Going Nuclear Zero

For a number of months last year and spilling into the first quarter of this year, I co-authored a book that is on the verge of being published. Its principal author is an elderly gentleman who, in the 1970s, joined with like-minded anti-military organizations to lobby Congress against spending billions of dollars to create and deploy a massive nuclear weapons arsenal. Vietnam may have ended with a clear loss to U.S. conventional arms, but the Pentagon was not about to accept a parallel end for nuclear weapons.

The outcome of this insane nuclear weapon arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States finally “stabilized” when each side had amassed more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. Hundreds of these warheads were deployed on intercontinental missiles, on heavy bomber airplanes poised for immediate launch, and on nuclear-powered submarines. By 1980, many delivery systems were on “hair triggered” alert, giving Kremlin and White House leaders as little as 30 seconds to decide for or against war.

In 1983, an undergraduate at Columbia University wrote for a campus magazine an article titled “Breaking the War Mentality.” In his magazine article he decried the habit of rival leaders to warn their opponents of the advantages and disadvantages in nuclear conflict of “first” and “second” and other “retaliatory” options available to the military machines.

Like most articles or even assigned student papers
prepared for seminars, the magazine article was soon
forgotten and mislaid. Some 26 years later, another Columbia graduate going through yellowed school
magazines he still had discovered that his 1983 classmate had retained interested in the subject and now was in a position of power to change academic recommendation into pragmatic actions.

This week the person who wrote that article came to the Kremlin for his first visit as the President of the United States. One of his goals was to continue a process begun by one of his predecessors in the Oval Office: to gradually reduce the total number of deployed nuclear warheads from 10,000 to no more than 6,000 warheads (and as few as 2,200 weapons) and no more than 1,600 delivery systems for each side before the agreement expired in December 2009. That goal – the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) – had already been reached by the time President Obama set foot in Moscow, leaving open to the two presidents to press forward with a new treaty limiting nuclear warheads for each side to between 1,000 and 1,500.

There are still unresolved issues on nuclear weapons to be worked on by the White House and the Kremlin: arsenals that continue to grow in Pakistan and India and probably Israel; Iran’s work on nuclear energy policy and possibility for its own weapon development; the sustainability of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and efforts to design new weapons by North Korea. But each of these can be addressed by governments, non-governmental organizations, and by mass movements throughout the globe that are pushing for the abolition of all nuclear warheads in every arsenal of any size in every country.

In the earlier time, many who opposed the build-up of nuclear stockpiles considered their position to be the only sane one – and so called their organization SANE. After a quarter century, yesterday’s SANE members are once again in the field aiming, along with a new and committed generation, to move from 1,500 weapons to zero – and this time to hit a real nadir point.

July 5th

Today is July 5.

For Americans its significance is straight forward: July 5th is the day after the one on which, 233 years ago, 56 men approved and signed a document they called a “declaration of independence” -- after which a number of them left Philadelphia before agents of King George could detain them. (Overall, during the War of Revolution, five signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured by the British.)

The Americans’ main motivation for sundering relations between a monarch and his subjects was justified on the premise that the king could not impose taxes on anyone who was not represented in parliament. (This was often not the case, for members of parliament often occupied a seat because of social or economic position or because of heredity.) By the start of the 1770s, the crown and parliament were locked in a struggle over who would control the expenditure of the tax revenue flowing from the colonies to the power centers in London. The British had defeated their European rivals in North America a decade earlier only to learn that the price of defending constitutional government could be high.

Not only did London not get its taxes, the king and parliament provoked the opposite response from a number of prominent American merchants, ship owners, and other notables who felt that their interests were not being represented in parliament. At the level of the “common man” in the colonies, the chief complaint was interference by royal agents and even by British soldiers in the affairs of a public that had little affinity for the military. While neither king or parliament succeeded in wresting taxes from the colonies, the governing committee for the rebellion proclaimed by the “declaration of independence” -- the Continental Congress -- had no better success. In a sense, the Americans simply outlasted the British.

Like the British 233 years later, the United States finds itself in a similar condition. It spends more on its military forces and more on active armed conflict than any other country. But the battlefields are far away and the death and destruction inflicted on civilians undermines the very declaration on which our own independence rests.

