American Security Quarterly - April 2012

8/2/2019 American Security Quarterly - April 2012

1/44

quart

erly

www.AmericanSecurityProject.org 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 710W Washington, DC

Aa S QalVs, Sag, Dalg

Al 2012

Gary Hart: REHINK OUR RUSSIANRELAIONSHIP

Andrew Holland:

AMERICAS CHANGING ENERGY CHOICESPeter Choharis: FIVE BIG MYHS ABOU

HE EUROPEAN DEB CRISIS

Matthew Wallin: WHY HE SAE DEPARMENS

WIER DIPLOMACY ISN HA IMPRESSIVE

Bryan Gold: SUPPOR FROM HE MILIARY FOR

DIPLOMACY WIH IRAN

andKelvin Lum: Te Intervention DilemmaHarper Dorsk: Operation Green Strike: the Promise o Bio Fuels


2/44

2

AmericAn Security project

introDuction

Our second edition o the American Security Quarterly contains a plethora o original work by our boarmembers, sta, and adjunct ellows. ASP is staying abreast o the issues and is now being routinely quoted all media orms. What ollows is a compilation o our written eorts over the last quarter.

Although this issue appears voluminous, I encourage you to scan the index to get a good eel or what we coveWe are thrilled to have Senator Gary Hart address our countrys relationship with Russia as he states, matters less how Barack Obamagets along with Putinand much more on whether we can identiy and pursuover several successive American administrations, those real and important permanent and mutual interests.

Andrew Holland has a summary o his Americas Changing Energy Choices White Paper. Widely read andistributed, it is a perect primer on energy alternatives. Adjunct Fellow Peter Choharis tackles the EuropeDebt Crisis, and to wet your appetite, he dispels the myth that the Germans are more scally responsible. Als

ASP Analyst Matthew Wallin takes on the State Departments twitter diplomacy. Interested in AghanistaSyria, or Iran? ASP Fellow Josh Foust has a pieces on each.

I hope you enjoy this issue I truly believe it will make you more educated about the issues that we believe aimportant to our national security.

BG Sh A. ch uSmc (r.)

CEO American Security Project

CONENS

NAIONAL SECURIY SRAEGY

A long-term strategy or US National Security Page 6Stephen A. Cheney and Joshua Foust

Rethink our Russian relationship Page 7

Senator Gary Hart

Syria and the Worlds roubling Inconsistency on Intervention Page 8

Joshua Foust

New Obama Strategy Looks Misguided, Predictable, Underwhelming Page 9

August Cole

No options let in Syria Page 10

Joshua Foust


3/44

3

Te Strator Files: Much ado about nothing Page 12

Joshua Foust

Fighting Pirates With Paper:

How the Law o the Sea Is Important in the Fight Against Piracy Page 13

Harper Dorsk

Why the State Departments witter Diplomacy isnt that Impressive Page 14

Matthew Wallin

Potential Issues in Arming the Syrian Rebels Page 15

Kelvin Lum

Te Dollars and Dimes o Hearts and Minds Page 15

Matthew Wallin

CLIMAE AND ENERGY SECURIY Americas changing energy choices Page17

Andrew Holland

An All o the Above Solution: idal Power Page 18

Harper Dorsk

Irans threat to Global Oil Prices Page 18

Andrew Holland

Blue Ribbon Commission: Disposing o our Nuclear Waste Page 19

Andrew Holland

Is the U.S. on rack to Join OPEC? Page 20

Andrew Holland

Could Unlimited Clean Power Have Problems? Page 21

Andrew Holland

An All o the Above Solution: Establishing a Market Basis Page 22

Harper Dorsk


4/44

4


Gas Prices are Rising Lets not Do Anything Stupid Page 22

Andrew Holland

More Treats in the Straits o Hormuz Page 23

Andrew Holland

Colombias Climate Security Risk Page 24

Andrew Holland

Operation Green Strike: the Promise o Biouels Page 24

Harper Dorsk

AMERICAN COMPEIIVENESSFive Big Myths About the European Debt Crisis Page 25

Peter Choharis

A ough Budget or Fusion Page 28

Andrew Holland

Its ime or the U.S. to Finally Make Economic Peace with Russia Page 28

Joshua Foust

What America Can Learn From Detroit Page 30Andrew Holland

ASYMMERIC OPERAIONSTe Political Consequences o a Drones - First Policy Page 31

Joshua Foust

Speeding up the withdrawal: Is it more than bluster? Page 32

Kelvin Lum

Te Intervention Dilemma Page 33

Kelvin Lum


5/44

5

Mass slaughter shocking but not surprising Page 34

Joshua Foust

Is it fnally time to leave Aghanistan? Page 35

Joshua Foust

NUCLEAR SECURIYime to ratiy nuclear test ban treaty Page 37

Stephen A. Cheney

Why the US should ignore Iran or now Page 38

Joshua Foust

Four Reasons why the United States Should Not Atack Iran: Part 1 Page 39

Bryan Gold

Support rom the Military or Diplomacy with Iran Page 40

Bryan Gold

Gen. Dempsey is right about Iran Page 41

Joshua Foust and Bryan Gold

Four Reasons why the United States Should Not Attack Iran: Part II Page 42

Bryan Gold

Further Reading Page 43


6/44

6


NAIONAL SECURIY

SRAEGY

A long-term strategy or US NationalSecurity

Stephen A. Cheney and Joshua Foust

Te Hill

January 5, 2012

he new U.S. Deense Strategy, personally re-leased this morning by President Obama,marks a dramatic change or deense policy.

Previous national security strategies have been de-ned, to a large degree, by the need to ght two ma-

jor wars simultaneously. Te new strategy, which alsocuts ground orces to reorient the military on an air-sea battle in the Pacic, removes that old two-war re-quirement. What does this mean?

Te old clich that the military is always ghting thelast war is truer than ever: the Obama administra-tion thinks the limited intervention in Libya was aresounding success (even i the ate o Libya remainsvery much in doubt), and wants to replicate othersuccesses with a sea-based airpower conict. Te mostobvious target or this goal is China, and in the newdeense strategy there is a lot o language detailing thethreat o a competition in the Pacic Ocean.

It all sounds very retro: a return Great Power con-ict, ocusing on large naval conicts, big geopoliti-cal questions, reducing the ground orces to ocuson high-technology precision conicts. In Augusto 2001, then-Secretary o Deense Donald Rums-

eld made a similar call, reducing the ground orcand ocusing on high-tech Great Power conicts. month later, the September 11 attacks happened, analtered those plans or a smaller orce.

In his remarks, President Obama makes a very cogepoint, that strategy must drive budgetary decisionBut, he reerences strategy without actually deninit (and reerences the budget crisis as a driver or thstrategic review).

Te U.S. military establishment seems desperate a return to high-technology conicts, where it hascrushing advantage. For the last 20 years, a successioo Presidents have rejected nation-building, stabilioperations, and interventions in small, weak stateonly to have their oreign policies largely dened bthem. Despite cuts to the ground orces in the 1990the U.S. military spent most o the decade sendin

its ground orces on interventions in weak or rogustates.

President Obama, however, wants to reorient thmilitary to ocus on the Asia-Pacic region.. It judoesnt match with the current and likely uture gepolitical reality. What is Americas place in the worgoing to be? How will we orient ourselves to it?

Since the end o the Cold War, Pentagon plannehave been desperate or another peer competitor orient the military around. And or almost as lon

China has seemed the perect competitor a larcountry, with a large, modernizing military, and a bocean in which to ght it. But the prospect o a majconict with China is remote, and assuming one is ievitable poses the danger o becoming a sel-ulllinprophesy.

What should be in the new National Deense Straegy is a denition o Americas place in the world, ileaders vision or how to achieve and maintain thplace, and a concrete plan or how the military will boriented and structured to get it there. In some caselike President Obamas vision or renewing Americaeconomic vitality, the military might not be the bevehicle to achieve that. And in others, such as thneed to secure access to contested areas like the Strao Hormuz, there will be a strong role or the militato play in ensuring American security.

Te current reorientation, however, seems arbitra


7/44

7

and short-sighted. No one denies that the Asia-Pa-cic region is important to American interests, butso are a lot o other regions in the world. Te MiddleEast remains vital to global energy security; Latin andSouth America are vital to our economic growth. As-suming a strong military presence is necessary to se-cure American interests is typical in deense planningcircles, but it, too, doesnt always match the reality ohow the world is unctioning.

We can all welcome a reduction in the growth o thedeense budget, as President Obama advocates. But

without being smart, and thinking in the long term,we risk repeating the same mistakes in orce reduc-tions and budget cuts that we did in the early 1990s,and the early 2000s. We should have a longer viewthan just the next ew years, or what might seem eas-ier, i were to secure Americas uture.

Rethink our Russian relationship

Senator Gary Hart (D- Colo.)

Te Hill

January 17, 2012

As an American with more than average inter-est and experience in Russia, it is a mystery to

me why, unlike virtually every other countryon earth, U.S. policy has tended to be so dependenton the personal relationship between the respectiveleaders.

