Truman Project Media

Facing the nuclear terrorism threat

staff — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:54:27 -0800

In January, the Kleine Brogel air base in Belgium was compromised when an anti-nuclear group breached security fencing and, undetected, spent more than an hour on the base where U.S. nuclear weapons are suspected to be stored. Then they uploaded a video of how they exploited the security weaknesses to YouTube.

In February the top U.S. intelligence official told Congress that he is “especially concerned” about terrorists’ access to WMD-related materials and technologies, and underscored that al Qaeda’s priority was to mount a large-scale attack on the country in the next six months. Replace the peace activists with terrorists and the results could be devastating.

With enough nuclear material to build more than 120,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs spread around the globe, and significant amounts of these materials inadequately secured in dangerous regions, the nuclear terrorism threat is real and it’s time to get serious about rapidly locking down and reducing these dangerous stockpiles.

This year the Obama administration and the Congress will have four unique opportunities to strengthen America’s defense against nuclear terrorism and expand the global coalition that can support the president’s goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the globe in four years. This objective received a bipartisan standing ovation at the State of the Union speech. But, if both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue follow a business-as-usual approach, we could end up less secure as a result.

Overcoming a disappointing budget for this agenda in the current fiscal year, the administration presented to Congress a proposal that increases U.S spending for global nuclear security by $320 million next year, to a total in the range of $2 billion. This significant increase over the current year’s budget has already elicited grumbling behind the scenes on Capitol Hill, with some questioning whether the programs can absorb such a spending swell.

But, the real question should be whether we can afford not to aggressively finance the president’s four-year goal. Compare the budget for locking down nuclear weapons and materials with another global challenge like climate change. In 2007, climate change funding was at $6.5 billion — more than triple what we spend today on nuclear security. And nuclear security spending is only about one-third of 1 percent of the total defense budget this year.

In fact, Congress could consider boosting the current year’s budget for nuclear security by a modest $115 million as part of a supplemental appropriations bill to kickstart the process.

But the weight of moving this agenda is not solely on the Congress. President Barack Obama will host an unprecedented heads-of-state global nuclear security summit April 12-13. It will include 44 nations and they are being asked to come to Washington with their own nuclear security commitments as well as take part in discussing a global plan of action. But, will the global game plan be bold enough to meet this 21st century threat? The administration is trying to make it so, but there is a sense in some nations and regions that nuclear terrorism is not an acute danger to them and that not much more needs to be done. At the very least the goal of this summit will be to change these perceptions.

Later in the spring and then in the summer, the international community will gather for two events where the opportunity exists to galvanize their policy and financial commitment to prevent nuclear terrorism. The first is a meeting of the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York. Here, the focus will likely be more on the disagreements among nations than their common challenges, but it is an opportunity to address nuclear material dangers. The second is the joint meeting in Canada of the G-8 and G-20 nations. The G-8 already has a multilateral initiative on WMD security called the “Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.” But this initiative needs to be reshaped, re-energized, and refinanced so that its focus is global and its implementation effective. Additionally, the G-20 nations, now solely addressing economic issues, should become more concerned with global security issues (including nuclear dangers), and offer their contributions to the effort.

Effective and lasting nuclear security worldwide will not be achieved unless key policymakers around the world come to believe nuclear terrorism is a real threat to their countries’ security and economy, and then invest their time and resources to adequately address this threat. There are now four opportunities for the U.S. and its partners to further bar the door against nuclear terrorism. Insufficient action in this important year could have consequences that we may not want to contemplate.

The authors co-chair the Fissile Materials Working Group (fmwg.org). Toma is program director at the Connect U.S. Fund and Luongo is president of the Partnership for Global Security.

Afghanistan - New Rules of Engagement Good for Civilians and Soldiers

staff — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:46:45 -0800

In concert with Afghans and NATO allies, American soldiers last month waged an aggressive fight against Taliban insurgents in the town of Marjah.

About the same time, US military commanders revised the rules of engagement and limited some kinds of tactical warfare – such as night operations and raids – in an effort to better protect Afghan civilians. Good public relations, the thinking goes, may matter more than good missile strikes.

