WAR 11-12-2016-to-11-18-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nat...ing-weapon-grade-plutonium-india-1539316.html

China helps Pakistan build nuclear reactors yielding weapon-grade Plutonium: India

By Ritu Sharma**|**Express News Service**|** Published: 16th November 2016 08:41 PM**|** Last Updated: 16th November 2016 08:41 PM**
*
NEW DELHI: Even as China refuses to support India’s candidature for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on the basis of New Delhi’s non-proliferation credentials, it continues to support Pakistan to develop nuclear reactors capable of yielding weapon-grade plutonium.

Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs General (retd) VK Singh told the Parliament on Wednesday that the Indian Government has been maintaining constant watch on all developments having a bearing on India’s national interest the matter.

“Government is also aware of the Chinese assistance to Pakistan in developing the Khushab nuclear reactor that is capable of producing plutonium for use in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,” the MoS said. Plutonium is better than highly enriched Uranium for building nuclear weapons as less amount of it is required to make an equally potent fission bomb. Hence, plutonium warheads are lightweight to be delivered by nuclear-tipped missiles.

Two nuclear reactors Chashma 1 and 2 are already in operation. Besides this, China has entered agreement with Pakistan to supply two additional nuclear power reactors – Chashma-3 and Chashma – 4. Beijing will also be providing assistance for additional reactors to be built at Chashm, Karachi and third site in Pakistan.

Beijing’s constant assistance to Islamabad’s nuclear programs has been in contravention of its stand on India’s entry to NSG, the 48-member grouping that regulates nuclear trade. Beijing contends that New Delhi being non-signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been an impediment. However, China turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s track record in nuclear proliferation by supplying nuclear material to North Korea.

Washington-based Arms Control Association in its latest report card 2013-2016 ‘Assessing Progress on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament’ has given China a failing “F Grade” on nuclear weapons related export control. China had become NSG member in 2004, and its national export controls include provisions related to export licensing, control lists, end-user controls, and import controls. The nuclear power reactors supplied by China to Pakistan has not received the consent from the NSG.

China had signed a contract to supply to nuclear reactors to Pakistan in 2003, a year before it became NSG member. However, the contract for one more nuclear reactor it is supplying was signed in 2013. In a 2015 conference Beijing confirmed that China has provided assistance in building of 6 reactors in Pakistan.

 

[Zoner]

HC or anyone. Is it true that Obama is the only one with the nuclear codes? IF so, wouldn't the Russians best time for a first strike be before Obama left office and Trump went back to giving the codes to the sub commanders etc.?

 

[Housecarl]

HC or anyone. Is it true that Obama is the only one with the nuclear codes? IF so, wouldn't the Russians best time for a first strike be before Obama left office and Trump went back to giving the codes to the sub commanders etc.?

It's more "involved" than that...

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-grave-idUSKBN13C0ML

World News | Thu Nov 17, 2016 | 5:00am EST

Islamic State killed 300 former policemen south of Mosul, HRW says

Islamic State militants probably killed more than 300 Iraqi former police three weeks ago and buried them in a mass grave near the town of Hammam al-Alil south of Mosul, Human Rights Watch said on Thursday.

A Reuters reporter visited the site of the mass grave, where residents said the ultra-hardline militants buried victims who had been shot or beheaded. The residents said they believed up to 200 people were killed in the weeks before Islamic State withdrew from the town.

Human Rights Watch said some of the former policemen were separated from a group of about 2,000 people from nearby villages and towns who were forced to march alongside the militants last month as they retreated north to Mosul and the town of Tal Afar.

It quoted a laborer who said he saw Islamic State fighters drive four large trucks carrying 100 to 125 men, some of whom he recognized as former policemen, past an agricultural college close to the site which was to become the mass grave.

Minutes later, he heard automatic gunfire and cries of distress, he said. The next night, on Oct. 29, a similar scene was repeated, with between 130 to 145 men, he told HRW.

Another witness, a resident of Hammam al-Alil, said he heard automatic gunfire in the area for approximately seven minutes, three nights in a row.

"This is another piece of evidence of the horrific mass murder by ISIS (Islamic State) of former law enforcement officers in and around Mosul," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "ISIS should be held accountable for these crimes against humanity."

