“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ’spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

The two pincers putting the squeeze on Pakistan are 1) its mainstream majority population, and 2) its extremist, fundamentalist minority that is now getting armed to the teeth and swept up by the Taliban. In between is the Pakistani Army, which has no experience in counterinsurgency operations and is using conventional warfare to fight the well-armed Taliban, blowing up entire towns and dwellings, which has caused a massive refugee crisis — the largest of its kind since Rwanda — and for which Pakistan made NO advance preparations.

Here are some illuminating videos I’ve found that I’d like to share with you because they taught me so much. Included in the first two are Hillary Clinton’s statements.

From WorldFocus.org, an excellent backgrounder on the Swat Valley crisis, with these explanations to set up the video:

United Nations figures show that over 1.45 million people have been displaced by ongoing violence in Pakistan since May 2.

The immense strain of this humanitarian crisis is challenging the Pakistani government as it tries to avoid internal dissent against the consequences of its anti-Taliban military campaign.

The U.S. has pledged more than $100 million dollars in emergency assistance for Pakistan.

Ahmad Kamal, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United Nations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the situation in the refugee camps and how the military campaign is going.

From Hillary Clinton’s statement, posted at the State Department’s Web site:

Humanitarian Aid to Pakistan

[...]

Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word “swat” — to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

President Obama and I hope that individuals who have fled the conflict will be able to return home quickly, safely, and on a voluntary basis. Some have already gone back to their communities. And as they do, the United States stands ready to help Pakistan’s government support displaced persons as they rebuild their lives.

But as long as this crisis persists, our assistance will continue. We face a common threat, a common challenge, and now a common task. And we know that the work ahead is difficult, but we have seen an enormous amount of support and determination out of the Pakistani government, military, and people in the last weeks to tackle the extremist challenge. And we’re confident that with respect to the humanitarian challenge the people of Pakistan and their government, as well as the international community, can come together and forge not only the assistance that is needed, but stronger bonds for the years ahead. …

These two CNN videos are CRITICAL to view. The first gives you great background information on what’s going on in Pakistan, and the second discusses the disturbing developments in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal:

Crisis in Pakistan 2:25
CNN’s Ivan Watson reports on the first pictures from the battles between Pakistan’s army and the Taliban.

Is Pakistan adding nukes? 1:57
CNN’s Chris Lawrence looks at satellite photos that indicate Pakistan is building a nuclear reactor.

UPDATE: “Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says“

[...]

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, veered from the budget proposal under debate to ask Admiral Mullen about public reports “that Pakistan is, at the moment, increasing its nuclear program — that it may be actually adding on to weapons systems and warheads. Do you have any evidence of that?”

It was then that Admiral Mullen responded with his one-word confirmation. Mr. Webb said Pakistan’s decision was a matter of “enormous concern,” and he added, “Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be going, as it addresses what I just asked about?”

Similar concerns about seeking guarantees that American military assistance to Pakistan would be focused on battling insurgents also were expressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman.
“Unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat from militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance will be effective,” Mr. Levin said.

[...]

UPDATE #1: Here’s CNN’s coverage of the press conference:

NEXT UP: A video and text from the State.gov Web site, followed by fascinating reports on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and a direct interview with a top Taliban leader:

CNN has done some great reports on Pakistan, including the meeting with a Taliban leader aired last night on AC360:

Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: The Financial Times reports that President Obama’s assurances last night in the press conference — that besieged country’s nuclear weapons are “in safe hands” — have merit.

Pakistan’s senior civil and military officials are sharing tightly held information about the country’s nuclear weapons programme with western countries in a bid to allay fears about the security of warheads in the face of a Taliban advance.

Pakistani officials presented this as a move to satisfy the west that its weapons would not fall into Taliban hands. “We have renewed our pledge to keep our nuclear weapons safe,” said a senior Pakistani official. The briefings were aimed, he said, at “reassuring” the international community that there were adequate safety measures “to keep a complete lid on our weapons”.

On Wednesday night, the Pakistani army claimed it had halted the latest Taliban incursion in the Buner district, 100km north-west of Islamabad, after two days of fighting. At dawn on Wednesday, the army, which has been accused in the west of failing to challenge the militants, airlifted troops behind Taliban lines and, it claimed, forced them to retreat.

“We have successfully blocked the Taliban advances and confined them just to a pocket,” Rehman Malik, the interior minister, said.

The Taliban’s territorial gains beyond Pakistan’s border regions in recent months and the lack of resistance put up by the country’s army have raised fears – particularly in India – that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of religious extremists.

