blog

Crowd-sourcing our security

Brian Michael Jenkins — Mon, 13 May 2013 10:03:07 -0500

The investigation of the Boston Marathon bombing highlighted growing public participation in protecting communities against terrorism. People on the scene before the medical teams arrived were the real first responders, as ordinary citizens always are in such cases. Shocked by the attack, Bostonians were eager to assist authorities in running the bombers down before they could strike again. It worked both ways as police opened their filters to enlist public assistance. Spectators provided police with their videos of the event. They assisted in identifying the bombers. They obeyed the controversial order to stay off the streets. It was a citizen's tip that led to the capture of the second suspect. The spontaneous expressions of joy at the apprehension of the second suspect reflected not only relief, but also a sense of shared achievement. We are entering an era of crowd-sourced law enforcement in which Americans are increasingly taking an active role in their own defense, heading off terrorist attacks in the making and joining the pursuit of those who have carried out their violent plans. It is not certain if public involvement on this scale reflects a fleeting sense of community caused by the tragedy or a broader trend, but it contrasts with the immediate post-9/11 years when federal officials periodically announced that credible intelligence indicated imminent danger of terrorist attack, warning citizens to be vigilant (never operationally defined), while at the same time, advising people to go about their business as usual. It was a schizophrenic message. Warning people they might be under threat--although the risk to individual citizens was statistically minuscule--while telling them there is nothing they can do about it creates anxiety and alarm, which is exactly what terrorists seek. And being told to stand aside was in itself contrary to American traditions of involvement, self-defense and self-reliance. Citizen involvement today begins with heading off potential threats before they happen. Relatives and friends of individuals who seem to be turning toward extremist ideologies are encouraged to dissuade them from destructive paths or report them. No one knows how many times this very private intervention may occur, but when it was discovered in 2008 that young Somali-Americans were being recruited to blow themselves up in Mogadishu, the FBI and local police departments enlisted the cooperation of Somali communities and successfully reduced the flow. And five Northern Virginia men were arrested on terrorism charges in Pakistan in 2010 after the admitted jihadists were turned in to the FBI by their worried parents. Merchants are asked to inform police of suspicious purchases of substances or items that could be used in improvised explosive devices--young men buying large quantities of hair bleach for example. Those working in specific industries, like transportation or shipping, who might encounter suspicious activities in their sectors are asked to report them. Citizens' tips, in fact, have thwarted many terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11. Neighborhood Watch is nothing new, but it has been extended beyond local vigilance to "See Something-Say Something" campaigns where people are asked to notify police of suspicious objects or behavior. Public awareness campaigns that focused on "left parcels" in London's subways pushed would-be bombers to less lucrative targets on the outskirts of the city during the IRA's terrorist campaign. But awareness of bombs left in public places didn't help when suicide bombers carried explosives-filled backpacks into London's public transport system in 2005. Public involvement does not end with apprehension. The final phase takes place in a courtroom where citizens participate in the trial as witnesses, members of juries, and spectators to the delivery of justice. Treating terrorist suspects as enemy combatants, to be held indefinitely in military custody, would banish this vital finale to the invisible realm of military tribunals, and could discourage public assistance. There are downsides to public participation in security. Citizens' tips are low-yield ore. They can divert police resources to investigating forgotten lunch bags and the suspicions of nosy neighbors. Crowd-sourced information requires sophisticated analysis. Public prejudices can encourage racial and ethnic profiling. Wrong identifications can ruin lives. Public involvement does not mean self-appointed street-corner posses. A large number of citizens spending a lot of time watching each other can create a surveillance society--a nation of informants - although efforts to involve the public in the United States focus on suspicious actions, not subversive thought. This is not a police state where citizens are pressured to report criticism of government officials or complaints about the economy. Nonetheless, current events and technological advances have put us into new territory requiring sound judgment and new rules. After Boston, the social media site Reddit apologized for fueling online witch hunts. Medieval law required people to raise the "hue and cry" to assist in the pursuit of criminals. Today, those shouts have been replaced by the clicks of a thousand camera-phones and text messages. At the very least, the knowledge that their images and descriptions can be spread to millions instantly should make would-be terrorists more apprehensive. More important, perhaps, is that involvement can transform members of the public from helpless bystanders into active participants in their own defense, thereby reducing fear and alarm. Not far from the finishing line of the Boston marathon, 238 years ago another group of aroused citizens decided to defend themselves against tyranny. How fitting then that Boston should be the place where ordinary Americans have stood their ground against the tyranny of terrorism. Brian Michael Jenkins is Senior Adviser to the President at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution.