(Reporting by Dominic Evans, editing by Larry King)

 

[Housecarl]

Europe: Politics, Trade, NATO
Started by*Plain Janeý,*Yesterday*04:55 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?505974-Europe-Politics-Trade-NATO

German Lawmaker Pushes For European Nuclear Deterrence Plan (Use UK & France's Nukes)
Started by*Possible Impactý,*Yesterday*11:27 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ar-Deterrence-Plan-(Use-UK-amp-France-s-Nukes)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-idUSKBN13C10E

World News | Thu Nov 17, 2016 | 5:47am EST

Europe at risk of collapse; France, Germany must lead: French PM

Europe is in danger of breaking apart and could fail, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said during a trip to the German capital on Thursday, adding that European projects needed a new basis with Germany and France showing strength.

At an event organized by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, Valls also said France must continue its reforms, including lowering corporate tax, but added that it needed Germany to make efforts regarding investment.

(Reporting by Andreas Rinke; Writing by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Paul Carrel)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/17/un-atomic-agency-chief-urges-iran-to-honor-nuclear-deal.html

Middle East

UN atomic agency chief urges Iran to honor nuclear deal

Published November 17, 2016
Associated Press

VIENNA – *The head of the U.N. atomic energy agency is urging Iran to keep its commitments under a nuclear deal meant to slow its ability to make nuclear arms, after it recently breached one its obligations.

Yukiya Amano of the International Atomic Energy Agency referred to last week's IAEA finding that Iran overstepped limits on the amount of heavy water it is allowed to possess for the second time since the agreement's implementation in January.

Heavy water is a concern because it is used to cool reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium. That, in turn, can be applied to making the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Amano told an IAEA board meeting Thursday that "such situations should be avoided ... to maintain international confidence" in the deal.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...-claim-americans-sparked-deadly-shooting.html

US refutes Jordan's claim Americans sparked deadly shooting

Published November 17, 2016
Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan – *The U.S. Embassy in Jordan is refuting Amman's claim that American soldiers sparked a deadly shooting at a Jordan military base this month by disobeying orders from Jordanian soldiers.

Three U.S. Army sergeants — Kevin McEnroe, Matthew Lewellen and James Moriarty from the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) from Fort Campbell, Kentucky — were killed in the shooting outside the base in southern Jordan.

Embassy spokesman Eric Barbee says U.S. investigators are considering all possible motives and "have not yet ruled out terrorism as a potential motive."

After the shooting, Jordan's state media reported that the slain American trainers had sparked a firefight by disobeying direct orders from the Jordanians.

Barbee told The Associated Press on Thursday that there's "absolutely no credible evidence" for this claim.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stripes.com/news/africo...ate-militants-stretches-across-libya-1.439867

AFRICOM's hunt for Islamic State militants stretches across Libya

By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: November 17, 2016

STUTTGART, Germany — U.S. Africa Command is tracking Islamic State fighters who have fled the battle in the coastal Libyan city of Sirte, a possible prelude to more expansive U.S. airstrikes in the country, the top U.S. general for Africa said.

“We have to continue to develop those targets and have certainty of who we are seeing and what the activities are,” AFRICOM’s Gen. Thomas Waldhauser said in an interview with Stars and Stripes late Wednesday. “We just need to have that level of certainty if we decide to strike outside the limits of Sirte.”

The move to neutralize Islamic State fighters in other parts of Libya comes amid concerns the group could regroup and threaten the North African nation’s fragile government or infiltrate into neighboring states, Waldhauser said.

“We need to leverage that success (in Sirte) by watching where these individuals go, keeping track of where they are,” he said. “Because what we don’t want them to do is re-emerge, come back, attack Tripoli, attack the (government) forces, who are in Sirte, from behind.”

More than three months into Operation Odyssey Lightning — the U.S. aerial campaign targeting Islamic State fighters in Sirte — Libyan government forces have backed the insurgents into a corner.

It was estimated last summer that about 4,000 Islamic State fighters were operating in Libya and that the majority had taken root in Sirte, a city the insurgents came to dominate. Now, about 200 are holed up in a small number of buildings, restricted to a couple of city blocks, Waldhauser said.

It is urban warfare, with Libyan troops clearing out the last remnants of militants, one building at a time.

“Those ISIL fighters who are left are there for one specific reason,” said Waldhauser, using an alternative name for the Islamic State group. “They are going to die there, but they are going to cause as many casualties as they can prior to that happening.”

The remaining fighters have established a network of tunnels, roadside bombs and booby traps, which has complicated efforts to clear them out of the city.

