After some political arguing about who stands to gain what, why ratify a treaty in a lame duck session, the START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), was ratified in the Senate last week.  & now with praise from Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev and movement in the Russian Parliament, it’s likely only a matter of time before the treaty between Russia & the United States is in full effect.

With all the rhetoric being pushed around however, true analysis tends to get lost in the noise…. which is where Stratfor enters; not only asking pertinent questions and attempting to answer them, but in giving the treaty the full historical context it deserves.

First, what is the START Treaty (whole thing here)?

….The original START was signed July 31, 1991, and reductions were completed in 2001. The treaty put a cap on the number of nuclear warheads that could be deployed. In addition to limiting the number of land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, it capped the number of warheads that were available to launch at 6,000…. START I lapsed in 2009, and the new treaty is essentially designed to reinstate it….

What Sratfor notes however, is the difference in geopolitical relationships from START I to New START, mainly that the original treaty began in a very different climate in the 1980′s (article con’t):

…The political relationship that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s is not the same as the relationship that exists today. Starting in the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union were in a state of near-war….

In what was basically a balancing act by the two major global powers at the time, conventional and nuclear weapons, were built and deployed as the United States & Russia tried to gain an advantage (article con’t):

…The differences between them were geopolitically profound. The United States was afraid that the Soviets would seize Western Europe in an attack in order to change the global balance of power. Given that the balance of power ran against the Soviet Union, it was seen as possible that they would try to rectify it by war.

Since the United States had guaranteed Europe’s security with troops and the promise that it would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to block the conquest of Europe, it followed that the Soviet Union would initiate war by attempting to neutralize the American nuclear capability. This would require a surprise attack on the United States with Soviet missiles. It also followed that the United States, in order to protect Europe, might launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet military capability in order to protect the United States and the balance of power….

This process of seeking global influence, resulted in many things, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star-Wars (BMD), a build up in both strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, and basically a stable, but highly tense situation of mutually assured destruction.

Then in 1991, the need for this policy was diminished for both sides with the implosion of the Soviet Union.   Even at that time one could argue the need for such a treaty was minimal, but when the process started during higher tensions in the 1980s, and given the level of fear around the world, going forward with the pact seemed reasonable.

Which brings us forward to today (article con’t): (more…)

Reported by the AP:

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — A leader of Somalia’s Islamist insurgency threatened to attack America during a speech broadcast Monday.

“We tell the American President Barack Obama to embrace Islam before we come to his country,” said Fuad Mohamed “Shongole” Qalaf….

Of course by “Islam”, they mean Sharia Law, a complete affront to freedom, but it’s not worth a whole lot of time trying to worry about the logic of murderous thugs looking only to gain complete dictatorial control by any means necessary.

Just important to note their goals and deal with them appropriately.

Whole thing here.

Short video of Author Brad Thor discussing Wikileaks most recent release of US classified documents where he asks, “Why are we so reluctant to kill people who need killing?”

Wikileaks, that organization which released over 100K US war documents (here), is at it again.  This time, they have released US diplomatic cables (here):

…WikiLeaks released thousands of State Department documents that disclosed candid impressions from diplomats and other world leaders about America’s allies and foes. The memos also unveil occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea….

& now the stories begin – depending upon which story you read, their basic slant, and their ability to search quickly for specific keywords to make their points while ignoring the vast majority of information available, reports vary.  For instance, from Salon we see the US helping Yemen attack AQAP resulting in civilian casualties (here):

…confirms that the Obama Administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, strikes that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians….

From CSMonitor we have reports that Israel is vindicated with its policy towards Iran (here) as the cables contained:

…candid assessments from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that Iran posed the biggest strategic threat to regional stability. The assessments even stressed the need for considering conventional attacks on Tehran before its nuclear program becomes operational….

From Bloomberg, we get news about North Korea selling weapons to Iran (here):

Iran obtained 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, potentially giving the Islamic nation the capability of attacking Moscow and cities in Western Europe, according to embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks.org and provided to the New York Times…

From eWeek, news about China’s cyber-warfare against privay (here):

China’s government was indeed behind the hack on Google’s Gmail system earlier this year according to a cable captured by the controversial Wikileaks organization….

& this is just the beginning.  With the number of documents and their contents, there is likely many more “reports” to come, but most coming this early are little more than attention seeking headlines, as all are without context.

This isn’t to say anything being reported is inaccurate, only to say that no one individual fact can be said to be indicative of any specific trend nor should it be used to shape overall analysis.

Irregardless of what reports are now stating, without question this is another serious blow to the security apparatus of the US by Wikileaks (here):

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, posted online Sunday by WikiLeaks and made available to other media, are sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

The cables, most of them from the past three years, provide an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats….

