Tag Archives: George W Bush

92 leading security practitioners endorse Bolton

Caspar Weinberger, James Woolsey, John Lehman, Ed Meese and Max Kampelman Among Powerhouse Bipartisan Group Calling for Swift Approval of President’s Nominee

More than three-score of America’s most accomplished defense and foreign policy practitioners, representing decades of experience in international affairs at the highest levels of the U.S. government, have joined together to urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support President Bush’s nomination of John R. Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy announced today. In a joint letter to be delivered to Sen. Lugar and other legislators on Monday morning, the bipartisan group made three main points:

-John Bolton is well-qualified, both by background and by temperament, to represent America at the United Nations at a critical time in the organization’s history: "John Bolton[‘s]…tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

-His representation will be in the tradition of two of America’s best ambassadors to the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick: "The sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN."

-Criticism of Secretary Bolton lately orchestrated on behalf of a group of retired diplomats is misplaced – and wrong: His views on arms control are identical to those of George W. Bush, the man elected twice by the American people to craft U.S. security policy. They are, moreover, eminently sensible in light of hard experience with countries that cheat and use treaties to wage asymmetric warfare against us.

"John Bolton is precisely the man needed to represent the United States at today’s U.N.," said Frank J. Gaffney, a former Pentagon official and President of the Center for Security Policy, which circulated the joint letter. "Secretary Bolton’s critics are as wrong about his nomination as they are about the nature of the dangerous world in which we live – and the inadvisability of subscribing to treaties that President Bush has correctly found to be defective or otherwise inconsistent with America’s vital interests."

Contact: Laura Fionda (202) 835-9077

– 30 –

4 April 2005

Hon. Richard G. Lugar

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

450 Senate Dirksen Office Building

Washington , D.C. 20510

 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In the next few days, the Foreign Relations Committee will be considering the nomination of the individual that the President has chosen to represent him and serve the interests of the United States at the United Nations. We write urging early and favorable consideration of the President’s nominee, the Honorable John R. Bolton.

John Bolton has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career in public service and in the private sector. In particular, his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations during the administration of George H.W. Bush and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security during this presidency have honed Mr. Bolton’s indisputably impressive intellect and robust diplomatic skills in ways that will serve the nation well at the UN.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has observed, Mr. Bolton will bring these attributes to bear in the tradition of two of the most outstanding of America’s ambassadors at the United Nations: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick. To be sure, the sort of assertive representation of U.S. interests that has been the hallmark of such appointees sometimes discomfits other diplomats. History suggests, however, that it can be indispensable to catalyzing constructive change of the kind virtually everyone agrees is needed at the UN.

Some retired diplomats suggest that Secretary Bolton’s positions on various controversial arms control treaties should disqualify him from serving at the UN. Their criticism is misdirected. Mr. Bolton’s views about each of these accords are identical to those of President Bush. While the signatories are certainly free to oppose the Administration’s positions, their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies.

We believe, moreover, that the Bush Administration’s stances on such treaties reflect a clear-eyed assessment of the real limits of diplomacy with nations that do not honor their commitments, that deliberately conceal their activities so as to defeat verification and that seek to use bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments of asymmetric warfare against nations like the United States that abide by their treaty obligations. Far from being a disqualifier, this view is an eminently sensible and responsible one in light of past experience.

In short, Secretary Bolton’s formidable grasp of the issues of the day, his exemplary previous service to our country and the confidence President Bush reposes in him will make him an outstanding and highly effective representative to the United Nations.

We request that you share this assessment of Secretary Bolton with your colleagues and ensure that it is reflected in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee’s deliberations on his nomination.

Sincerely,

William P. Clark, former National Security Advisor; former Deputy Secretary of State

Frank Ruddy, former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial Guinea

Christopher DeMuth, former Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Designate); former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy

Phyllis Kaminsky, former Director, United Nations Information Center

Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific

Dr. Daniel Goure, former Director, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

John F. Lehman, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy; Member of 9/11 Commission

Barbara J. Comstock, former Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice

Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; former Director of the Office of Management and Budget

James B. Longley Jr., former Member of Congress

Christopher D. Lay, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Dr. Kathleen C. Bailey, former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

Dr. Robert B. Barker, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy

Dr.William Schneider, Jr., former Under Secretary of State; Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control & Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Becky Norton Dunlop, former Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs; former Assistant Secretary of Interior

Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Harvey Feldman, former Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands; founding Director of the American Institute in Taiwan; Alternate Representative to the United Nations

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Edwin Meese, former Counselor to the President; former Attorney General

Jose S. Sorzano, former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations

J. William Middendorf, former Secretary of the Navy; former Ambassador to: the Netherlands, the European Union and the Organization of American States

Jed L. Babbin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Dennis Hays, former Ambassador to Suriname

Michael Skol, former Ambassador to Venezuela; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

Kim Flower, former Director for Latin America, National Security Council

Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director for International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe USN (Ret.), former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; former Director, Navy Research and Development

Otto J. Reich, Member, former National Security Council and the President’s Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives; former Ambassador to Venezuela

James T. Hackett, former Associate Director of USIA; former Acting Director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

Abraham D. Sofaer, former Legal Advisor, Department of State

Tidal W. McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force; former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

