Armchair Generalist

Casual Fridays

In a message of hope for us fanatical gamers, a recent study suggests that compulsive gaming behavior may be a social problem rather than a psychological one. That is to say, we're not all incurable gaming addicts.

The Smith & Jones Centre in Amsterdam has treated hundreds of young gamers since the clinic opened in 2006.

But the clinic is changing its treatment as it realises that compulsive gaming is a social rather than a psychological problem.

Using traditional abstinence-based treatment models the clinic has had very high success rates treating people who also show other addictive behaviours such as drug taking and excessive drinking.

But Mr Bakker believes that this kind of cross-addiction affects only 10% of gamers. For the other 90% who may spend four hours a day or more playing games such as World of Warcraft, he no longer thinks addiction counselling is the way to treat these people.

"These kids come in showing some kind of symptoms that are similar to other addictions and chemical dependencies," he says.

"But the more we work with these kids the less I believe we can call this addiction. What many of these kids need is their parents and their school teachers - this is a social problem."

In response to this realisation the clinic has changed its treatment programme for gamers to focus more on developing activity-based social and communications skills to help them rejoin society.

This is such a relief. Now I won't feel so concerned about my mental health when Grand Theft Auto IV comes out next Tuesday. Though to be accurate, I try not to exceed two hours a day - on weekdays - in order to maintain marital bliss in the household. So hopefully I won't need "treatment" quite yet.

Happy Thanksgiving

We're going to pause and give thanks for the many blessings - good jobs, house over our heads, hopeful future for a secure America - and enjoy some of my wife's famous pumpkin pie today. Looks like Detroit Lions are not going to give us much of a show today. We'll catch up on news tomorrow.

Misattributing Al Qaeda's Motives

I greatly admire Marine Corps general officers, but sometimes they say the damnedest things. General James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, believes that al Qaeda is going to shift resources from Afghanistan to Pakistan in an attempt to go for its nuclear weapons.

"Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al Qaeda," said Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. "They've changed their strategic focus not to Afghanistan but to Pakistan, because Pakistan is the closest place where you have the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons."

Gen. Conway also offered a stark assessment of the Afghan situation, saying the Taliban has built a rudimentary command-and-control network that enables the group's leadership to direct attacks across the country.

"They move troops around. They resupply. They provide money," he said. "It's effective and it's real. It's not just happenstance that these guys know where to go and what to do."
----------
Gen. Conway said Pakistan's best troops were deployed along its border with India and weren't being used in the fight against the country's militants. Pakistan's leadership doesn't yet seem to accept that terrorism poses an existential risk to the country's future, he added. "Pakistan has to understand there's a dire threat there that they have to act against," he said.

With all due respect to the general, I really think he's not viewing this situation clearly. Al Qaeda needs a sanctuary in Pakistan, and as long as the Pakistani government is in control, they have that. There's no doubt that Pakistan's government has made mistakes in its attempts to reign in religious extremists, but these issues can be overcome. As for Pakistan's nukes, the Pakistani experts I have heard talk about this subject say that they are very, very secure. The Pakistani military is very selective about the guards and security processes.

General Conway ought to be more realistic about al Qaeda's motives in that region, since he's so eager to send Marines there. Al Qaeda wants to help the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, and attacking the US forces is a common objective to getting that done. This fantasy about a nexus between terrorist organizations and nuclear weapons is a remenant of Bush's combating WMD strategy, and it needs to go away.

Army's Non-Lethal Capabilities

Paul McLeary has an article up in his blog talking about the 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Brigade Combat Team being outfitted with the latest non-lethal weapons package for its eventual use in Iraq. You may remember that this topic was one of some debate recently, as to whether this was a tool to be used against a domestic audience or for force protection of US troops overseas. I thought it important to spread the word on this important topic.

The goal, according to Maj. Thomas Aarsen, NLCS project office at the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal, is to even­tually field the entire set “to all the ma­neuver brigades, which will be heavy BCTs, infantry BCTs and airborne BCTs, and support elements as well.”  

Solders from the 1st BCT began train­ing with the non-lethal set in July, and fielding of the entire kit will go on for an­other 18-24 months. After that, the whole package will be given to brigades.