Tis was especially true o Presidents Clinton, withthe late Boris Yeltsin, and George W. Bush, withthen-President Vladimir Putin (I looked the man inthe eye.). Tis mystery o Russian relations is nottotally conned to U.S. leaders: Remember PrimeMinister Margaret Tatchers amous report to Presi-dent George H.W. Bush on Mikhail Gorbachev asa man we can do business with. A humorist mightcall it the vodka syndrome, except Clinton was neverknown as a drinker and, o course, the second Presi-dent Bush had sworn o alcohol.

Tis is a cause or reection, when the question israised as to how the United States might go about

organizing its Russian relationship i Vladimir Putinwere to be driven to the sidelines by an emerging,though putative, Russian Spring. Recent weeks have

witnessed virtually unprecedented (or Russia) massrallies in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities o

what journalists have described as emerging middle-class Russians.

Tose o us who have a history o requenting Rus-sia and keeping in touch with developments there areincreasingly asked about what this means, whether it

will continue or go away, and who is behind it. Noneo these questions is authoritatively answerable, atleast or the time being. Like much o the uprisingso 2011 in the Middle East and North Arica, theRussian movement includes a number o actions andproles. ogether with middle-class protesters whoseem, at least or now, not to have a cohesive ideology,there are Russian nationalist and aging communists,

disgruntled pensioners and groups ying the bannerso disparate causes.

At a distance they seem united, or now, by an at-titude toward Putin that ranges rom mild distrust tooutright antipathy, even hatred. And again, like the

Arab Spring, no single leader or small coterie o lead-ers has emerged to champion the uprising and give itdirection. You cant beat something with nothing, asthe old saying goes. And the Arab Spring has given

way to action ghting, sectarian struggles, and citi-zen- versus-security-orces clashes. o be charitable,

the hard work o democracy has begun and with-out a Jeerson, Madison or Hamilton among them.

Tose Russophiles among us, driven much less bydreamy nostalgia or olstoy and chaikovsky thanby the certain realization that the United States andRussia have many more interests in common than wehave dierences, choose to believe that the incipientmovement toward democracy embraces demands ormultiple party elections; media reedom includingprotection rom violence o reporters who uncovercorruption; transparency in government operations;an end to cronyism; an independent and honest ju-dicial system; and many o the other basic qualitiesand institutions normally characterizing democraticsocieties.

Even during the worst Cold War days, and certainlyduring the Gorbachev era o glasnost and perestroika,


8/44

8


everyday Russians would tell Westerners: We simplywant an ordinary lie; we want to live like everyoneelse. Tat could be this movements anthem.

But i the Russophobes among us could let up or atime (and there are more o those in oreign policy cir-cles than we would like to imagine), we might have achance to institute a ar-reaching bilateral policy em-phasizing our mutual interests, minimizing our di-erences and seeking Russian support where it wouldbe welcome and meaningul. Tat includes dealing

with Iran and its nuclear potential; quarantiningNorth Korea; managing the ve Muslim republics onRussias southern border; isolating and crushing ter-rorism; countering prolieration o weapons o massdestruction; stabilizing world energy distribution sys-tems; and a host o similarly important problems.

Tis agenda, including lending moral support or

the nominally democratic movement in the Russianstreets, should operate regardless o whether VladimirPutin is reelected Russias president. Great powers, ithas been said even beore the arch-realist Henry Kiss-inger came along, do not have permanent riendships they have permanent interests. In the great schemeo things, it matters less how Barack Obama (or orthat matter, even Newt Gingrich) gets along withPutin or his successor and much more on whether

we can identiy and pursue, over several successiveAmerican administrations, those real and importantpermanent and mutual interests.

It is maniestly in the interest o the United States todo so. Years rom now it will nally come to our un-derstanding that our relationship with Russia is one oour most important.

Hart is president o Hart International, Ltd. and chair-man o the American Security Project. He served in theU.S. Senate rom 1975 until 1987.

Syria and the Worlds roublingInconsistency on Intervention

Joshua Foust

Te Atlantic

March 2, 2012

wice as many civilians die in Mexicos conia reminder that we still havent establishedstandard or who merits outside assistance an

when.

On Wednesday morning, the Syrian army announcits intention to clean the rebel-held city o Homspecically the Baba Amr neighborhood. Te sterilio the language to describe a massive oensive th

will surely kill scores i not hundreds o civilians

reminiscent o another dry term or mass slaughteethnic cleansing.

Te UN recently estimated that more than 7,500 cvilians have been killed in the last 11 months o blooshed in Syria, and is continuing at well over 100 pday. It is a stark, shattering number that has promptrenewed cries or the international community to dsomething -- anything -- to end the bloodshed.

Tere are several reasons why a direct military intevention would be a terrible idea: start with the o

position by Russia and China (which would maintervening a rejection o UN legitimacy) and enwith the challenges o directly arming the Free SyriArmy rebel group. But theres a bigger question to athe chorus o demands that the West do something

why Syria? Why now?

Asking why Syria is not an excuse or the Assad rgime, whose conduct the last 11 months has been iexcusable and unjustiable. Its conduct is not so rarhowever, at least in comparison to other governmenattempting to quash rebellion. Compared to other rbellions, insurgencies, and plain old chaotic enviroments, Syria is unusual in sparking weeks o angUN speeches and media hand-wringing. So why doSyria deserve such attention?

About twice as many civilians were killed in organizedrug violence last year in Mexico -- 16,000 accordinto some estimates -- as in Syria. While the violence


9/44

9

Mexico has become a political ootball in U.S. circles,the extremeness o it, with more than 47,000 deadsince 2006, has not sparked the same internationalpanic as Syrias terrible but substantially lower levelso violence.

Tere are lots o places that either are or were ar moreviolent than Syria. Te current crisis in Sudan andSouth Sudan is appalling and widespread, yet apartrom a tiny Chinese peacekeeping orce there is littletransnational eort to mobilize the world to stop it.

Te International Rescue Committee, in 2008, re-leased a study that ound that 45,000 Congolese ci-vilians were dying each month in a conict that killedan estimated 5.4 million people between 1998 andthe reports release. Most o the deaths were rom dis-ease and hunger, according to the report, althoughanother reason or the high death toll was ghting

in the DRCs eastern region, near Rwanda. Despitethe 5,000 or so UN peacekeepers, the country is stillunstable.

According to the South Asia errorism Portal, morethan 11,000 Sri Lankan civilians died in 2009 dur-ing the nal phase o the civil war between the Sin-halese government and amil iger rebel movement.Nearly 7,000 civilians -- almost as many as have diedin an entire year o ghting in Syria -- were killed ina single month. While there is international pressureto indict members o the Sri Lankan government or

war crimes, the worlds reaction at the time never o-cused on a direct intervention the way it does nowwith Syria.

Keeping Syria in the context o other civil conictsdoes not excuse or justiy the bloodshed. But it shouldlead us to ask why some people who advocate an in-tervention now in Syria did not do so with those priorconicts. Tat doesnt mean they must necessarily be

wrong, o course, but it does provide an opportunityor understanding the justications and motivationsor intervention.

It makes a certain kind o sense that intervention isa more attractive option or conicts, such as Lib-yas, where intervention seems easier, less costly, andmore likely to work. However, its worth noting thatthis creates a perverse incentive or abusive regimes,

which will understand that they can raise the costso intervention sufciently high to make interventionunpalatable or the West.

One lesson uture tyrants will likely draw rom Lib-ya, or example, is that giving up a nuclear weaponsprogram removes a major deterrent or intervention.So, too, is Syria teaching tyrants that a sufcientlylarge army, coupled with close relationships with UNSecurity Council members Russia and China, maymake direct intervention distasteul or Western poli-cymakers.

Some o the worlds worst conicts with the highestnumbers o civilian dead go receive ar less attentionin the global media and Western capitals than doesSyria. Tats not an argument or ignoring Syria as

well, o course, nor is it an argument or interveningin every conict. But the discrepancy should lead usto ask why Syria gets so much more attention than,or example, Sri Lanka, and whether our metrics toevaluate who deserves an intervention are really airor objective. Establishing standards matters, and

when it comes to the relatively new idea o a respon-sibility to protect, were still guring that out.

New Obama Strategy Looks Misguided,Predictable, Underwhelming

August Cole

AOL Deense

January 4th, 2012

Elections, as President Barack Obama knows, area time o big ideas.

So it would seem tting that Deense SecretaryLeon Panetta will roll out a new Pentagon nationaldeense strategy just a ew days into a make-or-breakelection year or the White House. [Panetta is ex-pected to ormally unveil the new strategy tomorrowand President Obama should be introducing the newstrategy at the Pentagon.]

With U.S. orces out o Iraq and Osama bin Ladendead, the country is primed or the sort o transor-mational thinking about government that PresidentObama used as part o his pitch to get elected in2008.

Unortunately, Panetta is poised to oer up anothermissed opportunity or the Obama administration to


10/44

10


do something grand, and necessary, something whichcould improve the countrys standing or decades tocome.

A basic tenet o good deense policy is that strategyshould drive the sort o armed orces the country re-quires.

A strategy document should not be a bureaucraticapology note.

Tis one looks ready to justiy the political pain ohundreds o billions o dollars in unpopular deensespending cuts that are already in the works.