Military families back home want to know: Are troops walking into hell with one hand tied behind their backs? Are civilian lives being spared in exchange for military ones?

The answer to both questions is no.

Last year, the head of international forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, put in place a critical evolution in military tactics and strategy: To save a village, you don’t destroy it (a Vietnam War approach). You really have to save it.

Since then, civilian deaths caused by international forces in Afghanistan have fallen by nearly 30 percent. Protecting the population isn’t political correctness; it’s a vital military objective and a distinct advantage over an enemy that uses civilians as shields. The drop in civilian casualties is a mark of success.

Allied troop fatalities have meanwhile increased, but efforts to spare civilians are not the cause. Rather, troops are fighting the insurgents where they live – as in Marjah. Taking on the Taliban requires taking that risk. American and allied forces may be walking into hell, but given the right strategy and purpose, they remain free to fight effectively.

From the front lines, soldiers report that they aren’t shooting anyone who can’t clearly be identified as a combatant. Jets race low across the horizon but are not dropping bombs – a show of ready force rather than of needless destruction.

When civilians were caught up in a rocket attack on the Taliban last month, the US conducted an investigation and quickly offered an apology for the unintended losses.

In Badula Qulp, a village just north of Marjah, US military officials offered compensation for the death of the local mullah’s son and pledged to rebuild a mosque destroyed by a helicopter-fired missile.

These policies may be frustrating in the short term for US and partner forces, but most soldiers understand the long-term benefit. The most compelling argument is that killing civilians fuels distrust and hatred among the population. That increases the risks for troops and their mission.

Combat is violent, frightening, and confusing, and troops on the ground have both the instinct – and the right – to protect themselves. The critical role for commanders is to convey the lesson taught by the US Army’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual, drafted under Gen. David Petraeus: “Sometimes the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.”

Military tactics are always balanced against strategic objectives, force protection, and humanitarian imperatives. In Afghanistan, international forces have had more than eight years to figure out what hasn’t worked and what will. The new emphasis on civilian protection is a welcome move toward striking the right balance.

In the Army there is a saying, “Mission First, Soldiers Always.” Safeguarding civilians and taking care of soldiers are not mutually exclusive. We owe our troops as much training, operational guidance, and moral certainty as modern war will allow.

If they can hold their gains, US forces and their Western and Afghan military partners will have demonstrated in Marjah that they can launch a major offensive without turning civilians into enemies. Assessing the real benefits will take time and a continued commitment to civilian protection. This village may yet be saved. And what’s good for the village is good for the troops.

Sarah Holewinski is the executive director of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC). James Morin served as an airborne infantry platoon leader in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both are fellows at the Truman National Security Project.

Glenn Beck -- "Restoring Honor" or Exploiting a Noble Organization?

staff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:56:01 -0800

I received an email Monday morning that stopped me in my tracks. It contained a link to the seemingly noble organization called the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) -- a 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt, federally registered charity whose own mission statement says...

The Special Operations Warrior Foundation provides full scholarship grants and educational and family counseling to the surviving children of special operations personnel who die in operational or training missions and immediate financial assistance to severely wounded special operations personnel and their families.

As a veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom I thought, "what a meaningful charitable organization to give my support." But sadly, things are not as noble as they look.

Read a little further on the homepage of the SOWF website, under the "Latest News" column, and you will see a link to none other than Glenn Beck. Yes, that Glenn Beck.

SOWF, it turns out, is the designated charitable organization that will benefit from a rally Glenn Beck is hosting on August 28th on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC -- it is being called the "Restoring Honor Rally." (www.glennbeck.com/828/).

Or at least that is what Glenn Beck and SOWF want you to believe.

What is actually happening -- and what is so obviously wrong -- is that the rally is not actually raising money for SOWF. SOWF is raising all the money to pay for the rally.

Don't believe me? Just read the plain-as-day, italicized font on the SOWF website:

All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF.

That's weird, I thought. I give $100 to SOWF and it goes to Glenn Beck first, college scholarships for children of deceased special operators (maybe) second? Why would Glenn Beck be using a charitable organization, whose mission it is to provide college scholarships to the children of deceased special operators, as the financing arm of his "non-political, non-partisan" rally?