“Once we issue it to a brigade, they own that property,” Aarsen says. “They’ll bring it to theater and come back with it as well.”  

In other words, to go along with the culturally sensitive turn the Army is taking in response to the complicated counterinsurgency and stability actions it is waging in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the humanitarian and outreach missions U.S. armed forces will increasingly par­ticipate in as part of the new U.S. Africa, or Africom, command), the leadership sees non-lethal weapons as an additional combat multiplier in future missions.

This is an important tool for our military if we are to engage in stability operations that don't always involve "kinetic operations." I can understand why Glenn Greenwald and others don't understand this, but I'm glad that this capability is being developed.

Clarifying the Need for Missile Defense

Sven Ortmann over at Defence and Freedom emailed me an interesting comment (he's having some trouble with the Typepad registration). He notes:

"I'm crazy enough not to believe 100% in MAD - I believe that today's MAD is different and probably less powerful than during the mad Cold War time.

"I agree that BMD [ballistic missile defense] on the strategic scale is only trying to plug the least accessible hole in the defense - there won't be as much security as expenditures, but possibly too much self-confidence.

"BMD makes sense as a tactical/operational defense, though. The Iskander-M missile is an astonishing glimpse at a possible alternative to classic air attacks (and easily available without all that AEW, SEAD, airfield, squadrons stuff). All high-value targets including warships are apparently being threatened by TBMs, and that needs to be addressed."

I should have clarified my earlier post that, yes, I do believe in theater air and missile defense (still puzzled over the JTAMDO-JIAMDO name change) as a vital part of our military capability (I agree with Sven's post here). I also realize that I've let my threat weapon system knowledge slip. I am so used to using the term "Scud" when talking about Russian-style ballistic missiles, I've lost track of the new weapon systems coming out of the East (not that there's been that many, Russia does not have a very large cutting edge defense industry). Iskander missiles are, of course, what Russian President Medvedev has threatened to deploy as a countermove to the US missile defense system that is to be placed in Poland. Sven has also posted on the T-95 tank and the RPG-30, both systems of which I know little but need to learn about. Go check him out.

Really Crazy People Talk About Nukes

The search for a nuclear weapons strategy goes on, and the quixotic ideas of arms control advocates enter the realm of Democratic national strategies, especially given the change of administrations. They want to push for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, they're certifiably insane, given today's uncertain environment.

In the coming years, arms-control experts believe one of the trickiest tensions is going to be between the need to control the world's supply of weapons-grade fissile material and the need to feed the world's growing nuclear energy industry - an expansion helped along by concerns about climate change, pollution, and the world's long-term oil and gas supplies.

One suggestion is to create a single international body, with a sweeping global mandate, that would control and track all of the world's fissile material, no matter its form - something like the current-day International Atomic Energy Agency, but far larger and better-funded. Such a body would be able to spot any diversions to potential terrorists, and would trace and verify cuts in stockpiles.

The other major question is what, if anything, countries can use as a deterrent in place of nuclear missiles. (This is less of a worry for the United States than other countries - in a nuclear-free world our conventional military dominance would be all the more pronounced.) In a paper published this summer, George Perkovich and James Acton, two nuclear proliferation experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, weighed two options. One was an international body that would control the world's remaining nuclear weapons and be empowered to use them on rogue nations - a set-up that seems, for the foreseeable future, politically implausible.

The second was more intriguing. It was a proposal, first suggested in 1984 by the writer and nuclear analyst Jonathan Schell, for "virtual" nuclear arsenals. In effect, the world's nuclear powers would dismantle all of their weapons, but maintain everything they need to quickly build new ones - fissile material, trained engineers, production facilities. If threatened, a country could have a new arsenal built in weeks.

Whether or not nations would consider this an effective deterrent, Schell's idea also raises the question of what, exactly, going to zero means. Would we actually be living in a nuclear-free world if there were no nuclear weapons but dozens of nuclear-weapons facilities poised to churn them out if need be?

