Posted by Arsenal Guard

Who Will Judge Blair? In an ITV interview, Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

Posted by Arsenal Guard

The Interrogation of Detainee 063: The suspected 20th Hijacker, Mohammad al-Qahtani, held in Guantanamo has repudiated all of his previous statements claiming they were extorted through torture. TIME has published a secret, 84-page record of his interrogation.

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I'm not ready to pronounce on the merits of the deal announced tonight on nuclear proliferation between Bush and Indian President Manmohan Singh, but I will offer some early musings.  Details of the accord are here. 

The deal would open the door for the US and others to aid India in building its civilian nuclear power capabilities despite the country's refusal to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It provides for inspections of the 14 of India's 22 nuclear facilities that the country classifies as civilian, but leaves the remaining 8 military nuclear facilities to operate unimpeded.  The agreement needs Congressional approval and some legislative amendments before it can go into effect, and whether it will get those is in question.

There's a lot to this, but let me just offer a few observations:

1. US-India Relationship.  There's been a lot of pressure on Bush to demonstrate tangible progress is tightening ties to India, mostly as a counterweight to China's rising power.  With talk of how Bush can salvage a foreign policy legacy despite the morass in Iraq, this agreement has the potential to pave the way for a realignment, strengthening the ties between two leading democracies and deepening American influence on the sub-continent.  All this is good.

2.  Future of the NPT.  Many are pointing to this deal as the potential death knell for the NPT, in that it extends to India the same privileges that were formerly reserved for countries that renounced nuclear weapons development.  This is true, but nothing new.  Mort discussed the longstanding issues in this post.   Bottom line is that the NPT has been hobbling along for years and its not clear that pretending otherwise has served the cause of nonproliferation.  This is why IAEA Chair Mohammed El-Baradei has actually endorsed the deal.  I don't see this as the worst of all things.

3.  Legitimacy of the US's Non-Proliferation Efforts - While the contradictions inherent in the US's proliferation policy have been apparent for years, this deal would seem to mark end of US efforts to contort its policies to fit the NPT.   While that may be justified, if we do not move to undergird the deal with India with a new, broader non-proliferation framework that would justify differential treatment of states based on some objective criteria we will have zero credibility in trying to crack down on proliferators like Iran.  As we learned the hard way in Iraq, credibility in such efforts is a precondition for international support which, in turn, can be a prerequisite for success.  But the Administration has failed to proffer a vision for a redesigned non-proliferation regime, leading others to conclude that we don't care whether our proliferation policies are seen as legitimate or no.  In the absence of a credible effort to relaunch the non-proliferation regime, the accord with India will be viewed as just another circumvention of the rules.  This will undoubtedly be damaging to the US.

4.  Pakistan.  The Pakistanis aren't happy about the Indians getting a sweet nuclear deal that they will never match.  Will this snubbing further embolden the extremists that have already twice tried to assassinate Musharraf and take over the country and its nuclear arsenal?  It could very well.  This is a worrying wild card.

Just checking in Posted by Lorelei Kelly

This will be a short post, as it's late and I'm just off the plane in California and still three hours ahead of time.  I'll have lots more to report after attending a 3 day workshop on marketing progressive ideas--sponsored by an organization in Silicon Valley called the Commonweal Institute.  All the workshop themes have a global angle--though straight up national security is not one of them. This will be my hobby horse throughout the workshop.  In any case,  I'll have some interesting follow-up for Gordon's posts about liberals and national security.

Two polls to peruse:

the  World Public Opinion  poll on What the Iraqi Public Wants

a Zogby poll taken of US military deployed to Iraq

National Security Vision: Right, Left, or Dare to Be Different? Posted by Gordon Adams

Once again the Democrats have tried to outflank the Republicans on the right on national security. And, once more, the Republicans, and the Administration have out-maneuvered them. The Dubai Ports World management deal will go into overtime, with a 45-day CFIUS review, as it should have had in the first place.

