29 September 2009: Janet Guyon, "The Web and the Decline of News Outlets.  Managing Editor of Bloomberg News

13 October 2009: Edward (Jack) Hardin, "National Security and Civil Liberties."  Top corporate attorney from Atlanta.

1 November 2009 (Sunday), additional event:Gen. Michael Hayden, "The State of US Intelligence.  Former director of the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency.

3 November 2009: Amb. Ryan Crocker, "Iraq/AfPak: Retrospects and Prospects".  Recently retired, Ambassador to Pakistan, 2004-2007, Ambassador to Iraq, 2007-2009.

22 February 2010 (Monday): Dr. Hans Mark, "The Dangers of Nuclear Proliferation", Director of NASA's Ames Research Center (and formerly at Livermore Labs), Secretary of the Air Force, and Chancellor, University of Texas system.

6 April 2010: Dr. William Moomaw, Professor of International Environment Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 1992-.

4 May 2010: Senior Air War College Instructors report on their regional tours, as part of the AWC Regional and Cultural Studies Program.

---

NOTES ON SPEAKERS

September 29, 2009: Janet Guyon, Bloomberg News. "The Web and the Decline of News Outlets."  Managing Editor of Bloomberg News; nine years with Fortune Magazine; and 18 years with the Wall Street Journal as reporter, editor, and producer.

Notes (blended) from Alexis Johnson and Jeremy Lewis
Career introduction

• Born in Cincinnati, Ohio
• Graduated summa cum laude from Duke in English and Economics
• Did post-graduate work at Columbia University
• 18 years with The Wall Street Journal
• 9 years with Fortune Magazine
• In 2000, she won “Magazine Journalist of the Year” in the UK
• Now managing editor of Bloomberg News

At the Bloomberg News

While with Fortune, learned at WEF of web publications, offered free

Wanted to be in charge of the website, being unfamiliar with the new technology that had taken the U.S. by storm while in England

Wall Street Journal web pages were an early success, and attracted millions to their online product though limited revenue per viewer compared to print.  At Bloomberg, became convinced could never raise enough revenue online.

Bloomberg News has 2,000 journalists around world, writing content.  Goal of $50M ad revenue.  Audience trebled to 15 M per month, but ad revenue never reached $50M.  Not like networks and newspapers (now one per city) so print commands a premium.

But ad inventory on web is infinite, so prices decline.  Advertiser does not need to use Bloomberg News – can go elsewhere.  Google, rather than NY Times, gets ad money  by matching ads to viewer interest.

Web is taking ad revenue away from print but it is not necessarily going to publishers.

NY Times going through third or fourth round of layoffs.

Publishers not stupid; there is technology change and distribution method change.

Squeeze going on and publishers do not know what to do.

- The ad revenue for the website was supposed to be around $50 million, but was closer to half of that
-an ad network, like Google, can follow the audience, despite leaving the website
-the network usually receives the money, rather than the publishers

So, what to do?

Accept it, and embrace it. There will still be news, just in a different form.

Pay for an online addition

-How much to charge?
-How and when to charge?

Possible to give away portions for free, and charge for full articles

Paid subscriptions, just as a printed newspaper

Bloomberg model: Bloomberg Terminal is a computer system that enables financial professionals to monitor and analyze real-time financial market data movements and place trades.  $20,000 per year for Bloomberg terminal - compared to tiny staff of web service.  300,000 pay, get download of software for PC as tool for making money – can compare P/E ratios, bonds, map of oil tanker ships around world.  Magazine, web, tv are just marketing tools for the main service.  Business model 20 years ago was e-delivered from start, able to support 146 offices worldwide, one of world’s largest busnesses organs.  Enabling tool for particular set of people.

Subscription services: like newspaper and phone service.

BBC model: government supported – but controversy over how much they can be commercialized with public support. Like Bloomberg News, create an exclusive program to fund the other media

Web news model: Superior product with real time news, video, ability to contact authors – but not charging for it.  No other business like this except internet entrepreneurs who build a business free and hope for Microsoft to buy out.

Free newspapers: were called shockers, not good quality.

In Europe, newspaper subscriptions and advertisers have 50-50 split of revenue.

Running web site at Bloomberg, about 10% of audience were addicts, spent much time on site.  If those paid $50 per year, that exceeds advertising anyway.

Many publishers taking subscription road now, but many will not survive.  However, Some newspapers will survive

Effect of coming shakeout?

Grew up in Cleveland when river set on fire, and chemicals flowed from steel industry – till shakeouts and layoffs.  Similarly, newspaper industry will have shakeout but some smaller media players will survive along with some papers.

Other ways to get information about local issues?  Web allows voluminous information

Pressure on Google -- which profits from scraping content unpaid from other sites -- to pay news organizations for content.

Patron system? [Unreliable].  ProPublica investigative journalists funded by Wachovia family – unfortunately with Wachovia stock [now of unreliable value].

Pulitzer prize winners have transferred to Bloomberg – so some benefit from shakeout.

Should there be a bailout?

How much does it matter?

-It is not a major national concern
-There are other ways to get information to vote
-The web has more information, and sometimes better information

Instead, the government could pressure sites like Google to share their profits with the publishers

Question Time

Q) there a future in $75 subs for individual service?

A) Yes, would do it tomorrow.
Q) Is it a newspaper’s objective to sway public opinion to influence the national agenda?
A) We go out to collect facts, although the choosing of those subjects contributes to national conversation.  Now trying to explain health care debate.
Q) Proliferation of resources on web – How can we, as the consumer, monitor credibility on the web?
A) Most people tend to gravitate toward brand names, e.g. New York Times. Those brand names will survive.
Q) Did the news media fail to cover impending 2008 financial crisis?
A) Some warnings of problems but now linked well enough across markets. (In news awards judging -- did find a little-known journalist who had warned effectively).   Housing bubble warnings since 2005.  Although connections weren’t drawn all the way, the news media not to blame, hard to draw a line across industries – and hard to predict when the bubbles would break.
Q) Asian web sites coming to challenge the western media? The U.S. and Britain control the majority of news sites; do you see trends of other countries seeking to join this?
A) They do have aspirations, but most news is language driven.
Q) Is Bloomberg going to run for the presidency, and how would Bloomberg News cover that story?
A) He doesn’t tell us.
Q) Are there any plans for the news media to involve the college generation?
A) Yes, the news sites are looking for new ways to incorporate the younger generation, including blogs and videos. A colleague hired from Yahoo is currently trying to render the Bloomberg web site more interactive.  However, as a whole, news has always appealed to the older demographic.
Q) What service mix for Bloomberg?
A) Investor tools, stock, bond, oil prices, analytical software for comparisons.  News is merely frosting on cake.  Finanicial info services with a media arm, not the reverse.
Q) National and international politics vs financial info?
A) 75% financial info, but have big investment now in political and economic bureaus