Perhaps insane is too strong a word - hopelessly idealistic, certainly. The article is pretty balanced, shuttling back and forth between those cynics (like me) who believe that this goal will not ever be achieved, those such as former Senator Sam Nunn who push for stronger proliferation controls with total elimination as a far term goal, and the idealists who think that the US government should give up its nuclear weapons to "an international body." Can you imagine the Republican response if anyone in the Democratic party suggested such a thing?

Not. Gonna. Happen.

New Comment Format

I'm trying out Typepad's new comment feature. If you think it's too unwieldy or it seems acceptable, ahhh... leave a comment.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction

I had not realized that the term "WMD" had also applied to the financial sector - it seems very apt right about now. After all, it was always believed that neutron bombs would leave buildings standing but empty of human life - now it's happening in a parallel circumstance.

The SEC released correspondence between Berkshire and the regulator on Friday, two weeks after Berkshire said more than $1 billion of losses on derivatives led to a 77 percent overall profit decline at the Omaha, Nebraska-based company.

Buffett's derivatives bet has faced much scrutiny from analysts and investors this year. They have led to paper losses for Berkshire, and Buffett, perhaps the world's most admired investor, has previously called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction."

Berkshire's derivatives could require the company to pay up to $37.04 billion between 2019 and 2027 if the Standard & Poor's 500 index .SPX and three other stock indexes were lower than when Berkshire entered the contracts.

I understand that Mr. Buffett coined this term back in 2003 - who could have predicted that the bombs would go off in 2008? I suppose we'll have to get DOD to broaden its definition...

What's the Army's Nuke Defense?

With all these think tank reports and intel estimates predicting the future adversaries and necessary defense strategies for the next administration, two things jump out at me. First of all is this relentless insistence that terrorist groups and nuclear weapon states will be increasing in numbers over the next decade - not based on any actual trends, but because technology will become more accessible.

The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons.  - Global Trends 2025, Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Radical Islamist movements, for example, use terror and subversion, engage in modern forms of irregular and insurgency warfare, and pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and its allies. China, who, of the three challenges, presents the military forces most similar to the US military, is emphasizing conventionally armed ballistic missiles, information warfare capabilities, anti-satellite weaponry, submarines, high-speed cruise missiles and other capabilities that could threaten the United States’ access to the “global commons” of space, cyberspace, the air, the seas and the undersea, and possibly to US ally and partner nations in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Hostile and potentially unstable countries like North Korea and Iran have developed or may soon develop nuclear arsenals with which they could intimidate America’s allies and challenge the US military’s ability to protect vital national interests. Moreover, if these countries succeed in developing nuclear arsenals, they could spur others to follow suit. - An Army At the Crossroads, Andrew Krepinevitch

My second impression is that the Army (as an institution) isn't that worried about nukes. As a question for Dr. Krepinevitch - if so many analysts and politicians are worried about nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, what exactly are the Army's plans and capabilities to face this threat on the battlefield? Krepinevitch's report is more focused on reforming the Army to conduct stability operations and why the Future Combat Systems is all wrong for it. He completely ignores this issue, other than to note it as a possible future condition. My gut feeling is that the Army leadership views nuclear weapon states as a strategic threat that one responds to with strategic nukes, and therefore it isn't their problem on the battlefield. Army leadership similarly views nuclear terrorism as a DHS/DOE problem against which they will be expected to provide bodies, but not brains.

To clarify, yes, I know we have radiation detection equipment, and we have a "combating WMD" strategy and a passive defense capability area (of dubious quality, but it's there). I don't get the feeling, however, that this threat of proliferating nuclear powers is one that the military gives a high priority as a future threat or that the military has invested much into developing a capability that is significantly different than what it had 20 years ago. It is a threat (current and future), but not one that the Army leadership is significantly concerned about.

The Army has a specialty area they call Functional Area 52, nuclear weapons and combating WMD operations. It's a small group. Since the Army has no offensive nuclear weapons, their work is largely focused on supporting nonproliferation programs and exercising consequence management plans. In general, they don't discuss the topic openly or theorize on the subject (although I do recommend their journal). Our Army Chemical Corps isn't much better - they're more focused on becoming "CBRNE" hazard mitigation teams - mop and bucket brigades designed to clean up after CBRN incidents - than thinking about strategy. So do we really have any capability in the Army prepared to address nuclear weapons on the battlefield or nuclear terrorists on the home front? I mean, other that those well-developed WMD Civil Support Teams who are soooooo busy exercising state/local emergency response plans.