Although the whereabouts of Pakistan’s weapons are secret, analysts say that some are placed far from the Indian border to allow Islamabad adequate response time in the event of an attack from its old enemy, and fellow nuclear power, India.

Western diplomats said yesterday a Taliban advance on Islamabad threatened to bring militants perilously close to some of Pakistan’s main nuclear installations. But they doubted militants were capable of overwhelming heavily protected installations.

At the weekend, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, described the toppling of the Pakistani government and capture of nuclear weapons as “unthinkable”.

US officials in Islamabad have assured that the threat of “loose nukes” is small.

Western diplomats say the nuclear programme resides in a “ringfenced” part of the military under the command of a well-respected general and protected from rogue elements within the army that might seek to capture a weapon. Although improvements in the locks and decoupling of weapons systems have been made, Pakistan has not complied with the high level of security recommended to it.

Worries over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons date back to 2004 when the proliferation network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, founder of the nuclear programme, came to light.

One of the dangers identified by the international community was that one of AQ Khan’s scientists might helpextremists gain a “dirty bomb”. Since then, the Pakistani military has tightened monitoring of individual scientists and introduced new inventory systems to track individual components of the bombs.

Some analysts say the greatest threat to nuclear security is from within the army itself. … Read the rest of the section on the military vulnerability.

There are differing views from expert bloggers. For one perspective, check out Larry’s fellow guest on Sunday’s John Batchelor Show, Bill Riggio, who writes for and maintains the Long War Journal, a remarkable blog that tracks every significant story coming out of Pakistan.

For a contrasting perspective, check out Juan Cole’s Informed Comment (h/t PM317) here and here (”Pakistan Crisis and Social Statistics”).

Here’s an example of the differing perspectives. In “Pakistani Army Takes Capital of Buner, Pushing Back Taliban Advance; Obama Considering More Aid, Cole wrote:

[...]

On Wednesday morning, it was announced that the Pakistani military had taken control of Dagar, the capital of Buner district. Fighting remained heavy in the area, with 70 militants claimed killed and another 350 or so still holding out in parts of the district.

The operation in Buner was launched after Pakistani intelligence intercepted a telephone call between Pakistani Taliban leader Mawlana Fazlullah and one of his commanders indicating that their plan was to feign a withdrawal from Buner and then to launch a surprise takeover. The Tehrik-i Taliban-i Pakistan (TTP) stands accused of killing or kidnapping local NWFP security personnel and kidnapping adolescent boys from villages for induction into the TTP paramilitary.

High Obama administration officials appear to have worked themselves into a frenzy about events in Malakand, and propose dealing with it by giving Islamabad more money more quickly than planned and also training Pakistani troops in counter-insurgency. Some US officials suspect duplicity on the part of the government of Pakistani President Asaf Ali Zardari. I take it that means they think the Pakistani military is sanguine about the spread of Talibanism in Malakand because the Pakistani Taliban might be useful in projecting Pakistani influence in the southern Pushtun areas of Afghanistan, which Islamabad considers its “strategic depth.” …

In “Pakistan Crisis and Social Statistics,” Cole asserts that the Obama administration and Western media are being hysterical:

Readers have written me asking what I think of the rash of almost apocalyptic pronouncements on the security situation in Pakistan issuing from the New York Times, The Telegraph, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in recent days

Cole repeatedly minimizes the capabilities of the Taliban in both articles.

In contrast, Riggio writes in “Taliban still in control in Dir”:

The Taliban are in control of much of the northern district of Dir despite claims by senior Pakistani officials that the region was secured after a day’s fighting.

The Pakistani military operation, which began on April 26, focused on the Madain region in the southern portion of the district of Dir. The Madain region hosts the home town of Sufi Mohammed, the pro-Taliban cleric who is behind the Malakand accord, the peace agreement that established sharia in Malakand, Dir, Chitral, Swat, Shangla, Buner, and Kohistan and put an end to military operations in Swat.

“The government’s writ seems non-existent for nearly 20km from the southern tip of the district,” the BBC reported. Security checkpoints have been abandoned in many regions outside of Timergara, the main city in Lower Dir. The Taliban often patrol the region and establish checkpoints to monitor traffic.

The Taliban are in control of the Chakdara-Talash region and the main road that connects Dir to the Taliban hotbed of Kabal, a sub-district in Swat. This region is used to allow Taliban forces in the Bajaur Tribal agency to link up with their brethren in Swat. Dir also borders Afghanistan, and serves as a conduit for Taliban forces transiting the border.

The reports from Dir conflict with triumphant statements made by Pakistani political and military officials on April 27, just one day after the operation began. Interior Minister
Rehman Malik claimed Dir was under complete control of the security forces. Army Spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the military successfully completed the Dir operation and claimed 75 Taliban fighters and 10 security personnel were killed during the fighting.