Glenn Beck got paid $18 million last year. Surely, these kids need the money more than he does.

Should it not be the other way around? I would think you would donate to the rally and then they would donate the money to SOWF? I am a Navy veteran and not a lawyer, but does that not smell like someone exploiting a charity at the least, or money-laundering at worst?

Let's cut to the chase and stop being naïve. The Special Operations Warrior Foundation is now serving as a financial front man for the right-wing, Fox News demagogue that is Glenn Beck. This so-called "rally" has nothing to do with SOWF's stated (and noble) mission of giving college scholarships to children of deceased servicemembers.

We all know this rally is going to be nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-government, pro-Tea Party hate-fest with Glenn Beck spewing his vitriol under the banner of "supporting our troops."

Well, as one of those troops, I am calling this for what it is -- a deceitful and deceptive attempt on behalf of far-right extremists to profit off of the memory of my fellow servicemen and women killed in action. Nothing is more wrong or disgusting.

Similarly, why is the leadership of the SOWF putting at risk their tax-exempt charitable status by engaging in this activity? Why would they risk the good name and good work they have done in the past in order to support someone like Glenn Beck?

Oh, I see, SOWF's Board of Directors is stacked with right-wing ideologues like Erik Prince, the founder and head of Blackwater (yes, that Blackwater).

Do what you want, but I will keep giving my money to real charities like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Achilles International's Freedom Team of Wounded Veterans and The Wounded Warrior Project -- organizations that actually provide support to Veterans and their families who have earned and need the assistance.

I have no need to give my money to a multi-millionaire, hate-spewing faux patriot who has never served a day in his life in uniform, but would rather take money from those that have.

Shame on you Glenn Beck and SOWF. What a disgrace.

Is Japan Giving Up?

staff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:50:12 -0800

Just as the success of Toyota Motor was a symbol of Japan's confidence on the world stage in the 1980s, the automobile company's recent troubles are symptomatic of a nation withdrawing from the world, as I noted this week in a Newsweek article. Avoidance was the Japanese public's initial reaction to Toyota's recent acceleration problems, which resulted in 34 deaths and nearly 10 million recalled cars worldwide. The reaction is typical of a modern Japanese culture wrought with victimization and self-doubt over questions of national identity.

In all likelihood Toyota's slump in sales will recover and the whole episode will fade in the public's memory, blending with many other product recalls in recent history. "Management will correct the problem. Toyota Motors' sales will bounce back; most consumers will soon forget this latest news cycle and remember why they bought the Camry, the Corolla, and the Prius," said Paul Scalise of Temple University in Japan. But Toyota's problems are an essential part of understanding Japan's zeitgeist today. The car company's troubles have compounded Japan's already sour mood. Interviews I have conducted in Japan over the past several years increasingly cause me to wonder: Is Japan giving up?

Toyota not only had a special place in Japan in terms of the country's identity of quality craftsmanship, it will have a short-term impact on Japan's reputation and economic reverberations in its manufacturing sector. Even more, the company's problems partly originated from characteristics that are seen as uniquely Japanese. Culture can change, but the story has further damaged Japan's spirit, which is vulnerable from decades of economic doldrums and China's rise.

Some of the blame for Toyota's woes has been placed on the Japanese value of consensus-building, face-saving, and keeping outliers to a minimum. "The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down," it is often said in Japan. The public relations response was also plagued by Japanese cultural characteristics, such as open communication hampered by formality and a general avoidance of conflict. Toyota's problems may have simply come from the company's over-expansion, increasingly global operations, and cost-cutting, but the cultural explanations are felt in the Japanese discourse. "Japanese companies are generally reluctant to speak in public, both on positive as well as negative issues. This imposes a real cost on their ability to interact with foreign investors, businesses and customers," noted Keith Rabin, an Asia-focused business consultant, echoing a sentiment that appeared in recent Japanese newspaper editorials.

All of this comes against a depressed national mood of in Japan as China is expected to overtake Japan as the world's number two economy this year--a symbolic phenomenon with primarily psychological consequences. At New York University, a Japanese student approached me a few weeks ago after a class I teach to tell me the critical lesson on Japan the other students should remember: "Japan must give up and admit that it is number two in East Asia." What is the origin of this defeatism?