Pentagon declares Chinese cyberespionage the cause of all woe

George Smith — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:20:08 -0500

Well, not exactly. But if you were reading the news Monday, specifically the New York Times, you might have thought this was the case.

My Plastic Gun Kills Fascists

George Smith — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:47:07 -0500

The now infamous Cody Wilson successfully fired a 3D printed plastic pistol one time by hand, without maiming himself. The tech press went wild.

Ricin case FUBAR

George Smith — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:51:46 -0500

In case you needed any more proof the war on terror has screwed up beyond all recognition, this just in from the AP: "Marshals Service: Suspect in ricin letters case has been released from jail in Miss."

When Armies Divide: Securing Nuclear Arsenals During Internal Upheavals

Brian Michael Jenkins — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:17:45 -0500

The Pentagon reportedly has secret plans to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons against terrorists, a jihadist coup, or civil war. It also has conducted war games to explore how it might try to secure North Korea's nuclear arsenal in case of a coup or collapse of the regime. Either of these missions would be a daunting military task, requiring a large-scale military commitment. More dangerous, though, would be a mission to contain nuclear weapons in a case where an army divides against itself, creating a chaotic and unpredictable strategic landscape.

Realigning Defense Workers

Ed Corcoran — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:13:55 -0500

Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and not clothed. This
world in arms is not spending money alone. It is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius
of its scientists, the hopes of its children
- Dwight Eisenhower

There is much talk of the need to realign US defense, but little specific attention to a critical component - the need to realign defense workers. Military industry is not a jobs program. It puts national assets to nonproductive uses that national security urgently requires.

Fraud Anniversary

George Smith — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:25:25 -0500

Raise a toast to the Fraud Anniversary. For 99 percent of America it's been all downhill ever since, including me. The GWB administration and the mainstream media broke everything with the Iraq war.

The Invasion of Iraq: A Balance Sheet

Brian Michael Jenkins — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:24:15 -0500

Historically, wars were fought primarily for material gain: livestock, treasure, tribute, or territory. More recently, however, the profit motive for war has declined as life has become more precious and conquest and plunder have become less acceptable, although conflicts waged for control of diamonds and other precious commodities continue in parts of the world. International law generally prohibits military action by one state against another except for reasons of self-defense. In modern warfare, "gains" must be measured in less-tangible forms, such as --preserving national security, liberating threatened populations from tyranny, protecting human rights. Military action to achieve such ends is considered unavoidable and is rarely assessed as an investment. The invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, however, and therefore should be assessed in terms of costs and benefits. Neither the United States nor its allies had been attacked by Iraq, and there was no evidence that any attack was imminent. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, and his regime was an affront to human rights, but the country had suffered under his rule for many years. Iraq's liberation was not the reason for going to war. The official purpose of the invasion was to remove any threat posed by Iraq's presumed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Regime change was a consequence, not a cause. And although Iraq's citizens are freer now, they are by no means more pro-American. The costs are easier to quantify than the gains. The Iraq War cost the lives of 4,480 U.S. soldiers and at least 3,400 U.S. contractors. (U.S. allies lost 318 soldiers.) In addition, 31,928 American soldiers were wounded in action, many suffering serious disabilities that will impose a continuing burden on their families and long-term costs for health care and support. Between 110,000 and 150,000 Iraqis were killed in the war, and estimates of total conflict-related deaths run as high as 1 million. Estimates of the direct and indirect costs to the United States range from $1.7 trillion to $3 trillion. Moreover, a recent report estimates that the total cost could reach $6 trillion over the next four decades, factoring in benefits owed to war veterans. The war in Iraq did not cause the global recession, but it certainly exacerbated America's financial difficulties. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found -- a lesson that even an all-out intelligence effort can get things wrong. But this lesson comes at a cost to U.S. credibility. In the future, it will be more difficult to persuade the American public or mobilize international support for action, even when the evidence appears convincing. The initial invasion was a spectacular demonstration of U.S. military might, but Iraq's subsequent insurgency tarnished that reputation. U.S. commanders finally got the measure of their foes, but learning came late, just as withdrawal became a political necessity. War-weariness is another cost. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also imposed serious strains on U.S. military personnel and equipment, which will require years to recover. The U.S. military undoubtedly gained experience from the two wars, but it seems unlikely that the United States will soon commit combat troops to another insurgency. The invasion of Iraq was portrayed as another front in the "war on terror" -- America's response to 9/11 -- with some U.S. officials asserting that Iraq had played a role in the attacks. This claim was never supported by U.S. intelligence, and it did not drive the decision to invade, although it was used to justify the war. Despite later public statements by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, many Americans continue to believe he was involved. On balance, the invasion of Iraq did not advance the war on terror. There is, in fact, consensus among analysts that the war in Iraq diverted attention and resources away from the campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban. At the same time, it provided al Qaeda with a new front, a new recruiting poster, and a new destination for global jihadists. Always opportunistic, al Qaeda exploited the insurgency, although its bloody excesses in Iraq ultimately alienated Muslims worldwide. Al Qaeda's Iraq front survives and is increasingly active against the Iraqi government and in Syria's civil war. It is not yet clear that the Iraq war has served America's security interests. While the U.S. State Department claims that the United States and Iraq have "forged a strategically important bilateral relationship," that is hard to see. Iraq no longer threatens its immediate neighbors. Iran is now viewed as the most serious threat to the region; its nuclear program is real and worrisome. Iraq's Shia-dominated government seems more willing to support Iran's ambitions than to support efforts to discourage those ambitions. In more concrete terms, Iraq facilitates arms shipments to Syria's government forces, while the United States would prefer to have Syria's president step down. It is difficult to point to evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the United States other than Iraq's acceptance of U.S. assistance in building up its internal security forces to combat jihadist insurgents and, potentially, Sunni opponents. In sum, the costly removal of a brutal tyrant who threatened his own citizens and neighboring countries won no applause, earned no gratitude, established no reliable ally, and produced no lasting strategic benefit. Brian Michael Jenkins is senior adviser to the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Generations of Terrorism

