Missile defense is being used by leading GOP voices on the NewSTART treaty as a ploy to deny the administration a national security victory. Image: CC pingnews.com/Flickr

Missile defense is often the currency of conflict and compromise these days among international adversaries. But in the current U.S. Senate, missile defense is being used by Republicans in an attempt to deny the Obama administration a national security imperative. In this case it’s the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in April.

NewSTART and U.S./Russian relations

Missile defense as it relates to the NewSTART treaty, which had bipartisan support until this week, is being used by certain Republicans as an opportunity for political posturing. The NewSTART treaty is seen as a critical element in the Obama administration’s efforts to improve national security and U.S./Russia relations. The ratification of the NewSTART treaty by the Senate is so important that such incidents as last summer’s Russian spy scandal and this week’s extradition of Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout to the U.S. have had no ill effects on U.S./Russia relations. But this week, veteran Arizona Republican senator Jon Kyl and 10 freshly elected GOP senators are trying to get the vote delayed until next year, when Democrats lose six senate seats.

GOP wants to START over

The NewSTART treaty reduces U.S. and Russian arsenals of strategic nuclear missiles and resumes on-the-ground inspections that ended when the old START treaty expired in 2009. Kyl and his new acolytes are saying that the Senate needs to start over because more money is needed for modernizing the arsenal that remains after the reductions. Ironically, that point was brought up earlier, and in response the administration added $4.1 billion for such a purpose. Other conservatives say that the language of the treaty is so broadly defined that it will restrict U.S. missile defense options.

What NewSTART really says

In fact, the NewSTART treaty contains no provisions limiting the number of missile defense systems the U.S. can build. It also doesn’t require the U.S. to cut any already existing systems. Military Defense Agency chief General Patrick O’Reilly, in a statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, said the NewSTART treaty actually reduces restraints on missile defense. It removes limits imposed by the old START treaty on U.S. testing of missiles designed to take out incoming missiles.

Sources

Washington Post

Media Matters

The Hill

Soldiers conducting counter insurgency operations in support of Operation Eduring Freedom. (Photo: DVIDSHUB/Flickr/CC-BY)

Insurgent units are known for guerrilla tactics. They usually employ surprising and unconventional warfare. They slowly increase the losses on a foreign force, but more importantly, they sap at their enemies’ will. Their long-term goal is not to attain a military victory, but rather a political one. The armed conflict is a mere avenue to forward certain political goals. Thus, the insurgency does not suffer logistical problems, like a regular army, or issues regarding morale.

Dissonance of policy makers

The planners, tacticians and strategists for the U.S. military effort in conflict regions, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are insensitive to the nature of the threat that confronts them. The strategies, approaches and methods they have developed and are applying do not effectively counteract insurgencies. To deal with this particular kind of adversary entails a deeper understanding of their nature and pathology. However, insurgent strategy is seldom carefully analyzed. This culture of dissonance is the downfall of long-term military efforts in these regions. This blindness to certain social truths that have strategic implications has plagued U.S. conflict policies.

The hidden enemy

It was revealed in a recent Senate Report that the organizations in Afghanistan that the U.S. forces hired to increase the security in their installations and bases were involved with insurgents. This is a significant breach of security that amounts to the efforts on the ground being constantly undermined by the same people the U.S. forces entrusted with their safety. This introduces a whole new dimension to the conflict the U.S. is embroiled in. The enemy now has a direct and significant means by which to inflict damaging losses to the U.S. forces.

Necessary measures

Increasing the necessary security by checking on local organizations is vital, even if it requires installment loans or short term loans, among other forms of credit. However, there is greater importance in having a shift in strategy as well as how the insurgency is perceived. The delusion of American invincibility has to be set aside and reality must be confronted. This distortion deceives policy-makers as to the real status quo and the genuine enemy. This, in turn, could hamper effective strategy-making.

