Tomgram

A modest proposal

Posted on

A Modest Proposal: Here are the first two paragraphs of this morning’s lead piece on the front page of the New York Times (Philip Shenon, Commission Says U.S. Agencies Slow Its Inquiry):

“The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.

“The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to ‘intimidation’ of the witnesses.”

And a sentence from deep within the piece gives me a chance to hail the return of a Watergate word I haven’t seen in a while: “The criticism today from Governor Kean and Mr. Hamilton clearly took senior administration officials by surprise and brought a fresh round of attacks on the White House from Congressional Democrats who have said that the administration is trying to stonewall a politically damaging inquiry.”

Now, let’s try to put this in perspective. We have a high-level search for evidence of past actions and possible misdeeds by a mandated governmental commission, whose very existence was initially actively opposed by the regime to be investigated, and when the “inspectors” (as we’ll call them) approached the regime in question for information they discovered that key documents in quantity were not being turned over and, despite qualified statements of cooperation, ministries were “stonewalling,” or dragging their bureaucratic feet, or simply not replying. (“Delays are lengthening and agency points of contact have so far been unable to resolve them.”) In addition, when they wanted to interview key scientists (sorry, that was a slip) key officials from the various intelligence agencies and from the Justice Department, these were barred by directive from being interviewed “without the presence of agency colleagues.”

In response to a query on the subject, a Justice Department spokesman commented: “In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation.”

Of course, the Iraqis too were trying to “facilitate the investigation” when they so helpfully provided “representatives” — we called them “minders” — to accompany their scientists and others possibly connected with their weapons of mass destruction program to interviews. But when Saddam Hussein’s regime insisted on the same “standard practice” excuse, the Bush administration kicked up a storm of protest at a procedure so irregular as to be beyond the bounds of civilized behavior, making Iraqi “standard practice,” something close to a cause for war.

“The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to ‘intimidation’ of the witnesses.”

And a sentence from deep within the piece gives me a chance to hail the return of a Watergate word I haven’t seen in a while: “The criticism today from Governor Kean and Mr. Hamilton clearly took senior administration officials by surprise and brought a fresh round of attacks on the White House from Congressional Democrats who have said that the administration is trying to stonewall a politically damaging inquiry.”

Now, let’s try to put this in perspective. We have a high-level search for evidence of past actions and possible misdeeds by a mandated governmental commission, whose very existence was initially actively opposed by the regime to be investigated, and when the “inspectors” (as we’ll call them) approached the regime in question for information they discovered that key documents in quantity were not being turned over and, despite qualified statements of cooperation, ministries were “stonewalling,” or dragging their bureaucratic feet, or simply not replying. (“Delays are lengthening and agency points of contact have so far been unable to resolve them.”) In addition, when they wanted to interview key scientists (sorry, that was a slip) key officials from the various intelligence agencies and from the Justice Department, these were barred by directive from being interviewed “without the presence of agency colleagues.”

In response to a query on the subject, a Justice Department spokesman commented: “In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation.”

Of course, the Iraqis too were trying to “facilitate the investigation” when they so helpfully provided “representatives” — we called them “minders” — to accompany their scientists and others possibly connected with their weapons of mass destruction program to interviews. But when Saddam Hussein’s regime insisted on the same “standard practice” excuse, the Bush administration kicked up a storm of protest at a procedure so irregular as to be beyond the bounds of civilized behavior, making Iraqi “standard practice,” something close to a cause for war.

So here’s my modest proposal, taken from Bush administration suggested plans for how to deal with the Iraqi interview situation in the period before our recent war: Congress should give the 9/11 commission the power to spirit any key intelligence agency or Justice Department official to a foreign country — let’s say Canada, or maybe Costa Rica, two reasonably peaceable lands — where they could then speak freely and free of minders. The commission would also have the power and funds to set those officials up in new lives, possibly with new identities, and to do the same for their families, freeing them to speak without fear of intimidation. After all, if we believed it would work with the Iraqis, why not with American officials?

By the way, in the wake of White House admissions that the Niger uranium story wasn’t exactly a top-flight reason for war, the President at a news conference in South Africa “defended his use of prewar intelligence,” according to a piece in the Washington Post. He claimed himself to be “‘absolutely confident’ in his actions despite the discovery that one claim he made about Hussein’s weapons pursuits was based on false information. ‘There’s no doubt in my mind that when it’s all said and done the facts will show the world the truth,’ he said. ‘There’s going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I’m absolutely confident in the decision I made.'”

In the meantime, back in Washington, his Secretary of Defense was doing a little historical rewriting of his own: “The coalition,” he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit [of weapons of mass destruction]. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light — through the prism of our experience on 9-11.”

Admittedly, an interesting statement in its own right, but then we do have to skip all the “drama” of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Stevenson moment” at the UN in which he distinctly claimed that dramatic new evidence existed. But, as we know, Powell and Rumsfeld aren’t exactly army buddies.

