ANNE GEARAN   / AP

Current and former U.S. officials tell The Associated Press that reclusive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar wrote to President Barack Obama last year indicating an interest in talks key to ending the war in Afghanistan.

Analysis: Politics drives exit from Afghanistan

DEB RIECHMANN / Associated Press

The Taliban are not beaten, the peace process is bogged down in internal squabbles and Afghan security forces aren’t ready to take control of the nation. Yet the U.S. and its partners are talking about speeding up – rather than slowing down – their exit from the war.

Lawmakers warn of outcry against Taliban transfer

Missy Ryan and Susan Cornwell /Reuters

U.S. lawmakers are steeling for a public battle against the possible transfer of Taliban detainees out of Guantanamo Bay prison, a key step in the Obama administration’s bid to broker a peace deal ending the war in Afghanistan.

ANALYSIS: How do you solve a problem like Iran?

Jim Ludes/ Pell Center

The confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program appears to be heading toward a crescendo—and that’s not the same as a resolution.

Still Britain rattles sabres. Nothing has been learned from Afghanistan

Simon Jenkis / The Guardian

As we ‘withdraw’ from Afghanistan across the Taliban’s golden bridge, we could be heading for catastrophe over Iran… The Afghan war, the longest in US history, is “scheduled to end” a year early, according to the Pentagon. Wars these days run to electoral timetables. The endgame is couched not as victory, let alone defeat, but as “expedited withdrawal”.

Blue Ribbon Commission: Disposing of our nuclear waste

Andrew Holland / The Hill

The commission released a list of 8 specific recommendations, ranging from working more closely with communities hostingnuclear waste to promptly initiating efforts to plan, site, and build both a permanent geologic disposal facility and a temporary central storage facility. The entire list provides a roadmap for how to constructively move forward on this issue. It is a balanced approach that deserves timely consideration from Congress and the administration.

Carrots, not sticks, for Iran

Joshua Foust /PBS 

Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed. In its wake was a small grouping of nuclear-armed countries possessing a huge stockpile of weaponry and delivery systems. These countries had few functioning institutions, serious money issues, and lots of uncertainty.

Work on track for world’s first fusion reactor

Snehlata Shrivastav, / The Times of India

India, one of the seven participating countries, is keeping pace with the development work assigned to it as part of the joint project to produce energy from fusion, using deuterium and tritium, the two hydrogen isotopes, as fuel at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), said project director of India-ITER Shishir Deshpande.

On the ASP Flashpoint blog:

Gold: Why Attacking Iran is not the Least Worst Option

Politics and news aside, when looking at possible attacks on Iran the consequences vastly outweigh the advantages.  Attacking Iran is definitely not, to use Matthew Kroening’s words, the least worst option, it is the worst option.

Dorsk: Nuclear strategy in the cyber age

Just as the United States and Soviet Union competed to have better nuclear weapons technology, the same is true today of security software and programming.  As this new field continues to rapidly expand, I think it is likely that a similar sort of arms buildup is occurring.  The threat of a cyber attack, which can be executed with no warning, at any time, from anywhere, can act mainly as a strong deterrent, much like nuclear submarines.

About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

 For more information, visit www.americansecurityproject.org. info@americansecurityproject.org

Main speakers will include:

Philip Auerswald

 Senior Fellow in Entrepreneurship at the Kauffman Foundation and associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He is the author of several books, most recently The Coming Prosperity: How Entrepreneurs Are Transforming the Global Economy, out next month;

Nathan Hodge

Author of Armed Humanitarians: The Rise of the Nation Builders and a DC-based writer who specializes in defense and national security; and

Peter Choharis

International lawyer and investor, and an adjunct fellow at ASP. He is the founder of Choharis Global Solutions—affiliated law and consulting firms that assist U.S. and foreign companies and governments on investment, dispute resolution, and compliance issues.

moderated by:

Joshua Foust

Fellow at ASP who researches the role of market-oriented development strategies in post-conflict environments, and the use of market forces as a strategic foreign policy planning. He is also a columnist for PBS and The Atlantic Monthly.