Realitically, we’re a long way a way from knowing the true impact, assuming it can ever be known.  For instance, not only could frank assessments damage relationships by revealing less than positive views the US has about their allies, but this leak could also work to reduce open discussions in the future.  (more…)

Update:  Yesterday in a DA post, F*$k North Korea, I noted from Stratfor about North Korea’s attacks on a South Korean island that:

…the sustained shelling of a populated island by North Korea would mark a deliberate and noteworthy escalation…

For those unfamiliar with Stratfor, they are a professional intelligence gathering organization and not simply another media outlet for international news.  With that in mind, phrases like “deliberate and noteworthy escalation” are very serious (unlike standard TV media where everything will kill you and everything is horrendously worse than it ever has been).

DA further noted, that while there were open questions, the facts….. are not open:

…A soverign and free nation, was just attacked and had its citizens murdered by a bully,a terrorist sponsor, an illegal weapons supplier, a despotic and opressive human rights abuser, all run run by an idiot who propagandizes others in his divinity….

Now there has been an increase in the level of rhetoric and threat response from the US (here).  Speaking of normal media’s rethoric, the title: Obama sends U.S. warship to Yellow Sea in show of strength as two Koreas teeter on the brink of all-out war is instructive.

Either way the US response has gotten better:

…Mr Obama earlier issued a statement condemning the ‘outrageous’ assault and underlining America’s close ties with Seoul.

…The White House called on North Korea to end ‘its belligerent action.’…

And:

…President Obama has ordered a U.S. warship to Korea in a shetow of strength to prevent an escalation of one of the most serious confrontations in the region for decades….

I say gotten better, because we should stand by our allies and in cases like these, even stand with countries who aren’t necessarily strong allies if they are a free people being attacked by a despotic country.

The open question however is: Will this matter?

As North Korea is just bully and a coward, there’s reason to think this isn’t the end.  Stratfor noted in an update on the situation today, that North Korea does indeed (more…)

Early yesterday afternoon (local time in South Korea), North Korea began shelling a South Korean controlled island with artillery (from Stratfor here):

…Though details are still sketchy, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yeonpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area and raising the military alert to its highest level….

What’s interesting to note, is that North Korea has murdered South Koreans before, such as the recent sinking of the ChonAn, but as Stratfor puts it (emphasis added):

…While the South Korean reprisals — both artillery fire in response by self-propelled K-9 artillery and the scrambling of aircraft — thus far appear perfectly consistent with South Korean standard operating procedures, the sustained shelling of a populated island by North Korea would mark a deliberate and noteworthy escalation…

(more…)

FAILURE When your best just isn't good enough.

It’s not a complete measure of how effective terrorists are as a whole, but when they start taking credit for massive failures, it’s something to note (here):

A Yemen-based al Qaeda group is claiming responsibility for the international mail bomb plot uncovered late last week….

& in this case, not only are they taking credit for failures, but Al Qaeda has even taken credit for a bombing they didn’t do (here):

WASHINGTON: Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen was not behind the Sept. 3 crash of a UPS cargo plane in Dubai and falsely took responsibility for the incident, according to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security….

& to add insult to injury, one of their own provided the intelligence needed to prevent the plot (here):

Yemen has revealed that a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who fled to the country from Saudi Arabia after his release by the US tipped off authorities about the plot to send bombs on cargo planes….

Of course it’s hard to take credit for successes when none exist, but it’s interesting to note that their power has been reduced to such an extent, that failures are the only things for which credit can be taken.

& for some, looking at a terrorist group as you would any other political organization, might be unseemly,  but it is instructive nonetheless.  Recall just 9 short years ago, how everyone was certain we would be hit again. How we were warned about continuing policies.  How we were being pulled into quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq just like they wanted.

& now – admission of failures and fake admissions of success.  How time changes things.

Disclaimer:  None of this is intended to signal that I think vigilance isn’t necessary for our security successes to continue.

There’s an interesting research paper on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by the Journal of Judgement and Decision Making (whole thing here):

The paper extends research on fixed-pie perceptions by suggesting that disputants may prefer proposals that are perceived to be equally attractive to both parties (i.e., balanced) rather than one-sided, because balanced agreements are seen as more likely to be successfully implemented. We test our predictions using data on Israeli support for the Geneva Accords, an agreement for a two state solution negotiated by unofficial delegations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2003. The results demonstrate that Israelis are more likely to support agreements that are seen favorably by other Israelis, but — contrary to fixed-pie predictions — Israeli support for the accords does not diminish simply because a majority of Palestinians favors (rather than opposes) the accords. We show that implementation concerns create a demand among Israelis for balance in the degree to which each side favors (or opposes) the agreement. The effect of balance is noteworthy in that it creates considerable support for proposals even when a majority of Israelis and Palestinians OPPOSE the deal.

Or restated, it seems our sense of justice prefers balanced deals over seemingly one-sided deals, even if the balanced deal is opposed by the majorities of both interest groups.  Seems intuitive.