The lesson should be clear. The issue with the administration’s national security policies is not one of who can be tougher. Al Gore tried that; so did John Kerry. No sale! The Republicans will always win the fight, positioned that way.

Many Democrats have been posing the wrong issue, and not with a lot of credibility. If they try to look tougher than the Republicans, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. If they move to the left, they are vulnerable to being soft on American national security.

Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Dubai Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I'm assuming that its man overboard for Dubai Ports' deal to take over of ports in New York and other cities now that its been revealed by the Jerusalem Post that the company supports an Arab boycott of Israel (hat tip to Think Progress).  The deal was already on the ropes, and this will push it into the deep blue.

But there could be one positive spillover from what otherwise looks like just another political foul-up for the Bush Administration.  The Dubai deal has finally gotten politicians - both nationally and in key coastal cities - to start talking seriously about port security.  Port security has been a watchword since right after 9/11, but while great plans have been laid on paper, and Bush has outlined a thorough maritime security agenda, virtually nothing has been implemented.  Most Americans simply don't spend a lot of time thinking about boats, and its been tough to get political leaders to focus on unsexy imperatives like rigorous container inspection.  Lorelei looks at some of the key steps that need to be taken (and why they haven't been) here. 

As the Dubai Ports deal sputters out, lets make sure our leaders don't let Dubai Ports float away without leaving a commitment to true progress on true port security in its wake.

What NSA Program? Posted by Morton H. Halperin

The Senate Judiciary Committee today held its second hearing on the NSA warrantless surveillance activity.  There is increasing evidence that there is more than one NSA program and that the program(s) not yet discussed publicly are far more extensive than the "terrorist surveillance program" described by the President and the Attorney General.

On the eve of the hearing Senator Specter released a draft of his proposed bill to give the FISA court a role in the process.  Rather than just trying to find a way to have the court rule on the existing program, the proposed bill would authorize a sweeping surveillance program under a general warrant to be issued by the court. NSA would be permitted to intercept millions of phone conversations and other communications of people who came into contact with any foreign power, including even a friendly government.

One can only assume that whoever drafted this text is aware of what is really going on and is seeking to have Congress authorize all of the new NSA programs without the administration ever describing and defending what it is doing. This underscores the need for a full inquiry by the Congress. Congress must also insist that it would not provide any additional authority unless the President agrees to conduct all surveillance under the amended FISA rules.

Great Power Politics: India's ying and Russia's yang Posted by Derek Chollet

President Bush campaigned into office six years ago pledging that he would emphasize America’s relationship with the “great powers,” and by and large he has kept his promise, even after the 9/11 attacks focused attention on threats from what us wonks call “non state actors.”  Like many policy pledges, this has been a mixed bag – as illustrated by the dueling opportunities and challenges posed by two key powers, India and Russia.

On the positive side, this week draws attention to what is perhaps one of the best stories of Bush’s presidency, the strong American relationship with India.  The President’s trip there starting tomorrow – which has received surprisingly little coverage so far -- will be the first since President Clinton’s visit in March 2000, which itself was the first trip since Jimmy Carter went in the 1970s  (a very good curtain-raiser can be found here).  Some thought that this might not happen; a trip to India also means a trip to its neighbor, Pakistan, which the Secret Service is never happy about and some believed would never approve, especially since 9/11.  When Clinton went he did not fly in on Air Force One but instead on a smaller executive jet, which flew in with another as a decoy in case anyone tried to shoot it down – which did not make it a pleasant journey for the staffers riding in the decoy.  I’m not sure how Bush is getting to Pakistan, but my guess is much the same way.   

Bush deserves credit for the way he has handled India -- which is, after all, the world’s largest democracy and third largest Muslim population – and the Bush team is mighty proud of the relationship’s solid footing.  Pundits like Jim Hoagland are probably right that the trip could be the “foreign policy highpoint for his second term.”  But while few Bushies want to admit it, this also it represents a good case of bipartisan continuity.