The current system of aid and economic development is broken. Not just in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world, the U.S. has proven incapable of reliably developing the economies of post-conflict societies – wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the process.

ASP has been a leader in discussing the national security implications of supporting entrepreneurship in asymmetric operations. Last year, we published “Expeditionary Economics: A New Approach to Foreign Aid,” as a benchmark for thinking about new ways to strategically support the development of business communities to support national security.

There is a widespread recognition that something must change in the way America relates to failed states. Learning how to support struggling economies, instead of pouring money into massive reconstruction projects, is possibly a way of achieving effectiveness in an austere budget environment.

We hope you can join us.

The briefing will take place on Thursday, February 16, 2012 at ASP’s office, 1100 New York Ave., Suite 710W. 

The briefing will begin promptly at 12:30 PM. Please arrive by 12:15 for registration.

Sandwiches will be served.

Please Reply by Tuesday, February 14 to RSVP to this event as space is limited.

To RSVP for this event, email events@americansecurityproject.org.

ABOUT THE AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT

The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges. For more information, visitwww.americansecurityproject.org.

Drought and rising sea levels

The biggest elephant in the room when talking about energy and climate in Florida is the projected sea level rise given increased air and water temperatures. The Center for American Progress reports that almost half of Florida’s beaches, are already eroding enough to have an impact on existing development and recreation areas. That erosion already costs $100 million annually for beach nourishment projects, not to mention the threat it presents for real estate. According to an analysis by the American Security Project, real estate losses are projected to cost Floridians $11 billion by 2025, potentially doubling to $23 billion annually by 2050.

Strategic Vision: America and Crisis of Global Power

Zbigniew Brzezinski/ Huffington Post

The world is now interactive and interdependent. It is also, for the first time, a world in which the problems of human survival have begun to overshadow more traditional international conflicts.

Obama adopts new strategy to protect sources of US goods globally

John Heilprin/ The Washington Post

President Barack Obama adopted a new strategy Wednesday declaring for the first time that the United States has a national security interest in protecting economic goods against terrorists, criminals and natural disasters in all corners of the globe.

UN pushes ambitious Afghan refugee plan

Michael Georgy/ Reuters

More than $1 billion in international aid is needed to ensure that conditions are right for millions of Afghan refugees to return to their troubled homeland, the senior U.N. official for refugees said on Wednesday.

The Emperor’s New Clothes: The leaked NATO report on the Taleban

AAN/  Kate Clark

The leaked report, which has made headline news, has informed us that NATO thinks Pakistan is supporting the Taleban, that the Taleban are defiant and enjoy widespread support, that Afghans frequently prefer them to their corrupt government and that Afghan government officials have secretly reached out to insurgents locally. The presence and actions of international forces as a driver of the insurgency apparently did not come up in the detainee interrogations which form the basis for the assessment. That all this should be news only exposes the wishful thinking which lie at the heart of the international mission in Afghanistan, says AAN senior analyst, Kate Clark.

Afghanistan: the big lie

The Guardian

Joseph Goebbels said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The big lie told repeatedly about the war in Afghanistan is that the international security assistance force (Isaf) and the Afghan national security forces are pushing the Taliban back. This is Hillary Clinton‘s line. It is, heavily caveated, the line of the monthly progress report issued by the Foreign Office. It notes that recorded levels of violence fell significantly in the UK’s area of operations last year but that those gains were tempered by an increase in incidents in the east of the country. The insurgency remains resilient, but is under “significant and sustained” pressure in areas where Isaf and the Afghan national security forces are focusing their efforts.

Effort to Rebrand Arab Spring Backfires in Iran

Robert Worth / New York Times

It was meant to be a crowning moment in which Iran put its own Islamic stamp on the Arab Spring. More than a thousand young activists were flown here earlier this week (at government expense) for a conference on “the Islamic Awakening,” Tehran’s effort to re-brand the popular Arab uprisings of the past year.