I Read Stupid People

The Wall Street Journal is quickly eclipsing the Washington Times as a forum for nutcases of the right-wing. Brian Kennedy wants us to believe that an Iranian EMP attack is more to be feared than a terrorist nuclear incident and therefore we need that national missile defense system to keep growing.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

The EMP scare has been going on for some years, and I've been told that the FY2009 Defense Authorization Act has called for biennial reports on what DOD is doing to prepare for the EMP threat. But I'm curious. If a ship brings a ballistic missile into the Great Lakes area and launches an EMP-armed missile, exactly what national defense system - located in Alaska, California, or (hypothetically) Maine - is going to knock it out? And we've already established that a missile defense system is useless against terrorist nukes, terrorist-commanded liquid fuel carriers, and many other fanciful scenarios they want to think up. I wonder how good a missile defense system is against a rogue asteroid that's the size of Texas... as long as we're fantasizing.

Kennedy's argument to continue the Bush national security program is not coherent. A national missile defense system might help against a minor nuclear weapons state, assuming one was crazy enough to discount MAD, but only if the technology is mature - and it isn't. I think we'll see more and more of these kinds of pre-emptive conservative attacks on Democrat national security positions as Obama's administration takes over. These guys want to continue their failed policies at any cost.

So Who Asked You Anyway?

SHORTER Don Rumsfeld: "Based on the success of my prosecution of the war in Iraq, to include Teh Surge(TM), the US Govt ought to pursue the same strategy in Afghanistan."

Honestly. Is there anyone else who doesn't instinctively think that we ought to do the exact opposite of everything that Rumsfeld suggests in this NY Times op-ed? And why is the NY Times giving this fool a voice? Did the Washington Times turn down his statement?

Gen Cartwright on Defense Acquisition

This kind of statement has been long overdue. And it's just like General James "Hoss" Cartwright to step up to the plate and deliver.

The military must end its quest for “exquisite” weapon systems that are too costly, take years to design and build, and don’t reach troops fast enough, or in quantities large enough, to address ever-changing threats.

The critic here isn’t a Washington think tank or a beltway consultant but Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the U.S. military’s second highest ranking officer.

Cartwright recalled the wry observation made by some critics of current weapon-buying practices that, by 2015, America’s armed forces will have one airplane and one ship operating in the Pacific, one airplane and one ship in the Atlantic and a single space vehicle orbiting the Earth.

“What they’re really saying, in my mind, is we have gone overboard with exquisite” ships and aircraft, Cartwright said, and “that we have got to get back to scale [and] platforms that are adaptable and flexible.”

The problem, of course, is that the four services and Congress don't feel compelled to listen to logic, even when it hits them smack in the face during a world-wide financial crisis. No, when the DOD tries to reel in very expensive pork packages such as Congress's move to force 20 more F22 planes on the military, its reaction is to push back rather than work with OSD. Go get 'em, Hoss!

Future Insecurities

The Global Security Newswire reports that the National Intelligence Council has released its annual Global Trends report. As can be expected, there's lots to fear.

The 99-page document -- the fourth such report on long-term trends that the council has issued in recent years -- warns of the perils the United States might expect from the steady expansion of nuclear capabilities worldwide.

"The spread of nuclear technologies and expertise is generating concerns about the potential emergence of new nuclear-weapon states and the acquisition of nuclear materials by terrorist groups," according to the document.

The national intelligence director's office laid out the risks in a statement released yesterday.

"The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons," according to the DNI statement. "The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a widening range of options for limited strikes."

Of particular concern is the "growing risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," where a number of states "are already thinking about developing or acquiring nuclear technology useful for development of nuclear weaponry," reads the global trends report.

Of interest, this report admits that it's more likely terrorists will use chemical or biological weapons than nuclear.

Opportunities for mass-casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear weapons will increase as technology diffuses and nuclear power (and possibly weapons) programs expand. The practical and psychological consequences of such attacks will intensify in an increasingly globalized world.