Patrick Cronin, of the Center for a New American Security, recently published an article in Foreign Policy, identifying a link between Toyota's troubles and Japan's global profile. He also sees Toyota's problems serving as a symbol for Japan's malaise. "Toyota's debacle comes at exactly the wrong time for Japan. For the past 20 years, Japan has been in decline: declining population, receding competitiveness, slipping power in Asia. Social strain abounds. Throughout this period, Toyota was seemingly the exception, steadily growing, finally overtaking GM to hold the chalice of number one," Cronin told me. "It was a symbol of the one thing Japan did the best: make things. Now, the dream lies shattered."

"Unless Toyota can repair the damage, however, the Japanese people are left looking at the future through a glass darkly," Cronin continued. "What the Toyota crisis demonstrates is a tight connection between economics and security, and that both are in turn sensitive to the national psyche. If the Japanese continue to doubt their technological prowess in the face of a rising China, especially given Japan's demographic disadvantages, how will they ponder their future geostrategic role and circumstances in the Asia-Pacific region? Soft power loss equals a loss of hard power, and Japan's influence vis-a-vis rising China has been devalued by this blight to a sterling reputation."

A morbid manifestation of this darkness is in the country's suicide rate. It has topped 30,000 per year for 12 years; this means about 100 people per day or one person every 15 minutes will kill him or herself in Japan. Despite government efforts to stop suicide, by funding hotlines for example, the rate has recently increased and is expected to rise. The rate is double that of the United States and second only to Russia among the rich G8. On the other side of the equation, the country's birthrate is the lowest in the world and significantly below replacement, owing partly to a disinterest in sexual intercourse as well as gender inequality. A study conducted by Japan's Family Planning Association found that one-third of couples surveyed have effectively "given up on sex" due to fatigue or boredom with the act, and researchers were surprised that the trend is actually expected to get worse. A 2006 study by the University of Chicago found that Japanese report the lowest sexual satisfaction among the 29 nations polled. According to an Asia-Pacific Sexual Health and Overall Wellness survey last year, Japan ranked lowest in satisfaction of the 13 Asian countries surveyed.

As a consequence of low birth and migration rates, the country's population is predicted to fall from 127 million to 95 million by 2050, creating unparalleled demographic pressures. At 229 percent, Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is the highest in the developed world as is its level of public debt. It is unclear how Japan, given its poor fiscal health and expected worsening debt burden, is going to provide for a rapidly aging population and a growing proportion of poor.

The country's apathetic attitude is epitomized by a new generation of arasa and arafo (those in their 30s and 40s) and sugomori (nesting) people who prefer to stay at home, seek bargains online, and soshoku-kei danshi (grass eating-men) who avoid going out, taking risks, or trying to find a career for themselves. Even Japan's Olympic hope Miki Ando played it safe and downgraded her triple-triple jump combination in the figure skating competition in Vancouver. More dramatic is the presence of the hikikomori or shut-ins who have given up on social life and number about 3.6 million, according to the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications Kazuhiro Haraguchi, citing a Japanese nonprofit. This figure is far larger than the previous estimate of 1 million by renowned Japanese psychologist Tamaki Saito. In Shutting out the Sun, author Michael Zielenziger points to hikikomori as well as high rates of suicide, low marriage and birth rates, and low levels of sexual relations among adults to argue that Japanese who have begun to think outside the rigid conformity of Japanese society have made a rational choice to stay home and avoid social life.

While many fund managers are pessimistic about the Japanese economy for the long-term, some are bullish on certain Japanese equities, calling them undervalued. Paradoxically, the companies that are forecast to do well have given up on the Japanese domestic market and have expanded abroad. Successful Japanese companies will either target foreign markets in the United States, China, and Europe or will act as a "gateway" to business in a booming Asia.

A promising strategy for Japan as a whole would be to act as a bridge between the West and East, but that assumes Japan's political relations with the West are harmonious. Unfortunately, the ruling Democratic Party of Japan has decided to complicate its relationship with the United States by reexamining the location of a military base in Okinawa. Meanwhile relations with Australia have moved into rocky waters over Japan's whale hunting; over which Australia has threatened to take Japan to the International Court of Justice.