So ar, the Obama administrations repositioning oU.S. grand strategy post-Iraq is predictable and un-derwhelming.

ake China, or example. Playing up threats in thePacic when power plays in the Persian Gul remainan acute concern is misguided. rying to square othe Pentagon against China requires just the kind omilitary the White House says the country no longercan aord. Another U.S. aircrat carrier wont keepChinese cyber spies out o sensitive government andcorporate networks.

Indeed, depriving the military, and deense contrac-tors, carries great political risk. Deense isnt the sig-nature political issue right now in this presidential

election; its the economy particularly what manyAmericans now nd to be a spirit-crushing labor mar-ket. Cuts equate to job loss in and out o government.Certainly not as many pink slips are in the ofng asdeense industry trade groups claim, but it is hardto imagine voters turning out to support a president

who cost them their livelihood.

Tats no excuse to ob o a undamental reexamina-tion o how the U.S. denes national security until2013 or later. Te country will be worse o with an-other consensus showdown over appropriations bud-get lines. It is time or a deense strategy inormedby unconventional metrics such as successul conictprevention overseas or the risks posed by our owncountrys ailed education system. Tis is the momentor a strategy that acknowledges the militarys currentdominance o American oreign policy, and cedesroom to the governments civilian arms.

Tis is a very uncomortable dialogue to begin withthe deense community, but it is the right thread ollow.

President Obama, as Commander in Chie, shouldeheavy responsibilities. Giving wing to transormatioal ideas is one o them. He o all people should knothat whoever creates a compelling narrative abothe interconnection o politically disparate elemensuch as education and oreign aid and sea power, wlead the deense debate in a time o austerity.

It is possible to spend less, as a country, and be stroger. In these times, that is perhaps the biggest idea all.

August Cole is a ellow at the American Security Proect, where he ocuses on deense industry issues. Tormer Wall Street Journal deense reporter is based

the Boston area.

No options let in Syria

Joshua Foust

PBS Need to Know

February 7, 2012

he reports coming out o Syria are heartbreaing. From cities like Homs, the news medhas been broadcasting a steady stream o im

ages (many too graphic to show without selectiredaction) eaturing injured children, rocket attacon residential neighborhoods, and thousands o braSyrians acing down machine guns and tanks to dmand an end to the Assad regime. Its a dramatic andistressing story.

Yet, this weekend a U.N. Security Council drat reslution that condemned the crackdown on protesteand demanded Bashar al Assad step down rom pow

was vetoed by two o the Councils permanent members: Russia and China. Te veto drew sharp codemnation rom western diplomats, with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice calling the decisiodisgusting. Now, with ew options let to acilitaa cessation o violence, western diplomats are scram


11/44

11

bling to cobble together some sort o vote in U.N.General Assembly that supports the use o sanctions.

Despite the post-veto panic on the part o the US,Russia and Chinas resolution vetoes were hardlysurprising. Both Russia and China were cool, i notopenly hostile, toward the intervention in Libya.For starters, theres the clear hypocrisy on the parto the U.S. supporting Bahrains violent and abusivecrackdown on protesters while condemning those inLibya and Syria. And then there was NAOs bla-tant disregard o the guidelines and constraints laidout in the UNSC resolution 1973 (2011) that legit-imized the Libyan intervention: Alliance countriesexpanded the mandate rom protecting civilians toarming rebels to overthrow Gadda in very shortorder. Tat France, Britain, and Qatar used Gad-das all to divvy up Russias commercial interestsin Libya is just urther proo that the Western in-

tervention was motivated less by a concern or civil-ians than advancing their own interests at Moscowsexpense.

So when it came time to bring the Syria crisis beorethe U.N., the U.S., France, and the U.K. alreadyhad credibility problem: Tey had expended theirgood will (Russia, or example, abstained rom vot-ing on the Libyan intervention), and both Russiaand China had no reason to believe the west wouldabide by the terms o the new resolution.

Far rom a miscarriage o justice, the Syria veto is astark reminder that unprincipled decisions about astrategic backwater awul as Gaddas crackdownon the rebels could have been, Libya is not central toU.S. national interests have resulted in the loss oleverage with Russia and China regarding a Syrianintervention. Both countries had already sueredlosses to their respective national interests rom theLibyan campaign not catastrophic but worryingnonetheless so its not surprising that they dugin their heels over Syria, where the stakes are muchhigher.

Now, Russian envoy Sergei Lavrov is in Damascus tooer public support to the Assad regime, making itless likely that there will be proper U.N. consensusto stop the killing. Again, this should be no surprise:Syria is a major Russian ally, the only real Russianally in the Middle East. Its positioned strategically

between Iran, Israel, urkey, and the Mediterranean.As Dmitri renin bluntly puts it: Where much othe Western world now sees a case or human rightsand democracy, and where the Soviets in their day

would have spotted national liberation movementsor the rise o the masses, most observers in Moscowtoday see geopolitics.

Te U.S. and its allies have ignored the geopoliticso Syria and o intervention more broadly. Its ocourse possible that Russia could have never beenbrought around to accepting action in Syria; China,however, very likely could have been i the Westhadnt behaved so irresponsibly in its rush to deposeGadda. And now that the west the U.S. in par-ticular has nothing let to bargain with, Russia canact with impunity.

At this point, the best option let is to cut some sort

o deal with the devil, as Nicholas Noe puts it. Inthis Faustian pact, the west would renounce the goalo regime change implicit to the UNSC resolutionand instead work toward deescalating the conict an imperect solution that may now have a slimchance o success, given how high tensions are run-ning in the protesters camp (many o whom alsohold grievances against the Assad regime or injuredor dead relatives).

Sadly, the rush to save Libya last year means thatthere are ar ewer options or the international

community to eectively deal with Syria. Politicalcapital is nite, and President Obama spent his onLibya ar too quickly or a low-stakes crisis. Now,

when a crisis threatens to create a civil war that spillsover into urkey, Israel, or even Iran, powers that

were previously brushed aside and boxed out arenow drawing a line in the sand.

For the U.S., there are ew options let. What hap-pens next is anyones guess, but we already knowthat the people who will suer the brunt o Ameri-cas ailure to navigate the politics o the U.N. Secu-rity Council are the Syrians.


12/44

12


Te Strator Files: Much ado about nothing

Joshua Foust

PBS Need to Know

February 28, 2012

WikiLeaks has released another enormoustranche o documents, this time rom Strat-or, a sel-described private intelligence

agency. Strator suered a serious data breach lastyear when the hacking collective Anonymous stoletheir email lists and credit card numbers, and now

WikiLeaks is publishing the stolen data in ull.

Like their last ew leaks rom the U.S. government,what we have seen so ar is notable only or its ba-nality. For example, we learn that corporations like

Union Carbide used Strator to keep tabs on anti-corporate activists hardly nearious activity. Tecompany would be negligent to pretend such activistseither dont exist or cant harm the company. We learnthat Strator had clients in the U.S. and oreign gov-ernments something they bragged about in theirdocuments. But this hardly qualies as top-secret in-tel. I routinely saw Strator analyses cited and quoted

when I worked or the U.S. intelligence communitya ew years ago.

So i most o Strators business practices can be de-

scribed as usual and customary, why does WikiLeaksdescribe the group in the darkest possible terms? o wit, on their website, WikiLeaks says, Te emailsshow Strators web o inormers, pay-o structure,payment-laundering techniques and psychologicalmethods. But arent these activities one would nor-mally associate with any investigative organization?Strator works at the intersection o private intelli-gence and media, mixing elements o each while nev-er being properly classied as either.

WikiLeaks doesnt do much to clariy the situationwhen it uses loaded terms to describe airly routinetradecrat. A web o inormers is a rather loaded wayto reer to Strators sel-described global networko human sources. What investigative organization

wouldnt have a network o sources to gather inor-mation? And how dierent is that rom reporters atpapers like Te New York imes cultivating riendlyinsiders to unnel it inormation?

A pay-or-play structure or an analysis shop is simlarly not that unusual. Max Fisher, an editor at T

Atlantic, outlined his magazines investigative pcess in terms similar to the ones used by WikiLeato describe Strators operations. Fisher not only uderscores how easy it is to create a sense o illegal

where none exists, but also hints at a larger truth: the world o or-prot inormation brokerage, masources expect to be paid or inormation. Ater aStrator is not a news organization both CEGeorge Friedman and Julian Assange go to grelengths to point this out. So why would sources prvide them inormation sans ee?

Similarly, the psychological methods WikiLeaks dscribes having a woman use the promise o sex elicit inormation is hardly groundbreaking. Ingrtiating onesel to a source with desirable inormatio through attery or irtation is a common pra

tice, hardly restricted to the intelligence communit(One could go as ar as to call it human nature.)

So ar, WikiLeaks hasnt paid o on its promise money-laundering techniques, and, with the excetion o a possibly unethical joint venture with Golman Sachs on a co-branded investment rm, thernot really anything illegal in the emails. Which raisthe question: Why, exactly, did WikiLeaks go atStator?

It certainly cant be because theyre good at what th

do. For a rm so brassy about its inormation, Strathas surprisingly poor inormation security even tVatican was better prepared to end o an attack

Anonymous late last year. Furthermore, outside onarrow slice o government ofcials Strator is widederided or its poor, unsourced analysis. (At my pesonal blog, Ive been laughing at their terrible woor years). And despite its impressive roster o clienone would be hard pressed to argue that Strator hmuch o an eect on policy.