Dr. Curtin Winsor, Jr., former Ambassador to Costa Rica

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, former Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Planning and Resources; Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Policy and Resources

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

M.D.B. Carlisle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense of Legislative Affairs

James B. Longley, Jr., former Member, U.S. House of Representatives

Lieutenant General Edward L. Rowny, USA (Ret.), former Chief U.S. Negotiator for the START Negotiations; Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State; JCS Representative to the SALT II Negotiations

Michael A. Ledeen, former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Morris J. Amitay, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Dr. Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary, National Space Council

Vice Admiral N. Ronald Thunman USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Submarine Warfare

Peter Robinson, Speechwriter and Special Assistant to President Reagan

Vice Admiral William D. Houser, USN (Ret.), former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare

Admiral Ronald J. Hays USN (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific; former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Robert Pastorino, former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic; former member of the National Security Council staff

William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to the Vice President

David Frum, former Speechwriter and Special Assistant to the President

William L. Ball III, former Secretary of the Navy

Dr. Dominic J. Monetta, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (designate), Office of New Production Reactors; former Director of Science and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense

John C. Wobensmith, Senior Executive Service (Ret.), Department of Defense

Dr. John Lenczowski, former Director of Europe and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Norman A. Bailey, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; former Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York

Amoretta M. Hoeber, former Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Research and Engineering

Richard Schifter, former Deputy Representative to the UN Security Council; former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Max M. Kampelman, Counselor to the Department of State; former Ambassador and Head of Delegation to the U.S.-Soviet START and Defense and Space Negotiations

Charles M. Kupperman, former Special Assistant to the President; former Deputy Director of the Office of Administration, the White House; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Herbert Romerstein, former Director, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, United States Information Agency

Edward V. Badolato, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Emergencies; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Security Affairs

Dr. Alan L. Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; former Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council

David J. Trachtenberg, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

Robert L. Livingston, former Member of Congress

Stephen D. Bryen, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; former Director, Defense Technology Security Administration

William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education; former Director, National Office of Drug Control Policy

Dr. William R. Graham, former Chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; former Science Advisor to the President

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (Ret.), former Commanding General, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing

Dr. William R. Van Cleave, former Member, Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Strategic Policy and Planning

Clark S. Judge, former Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President

Lieutenant General Charles A. May Jr., USAF (Ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Leon A. Edney, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command; Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; former Secretary of Treasury; former Secretary of Labor; former Director, Office of Management and Budget

Everett Briggs, former Ambassador to Honduras; former Ambassador to Panama; former Ambassador to Portugal

C. Boyden Gray, former Counsel to the President

Lieutenant General Paul G. Cerjan, USA (Ret.), former President, National Defense University

Robert Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs (Acting)

Joshua Gilder, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights

Douglas R. Graham, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Senate Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy

Tom Boyatt, former Ambassador to Colombia; former Ambassador to Upper Volta

Richard W. Carlson, former Ambassador to the Seychelles

Gerald P. Carmen, former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geneva

Raymond Tanter, Personal Representative of the Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna; former member of the National Security Council staff

Sonia Landau, former Assistant Secretary of State

John Tkacik, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)

Dennis Goodman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations

Ben Gilman, former Member of Congress; former Chairman of the House International Relations Committee

General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command

Carol B. Hallett, former Commissioner of Customs; former Ambassador to the Bahamas

 

 

DoD Budget Threatens Cuts to Crucial Programs

The House and Senate have now approved their versions of the federal budget for Fiscal Year 2006. Both proposals, like the President’s request, currently include an almost 5 percent increase in overall defense spending over last year’s bill. For this, the Congress and President Bush should be commended. But now, with the overall budget numbers set, the program-by-program review and hard detail work must begin. This work is much needed since, at the "micro" level, the budget contains several troubling aspects – aspects that were highlighted by Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney in testimony recently delivered before the House Budget Committee.

As Mr. Gaffney testified, the FY2006 budget is marred by defense cuts to crucial programs that are essential to assuring America’s continuing security in a dangerous world. "The sorts of platforms that are the focus of most of the defense budget cuts – an aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines, F/A-22s, the V-22 Osprey and C-130s have in common an inherent flexibility that make them valuable investments in most scenarios currently in prospect."

Among the more disturbing provisions of the current defense budget is its slashing of the United States Navy carrier battle fleet. With the proposed early retirement of the USS John F. Kennedy, America’s carrier force would be cut to a dangerously low level, weakening its ability to project power globally. This drawdown comes even as Communist China energetically seeks to develop a powerful blue-water navy.

In addition, Mr. Gaffney criticized cuts to the U.S. Navy submarine force, "Especially worrisome is the decline in the number of nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) contemplated by a build-rate of just one-per-year for the foreseeable future." The much-diminished SSN force structure that would inevitably follow from this low-rate construction would have far-reaching consequences. Mr. Gaffney warned that, "Such unilateral disarmament is reckless in the face of the emerging challenges to our maritime power and interests."

