The Insider

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today gave a speech to the National Policy Conference of The Nixon Center and the Richard Nixon Foundation. In it, he questioned the Obama administration's stated goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons:

First, is 'zero' really desirable? If nuclear deterrence has kept the peace between superpowers since the end of World War II, which itself cost over 60 million lives by some estimates, are nuclear weapons really a risk to peace or a contributor to peace?

Second, since the know-how exists to build nuclear weapons and they can't be disinvented, is it really realistic to think they could be effectively eliminated? For example, if we get near to zero, any nation that can breakout and build even a few nuclear weapons will become a superpower.

And the superpowers themselves will find it difficult to get close to zero. For example, if Russia deploys ten extra nuclear weapons today, that's not a big deal, we have 2,200 deployed. If, however, each side is at 100 weapons, and one side deploys an extra ten, that's a significant military breakout. And while we will have 1,550 deployed weapons under the new treaty, and China will still have only several hundred, as we go lower, China has every incentive to build up quickly and become a peer competitor to the U.S. How do we deal with these problems? It's not clear we know.

Third, do we really have to 'restore our moral leadership' and is it necessarily more moral or moral at all to eschew weapons that have been a deterrent to conflict, but the elimination of which could make the world again safe for conventional wars between the great powers? Again, World War 2 cost an estimated 60 million lives. After 1945, the great powers have been deterred from war with each other.

The Pentagon announced this month that Brig. Gen. Kevin Magnum will head its new aviation subordinate command, headquartered at Ft. Bragg, NC. Magnum is currently the deputy commanding general-center at U.S. Division-Center in Iraq, according to a May 3 announcement on the Defense Department's website.

As first reported by Inside the Pentagon, the idea to create a new aviation subordinate command under U.S. Army Special Operations Command was spawned by findings in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as subsequent Army force structure decisions, Col. Steve Mathias, director of special operations aviation at USASOC, said last December.

The new aviation command will be headquartered at Ft. Bragg NC, and be organized in the same structure as USASOC’s Special Forces subordinate command.

The Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), known as the Night Stalkers, will be folded under the new provisional command once the organization is fully stood up, Mathias said at the time. Along with the 160th SOAR’s fleet of combat rotorcraft -- including the MH-60 Black Hawk, A/MH-6M Little Bird and MH-47 Chinook -- the new subordinate command would also be responsible for the command’s growing fleet of unmanned aircraft.

Magnum is also a former commander of the 160th SOAR.

Don't expect the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ratification process to be a slam-dunk affair. At least according to Senate Republicans.

In a May 14 report, the Senate Republican Policy Committee states that the U.S. and Russian nuclear relationship "seems not to have destabilized in START's absence, and thus there is no reason for the Senate to rush its constitutional duty to evaluate the merits of the replacement treaty (New START) independently."

Specifically:

New START raises many questions on a range of topics at the heart of U.S. national security policy, including issues of nuclear modernization, missile defense, verification, tactical nuclear weapons, U.S. and Russian nuclear force structure, Russian cooperation with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and prompt conventional global strike capabilities.

A treaty of this magnitude requires the most thorough and thoughtful deliberation and attention of the Senate. It will be especially critical for the Senate to articulate with clarity its understanding of many of the treaty’s vague clauses and Russian statements affecting these issues.

Past treaties on similarly weighty arms control matters were before the Senate for extended periods of time, with extensive committee work. START itself was subject to more than 20 days of committee hearings, while other arms control treaties of similar magnitude had more than 45 such hearings.

The Senate must be given appropriate time to complete its work. After all, the President delayed submission of his Nuclear Posture Review to Congress by four months and missed his own deadline for New START by several months.

A Heritage Foundation report released at the end of last month is somewhat harsher in its analysis, stating that the follow-on treaty "stymies U.S. efforts to develop and deploy missile defenses"; "elevates and emboldens Russia as nuclear power"; and "fails to address the real nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea."

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee, in a separate report released May 14, claims "strong bipartisan support" for the follow-on pact:

Historically, arms control treaties have enjoyed strong bipartisan support and have been advanced by leaders from both parties over the past several decades, from President John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The New START Treaty is in line with past nuclear arms treaties, including the START I Treaty, the START II Treaty, and the SORT Treaty – all of which received nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate.

Following a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said on May 11 that the EU is ready to "immediately" negotiate a settlement of a bilateral dispute with the United States over subsidies for the development of large civil aircraft by Airbus and Boeing -- provided there are no preconditions, Inside U.S. Trade's World Trade Online reports this week.

In a press roundtable, De Gucht said the negotiations could start now but would not provide a specific timetable. “We'll have to see in the coming weeks,” he said.

The Air Force's KC-X airborne refueling tanker competition has been caught up in this transatlantic dispute, with the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. competing against Boeing for the multibillion-dollar contract. During his roundtable this week:

De Gucht gave no signal at the press roundtable that EU member states will provide launch aid for the Airbus A350 plane, but other sources said that the decision could be imminent and could be made even before the U.S. Air Force decides on the award of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, on which both Boeing and Airbus parent company European Aeronautical Defense and Space (EADS) are bidding.