Top of Page

---

October 13, 2009: Edward (Jack) Hardin, “National Security and Civil Liberties”. Top corporate attorney from Atlanta. Member of International Bar Association, Council on Foreign Relations. Selected by his peers for ten years one of the best corporate attorneys in the US. A member of the United Way's De Tocqueville Society, he is an expert on and speaks on national security legal issues.
May be resheduled: Amb. John Kelly, Ambassador-in-Residence, Sam Nunn School of International Relations, Georgia Tech. A career diplomat, he has served as Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and also as US Ambassador to Lebanon and to Finland. In Washington, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary in four different important areas.


Historical political culture, inherited from the United Kingdom: struggle to limit power of government, provide individuals with opportunity to defend themselves.

Magna Carta begat common law writ of habeas corpus.
US system:
• US Bill of Rights to protect minority from tyranny of majority.
• US based on individuals ceding power to government for purposes of the union.
• System of balance of powers between branches.
• Right to know accusation, consult with a legal defender, be free from cruel and inhuman treatment.
• Political culture is learned in schools.
• Citizens are confident of rights in event of being accused.
• Tranquility and peace are based on those assumptions.
• Some exceptions, eg WW1 Palmer raids arrested many on suspicion; WW2 Japanese Americans, McCarthy period.  All made possible because of national security fears.
Post WW2 international institutions created with US influence peaceably to network states and protect individuals via international norms and tribunals.  Nuremburg trials an embodiment of this idea.
Cold war environment:
• US developed national security and intelligence assets, in late ’60s and early ’70s, these espionage powers were being used to create dossiers on MLK, John Lennon and many others.  Intelligence was gathered without 4th amendment restraints on searches and seizures.
• Reaction to excesses of cold war:
• Network of laws in late 1970s: foreign intelligence by NSA and CIA is directed outside; FBI defends country within borders, and subject to 4th amendment.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created court of 10 judges from districts around country, could permit wiretaps within 72 hours.
• We assumed actors were governments and agents – non governmental organizations (NGOs) were not part of security thinking prior to 9/11.
Post 9/11 environment:
• President directed US do anything necessary to ensure national security.
• VP developed 1% suspicion rule; do anything necessary when there is a 1% threat.
• Facing enemy of invisible soldiers.
• But Bush /Cheney administration leaders came to office with lifelong ambition to increase powers of the presidency, among several officials.
• We sublimated concerns about liberties, turning on a dime.
• Rounded up thousands of individuals who were Muslims or of Arab descent, and held them without the usual rights or even charges.
• Some when held were abused; notably in Brooklyn immigration prison.
• CIA began abducting people and taking them to countries known for lack of rights.  Some on US soil subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
• Most of the public supported and assumed powers were only used against foreigners.
• NSA embarked on secret wiretapping program in telecoms companies, searching with algorithms all email and phone – unknown and rationalized by a legal opinion that was subsequently withdrawn.  Much of world’s communications came through US, encouraged by US.
• Held enemy combatants offshore at Guantanamo base and US debated what techniques to use.
• Detainment designed to be outside jurisdiction of US courts, because post WW2 legal doctrine held that habeas corpus did not apply offshore.
• Military commissions had been used to determine whether someone was properly an enemy combatant, but not for the fuller judicial purposes now projected on them.
[Reaction to excesses:]
• The Geneva conventions, and the UN Declaration, and the UN Convention against Torture that we had entered into, were considered to be from a different time and place.  But the US lost 6 times in US courts on cases involving detention in Guantanamo, and the rights of detainees.
• In 2004, Government lawyers began to rethink their legal opinions (torture memos and wiretaps especially).
• Congress became concerned about lack of consultation.
• In 2006, Congress changed [to bicameral Democratic majorities].
• Surveillance authorities of national security agencies were cut back -- but still reauthorized.
• Within the purview of the FISA court, [warrantless wiretapping] authority was upheld on appeal.
• The current administration has withdrawn the authority of enhanced interrogation techniques.
• The 2001 USA PATRIOT act contained several sunset provisions, including one due at the end of 2009, but most will probably be extended.
Conclusions:
• It was wrong not to go to Congress, wrong to do in secret, hurt US standing in world opinion as a nation of laws, and said that these things we did in reacting to 9/11 are more important than the principles we stand for.
• He ended with the post-Nazi Martin Niemoller quotation, “first they came…”


Question Time
Q) International frameworks that cause difficulties for US, by ceding authority.  Italian courts brought charges against troops who shot Italian agent returning hostages.

A) Proponents of presidential war powers authority, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith, argued against foreign institutions with rules not reviewable by US.  For 50 years US made argument for human rights, based on not expecting US to be the problem, and set rules postwar to constrain Europeans.
Italian courts operating under own rules – not an ICC matter; but US declined to join ICC.
Most senior military officials oppose torture because 1) ineffective and 2) deprives us of moral high ground and weakens claim for others treating our soldiers properly.  We have a duty under treaty (eg torture) to uphold the treaty.
Q) under new admin will practices change?
A) Jack Goldsmith head of OLC 2003, looked at memos of John Yoo, his friend, and withdrew them as unfounded.  See article “The Cheney Fallacy” in Foreign Affairs – policies threatened lives of Americans – but IG of CIA says torture and interrogation ended in 2004; then Congress reasserted itself with amendments to the USA PATRIOT and FISA acts.  More than IG claimed did continue though, targeted killings with drones, wiretapping.  Recently released report of IG CIA 2004 – most enhanced interrogations ended then.  Secret CIA prisons closed and not used that much, no evidence they were successful and engendered opposition from host countries who in some cases did not know they were there.  Holder has appointed special counsel.
Q) What has been prevented through extraordinary measures?  What level of moderate [detention/ interrogation] is permissible?
A)  CIA report 2004 said authorization did not limit what could be done, and some excesses clearly were torture.  It also reported some techniques did result in [unspecified] actionable intelligence.  But we are a democracy that thrives on openness.  Greatest value is open debate and decisionmaking.
Example of overzealous prosecution in security reaction: Richard Jewel, security guard in Atlanta bombing, suspect put under surveillance.  Later Eric Rudolph was shown to be the perpetrator.  Another lawyer under surveillance for two years – Richard Mayfield – was suspect and reputation, work and life severely damaged because of 2 fragments of finger print, even though Madrid analysts did not accept, soon detained Moroccans with perfect matches.
Top of Page

---

1 November 2009 (Sunday), additional event: Gen. Michael Hayden, “The State of American Intelligence.”  Former director of the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency. (Alternative location: Taylor center, at Auburn University Montgomery)
Bowen Ballard, Introduction: Hayden part of the changing world of intelligence, at NSA under FISA complications & CIA during international terrorist situations.  A man who does his homework, loves family and country, Pittsburgh Steelers, and runs the marathon.