American dominance of the skies will also be jeopardized by the current budget proposal. Even though hostile nations continue to develop their advanced fighter forces while proliferating highly capable surface-to-air missile systems, funding for the construction of our most promising air superiority asset, the F/A-22, would be sharply cut. In light of this troubling development, Mr. Gaffney stated, "I am particularly struck by the reduction in the number of F/A-22 Raptors being purchased, in light of the plane’s extraordinary performance and the prospect that it alone among America’s fighter/attack inventory may be able to establish and maintain air superiority over territories increasingly defended by advanced anti-aircraft missile systems."

Concerning missile defense, Mr. Gaffney argued strenuously in support of increased government funding for several promising technologies, as well as rapid development in other areas. "(I) would urge a far more aggressive investment in sea-based anti-missile systems using the Navy’s Aegis ships and full funding for the Airborne Laser program, coupled with accelerated funding for developing and fielding missile defenses where they will do the most good – in space."

The state of America’s aging nuclear arsenal also troubled Mr. Gaffney, who warned "Our stockpile is not as safe and reliable as we could make it" and that a resumption of nuclear testing is needed to permit such improvements to be made and to diagnose and correct the Nation’s yawning vulnerabilities to electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attacks.

If in the next few months, the defense program cuts advance through Congress unchallenged, they could severely hinder our military’s ability to modernize and adapt to new dangers on the world stage. In this era of global conflict, such penny-foolish-and-pound-reckless measures could prove not only to be harmful in the short run, but possibly disastrous in the long run. The Center for Security Policy urges the authorizing and appropriating committees to heed Mr. Gaffney’s recommendations and rectify shortfalls in the FY2006 budget that threaten to imperil the Nation’s future security interests.

Frank J. Gaffney’s testimony before the House Budget Committee on 16 February 2005, can be read by clicking here.

 

The Eurofaustians

Decision Brief     No. 05-D 12                                           2005-03-14


 


(Washington, D.C.): “The advance of hope in the Middle East…requires new thinking in the capitals of great democracies – including Washington, D.C. By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy. It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East.”


-George W. Bush, National Defense University March 8, 2005


 


Even as President Bush was drawing this lesson from the past, Europe’s leading nations – Britain, France and Germany – were inveigling his Administration to join them in the latest example of great democracies “excusing and accommodating tyranny” in the pursuit of what passes for “stability.” Within days of the President’s powerful address at NDU, the Eurofaustians had induced him to join their effort to do a deal that would, as a practical matter, legitimate, perpetuate and enrich the despotic mullahocracy of Iran.


 


What Change in Policy?


 


To hear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley tell it, there has been no change in U.S. policy toward Iran. Rather, the United States has – in the interest of getting the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions – simply “withdrawn its objections” to Europe’s paying Tehran with currency we control (Iranian entry into the World Trade Organization and access to spare parts for aging 737 airliners).


 


In exchange for these seemingly modest concessions, we are assured that new, common “red-lines” have been drawn with the Europeans. If the Iranians don’t agree to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, we can now count on the so-called EU-3 to join us in taking the matter to the UN Security Council for action.


 


Welcome to the Casbah


 


We should be clear, however. We have entered the bazaar and the offer on the table should be understood by everyone to be but the opening bid. The mullahs have already responded by saying they will not abandon their uranium enrichment program, seed corn for nuclear weaponry. Clearly, they expect more Western offers will be made to induce them to be more tractable.


 


Unfortunately, it is predictable that the Europeans will be all-too-willing to make such further offers, in the interest of “keeping the dialogue going” and avoiding a rupture with Tehran that would be seen as clearing the way for the Iranian bomb. (A similar logic is impelling the Eurofaustians to resume arms sales to Communist China, even as the PRC inexorably moves forward with its plans to re-annex Taiwan, by force if necessary.)


 


The futility of the Eurofaustians’ deal-making is assured, however, since there is no way to ensure that Tehran is complying any more fully with future promises to freeze its nuclear weapons program than it has with previous ones. For example, we recently learned that part of the vast Iranian covert nuclear weapons complex involves facilities in hardened tunnels half-a-mile underground. It is roughly as difficult to know what is going on inside such sites as it is to destroy them.


Worse yet, the process of deal-making with a repressive, dishonest and aggressive Iranian regime buys the mullahs the one thing they need most: Time. Time to complete their covert nuclear program. Time to mate nuclear warheads with Iran‘s growing arsenal of longer and longer range ballistic and cruise missiles. Time to ensure that Iran‘s Chinese and Russian friends will thwart any Security Council resolution the United States might actually be able to persuade the EU-3 to support.


 


Fatal Harm to the Bush Doctrine?


 


Arguably even more insidious is the prospect that the Bush Administration will be seen by the Iranian people as having decided, at least implicitly, that doing a deal with the Iranian regime is more important than “standing with the people” of Iran, who yearn for freedom from the mullahs. This is all the more regrettable since it not only calls into question the President’s central organizing principle for the war on terror; it would also seem to preclude, or at least greatly to impede, the only tool that might actually prevent Iranian nuclear armament: regime change in favor of freedom.


 


In a meeting with the Washington Times editorial board last Friday, Secretary Rice confirmed this dilemma: “Our challenge is to continue to speak to the aspirations of the Iranian people even as we deal with near-term issues like the Iranian nuclear program. And the President is determined to do that, determined not to lose the emphasis on the rights and the aspirations of all people, including the Iranian people, to live in freedom. We don’t want to do anything that legitimizes this government – the mullahs – in a direct way. And so there isn’t any indication here of ‘warming of relations.'”