Of course, at this moment, we now also know there are numerous countries in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction including the North Koreans, who, it was reported by South Korean intelligence sources today, were already reprocessing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods for weapons grade material, while their officials spoke with their usual charm of “black clouds of a nuclear war” hanging over the Korean peninsula (North Korea ‘reprocessing nuclear fuel’), and possibly the Iranians, not to speak of the Indians, the Pakistanis and god knows who else. Well, actually, we do know one more “who else,” a country in more advanced, more dangerous pursuit of such weaponry and ways to use it than any other on earth — us, of course.

If you want to grasp exactly how serious this pursuit is, check out the reliable military analyst, William M. Arkin’s, terrifying account that appeared on the last Los Angeles Times Sunday Opinion page. It focuses on our attempts to create communications technology that will allow “us” (not you and me, unfortunately but high officials and “mobile teams”) to withstand a nuclear attack, continue to stay in touch (“Have a nice day!”) or in the official language of nuclear survival, “reliably operate in pre- through post-nuclear environments,” and then have the opportunity to ” rendezvous with submarines and transport new nuclear weapons to surviving units capable of delivering them.” (All’s well that ends well.)

This is simply part of a remarkable range of Bush administration planning on earth as in space to make nuclear arsenals, threatening but useless since August 9, 1945, again usable in war. Much of this planning is connected to the domination of and militarization of space (as I’ve written about numerous times in the past). In the 19th century, European empires enforced their way on the world via what was called “gunboat diplomacy.” In the 21st century, this may become “spaceship diplomacy.” I include as well a recent piece from USA Today that focuses in particular on the administration’s attempts to once again take up underground nuclear testing to help prepare for those arsenals of the future. It also includes some thoroughly mad ideas about destroying enemy biological and chemical weapons stores using nuclear weapons, put forward put no less than Gen. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Preparations for our brave new “high frontier” world are never-ending, even frenetic, it seems. Here, for instance, is a “program description” of one weapons system meant to take out “underground facilities” (UGFs). The Pentagon’s DARPA is sponsoring “developing technologies” like this to “characterize UGFs along the entire kill chain,” a must-have phrase for anyone intent on expanding their vocabularies:

“Underground Facilities (UGFs) are increasingly being employed to protect military and terrorist infrastructure, including command and control and activities associated with weapons of mass destruction. The Counter Underground Facilities (CUGF) program is developing both the scientific foundation and the technologies to maintain U.S. dominance over the proliferating threat posed by these underground structures. This DARPA program is developing technologies to characterize UGFs along the entire kill chain: identification of facility function, determination of UGF pace of activity (indications and warning), and UGF attack assessment. Also being supported is the Tactical Missile – Penetrator (TACM-P) program that will demonstrate integration of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) booster with a Navy reentry vehicle to provide a high-availability, all-weather, survivable and short response time means to destroy hard and deeply-buried targets. U.S. Pacific Command is the operational sponsor.”

And finally, lest you think that this Pentagon lacks foresight and is only planning for war-fighting on and under the earth as well as in outer space, I include the following excerpt from a Newport Daily News piece (Amanda Selvidio, ‘Robo-lobster’ was here) passed on to me along with the DARPA description by an eagle-eyed buddy, Nick Turse:

“The latest naval technology was shared with the public this weekend aboard the Afloat Lab of the Office of Naval Research, docked at the Newport Yachting Center. Technological advancements seen on the tour included a battery-powered model of a tasty dinner treat that sweeps the ocean floor for mines.

“The robot, called the RoboLobster, is modeled after a seven-pound lobster. RoboLobster mimics its namesake crustacean’s movement while hunting for sea mines. A self-detonating bomb could be attached to the robot’s tail to destroy the mines. The robots are battery-powered and also could be used to detect biological weapons.”

Tom

A New Nuclear Age
Planners design technology to withstand the apocalypse
By William M. Arkin
The Los Angeles Times
July 6, 2003

The Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review, approved by President Bush in January 2002, outlined steps the U.S. should take to ensure its future ability to “defeat any aggressor.” Included was a mandate for an “assured, survivable and enduring” communications network, one that would remain functional even after a full-scale nuclear attack.

Defense Department documents recently made available to the Los Angeles Times describe how the government is now moving ahead with a number of new programs toward that end, including a $200-million, eight-year effort to expand and streamline nuclear war planning. Concurrently, the same commercial technologies used in wireless communications and personal computing are being enlisted to achieve a long-standing nuclear war fighter’s dream: systems able to operate even during a protracted nuclear war.

William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion.

To read more Arkin click here

Bush pushes for next generation of nukes
By Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY
July 7, 2003

MERCURY, Nev. – If the Bush administration succeeds in its determined but little-noticed push to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, this sun-baked desert flatland 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas could once again reverberate with the ground-shaking thumps of nuclear explosions that used to be common here.

The nuclear-weapons test areas are now a wasteland that is home mostly to lizards and coyotes. Throughout the Nevada Test Site, the ground is strewn with mangled buildings and pockmarked with craters, the ghostly evidence of the 928 nuclear tests the government conducted here from 1951 to 1992.

A concrete tower designed to hold the bomb for what would have been the 929th test still looms over the desert floor.

To read more Squitieri click here