It would be absurd to give up on a country purely on the basis of its national mood. In fact, Japanese manufacturing output has risen, GDP is picking up, exports have grown their fastest in 30 years, and the trends I have described will all be familiar to any Japan watcher. Moreover, Toyota's sales surged 48 percent last month in Japan. But I have never seen the mood bleaker. Let's hope that this new low provides a rock bottom from which Japanese optimism can rebound.

Video - Was the Iraqi election a success?

staff — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:41:29 -0800

American University Professor and Truman Project Fellow Jordan Tama discusses the Iraqi elections on the Alyona Show.

With Great Freedom Comes Great Responsibility: Twitter and Facebook Now Allowed Within the Firewall

staff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:33:38 -0800

Last month, the Pentagon reversed its policy on accessing e-mail, instant messaging, discussion forums and social networking sites while using government computers.

As of the February 25th Directive-Type Memorandum 09-026, our nation’s Airmen, Soldiers, Seamen, and Marines around the globe are authorized to access Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and thousands of other formally restricted websites through the DoD’s unclassified network. Obviously, years of internet security protocols, firewalls, and service specific policies did not evaporate instantly, but the services are implementing this new policy as we speak.

To check on the status, I made an informal inquiry to my brethren still in uniform via a FB post asking if they had access to Facebook at work, yet. Within minutes, a Marine who was actually at his desk replied: “Yes…right now as a matter of fact.” Shortly after, an AF officer checking Facebook while on lunch break wrote: “Not yet, but supposedly, its coming.” To say this new policy will improve troop morale is an understatement; service members around the globe can’t wait to reconnect with family and friends.

On the other hand, as the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines implement these new relaxed procedures, policy makers must consider the inherent risks associated with granting freedom and access through government networks paid for by taxes. Balancing troop morale with security, manpower, unit cohesion, and bandwidth will be a challenge. Will a Soldier watching YouTube downrange clog the portal? Is the Signal Corps going have a special unit dedicated to reading MySpace posts from government computers? Will there be a Navy “authorized” template for blogging? We’ll just have to wait and see.

More importantly, what about sharing secure information over the internet? As you would expect, our service men and women are constantly surrounded by sensitive information and everyone must fully understand their responsibilities in this critical role as “trusted agent”. That said, often innocuous bits and pieces of information can be put together by our enemies to paint a pretty clear picture. How easy will it be for someone to type an official email in one window and blog in the next? What measures will be in place to prevent information from “leaking” between open applications? It is incumbent upon those with access to the government network to protect sensitive information…literally, lives depend on it!

Thankfully, a common sense approach to securing sensitive information provides the 90% solution for operations security (OPSEC) and after serving over 10 years on active duty, I can attest to the professionalism of the men and women who continue to wear the uniform. This new policy is a wonderful step in the right direction especially as the DoD recruits the next generation tech savvy leaders. But then again, can you imagine a young Lieutenant flying a Predator UAV with one hand and Tweeting with the other?

Robert Wolfe is a former US Air Force Major and combat tested strategic airlift pilot. Today, he is a Truman National Security Project Fellow and student at Harvard Business School.

International Women's Day - Remembering Afghan Women

staff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:27:41 -0800

Today is International Women's Day, a day that is often overlooked within the United States, but holds deep significance overseas where women have overcome, or continue to be affected by, oppression. And nowhere is this more true than Afghanistan.

International Women's Day has held special meaning for me ever since 2004, when I celebrated it with women in Kabul. Looking back, 2004 was a far more positive time than today. Not just soldiers, but diplomats and aid workers from across the political spectrum moved to Afghanistan to serve there. When I arrived on Thanksgiving Day 2003, the United States diplomatic and aid mission was severely overstretched, given the ravages that two decades of war had left across the country. Still, despite the lack of resources, we were all idealistic about the difference we could make; most of us saw our mission there in moral terms. At the core of this idealism was the hope that we could help liberate Afghan women from the Taliban's chilling barbarism and ensuring that Afghan girls could go to school -- and Afghan women could advance as teachers, students, doctors, judges, journalists, businesswomen, and politicians -- in a new society.