For six years United States forces have been at war, and the outcome remains unclear even as another campaign begins. What we have failed to recognize is that our national principles are not transferable to others.

Closer to Leaving Iraq

Yesterday, June 30, 2009, may well become known as Independence Day in Iraq. If so, I would expect those who celebrate might be jumping the gun a bit.

June 30 is the second milestone on the road of transferring to the Iraqi government full responsibility for the security of their country. (The first milestone centered on creating and sustaining (funding) the indigenous Sunni “Sons of Iraq” militias that turned against al Qaeda in al-Anbar province and in Baghdad.) According to the non-binding mutual agreement reached last year between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, all U.S. military combat units were to withdraw from Iraq’s cities by June 30. U.S. units will occupy more remote temporary bases and patrol Iraq’s borders.

At the time the agreement was finalized at the end of 2008, it contained a restriction on U.S. operations that now has inverted consequences. Baghdad insisted that Washington not initiate any military operation from Iraqi territory against Iran or Iranian forces. The rationale for this restriction was seen by Iraq as an important curtailment on any U.S. effort to pull Iran into confrontation with Iraq.

As timing would have it, the restriction now seems to apply to Teheran than to Washington. The violent struggle of a significant portion of Iran’s voters in the recent Iranian presidential ballot caught the mullahs and religious leadership off guard. Demonstrations were so widespread that the ayatollah’s shock troops, the 168,000 black-clad Revolutionary Guard whose commander is Iran’s Supreme Leader, were called into supporting the conservative militia to oppose the reformists.

The government response to the electoral dispute may finally prove to be the start of political realignment in Iran that has languished in the country for 30 years. If so, the momentum this time may be against the cleric establishment rather than for it. The final throw of the dice may rest on the Revolutionary Guard’s decision on purity of religious belief inside Iran rather than pragmatic diplomacy with its neighbors.

This may be even more significant for Iraq than for Iran.

Reconnecting

Greetings once again to those whose tenacity and persistence have brought them once again to “The Quakers’ Colonel” in the virtual blogsophy.

In my last entry at the end of March, I expected to be out of circulation (in surgery this is not a lighthearted observation) for about a combined 30-day hospital and recuperative stay-at-home recovery. As it turned out, that 30 day period was fully devoted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and basic rehabilitationary therapy to move my medical status high enough to earn a “discharge to home-care status” with continued therapy and constant support from immediately family, other relatives, co-workers, and friends.

"The Quakers’ Colonel” will start on July 1, 2009.
Initially, I will post short commentaries on current topics on an irregular schedule until I feel “reconnected” to three months of the world’s events that came and went with no regard for anyone, most especially me. This process may take a number of weeks (quite possibly a year) to regain the style and subjects I had been addressing prior to the surgery to repair the aneurysm.

But I do plan to post three commentaries per week whenever I can and to resume working with colleagues at FCNL.

The headline read: “Denominations Trim Presence on Capitol Hill.”

Daniel Burke, writing for beliefnetnews on the web, relates the paradox facing many faith-based nongovernmental groups that lobby in the public interest. Just as they finally get a seat at the policy and program table and a chance to be heard in governing, the sharp drop in the markets has forced many to severely cut back the number of employees to carry the message to politicians.

I mention this because (1) the opening paragraphs of Burke’s article discuss the situation at the Friends Committee on National Legislation and (2) the Quakers’ Colonel Blog will be off-line for half to all of April.

The two are unrelated. The blog will not be posted as I will have major surgery on April 1 and will probably not be released to return home until April 10 or 11 at the earliest. Prognosis is very good for me, but unfortunately not so for FCNL in terms of the work still to be done.

Check the blog from mid-April on – I will be up as soon as possible.

Warm Regards

The Quakers’ Colonel

Democracy Depends on the "Demos" II

(Continued from March 25)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his radio “Fireside Chats” set a pattern that the nation’s subsequent presidents have used to good advantage in their never ending struggle with the Congress over policies and program funding. The broadcasts on radio, television, the internet, and all the newer technology have also enabled presidents to by-pass the message mediators – whether these wish him and his programs good or ill.