But the Taliban have disputed Abbas’ claim that 75 fighters, including a commander named Maulana Shahid, was killed. A Taliban spokesman claimed Shahid was alive, and that only four Taliban fighters were killed. The military often inflates Taliban casualties and claims senior leaders are killed. These leaders more than often appear in the media and mock the Army.

The Pakistani military has relied on artillery and helicopter and air strikes to target the Taliban, and rarely can confirm enemy casualties. The heavy-handed tactics result in villages being leveled and the alienation of the civilian population.

The military and government’s claims of a quick victory in Dir are disputed by Pakistani civilians on the ground.

…

My inclination is to stick with Hillary’s concerns as well as those expressed by Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal. Roggio is a frequent guest on John Batchelor’s program. Check our site on Sundays for promos of the show, and Larry Johnson’s regular appearances.

The Kim regime follows the stunt of its paymasters in Tehran by moving to prosecute American journalists.

You recall that last week the Tehran Twelvers condemned Roxana Saberi of New Jersey and North Dakota to eight years in Ervin Prison for spying.

Now the Kim regime will prosecute American journalists (for Al Gore’s TV network) Laura Ling and Euna Lee, whom North Korean thugs abducted on the China/North Korean border several weeks back.

Gordon Chang, Forbes.co, will report Sunday 26 on the Kim regime’s routine and predictable provocations in order to wring concessions and cash from the Six Party Talks.

This past week, the IAEA finally admitted to the obvious and declared North Korea a nuclear weapon state capable of miniaturizing warheads to mount on the recently tested Taepodong IRBM. The Kim regime and the Tehran regime move in tandem, the servant and the lord.

How soon until Ling and Lee are condemned to eight years in prison for spying? How soon until the IAEA declares that the Tehran Twelvers are a nuclear capable state with miniaturized warheads for the Shahab-3 IRBM? The Obama administration provides no fresh answers. It moves to engage the Twelvers in a sterile dialogue even as it exhales in despair at the mischief of the Kim regime. This is a freshly convenient ignorance of the evil-doing duo.  The eastern Syria nuke site that Israel struck on September 6, 2007 was built by North Korea technicians and was paid for by Tehran.  Berlin, Tokyo and Rome worked the same game seventy years back.

At 10:35 p.m. ET, don’t miss Larry Johnson, a regular Sunday night expert on the great KFI AM radio show hosted by John Batchelor, one of the sharpest analysts in all of radio (or television). John’s provocative show is dashing, daring, and thoughtful (a rare AM offering). Tune in early at 10:05 p.m. ET via Los Angeles’s KFI-AM 640. If you haven’t listened via KFI before, come early to download small, easily installed software. Here are TONIGHT’s TOPICS:

705P Pacific Time:  John Stoll, Wall Street Journal, re  the car czar Steven Rattner negotiates hardball with the GM bondholders, forcing rugged terms, as the GM bankruptcy saga continues.  With Simon Constable Dow Jones. 

Blankfein called for new compensation standards for Wall Street executives and said he understands why the public is angry about industry pay.  China Limits Executive Pay  China’s government disclosed that it had set limits on executive pay for 2008 at state-owned financial companies  With Simon Constable Dow Jones.  

James Lambright, chief investment officer of TARP, at right in the photo, is an embodiment of how power in the economy has shifted — for good or ill — to Washington.  Real Time Econ:TARP Diagnostic

 920P:  Mary Kissel,   Thai Summit Halted Amid Protests 

Check out the full slate of guests and topics, all starting at 10:05 p.m. ET.

“… I guarantee you we are safer today, our interests are more secure today than they were any time during the eight years” of the Bush administration.

Just how stupid this is is proved by some terrifying examples below the fold, and makes me deeply concerned that Obama et al. are not sufficiently concerned and proactive:

How in the hell can you claim that, Joe? No one – no one – can predict what might be ’round the bend.

Further, besides our perilous economic circumstances, our military is stretched to the breaking point and Obama feels he can’t even afford to send the number of troops that the military itself is requesting be dispatched to Afghanistan.

A couple weeks ago, everyone was atwitter over the crises in Mexico, filled with fear that drug cartel gangs would invade our country and create murder and mayhem. (Of course, as soon as the media had done their stories, and checked out of the border cities’ Marriotts, that story died and nobody’s worrying about that crisis anymore.)

But the point is that we don’t know what might occur tomorrow, or what crisis might seize and hold the attention of the nation.

