Iraq SOFA And “Pre-Election Shaping Battles”
I’m sure we have seen all the stuff on the Status of Forces Agreement for US military forces in Iraq, especially Patrick Cokburn’s reports in The Independent.
The National Security Archives has a good collection of documents from the very early phases of the occupation that demonstrate that from the get go the Bush administration has sought unlimited freedom to conduct military operations in Iraq, to have unimpeded passage through Iraq, freedom to pursue “Global War on Terror” objectives such as attacking Iran or Syria and so on.
I highly recommend looking at these docs.
They, and all the current stuff on SOFA, really nail one important pillar in the critique of the invasion; that it’s purpose was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, right at the heart of a large part of the world’s energy resources, with a view to using this presence to safeguard pro-US interests in Iraq and the wider region. Those versed in Realism would see this as perfectly rational, which it is.
Symmetrical Nuclear Weapons PGs
Just a silly little observation. After Nixon's PG on nuclear strategy, NSDM-242, came Carter's PD59. Then we had Reagan NSDD-13. Then we had Clinton PDD-60 and then we had 'dubya's NSPD-14. So we get since Carter
Republican's: NSDD-13 and NSPD-14
Democrat's: PD-59 and PDD-60
You don't have to be a mathematician to appreciate the symmetry.
The Iran Nuclear Weapons Intel
Why the pic of William of Ockham in the context of Iran weaponisation? I’ll come to that later.
Well, it is fortunate that I have left this late for the revelation that the Khan network passed on the design detail for a nuclear warhead of sufficient size and weight for missiles derived from the North Korean Nodong (including the Shahab III) might end up being relevant. Some have expressed fears that the design information may have ended up in the hands of terrorists on grounds that compact weapon designs are most useful from a delivery perspective. The fissile core would have been WgU which is easier to get through customs and the like than Pu. But there are other factors involved in making an assessment on the nuke terror angle which I will leave aside for now.
Chalmers Johnson has spoken of what in the intelligence community they like to call “blowback.” Not explained either by The Washington Post, The New York Times or others such as ISIS is that intelligence agencies have known about the AQ Khan network long before it became an issue. That was just a very small part of successive US administrations, especially when this lot was last in power, turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.
They did this because Pakistan was the channel for funneling aid and so on to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and occupation, which may have been what Zbig Brzezinski called an “Afghan trap.” At the same time that the latest Khan revelations were made public it also became clear that one of the reasons why the insurgency in Afghanistan has intensified is because of the activities of Haqqani, a former CIA favourite.
Twin Opinion Articles On Nuclear Policy
I have two opinion articles published today. We have seen K-Rudd's call for an international commission on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. I have an article on that at Online Opinion and secondly I also have an article, but a longer paper to come, on the negligence doctrine at Eureka Street.
Actually, I have a new theory about the negligence doctrine. I think it is more about plugging a deterrence gap than it is about nuclear terrorism; more on that later.
I gurantee that the next entry will be the Iran weaponisation entry that I have been promising to deliver for a while now.
Another Hint For A Negligence Doctrine? Is Nuke Guidance Now NSPD 57 Or 58?
These are just a couple of questions and out load thoughts I have. Great thing about a blog is that it is good for airing such things.
The September 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism on the deterrence of nuclear terrorism states,
…Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is one of the gravest threats we face. We have taken aggressive efforts to deny terrorists access to WMD-related materials, equipment, and expertise, but we will enhance these activities through an integrated effort at all levels of government and with the private sector and our foreign partners to stay ahead of this dynamic and evolving threat…
It goes on to state,
…With regard to our own efforts, our comprehensive approach for addressing WMD terrorism hinges on six objectives, and we will work across all objectives simultaneously to maximize our ability to eliminate the threat…
One of these six objectives focuses on the deterrence of nuclear terrorism
… The United States and its allies and partners in the War on Terror make no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists…
This leads to a natural corollary
… We will make clear that terrorists and those who aid or sponsor a WMD attack would face the prospect of an overwhelming response to any use of such weapons…
In other words, nuclear deterrence (“overwhelming response”) covers the deliberate leakage of fissile material to terrorist groups. After the North Korean test in 2006 President Bush issued a warning along these lines to Pyongyang and this warning has usually been taken as signaling US intent in the matter.
Clearly, the generic policy preceded its application. This a point overlooked.
Contact.
Categories
Archives
About the Author
Marko is also interested in philosophy, especially the theory of knowledge, and science, especially physics, and considers himself to work within the naturalist and enlightenment tradition. He is writing a book on nuclear terrorism.