“State of American Intelligence.”

Three themes:
Intelligence is hard work.
Your intelligence services are not doing too badly.
You have a guiding hand in current issues about intelligence services.
Speech:
Role of intelligence is more important now to your safety than ever.
Comparison of threat twenty years ago with now.
• Then, massed tank armies and massive ICBMs.  Jerry Boykin (3-star, SOF) said those were easy to find, too large to hide – but hard to kill.  Today the opposite, AQ easy to stop and kill but really hard to find.
Rating intelligence analysis from 0 to 10, never need 8-10 because those issues are obvious.  Only get the difficult questions.
• John McLaughlin, director of CIA’s analysis for years, said people ask us to find things or explain mysteries.  He asked his J-2 officer = “deuce”.  Didn’t know what Milosevic was going to do, and M. didn’t even know himself.
• Importance of context: Bosnia 1993-early ’94 during bitter fighting in South between Muslims and Croats (catholics) in Mostar, (“old bridge”).  Would Croats fight beyond river, was river a defensible line.  1054 schism of Christianity occurred at river – so intelligence officer knew they would stop at river for historic reasons, not because just it was defensible line.
Unlike pessimistic intelligence officers, policymakers and operational officer must be optimistic, can-do.
• No such thing as an optimistic intelligence officer.  Inherently inductive, general conclusions drawn from facts.  Policymakers use deductive reasoning from principles.  Elected because voters choose their vision.
• Debating whether to double down in Iraq, President Bush ordered numerous meetings with NS Adviser.  Intelligence said Maliki had no experience of management, and had been in exile.  Bush, however, had a vision of sharing democracy.
• Dec. 2007 Bush pressing Iran about nuclear program; Intelligence brought the published estimate that Iran had stopped developing nuclear program in 2003 – not a welcome finding at a time of diplomatic meetings on sanctions.  Intelligence has completely different world view.  Can’t deliver news without being part of conversation and process, must feel their pain, yet remain ruthlessly objective.
Declassified intelligence budget at under $50 Billion.
Criticisms of not connecting dots, but still have world’s best intelligence service.
• Clinton administration appointee as Dir. of NSA, but never heard of a better country’s service.
Examples of public successes (although public not really aware of them).
• Arrests in GB when at NSA, backroom assistance on terrorist arrests.  British relied on US intelligence for those arrests.
• Secret Iranian nuclear uranium enrichment site announced at Qom.  We were on that a long time.
• El Kabar Syrian plutonium plant disappeared 6 Sep 2007.
• Three summers ago British police rolled up plot to bring bottled liquids on airliners.  In 2001 action would have happened -- but we owned that plot in 2006.  They had the peroxide, so time to arrest.
• Najibullah commuting between NY and Texas(?)  Serious plot detected by intelligence.
How to judge intelligence?  On a curve?  Fielding average? Absolute standard?  This is hard work.
Issues:
Small issues: What satellites? Equipment? Language expertise?
Big issues: What is the appropriate role for secret espionage services in an open democracy?  Really hard when it goes public.
• Used to be PD DNI, April 2006, gave speech in San Antonio, assessed GWOT with report card, wrote personally.  Had published top secret NIE, extracted key judgments less a few too sensitive, and created speech.  Passed review by others, did not reveal sources and methods.  Called newsmen all over but only two in room, only one news story.  Not newsworthy when about terrorism.  In Sep. the same NIE given to Capitol Hill oversight committees.  It began to leak from left and right, incredible news story – only interesting when about party struggle.
• Still puzzled why Obama released memos about interrogation techniques.  Director for 3 weeks under Obama till Panetta confirmed.  Sent memo to staff, new President has told us where box is going to be, go fight under the new box.  Was releasing his predecessor’s position; later Panetta successor and 5 predecessors unsuccessfully opposed release of IG report.  7 living former directors of CIA opposed re-investigation by AG of  incidents [in GWOT and Iraq 2003].
• “NY FOIA case about to be lost” rationale for release is untrue, for with same district, judge and ACLU party in 2008, we had protected technique of waterboarding even though not going to use it again.  CIA was allowed to fight release of other documents, Panetta said again release would harm national security.  Administration let him fight it.
• Hayden wrote CNN website op-ed piece 2 weeks ago.  Harsh post 9/11 world, judge deferred explicitly to DCI.  Reluctance on part of courts to interfere with discretion under mandates of CIA.  Decision to release those memos was a political one not a legal one.  Should be defended on those grounds.  Folks at CIA might be forgiven for fearing noone will get their back on issues like this, will feed flood of lawsuits, but ACLU is paying PI s to stalk officers and present pics to Gitmo detainees to see if they can identify them.
• It seems to CIA offices that protection of sources and methods will only last one election cycle.
• Reassuring them is like trying to run a pep rally in the fuhrer bunker. Officers ask, how can I be sure I will not be pulled through the hole in five years?
That is not the biggest deal.  The macro issue is to achieve greater transparency and greater accountability – yet still do a great job.
• Church and Pike committee reforms [1970s] – can tell secrets to 24 committee members in HR and 18 in Senate –but not going real well now, either.
• Relations of intelligence to Houses of Congress is not part of solution, but part of problem.  There is a tremendous lack of trust.
• McConnell hosted oversight discussions with Congressional members on a Sunday-Monday but when the Wall St Journal published a dark article on Sunday (Monday?), they discussed it immediately.  Members though, refused to defend publicly on behalf of intelligence agencies, said did not know it was not true.  Oversight system in a bad place, biggest problem.  Intelligence agencies are like a football in a highly charged game going on in Washington.
Ultimately a matter of how much you want to know about intelligence.  We defend and honor your values.
Question Time:

Q) Can one defend against shipping container bombs?