 


The Bottom Line


 


The problem is that, even if Dr. Rice is correct and – despite all appearances and, frankly, expectations – these European-led negotiations do not wind up euchring the United States into legitimating the regime and abandoning the aspirations of the Iranian people, they will make it more difficult to do something about those aspirations. We need to wage political warfare against the mullahocracy if there is to be any chance of freeing its people and denying terror’s friends the Bomb. And neither time nor the Eurofaustians will be on our side in waging such warfare.


 

Friends like these

Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Nuaimi, recently announced that he expected the price of oil to remain at unconscionably high levels of between $40 and $50 per barrel through 2005. Ironically, every American should be grateful.

Friends Like These

Such gratitude is not, of course, due the Saudis – who, we are endlessly told, are among our most reliable "friends" in the Middle East – because they are working to drive down the price of oil set by the OPEC racketeers’ cartel. To the contrary, the Saudis appear content to keep prices exorbitantly high, even though they are well aware of the adverse impact such artificially inflated costs have on the financial well-being of their principal protector, the United States.

Rather, we should be appreciative for what should be the proverbial camel’s back-breaking straw: A final wake-up call, one that establishes unmistakably that it is neither in the United States’ strategic, national security nor economic interests for this country and other industrialized nations to continue relying upon imported oil from those who wish to do us harm.

Fortunately, as columnist Fareed Zakaria noted in the March 7 edition of Newsweek, we can respond immediately to this call: "Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: ‘…It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon [of gasoline].’"

A World Transformed

Needless to say, the widespread availability of such cars – and the alternative fuels they would utilize – would literally change the world.

Our enemies would be denied the geo-strategic leverage they currently enjoy, as indigenously produced energy sources derived from coal, biomass and garbage knock the pegs out from under the cartel’s control of the commodity upon which our transportation sector heavily depends.

In particular, we would no longer have to export tens of billions in petrodollars that are used, in part, to promote the Islamofascist ideology that animates many of those determined to kill us. (The Saudi government’s hand in proselytizing along precisely those lines was clearly demonstrated in a study, released last month by Freedom House, of hate-mongering materials officially produced and distributed in this country by the Kingdom.)

We can also greatly reduce our vulnerability to disruptions of critical energy infrastructures, at home and abroad. Our foes have learned how easy it is for them to cost us dearly by blowing up a pipeline or sinking a tanker. Creating diverse alternative fuel sources here at home is, simply put, a national security imperative.

Not least, this is true since we are likely to find increasing competition from China for limited oil will become a flash point for future conflict, if not an actual causus belli. Already, the PRC is frantically making strategic alliances with oil-exporting terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran, Sudan and Venezuela. It is also moving to buy up Canadian, Brazilian and Indonesian energy sources, transparently with a view to denying them to us as well as meeting their own burgeoning demands.

Setting America Free

As Zakaria reports, there is now a blueprint for energy security (www.SetAmericaFree.org) that can translate available technologies into widely available fuel and automotive products and catalyze the sorts of outcomes described above. Specifically, this blueprint envisions a new Manhattan Project on energy independence that will, for an investment by the federal government of $12 billion over the next four years, translate into a reduction of at least 50% in projected oil imports in 2025.

This blueprint envisions allocating such expenditures in the following, practical ways:

  • "$2 billion for automotive manufacturers to cover one-half the costs of building flexible fuel vehicle-capability [that is, autos that can use ethanol or methanol based fuels] into their new production cars (i.e., roughly 40 million cars at $50 per unit);
  • "$1 billion to pay for at least one out of every four existing gas stations to add at least one pump to supply alcohol fuels (an estimated incentive of $20,000 per pump, new pumps costing approximately $60,000 per unit);
  • "$2 billion in consumer tax incentives to procure hybrid cars;
  • "$2 billion for automotive manufacturers to commercialize plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [that is, cars that can be plugged into the electrical grid to recharge their batteries];
  • "$3 billion to construct commercial-scale demonstration plants to produce non-petroleum based liquid fuels (utilizing public-private cost-sharing partnerships to build roughly 25 plants in order to demonstrate the feasibility of various approaches to perform efficiently at full-scale production); and
  • "$2 billion to continue work on commercializing fuel cell technology."

 

The Bottom Line

In the course of the 1988 presidential campaign, then-candidate George H.W. Bush declared: "Detroit is ready now to – make cars that would run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol – either ethanol, made from corn or methanol, made from natural gas or coal or even wood….Let us turn away from our dependence on imported oil to domestic products – corn, natural gas, and coal – and look for energy not just from the Middle East but from the Middle West."

This was a sensible strategy before 9/11. Today, it is absolutely mandatory. Like Nixon going to China, a President from Texas oil country is just the man to launch the Manhattan Project that Sets America Free.

 

Arsenals of Tyranny

Decision Brief     No. 05-D 09                                                           2005-02-21


(Washington, D.C.): At the end of 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a powerful “fireside chat,” one that is a fitting backdrop to the visit to Europe being made this week by his successor, George W. Bush. In his radio address, FDR summoned a reluctant America to make the sacrifice necessary to produce the arms urgently needed by freedom-loving people in Britain and elsewhere at risk of being overrun by Nazism and other forms of tyranny. He called the United States “the great arsenal of democracy.”