We have North Korea firing off a missile with complete freedom and no penalties, proving Obama’s weakness in relying on the United Nations and not taking strong U.S. action.

We have Iran building redundant underground (bunker-bomb-proof) nuclear facilities across its nation so that no attack can end their program to build a nuclear bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, do you think that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other nations might not be far behind? And you’re CLAIMING that we’re “safer today”???

For example, there’s this highly disturbing story from Lou Dobbs’s blog at CNN, under “Issues That Matter“:

Red Storm Rising: Selling Nuclear Material to Iran
The Manhattan district attorney has uncovered a plot by a Chinese national to sell millions of dollars in potential nuclear material to Iran. The Chinese national used a false identity and set up four fake companies to do business with six Iranian shell firms. Several banks in New York were used, unwittingly, to make the deals.

And how about this terrifying doozy?!?!?!

Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies, Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009:

WASHINGTON — Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven’t sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

“The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid,” said a senior intelligence official. “So have the Russians.”

The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn’t target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. “There are intrusions, and they are growing,” the former official said, referring to electrical systems. “There were a lot last year.” … READ ALL of the well-research, highly disturbing Wall Street Journal article and check out the related posts and stories listed at Memeorandum.

Joe, shut the f–k up. And take a look around our own country. This report isn’t good news: “Boom in Gun Sales Fueled by Politics and the Economy.” That’s on your watch, Joe.

While you’re jawing, Joe, here’s the worker working to truly make us safer:

From the State Dept.’s announcement on this important collaboration, given both countries’ number of seaports:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully signed on April 7, 2009, an arrangement for cooperation on nonproliferation assistance. This arrangement supports collaborative work between the United States and New Zealand to secure nuclear and radioactive materials that could be used in a nuclear or radiological weapon and to detect and deter illicit trafficking in these materials by improving monitoring capabilities at priority border crossings, airports, and seaports. …

Also check out DipNotes, the State Department’s blog, with numerous entries about Hillary’s progressive steps around the world.

Oh, readers, here’s the video if you must punish yourself:

Is it a pipe dream to make them all go away? Well, probably. But it is the worthiest cause that true princes of peace could undertake. For now, there is no prince. But, better yet (!), there is a queen leading the cause. First, here’s a wrap-up of North Korea’s childishly provocative, attention-needy rocket launch (I swear that Kim Jong-il reminds me most of South Park’s Cartman, in girth and in prima donna petulance.)

Now, here is the queen who is campaigning for the noblest, and most needed, cause on this planet:

Are you curious where to learn more about Queen Noor’s good fight? Go here: Global Zero.

Ask yourself what alternative we have? Yes, well. Reagan tried. (Giggles all ’round.) Then listen to Lord John Marbury at 4:11 of this video of “best scenes” from Season 2 of West Wing:

Here is the full list of signatories to Global Zero — look at the last name. Gen. Anthony Zinni. The man who should have been our ambassador to Iraq, and who’d been told he was, until Obama capriciously … but I digress.