In 2004, Afghanistan's new democratic constitution was passed by consensus, and hailed as one of the most progressive in the Muslim world. Within it, Afghan women are acknowledged as equals to men and are assured, through a quota, 25 percent of the parliamentary seats. A Ministry of Women had also been established in late 2001 to focus full-time on women's advancement. Alas, as with other Afghan governance institutions established early on, this was only a framework for progress: for women to be fully represented in Afghan society much work remains.

Today, six years after I was first in Afghanistan, some progress has been made, but the situation for women remains dire. Over 80 percent of Afghan women are illiterate and suffer from little access to health care; they frequently fall victim to violence and a deficient justice system. In January, when President Karzai announced a Grand Peace Jirga with Taliban members at the London Conference, not one high-level Afghan woman representative was present. Today, more than ever before, Afghan women want a renewed commitment from the international community to women's rights in Afghanistan, the commitment that we collectively made in 2001.

In the Obama age, the paradigm has shifted considerably and the Afghanistan war has taken a much more pragmatic tone in the U.S. With a focus on denying al Qaeda a safe haven, reversing the Taliban's momentum and its ability to overthrow the Afghan government, and bolstering Afghan security forces, the U.S. mission there is defined mostly in security terms. This is understandable. After almost nine years, we are tired of war, the strains on our military -- and the strains on our economy. A nation-building project on the scale of the one promised, but hardly fulfilled, in 2002 now seems unrealistic and naive.

As a nation, our idealism for Afghanistan has waned. However, actively working to systematically improve the rights of Afghan women isn't just idealistic, it is also pragmatic. Improving the situation of women in Afghanistan is one of the most cost-effective ways to ensure sustainable development and progress. No society can function, let alone develop, when over half its population is illiterate and under-skilled -- and a lasting peace certainly cannot come without women's representation.

Today, on International Women's Day, I hope we can stop to think about women living in oppression in Afghanistan, and beyond. I hope we can reflect on Afghan women's courage and their progress -- and their current fears that all of it could be taken away from them, again. I hope we can again acknowledge the moral dimension of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and put the advancement of Afghan women back into our national discourse on the war. Working to ensure that Afghan women play an equal role in Afghanistan's development is not just the necessary thing to do, it is still the right thing to do.

A Strong Climate Bill Can Save Lives

staff — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:00:02 -0800

If there’s any Democrat in Congress who never struggles to find his spine, it’s freshman Congressman Tom Perriello from Virginia. Despite winning a narrow election in a Republican-leaning district in 2008, he has cast tough votes in favor of both health care reform and clean energy legislation. And as Washington starts to rumble with the possibility of a new push for climate change legislation, he’s calling on the Senate do to the same.

"I’m sick of starting with what can we get through the Senate; let’s start with what solves the damn problem. Until the Senate gets its head out of its rear end and starts to see the crisis we’re in, our country is literally at risk. Our economy is at risk, because these jobs are being created overseas. It should have the same urgency with this problem that it had bailing out Wall Street. We are swearing an oath to do what’s necessary to protect this country, not do what’s necessary to get a bill through the Senate."

Perriello’s call to protect America through clean energy is timely, and it has a cadre of unlikely supporters—veterans. I’m one of them. As part of Operation Free, I’m working with hundreds of veterans around the country to deliver a message to the U.S. Senate: If you want to break America’s oil addiction and reduce the flow of petrodollars to unfriendly countries and deadly extremists, then it’s time to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. And if you want to know why veterans are taking the lead in pushing for clean energy, watch the video below:

While the House of Representatives passed energy legislation last summer, the Senate has struggled to follow suit, largely due to the ongoing healthcare debate. Yet there’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

For the last several months a tripartisan team of Senators—John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—have been working to put together an energy and climate bill that could get through the Senate with bipartisan support. In October, Kerry and Graham launched an opening salvo in the push for bipartisan legislation, co-penning an op-ed in The New York Times on the need for a clean energy bill.

Their efforts got a shot in the arm in February, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Kerry that he wants a bill, and soon. Now we know what that bill will look like. After months of playing their cards closely, the three Senators have released a framework for legislative action. It addresses the familiar issues that surround the clean energy debate—jobs and energy independence, coal and nuclear power—but perhaps most importantly, the three Senators are insisting on a bottom line: There must be a market-based solution that puts a price on carbon.