Brian Michael Jenkins — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:07:43 -0500

The terrorist plot uncovered recently by Jordanian authorities raises concerns about the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the growing numbers of combat-experienced jihadists being generated by Syria's continuing civil war, and the future terrorist threat to the region. The plot itself envisioned a complex operation beginning with bombings at shopping malls in Amman, followed by armed assaults on Amman's luxury hotels. After these assaults, a third wave of terrorists was to attack the American embassy and its surrounding neighborhood with bombs, machine guns, and mortar fire. The attack would have rivaled the November 2008 terrorist assault on Mumbai in which 162 people died. The conspirators were members of an extreme Salafist group in Jordan. They had gone to fight in Syria, where they planned to obtain their explosives and weapons. Material recovered at their arrest also revealed connections to terrorists in Iraq. Jordan has long been a target of Middle Eastern terrorism. In the 1970s, the terrorist threat to Jordan came from Palestinian groups that until then had operated as a state within a state in the country. These groups fielded their own militias and launched commando raids against Israel, thereby exposing Jordan to Israeli retaliation. Hard-line Palestinian groups went further, advocating the overthrow of the king--and several assassination attempts were made. Tensions had already erupted into open battles between Palestinian militiamen and the Jordanian army before September 1970, when members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked five airliners, landing three of them at Dawson Field, an abandoned airfield in Jordan where the terrorists continued to hold hundreds of hostages while bargaining for their demands. The hijackers called Dawson Field "liberated territory," implying that they intended to liberate Palestinians from both Israeli occupation and Jordanian rule. That challenge prompted Jordan's King Hussein to order a military offensive against the militias, initiating a bloody civil war that Palestinians refer to as Black September. The expulsion of the Palestinian fighters from Jordan and the country's subsequent modus vivendi and eventual peace treaty with Israel made Jordan a traitor in the eyes of Arabs dedicated to Israel's destruction. Secular ideologies have since been exchanged for ideologies based upon religion, but Jordan remains a target. In 1999, Jordanian police interrupted a terrorist plot to bomb the Radisson Hotel in Amman and three others sites in Jordan. The bombings were one component of the so-called Millennium Plot to carry out coordinated terrorist attacks on or around January 1, 2000. Terrorists also planned to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport on that New Year's Eve. An attempt in Yemen to sink an American destroyer, the USS The Sullivans, on January 3, 2000, also failed. Since 2000, authorities in Jordan have thwarted various plots to assassinate British, American, and Israeli officials; detonate bombs at Christian landmarks and tourist sites; attack Amman's airport; blow up the headquarters of Jordan's intelligence service; and, most ambitiously, launch chemical attacks in Amman that could have killed thousands of people. The terrorists actually achieved considerably less. They assassinated an American diplomat, killed and wounded a number of tourists, fired rockets at the city of Aqaba, and set off smaller bombs. Their most spectacular success came in 2005, when they carried out suicide bombings at three luxury hotels in Amman, killing 60 people and wounding 115. News coverage of terrorist plots often lacks context and misses connectivity. The 2012 plotters explicitly hoped to surpass the 2005 hotel bombings in Amman. These had been carried out at the direction of Musab al Zarqawi, who, at the time, led AQI. A Jordanian of Palestinian descent, Zarqawi had gone to Afghanistan in 1990, where he met Osama bin Laden and others who were beginning to assemble the global jihadist enterprise. Returning to Jordan in 1992, Zarqawi created his own terrorist network but was soon arrested and sentenced to jail. Released in 1999, he fled to Iraq, where he continued to plot attacks against the Jordanian government. He was sentenced in absentia for his role in the 1999 Millennium Plot. