FEDERAL BUDGET WATCH

The First Defense Budget for the 21st Century
28 October 2009 | National Security Network

This afternoon, President Obama signs into law the first Defense Budget that matches the threats and security imperatives of the 21st century. As Secretary of Defense Gates has said, the military needs to fight today's battles, not yesterday's. And as President Obama will say today, "wasting these dollars makes us less secure.” By cutting billions of dollars from unnecessary and wasteful programs that either fight the wars of the past or are pointless for the soldiers of today, the President’s first Defense Budget turns the page on a Cold War mentality that doesn’t match the national security priorities of the 21st century. Today, President Obama follows through on his campaign promise to reform the Pentagon and cut waste with a Defense budget that enhances the ability of the men and women of America’s armed forces to fight the wars we in which we are currently engaged.

More Poetry, Please
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN | New York Times | October 31, 2009

I believe that without a strong America — which, at its best, can deliver more goods and goodness to its own citizens and to the world than any other nation — our kids and many others around the world will not have those opportunities.

I am convinced that this kind of nation-building at home is exactly what Mr. Obama is trying to deliver, and should be his unifying call: We need universal health care because it would strengthen our social fabric and enable our businesses to better compete globally. We need to upgrade our schools because no child in 21st-century America should be left behind and because we cannot compete for the best new jobs without doing so. We need a greener economy, not just to mitigate climate change, but because a world growing from 6.7 billion people to 9.2 billion by 2050 is going to demand more and more clean energy and water, and the country that develops the most clean technologies is going to have the most energy security, national security, economic security, innovative companies and global respect.

But to deliver this agenda requires a motivated public and a spirit of shared sacrifice. That’s where narrative becomes vital. People have to have a gut feel for why this nation-building project, with all its varied strands, is so important — why it’s worth the sacrifice.

NUCLEAR NOTES

179 Organizations Press Obama on the Need for a Transformational Nuclear Posture Review
Campaign for a nuclear weapons free world
Oct19 | Letter here

As President Obama prepares his Nuclear Posture Review, pressure to water down his vision of American leadership to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons builds within his administration. 179 national, regional, and local organizations [including WAND and WiLL] from across the country have responded with a letter to the president asking him to continue his leadership on nuclear weapons issues. The letter outlines how the Nuclear Posture Review can best achieve the vision the president laid out in his speech in Prague and subsequent speech before the United Nations in September.

This Time, Ban the Test
By JESSICA MATHEWS | New York Times | October 21, 2009

The positive reason to ratify [the CTBT] is that giving up nuclear tests enhances security.

Since 1999, we have learned that a nonproliferation system designed against threats from states must be rebuilt to eliminate loopholes and to contain new threats from commercial groups and from terrorists.

Iraq, Iran and North Korea exploited a critical vagueness in the NPT that must be fixed. In 2003, the news broke that a multinational, commercial network was selling bomb technology. On 9/11 Americans awoke to the terrorist threat, and we have since learned of some terrorists’ nuclear ambitions.

But 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the non-nuclear states feel that the weapons states haven’t upheld their end of the NPT bargain: to move toward disarmament. They are, therefore, unwilling to discuss necessary new restrictions until they see movement. Ratifying the test ban is a necessary first step.

So the second Senate debate on the test ban treaty pits an old way of thinking about nuclear war against today’s totally different threat.

Countering proliferation requires military strength, which we have in abundance, and a willingness to connect the dots to political and diplomatic initiatives to which we have grown unaccustomed.

Salon Luncheon with Former Secretary of State George Shultz
Robert Kagan, George Shultz Monday, October 26, 2009 | Carnegie Endowment

Sam Nunn has a nice image. He says, think of us on the side of a mountain. At the top of the mountain is a world free of nuclear weapons; we can’t see it from where we are but we know it’s there. The bottom of the mountain is a world where more and more countries have nuclear weapons; where more and more fissile materials lying around; where it’s only a matter of time before some people who don’t believe in deterrence – they want to use it – get their hands on fissile material. And if you have that, as I understand it, it’s getting the fissile material that’s the critical path in making a bomb; not that it’s easy, otherwise. So which direction do you want to go?

And I think the START treaty, from what I’ve heard of people – we had a nice session – Rose Gottemoeller came out to Hoover and gave us a briefing recently. She’s a really capable person, I might say. She’s taken part in our conferences. So I think there’s a reasonable prospect that we’ll get something.

Comprehensive test ban treaty is also important. The experience I’ve had in getting treaties ratified teaches me that you have to go about this with great care. The minute you take a senator for granted, you’ve lost that senator. Each senator is a big important person; you’ve got to go one by one; explain; answer every question.

Nuclear treaty
November 1, 2009 | The Spectrum

It's time to put the same principles that proved effective in stopping Divine Strake to pushing for the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Why? We already have a nuclear arsenal that far outweighs any other on the globe. There have been proposals to reconfigure the existing weaponry into newer, "smarter" nukes that have, thankfully, been defeated. The fact is, if this nation was ever to begin launching nukes, there are more than enough to get the job done, even if some are not quite as powerful as others.

Secondly, we are much smarter these days about the effects of the fallout that spread throughout the continental United States, Canada and even Europe during the Cold War testing. We know the numbers of dead, dying and severely diseased who, through no fault of their own, became victims of atomic fallout.

We also know that we can set an example through ratification of the treaty that would lead others to do likewise.

We helped write the treaty. We signed it. Now it's time to do the right thing and ratify it.

A New Nuclear Battle Plan
By Gen. Eugene Habiger, USAF, (Ret.) | October 28, 2009

President Obama took some bold steps when he spoke at the United Nations last month. Like every president since Truman, he understands the consequences of miscalculation and complacency in the nuclear age. He warned, “If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.”

I could not agree with him more. For most of my military career, I worked in the nuclear weapons arena, first as a crew member on a B-52 bomber as bomb squadron commander, then as a commander of two nuclear bomb wings; the Inspector General of the Strategic US Air Command and finally the Strategic Command. As commander-in-chief of STRATCOM, I was responsible for all U.S. nuclear forces supporting our nation’s security through strategic deterrence, and was the president’s top military advisor on these issues.

I know from my unique experience that in order to keep our military strong and our country safe, we need to rethink the role nuclear weapons play in our national security and defense strategies in the radically different post-Cold War environment of the 21st century.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about keeping the American people safe, and it is long overdue.

Russia, U.S. Seen Signing New Treaty Before START Expires
Monday, Nov. 2, 2009 | Global Security Newswire

Russia and the United States appear likely to ink a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty before the 1991 pact lapses on Dec. 5, an adviser to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Saturday.

Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed in July to cut their nations' respective deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads under the new agreement, down from the 2,200-warhead limit the states are required to meet by 2012. The leaders also pledged to restrict strategic delivery vehicles on each side to between 500 and 1,100.

IRAQ -- and now! Afghanistan as well!

From Iraq, Lessons for the Next War
By ALISSA J. RUBIN | New York Times | October 31, 2009

Americans wanted to believe that their version of democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq — a peaceful multiethnic, multireligious society adhering to the rule of law. That longing to find in another country a mirror of ourselves trumped cold analysis and led to years of denial that came to an end only when the mutilated bodies at the Baghdad morgue mounted each day: to 30, 40 and finally 75 to 100. Shiites murdered by Sunnis; Sunnis murdered by Shiites.

NEWS FROM WiLL

LOOKING FOR JOBS?