Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table

Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
By Jerome Grossman

On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.

While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”

Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.

Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.

All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.

President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can

The Rockets From Gaza

The Rockets From Gaza

By Jerome Grossman

There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes

However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.

Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.

In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.

Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?

Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.

Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.

Leon Panetta and the CIA

Leon Panetta and the CIA

By Jerome Grossman

President-elect Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Leon Panetta to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has been a US Representative, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration.

While Panetta is a longtime Washington insider with serious management experience, he is not an expert on intelligence or on past operations of the CIA. Obama has been criticized by CIA specialists and high ranking senators for appointing a director without direct experience in the field.

But that is exactly why Panetta was appointed. Obama has criticized the agency for using harsh interrogation methods and has openly objected to the use of such methods, some of which have been used for generations under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. Obama had to find a director who was absolutely clean on waterboarding, other tortures, secret renditions of prisoners to other countries for torture, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.. The only safe appointment was a manager who had never been in the CIA, who did not have the experience of breaking US law and violating the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Clinton administration made extensive use of rendering suspects to Egypt without formal charges to be tortured. Was Panetta involved? Will the question be asked at his confirmation hearing?

Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia immediately complained about the appointment citing lack of experience and Obama's failure to notify them in advance. However, their position is weakened by their failure to use their influence as powerful members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to expose the hideous practices and to arouse the nation of the crimes committed in the name of the United States.

It will not be easy for Panetta to reform the CIA and to change established patterns of conduct. Who becomes second in command of operations will supply a clue about the chance of success in changing the culture of the agency. The action levels are often hidden from the view of the Director at the helm. Obama is trying, and so will Panetta. The illegal procedures must be eliminated. They offend other nations, tarnish US reputation, and produce incorrect information. Modern intelligence techniques avoid torture and violence, rely on psychological approaches and obtain more accurate information faster without alienating the rest of humanity.

Pastor Warren at the Inauguration

Pastor Warren at the Inauguration
By Jerome Grossman

On January 20, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. Surprisingly, Obama has invited conservative evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the religious invocation to the two million people attending the ceremony in Washington, the 300 million Americans watching on television, and the billions around the world watching and listening as power changes hands in the world's unchallenged superpower.

Important political and social groups in the coalition that won the election for Obama are deeply disappointed at the choice of Warren. The pastor is a key figure in the opposition to gay rights, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion. His rhetoric is exceptionally harsh, comparing gay marriage to “An older guy marrying a child" and to "One guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage", as well as comparing gays to pedophiles.

Gays and lesbians and supporters of abortion rights contributed mightily to Obama's campaign and gave him almost all their votes. Other enthusiastic supporters, civil libertarians and believers in the constitutional separation of church and state are stunned by the Warren invitation, that this man will address the world on behalf of Obama and the United States.

But they shouldn't be: they haven't been paying attention. During the campaign, in his march from liberal to the right, Obama vowed to expand President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. In July, 2008, Obama proposed "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" that would include $500 million a year to faith-based service programs across the country. The plan would expand Bush’s programs that have been widely criticized for violating traditional separation of church and state by subsidizing religious institutions.

The Bush program also faced accusations of favoritism, especially toward evangelical groups. By appointing Warren, Obama is sending a message to those groups: the money will continue to flow, not only to the evangelicals but also to the African-American churches, not particularly rewarded in the Bush administration. As Obama subsidizes all religious institutions, the black churches will have the opportunity to catch up for past neglect. Honoring Warren is one way to begin the process. It won't be exactly a bailout, but it puts all the God-fearing on the gravy train. Let the strict constitutionalists worry.

On July 2, 2008, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term" arguing that Obama was embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, backing off from immediate and complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, modifying his position on NAFTA, supporting the death penalty for rape, spending more money on faith-based charities, supporting the landmark controversial 1996 welfare reform etc. The Journal was obviously trying to diminish Obama but the honor to Warren gives their analysis some credibility.

However, calling Obama’s reign the equivalent of Bush's Third Term is too great a stretch, carrying the political analysis too far and insulting to the new president. There never was a president as inept as George W. Bush, who set records for incompetence and lack of understanding. Obama may fail to satisfy his basic constituency on some issues but he will know what he's doing at all times.

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman

In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.

Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.

The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.

The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

What happens in nuclear war?

1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.

2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness

3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.

4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.

5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.

6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.

On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:

"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

Is Bipartisanship Good for Democracy?

Is Bipartisanship Good for Democracy?
By Jerome Grossman

In the aftermath of the harsh and bruising 2008 election, there are calls for "bipartisanship". Literally the word means, "Having members from, or representing two parties". However, current political usage implies an era of good feeling during which opposing parties cooperate for the common good.

Is such a coalition approach to government healthy for democracy? Will the submerging of differences lead to the greatest good for the greatest number? Does it bring us closer to one-party rule?