Perhaps a clue can be ound in WikiLeaks latepress release, which notes Stators ocus on the doument-leaking organization. Strator clearly dislik

WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks clearly did not take kindto being criticized. Just today, WikiLeaks released email by Strators Vice President or Intelligence, FrBurton, boasting last year to have acquired a sealindictment o Julian Assange. Tat indictment sthasnt been made public, but Burtons email mig


13/44

13

explain why WikiLeaks ocused on such a seeminglymarginal group.

But really, whats the point? Te cause o whistle-blowing to expose wrongdoing is a noble one thatneeds support. Hacking an unpopular companysemails and publishing them is not whistleblowing. Inthe ew emails discussed so ar there are certainly pru-rient details o how a corporation conducts its busi-ness and solicits clients but there isnt any criminal

wrongdoing.

Even potentially explosive news, like the claim by twoStrator analysts that Israeli and Kurdish comman-does blew up an Iranian nuclear acility, ultimatelyails to deliver. Keeping in mind the reports in earlyFebruary about Israeli commandos trying to kill Ira-nian nuclear scientists, the Strator claims remain un-substantiated and unsourced like much o their

other, questionable analyses theyve sold to gullibleclients over the years.

Neither interpretation o this leak really makes amoral argument or exposing a private companysproprietary inormation. Disliking Strator as I do does not give one the right or remit to steal theirinormation and publish it on the Internet, especially

when that thet does not expose any criminal wrong-doing. Much like WikiLeaks last major data dump,this one is lled with lots o banal inormation that

was either public already or not urthering a noble

goal like transparency. And like the Cablegate, it willgo a long way toward making both the governmentand the corporations who work with governmentagencies more secretive and less transparent.

When compared with dedicated researchers who le-gally uncover and declassiy national security secrets,like George Washington Universitys excellent Na-tional Security Archive or Steven Atergoods Projecton Government Secrecy, the reckless data vandalismo WikiLeaks seems amateurish and shortsighted. Us-ing strong-arm tactics like data thet to orce trans-parency is counterproductive, and the huge volumeo data makes it difcult to isolate important inor-mation. As time goes on, it is increasingly difcultto understand just what WikiLeaks is trying to ac-complish.

Fighting Pirates With Paper: How the Lawo the Sea Is Important in the Fight AgainstPiracy

Harper Dorsk

Flashpoint Blog

March 6, 2012

he United States, though supportive o thisinternational precedent, has ailed to adoptits premise. Some policy makers perceive it

as constricting U.S. oreign policy, but ratiying it would do quite the opposite. Te Law o the Seawould expand U.S. policy by guaranteeing rights tothe rich energy resource and mineral deposits con-tained within the North American continental shel.

As Mark Vlasic, an Adjunct Proessor o Law atGeorgetown University, writes:

Much has already been written about how our ailureto ratiy the Convention prevents us rom reaping bil-lions o dollars rom the rights to oil, natural gas andrare earth mineral resources in our extended continentalshel (indeed, puzzling considering our countrys current

nancial situation). What is let unsaid, however, ishow we continually strain our credibility with allies whowish to work with us, despite our ailure to ratiy theConvention. Tis tension plays out every day at the In-

ternational Maritime Organization, where the UnitedStates must gain global support to ght piracy, and keepour sea lanes sae and our waters clean

Vlasics main point is that the Law o the Sea wouldgreatly aid the U.S.s legal stance in ghting pirates,specically around the horn o Arica and Gul o

Aden. Security is the ocus in this, but energy is thesubtle undertone throughout as thats what needs se-curing. Rigs and U.S. bound tankers can be protectedby the Law, as laid out below:

Te Convention removes all ambiguity. It specicallyspells out criminal laws and jurisdiction throughoutworlds oceans. It locks-in reedom o navigation, assert-ing that no state may subject any part o the high seas toits sovereignty. It gives every state the right to sail ships

ying its ag on the high seas, conduct military exercises,ght illicit drug trafcking, and gather intelligence


14/44

14


all essential to our national deense. For these reasons,our military commanders have long advocated or itsratication.

Better than a good insurance policy one could takeout or their oil tanker, the Convention o the Law othe Sea would protect U.S. interests, and clariy thereach o international law on the High Seas. Tis isimportant in light o increased tensions between Iranand the U.S., especially those centered around theStrait o Hormuz.

Why the State Departments witter Diplo-macy isnt that Impressive

Matthew Wallin

Flashpoint Blog

February 22, 2012

NPR reports that the State Department is en-gaging in so-called twitter diplomacy, us-ing the tools o social media to communicate

with audiences overseas. As it should be. I it wasnt,it would merely be another check on the list o thingsthat modern public diplomacy is lacking.

Te important actor about U.S. engagement via web

2.0 is not that that the government is using it, butrather that it doesnt address the core problems o en-gagement overseas: ortress embassies, a lack o un-derstanding, and ailures to ollow through on com-mitments.

Lets look at some o the problems with the now-evacuated American Embassy in Syrias approach toonline engagement. Alec Ross, a State Departmentsenior adviser on innovation, is quoted by NPR assaying, oday i somebody is lying about you in themediawe now have the tools to get the real acts outthere. Does this imply we were unable to address dis-inormation beore? Are we now relying on twitter inorder to do this? I this is how the State Departmentis innovating, it points to a larger systemic problem.

Former Assistant Secretary or Public Aairs, PJ Crow-ley states, witter is the ultimate tool or one-liners.Tis misses the point. Te traditional news media is

still the ultimate tool or one-liners, and it reachar more o the population through access mediumsuch as satellite V. witter is a tool or rapid, ne

worked communication. Its a medium or spreadiyour message amongst a very narrow segment o thpopulation. It is not a substitute or on-the-ground regional media engagement.

Interviewed by NPR, John Brown has it right whehe says, whats more important about public dplomacy in my view is not Facebook to Faceboobut ace to ace. Writing something on the internis easy. But getting on the ground and putting it inaction is hard. In all airness, the Embassy Sta Damascus aced an extremely difcult and dangerosituation, and were rightly evacuated in ear or thesaety.

Te U.S. Embassy in Damascus has also posted sa

ellite photos on its Facebook page documenting tdestruction in areas like Homs. It provides a link threquires unnecessarily tedious registration in order download a print quality image, which in act islow quality image that ails to show anything intelgible to the average viewer. Despite labeling armorvehicles which look more like a collection o semtrailers than anything else, and impact craters thyou cant actually make out, the image isnt notabTe registration process alone impedes the rapid, uettered communication that the internet normalprovides.

Ultimately, whats the point o showing the Syriapeople pictures taken rom space which they see uclose and personal shooting at them every daIts not the Syrian people that need to be conronte

with this.


15/44

15

Potential Issues in Arming the SyrianRebels

Kelvin Lum

Flashpoint Blog

February 21, 2012

As the situation in Syria continues, the numer-ous calls or US involvement grow as well.Tese calls have included arming the Syrian

opposition orces, including the indirect supplying oarms through the Arab League.

However, there are several issues that arise when dis-cussing the possibility o arming the Syrian opposi-tion.

Te rst main issue is who exactly are the Syrian orc-es opposing the Assad regime?

Te Free Syrian Army (FSA) is made up o deec-tors rom the Syrian Armed Forces but they do notcomprise the whole opposition movement. Tere hasbeen a desire to coordinate actions with the SyrianNational Council, a coalition o Syrian oppositiongroups, but there has been no ofcial unication othe two organizations. Without a true and uniedmovement to provide support, it would not be a wisedecision to arm them at this time.

Second, i the opposition was to uniy into a singleunit and then arms were provided to them, there

would most likely be a signicant increase in thebloodshed, prolonging the conict. It is likely thatboth the Syrian armed orces and the FSA would en-gage in larger-scale interaction i military support wasgiven to the FSA opposition group

More potential issues loom even i the revolt is suc-cessul in removing the Assad regime rom power.

How will the arms be recovered rom the oppositionghters ollowing the conclusion o military opera-tions? Tere will have to be recovery programs or the

weapons and an eective DDR (disarmament, demo-bilization and reintegration) policy in place ater theend o the conict. I the ghters are not properlydisarmed, militias may orm and these militias may

prevent the country rom moving orward. Tis hy-pothetical situation would be similar to the currentsituation in Libya.

More importantly, the root problems causing the re-volt need to be resolved.

Supporting the Syrian opposition orces requires arm commitment rom the United States and the in-ternational community. Teir support must be morethan the provision o military supplies. Tere has tobe a commitment to the atermath o the Syrian re-bellion and a serious concern in improving the post-conict situation. Hopeully the desire o the US andthe international community to support and arm theSyrian uprising is a genuine one. Teir desire shouldbe to build a better and saer Syria and it should morethan a desire or toppling Assad.