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent Iraqi insurgency gave Zarqawi additional recruits and resources. He was involved in a 2004 plot to blow up Jordan's intelligence headquarters and spread poison gas across the capital and was behind the 2005 hotel bombing. Zarqawi was killed in 2006, but AQI continued its terrorist campaign in both Iraq and Jordan, claiming responsibility for a 2010 rocket attack on Aqaba. This gives us a connection among individuals, organizations, and events more than two decades long. The 2012 plot reflects even deeper currents of inspiration and imitation. The failure of Arab governments to destroy the state of Israel gave rise to a generation of Palestinian organizations determined to use terrorist campaigns to achieve what Arab armies could not. Their strategic mentors were the insurgents of the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) in Algeria, which waged a continuing campaign of terrorism in Algeria and France to bring about French withdrawal and Algerian independence. The truth of the achievement of independence was more complicated than that, but this was the myth of the FLN's victory. If terrorism could drive out the French, who had been in Algeria for more than 130 years, it was not unreasonable for Palestinian militants to hope that they might destroy Israel, a creation of colonial governments and in existence as a state for little more than two decades. The exploits of Palestinian terrorists inspired later generations of street-toughs-turned-fanatics, like Zarqawi. These radicals, in turn, found ideological reinforcement, practical training, combat experience, and useful connections in Afghanistan during the war against Soviet occupation and later civil wars. More than 20 years later, the world is still dealing with the effluent of the Afghan conflict. Veterans from the Afghan and Iraq wars have been augmented during the last two years by fighters from the conflicts in Libya and later Syria, now the destination for jihadists worldwide. Whatever its eventual outcome, Syria's civil war has already produced thousands of experienced jihadists who will continue to threaten the region for years to come. Brian Michael Jenkins is senior adviser to the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Political Impasse in Egypt

Jeffrey Martini — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:41:25 -0500

If there ever was a honeymoon in Egypt's post-Mubarak politics, it is long over. The two main ideological camps - Islamists and secular-liberals - have shown a willingness to cooperate only when brought together by a common foe. In the heady days of January and February 2011, it was the shared goal of toppling the Mubarak regime that enabled the two sides to work together. When Ahmed Shafiq, the last Prime Minister under Mubarak, emerged as a run-off candidate in the presidential election, it was the threat of a return by fuloul al-nizham, (the remnants of the regime) that brought the two sides together. And when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the military caretaker that directed the first year and a half of the transition, showed signs of resisting civilian control, it was the dark cloud of military rule that allowed the two sides put aside their differences. With those threats receding to the background, Egypt's Islamists and secular liberals are no longer in the mood for cooperation. The most recent spark that has renewed the conflict between the two sides is the process of constitution making, with a popular referendum on the draft constitution scheduled for the next two Saturdays. But as important as this document is to the future of Egypt's 2nd Republic, it is not the driver of the current political impasse. Yes, Islamists feel like their electoral performance - in which they won nearly three quarters of the seats in the now dissolved parliament - entitles them to be in the driver's seat. And yes, secular liberals take issue with the process by which the constitution was drafted as well as some of the specific articles which they worry could lead to limitations on personal freedoms. But this fight is not really about a constitutional debate. It is about the political fortunes of the two camps. Islamists and secular liberals are positioning themselves for the re-run of the parliamentary elections, now just two months out. Because the Islamists control the reins of government, they are keen to show progress. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists want to turn to the voters and say that Egypt is no longer stuck in a period of perpetual transition, rather, the country is moving forward in a way that promises economic recovery, the delivery of public services, and security. For their part, the secular-liberals see an opportunity to paint the Islamists as anti-democratic, playing on the same bogeyman that was cultivated by the previous regime. In reality, there is an element of truth to both narratives. The Brotherhood really believes it is putting the national interest first in pushing the country as quickly as possible through the remaining wickets of the transition. However, in doing so, the Brotherhood is far more interested in outcomes than the process by which they get there, and that raises questions as to the depth of their commitment to democracy. And the secular liberals, despite the pretense of upholding democratic principles, really are rooting for the Brotherhood's administration to fail so they can reap the political windfall. It is this political positioning that is really driving the battle playing out on the streets of Egypt today. Jeff Martini is a Middle East analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation

Calling Paula Broadwell

George Smith — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:08:01 -0500

From All In: "One of Petraeus' favorite quotes comes from Seneca, a first century Roman philosopher: 'Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.' This has been true for Petraeus at many turns ..." And when the day to day of the war on terror grew stale for the national security hero, another opportunity, so to speak, beckoned.

Obama Trip Could be Bellwether for U.S.-Asia Relations

Scott Warren Harold — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:45:55 -0500

On his first trip abroad since winning reelection - and the first ever by a U.S. leader to Burma - President Obama will confront evident opportunities and risks in pushing ahead with his bold approach to expanding U.S. ties with Southeast Asia. Obama will presumably attempt to carefully coordinate his messaging with Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. He'll want to ensure that U.S. efforts to improve relations with Burma and Cambodia do not catch U.S. ally Thailand--which has long had strained relations with both of its neighbors--off-guard or create a gap in expectations with Bangkok. Obama may also use his meetings with leaders in all three countries to emphasize U.S. support for the peaceful resolution of border and territorial disputes, such as the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia over the Preah Vihear Temple. Specific areas of focus for the visit are likely to include expanding trade and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses in Southeast Asia, increasing defense cooperation with Thailand, and offers of disaster recovery assistance to Burma in the wake of its recent earthquake. Protocol would also suggest that Obama may extend an invitation to President Thein Sein to come to Washington sometime in the next year. Such an invite would likely be coveted by the Burmese leader as an opportunity to engage with the U.S. congressional and business communities and further rehabilitate his country's image in America. For its part, the United States has a strong interest in encouraging Burma to continue the historic process of democratization, political amnesty, and reconciliation, as well as the establishment of civilian control over the military. President Obama may focus his discussions in Burma on how the United States can help the country achieve domestic reforms that will enhance transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. Throughout his visit, Obama will also likely want to carefully explore perceptions and attitudes with respect to the growing power and assertiveness of China in Southeast Asia. Analysts in Beijing are likely to see the visit to Burma, in particular, through the lens of strategic power. While the U.S. outreach efforts are motivated by a desire to improve ties with each country on its own terms, it is also clear that there are areas where U.S. and Southeast Asian countries' interests overlap. These include continuing access to the South China Sea and the peaceful resolution of the territorial disputes there between China and its neighbors. Obama may find it important to emphasize the U.S. goal of working with all three Southeast Asian nations to help sustain and further improve a rules-based international security architecture in the Asia-Pacific. Finally, the United States brings tremendous resources and strong values to its engagements with its Southeast Asian counterparts. Important forms of U.S. soft power include U.S. economic development and environmental remediation assistance; intelligence sharing against criminal, terrorist, and human smuggling networks; support for disaster relief; and efforts to track and prevent the spread of infectious disease. Obama is likely to expand efforts to cooperate in these areas. On a more abstract level, the values embodied by U.S. political democracy are another important form of power that Obama may exercise merely by showing up, talking about how the United States has handled its own political development, and listening respectfully to the experiences of America's Asian counterparts. In this way, he may underscore the universality of the values that have inspired generations of Americans and Southeast Asians to strive for more openness, transparency, accountability, and rule of law. Scott Harold is an associate political scientist for the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