In the course of his travels, Mr. Bush will be meeting with the leaders of a number of countries whose national survival in World War II depended critically upon the industrial output of democracy’s indispensable arsenal. His purpose will be to restore relations with these allies strained in recent years by disagreements over the liberation of Iraq and other matters.


 Friends Like These


Unfortunately, the President’s “fence-mending” efforts with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his French, German and British counterparts seem likely to founder over the fact that these states are increasingly becoming arsenals for tyranny.


Take Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the old Soviet military-industrial complex has been kept a going-concern largely as a result of sales of its products to Communist China and other regimes unfriendly to freedom.


Putin’s Russia has approved the sale of a vast array of advanced aircraft, missile systems, submarines, other seagoing vessels and armored equipment. Worse yet, the Russians have in many cases transferred not only end-items but manufacturing know-how, enabling the Chinese to produce even larger quantities of such sophisticated equipment in the future – for its own use and for sale, in turn, to other despotic regimes.


Mr. Putin’s list of client tyrannies does not end with China. Just last week, he reaffirmed his decision to allow the Iranian mullahocracy to complete construction of a Russian-designed and -supplied nuclear power plant at Bushehr. In so doing, he blithely dismissed American and other concerns that this facility will be used by the Iranian regime to amass fuel for nuclear weapons.


Putin has been no more responsible with respect to appeals to forego the sale of advanced surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian despot, Bashir Assad. Such weapons may well make their way into the hands of the terrorist Hezbollah organization that enjoys safe-haven and sponsorship from Syria and its patron, Iran. The effect would be greatly to escalate the risk of conflict between Israel and Syria and the possibility that Russian-made weapons are used to try to shoot down American pilots operating in and from Iraq.


In addition, the Kremlin has recently agreed to sell as many as 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles to one of this hemisphere’s most worrisome, and ambitious, despots: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. These arms will be used by Chavez to equip his allies in fomenting anti-American revolutions throughout Latin America – including, notably, in Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas appear poised to retake power.


Europe and the China Arms Embargo


If Mr. Bush’s Russian interlocutor is indifferent to appeals for greater restraint in such sales to freedom’s enemies, so it appears are France’s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder and Britain’s Tony Blair. The Three EU Musketeers seem determined to end the arms embargo the European Union imposed on the PRC in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, thereby allowing Europe’s military-industrial capacity also to be put in the service of China’s ever-more offensively oriented armed forces.


The sorts of technology transfers that could flow from the EU’s arsenal to the Chinese are particularly troubling, insofar as they would complement nicely the formidable weapon systems already provided by Russia. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Daniel Blumenthal and Thomas Donnelly pointed out Sunday in an op.ed. article in the Washington Post: “The missing pieces of the People’s Liberation Army puzzle are exactly the sorts of command and control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems that the Europeans are getting ready to sell.”


The negative consequences such sales would have for U.S.-European relations are hard to exaggerate. Chinese military doctrine holds that conflict with the United States is inevitable. Preparations now being made by Beijing are not compatible with mere self-defense or even threatening Taiwan. China’s blue-water navy capabilities, long-range ballistic and cruise missiles and space-control technologies would, if combined with command and control and other equipment designed to NATO standards, be much more threatening and greatly increase the chances that such gear will be used in the future to kill Americans.


The Bottom Line


In the “Arsenal of Democracy” address sixty-five years ago, Franklin Roosevelt warned his countrymen: “Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead – danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.” He argued that only by arming the British and others fighting the fascists could America prevent “the danger” from afflicting us directly.

Today, it is no less important that we confront the danger posed to us by actual or prospective enemies, this time being armed by those we previously helped secure their freedom. President Bush may be reluctant to remind his hosts in Europe this week that they are “either with us or against us.” But if they serve as arsenals for tyranny, the Europeans and Russians should understand that Americans will clearly see them for what they are: “Against us.”

Go Navy missile defense!

Decision Brief     No. 05-D 10                                                2005-02-18

With each passing day, evidence grows that two of the world’s most dangerous rogue states, North Korea and Iran, will be able to equip their arsenals of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. The prospect that American forces, allies and interests – and ultimately the United States itself – will be at risk from attack by such weapons offers a powerful validation of President Bush’s visionary and courageous determination to deploy defenses against ballistic missile-delivered threats.

Missile Defense, from the Sea

Last Thursday, the United States Navy confirmed that the President’s vision can be realized in a near-term and highly cost-effective way – from the sea. For the fifth time out of six attempts, Navy ships successfully tracked, intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile in-fight, using their existing AEGIS fleet air defense systems and a new Standard Missile, dubbed the SM-3.

Three features make this test particularly significant: For the first time, the hardware and software utilized was the operational configuration (known as AEGIS BMD 3.0) that will be installed in all other AEGIS missile defense ships. No less noteworthy is the fact that the SM-3 utilized to shoot down the target was one of the first of the production rounds to come off the manufacturing line. And, the personnel used to conduct the test were the regular crew of the U.S.S. Lake Erie.