A) cannot simply defend but there is more to the story. 9/11 was both preventable and inevitable.  Penalty kick is a good metaphor till 9/11: AQ was taking penalty kicks, and US could have stopped about 9/10 from going into the net.  But playing defense invites eventual failure: one penalty will score.  Must play offense.  US did so after 9/11 by capturing and in the euphemistic saying “otherwise taking them off battlefield.”

The four IGs’ report included line saying could not show any imminent attack was stopped by interrogation – but that is not our interest.  We need to stop attacks months ahead when they are at the financial stage, and disrupt the plots.
Q) Iran

A) mystery rather than secret as to how Iranian decision making works.  Discovery of Qom tilts me more to the direction that Iran is developing a weapon: Qom facility is too small to spin centrifuges, probably for HEU only, highly enriched for weapon only.  Israelis and we look at same facts, strong agreement on facts, Israelis always take worst case slice [of the range of possibilities].  This is the most serious issue facing US administration now.  Mechanics of action are very difficult, hard nut to crack even for US airpower, let alone smaller Israeli forces.

Q) How to reform oversight?

A) Take care as to individuals on committee, merit to picking some intelligence watchdogs from civil liberties perspective, but right now especially on HR side, point of view is inherently skeptical of intelligence.  Term limits on committees are a bad idea.  Nobody gets a road paved – service on committee only.  Questions often reflect lack of knowledge.  Hearing system is horrible, sit lower or higher, questions are speeches, and there is no continuity.

Q) safeguards against nuclear, chemical and biological attacks internally?

A) police and internal services OK so far, unlike other countries.  US is a hard target.  Welcoming nation with few isolated immigrant communities, more embracing than European allies.

Q) Afghanistan surge of troops, with unknown president of Afghanistan?

A) Afghan elections will be retaken next week, but Abdullah Abdullah has recently withdrawn.  Hayden is not inclined to criticize Karzai, does have some good traits, but in very difficult circumstances.
Obama: War of necessity, not war of choice – he’s right.  If our strategic objective is protecting US, this is legitimate.  CT rhetoric gives a lighter burden on troops than COIN.  Unfortunately President said back in March, operational strategy of COIN was to change reality on ground – but this is burdensome, more troops and time, plus messy working with people we are not totally comfortable with.

Q) Info sharing among intelligence agencies.

A) Quicker, more facile, much better.  DNI and NSA don’t always agree, but NCTC does share info well.  There is some data that should not be shared – because once it is out the source is gone.
Example: Syrian El Kabar reactor destroyed 2007, became public 2008.  Bush wanted reactor to go away but without Mideast war.  CIA minted coin for operation, No Core, no War.  Needed closely guarded secret, because Bashar Assad would be backed into a corner if public.  Had to make sure but could not let it leak.  I determined who could know about this and kept this circle tight – fewer experts in know – but alternative was a leak.  Info sharing not an absolute goal.  Sharing much better, sometimes bureaucratic but usually a good reason.

Q) recruitment poor?

A) Very good, in fact.  Over 3 yrs at CIA 130-160,000 applied (cannot give number admitted).
Problem of caution because not knowing where line is going to be in a few years time.

Q) Speaker of HR claims to have been misled.

A) some believe this, not limited by party.  I do not believe they were misled.  Sometimes they do not understand, or get importance for some months.  Former director said 4 were in the room, of which one is deceased and the others willing to raise right hand and testify.

Q) reactor destroyed, by whom?

A) I have no opinion – but Press says Israeli AF.

Top of Page

---

November 3, 2009: Amb. Ryan Crocker,  "Iraq/AfPak: Retrospects and Prospects."  Ambassador to Pakistan, 2004-2007, Ambassador to Iraq, 2007-2009. Former Ambassador to Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon. In the Middle East, he has had his residence sacked (Damascus) and survived the 1983 bombing of his Embassy (Beirut).  Amb. Crocker opened the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan in 2002 and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009.

Maps index | Middle East

Dr. Jim Nathan, Introduction
Crocker has done so much in dangerous assignments, including one embassy and one residency blown up.  One of the great diplomats of our generation.

Speech

Visited SPLC in Montgomery before, truly a national asset, sued Aryan nations in Idaho panhandle successfully and put them out of business.  Montgomery has emerged as a national asset also, and through local history can comprehend the principles of understanding the adversary, commitment to see course of action through to conclusion – like US policy in Middle East.

Broader Middle East, from a practitioners perspective.

Includes Morocco to Pakistan axis, covering Arab North Africa to non-Arab states.  Not the definitions used by State or DOD or central command (includes central Asia) – indicates conceptual challenges.

Six years ago would have talked like State about Iran and the west.  But from experience, a geo-political whole.  Our adversaries define the region that way.  Al Qaeda (AQ) almost established a permanent foothold and launched attacks across North Africa.

History: understand how history is perceived by the locals.

1798 Napoleon invaded Egypt, then British – instigated modern period of Middle East history, these countries being occupied by at least one western power.  Seen as a military engagement by locals.  We often do not understand this perspective.  They lacked wherewithal to keep out western forces – but [like a boxer] clenched up and started pounding on the ribs, resisting for a long time.  Not new to Afghanistan or elsewhere – adversaries don’t organize for a fight until well after we think we have won it.

First, know where you are (Foreign Service officers are more expeditionary than forces – 70% abroad and all speak at least one language.)

Importance of reading imaginary literature, and fairy tales; these are windows into society as valid and important as any history text.  Given that background of difficult relations with West, be careful what you get into.  Actions, especially military intervention, have consequences.  Previous administration criticized for lack of planning in Iraq, true, was in Iraq within ten days of fall of Saddam.  Noone could have predicted where Iraq would be today when US forces crossed over six years ago.  No amount of planning could have been good enough, had to accept risks to achieve goals via the reasonably foreseen.

Have to be slow and careful to enter – and even more so to exit.

Actions that end interventions also have consequences.  Gen. Petraeus and I spent 36 hours testifying to Congress; Iraq was costing treasure and blood, and could not say that it was going well. Movie goes on whether we walk off the set or not.  History is composed of those actions that did not happen as well as those that did – and AQ triumphant in Middle East presented a long term threat we did not want to contemplate.