UN Nuclear Official: ‘Good Trip’ To Iran

George Jahn / Associated Press

A senior U.N. nuclear inspector spoke Wednesday of a “good trip” to Tehran and the agency said his team will return to Iran’s capital in late February, indicating progress on attempts to investigate suspicions that Iran is secretly working on nuclear weapons.

TIME Exclusive: Q&A with Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar

Aryn Baker / Time

Since she was appointed as Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in July of 2011, Hina Rabbani Khar has had to deal with the fallout from the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, a deterioration in relations with Afghanistan, and a botched cross border operation that saw 24 Pakistani soldiers mistakenly killed by U.S. forces in November. She is Pakistan’s youngest and first female foreign minister. On the eve of her first high-profile visit to Kabul since the assassination of Afghan peace envoy Berhanuddin Rabbani (no relation), she talks about her country’s relationship with Afghanistan, the U.S., and with its own army.

AP Exclusive: US No-Fly list doubles in past year to 21,000 known or suspected terrorists

Eileen Sullivan / AP

Even as the Obama administration says it’s close to defeating al-Qaida, the size of the government’s secret list of suspected terrorists who are banned from flying to or within the United States has more than doubled in the past year, The Associated Press has learned.

On the ASP Flashpoint blog: 

Gold: Why Attacking Iran is not the Least Worst Option

Politics and news aside, when looking at possible attacks on Iran the consequences vastly outweigh the advantages.  Attacking Iran is definitely not, to use Matthew Kroening’s words, the least worst option, it is the worst option.

Dorsk: Nuclear strategy in the cyber age

Just as the United States and Soviet Union competed to have better nuclear weapons technology, the same is true today of security software and programming.  As this new field continues to rapidly expand, I think it is likely that a similar sort of arms buildup is occurring.  The threat of a cyber attack, which can be executed with no warning, at any time, from anywhere, can act mainly as a strong deterrent, much like nuclear submarines.

Holland: Could Unlimited Clean Power Have Problems? Not Compared with Today’s Energy Problems

Could completely clean generation of energy cause warming from their waste heat? Theoretically, yes, but that day is so far in the future that its a purely academic question.

Gold: New START Stability and National Security Increased

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller spoke at an event sponsored by the American Security Project entitled, “New START: A Year Later- How New START Improved our National Security and the Next Steps with Russia”.  Ms. Gottemoeller discussed how the treaty, which entered into force nearly a year ago on February 5^th 2011, has improved strategic stability with the Russian Federation, reduced both country’s nuclear arsenals, and improved and increased the amount of information available to the United States.

About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

For more information, visit www.americansecurityproject.org. info@americansecurityproject.org

An article appearing in the most recent issue of the Air University’s Strategic Studies Quarterly (winter, 2011) draws a thick line from the nuclear age to cyber security.  In Joseph S. Nye, Jr.’s article, Nuclear lessons for Cyber Security?, the strategies of the Cold War are likened to the present day battle to control the internet.  This is relevant as we have already seen the use of cyber warfare by both state and non-state actors, as evinced by lead-up to the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict and activities of the infamous ‘hacktivist’ group Anonymous.

Just as the United States and Soviet Union competed to have better nuclear weapons technology, the same is true today of security software and programming.  As this new field continues to rapidly expand, I think it is likely that a similar sort of arms buildup is occurring.  The threat of a cyber attack, which can be executed with no warning, at any time, from anywhere, can act mainly as a strong deterrent, much like nuclear submarines.

The Wall Street Journal reported back in 2009 that Chinese hackers had gotten into portions of U.S. electrical infrastructure to assess vulnerabilities and plant hostile coding.  It is unclear if the hack was government sanctioned but China is known for using students to conduct such activity as a means of maintaining plausible deniabilit .  This suggests that state actors are already preparing their virtual arsenals by looking to exploit weaknesses in others’ networks.  These developments signal that someone may have a first-strike like capability, thus preventing retaliation should an opponent’s network successfully be taken down.