Full List of Signatories

James Arbuthnot
Lloyd Axworthy
K. Shankar Bajpai
Kanti Bajpai
Hugh Beach
Margaret Beckett
Lawrence Bender
Sandy Berger
Alexander Bessmertnykh
Ela Bhatt
Carl Bildt
Robert Blackwill
Bruce Blair
Barry Blechman
Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr.
Naila Bolus
Lakhdar Brahimi
Richard Branson
Matt Brown
Gro Harlem Brundtland
Zbigniew Brzezinkski
William F. Burns
Richard Burt
Richard Butler
Fernando Henrique Cardoso
Frank Carlucci
Jimmy Carter
Ray Chambers
Naresh Chandra
KunMo Chung
Joseph Cirincione
Richard Cizik
Philip Coyle
Liru Cui
Ivo Daalder
Romeo Dallaire
Tarun Das
Jayantha Dhanapala
Anatoli Diakov
Michael Douglas
Lawrence Eagleburger
Rolf Ekéus
Tetsuya Endo
Gareth Evans
Lawrence Freedman
Jake Garn
Hans-Dietrich Genscher
Bates Gill
Jamshyd N. Godrej
Mikhail Gorbachev
Thomas Graham, Jr.
Chuck Hagel
Lee Hamilton
David Hannay
Gary Hart
Frank Von Hippel
Stanley Hoffmann
Pervez Hoodbhoy
Charles Horner
Liming Hua
Douglas Hurd
Lynne Hybels
Wolfgang Ischinger
Takahiko Ito
Igor Ivanov
Max Kampelman
Sergei Karaganov
Jehangir Karamat
Yoriko Kawaguchi
Peter B. Kellner
Don Kendall
Bob Kerrey
Shaharyar Khan
Alan Khazei
Steve Killelea
Verghese Koithara
Lawrence Korb
Konstantin Kosachev
Martha Krebs
Heinrich Kreft
Roland Lajoie
Anthony Lake
Jan Lodal
Ruud Lubbers
Mikhail V. Margelov
Evgeny Maslin
Talat Masood
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Robert McFarlane
Robert McNamara
Merrill A. McPeak
Brajesh Mishra
C. Raja Mohan
Amr Moussa
Rolf Mützenich
Klaus Naumann
Her Majesty Queen Noor
Pam Omidyar
Mabel van Oranje
Vladimir Orlov
David Owen
Zhenqiang Pan
G. Parthasarathy
Guangqian Peng
George Perkovich
Thomas Pickering
William Potter
Vasantha R. Raghavan
Fidel Ramos
Malcolm Rifkind
Mary Robinson
Michel Rocard
Douglas Roche
Sergey Rogov
Adam Daniel Rotfeld
Roald Sagdeev
Henrik Salander
Yukio Satoh
Jonathan Schell
Jack Sheehan
Martin Sherwin
Jennifer Allen Simons
Jaswant Singh
Jeffrey Skoll
Mário Soares
Tyler Wigg Stevenson
K. Subrahmanyam
Toshiyuki Takano
Strobe Talbott
Horst M. Teltschik
John L. Thornton
Desmond Tutu
Shashindra Pal Tyagi
Ehsan ul-Haq
Evgeny Velikhov
Eckart von Klaeden
Fred Whitridge
Jianmin Wu
Xuetong Yan
Jiemian Yang
Muhammad Yunus
Igor Yurgens
Uta Zapf
Philip Zelikow
Anthony Zinni

Guess ….

1. Research on and development of renewable energy supplies
2. Research on building new nuclear power plants
3. Research on ways to achieve energy independence
4. Energy conservation measures

5. Greenhouse gas emission control
6. Maintaining nuclear stockpiles
7. Cleaning sites to maintain nuclear stockpiles
8. Dealing with nuclear nonproliferation issues

Well, if you picked 6, 7, or 8, you would be right. Turns out the Department of Energy doesn’t have much to do with energy at all. A CNN report report by Steve Hargreaves reports that research on renewables totals only $640 million, less than 3% of the annual budget.

But, President-Elect Barack Obama (or PEBO to avoid that mouthful) has other ideas.

“Under Obama you’re likely to see an energy secretary focus more on energy rather than nuclear weapons,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategy director for National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group.

Hargreaves reports that Obama will propose $15 billion a year to focus on such matters as researching and commercializing renewable energy technology, comprehensive urban planning, raising fuel efficiency standards, developing clean coal technologies, encouraging the production and use of conservation measures, and controlling carbon dioxide emissions.

This all sounds good. Long past due. Yipee!!

But will anyone still be watching those nukes?

May 19, 2008

Dear Admiral Fallon:

I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I have drafted this letter in the hope it will come to your attention.

First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  As you are doubtless aware, that oath has no expiration date; it remains on active duty, so to speak.

You have let it be known that, even though you are now retired, you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about the looming war with Iran.

You are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, but seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge your erstwhile commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran.

Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.  I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the “Mids” thought it was to the commander in chief.  This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler.  Not our tradition, and yet…..

I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right—that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.

Attack Iran: Trash the Constitution

No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter treaty—which the Senate ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945—expressly forbids attacks on other countries, unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of “pre-emptive” or “preventive” attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no imminent danger to the United States or its allies.

You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn’t 41 years of service enough; isn’t it enough that I resigned in order to remove myself from a chain of command with no conscience or respect for national or international law—that I shuddered at the thought of being charged in some earthly or heavenly court as a war criminal, if I “just followed orders” and helped start an unprovoked war on Iran?  Isn’t making my misgivings known to journalists last year, realizing fully that this could be a career-ender—isn’t all that enough?

With respect, sir, no, that’s not enough.  The stakes here are extremely high, and together with the integrity you have already shown goes still further responsibility.  Sadly, the vast majority of your general officer colleagues have, for whatever reason, ducked that responsibility.  You are pretty much it.

In their lust for attacking Iran, administration officials will do their best to marginalize you, but you do not strike me as one likely to be deterred by that.  And, prominent a person that you are, the corporate media surely will try to do the same, if you exposed the lies given as justification for attacking Iran.

Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching orders to support an attack on Iran—to include pre-censorship of factual stories exposing administration hyperbole and fecklessness, as the White House and the Pentagon paint a dubious portrait of the dangers posed by Iran.