That's an interesting, if somewhat obvious (to me) statement. I continue to be surprised at how "experts" believe that the continued advance of technology will always translate into more capability for terrorist groups. Near the end, there is this paragraph:

Casual Fridays

Based on the demo, I just had to get this game. "Left 4 Dead" is a first-person shooter based on the Half-Life2 model. It is truly as fast-paced and adrenalin-pounding as the trailer demonstrates. You are one member of a four-person squad, armed with light weapons and pipebombs, facing the zombie apocalypse. You have to negotiate urban and outdoor terrain, getting from one safe room to the next to move forward. Weapons are pretty varied, unlimited pistol ammo and shotguns, assault rifles, and Uzis so far.

Most of the zombies are more George Romero than "28 days later" until you get them excited, and then they pour onto you. If you are wandering away from your group, it's very easy to die. If you get knocked down and incapacitated, a colleague can pull you up on your feet. A quick first-aid patch, and you're back in business. You just have to watch for the special zombies - hunters, smokers, blobs, and especially the tank and the witch. You can play the zombie team, but only on two of the four maps (haven't tried that yet).

I'm hoping that they're still going to tweak it some more - I don't think there's enough first aid kits around to keep the pace right, and the tank zombie seems way too overpowered. I guess that's the point of a "tank." Pretty amazing, though.

In related news, it's the tenth year anniversary this week for Half Life! Hard to believe that it was ten years ago, we were agog over the fantastic journeys of Gordon Freeman and his trusty powersuit. And what problem can't be solved with his crowbar?

Open Yucca Mountain Already

One of the more disappointing aspects of Barack Obama's presidential campaign was his willingness to pander to the Nevada residents on the issue of Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear repository. So he won Nevada, a previously red state. Whoopie. The repository is built. All we're waiting for is an agonizingly long EPA approval process, one that has been fraught with politics and myopic views that ignore the threat of nuclear terrorism.

“This is probably the world’s most intensely studied mountain,” says Michael Voegele, one of the senior engineers on the project, standing beside the “Yucca Mucker”, a 720-ton cylinder-shaped machine that has drilled a five-mile tunnel into the mountain. “And yet, there will be even more study.”

Indeed. In September, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised its original safety standards for what would be the world’s first deep underground nuclear mausoleum. Those standards were meant to protect the health of people living near Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years from the time the mountain is filled with 70,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste.

Ten thousand years is roughly twice mankind’s recorded history. But a court in Washington ruled in 2004 that protection should reach farther into the future. The new standards “will protect public health and the environment for 1 million years,” according to the EPA. “The Yucca Mountain facility will open only if it meets EPA’s standards…”

The standards specify that for the first 10,000 years, future residents should not be exposed to more than 15 millirem of radioactivity per year. From year 10,001 to one million, the dose limit is now set at 100 millirem a year.

To put those limits into context: Princeton University estimates that the average American is exposed to 350 millirems per year, from sources that range from X-rays to food. Bananas, for example. (They contain potassium and a radioactive potassium isotope. Eating one or two a day adds up to the radioactivity of a chest x-ray a year).

It's this simple, folks. There are 120 nuclear repositories in 39 states. That means 120 targets for all those terrorists that Chertoff, Nunn, and others voicing their fears about nuclear terrorism (and you know there are quite a few). This standard of 15 millirem is beyond ridiculous, as is this 10,000 year standard. I wonder if the assumption is that we need a repository that, in the event that aliens land on earth, they won't be surprised by the contents of that repository. Honestly - it's not as if we're going to walk away once the first shipments are loaded into the caves.

We need nuclear power to avoid future energy crises, especially as our population continues to grow. We ought not take the risk of having to monitor more than a hundred nuclear waste sites in multiple states. Transporting hazardous waste is not a mystery - it's done every day with thousands of tons of waste. The Democrats need to stop pandering to the fearful and the ignorant and do the right thing. Open Yucca Mountain already. 

(Hat tip to Ray for the story!)