What does this mean for American and international security?  As Dr. Nye explains, it means “Strategists need to be alert to the fact that today’s solutions may not suffice tomorrow.”  This is especially true when considering that “The cyber domain is new and dynamic, but so was nuclear technology at its inception.”  Cold War thinkers eventually came to realize that a nuclear confrontation was not a winnable scenario for either side, though I doubt that will be the case for cyber warfare, especially with the involvement of non-state actors.

Though David Bill in his recent article suggests “if you are concerned about American aggression, it is not the drones you should fear, but the politicians who order them into battle”, yet the wiser comment by Joshua Foust needs to be paid heed to; he says “the rush to robots in warfare is worrying. There just isn’t enough thought about what consequences these systems impose on US policy. There needs to be.”

A link to Joshua’s article can be found here.

Most of the discussion has been trending towards a harder stance, endorsing either American or Israeli bombing campaigns to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

And this talk, as Brig. Gen. John Adams and Lt. Col. Chris Courtney discussed in their Politico piece, motivates Iran to continue with its hard-line stance.  Despite this, many in the foreign policy world are arguing for strikes while overlooking the many negative consequences of such an attack.

First, an attack on Iran would only set back the nuclear program by two or three years.  This view has been taken by former Secretary of Defense Gates, current Secretary Panetta, and JCS Chairman Mullen.  It is also extremely difficult for the United States to attack Iran’s hardened and underground facilities at Natanz and Qom, the survival of which would allow the Iranians to quickly reconstitute their enrichment program. An American or Israeli attack would drive the program deeper underground and increase its secrecy, reducing intelligence collections capabilities and clouding further NIEs.

Second, an attack on Iran would increase the power of Iranian government hardliners, unite the population around the government, and convince Iran of the necessity to produce a nuclear weapon to prevent future attacks.  After an attack, the government, which has not committed to produce a nuclear weapon, would be virtually forced to produce one in order to deter the United States or Israel from attacking again.  Iran’s decision to produce a nuclear weapon would force the United States or Israel to, “mow the grass” and continually bomb Iran.

Third, Iran would retaliate asymmetrically. JCS Chairman Mullen and former Defense Secretary Gates have both described the consequences of an attack on Iran would be unexpected and most likely bad.  Iran’s military disparity with the United States has forced the country to invest heavily in asymmetrical forces centered in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and their venerable Quds Force.

The United States experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows the difficulty of defeating an irregular threat.  Iran’s highly trained and well equipped Quds Force wrought havoc on American forces in Iraq, it is not a stretch to imagine a similar but more deadly scenario in Afghanistan.

Finally, due to the immediate shock and instability in the region stemming from an attack, the price of oil would soar to record levels.  High oil prices would retard U.S. economic growth when the U.S. recovery is just in its infancy and accelerate or worsen IMF’s forecast for a .5% negative growth in the European economy in 2012.  This would slow U.S. economic growth and possibly transition the European economy from borderline contraction to recession.

Politics and news aside, when looking at possible attacks on Iran the consequences vastly outweigh the advantages.  Attacking Iran is definitely not, to use Matthew Kroening’s words, the least worst option, it is the worst option.

Dry casks containing spent fuel rods

The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), a federally established advisory panel meant to study the issue of nuclear waste management, presented its findings to lawmakers on Capitol Hill today.  This article in The Hill gives details on the hearing.  Former Congressman Lee Hamilton and Retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the co-chairs of the BRC, testified.  They spoke about the Commission’s recommendations which were more focused on the process by which a nuclear waste disposal site would be established.

When questioned by the Committee why they did not make specific siting recommendations, they identified that the BRC was not meant to look at, or even suggest, siting.  They also made it clear that the BRC did not issue an opinion about the future of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility.  Some Representatives argued that Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the solution to the nation’s nuclear waste problem.  Politics played a role in the discussion as some Congressmen accused various decision makers of obstructing progress on the Yucca Mountain site.

It was also noted that the Department of Energy bares a significant amount of liability (at least $2 billion by some estimates) for not being able to guarantee federal administration of nuclear waste disposal.  At present, radioactive waste is typically stored on the reactor site where it is generated.  Members who have nuclear plants in their districts identified this as a major concern for the safety and health of their constituents.