In other words, this was the “real deal.” The option of complementing land-based anti-missile defenses with sea-based assets capable of both tracking ballistic missiles and destroying them in-flight is now in hand.

In addition to the exemplary performance of the Lake Erie and her crew, Thursday’s test also featured another important development. A second AEGIS ship, the USS Russell, brought to bear for the first time a new capability known as the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Signal Processor (BMSP). This S-Band radar provided real-time discrimination and classification of the target, information that considerably enhances the probability of intercept. The AEGIS BMSP holds great promise for expanding missile defense radar coverage at a fraction of the cost of other approaches.

The Enemy is Us

These achievements are all the more remarkable for another reason: The sea-based missile defense program has, for most of the past thirteen years, suffered from minimal support from the Navy’s leadership and outright hostility from the Pentagon’s missile defense bureaucracy. The former have tended to see this mission as a diversion of scarce resources from the other priority air- and sea-control duties for which the AEGIS ships were designed.

For the latter, sea-based anti-missile systems have generally been anathema, albeit for varying reasons. During the Clinton years, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was sacrosanct and even seagoing missile defenses that were incapable of stopping long-range ballistic missiles – and therefore not covered by the Treaty – were considered to be problematic. Consequently, the Navy’s programs were often starved of funds.

Amazingly, things have not been much better under a George W. Bush administration that came to office determined to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to deploy effective, global missile defenses at the earliest possible time. The Missile Defense Agency has largely been allowed to give short shrift to the development and deployment of Navy anti-missile systems, in favor of ground-based interceptors and longer-term research and development efforts.

Unfortunately, shortly before the Navy’s successful test, the Ground-based Missile Defense system experienced the latest in a series of experimental setbacks. While the threat of missile attack demands that that program be brought to completion – and that such further testing and developmental work be conducted as is necessary to get there, the achievements of the sea-based missile defense program to date demands a much more assertive effort be undertaken to realize its potential.

Getting There from Here

Such an effort should involve the following components:


  • Accelerate procurement of SM-3 missiles. Present plans call for the deployment of just 30 such missiles by 2007, of which only a few would be the Block I interceptor successfully tested last week. The rest would be upgraded Block Ia missiles that have yet to be proven, let alone put into full-scale production. A larger buy of both could enable more ships to be missile defense-capable, affording protection to larger areas of the globe and reducing the unit costs of the interceptors.


  • Retain five AEGIS cruisers that are being decommissioned at a roughly the half-way point in their planned service life. These vessels can be configured to be effective anti-missile ships at a fraction of the cost of new construction.


  • Resuscitate a program terminated several years ago to afford the Navy’s fleets protection against short-range ballistic missile attack. Scuds and similar missiles available to North Korea, Iran and China, among other potentially hostile states, demand the deployment at the earliest possible time of a capability like that of the so-called SM-2 Block IVa program.


  • Maximize the interoperability of U.S. sea-based missile defenses with the AEGIS ships of allied fleets – including those of Japan, Australia, Spain, Norway and South Korea. Doing so can complement America?s efforts to provide truly global protection against ballistic missile attack to our own forces, people and interests, while helping to defray the costs of such protection.

    The Bottom Line

    Missile defenses are more required now than ever. The time has come to assign the Navy the mission and the resources necessary to provide comprehensive defenses from the sea.

    • Protect US sovereignty: Sink the Law of the Sea

    George W. Bush has worked hard, particularly since the 9/11 attacks, to emulate the principled, conservative and consequential presidency of one of his most formidable predecessors, Ronald Reagan. So, why would President Bush want to make one of his top foreign policy priorities the ratification of an accord–the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST)–that President Reagan rejected 22 years ago?

    This decision is all the more puzzling since the Law of the Sea Treaty has not improved with age. In fact, there has been no change to the treaty whatsoever from the document Reagan found wanting.

    To be sure, in 1994, the Clinton Administration negotiated a separate accord (called “the Agreement”) that proponents claim “fixed” the Reagan objections. But the truth of the matter is that, like so many other Clinton flim-flams, this one is not the real deal since LOST has not actually been amended at all.

    International Taxes

    Indeed, fully one-fifth of the states that are party to LOST have refused to be bound by the Agreement. What is more, some that did ratify the 1994 deal made clear their view that the Agreement did not alter the treaty itself.

    The question arises: Is the Law of the Sea Treaty any more compatible with our national interests today than it was in 1982? The answer for most Americans–and especially for all conservatives–should be a resounding “No!”

    For one thing, it is unimaginable that the United States would choose to expand the power and influence of the United Nations at a time when evidence of the latter’s corruption, malfeasance and inherent anti-Americanism is growing by the day. Yet, that would be the effect of our joining one of the UN’s offshoots–the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a supranational organization created by Part XI of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Reagan specifically cited Part XI when he refused to sign LOST, and for good reasons.

    In a move without precedent and with ominous implications, the International Seabed Authority would have the power to impose what amounts to taxes on American citizens. The UN has long sought means to generate revenues without having to rely on donations from member states. If the United States were to become a party to LOST, the Treasury would be charged by the ISA for permits and other fees associated with American commercial exploitation of the seabeds.