The long war started not in 9/11 but in Beirut in ‘80s with blowing up of barracks.  US support for Israeli invasion of 1982, and unforeseeable consequences – Lebanese militias massacred refugees in two camps, and US sent back marines in an ill-defined mission.  1983 bombings of marines and sailors followed, the worst loss in a single action since WW2.  Some months later we got out of Lebanon.  ’82 invasion cemented the alliance of Syrians and Iran that led to the development of Hezbollah.  Both learned [like boxers] to clench up close and pound the adversary, and the [invader] would go home.  2006 Iran and Syria applied this strategy to the Mahdi army in S. Iraq [supported by Iran] and Syria supported AQ’s western infiltration of Iraq.

Early 2007 little known aspect of surge of forces – this time we didn’t step back as pain threshold rose, but stepped forward.

Put Iranians off balance, where they remain.  We did not run to type in this region.  Consequences last for years to come.

Strategic patience or US impatience (great nation but geographically and historically challenged).

Allies fear our impatience and adversaries count on it.

Iraq, over 6.5 tumultuous years, has met enormous challenges,

sectarian violence of Sunnis and Shias has subsided – but replaced by ethnic tensions among these and Kurds.  Unresolved debates about nature of Iraqi state, Kurdish region in north, and provinces elsewhere (like US states’ rights debates.)  US also faced this until post civil war, hard issues.  Do not build democracy with mail order overlay from US on top of Iraqi society.  Strategically we should not get tired as in Lebanon through losses -- or through seeing work as being done.  We have agreement to withdraw forces from Iraq, but with significant sustained engagement with commerce, science and technology.  Iraq will need this for long period, though less costly than military engagement.

Eastern front of long war: Afghan and Pakistan.

Only 30 years ago Soviets invaded and we engaged through unconventional support for Jihad, and Soviets left in 1989 but so did we, our work done.  We could see coming storm in Afghan but our reason for being there was in cold war context, and adversary had been vanquished.  Stay behind regime did not last long, and vicious civil war ensued.  Kabul resembled Berlin in 1945, but from Taliban civil war.  Taliban then gave space to AQ.

Policymakers in 1989 could not have foreseen collapse of twin towers, but there was no discussion of long term consequences.  Acute in Pakistan, one year after Soviets withdrew, we sanctioned Pakistan for nuclear weapons development.  9/11 + 8 years, we are having many of same arguments over staying and engagement with Afghan/Pak, CT or broader COIN.

These are hard issues, Lebanon 1982, Iraq 2003, Afghan/Paki today. No easy decisions ever reach the President’s desk.

If it is hard in Washington, it is harder in the smoke and dust and contingency of the field.

You have no time to read the book or consult the pundits, let alone to get a good night’s sleep in 45 days, and must make the right call.  Increasingly slight media coverage of Iraq leaves it appearing simple, but always complex.


Question Time
Q) result of surging into Iraq, but change in level of engagement with Syria, and their reaction?

A) served there during transition from Hafez Assad to son Bashir.  Iraqis were extremely angry over dialogue announcement, had decided Syrians were responsible for bombings in Baghdad, adversaries since dawn of Islam, governed by rival wings of Baath party.  Syrians have been off balance also; our offer to upgrade the relationship may make it look to Syria as though steadfastness without concessions does pay off for them.  Consistent element of Syrian thinking.  Persistence of Syrian culture.

Q) When is the end time going to come in middle east?

A) never reach a culminating state in middle east, stories change form but they go on.  Requires persistence, agility and agility on our part.  Moving to primarily civilian engagement in Iraq.  Military will end, end of  2011 – alterable by common consent but well on way.  Withdrew forces from cities and towns, Iraqis up front since June, US as ready reserve.  Iraqis increasingly showing capability.  Pakistan, our interests and equities are immense, we have no military presence except for disaster relief a few years ago.  There is no culminating state.

Q) Withdrawal from Afghan?

A) precipitous withdrawal from Afghan would lead to Taliban as largest semi-organized force in country in control of most of country (though not NE).  That reel of movie would not go well for us second time around.  Tricky for President because he will have to spell out.  Unlikely to go for full scale nation building but full CT strategy also unworkable.  Iraq and Afghan dramatically different but some methodologies consistent.  Cannot do CT with out broader COIN.  Terrorists will find ample space to embed.  COIN is part of way forward, but with what resources I cannot say.  Perils of focusing too narrowly and for too short a term have consequences.  Testified to Senate a month ago and an expert on Afghan sought good enough governance, reasonable security and stability in custody of Afghan led forces – achievable aspiration.  Us idealists have to be careful because a matter of following up on achievements – especially women in Afghan who had brief period in sun under Soviet occupation, but then Mujaheddin and Taliban handed their heads to them.  A moment again, but need to think about those who have stepped forward.

Q) Kurds

A) Hard truth that there are more nationalisms than nations.  Kurds are in wrong part of world.  4 states holding Kurds only agree on one thing: there should never be a Kurdish state – a threat to survival of their nation.  Each is prepared to play off Kurds against another state but none is willing to establish a Kurdish state.  Numerous meetings to keep in check tensions with Kurds – asked what was worst of times for Iraqi years?  (Saddam’s poison gas attacks, others 1990.) Best of times?  All say today, with regional government and 17% of national oil revenues.  Conflict with Kurds would be good politics internally for all neighboring states – and Kurds would likely lose US support.  2008 Turkish invasion of N. Iraq, but now Turkish leaders visit Kurdish leaders in North Iraq and Turks have taken steps internally to reduce tensions.  Iran and Syria are much more problematic than Kurds.

Q) Pakistani army operations in tribal areas, and US diplomacy there

A) Maturing relation with Paki where we work to reduce tensions. Seemingly Paki classic COIN strategy, to reduce those you must fight, army cutting deals with other tribes to take them out of fight, deal with adversaries sequentially.  Kerry-Lugar?  Conditionally should be consistent with taxpayer’s money.  For Pakis, raises the stakes, like the old Pressler amendment under which sanctions were imposed where US could not certify regimes.  Sec. Clinton has option of waiver, but we have to understand Paki narrative on their history with us.  Need to go after common adversaries without suggesting to them that history is about to repeat itself in unfortunate ways.

Top of Page

---

22 [was to be 8] February 2010 (Monday):  Dr. Hans Mark, "The Dangers of Nuclear Proliferation", Director of NASA's Ames Research Center (and formerly at Livermore Labs), Secretary of the Air Force, and Chancellor, University of Texas system.
    * World renowned nuclear physicist and currently professor at University of Texas
    * Director, NASA's Ames Research Center, 1969-1977
    * Secretary of the Air Force, 1979-81
    * Deputy Administrator, NASA, 1981-1984
    * Chancellor, University of Texas System, 1984-1992
    * Director, Department of Defense Research and Engineering, 1998-2001
(Dr. Mark mentioned that he is an Austrian immigrant.)