New JIAMDO Director On Board

With relatively little fanfair, Rear Admiral Archer Macy has taken over the office of the Director, Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (JIAMDO), once called JTAMDO. I suppose Integrated air and missile defense is seen as better than Theater air and missile defense? He is triple-hatted as the Deputy Director for Force Protection in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, J-8 Directorate, and the Director, Joint Requirements Office for CBRN Defense.

Rear Admiral Macy enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1972 and served as a quartermaster onboard USS Severn (AO-61). He was selected for the Naval Enlisted Scientific Education Program, and graduated from the University of Washington in 1978 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics. His graduate education includes a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a Master of Arts (with distinction) in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. He has a proven subspecialty in Weapon Systems Engineering, is a graduate of the Defense Systems Management College and is a designated acquisition professional.

Macy has served at sea aboard USS Jesse L. Brown (FF-1089), USS Thomas C. Hart (FF-1092), USS LaSalle (AGF-3) and USS David R. Ray (DD-971). He commanded USS Comte De Grasse (DD-974) from July 1996 through June 1998. He has deployed to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, North and South Atlantic, Caribbean, and eastern and western Pacific.

Ashore Macy has served in the program executive office for Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; and in the Aegis Combat System and Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Programs. He was the program manager for Surface Electronic Warfare Systems and Decoys, and served in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems.

Macy was the commander, Naval Surface Warfare Center from July 2004 to October 2008. He also served as the DoD executive manager for Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology and Training, and as single manager for Counter-RCIED Electronic Warfare Technology, during this period. Additionally he was assigned as deputy commander for Warfare Systems Engineering, Naval Sea Systems Command during 2004-2006.

RADM Macy replaces Maj Gen Larry New (USAF). Not sure at this time to what assignment Maj Gen New has gone, but knowing past J8 generals, I'm sure it's a good position.

UPDATE: Missile Defense Agency also changed commands. Also, Maj Gen New has retired.

Al Qaeda, Still the Main Bad Guys

Last week, CIA Director General Michael Hayden talked about his job at the Atlantic Council. He nearly made it all the way through his discussion and the Q&A session without saying "terrorist WMD" before some nutcase had to ask him about the threat of bioterrorism.

I want to make three points. Number one, al Qaeda has suffered serious setbacks but it remains a determined, adaptive enemy, unlike any our nation has ever faced. This war – and let me underscore that. You should make no mistake this is anything else but a war. This war is far from over. Now, to be very clear, all the elements of national power are going to be required in order to keep the republic and the homeland safe. That’s the tools of law enforcement, diplomacy, and a variety of other methodologies that we have at our disposal. But at its core I personally, and my agency, believe that we are in a state of war with al Qaeda. 

Second, al Qaeda today is both resilient and vulnerable. Now, our job as intelligence professionals is to understand that complex picture so we can provide warning and opportunity to those who are making decisions on behalf of our country. 

Third, al Qaeda, operating from its safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas, remains the most clear and present danger to the safety of the United States. If there is a major strike against this country, it will bear the fingerprints of al Qaeda.
---------------
Q: Ken Dillon, Scientia Press. Could you give us your assessment of al Qaeda’s current capabilities in bio-warfare? And could you comment on whether you consider the 2001 anthrax mailings as a serious possibility that they were the work of al Qaeda?  

GEN. HAYDEN: I’ll have to defer on the second question to what the bureau has said. I know Bob Mueller has talked about this, particularly since they were, you know, moving to resolution of that case. It is clear to us – and again, I’m going to sum up by classification, but what I can share is that it’s clear to us that the intent for weapons of mass destruction, and it’s across bio, chem, and nuclear, is unarguable. We see that in multiple strands of reporting. The good news is in some of those higher end weapons, that’s hard to achieve. The bad news is that there are some lower end weapons that are not. And that represents a great danger to us. And our belief is, you know, a lot of this is reporting and some of it is assessment. But it all comes wrapped with a high confidence level. If al Qaeda could do it, they would. And so it’s something that we pay great attention to.  

I believe that al Qaeda has an intent to get CBRN hazards, but I'm not so sure about other terrorist organizations. I think they think about it because our political leadership tells everyone, every chance they get, about how worried they are about that possibility.But the proof is in the tasting of the pudding - as Hayden says, "if they could do it, they would," and guess what? They haven't. That's a good sign, and in my opinion, a pretty solid point of evidence that the saying of " it's not a matter of if, but when" needs to be shelved.