“We knew it was going to be difficult. It probably is taking a bit longer than we would have wanted, but nonetheless, it is down to a very small piece of real estate, a couple blocks that are left,” Waldhauser said. “Government ... forces are going through those buildings and houses, really building by building, room by room, to rid out the remnants of ISIL that are there.”

The Islamic State group’s move into Libya gained momentum during the past year as pressure mounted on the organization in its main strongholds in Iraq and Syria.

“This (Libya) would be a fallback position if Raqqa and Mosul fell,” said Waldhauser, who assumed command of AFRICOM in July.

Offensives are now underway in Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital in Syria, and in Mosul, the last major Iraqi city still under Islamic State control.

Libya has emerged as a focal point for AFRICOM’S efforts on the continent, with nearly 400 airstrikes being conducted since operations began in August. Many of those have been carried out by aircraft operating from U.S. Navy vessels positioned off Libya’s coast. The U.S. has also quietly begun conducting surveillance operations from a drone site in neighboring Tunisia to improve itstracking of enemy fighters on the ground in Libya.

Operation Odyssey Lightning is AFRICOM’s second venture into Libya, where in 2011 the command led the first wave of airstrikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. NATO later took over the mission, which critics have blamed for causing the current chaos in Libya.

In the past, NATO officials have shifted the blame, saying that the turmoil over the past five years was due to the failure of Western political leaders to place some type of peacekeeping force in the country after a successful military campaign.

Nonetheless, Libya has degenerated into a virtual failed state, with scores of militias and militant groups vying for territory.

In the meantime, Waldhasuer said, military operations are aimed at blunting Islamic State attempts to find a haven while Libyan officials work toward establishing political order.

“It is a concern for all of us, so consequently we keep an eye on it in conjunction with the Government of National Accord. We keep an eye on where these fighters are heading. And we know that they have moved on to various places within the country,” he said.

vandiver.john@stripes.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/dead-drop/dead-drop-november-18

Dead Drop: November 18

November 18, 2016| anonymous

NAME GAME: We are tempted to dive headlong into the speculation about who will get what job in the Trump administration.* But The Dead Drop comes out just once a week – and the hot names seem to change once an hour. We did note with interest that as of midweek – the Trump transition people seem to have not yet contacted the Pentagon to discuss turnover.* The folks at DoD are all prepared with briefing books, power point presentations and the like – but no one to give them to. There are some reports that other major departments, including Justice, were also sitting by the phone waiting for a call. *Word was that “landing teams” from the Trump crowd might wade ashore at the various departments around November 17th – nine days after the election. Last week’s leader in the clubhouse for the job of CIA Director, former Congressman Mike Rogers, is now off the transition team. The Weekly Standard speculates that this is because he was viewed as insufficiently strident about perceived Hillary Benghazi sins of the past. Another former House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Peter Hoekstra, has become the flavor of the week – or at least the day – with speculation that he might be picked to run the CIA or DNI.* According to Politico, Hoekstra “previously lobbied on behalf of the Kurdish regional government, a Belarusian potash company and a Libyan organization.”* Must not have been planning on a return to government at the time.

PLAYING BOTH SIDES? The Washington Post on Thursday reported that among the long list of potential National Security Advisors in a Trump administration – was retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus.* That’s interesting – The Dead Drop is reliably informed that Petraeus was very interested in filling that same position in a Hillary administration.

SORE WINNERS:* Eliot Cohen is a highly respected professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS, a former senior State Department Official, and a Republican who supported Hillary Clinton in the just completed election.* Nonetheless, on November 10, he penned a conciliatory article in The American Interest urging folks to give Team Trump a chance.* But a few days later, he took to Twitter to say that after an exchange with the Trump transition team he has changed his mind. “Stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming “you LOST!” Will be ugly.” It seems the Trump folks are keeping a list of folks they want to get even with.* And it is a LONG list. Cohen took to the pages of the Washington Post on Thursday to reiterate his advice: stay away.

HE WENT TO JARED! *According to some media accounts (denied in a tweet from Donald Trump), the president-elect has sought to get top secret security clearances for his adult children and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Kushner, by the way, is getting the credit/blame for purging NJ Governor Chris Christie from the transition – some say in payback for Christie’s 2004 prosecution (and subsequent jailing) of Jared’s dad, Charles, for tax evasion.