Preparing a Captive Audience for War…

At the CIA I used to analyze the Soviet press, so you will understand when I refer to the Washington Post and the New York Times as the White House’s Pravda and Izvestiya.  Sadly, these days it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press to follow our own government’s evolving line with a daily reading of our own controlled press.

In a word, our newspapers are dutifully revving up for war on Iran, and are even trotting out some of the most widely discredited cheerleaders for war on Iraq—the New York Times’ Michael Gordon of aluminum tubes fame, for example, who is again parroting what he gets from administration officials and casting it as news.

In some respects the manipulation and suppression of information in the present lead-up to an attack on Iran is even more flagrant and all encompassing than in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.

It seems entirely possible that you are unaware of a recent misadventure that speaks volumes about this—unaware precisely because the media have put the wraps on it.  So let me adduce one striking example of what is afoot here.  The example has to do with the studied, if disingenuous, effort over recent months to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the “malignant” influence of Iran.

Sadly, some of your erstwhile colleagues are among the dramatis personae.

…But Covering Up Fiasco

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” that would provide detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.”  Petraeus’ staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

Small problem.  When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons they found nothing that could be linked credibly to Iran.

News to you?  That’s because this potentially embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in the media—like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash.  So Mullen and Petraeus live, uninhibited and unembarrassed, to keep searching for Iranian weapons so the media can then tell a story more supportive of the orders they have been given to find ways to blame Iran for the troubles in Iraq.  Luckily for them, a fiasco is only a fiasco if folks know about it.

Media suppression of this misadventure is the most significant aspect of this story, in my view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to find honest reporting on these key issues.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims about Iranian weapons, and to attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.”

Dissing the Intelligence Estimate

Top officials from the president on down have been dismissing the key judgment of the National Intelligence Estimate released on December 3, 2007, a judgment concurred in by the 16 intelligence units of our government, that Iran had stopped the weapons-related part of its nuclear program in mid-2003.

Always willing to do his part, the malleable CIA chief, Michael Hayden, on April 30 publicly offered his “personal opinion” that Iran is building a nuclear weapon—the National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding.  For good measure, Hayden added:

“It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq….Just make sure there’s clarity on that.”

Voicing his various “opinions,” Hayden is beginning to sound like the overly clever lawyers who advised him, orally, that it would be just fine to order NSA to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and like the other attorneys who approved water boarding.

And, please; tell me why we should care about Hayden’s “personal opinion?”  My neighbor Suzie, who gets her news from FOX, keeps voicing her “personal opinion” that all Muslims want to kill Americans, that generals with blue uniforms are the most trustworthy, and that weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq.

But, seriously, I don’t need to tell you about the Haydens and the other smartly saluting, desk-riding headquarters generals here in Washington.

The Price of Silence

What I would suggest is that you have a serious conversation with a real general, Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000).  As you know probably better than I, this Marine general is an officer of unusual integrity.  Nevertheless, when placed into circumstances very similar to those you now face, he could not find his voice.  And so he missed his chance to interrupt—or at least slow down—the juggernaut to war in Iraq.  You might ask him how he feels about that now, and what he would advise in current circumstances.

Zinni happened to be one of the honorees at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on August 26,2002, at which Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the exceedingly alarmist speech, unsupported by our best intelligence, about the nuclear threat and other perils awaiting us at the hands of Saddam Hussein.  That speech not only launched the seven-month public campaign against Iraq leading up to the war, but set the terms of reference for the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate fabricated—yes, fabricated—to convince Congress to approve war on Iraq, which it did ten days later.

Gen. Zinni later shared publicly that, as he listened to Cheney, he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence that did not square with what he knew.  Although Zinni had retired two years earlier, his role as consultant had required him to stay up to date on intelligence relating to the Middle East.  One Sunday morning three and a half years after Cheney’s speech, Zinni told Meet the Press. “There was no solid proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…I heard a case being made to go to war.”

Zinni had as good a chance as anyone to stop an unnecessary war—not a “pre-emptive war,” since there was nothing to pre-empt—and Zinni knew it.  What he and other knowledgeable officials could—and should—have tried to block was a war of aggression, defined at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal as the “supreme international crime.”

Sure, Zinni would have had to stick his neck out.  He may have had to speak out alone, since most senior officials, like then-CIA Director George Tenet, lacked courage and integrity.  In his memoir published a year ago, Tenet writes that Cheney did not follow the usual practice of clearing his August 26, 2002 speech with the CIA; that much of what Cheney said took him completely by surprise; and that Tenet “had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.”