Te Dollars and Dimes o Hearts andMinds

Matthew Wallin

Flashpoint Blog

March 1, 2012

On Wednesday, USA oday published an ar-

ticle exploring the eorts to win hearts andminds in Aghanistan and Iraq. Te authors,om Vanden Brook and Ray Locker, did a antastic

job in gathering inormation on the cost and activi-ties o the military and its contractors in pursuinginormation operations. Tis is a rarely exploredtopic that deserves a lot o attention as a key aspect oour overall war winning strategy.

Te article reveals a great deal about how we havepursued our goals (or lack thereo) in conict zonesover the past decade. According to the article, spend-ing on inormation operations reached upwards o$580 million in 2009, a number which may be stag-gering to proessional public diplomacy practitioners.On top o that, exactly how that money is spent isnot being disclosed, making it difcult to maximizeits benet.


16/44

16


More worrying than the actual dollar amount is whois spending it. For example, Leonie Industries, a com-pany contracted to perorm inormation operationsor the military, was established in 2004 by a brotherand sister pair who were previously involved in direct-to-video movies and advertising. It has received atleast $120 million in contracts in recent years. Yetdespite being involved with such a large amount omoney, Leonie also neglected to pay or heating andmedical care or its Aghan employees, until the Armythreatened to drop [its] contract. How is it that themilitary trusts this company to help win hearts andminds?

Based on the inormation presented by Vanden Brookand Locker, the military appears to have a basic un-derstanding o what many o the problems are withregards to communicating with oreign publics, butails to understand how to connect all the dots to

workable and eective solutions.

For instance, there is a general understanding that theU.S. lacks a certain amount o credibility when at-tempting turn minds in avor o its strategic goals. Itunderstands that the messenger is important, but ailsto understand that the message and the messengermust be on equal ooting.

Rear Admiral Hal Pittman, who oversaw inormationoperations in Aghanistan, is cited as stating:

Te honest truth is that because we are outsiders andnot Muslim, we have a lower believability and cred-ibility rating than people within the Aghan Govern-ment or Aghans.

Pittman gets this only hal correct. He correctly iden-ties the credibility issue o Americans, but alsely at-tributes the Aghan Government, which is rie withcorruption, as having an eectively higher credibilityrating. It may in act be higher, but in absolute terms,it may still not be high at all.

Vanden Brook and Jackson rightly point out that In Aghanistan, inormation operations campaigns areoten used to bolster local ofcials, who are viewed

with suspicion by many Aghans because o their tiesto corruption. Terein lies the problem.

I in the eyes o Aghans, both the U.S. militaryand Aghan Government arent credible messengers,

whats the best way to create a credible message such volatile environments? According to the articlboth the Pentagon and its contractors practice thdissemination o unattributed V and radio contenposters, and billboards intended to counter alibapropaganda, promote the Aghan governments acomplishments, highlight the work o NGOs and rcruit or the Aghan security orces.

Tere are several problems with this strategy. Tougseparating the message rom the Aghan governmeand the U.S. military is an appropriate tactic, issuincompletely unattributed messages ails to create a cativating narrative and identiable branding. I you atrying to sell an idea, then you need to sell it. Give itbrand, give it a voice, and demonstrate why your otion is better than the opposing narrative. Give peopa choice. I necessary, give the idea to a third part

whether thats an NGO or newly created organizatio

that can establish and carry the narrative.

In a separate, but related article, Vanden Brook anJackson note a 2008 eort by the U.S. Military to tathe popularity o Iraq Star, a hit show in Iraq similto American Idol, by sponsoring it with pro-Iraqgovernment messages. Tough the plan ell througits understandable why this was perceived to begood idea, as there is value to tapping popular medin order to promote the maximum spread o a mesage. Tis is especially important given the inabilio American-created media like Alhurra to generate

signicant audience.But in the case o Iraq, which has by all accounstruggled with unity and the ability to nd a commovoice o its own, Iraq Star was best let alone to thri

without outside intererence. Iraq needed its own sucess story to survive on its own merits without beintainted.

Public diplomacy, strategic communication, or iormation operations whichever label you want give it is suering rom a lack o proessionalism

You cannot merely ll the communication vacuu with leaets, advertisements and dollars. You muemploy communication proessionals who have texpertise to listen to and eectively understand theaudience, comprehend the strategic goal, and can crate material that resonates with the target audiencTat is key.


17/44

17

CLIMAE AND ENERGY

SECURIY

Americas changing energy choices

Andrew Holland

Te Hill

March 5, 2012

his week, the American Security Project re-leased the 2012 edition o its annual WhitePaper, Americas Energy Choices. Te paper

details a range o options or Americas energy uture,ranging rom coal to natural gas and solar to tidalpower. It shows how each contributes to Americasenergy make-up and how our business and politicalleaders should weigh the competing priorities o en-

ergy security, economic stability, and environmentalsustainability when making decisions.

In preparing the update or this years report, it is clearthat undamental changes are underway in Americasenergy supply and demand structure. While thesechanges will take decades to play out, the trends showthat the U.S. is moving away rom its consumer-oriented energy structure towards an economy thatshows an interest in energy production, and even ex-ports.

Te proo is in the numbers: America imports around9 million barrels per day (mbd) o crude oil, a levelthat has stayed mostly steady since the 08 nancialcrisis well below our peak o 10.6 mbd in the sum-mer o 06 (all numbers quoted are rom the EnergyInormation Agency). However, since July o 2011,

America has become a major net exporter o renedpetroleum products, to a peak o 1.1 mbd just thispast week.

wo other major actors are changing the supplyequation. Te rst is the continued boom in natu-ral gas rom shale, which is pushing down prices andleading to calls to export gas. Tis has been appar-ent or about two years, but there is still signicantpotential or growth. Te second is the astoundingtechnological development in biouels that will allownon-ood eedstocks to replace petroleum products asgasoline or jet uel.

Fundamental changes in American demand or en-ergy are also happening. Oil passed peak oil demandsometime around 2006. Te agreement nalized lastNovember between the Automakers and the Admin-istration that will double automobile uel economy

standards to 55 MPG combined with structuralchanges in the U.S. economy will ensure that oildemand doesnt go back up. Outside o oil, we areseeing electricity demand move away rom coal in ex-change or natural gas.

However, even though it may eel good to say thatwere on track to be a net exporter o energy, it has nothad the benets we were promised. Our consumersare still stuck paying the global price or oil set bythe whims o speculators and the most recent threato war in Iran. Our energy supply is still insecure,

economically unstable, and environmentally unsus-tainable.

We need a program to invest in long-term researchand development into clean, secure sources o energy.It must include much-needed investments in energyefciency, as well as continued development o windand solar power. However, that will only get us so ar:

we need an energy source that can provide always-on baseload power without harmul emissions. Tatresearch program should ocus on next generationnuclear power, including cleaner, saer ssion powerplants along with a long-term program to developusion the holy grail o energy production. Withsustained investment, American leadership in thesesectors could create a new global industry.

Unortunately, the politics o energy remain as raught


18/44

18


and divisive as they were when the report was releasedthen. Clean energy has become an even greater po-litical ootball than it was last year. Te spike in oilprices has brought out the most short-term instinctsin politicians. Te department o Energys budgetocuses only on short-term energy, while sacricinglong-term research on basic energy science: the areasthat will provide real breakthroughs.

America did not create its energy problems over-night; nding solutions to these problems requiresconcerted, long-term research and development.

An All o the Above Solution:idal Power

Harper Dorsk

Flashpoint Blog

March 1, 2012

In ollowing the theme o exploring dierent op-tions to meet the All o the Above solution, letstake a look at tidal power.

idal power, like hydropower, is a means o generat-ing electricity using the kinetic energy contained in

water currents. It is one o the oldest orms o energy,

dating back to the 700s when European shore villag-es built tidal mills or use in grain production. Tereare several mechanisms or generating tidal power,ranging rom barrages that look like traditional hy-droelectric dams to stream generators that act almostlike undersea wind turbines to oating buoys thatuse wave movements to generate power. Tey usu-ally resemble dams, stretching across an entire bay, orpylons, standing isolated in a strait or sound.

Tere are a ew tidal power stations scattered acrossthe globe, the largest o which is in Sihwa Lake, SouthKorea with a 254MW output capacity. Unlike otherrenewable sources, which may be subject to wind orlight deciencies, tidal power is very predictable. Itsprimary drawbacks are cost and impediment to localecosystems, such as sh habitats, though this eectcan be mitigated. Ideal placements are uncommon,so siting is also a challenge.

Tis emissions ree source o energy is steadily gaining more recognition in the renewable energy world

A report released by the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that there is 1.17 billion megawathours per year o recoverable tidal power along thcontinental U.S., representing one third o currenelectrical consumption. A similar report rom thGeorgia ech Research Corporation theorizes tha15% o U.S. energy demand could be satised using tidal and other water based power generation b2030.

wo examples o companies currently working othis technology are Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) and Ocean Power echnologies (OP)ORPC has projects spanning rom Nova Scotia t

Alaska. A new project taking o in Maine seeks tmake use o the 100 billion ton current which runin and out o the Bay o Fundy each day. OP, als

with projects in Maine and other parts o the country, has been demonstrating the use o tidal power aa substitute or ossil uels at Navy and Marine bases

Irans threat to Global Oil Prices

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

January 5, 2012

he situation in Iran is becoming a seriouthreat to global oil supplies.