HERE’S MUDD IN YOUR EYE: Some pundits clearly have no sense of humor.* For example, the folks at the euphoniously named website Crooks and Liars, who spotted former CIA and FBI official Phil Mudd being interviewed by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.* Cuomo brought up reports of Trump’s interest in getting top secret security clearances for his adult offspring.* After asking Mudd what his concerns were – Cuomo immediately interrupted him.* Mudd said (with a smile), “Be quiet son, I’ll give you an education.” Apparently Crooks and Liars brook no disrespect for CNN anchors, calling Mudd’s comments rude, hyper aggressive, and a few other words we won’t repeat.

FIREHOSE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: According to The Verge.com – Dataminr, a Twitter analytics company that previously revoked CIA access to its information, has signed a contract to help the FBI know “…about breaking news quickly…ensuring public safety and the fastest emergency response.” The bureau awarded a sole-source contract to Dataminr, a company that allows customers to churn through Twitter's "firehose," which includes more than 500 million 140-character messages posted daily. The company says, however, that “Dataminr is not a product that enables surveillance."

POCKET LITTER: Stray thoughts – loose change – and a few odds and ends.

CAVEMAN: Altenergymag.com reports on 85-year-old CIA veteran Joe Kelly who has built a 2800 sq. ft. underground home in Tennessee, which allows him to live completely off the energy grid.

SPY VS. SPY: Newsweek has a very long story about *two Russian defectors who got caught up between warring factions: the FBI and CIA.

PICKPOCKET LITTER? There’s a new spy flick out this week called The Take, which is about an American pickpocket who teams up with a lone-wolf CIA “agent” to pursue a gang behind a deadly bombing in Paris. Why are the CIA folks in movies always lone wolves?* Saving money on the cast?* The trailer can be viewed here.

NETWORK NEWS: Experts from The Cipher Brief network are always making news.* Here are a few examples from this week:

Former NSA and CIA Director General Mike Hayden wrote about the importance of the intelligence community for the upcoming Trump Administration in a Washington Post Op-Ed, *and on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Hayden said it was time for everyone to support the President-elect.

General Stanley McChrystal is on a short list for Secretary of State in the Trump Administration, according to the New York Times.

WHAT’S ON THEIR NIGHTSTAND?** (Our contributors tell us about what they’re currently reading)

John Sipher, former member of CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service and currently Director of Client Services at CrossLead, Inc.:

I just put down Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. *I enjoy history and especially appreciate looking at critical events in order to get an understanding of the historical and political context. *The success of the Continental Army over the British was not inevitable, and General George Washington came close to defeat several times. *

SECURITY QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
"Combat readiness doesn't have a constituency—except for the entire nation— when fighting needs to be accomplished.”

-Retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies.

BE A DEAD DROP*‘INSIDER.’ If you have your own Dead Drop intel to share, drop us a note at*thedeaddrop@thecipherbrief.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/65606/us-approves-usd31-2-billion-of-fighter-sales-to-the-middle-east

Industry
US approves USD31.2 billion of fighter sales to the Middle East

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
18 November 2016

The US State Department has cleared long-delayed fighter aircraft sales to the Middle East valued at USD31.2 billion.

Two notifications posted on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) website on 17 November announced the approval of 40 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for Kuwait and 72 Boeing F-15 Advanced Eagles for Qatar, valued at USD10.1 billion and USD21.1 billion respectively. Both sales were requested some years ago, but had reportedly been held up owing to concerns raised by Israel.

The Kuwaiti sale covers 32 single-seat F/A-18E and eight twin-seat F/A-18F aircraft, as well as 12 Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper pods, 48 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and other equipment and support. Kuwait is the first customer to request an element of Boeing's International Roadmap upgrade for the Super Hornet, with the notification also listing eight conformal fuel tanks for four of its aircraft.

Once in service, the F/A-18E/Fs will initially augment the Kuwait Air Force's current 39 Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets and the 28 yet-to-be delivered Eurofighter Typhoons, before eventually replacing the legacy Hornets.

The Qatari sale covers 72 F-15QA (Qatar Advanced) Eagles as well as weapons and related support equipment. Lead-in fighter training in the United States is also included. The Advanced Eagle is the latest variant of the Boeing-made fighter that has also been ordered by Saudi Arabia as the F-15SA. This variant improves on previous models in that it features two additional underwing weapons stations (increasing the number from nine to 11); the option of a large area display cockpit; fly-by-wire controls; and the Raytheon APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

Along with 24 Dassault Rafales that were ordered in May 2015, in Qatar Emiri Air Force service the F-15QAs will replace the service's current 12 Dassault Mirage 2000-5 fighters.