Jobs also factored into the debate as the promise of a new waste facility also carries construction and staffing contracts with it.  Politics and personalities aside, what is clear is that America needs to figure out what to do with its civilian nuclear waste if its nuclear power industry is to survive.  With respect to Yucca Mountain, from my point of view, policy makers have put all of their eggs in the Yucca Mountain basket, and now that’s been dropped, they need to start over and begin to lay new options.

AP

Supposedly friendly Afghan security forces have attacked U.S. and coalition troops 45 times since May 2007, U.S. officials say, for the first time laying out details and analysis of attacks that have killed 70 and wounded 110.

Taliban believe they will take over from US and Nato in Afghanistan – report

Julian Borger/ The Guardian

Pakistan and NATO reject assertions by Taliban and al-Qaida detainees in document based on interrogations.

Afghan timeline will be addressed at NATO summit

AP

A White House official said Tuesday that alliance members attending an upcoming NATO summit in Chicago will be reminded that they’ve committed to pulling combat forces out of Afghanistan in 2014, despite a recent suggestion from France that the timeline be accelerated.

US confirms possible release of Taliban from Gitmo

AP

U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged Tuesday that the United States may release several Afghan Taliban prisoners from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an incentive to bring the Taliban to peace talks.

In quotes: Excerpts from Nato report on Taliban

BBC

A secret Nato report seen by the BBC suggests the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI). Here are excerpts from the report, based on interrogations of more than 4,000 captured Taliban, al-Qaeda, foreign fighters and civilians.

U.S. terror ‘hot spots’ studied

UPI

Nearly a third of all terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2008 occurred in just five metropolitan U.S. counties — New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco and Washington — but events continue to occur in rural areas also, researchers at the University of Maryland said.

Iraqiya Bloc, Iraq Sunni Backed-Lawmakers, End Parliament Boycott

AP

Iraq’s parliament reconvened Tuesday after Sunni-backed lawmakers ended their boycott to protest alleged persecution of Sunni officials, a development that could restore some stability in the war-ravaged country.

Nuclear Fusion

Do the Math

Fusion is indeed a stunningly potent source of energy that falls firmly on the reality side of the science fiction divide—unlike unicorns. Indeed, fusion has been achieved (sub break-even) in the lab, and in the deadliest of bombs

Official: Lack of nuclear waste dump is a ‘serious failure of the American government’

Andrew Restuccia / The Hill

The head of a federal commission on nuclear waste bluntly warned lawmakers Wednesday that the United States cannot compete with other countries on nuclear power until policymakers establish a site to permanently store spent nuclear fuel.

On the ASP Flashpoint blog:

Holland: Could Unlimited Clean Power Have Problems? Not Compared with Today’s Energy Problems

Could completely clean generation of energy cause warming from their waste heat? Theoretically, yes, but that day is so far in the future that its a purely academic question.

Gold: New START Stability and National Security Increased

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller spoke at an event sponsored by the American Security Project entitled, “New START: A Year Later- How New START Improved our National Security and the Next Steps with Russia”.  Ms. Gottemoeller discussed how the treaty, which entered into force nearly a year ago on February 5^th 2011, has improved strategic stability with the Russian Federation, reduced both country’s nuclear arsenals, and improved and increased the amount of information available to the United States.

About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.

For more information, visit www.americansecurityproject.org. info@americansecurityproject.org

There are also consequences beyond the target zone. Joshua Foust, a fellow at The American Security Project (a non-profit, bipartisan public policy group), has written in The Atlantic magazine: ”The problem with the drones policy isn’t that drones themselves are bad, but that they are happening without broader political, social and even economic policies that could mitigate their pernicious consequences.

”As one example, drones carry inherent political costs to the regime that allows them. Among domestic populations, drones are almost always unpopular, as they represent a distant and unaccountable foreign power exercising the right to kill them at will.”

Here is a link to Joshua’s original article.