As Iran claims to become closer to buildinthe capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, the rest othe world, led by the U.S., has worked to ratchet upsanctions. Te U.S. has had an economic embargon all imports rom Iran since the all o the Shahin 1979. Just last week, President Obama signed legislation to strengthen those sanctions by imposinrestrictions on the Iranian central bank, making iharder or them to sell their oil. Tis is already causing problems or their economy, with a run on thIranian Rial.

Teres many moving parts in this situation, and wont pretend to be an Iran-policy expert. Howeveras Europe and the U.S. move towards more sanction


19/44

19

on Iran, the response rom Iran could have signicantimpacts on global energy markets.

Iran is the 5th largest oil producer in the world, withabout 4.2 million barrels per day. In addition, Iransits perched on top o the Strait o Hormuz, through

which over 15 million barrels o oil per day transit about 20% o the worlds consumption. Iran claimsthat the Strait o Hormuz is an inland waterway un-der international Maritime Law, but virtually no oth-er country recognizes that claim. Instead, the Strait oHormuz is recognized as an international waterwaythrough which sae passage is guaranteed.

Earlier this week, the Iranian military threatened toclose the Straits o Hormuz to oil trafc, while alsocheering the routine departure o the U.S. aircratcarrier John C. Stennis. Around 20% o global oilconsumption passes through this strait every day,

making it the worlds most important choke-point oroil. Te threat o closing the Strait o Hormuz alonehas already pushed oil prices back up above $100 abarrel. raders, quoted in the NY imes, say that anactual closure o the Straits would push oil prices upby $50 per barrel or more in just days.

Te U.S. Fith Fleet, based in Bahrain, has been theguarantor o sae passage throughout the Persian Gulsince the 1970s. Any military action to impede tra-c through the Strait would be a de acto breach ointernational law, and a response would be justied.

Tis should not simply be a U.S. Navy operation,as some claim. Instead, it should be a joint opera-tion with all o our Persian Gul allies against a clearbreach o international law.

But any military operation would have severeconsequences or the U.S. economy, because o ourdependence on oil, as ASP has written. Te U.S. isslowly developing some resilience to this threat by in-creasing average uel economy and diversiying autouel sources, but American consumers should prepareor signicant hardship i military action comes. Rea-son enough to do everything possible to avoid that.

Blue Ribbon Commission: Disposing oour Nuclear Waste

Andrew Holland

Te Hill

February 3, 2012

Last week, the Blue Ribbon Commission on

Americas Nuclear Future (BRC) released itsnal report to the Secretary o Energy detail-

ing how the country should dispose o its nuclearwaste. Tis week, the co-chairs, ormer CongressmanLee Hamilton and ormer National Security AdvisorBrent Scowcrot made the rounds to both the Senateand House or hearings on the issue.

Tis commission was tasked by President Obama in

January 2010 with conducting a comprehensive re-view o Americas nuclear waste problem. Te reasonor creating this commission was that President had

just ullled a campaign promise to close the YuccaMountain Waste Repository in Nevada. But, closing

Yucca Mountain would not address the problem owhat to do with Americas nuclear waste.

So, in a time honored Washington tradition or deal-ing with an intractable problem, the President out-sourced nding a solution to a commission. Some

will say that just by creating this commission, the

President was trying to kick the can down the road,and then bury the report in a drawer. But, the par-ticipants in the committee were important; includ-ing prominent nuclear scientists, leaders o advocacygroups, and some o Washingtons most distinguishedsenior retired policymakers, like Co-Chairmen Ham-ilton and Scowcrot or retired Senators Chuck Hageland Pete Domenici. Te stature o this group ensuresthat this commission will get the respect it deserves.

Even more importantly, this is a problem that isntgoing away. o the contrary, as the report says, theailure to deal with the problem o nuclear waste has

already proved damaging and costly, and it will onlybe more damaging and more costly the longer it con-tinues. Tere is over 65,000 metric tons o spent uelhere in the U.S. that needs to be permanently dis-posed o.


20/44

20


Te commission released a list o 8 specic recom-mendations, ranging rom working more closely withcommunities hosting nuclear waste to promptly initi-ating eorts to plan, site, and build both a permanentgeologic disposal acility and a temporary central stor-age acility. Te entire list provides a roadmap or howto constructively move orward on this issue. It is abalanced approach that deserves timely considerationrom Congress and the administration.

Te most important recommendations surround howto store the waste, both temporarily and permanently.Te report notes that, even i Yucca Mountain wereopened, the current, and growing, volume o spentnuclear uel in the U.S. means that it would quicklybe lled, and a new permanent repository would haveto be built anyway. Even though the process couldtake twenty years, it is important to begin as soon aspossible.

Even though most o the questions rom memberso Congress were clearly posturing on the status o

Yucca Mountain, the commissions mandate speci-cally notes that this was not a siting commission, sothey have no say on the uture o Yucca Mountain orthe efcacy o other sites.

Te government has a legal requirement to provide apermanent repository or spent nuclear waste. Untilthis requirement is met, it is very difcult to oreseemuch urther growth in nuclear power here. Tere is

very little interest in nancing the building o any newnuclear reactors at all. A big part o that reluctance isbased on the uncertainty surrounding the long termhandling o the waste.

Te release o the BRCs report is a rst step towardsresolving that problem. However, it is just a resetback to the point where the country was 30 years ago

when Congress was rst considering the issue. Tattime, the process was short-circuited by a decision tomove ahead with Yucca Mountain, without consider-ing other possible sites. Tis time, lawmakers mustallow the process or siting a new permanent wasterepository to move ahead at its own speed. Tere areew things that would inspire a NIMBY (Not in mybackyard) response quicker than a proposal to builda nuclear waste dump. But, the report shows insteadthat there are communities who will be willing to hostsuch a acility, given the right mixture o incentivesand reassurances.

I the United States can solve this puzzle, then we caprovide a model or other countries around the worlas the report states, about 60 new reactors are curently under construction, and more than 60 coutries that do not currently host nuclear power haexpressed interest in them. Te U.S. has a clear inteest in making sure that our nuclear uel cycle or theplants are secure, and an even more potent interethat the rest o the world has a model or how to de

with their waste.

Is the U.S. on rack to Join OPEC?

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

March 2, 2012

A Changing U.S. Energy Picture

his past weekend, Tomas Friedman posedquestion in his Sunday New York imes coumn: Should the US join OPEC? I gene

ally dont like to get into Friedmans columns, as hname-dropping and taxicab reporting will drive yocrazy. However, he probably has the widest readersho anyone in this eld, and he does a good job o simpliying complicated issues.

Friedman says the debate were again having ovwho is responsible or higher oil prices undamentalmisses huge changes that have taken place in Ameicas energy output, making us again a major oil angas producer and potential exporter with interest in reasonably high but stable oil prices.

I hate to say it, but hes right although were nwhere near being a petroleum exporter today (a clerequirement or membership in the Organization Petroleum Exporting Countries), I believe that undmental changes in Americas supply and demand ovthe next 20-30 years mean that were moving towara world where the U.S. has a real interest in exportsprobably not o unrened crude oil, but o all enerproducts.

Te proo is in the numbers and the trends: Ameriimports around 9 million barrels o crude per day


21/44

21

level that has stayed mostly steady since the 08 nan-cial crisis well below our peak o 10.6 mbd in thesummer o 06 (all numbers here are EIA). However,since July o 2011 America has become a major netexporter o rened petroleum products, to a peak o1.1 mbd just this past week. Combine this with theshale oil boom in onshore oil production, and thepotential or more deepwater nds in the uture, andyou have a very dierent oil supply than we saw inthe last decade.

From Consumer-Oriented to Producer-Oriented En-ergy Policy

Fundamental changes in American demand or oilmean that we have passed peak oil demand in theU.S. Last years deal between the Automakers and the

Administration to more than double auto uel econ-omy standards to 55 MPG, a move rom trucking

reight to reight rail, as well as structural changes inthe U.S. economy that make it more efcient add upto an economy that doesnt need as much oil.

Again, the proo is in the numbers: In February o2007, U.S. oil use peaked at 21.8 mbd. oday, onlyve years later, U.S. oil use is 18.2 mbd 17% less.Even though the period in between suered a severerecession, our real GDP is 2.8% bigger today than it

was then. Were producing more wealth with less oil thats a victory.

So i you combine an upwardly moving supplycurve and a demand curve that seems to have bent in-exorably downward, I think there is a good case thatthe U.S. is moving towards an economy that is a netexporter o oil products; not tomorrow, and not nextyear but maybe in a decade.

Tis explanation has not even gotten into the cur-rent and potential exports in coal and natural gas thatcould really move the U.S. back into the position thatit held until the 1960s as an energy superpower. Inthe realm o complete unknowns, we may also seemanuactured alternative energy products like windturbines, nuclear power plants, or solar panels be-come a major export as well.

Te U.S. is on track to become a major exporter oenergy, and that will change the political and businesscalculus o what policies to pursue. In the next essay, Idelve urther into what the implications are o a shit

rom a consumer-oriented energy policy to a pro-ducer-oriented energy-policy. Te changes may notbe easy or American consumers, but I believe thatover the long-term, this is a positive or the Americaneconomy.