EADS opponents in Congress have tried to use the subsidies issue to pressure the Air Force not to award the contract to EADS. This week, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) will introduce a bill that would force the Air Force to consider the WTO subsidy ruling in the Airbus case in the tanker decision and Boeing has been lobbying heavily for the bill.

De Gucht said he did not discuss the tanker contract in his separate meetings with Kirk and Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman.

Spain, the United Kingdom, France and Germany have pledged about $4 billion in launch aid for the A350, but the details have been under negotiation since the middle of 2009. Observers believe that the royalty-based financing is being tailored to comply with the findings in the WTO cases against previous Airbus funding.

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) today accused Air Force leaders of attempting to conduct a "backdoor" Base Realignment and Closure process against the Air National Guard.

During his opening statement at a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing this morning, Bond said he is worried a planned reduction in ANG fighter aircraft would threaten the ability to police the skies over the United States.

Air Force leaders have said the service will not replace legacy fighters with fifth-generation aircraft on a one-to-one basis because the newer aircraft are much more capable than their predecessors. But Bond said he disagrees with the reductions and called them a "backdoor BRAC."

The senator also blamed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for sucking money from other Air Force programs.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in Washington today and tomorrow to meet with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. One issue that may come up during the talks is the Afghan government's notorious corruption problem. During an appearance before the House Armed Services Committee last week, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy sketched out the situation:

You know, Afghanistan is a country that has been in and out of war for 30 years. In that kind of environment, corruption tends to take root in the society writ large. It is a problem for other countries in the region as well.

I think we are seeing renewed commitment to dealing with this problem on the Afghan side. They have recently established a major crimes task force and indicted key officials, the mayor of Kabul, a minister, a police general, trying to signal no one's going to be above the rule of law.

It's a -- we're at the beginning of a process. But again, the -- we are moving in the right direction. We are trying to change the incentive structures that have motivated corruption in the past.

One of the temptations that leads to corruption is available cash. It's been a big problem for the U.S. military since the war began eight years ago. Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale recently told a group of Army budget officials that the Defense Department is making real progress in shutting off the flow of cash into the country. Speaking April 21 during a teleconference with Army financial managers, Hale said:

We need to get cash off the battlefield in Afghanistan and again we’re having some success. Last fiscal year we’re down to about 10% cash payments to Afghan vendors. Of course essentially all the U.S. payments are by electronic funds transfer but we need to continue.

Afghanistan has a serious corruption problem and the less cash there the better in terms of minimizing corruption risk and also helping internal controls. In some cases, Afghanistan needs new systems, not fancy ones that take years; ones we can get there and get to them in six months and that will reduce their workload, which is a major problem.

Hale added that DOD has created smaller pots of money to complete some local procurement projects, particularly information technology, more quickly without having to get approval from a government headquarters official.

On Thursday Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military official in Afghanistan, will provide an operational update on the war in a closed meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation Frank Rose last week attended the "First Annual Israel Multinational Ballistic Missile Defense Conference" in Tel Aviv, and the State Department today released the transcript of his prepared remarks.

During his speech, Rose highlighted the areas of cooperation between the United States and Israel:

* BMD Operations and Plans: In addition to conducting the Biannual Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise with Israel in November 2009, the U.S. and Israel continue to meet regularly and coordinate extensively on a wide range of missile defense issues.

* Arrow Weapons System: The Arrow System provides Israel with an indigenous capability to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The United States and Israel are co-producing the Arrow-2 missile defense system and engaged in additional BMD research and development activities. We are also working closely together on an improved version of the Arrow missile – the Arrow-3 – that will allow the system to engage threat missiles at greater ranges.

* X-band Radar: In September 2008, the United States and Israel worked together closely to deploy an X-band radar to Israel intended to enhance Israel’s defense.

* David’s Sling: The United States and Israel are co-developing the “David’s Sling” Weapon System (DSWS) to defend against short-range rocket and missile threats falling below the optimal capability for Israel’s Arrow interceptor.

"The growing proliferation of missile threats, especially those with ranges of less than 1,000 kilometers, mean that regional demand for U.S. (Ballistic Missile Defense) assets is likely to exceed supply for some years to come," Rose continued. "This places a premium on developing flexible, adaptable, and relocatable defense capabilities and in encouraging the development of missile defense capabilities by our regional partners." Further:

This is why our collaborative missile defense efforts are so important. Together we can work to protect what we value and what our adversaries will seek to put at risk, both now and in the future. The combination of U.S-Israeli cooperation on BMD research and development, deployment of proven technologies and weapon systems such as the Arrow, and plans and operational experience through joint exercises and training, will go far in enhancing Israeli security and our mutual interests.

Rose concluded his speech with these points:

First, missile defenses offer numerous advantages, including the opportunity to enhance the credibility of U.S. extended deterrence commitments for our allies and friends. Missile defenses also provide more options for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Second, the new U.S. approach to missile defense outlined in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review is beneficial for Israel as well as our other regional allies, and builds on the strong foundation of U.S.-Israeli missile defense cooperation.

Finally, the United States remains committed to working closely with our friends, allies, and partners around the world, including Israel, to defend against the mutual threats we face, and we believe that our new approach allows us to more effectively accomplish this goal.