It is difficult to believe that Cheney’s shameless speech took “slam-dunk” Tenet completely by surprise.  We know from the Downing Street Minutes, vouched for by the UK as authentic, that Tenet told his British counterpart on July 20, 2002 that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”

Encore: Iran

Admiral Fallon, you know this to be the case also now with respect to the “intelligence” being fixed to “justify” war with Iran.  And no one knows better than you that your departure from the chain of command has turned it over completely to smartly saluting martinets.  No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.  So have I.

I was his branch chief when he was a young, disruptively ambitious, CIA analyst.  When Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey sought someone to shape CIA analysis to accord with his own conviction that the Soviet Union would never change, Gates leaped at the chance, proved his mettle, and bubbled right up to be chief of analysis.  After Casey died, Gates admitted to the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus that he (Gates) watched Casey on “issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued.”  Gates’ entire career showed that he learned well at Casey’s knee.

So it should come as no surprise that, despite the unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran stopped the weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program in mid-2003, Gates is now repeating the party line that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.  Some of his earlier statements were more ambiguous, but Gates recently took advantage of the opportunity to bend with the prevailing winds and freshen his own loyalty oath—to the president.

In an interview on events in the Middle East with a New York Times reporter on April 11, Gates was asked whether he was on the same page as the president, Gates replied, “Same line, same word.”  I imagine you are no more surprised at that than I.  Bottom line:  Gates will salute smartly and transmit the order, legal or illegal, if Cheney persuades the president to let the Air Force and Navy loose on Iran.

You know the probable consequences; you need to let the rest of the American people know.

A Gutsy Precedent

Can you, Admiral Fallon, be completely alone; can it be that you are the only general officer to resign on principle?  And, of equal importance, is there no other general officer, active or retired, who has taken the risk of speaking out in an attempt to inform Americans about President George W. Bush’s bellicose fixation with Iran.  Thankfully, there is.

Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked by the younger Bush.  From that catbird seat, Scowcroft could watch the unfolding of U.S. policy in the Middle East.  Over decades dealing with the press, Scowcroft had honed a reputation of quintessential discretion.  Thus, it was all the more striking when he did what he decided he had to do to warn Americans about what may be the president’s most dangerous fixation.

In an interview with London’s Financial Times in mid-October 2004 Scowcroft was harshly critical of the president, charging that Bush had been “mesmerized” by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.  “Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger,” Scowcroft said.  “He has been nothing but trouble.”

Needless to say, Scowcroft was given his walking papers and told never to darken the White House doorstep again.  His very troubling observations have been largely shunned in the media, and banned from polite conversation here in Washington, although the insight they provide is worth a thousand erudite op-eds.  Testifying before Congress on June 16, 2005, I alluded to Scowcroft’s comments, and was widely pilloried in the media the next day for being, you guessed it, “anti-Semitic.”

A Bush Commitment?

There is ample evidence that Sharon’s successors believe they have extracted a commitment from President Bush to “take care of Iran” before he leaves office, and that the president has done nothing to disabuse them of that notion—no matter the consequences.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh on Sunday, Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to “Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.”

“To allow the world’s leading sponsor of terror to gain the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations.  For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Pre-briefing the press, Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley identified Iran as one of the dominant themes of the trip, adding repeatedly what seemed to be the PR formula of the day; namely, that Iran “is very much behind” all the woes afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq, even to Afghanistan.

The Rhetoric is Ripening

In the coming weeks, at least until U.S. forces can find some real Iranian weapons in Iraq, the rhetoric is likely to focus on what I call the Big Lie—the claim that Iran’s president has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”  In his controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting from something Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early eighties.  Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime that was treating the Palestinians so unjustly would be replaced by a more equitable one.

A distinction without a difference?  I think not.  Words matter.  As you may already know (but most Americans don’t), the literal translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is “The regime occupying Jerusalem much vanish from the pages of time.”  Contrary to what the administration and corporate media would have us all believe, the Iranian president was not threatening to nuke Israel, push it into the sea, or wipe it off the map—or, as is so often heard, “destroy” it.

President Bush is way out in front on this issue, and this comes through with particular clarity when he ad-libs answers to questions.  On October 17, 2007, long after he had been briefed on the key intelligence finding that Iran had stopped the nuclear weapons-related part of its nuclear development program, the president spoke as though, well,  “mesmerized.”  He said:

“But this—we got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel.  So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.  I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.”

Some contend that Bush does not really believe his rhetoric.  I rather think he does, for the Israelis seem to have his good ear, with the tin one aimed at the U.S. intelligence he has repeatedly disparaged.  But, frankly, which would be worse: that Bush believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel and thus requires U.S. military action?—or that he knows it’s just rhetoric to “justify” U.S. action to “take care of” Iran for Israel?