Could Unlimited Clean Power Have Prob-lems? Not Compared with odays EnergyProblems

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

January 31, 2012

Ihave been having trouble getting my head around

this article in the New Scientist: Power para-dox: Clean might not be green orever (h/t WSJ

echEurope). Basically, what theyre saying is that thewaste heat rom all the energy we use will cause warm-ing itsel. Te thesis is that all energy production anduse give o some heat as waste. I have no problem

with this; its true, but it is so small as a part o thetotal heat that the earth takes in rom the sun andradiates away into space that we dont contemplate it.

Te article says that i we orever generate more en-ergy so long as it is external rom the solar energy

that the Sun sends us, like nuclear usion or ssionor ossil uels then that waste heat will eventuallycause global warming on its own, regardless o green-house gas emissions. Again this is true, but so ar inthe uture that its really not worth contemplating. Inthe science ction world that this article is creating,it claims we could have access to almost limitless en-ergy (they posit a world that uses 5000 erwatts peryear; we use 16 W now).

My problem is that this is so ar beyond any reason-able time horizon that its not worth contemplatingor planning or. I humanity is able to generate morethan 300 times as much energy as we use now, then

well also have limitless energy to build the giant mir-rors to reect some sunlight away or some such geo-engineering scheme.

o compare i, say scientists in Edinburgh in the1750s had determined that all the coal they were


22/44

22


burning was going to cause global warming in therst hal o the 20th Century 250 years ahead

would they have planned or that? I dont think so.Lets ocus on the problems o today: energy security,economic instability, and environmental sustainabil-ity. Well let our great-great-great-great grandchildrendeal with these consequences.

An All o the Above Solution: Establish-ing a Market Basis

Harper Dorsk

Flashpoint Blog

February 29, 2012

Isaw an interesting weet this morning rom theDepartment o Energy that read: Sec Chu: TePresident meant it when he said we need an all-o-

the-above approach to energy. Tis is o course reer-ring to what Obama said in his last State o the Unionaddress when he identied that Americas energyproblems would be mitigated by establishing a diverseenergy portolio. Some perceived this as a response tothe political upheaval over Keystone. What he madeclear is that the U.S. needs a solution broader than apipeline.

Te President was trying to convey that Americas en-ergy needs to come, not just rom gas, coal, and oil,but rom as many sources as possible. Correspond-ingly, the share o lesser used resources needs to be in-creased. Investment serves as a good analogy. A smartinvestor seeks to maximize his or her money and min-imize risk with diversication strategy that ocuses onshort-term returns, long-term gains, and everythingin between. Tat way, should one company, or evena whole sector, go down, he or she has other invest-ments to all back on.

I believe America should ollow this sort o thoughtprocess in its commercial pursuit o energy. As it be-comes harder to access certain resources due to politi-cal, social, or environmental instability, we will needothers to all back on. Te U.S. experienced this in1973 when OPEC members moved to drive up oilprices or the U.S. or political reasons. Weve seen pe-riodic spikes since then, mostly surrounding turmoilin the Middle East, in 1979, 1991, 2008, and 2011.

Gas prices are going up again today. Beore, there wew diversication options, but today we are develoing the technology to move away rom oil, suchelectric cars and biouels. But, we are not yet divered enough: this oil price spike is harming consum

who rely on their cars. Te use o alternatives neto have a greater market impact or these innovatioto be eective. We have made this mistake too matimes: lets hope that were nally learning our lesso

Gas Prices are Rising Lets not Do Anthing Stupid

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

February 29, 2012

Rising Gas Prices Prompt Calls For ReleaseOil From SPR

Rising gas prices are back in the news agaOil has gone back above $100 a barrel, and gasoliprices are about to push through the $4 a gallon priTis has led to President Obama sparring with Rpublican Congressional leaders and his potential oponents. It has also led to Congressional Democrasking or a release o oil rom the Strategic Petroleu

Reserve (SPR) in an eort to dodge this issue any wthey can. Fellow columnist, Robert Rapier, has ocriticized the usage o the SPR as a political tool ineort to lower gas prices.

Dont count me as one who thinks that, i only allowed drilling anywhere, we would suddenly ha$2.00/gallon gas. I sat through Newt Gingrichs minute speech on energy policy, and it drives me crthat people actually expect that simply pushing mdomestic drilling will x the problem. I went on trecord as supporting Jon Huntsmans energy polbecause it lived in the real world and acknowledgthat there were no quick xes.

Oil prices are a actor o global supply and demanboth currently, and in the uture. Prices are beipushed up by increased demand or oil rom develoing countries, combined with prospects o renewconict in the Persian Gul. I would suggest readiDr. James Hamiltons Econbrowser Crude Oil a


23/44

23

Gasoline Prices: Betting on Iranian ensions postabout whats driving prices. Also, take a look at myprevious two blog posts on what might happen i theIranian military decides to attempt to close the straitso Hormuz.

How to Mitigate Against High Oil Prices

Ultimately, I actually dont think that low gas pricesshould be the goal. Over the long term, low gas pricesin America encouraged an auto-dependent liestyle.

And now, with oil prices going through the roo,American consumers are let without other options;they simply must drive, and our deliveries must betrucked across county. Tis acts as a drag on the econ-omy. President Bush was correct when he said thatAmerica is addicted to oil. And that addiction hasharmed us but theres no easy solution.

Increased efciency o cars is important, as is encour-aging alternative orms o transportation like masstransit. Tose are ways to reduce our exposure togasoline price spikes. But, the price o gasoline willremain very important to the economic well-beingo the country or a long time, and we need a wayto manage those prices better: Im a ree-marketeer,but the market is not delivering a stable, predictableprice or oil. Tese ways must include greater uel ef-ciency o our cars, as ASP has argued. Tey must also

Ultimately, though, we have to make sure that the

most recent price spike doesnt push our politiciansinto a Do Something Anything! mode. Tere aregood responses, and bad responses. I think gettingrid o the gas tax is a bad response, as would pricecontrols or investigations into price xing. An exportban on oil or rened petroleum products would alsobe counterproductive. Tese are short-term responsesthat mess with markets, and they will have counter-productive eects. What we need are long-term re-sponses that ween American consumers away romour dependence on oil.

More Treats in the Straits o Hormuz

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

February 10, 2012

About a month ago, I posted on how the Iranianthreats to the Straits o Hormuz could threatenglobal oil supplies. It appears that American

Navy threats that any closure o the Straits was a clearred line have deused the tension, at least or the shortterm. However, there is still a strong eeling that ac-tion, either military or more diplomatic, against Irancould bring

Treats to Hormuz are an asymmetric threat: Irandoesnt have the power to challenge the American 5th

eet at sea, but it could use alternative means thatwould eectively close the Straits. Te IISS has re-leased a great brieng Strait o Hormuz, Irans Dis-ruptive Military Options o what a military conictover Hormuz would look like, saying:

Such tactics would resemble the latter years o theanker War. Lasting throughout the IranIraq Waro 198088, but with a signicant escalation in 1984,this primarily involved the targeting o vessels carry-ing Iranian or Iraqi/Iraq-allied Arab oil and oshoreplatorms. According to a comprehensive CSIS study,

259 tankers and carriers were attacked between 1984and 1988.

With the Republican candidates calling or a morehawkish stance against Irans eorts to build a nucle-ar bomb, and what looks to be an increasing likeli-hood o an Israeli attack, this is an issue that is notgoing away immediately. I am condent that Saudiexcess capacity combined with a release o strategicreserves rom IEA-member countries could replace athreatened cut-o o Irans 2 million barrels/day ooil, but a cut-o o all 17 million barrels per day ooil through Hormuz would be something dierent,causing global oil price spikes and real unrest in theregion. Tis is a long-haul that will require constantvigilance.


24/44

24


Colombias Climate Security Risk

Andrew Holland

Flashpoint Blog

February 23, 2012

Isee that Reugees International, one o the mostauthoritative voices in the world on reugee issues,has been running a series o photo essays o the

atermath o last years record ooding in the Ayapel,La Mojana, and Southern Atlantico regions o North-ern Colombia. I have included several o these on thispost.

Note how high the water came

Colombia is particularly vulnerable to security-relat-

ed impacts o a changing climate. In 2009, the CNACorporation released a report, Impacts o ClimateChange on Colombias Regional and National Secu-rity that details how changes to Colombias climateand weather patterns could impact peoples livli-hoods, and ultimately the national security o. I havebeen told by people who have worked with the Co-lombian military that they take this threat seriously,even in the ace o very immediate threats like drugsmuggling and insurgency. Tey should take it seri-ously, because it poses unknown, overlapping dangersto both Colombian security, and broader regional and

international stability.Reugee Camps are Problematic or Sanitation

Colombia is a particularly worrisome area or climateimpacts because we simply do not know how warm-ing will aect the area. It is tropical, and its weatheris very inuenced by the el Nino/la Nina phenom-enon in the Eastern Pacic. Tis creates a wet-season/dry-season dynamic that can lead to very heavy rains.

And, Colombias mountainous topography creates aunnel eect down which the rains can quickly be-come dangerous ash oods.

One o the prime ways that climate and weatherchanges can maniest into real regional and interna-tional security threats is through Climate Reugees.