U.S. Role in Kirkuk Could Promote Peace, Prevent Conflict in Northern Iraq

Larry Hanauer — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:37:09 -0500

Continued violence in Iraq, which has reached its highest level in more than two years, underscores that the country remains unstable and politically fragile. No matter which presidential candidate occupies the White House in January, he should make a concerted effort to address Iraq's most combustible hotspot: the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. The uncertainty surrounding the ethnically mixed city's status--that is, whether it should be incorporated into the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region--complicates Iraqi leaders' efforts to settle the major unresolved issues in Iraq: sectarian conflicts, territorial disputes, division of oil revenues and the power of regional governments relative to Baghdad. In a worst-case scenario, tensions among Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen in the Kurdistan Region could escalate into violence that draws Iraq back into civil war, leads the region to secede and weakens Iraq's nascent political structures. Kirkuk is not the first ethnically heterogeneous territory to be fought over by different communities. Four earlier efforts to resolve ethno-territorial conflicts with peace agreements--in Northern Ireland and the Bosnian cities of Mostar and Brčko (which succeeded) as well as in Jerusalem (which failed)--point to steps that Iraqi leaders, along with the United States and United Nations, could take to promote a peaceful resolution of Kirkuk's status. Those previous settlements have sorted out a host of issues. They've separated local disputes from national politics, emphasized practical governance over symbols of sovereignty, and established proportional representation in government. They've addressed the impact of future demographic change and ensured that local security forces reflected the ethnic makeup of the population. These kinds of steps can mitigate local tensions and territorial conflicts and provide "breathing space" for national officials to address the broader questions that lie at the heart of the conflict. Third parties have been crucial with these settlements, including in Iraq. The U.S. was the lynchpin of a tripartite Combined Security Mechanism that fostered cooperation between Iraqi and Kurdish forces. Given this record, and that both Iraqi and Kurdish officials generally trust the United States, Washington would be the most effective neutral broker. The U.S. can take three significant - but noncontroversial - steps to promote a settlement. First, the Secretary of State should designate a special envoy for Kirkuk charged with facilitating discussions between Arab and Kurdish leaders, identifying potential compromises and keeping negotiations moving. This envoy should report directly to the Secretary of State, as U.S. Embassy officials in Baghdad have too many other issues on their plates to devote sustained attention to Kirkuk sufficient to break the stalemate. Second, U.S. officials should persuade Iraqi and Kurdish leaders to demilitarize Kirkuk and assign security responsibilities to the multi-ethnic Kirkuk municipal police force. The U.S. and other countries should then provide training to professionalize this force. Third, the U.S. should promote the emergence of local leaders as counterweights to national politicians who see Kirkuk as an element of broader political battles. Local civic groups and political parties independent of the major national organizations might be able to reach beyond ethnic constituencies and create dialogue on issues of interest to all Kirkuk residents--such as public services, jobs and housing. U.S. diplomacy and targeted assistance could help broker agreements between Iraqi and Kurdish leaders - and mitigate ethnic tensions in Kirkuk that could lead to violence. In this way, the U.S. president, regardless of political party, could make a meaningful contribution toward stabilizing Iraq without redeploying U.S. forces to the country. Larry Hanauer is a senior international policy analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. This op-ed is adapted from an essay that first appeared in RAND Review.

Status of Classified Imagery Declassification Farce

Charles P. Vick — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:48:16 -0500

Unfortunately internal community & politics appear to be holding back the declassification of the US "good stuff" Keyhole (KH-8 & KH-9) imagery.

In spite of National Reconnaissance Office (NRO's) 50th., Anniversary planning to declassify the KH-8 and KH-9 systems programs & imagery on September 17, 2011 there was no assurance or indication that those programs imagery & associated analysis reports will also be declassified anytime soon by NGA or Director-Office National Intelligence (D-ONI).

Wholly separate from the President's declassification of "Cold War" Intelligence deadline of December 31, 2013 which will apparently not be met even for this imagery declassification. Other issue that may be contributing to the delays is the contracted digital copying instead of wet film coping of the imagery that severely degrades its true resolution to the public. This would greatly degrade it historical value to historians.

Indeed it could take as much as three and one half years after that to happen if then for imagery materials and because of the discovery of un-reviewed materials documents in the Presidential, NARA libraries and Agencies stored documents. Based on experience getting anything out of NGA is very close to impossible short of outright ......