This is good news. As long as oil stays cheap and clean energy remains underdeveloped, America’s oil addiction will persist. In the short term, that means we’ll continue funding both sides of the wars we’re fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long term, the effects of climate change will deepen, leading to natural disasters, mass migrations, and uprooted populations where extremists can hide and recruit.

The Pentagon made the point quite simply in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review: “Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment.” We hope Congress will take this to heart and do what’s right for the country; not what’s easy for the Senate.

Jonathan Murray is the Advocacy Director of Operation Free and a Marine Corps veteran.

Toyota and the End of Japan

staff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:44:02 -0800

Japan was morbidly fascinated by the spectacle of Toyota president Akio Toyoda apologizing to the U.S. Congress for the deadly defects that led to the recall of 10 million of its cars worldwide. The appearance of the "de facto captain of this nation's manufacturing industry," as Japan's largest newspaper referred to Toyoda, seemed to symbolize a new bottom for a nation in decline.

Once feared and admired in the West, Japan has stumbled for decades through a series of lackluster leaders and dashed hopes of revival. This year, Japan will be overtaken by China as the world's second-largest economy. Through it all, though, Japan could cling to one vestige of its former prestige: Toyota—the global gold standard for manufacturing quality.

And now this. Toyota is getting lampooned all over the world in cartoons about runaway cars. Japan's reputation for manufacturing excellence, nurtured for half a century, is now in question. Shielded by the U.S. defense umbrella after World War II, Japan focused its energy and money on building up only one aspect of national power: quality manufacturing. A foreign policy commensurate with Japan's economic strength was subordinated to industrial policies aimed at creating the world's best export factories. No matter how quickly Chinese and South Korean rivals grew, Japan could argue that its key competitive advantage was the quality of its brands. "Toyota was a symbol of recovery during our long recession," says Ryo Sahashi, a public-policy expert at the University of Tokyo. Now Toyota's trouble "has damaged confidence in Japanese business models and the economy at a time when China is surpassing us."

There was some sign of slippage even before the Toyota recalls. Many other top Japanese manufacturing brands lost their made-in-Japan luster, says Michael J. Smitka, an economist who specializes in the Japanese auto sector. Sanyo is gone, its pieces sold off in a restructuring. Toshiba and Fujitsu also are reorganizing. Sony is as much a Hollywood hitmaker as a Japanese manufacturer, and Mitsubishi Motors, Mazda, and Nissan have all had tie-ups with foreign companies through the years. In the early part of the last decade, particularly under the maverick administration of celebrity prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, Japan made fleeting attempts to promote itself as the land of the new new thing: nano-this, bio-that. Nothing stuck. There is still no Japanese Google.

So Toyota remained special, the largest and virtually the last remaining face of Japanese manufacturing and trading prowess. With $263 billion in sales last year it remains Japan's biggest company by far and the world's largest auto manufacturer. But the recall has now exposed problems there, too. Like many Japanese companies, even global ones, it has suffered from an insularity and parochialism, and a hierarchical structure that discouraged innovation or input from others. Robert Dujarric of Temple University–Japan says that most of the core management team is Japanese, and the company's suppliers are part of Toyota's vertical structure, limiting contact with outsiders. The public-relations response has been plagued by Japanese cultural tendencies to dodge controversy and conflict, even to the point of denying glaringly dangerous problems, like sticking accelerating pedals.

In many ways, Toyota is symptomatic of a nation that has lost its way. According to a 2008 Pew survey, Japanese were more dissatisfied with the direction of their country than almost any other nation, including Pakistan and Russia. As a result, the Japanese electorate in August 2009 threw out the old guard Liberal Democratic Party after a half century of nearly unbroken rule. The new government, led by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, promised change—a "revolution," even. Hatoyama talked about Japan taking a larger role in the world, but it was telling that his first big international splash was on a local issue: urging the U.S. to shrink its military base on Okinawa. In his first six months, Hatoyama's approval ratings have plummeted from 75 percent to 37 percent. An Ipsos/Reuters poll in February showed that just 14 percent of Japanese were confident that their country is headed in the right direction, the lowest level of confidence in any of the 23 countries surveyed. For many, the Toyota debacle suggested a further step in the wrong direction. "Toyota represents Japan all over the world in terms of Japanese culture and Japanese economy," says Masayoshi Arai, a special adviser to Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. "We are proud of Toyota, so this story has damaged our pride."