    Now, it is unclear precisely how the U.S. government would recover such unprecedented international taxes, imposed without real representation, from American companies involved in mining or energy operations in international waters. What is clear, however, is that the taxpayer will be on the hook for at least a quarter of the International Seabed Authority’s annual operating budget, our tithe under the UN formula. And Americans will have to pay the ISA for the privilege of allowing our companies to explore and develop the resources of seven-tenths of the world’s surface–resources that were, until LOST, considered to be exploitable by whomever could gain access to them.

    The Jamaica-based international organization that we would be supporting in this fashion would have not only the equivalent of an executive and legislature, but also a judiciary, known as the Law of the Sea Tribunal. While there are, theoretically, some limits on the authority of the other two branches of this supranational institution, discretion about the extent of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is exclusively in its hands.

    The rulings of this sort of international court have already begun to erode U.S. sovereignty. As Judge Robert Bork, Phyllis Schlafly and Jeremy Rabkin, among others, have noted in recent months: American jurisprudence is increasingly reflecting decisions handed down by foreign judges who are neither accountable to nor obliged to comply with this country’s rule of law–with negative repercussions for our rights and system of justice.

    Particularly worrisome is the fact that the Law of the Sea Tribunal has already indicated its intention to define its jurisdiction broadly. It is predictable that, were the United States to become subject to its edicts, the tribunal would become a preferred venue for non-governmental organizations and unfriendly regimes seeking to use the court’s authority to compel changes in U.S. military and civilian policies.

    Treaty proponents argue that problems like this can be mitigated if the United States “has a seat at the table,” by virtue of being a party to LOST. Actually, membership would not assure that there would be a U.S. representative on the tribunal, since not all states’ parties can have nationals serving as judges at any given time.

    Still more unlikely is the prospect that–whether we are represented or not–a majority of the Tribunal’s jurists would be supportive of U.S. positions in cases before the court. After all, the Law of the Sea Tribunal–like most of LOST’s other institutions–operates on the basis of one country, one vote. This ensures, as a practical matter, that the same anti-American forces that produced a treaty Reagan found to be unacceptably defective would operate to our detriment.

    Obstacles to Intelligence Gathering

    Another area of concern arises from the fact that the Law of the Sea Treaty was drafted long before, and without regard to, the sort of global conflict in which we now find ourselves. As a result, LOST will create obstacles to our submerged movements and intelligence collection in territorial waters–activities that may prove critical to our ability to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks.

    The treaty similarly makes no provision for stopping and searching on the high seas ships suspected of transporting weapons of mass destruction on behalf of or for use by international terrorists. Although the Bush Administration argues otherwise, several leading LOST member states (including Communist China) have contended that the accord actually prohibits one of the President’s most important measures aimed at preventing the shipment of WMD: the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Given that PSI may be an effective tool for countering one of the most dangerous threats we currently face, it would be irresponsible to join a treaty that could preclude such activity, especially if the question is left to the tender mercies of the Law of the Sea Tribunal.

    No less out of step with the times is the obligation the United States would have to assume as a member state to transfer militarily significant technology and information to potential adversaries. Keeping such know-how and data out of unfriendly hands should be among our highest priorities in the War on Terror.

    With all these problems, one might reasonably ask: Why in the world would Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice–in answer to a question by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), who is pushing for ratification of LOST–say during her confirmation hearings that “we very much want to see [LOST] go into force”?

    The short answer seems to be that a number of special interests have come together to urge ratification. The Navy thinks LOST will lighten its responsibility for assuring freedom of navigation with an ever-smaller fleet. Oil and gas companies think it will facilitate offshore exploration and drilling. Curiously, for their part, environmentalists expect to be able more tightly to regulate the oceans and to bar activities that endanger the health of their waters, flora and fauna, such as drilling and mining. And the State Department, which never saw a treaty it didn’t like, contends membership in LOST will help President Bush improve ties with Europe and other foreign powers.

    It will fall–as is so often the case–to conservatives to ensure that the national interest is protected by defeating a treaty Reagan rightly concluded was unacceptable, and that remains so today. As he once famously put it, it’s time for us to “win one for the Gipper.”

    Cut aid to Egypt

    (Washington, D.C.): In his State of the Union address, President Bush suggested that Egypt “can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.” How, it must then be asked, is this to be accomplished by a state that facilitates terrorism and anti-Americanism and is led by an entrenched dictator? Max Boot offers a practical starting point in a recent column for the Los Angeles Times: “Reduce or eliminate altogether the $2-billion annual U.S. subsidy to Egypt unless there’s real economic and political progress.”

    Boot exposes as fallacious the grounds upon which U.S. policy-makers justify this largess. The aid should not be given as a reward for Egypt’s living at peace with Israel, the author notes, as “Arab states coexist with Israel because they have failed to destroy it, not because they’ve been bribed.” Boot then dispels the notion that Egypt’s cooperation in the war on terror is contingent on this payment. Rather, “Mubarak fights the Islamists not as a favor to us but because they pose a mortal threat to his rule.”

    Far from encouraging peace and freedom in the Middle East, Mubarak has used this money – which effectively subsidizes the state-run news media – to deflect the anger of Egypt’s impoverished and oppressed citizens toward the United States and Israel. It is time America discontinued aid that underpins an environment in which the President’s vision of democracy in the Middle East cannot be realized.