Though this situation had at that time of this writing only partially changed as I was informed by NGA as stated in a Mandatory Declassification Review response to this author, "Be further advised, that KH-9 imagery is in the process of being declassified by the Office of National Intelligence. However, the process is not yet complete.

With respect to your request for imagery reports, those are documents under the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency, and your request is being referred to that agency." Nothing heard from CIA etc. The agencies continue to bounce it back and forth like a tennis ball from the last accounts received.

Note: This still does not include the last of the KH-7 and all the KH-8 Imagery deemed the best the U. S. ever got.

"This year's (2011) 50th, Anniversary of the NRO (established in 1961) will be accompanied by some new declassification activity. "Almost all" of the historical intelligence imagery from the KH-9 Satellite 1971-1986) will be declassified within a few months, said Douglas G. Richards of the Joint Staff at an August 23, [2011] forum sponsored by the National Declassification Center." (5)

The KH-7/KH-8/KH-9 imagery declassification remains under NGA and the DNI office for consideration control for possible declassification according to NRO. Contract proposals have been solicited for image digitizing copying for the public to purchase. Copying KH-9 imagery would take a year or more to accomplish. The remaining imagery of critical national security importance to Israel & other Middle Eastern countries and China remaining off limits from declassification as official U. S. government policy. The last reports still indicates this is not a done deal for 2013 through 2016. In reality only the wide area KH-9 imagery is in the running for this declassification in the next few years. Declassification of the last of the KH-7 and the full KH-8 imagery remains very problematical at best. The intelligence community is very reluctant to let go of its historic "holy grail", "crown jewels" imagery the best they ever got. It still has not been fulfilled through 2012. At this point I expect nothing to appear before December 31, 2013 if then...

The following MDR response from the office of the DNI dated October 25, 2012 seems to confirm that no KH-8/Gambit imagery will be declassified any time in the foreseeable future.

"Your email of 17 February 2012 requested an Executive Order 13526 mandatory declassification review of "the declassification of U.S. Intelligence, selected KH-8 and KH-9 imagery."

Upon review, it is determined that the information responsive to your request is currently and properly classified and must be denied in its entirety pursuant to Section 3.3 (b)( l) of the Order and cannot be released in sanitized form. As you are aware, the KH-9 system was declared obsolete in January 2011 and a phased declassification of its imagery has ensued. This imagery is currently being reviewed for declassification and should be available, along with finding reports, by the end of 2013."

Conclusion:

This simply means there will be no last of KH-7 or Gambit-3/KH-8 imagery declassified for the foreseeable future.

This is truly a tragic loss to the history community studying Soviet space history through the years 1967-1975. The two samples of the imagery shown below are clearly not of the known quality. Where is the "better than 2 feet to 2" resolution credited to this imagery system Gambit-3? Both of these images are images from the KH-8/Gambit-3 system and they are indeed degradede images As the community has been doing since World War-II if not earlier. What is it going to take to get this imagery declassified short of a...........?

References:

5. SECRECY NEWS, NRO HAS "MOST AGGRESSIVE" LAUNCH RECORD IN 25 YEARS, FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Volume 2011; Issue No. 81, August 25, 2011.
6. SECRECY NEWS," DECLASSIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE SATELLITE IMAGERY STALLED", FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Volume 2011, Issue No. 106 November 16, 2011
10. SECRECY NEWS, from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Volume 2012, Issue No. 108, October 22, 2012, INTELLIGENCE IMAGERY SET TO BE DISCLOSED IN 2013

CIA ISCAP declassified image of June 10, 1969 of the 1M1 facilities systems logistics test "J" vehicle on the J-2 pad from the declassified CIA CIB of August 15, 1969.

View image

Recently the DNI office authorized the declassification of several images during October 2011 of a series of images for some NRO posters setting a legal precedent that was released January 26th, 2012. It is a Gambit-3/KH-8 image of the 1M1, "J" Vehicle undergoing ground testing on the J-1 launch pad.

View image Sincerely Yours, Charles P. Vick Senior Technical & Space Policy Analyst, press Globalsecurity.org

The yen for authoritarians

George Smith — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:27:54 -0500

As far as foreign policy and the debate went, viewers will have noticed how the GOP, using its media, has made global warming a third rail issue in American politics. It simply went missing in all debates, replaced by both candidates squabbling over who would be the better miner and digger of fossil fuels.