What You Can Do

Admiral Fallon, you can surely speak authoritatively about what is likely to happen—to U.S. forces in Iraq, for example—if Bush orders your successors to begin bombing and missile attacks on Iran.  I imagine you have spent more than one sleepless night sorting through the full array of Iranian options for serious retaliation.

And you could readily update Scowcroft’s remarks, by drawing on what you observed of the Keystone Cops efforts of White House ideologues like Iran-Contra convict Elliot Abrams, supported by amateurish covert action operatives and Israeli intelligence, to overturn by force the ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah.  (Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra affair, but was pardoned by the first President Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)

Clearly, it is the arch-neoconservative Abrams, aided, instructed, and abetted by the vice president, who is running U.S. policy toward the Middle East.  And it is just as clear that the status of the secretary state has been reduced simply to “frequent flyer.”

It is easy to understand why no professional military officer would wish to be in the position of taking orders originating from the likes of Abrams—not to mention the vice president.

If you weigh in, as I believe your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads and courageous hearts to speak out.  I hope you will agree that an attack on Iran can still be prevented, but it seems that this will take more outspokenness and energy than those of us who see what is coming have been able to muster so far.  And the controlled press is a huge problem.

Were you to speak out strongly at this stage, the media could not ignore you.  I cannot bring myself to believe that you, like so many on the Hill, would be cowed at the prospect of being pilloried by FOX and branded anti-Semitic.  And, who knows; perhaps some of those former subordinate officers who admire you for what you have done, will be encouraged to go and do likewise.

And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology—supported by a captive corporate press and abetted by political parties supine before the Israel lobby—enable an attack on Iran, and the Iranians, for example, take thousands of our troops hostage in southern Iraq, you will be able to look in the mirror, and at the rest of us, and say at least you tried.

You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what you might have made possible, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.

Leadership does not end with retirement; neither do oaths.

Respectfully,

/s/

Ray McGovern
Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Ray McGovern, a veteran Army intelligence officer and then CIA analyst for 27 years, now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.

The original version of this article appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

Debates are not debatable.

What else is going on in the world? Btw, Jonathan Schell of The Nation was on Charlie Rose re nuclear proliferation.

[To click on the countries in the BBC map, go here.]

Following up on Larry’s post two weeks ago about how Sibel Edmonds is finally getting her story out, the Times of London reports today that:

THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets. 

The London Times further reports that an anonymous letter names a high-level US government official who allegedly warned a Turkish member of the nuclear network not to deal with Brewster Jennings.

The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.

It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.

The Brad Blog has more….

CHECK THIS OUT: There’s Steve Clemons, a studious, cerebral expert on international and domestic policy, who I’ve never seen write like this:

Did Biden, Dodd and Edwards Kill Bhutto Too?

What the hell is Obama chief political strategist David Axelrod doing?

Nearly all of the major papers and a good slug of blogs have been stunned by his comment that Hillary Clinton bore some responsibility for Benazir Bhutto’s demise. When Obama has to backpedal for his team, something is up. …

CHECK THIS OUT: “Obama Stammers, ‘No, I, I, I, I, I…’ Sticking Up for Axelrod” from Taylor Marsh: “Obama came apart when Wolf Blitzer asked him a simple question about Axelrod” … “Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times nails the quote and the context, but also nails Obama …” (See all below the fold.)

CHECK THIS OUT: In early December, CBS Evening News asked each candidate, “Which country scares you the most?”

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Pakistan (see the Dec. 12 CBS video)
Sen. Barack Obama: Iran (see the Dec. 12 CBS video)

CHECK THIS OUT: The contrast, from Sen. Clinton today on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN Situation Room:

CHECK THIS OUT: “For me, someone who has been studying the region for years, the obvious is that you can’t know the dynamics without traveling to Pakistan and the surrounding countries. Being an armchair analyst is not only difficult but often gets you into trouble, no matter how dedicated a researcher you are. …”

That’s from Taylor Marsh’s new post, “It’s Al Qaeda… Not so Fast,” which also features the key video above, a preview of the long interview that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer conducted with Sen. Clinton today. (Blitzer is also hosting Sen. Chris Dodd.)

:::::::

CHECK THIS OUT: Here’s the Chicago Sun-Times’s Lynn Sweet story — “Obama says, “No, I, I, I, I,” — via Taylor Marsh:

Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”

Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don’t need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”

(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)

Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”

Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.

(At this point it was the reporter making the argument–asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)

Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn’t have been the question.”

(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to.)