Sources

BBC News

Small Wars Journal (PDF)

(Photo: Leoncillo Sabino/Flickr/CC BY-SA)

Rights of individuals, whether it be freedom of religion or the ability to obtain installment loans, have always served as a countermeasure to the power of the state and national security. After the rise of terrorism brought on by religious fundamentalism, the right of religion is being weighed against the right of the state to protect itself. And this dispute between two significant and essential rights has become more prevalent today.

Religious freedom a contentious issue

The idea of “freedom of religion” refers to more than one religion. But a multiplicity of religions has always meant conflict, and religious conflict has often led to war and human devastation. This was the state of reality for centuries and millenniums, and it is hardly a ringing endorsement of religious freedom. This was the idea of tolerance of religious difference — an idea that was offered in response to the long and bloody history of religious conflict that had included, in Europe alone, the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the Holocaust and just recently, the religious fundamentalism that engages in terrorism.

Universal Declaration in the present century

For the last half century, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has set forth a formula focused on averting religious conflict. Under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, everyone has the right to freedoms of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one’s religion or belief and the freedom, either alone or in the community, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. In parallel, Article 30 reads: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

The concept of religious freedom and tolerance

The concepts of religious freedom and tolerance — allowing individuals to believe in, practice and promote the religion of choice without repercussions — are legitimate and worthwhile. However, in recent years, certain organizations have tried to use these concepts in their efforts to a) prevent or attack critical evaluations of their teachings and practices, and B) to fight against efforts to establish guidelines or laws governing such issues as unethical recruitment tactics, fraudulent fund-raising and other unlawful acts.

Building of a mosque in New York

A recent issue closely linked to this matter is when New York defended the building of a mosque near the site of the twin towers. Despite many who contested it, plans are still in the works. This clearly establishes and reinforces the fact that the United States is a country of rights and freedoms, particularly of religious tolerance. Despite the trauma and detriment it suffered during the 9/11 attacks, it still respects and is tolerant to certain religions. One thing’s for sure: no matter what your religious beliefs may be, an installment loan is still an option you can benefit from.

References:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/reject-mosque-suspicions-new-yorkers-told-20100804-11flc.html

http://politifi.com/news/Reject-mosque-suspicions-New-Yorkers-told-999849.html

Perfect Citizen is an NSA surveillance program designed to prevent U.S. infrastructure from cyber attack, but some see Big Brother looking over their shoulder. Flickr photo.

“Perfect Citizen” is a federal government program that empowers the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the computer networks of public and private entities. The purpose of Perfect Citizen is to prevent cyber attacks against resources considered vital to national security such as public utilities and power plants. Public Citizen is reassuring internet security to some, and a disconcerting intrusion to others, who see its massive automated NSA surveillance of American companies and citizens as Big Brother.

Perfect Citizen: Internet security on steroids

The Perfect Citizen story broke Thursday in the Wall Street Journal. The Journal reports that surveillance by the NSA, the government’s chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack. Defense contractor Raytheon Corp. recently won a classified contract for phase one of Perfect Citizen, valued at up to $100 million. Some industry and government officials who know about Perfect Citizen see it as an intrusion by the NSA into domestic affairs. Others say it the NSA surveillance is long overdue Internet security for preventing an emerging threat, and that the NSA is the only agency with the gear and experience to handle the job.

The NSA promises to share

The Journal article explains that Perfect Citizen will be applied to older computer networks that were designed before Internet security was an issue. Many of those networks run everything from subway systems to air-traffic control networks. Since they have been linked to the Internet, they’re more efficient, but extremely vulnerable to cyber attack. The NSA said Perfect Citizen will allow it to collect and share intelligence on cyber attacks that all companies can use for network security … as much as they think we need to know.

Can we trust Big Brother to behave?

Perhaps because of its Orwellian title, Perfect Citizen makes some people uncomfortable. PC World reports that their concern is that Perfect Citizen could be just the beginning and that the NSA will expand its authority to monitor all domestic network activity. Access to the computer networks of entities like public utilities might also provide the NSA with access to details regarding the power usage or travel plans of private companies and individual citizens. It remains to be seen if Perfect Citizen can protect national security without violating the rights and privacy of the private citizen.