One said: "Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor. The US justly ended it with A and H-bombs. The US has good reasons to honour the Enola Gay without remorse or regret about its mission."
The Enola Gay has been at the heart of other disputes in the past, with US war veterans claiming an earlier exhibition focused excessively on Japanese victims and ignored the fact that the bombing effectively forced Tokyo to surrender.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.