Chem Demil's New Schedule

The budget weenies at DOD have updated their budget documents to reflect cost growth in defense programs that exceeded 15% of their estimated cost or have experienced schedule delays of more than six months. Of course, our favorite chemical demilitarization program, the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program is one of them.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released details on major defense acquisition program cost, schedule, and performance changes since the June 2008 reporting period. This information is based on the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) submitted to the Congress for the September 2008 reporting period.
 
SARs summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule, and performance status. These reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the President's budget. Subsequent quarterly exception reports are required only for those programs experiencing unit cost increases of at least 15 percent or schedule delays of at least six months. Quarterly SARs are also submitted for initial reports, final reports, and for programs that are rebaselined at major milestone decisions.
--------
Chem-Demil-ACWA (Chemical Demilitarization-Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives) –The SAR was submitted to reflect schedule delays of greater than six months. Specifically, the Pueblo "Begin Operations" milestone slipped 23 months from January 2015 to December 2016, and the Blue Grass "Begin Operations" milestone slipped 49 months from January 2017 to February 2021. DoD is currently evaluating the cost impacts of these schedule slips.
 
Chem-Demil-CMA (Chemical Demilitarization-Chemical Materials Agency) - The SAR was submitted to reflect schedule delays of greater than six months. Specifically, the Pine Bluff Explosive Destruction System (PBEDS) Complete Operations milestone slipped 34 months from December 2008 to October 2011, pending the ongoing technology selection process. There were no cost changes.

You can be sure that those cost impacts will be significant. Note that the beginning date of Blue Grass operations is now 2021 - tack on about 3 years for operations, and 2 years for close-out. That's much further out that Sen. Mitch McConnell's pre-election prediction that all chemical destruction would be done by 2017. And then, citizens of Kentucky, you can thank Sen. Mitch McConnell for making your state the last one in the nation to get rid of its chemical weapons that were manufactured in the 1960s.

It's About Logistics

I suppose it doesn't take a great deal of thought to go from stories about Taliban attacks on convoys enroute to Pakistan, but it's interesting to see the contortions that the military is now going through to get an alternative route. One has to ask, though, did they not think this through?

About 75 percent of NATO and U.S. supplies bound for Afghanistan -- including gas, food and military equipment -- are transported over land through Pakistan. To get here, they start in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi and move north through Pakistan's volatile North-West Frontier Province and tribal areas before arriving at the Afghan border. The convoys then press forward along mountain hairpin turns through areas of Afghanistan that are known as havens for insurgents.

Drivers at this busy border crossing say the death threats from the Taliban now arrive almost daily. Sometimes they come in the form of a letter taped to the windshield of a truck late at night. Occasionally, a dispatcher receives an early-morning phone call before a convoy sets off from Pakistan. More often, the threats are delivered at the end of a gun barrel.

"The Taliban, they tell us, 'These goods belong to the Americans. Don't bring them to the Americans. If you do, we'll kill you,' " said Rahmanullah, a truck driver from the Pakistani tribal town of Landikotal. "From Karachi to Kabul there is trouble. The whole route is insecure."

The growing danger has forced the Pentagon to seek far longer, but possibly safer, alternate routes through Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, according to Defense Department documents. A notice to potential contractors by the U.S. Transportation Command in September said that "strikes, border delays, accidents and pilferage" in Pakistan and the risk of "attacks and armed hijackings" in Afghanistan posed "a significant risk" to supplies for Western forces in Afghanistan.

I just have to say again - how could they NOT see this coming? No protection for the convoys, shortest route through Pakistan runs the gauntlet, now they either have to go through Turkey or India through the 'stans?

Deep Thoughts

And because of stupid things such as the Dems letting Joe "Back-Stabber" Lieberman retain his chair of the Senate Homeland Security, I will never be a registered Democrat and I will never donate to their political parties. Not that their last two years as the majority party in Congress inspired any confidence. I very much hope they get their act together next year, but that may be too optimistic.