Prepared Remarks: Nuclear Proliferation
Several pages of diagrams of uranium and other devices supplied.
First atomic device was a game changer for Japanese.
Concern about how you defend against nuclear weapons
Nuclear Weapons Non Proliferation Treaty:
first statement permits 5 nations to own nuclear weapons.
Must develop plans to reduce weapons.
Other nations have right to use nuclear materials for peaceful purposes.
First president to say he would rid the world of nuclear weapons was Ford.  Every one since also.
C20th killed 100 M in war, of which 85M before 1950.  Far fewer in the nuclear age.
189 nations have signed, though not North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel.
Scale of nuclear weapons currently.
US now has 5,000 and Russians 14,000 warheads– but they draw a distinction between strategic (long range) and tactical (short range) delivery systems.  Russians face local threats, unlike US, and unwilling to give up this asymmetry.
UK, France and China have much smaller forces.
All except China only have weapons built during cold war.
Unlikely that we can reduce below 500 per nation.
Newer nuclear nations:
Israel special case, surrounded by 30M enemies.
Now have reactor built by French, to produce plutonium.  Their own scientists create the nuclear materials. Never tested.
They claim will not be first to use – but also not the second.
India has good technological skills, second.
South Africa like Israel,
when felt surrounded, small racial minority-based Africaaner government built uranium bomb without reactor, obtaining isotope centrifuges from Holland.
Needs thousands of these in stages, but admitted quite openly to six bombs.
De Klerk had them destroyed when felt regime was going to fall.
Pakistan’s program, started up by China as a counterweight to India.
AQ Khan got centrifuge technology, but Chinese likely would have provided if necessary.
North Korea learned with start from Russia, may have eight now.
Potential proliferators:
Iran only interesting one today.
Pop 75m, highly educated.  Will get and test a bomb, establish primacy in middle East.  Independent of who is governing Iran.
Negotiating with them useless, sanctions also.
We should tell the world we can shoot down missiles in flight.  Last week we shot down Scud with an airborne laser.
Now have capability on ships and have done two dozen test – Japanese have 2 and 2 more coming.
Iraq was clearly on the way to building but did not have any bombs.
Found and destroyed separation facility in Gulf war, but they still have people with knowledge.
Libya – never had the program, though there were possible donors.
Saudi – will likely buy from French, as counterweight to Iran.
What nations are capable?
Japan, in dangerous neighborhood.
Convinced that Japan could assemble nuclear program in months, since they face threats and have skills.
Germany in NATO, has nuclear umbrella – but eventually may face collapse of that umbrella.
Italy, Sweden, Taiwan, South Korea are all in position where they could develop.
(Anecdotally, Swiss allegedly also have capability.)
Recommendations:
Continue to reduce nuclear weapons.
Safety of stockpile issue: the high explosive that is used to trigger, is inherently unstable.
Continually improve detection and monitoring of explosions, including those unannounced.
Develop credible defenses against missiles.
USS Lake Erie shot down first missile from sea, limited capability – but have Aegis cruisers in Black Sea and gulf, can shoot down missiles from Iran.
Diplomacy has its limits, but defenses give leverage.  Iranian government will not stop own program.
Detection methods at border crossings improved and successful in tests.
Develop intelligence ability to penetrate covert proliferation programs – has begun.
Never built nuclear weapon with a shelf life, always took out each generation every 2-3 years when developed new ones.  Weapons never designed to be on the shelf for 17 years.  Opening up deployed weapons, we found problems.  Just getting started on refurbishing old weapons.
New designs will have shelf life of 25 years, and safety features.  Build with high probability of working without needing testing.
Program cancelled by President Obama, but will need to be restarted.


Question Time:

Buy up Soviet nuclear weapons?  Old Buckley idea.
Electro-magnetic pulse weapons?
Nuclear weapon detonation in upper atmosphere causes large effect – in 1962 it knocked out traffic lights in Honolulu.  Minor damage only, power system continued to function.
Not militarily useful effect.
Inspection of IAEA is for strategic weapons only, on long range 5,000 miles.  Russians’ shorter range weapons are not under this regime.  Therefore we know little about them.
Proliferation by ourselves and others?
Perry, Kissinger, Shultz, Nunn all called for riddance of nuclear weapons.  Presidents all call for riddance because required by terms of treaty.  Destroying our weapons would not cause Iranians to stop their developments, because they have other issues.
Scale of technology of current weapons?
Iranians have a few but need a reliable delivery system.  Weapons are too big and too hot for a suitcase.  Trucks through Laredo subject to quite good detection systems.  Every country making weapons is also making rockets to deliver them.
Will Israelis try to destroy Iranian capability?
Nuclear complex is so large that IDF would not have ability to destroy them.  50 or so nuclear facilities.
Do bombs have signatures?
Yes, isotopes give fingerprints of weapon.  US in his time was able to trace every bomb to every maker.
Iran will test a bomb in the next few years.
Accidental launches?
Real concern in cold war, mostly about computer glitches.  One alert came when Sec AF, 2 missiles detected from USSR, alerted bombers, then 22, then 222 – so Colorado realized a technical glitch because of regular increases.  Lesser problem now because we do not have thousands of missiles on hair-trigger alert
Nuclear security in Pakistan, when regime deteriorating?
Under pressure from terrorist organizations and Taliban (local but not terrorist organization).  US high official has gone to discuss nuclear security with Pakistani officials.  But a terrorist in custody of weapon could do little (heavy and complex).  Real problem would be a government controlled by an Osama Bin Laden figure (likewise if Iran taken by OBL type leader).