That Barack Obama is as fully engaged in the “direct” approach using today’s technology as his predecessors were with the technology they had is indisputable. In fact, based on Wednesday’s performance at what the White House termed an Internet Town Hall, it appears that this form of communication fits Obama as comfortably as the Fireside Chats fit Roosevelt in the 1930s.

But as noted in Wednesday’s blog, the Obama Department of Justice (DoJ) is starting to exhibit some of the bad habits of the Bush DoJ with regards to openness and transparency in government. This suggests that it may be time for the citizenry to take a leaf from the Obama presidential campaign and remind the DoJ that communications is a reciprocal exchange that involves at least two parties and two directions or positions. Secrecy inhibits communications.

While the president as chief executive works for all those living in the United States as well as citizens residing or traveling abroad, every person residing in any of the50 states is represented in the House of Representatives by a congressman or congresswoman. Given that every member now represents about 700,000 of us, one way to remind your “person in Washington” who they work for – and also remind the president of the same thing – is to suggest and then help (with other ordinary but concerned men and women, the “demos” of a democracy) your representative’s staff organize and publicize a series of moderated telephone “town hall” meetings of one to two hours duration. A “big name (star quality) moderator could attract callers, and with simple rules (e.g., callers have one minute to ask a question and your congressperson has two minutes to respond), a lot of ground could be covered. More importantly, your “person in Washington” would be more reliably informed of the people’s concerns because he has heard from them directly.

Politicians usually are very good at letting constituents know what they have done for the voters, but all too often they may not know what still remains unfinished – especially in the less densely populated parts of the congressional district.

By the way, if you want a subject for a “dry run” to check out whether the administrative details have been covered, you might try a variation of the clarion call of “no taxation without adequate representation.” That is to say: “The last time the House of Representatives added to the number of permanent seats in that chamber was after the 1910 census when the number of voting members was set at the current number of 435.”

Thanks to Bob Alpern for information about telephone town hall meetings where he lives.

Democracy Depends on the "Demos" -- I

Barack Obama assumed power with a pledge that his would be the most transparent, open, non-secretive administration in the modern era if not in the entire history of the United States. From 12:01 pm January 20, 2009, there was going to be a fresh breeze blowing through Washington.

Well, reality must have hit about 12:02 pm, for after a mere 66 days, there are troubling signs that some of the bad habits of the Bush administration are alive and well. It would appear that at least some secret Presidential National Security Directives are still on the books and are affecting adversely the rights of individuals and organizations seeking redress, including those subjected to wide ranging warrantless wiretapping done by the Bush Department of Justice (DoJ) -- that could not be discussed without breaking the administration’s secrecy strictures.

The first indication that the fresh breeze hadn’t penetrated all the nooks and crannies in government came on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by a well known nongovernmental organization, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). They had originally asked the Bush administration’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to release the “top-line” budget for the Intelligence community for Fiscal Year 2006. The request was not submitted until after the DNI had already declassified and made public the intelligence “top-line” for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. The response to the request to declassify the 2006 figure was that it was correctly classified. When the Obama – appointed DNI was on the job, FAS resubmitted its request – and was surprised when the response was no – and was cast in the exact language used by the Bush administration.

But that is just the beginning. For the second time since Obama became president, his DoJ Office of Legal Counsel has stepped into “terrorist” trials warning that the trials may not introduce into the proceedings – including pre-trial discovery by the defendants’ legal teams – certain classified court papers or other documents because to do so would breach national security secrecy. The most recent case is from Oregon where an Islamic charity was closed down by the Bush administration after allegations (based in part on warrantless wiretaps) were made that the funds collected by the charity were in part used to fund terrorist groups and activities overseas. The charity is suing and is seeking documents related to the Bush government’s actions that are currently in the possession of the courts. Not only has the Obama DoJ gone into court – as did the Bush DoJ – and warned that the charity’s lawyers cannot be shown the documents because of national security reasons, the Obama DoJ reportedly is contemplating seizing the documents which, according to DoJ, should never have been sent in the first place..

So how bad is it really?

Within the last week, the Public Interest Declassification Board, a congressionally mandated body established to advise the executive on declassification policy and programs affecting mainly historical records, issued a statement that easily applies to current practices of DoJ: “We have concluded that this fundamental principle [public access to reliable government information] of self-government…is at risk and, without decisive action, the situation is liable to worsen.”

Next: what the public can do.