War, the military, COIN and stuff

Violence Along the Arizona Border

Last night, just north of Nogales, Ariz., Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was shot and killed after coming in contact with several suspicious men near Rio Rico, Ariz.  Four suspects have been taken into custody while another is still at large, according to the Customs and Border Patrol.

Back in September I had the chance to spend a day with Border Patrol agents around Nogales, doing a story both on what they contend with on a daily basis, as well as how they use sensing technologies to help them do their jobs.

The area around Nogales is part of the Tucson Sector, which is the most active alone the entire border. Covering only 262 mi. of border, the sector still managed to account for 1 million lb. of marijuana seized in Fiscal 2010, and 203,000 illegal border crossers detained. Tucson also has the distinction of being the test bed for the Homeland Security Department’s huge and controversial SBInet program, part of its larger Secure Border Initiative. SBI was initiated in 2005 to add fencing, paved and graded roads and install SBInet technologies such as radar, sensors, cameras and other communications gear along the border.

Five years on, and $800 million later, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered a freeze on the program pending a top-to-bottom review. At the time, nine towers in the Tucson Sector had been completed, and by late October six more were conducting limited operations in the Ajo Sector. Still, the agents on the ground loved the gear, which gives them real-time access to radar and camera feeds, and increases both their safety, as well as their response time.

Read the whole thing at ARES

Unmanned, Underground, Uncovered

One of the things that the Wikileaks diplomatic cables open up to view is the complicated and shadowy world of international arms transfers--how one sale might lead to another, and then another to an unfriendly power, or how two companies from different countries  might actually provide banned items to a third party. It's hardly shocking that these things happen, but it's facinating to see how they're handled quietly though some diplomatic arm-twisting.

One State Dept. cable from March 24, 2009 titled “SHIPMENT OF UAVS FROM IRAN TO VENEZUELA” shows how tight of a lid U.S. intelligence agencies are trying to keep on the export of arms to and from nations it considers unfriendly. The report states that

Venezuelan officials expected to receive a shipment of UNMANNED aerial vehicles (UAV) and related material from Iran, via Turkey, by May 2009. As of early March, Venezuelan officials believed that the equipment would be repackaged and labeled as electronic equipment, then transported overland from Iran to Turkey. Once in Turkey, the equipment would be loaded onto a maritime vessel for continued shipment to Venezuela. The U.S. believes this shipment constitutes arms and related materiel, which Iran is prohibited from transferring pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1747, paragraph 5.

In January 2009, acting on another tip from U.S. officials, the Turkish government stopped an Iranian attempt to ship drums of nitrate and sulphite chemicals and dismantled laboratory instruments to Venezuela, by shipping them through Turkey.

Read the rest at ARES...

Secretary Gates on Wikileaks

In the Q&A portion of the press conference unveiling the Pentagon's landmark Don't Ask Don't Tell survery, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen took questions on the other big story this week -- the publication of over 200,000 stolen diplomatic cables sent by American officials overseas which has been been blowing up front pages all week. (Actually, less than 300 cables have been published so far, in a strategy that Wikileaks is using to keep the story "fresh" for as long as it can.) While Gates and Mullen and a host of other DoD officials have commented on the leak, Gates' comments yesterday were pretty remarkable.

If you'll allow me to quote at length,it's worth reading the whole thing.

    First of all, I would say unlike the Pentagon Papers, one of the things that is important, I think, in all of these releases, whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq or the releases this week, is the lack of any significant difference between what the U.S. government says publicly and what these things show privately, whereas the Pentagon Papers showed that many in the government were not only lying to the American people, they were lying to themselves.

But let me – let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time.  Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time.  And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases.  And this is a quote from John Adams:  “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.”

When we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid-’70s, there was a broad view that no other foreign intelligence service would ever share information with us again if we were going to share it all with the Congress.  Those fears all proved unfounded.

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on.  I think – I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought.  The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.  

Many governments – some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.  We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us.  They will continue to work with us.  We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing?  Yes.  Is it awkward?  Yes.  Consequences for U.S. foreign policy?  I think fairly modest.

Published at ARES...

McCain, Unbound

Speaking at a daylong gathering sponsored by the new conservative/neocon foreign policy shop the Foreign Policy Initiative this morning, Sen. John McCain said that he is concerned about the isolationist tendencies of some his incoming Congressional Republican colleagues, and made some very pointed remarks about the Russian government.

Speaking with the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, McCain said that “I worry, I worry a lot,” about his new Republican colleagues in Congress when it comes to their attitudes toward the war in Afghanistan and the ongoing mission in Iraq. He singled out “I think there are going to be some tensions within our party,” he said, “and I don’t know incoming Senator Rand Paul—I respect him, I admire his victory—but already he is talking about withdrawals, and cuts in defense, and a number of others are [as well.]”

Paul, who has said that he hasn’t thought much about the war in Afghanistan and that “can we say that gradually we don't need as large of an Army if we're not in two wars? Yes, I think you can say that. You can save money there,” is a bit of an unknown on where exactly he stands on defense issues. But he is clearly making some Republicans nervous.             

But it isn’t just Paul that McCain is concerned about. He seems wary of the entire crop of Tea Part-endorsed Republicans currently making their way to D.C. for their freshman orientation. “There’s no doubt that this new group of Republicans have come in with a commitment to take an axe to spending,” McCain continued. “I’m not sure that you could say, ok, everything in defense is sacrosanct, while the rest of these cuts in education and social programs are taking place, so I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican party.”

Please read the rest at ARES...