Top of Page

---

April 6, 2010: Dr. William Moomaw, "Energy, National Security & Climate Change".
Professor of International Environment Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, Tufts University. Expert on Global Warming and graduate of Lanier High School. Co-founder and co-director of the Climate Talks Project.
* Founding Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
* Since 1992, lead author of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
* In 1988, became the first director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute
* Has worked with numerous countries on a range of global environmental issues
* 1955 graduate of Lanier High School; PhD in Chemistry from MIT
See also notes of his speech to Huntingdon College class, earlier that day
Introduction: IPCC honored with Nobel 2007.
Topic: Energy, National Security and Climate Change
National security depends on energy but climate change has national security implications.
Energy:
Graph: growth of world energy consumption, 25% by US
1973 gas lines found us unprepared. Only plan was in Shell Oil which had contingency planning.
Graph: non-OECD energy (BRIC, Venezuela) use overtook (2006) and growing faster than OECD, from 2004 onwards.
US and OECD have agreed to share oil reserves in event of new oil shock.
Graph: China and India driving energy use and exceed US by 2010.
Graph: US dropped energy after 1973 and again after Iranian oil shock 1980-83.  Then steady growth of usage until 2009 drop.  Petroleum fluctuates, others steady (nuclear) or steady growth.  Renewables steady and about equal to nuclear electric.
US imports more now from non-OPEC, including Canada and Russia (Alberta now the Texas of Canada).
Petroleum imports rising to US rapidly and steadily as US production slowly declines.
Oil production in lower 48 states peaked in 1975, Alaska 1988.
Offshore drilling now is only 3 years worth of supply for the US and will not arrive for six years.
Coal is biggest in US followed by natural gas and nuclear – by 70% of nuclear is just heat, only 30% electricity.
Coal only 32% efficient and old plants are locked in by clean air laws – new plants must meet new standards.
Chinese plants are 45% efficient and closing old plants.  We must do likewise.
Most middle East oil goes to Europe and Asia, not US, but we have to keep sea lanes open since oil is a commodity.
Reserves in middle East dwarf reserves in north America (10 years worth)
Graph: 1985, production exceeded discovery for the first time, and now 5x the rate of discovery, expected to worsen greatly.
Peak oil predicted now to 2020, approximately, and used now in official reports.
Now 250 M vehicles in US; China produced 10 M last year, exceeded US production of cars.
1980s stagflation caused by oil shocks of 1970s.
2008 US spent $half trillion for foreign oil.
Gas price at US pumps rising steadily again.
Condi Rice testified oil power is distorting international diplomacy.
National Security:
Tensions: US with North Korea, Iran over nuclear power.
Conflicting claims for offshore oil and gas: China, Taiwan Japan, Koreas and SE Asia.
Military fuel needs.
Jan 2004 NY Times revealed UK government, not only US, considered taking oil fields by force if embargo did not run down.
US has 3 strategic oil reserves.
USAF looking at alternative fuels and improved efficiency, renewables.
USAF has jet that flies on biomass fuel.
Climate change: weather patterns changing in systematic manner consistent with global warming.
Heat trapping gases in atmosphere from fossil fuels – shown from 40 year trends.
Are these variations natural or man made?
Data from 7,000 stations, many remote locations, satellites: testing air, water and ice.
Graph: Land-Ocean Temp index from NASA, Japan, UK: similar patterns.
• 8 degrees lower was ice age, 8 degrees more would produce unknown results.
• Spikes of el Nino years.  Energy stored in water and then released. El Nino off Peru predicts corn crop in Zimbabwe, remarkable.
• Ten year and 25 year trends show constant rise, despite annual fluctuates.
1988 Reagan admin set up IPCC for scientists to analyze climate change data, latest is 2007, massive set of pages and references.
Critics found a mistake: sentence in volume two has incorrect date.
• Sentence was not in part of document that drove policy – and only one of 18,000 sentences.
• Scientists get no salary, volunteer and receive only travel reimbursement.
• Individuals, not representing nations or corporations.
2007 conclusion: most increase "very likely" from anthropogenic.
Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels match worst case scenario of predictions from 2000 report.
• CO2 traps heat like a car windshield.
• Oceans and forests absorb half of what we produce. Half life of carbon is 100 years.
• Mauna Loa observatory shows steady increase of CO2 in atmosphere since 1960.
• 1,000 year data on temp shows steady until 1900, then dramatic increase.
• CO2 concentration over 1,000s of years correlates with estimated temp.  Temp rises before CO2 as earth wobbles in orbit.
• Does not correlate with sun, but delay of decades until heat is released from ocean into air.
Climate change is already causing damage:
• more hot days, more droughts, forest fires,
• coastal erosion, more intensity of hurricanes,
• glaciers melting and retreating compared to old photos,
• sea level rising.
Graph: sea levels gauged and satellite sensed are at worst case of IPCC predictions.
Arctic ice shrinking steadily and freighter sailed across arctic sea for first time recently.  Worse than IPCC’s worst case scenario.
Non-scientists’ estimates:
Insurance industry: destructive weather caused 88% of all property damage. 7 of 10 most expensive catastrophes in US occurred after 2000.
Defense QDR 2010 features climate change.  Concerned about bases affected by sea level, including base in Indian ocean only 2-3’ above sea level.
• Unstable governments expected from environmental impacts, including displacement of many people.
• Energy Efficiency is a force multiplier, reduces vulnerable supply lines.
• DOD is largest energy consumer in US, largest user of fossil fuels in world.
• CAN likewise pointed to fuel as a security risk.
• US has no [surface] vessel that can operate in arctic – not Canadians either, only Russians have icebreaker ships.
• Conclusion:
Conclusions:
Shift away from fossil fuels is coming, for energy, economic and military security.
Actions to address to address climate change coming for reasons of national security and well as to lower the damage in the economy.
Question Time:
Brazilian oil not so surprising because of similarity to western Africa.
2% of world energy from wind now, and Chinese doubling every 5 years.
How do you sell sure economic pain for only “likely” climate change?
• Scientific term “very likely” actually means 90% certain.
• Contrast with buying home fire insurance with one risk in 300 years.
Is nuclear power feasible with alternative isotopes?
• Skeptical with existing isotopes, but government needs to pay 80% in order to restart building.
• Only 2% of development has been with alternative isotopes, so little is known.
Why did Obama open up East and West coast drilling? Will it make much difference?  May have been political step.
Is there a magic bullet for energy?  Perhaps silver buckshot.
• Have to reduce emissions 80% by 2050, at 4% compounded per year.
Hybrid vehicles and energy efficient houses (Germany, 10% of consumption).
Now can measure global heating from greenhouse gases on planets and their moons.
What car and house do you use? Prius hybrid and zero energy house with solar panels on grid.
US household sector alone uses more carbon than any entire country except China.