As severe weather changes cause groups o people tomove away rom their home, they could come intoconict with the people residing in the places they

move to. Te instability o being uprooted rom yohometown can create a class o people highly liketo be radicalized and cause violence. We have seereugee movements in Arica and South East Asia asprime way or conict to spread across borders.

Note the height o last years oods

What is most worrying about this is that these essashow how the security eects o climate change is nsimply speculation about an unknown uture. Insteait shows that this is happening now, and the interntional community should help to invest now or thuture. Tere are two ways to prepare or this: the ris to prepare the Colombian military or interventiothat could prevent conict. Te close working reltionship between the American and Colombian mitaries should allow sharing o best-practices betweethe two militaries. More eective, however, would

aid projects that reduce vulnerability to ooding, liwastewater treatment or oodplain management.

Operation Green Strike: the Promise oBiouels

Harper Dorsk

Flashpoint Blog

March 9, 2012

he Navy is posed to sail a carrier strike grouaround Hawaii using a 50% biouel blend duing next summers Rim o the Pacic Exerci

(RIMPAC). Industry minds, who met Tursday atbrieng held by PEW Charitable rusts, reerred this eort as Green Strike, not to be conused withe Great Green Fleet due to sail by 2016. Biouhas been garnering attention rom the media and Dpartment o Deense as a next generation source energy. Creating a commercialized biouel market one o the Navy and Air Forces top priorities as bobranches are seeking alternatives to oset petroleuuse.

Harrison Dillon, president o biotech company Slazyme, spoke at the event and shared what his company is doing to promote the biouel industry. Solzyme started 9 years ago in San Francisco as a startu


25/44

25

and is now a successul publicly traded company. Ithas developed an algae capable o turning biomasseedstock, such as corn, rendered animal at, and thelike, into uel. Te nal chemical product acts justlike crude oil. An AOL Energy article reports:

Solazyme is over hal way through a 566,000 liter order or the military. In 2011 alone, it delivered 407,000liters o uel to the Navy and is working on additionalcontracts now.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has committed the Navyto a 50% reduction in the use o ossil uels by 2020.Te target includes nuclear but biouels are a seriouspart o the uture energy mix.

James Rekoske rom UOP, a subsidiary o Honeywell,was also there. UOP invented 31 o the 36 processesused to rene crude oil and is now greatly contribut-

ing to progress on biouels as well, specically renew-able jet uel. In act, their jet uel was used in uelingthe rst transatlantic ight that ran on biouel. Tekicker to this is that airlines are interested in the tech-nology as well. Like the DoD, their operations costvary greatly depending on uel price. According to

Airlines or America, the uel bill in 2010 was 300%greater than it was in 2000.

Former Senator John Warner, who was present, saidIt is absolutely essential or the country to move or-

ward on these programs. Many o the speakers noted

it took us a long time to get into our dependency onoil and it will take us a long time to get out o it. Teprogress that has been made on biouels is just a start,but it is clear that this technology will allow us todiminish our reliance on oil.

AMERICAN

COMPEIIVENESS

Five Big Myths About the European DebtCrisis

Peter Choharis

Forbes Magazine

February 15, 2012

Europe consumed more than a th o Americasexports last year, yet U.S. markets seem to beignoring Europes current economic turmoil.

Much o Europe is heading into a recession, Euro-zone unemployment is at record highs, and Europeslargest banks are struggling. With European govern-

ments imposing austerity budgets, a looming creditsqueeze, and many countries acing shrinking taxrevenues and overwhelming debt burdens, it is hardto see when growth will return. o understand howEurope poses a risk to the U.S. economy, it is impor-tant to dispose o some o the myths that surroundEuropes debt crisis.

1. Germans are more scally responsible.

o ensure scal discipline, the Maastricht reaty re-stricts the amount o public debt that countries in theEuropean Union can assume to 60% o their grossdomestic product. Yet Germany has violated this limitevery year since 2003. Tat has not stopped Germanpoliticians rom bragging about German scal disci-pline. A ew months ago Bavarias Christian SocialUnion party, a key member o German Chancellor

Angela Merkels governing coalition, almost derailedGermanys contribution to a European bailout und


26/44

26


because Bavarians do not abide debt. We are notprepared to accept zero debt here and total debt else-

where, declared CSU party leader Horst Seehoer, toa standing ovation.

But three years earlier the Free State o Bavaria se-cretly took a $2.4 billion bailout rom the U.S. Fed-eral Reserve, and a 94% Bavarian government-ownedbank, Bayerische Landesbank, took another $10 bil-lion secret bailout rom the Fed, according to datauncovered by Bloomberg News. In act, many otherGerman and European banks secretly received $500billion in secret bailouts rom U.S. taxpayers duringthe same period, according to Bloomberg, all on topo the $50 billion they got rom the U.S. govern-ments ARP bailout o AIG.

American bailouts o European (including German)banks continue. Te Fed is quietly extending curren-

cy swap lines via the European Central Bank, therebyunneling billions o more U.S. dollars to Europeanbanks whose identities remain undisclosed thanks toECB privacy rules. Te ECB has also increased itsown bailouts or 523 banks to 489 billion ($640 bil-lion), in the orm o three-year, 1%-interest loans.

2. Te European Union respects democracy.

Because so many Europeans eared that larger coun-tries would dominate the EU, the reaty on EuropeanUnion promised more than hal a billion people that

every citizen shall have the right to participate in thedemocratic lie o the Union, that decisions shall betaken as openly and as closely as possible to the citi-zen, and that the unctioning o the Union shall beounded on representative democracy.

Despite that, Germany proposed that Greeces receipto a second bailout be conditioned on Greece sur-rendering its tax and spending sovereignty to a Euro-commissioner. Greeces revenues were to be used rstand oremost or debt service, and only any remain-ing revenue may be used to nance government ac-tivities, such as national deense or the judicial sys-tem. And in place o decisions made by democratical-ly elected leaders, the Euro-commissioner would havea veto right against budget decisions not in line withthe set budgetary targets and the rule giving priorityto debt service.

Germany backed down ater France and other coun-

tries objected, but the assault on democracy and sedetermination in the EU is not dead. In DecembeEuropean Council President Herman Van Rompusecretly proposed that EU countries that did not mestrict scal rules should be subjected to intrusicontrol o national budgetary policies by the EU

well as political sanctions such as the temporary supension o voting rights. And o course both Greeand Italy voluntarily surrendered their governmento unelected ECB technocrats, because their embattled political parties had lost credibility with othEuropean governments as well as their own citizens

3. Te PIGS have only themselves to blame or Eropes woes.

Northern Europeans have long told how PortugItaly, Greece, Spain, and Ireland, the peripheral PIGS countries, caused the Euro-crisis by som

combination o corruption, tax evasion, over-reglation, state-protected sectors, political dysunctioincompetence, and market speculation.

All true, but not the whole truth. More than a thio Germanys GDP derives rom exports (the most any country in the world), with 60% o those expogoing to its European neighbors. Germanys mercatilist economy relies on these countries purchases German goods. With their sovereign debt denomnated in Euros and backed by the Euro-zones overacredit, Greece, Portugal, and others were able to bo

row at interest rates ar below what their own GDwould have allowed. With this cheap money and tworldwide credit surplus o the past decade, periperal governments and citizens were able to gorge oimported Northern European goods.

While countries like Greece and Italy were using drivatives to cook their books when borrowing, Eurpean and American nancial institutions were helpinthem do it. Moreover, because they share the Eurperipheral countries cannot devalue their currenciin order to make the cost o their goods and servicmore cost competitive. And when the EU expandeastward, oreign direct investment that had beowing south shited east, depriving peripheral coutries o investment capital that would have demandpolitical and economic reorms.

4. Northern Europe is bailing out the South.


27/44

27

For weeks, Greece has been negotiating with a credi-tors committee o more than 450 nancial institu-tions, joined by a troika o the International MonetaryFund, the European Central Bank, and the EuropeanCommission, to deal with 205 billion ($269 billion)o publicly-held Greek sovereign debtwith a 14.5billion ($19.1 billion) bond payment due March 20.In connection with an expected write-down o 50%or more o Greek debt and rescheduling o the re-mainder at around 3.5% interest, the troika is hold-ing out the prospect o a second bailout o as muchas 130 billion ($171 billion) in loans.

Tis package, on top o the 110 billion ($144 bil-lion) in May 2010, is again being advertised by North-ern European politicians as a second Greek bailout.

And to sell it to German voters, Chancellor Merkelis demanding recessionary austerity measures romGreece. But the North is also bailing out its own

banks and customers as well as the ECB, which wantsto avoid principal losses on its 55 billion ($72 bil-lion) Greek bond holdings.

In act, most o the bailout unds may never reachGreece, and instead may go to an escrow und that

will pay o German, French, and other banks direct-ly. French banks hold about 43.5 billion ($57 bil-lion) in Greek debt, ollowed by German banks withabout 18.2 billion ($23.8 billion.) Although theseand other private bondholders may take a haircuto 50% or more, a bailout will at least avoid the pros-

pect o a total deault. And with the EU experienc-ing around 10%

American Security Quarterly - April 2012

Documents

Transcript of American Security Quarterly - April 2012