    Profile in courage: Douglas J. Feith

    Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith’s announcement Wednesday that he would return to private life brings to a close four distinguished, but grueling, years at the forefront of the War on Terror. It offers an occasion both to salute this outstanding public servant and to castigate his ever-voluble critics.

    Most of the reportage on Secretary Feith’s departure this summer has dredged up various unsubstantiated charges that have been made against Mr. Feith and/or his subordinates. The fact that no credible evidence has yet been offered to back up any of these transparent attempts at character assassination for political purposes – principally, mounting an oblique attack on President Bush in the run-up to last November’s elections – reflects even less credit on those who persist in repeating them in the media than it does on those who recklessly alleged them in the first place.

    Perhaps even more troubling has been the suggestion that Mr. Feith is motivated in his public policy role by a dark and malevolent ideology. Specifically, he is said to be "a neoconservative" and that explains policy predilections that led the Nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses and in a poorly planned fashion.

    It is always easier to repeat such nonsense than to examine with care the actual evidence of the thinking of a person like Douglas Feith. This is particularly egregious since, as is generally true of men and women of his formidable intellectual capacity and policy outlook, Mr. Feith has a voluminous record by which his true thinking can be assessed.

    Anyone who wishes to understand the actual, extraordinary caliber of this man – and the loss to the country represented by his departure from public service – is invited to peruse his record of profoundly thoughtful, well-reasoned and brilliantly articulated writings. And note will be taken of those who, by their persistent refusal to examine such materials, signal a laziness, indifference to the truth and/or partisanship that is truly worthy of criticism, if not contempt.

    Freedom at sea, too

    “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.” George W. Bush, January 20, 2005.

    (Washington, D.C.): As noteworthy as what President Bush said in this and similar passages of his remarkable second inaugural is what he did not say. In particular, he did not declare the force upon which we must increasingly depend for “the survival of liberty in our land” to be the United Nations or multilateralism or supranational government.

    Rather, Mr. Bush said the critical determinant of our future well-being will be the “success of liberty in other lands.” And that success will depend in no small measure on the United States playing the role that its history, values and vital interests have made it uniquely suited to play:

      From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

    Again, the President did not suggest that the United Nations or its sister organizations can be counted on to meet “the calling of our time.” Instead, he pledged that, “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

    American Exceptionalism and Sovereignty

    Not since Ronald Reagan occupied the Oval Office has the world been treated to such an unapologetic enunciation of American exceptionalism or such an unvarnished assessment of the futility of expecting others – most especially international organizations in which tyrannical oppressors are well-represented – to stand with the oppressed.

    Importantly, Mr. Bush made plain that such support would not be simply rhetorical. Although he acknowledged “America’s influence is not unlimited,” the President went on to observe that, “Fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.”

    For the United States to be able to exercise influence “in freedom’s cause,” however, it must preserve the sovereignty and wherewithal to act, despite predictable opposition from despot-dominated UN councils – in league with others if possible, unilaterally if necessary.

    LOST: A Threat to U.S. Soveignty and Freedom

    Incredibly, even as President Bush was preparing his call for an American foreign policy that would resist tyrants – not rely on organizations they and their friends effectively control – his Administration was being committed to the ratification “as soon as possible” of a treaty that would give unprecedented power to just such an organization.

    The treaty in question is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). It was drafted over twenty years ago at the behest of Soviet bloc and “non-aligned” nations to serve as the centerpiece of their so-called “New International Economic Order,” a scheme to transfer wealth from the industrialized world to the developing one.

    Ronald Reagan objected to LOST’s creation of a supranational agency to govern the world’s oceans at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and America’s capacity to utilize and assure freedom of the seas. When American concerns were ignored or simply voted down, he refused to sign the accord.

    The treaty has not improved with age, despite claims by its supporters that Mr. Reagan’s objections have subsequently been addressed. For example, it still allows an international organization for the first time to collect revenues from American taxpayers as the price for permission to exploit the world’s seabeds.

    LOST would also still infringe in significant ways on the movement and activities of U.S. military and intelligence operations at sea. It would still oblige the U.S. to transfer sensitive data and technology to potentially hostile nations. And some LOST member states, including Communist China, insist that the treaty prohibits President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative – a vital “coalition of the willing” effort to counter the sea-borne spread of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and their state-sponsors.

    Yet, despite these and numerous other problems, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice last week responded to pressure from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (Republican of Indiana) by saying, “the convention as it now stands serves our national security interests, serves our economic interests…and we very much want to see it go into force.”

    The Bottom Line

    As a result of that endorsement, Sen. Lugar is expected shortly to try to get his committee to recommend Senate “advice and consent” to the Law of the Sea Treaty. LOST’s ratification would not only make the United States subject to a seriously defective accord and its hostile-majority-ruled institutions. It would also give unwarranted new legitimacy, precedents and power to the bloated, scandal-ridden and oppressor-dominated United Nations and international organizations it has spawned.

    Senators who subscribe to President Bush’s vision of an America made more secure by “the expansion of freedom in all the world” must prevent this expansion from being diminished, if not LOST, at sea.