If the Democratic and Republican parties were to place top value on agreement, that would be a recipe for maintaining the status quo, for the easiest course would be to accept current conditions. Change would be difficult. But our democratic system calls for political competition in the same way that our free market capitalist system requires that choices be available to the consumer. There should be more than one product available and then let the market decide.

In politics, different constituencies have different needs and objectives. The function of the parties is to represent them. The four pillars of the Democratic Party are organized labor, African-Americans, women and ethnic minorities. The four pillars of the Republican Party are the religious right, the anti-abortionists, white men, and higher income people. The parties have an obligation to represent and work for the interests of their pillars, otherwise they will have no function and eventually, no pillars.

In our free market system, the rest of the country acts as the consumer, making the decision according to the way they see their own interests affected. Compromise among the competitors is not excluded but ought to be a last resort so as not to blur differences. As the French have told us in another connection, “Vive Le Difference.”

Bipartisanship may have a reassuring and pleasant ring but it is more likely to limit than to enhance democracy. Our goal should be civility and respect for the opposition, but above all, authentic competition.

Next Up: A Battle over Unionization

Next Up: A Battle over Unionization
By Jerome Grossman

In recent decades the number of U. S. workers in unions has declined dramatically from a peak of more than 35% to below 10%. Some of the factors in the decline have been the weakness of industry and manufacturing in America, the lengthy political dominance (now ended) of the anti-union Republican Party, the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board and the sophisticated anti-union tactics that some employers have used to sway or intimidate workers before the first union election.

The unions believe that a bargaining unit should be formed as soon as a majority of workers sign authorization cards. The employers now have the right to call for a subsequent secret ballot vote on unionization. This dual process often results in lengthy delays, angry relationships, employer pressures and legal expense more easily borne by the employer.

For years the labor movement has been trying to pass a law, The Employee Free Choice Act, to take employers out of the decision of the workers to organize themselves by recognizing card check elections as decisive.

The unions base their argument on the National Labor Relations Act, signed in 1935 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which made unionization the national policy, "To protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices......"

Last year, the House of Representatives passed 241 to 185 a bill requiring employers to recognize unions organized by card check. In the Senate, the bill passed 51 to 48 on a party-lined vote but failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to prevent filibuster.

Prospects for passage will be better in 2009. The Democrats will have at least 57 senators, perhaps 58, some GOP senators from heavily unionized states are up for reelection, and the legislation is supported by President-elect Obama, and Vice President-elect Biden.

The unions are already calling the legislation "An economic stimulus package for America's working families." The employers will cite the cost to business in a recession and the sanctity of the secret ballot. The general public may wish to support an increase in share for US workers in the declining American pie, a share that has gone down dramatically since the 1970s.

Presidents Promises

Presidents Promises
By Jerome Grossman

Richard Holbrooke, US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001, and a likely member of the Obama administration, wrote in Foreign Affairs (October 2008) that “It is a well-established historical fact that what candidates say about foreign policy is not always an exact guide to what they will do if elected.”

Franklin Roosevelt promised in 1940 to not send “your boys.........into any foreign wars."

Lyndon Johnson stated in 1964 that he would not send ground troops to Vietnam.

Richard Nixon referred in 1968 to a non-existent "secret plan to get out of Vietnam.”

Jimmy Carter pledged in 1976 to withdraw all US ground troops from South Korea.

Ronald Reagan pledged in 1982 to upgrade US relations with Taiwan to "official" status.

Bill Clinton promised in 1992 to take a strong stand on Bosnia and stand up to the "Butchers of Beijing."

George W. Bush called in 2000 for a "more humble" foreign policy and no more "nation building."

Some candidates believe in their campaign pledges. Others adopt them to win over constituencies. Some change positions upon reaching the White House because the situation has changed. A responsible supporter of a president must make the determination of motive and act accordingly, above all avoiding blind support.

Can Obama Do Change?

Can Obama Do Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.

Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.

Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.

When asked to respond to this situation, Obama says that he is the changer, the idea man, that his appointees were the best qualified to carry out his changes. However, as brilliant as he is, Obama is unlikely to know the full range of options and possibilities and history to change the way the government works in foreign and domestic policies. No one could.

With nostalgia, Obama supporters remember the glory days of the campaign when their candidate led the enormous crowds chanting "We are the people we have been waiting for", emphasizing repeatedly the mantra that change will bubble up from the people. They remember the repeated calls for “Change we can believe in “, and the denunciation of lobbyists: “When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House “.

These questions have not affected Obama's popularity, now at new heights. Most Americans along with most of the rest of the world are overjoyed that the failed Bush presidency is almost over and that America has repudiated its racist past by electing an African-American as president. Love is in the air but after the honeymoon, Obama will have to deliver.

Where is the Change?

Where is the Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.

Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?

Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.

Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?

During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.

And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.

Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list.

Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?