Top of Page

---

May 4, 2010: Senior Air War College Instructors will report on their recent trips to hot spots around the globe, as part of the AWC's Regional Studies Program.  Moderator: Dr. Mark Conversino
Presenters:
Dr. Mark Conversino: Russia & Ukraine
Dr. Chris Hemmer: Israel & Egypt
Dr. Alexander Lassner: Austria, Hungary, & Czech Republic

Maps index | Asia | Europe | Middle East

Mark Conversino, PhD, Dean of AWC, "Euro-Asian tour of Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic."
• In 2009, Russian invasion of Georgia prevented tour. In 2008, new wealth had already left parts of Moscow like Vegas.
• Russia: Legitimacy of Putin’s regime based on (1) economic growth and (2) security in face of Chechen and North Caucasus.  Both have been challenged lately.
• Crossed border at night from Estonia, to Moscow, Kiev and west.
• (1) 1998 economy bottomed out at under $5,000 at PPP, rose to $16,000 in 2008 – great recovery, but 2009 lost $1,000 in PPP.  Russians realized they had had growth without development, 2/3 based on high prices of oil and gas; and piled up cash -- then ran it down in economic contraction.  Much worse in Russia than in US, beggars reappeared and construction projects were stopped.
• (2) March bombings by Chechen black widows – after Russians had mistakenly declared end of war in Chechnya – and homeland attacks had doubled in a year.  Even state-controlled media questioned administration.  Has raised issue of whether Medvedev would be replaced.  Large and sometimes violent protests across country.
• Ukraine: turning back to East.
• No longer policy to join NATO, remain non-aligned; though still interested in EU.  Russia feeling good about rollback of ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia and Ukraine.
• Russia remains veto wielding member of UN SC, holds oil and gas, has determined and ruthless leadership intent on great power status.
•  But suffers overreliance on raw materials; crumbling infrastructure; declining population (losing over 1M per year).  Average life of a man is 59 yrs.  Abortions common.  Death rate outstrips third world countries.
• East of Urals only 25 M pop; in long term could lose control of territory, with possibly a failed state.
Alex Lassner, “Central Europe, and Europe as a whole”.
• National interests, EU policies and interests, and NATO interests.  Afghan and security vs Russians, missile defense.
• Germany most important economic unit, military resources third in EU.  Supporting Afghan war with third largest contingent, but hindered by historical legacy.  Affects politics whenever German losses or accidental losses of civilians.  Even small tactical activities could result in fall of government.  Germans are finally recognizing they are involved in a war; Germans reliable partner in low intensity combat but might leave in future (like Canadians).  Austrians and Swiss exceptions; others involved in Afghan.
• Polish have no caveats on activities, unusual.  Eastern Europeans have high proportionate commitments to Afghan.  All have brittle governments, and war is deeply unpopular across EU.
• Poland, Czech and Hungary.  Suspicious of Russians, especially since invasion of GA.  Dependent on Russian gas and oil (cut off by Russians 3 times).  Discomforted by German bilateral energy deals with Russia, via North Sea, bypassing Poland.  Developing security policy on energy, if not yet coherent.  Hungary is storing energy to survive 6 month cutoff by Russians.
• Missile defense halted by Obama administration abruptly; not decision but its method agitated them (bilateral talks US/Russia in secret).  Politicians lost face.
• Populations becoming more EU oriented, so next generation of politicians (except Poland) less interested in missile defense.
• PIGS: no longer control own central bank policies, ECB sets damaging interest rates, Greece insolvent, issue of bailout.  Likely to spread to Ireland and Spain, Italy and even Austria.  Beginning of major economic crisis – hence less support for Afghanistan war budgets.  Real threat to European engagement elsewhere.  Firebombs in streets of Greece, will also spread.
• Bodes ill for future US relations with Europe.  Immigration problem, not yet handled by European states.
• Chris Hemmer, “Israel /Palestine.”
• Historical German map shows Israel center of three leaves of Europe, Asia and Africa.
• No peace and no process.  Fights in Gaza, air strike abroad.
• Gaza: removed settlers 2005 and forces.  Palestinian rocket attacks led to bomb shelters in parks of Sderot (illustrated).  Israelis decided to “mow the lawn” with force in Gaza, not solving problem but routine maintenance.  Fence (Israel) or wall (Palestinians) is known by US as “barrier”.  Living without a solution, while containing violence.
• Recent Timeline:
• 2004 Arafat died; 2005 Abbas elected; 2006 Hamas won parliamentary elections; 2007 Palestinian civil war.  June 2007 the power sharing broke down.  US general (pictured) has been training Fatah fighters, in control of West Bank -- whereas Hamas controls Gaza.
• Problem of party majority coalition:
• Israelis Knesset (120 members) needs 61 vote majority.  Likud only has 27 and ruling Kadima party of Netinyahu only has 28 alone, needs 13 Labor votes (require peace process) plus 11 Shas votes (opposed to peace process).
• Problem is not light at end of tunnel; there is no tunnel.  Final settlement plan with two-state solution on 1967 lines, and sharing of Jerusalem is widely agreed – but parties unable to develop tunnel to get there.  Conflict shows no sign of ending.
Question Time:
• European debt issues?
• IMF (and hence US) is involved in EU debt issues.  Greece will have to default, unable to pay back debt.  15-20% loss of income required for paying off debt.  Even small loss causes riots in streets, as seen this week.  11% of GDP debt exceeds 3% limit for EU membership.  Ratings agencies just downgraded Spain and Ireland.
• Political will is an issue: Greeks and Germans are at each other’s throats on this issue.  Greek paper recently stirred up tensions (put swastika on front page image of German monument) – German media recently retaliated (with image of Venus de Milo giving finger to Greeks).
• Russian invasion of Georgia alarmed Baltic states, who still refer to Russian occupation after their guerilla war 1945-52 against Russian troops.  Russians have never come to terms with their brutality; hammer and sickle treated like Swastika in the Baltics.
• Eastern Europeans want US materiel on their soil to help US protect them and do not otherwise view Afghan as vital to their interests.
• Importance of Iran to all three regional tours?
• Iraq (as glue) had held Iran and Israel together – but with removal of Saddam, Israelis then faced Iran.  Post 2003, Israelis warned of Iran and Iran warned of Israelis actions in Palestine.  Iran emphasizes this because they are a Shia and Persian nation in Arab and Sunni middle East.
• Russians realized they had ‘stepped in it’ by supplying lucrative nuclear materials to Iran, which obliged west to negotiate with them.  A Russian colonel described it as suicide to give them weapon that could be transferred to Chechens.  There seemed to be a tacit agreement -- but now changing tone of policy, more cautious on supporting Iran.
• Weakness of Euro currency?
• Euro, thanks to weakness of US economy, has been overvalued for a year, perhaps 30%.  Populations unable to move to jobs because of cultural barriers.  Will have to restructure Euro or remove countries from Eurozone.  Berlusconi argues Italy should not be held hostage to Euro.


Top of Page

---