Toyota's fall from grace caps a 20-year economic malaise that is infecting the popular culture, manifesting itself in a preference for staying home, avoiding risk, and removing oneself from the hierarchical system. A generation of people in their 30s and 40s—the prime working and family-raising years—are said to be unwilling to take any risk, no matter how small. Sugomori (nesting) people spend their days seeking bargains online. With wages declining, soshoku-kei danshi (grass-eating men) avoid going out or trying to find a career for themselves. According to some surveys, this generation has reported preferences for avoiding cars, motorcycles, and even spicy food. Entrepreneurship is seen as an unpromising career prospect. Estimates of the number of hikikomori (shut-ins who have given up on social life) have risen. Japanese psychologist Tamaki Saito, the foremost authority on the trend, speculated in 1998 that the number of such Japanese could be 1 million; last month authorities said it may be as high as 3.6 million. The country's suicide rate—more than 30,000 per year for 12 years—is double that of the United States and second only to Russia among the G8 nations, and getting worse.

This all has dire economic effects. Low birth rates and out-migration patterns mean the country's population is predicted to fall from 127 million to 95 million by 2050, creating unparalleled demographic pressures. A shrinking, bargain-hunting, risk-averse population translates into a deflationary spiral, low wage growth, and decreased tax revenues. Japan's debt is now more than twice GDP, by far the highest rate of any industrialized nation. In a March piece entitled "Japan's Slow-Motion Crisis," Kenneth Rogoff, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, wrote that Japan was "a poster child for economic stagnation," noting its "legendary" inefficiencies in agriculture, retail, and government. His conclusion: Japan's fiscal situation grows more alarming by the day. The stock market stands at a quarter of its 1989 high, and now Toyota's stock has fallen 20 percent since the recalls began.

The optimistic view is that Toyota's travails will spur Japan, finally, to become less insular and more open to new ideas. Initially, many in Japan denied the problem, called the controversy an American overreaction, and concocted conspiracy theories about the U.S. government or unions sabotaging Toyota cars to boost sales of the government-supported General Motors. Now, however, the Hatoyama administration is moving to push change on Toyota in ways its business-friendly predecessors in the LDP never would have, says Jeff Kingston, a professor of Asian studies at Temple University–Japan. Transport Minister Seiji Maehara has "not missed a chance to berate Toyota," accusing it of failing to listen to customer complaints, says Kingston. The mainstream media have also taken off the gloves, he notes, with some of the biggest newspapers saying that Toyota has embarrassed Japan in the world, and that Toyota must regain the trust of its customers.

The less rosy scenario is that Japan will respond to this humiliation by retreating deeper into its shell. Since Koizumi's term ended in September 2006, three prime ministers have had to step down within a year. The elite now understands the problems Japan faces, but the cultural shift required to confront them may just be too great, says Edward Lincoln, a New York University Japan scholar. Rather than, for example, competing with China for the leadership role in Asia, it is quite likely that the Japanese will cede that ground while feeling sorry for themselves, says Lincoln. In other words, Japan will continue to give up, fade away, and blame its limitations on demographics and the changing international balance of power. In this bleak view, the Japanese will return to their mantra of shoganai (nothing can be done). Indeed, it seems that Japan's long decline may not be accelerating, but the prevailing sentiment is that nothing can be done to apply the brakes.

Stewart is Program Director and Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.

Inside the Iraq Transition with CO State Rep and US Army Colonel Joe Rice

staff — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:30:35 -0800

Please join Truman Project Senior Fellow, Colorado State Representative, and U.S. Army Colonel Joe Rice for an exciting insider view on the Iraq transition and draw-down. Click here to view the presentation slide show.

DATE: Friday, March 5 --- TIME: 12:30pm EST / 9:30am PST --- DIAL: 712-775-7000, Enter Code 254870#