The DSCA notifications represent the total number of fighters that the State Department has approved, and are not necessarily the number that each nation will procure (Qatar, for example, has already had a portion of its total 72-aircraft requirement satisfied with the Rafale).

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login
(359 of 599 words)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2016/11/thinking-historically-a-guide-for-strategy-and-statecraft/

THINKING HISTORICALLY: A GUIDE FOR STRATEGY AND STATECRAFT

FRANCIS J. GAVIN
NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Editor’s Note: This is adapted from the 12th Annual Alvin H Bernstein Lecture at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, delivered by the author on November 10.

On November 22nd, 2011, The New York Times published a short Erol Morris op-doc, “Umbrella Man,” to mark the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. In the six and a half minute video, Morris employs his Interrotron camera to create his trademark intimacy while interviewing Josiah “Tink” Thompson, author of a book on the famous Zapruder film titled Six Seconds in Dallas. Backed by a haunting score arranged by minimalist composer Arvo Part and spliced with snippets of video from the fateful day, Thompson tells the mysterious story of a shadowy figure called the “umbrella man.”

Who was the umbrella man? During the Zapruder and other films and photographs from that fateful day in Dallas, an upright figure can be seen standing on the so-called grassy knoll, holding an open black umbrella, moments before the assassin’s bullets are fired into the president’s motorcade. The image is arresting: The weather in Dallas was sunny and warm.

The sight of a lone man under the umbrella would have been disconcerting even if Kennedy’s murder had not taken place right in front of the man seconds later. As Thompson says: “In all of Dallas, there appears to be exactly one person standing under an open black umbrella …. Can anyone come up with a non-sinister explanation for this?”

Writing in The New Yorker’s “Talk of the Town” series in December 1967, writer John Updike suggested the mystery surrounding who the umbrella man was and what he was doing on the grassy knoll “dangles around history’s neck like a fetish.” None of the authorities — the Dallas police, the Secret Service, the FBI, or the Warren Commission — ever located or even identified him or could explain his baffling appearance.

Given all the mystery surrounding the assassination, it was only natural to concoct all sorts of ominous motives animating this sinister character and his menacing umbrella. Who was the umbrella man and what was he doing? Clearly he played a key role in the conspiracy to kill the president. Perhaps the umbrella was a gun device of some sort, firing a flechette into the president’s throat. Or maybe it was a way to signal to the actual shooter to go ahead with the assassination. Into the vacuum of uncertainty, it did not seem unreasonable to make a causal link between the shadowy figure, his umbrella, and the fateful events of that day.

Or not. In 1978, Louie Steven Witt reluctantly came forward to the House Select Committee on Assassinations to admit he was the umbrella man and explain himself. gavin-3-wittIn 1963, Witt worked near the Dealey Plaza and took a walk every day during his lunch hour: “I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President’s motorcade. … Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.” The umbrella was a symbolic protest:

"It had something to do with the–when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador or England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. By association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family."

When asked if his protest had anything to do with the president’s “posture with; say, the Russians,” Witt replied “No. No. No. That was not it at all.” gavin-5-umbrella

As Thompson points out, this explanation “is just wacky enough to be true.” It was a stark reminder to anyone looking to the past:

"f you have any fact which you think is really sinister, is really obviously a fact that can point to some sinister underpinning, hey forget it man. Because you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale."

Talking about the film, Morris argued his interest in the assassination emerged from his curiosity about the nature of historical investigation and how to assess evidence:

"Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions."

Thompson, summarizing Updike, says that historical research may have two parts — the macro level “where things obey natural laws and usual things happen and unusual things don’t happen” and the world “under a microscope” where you will find “a whole dimension of weird, incredible things going on.”

• • •

This essay is about thinking historically. It is not a history of a particular event, person, place, or process. Nor is it strictly a presentation about methodology or how to do historical work effectively. There are many excellent books and articles that can help you become a good historian. What I hope to do is explore something I call “historical sensibility,” which I believe can be a powerful tool to understand and aid making policy, especially foreign, foreign economic, and national security policy.

This may strike many as odd or problematic. First, there are many who assume that the main role of the historian is to unearth, collect, and present facts. These facts are then strung together to create a linear narrative, with a clear beginning, middle, and end. For many in the “harder” social sciences, however, this is often seen as little more than story telling. For true knowledge to appear, many facts have to be collected, shaved down to look alike, then aggregated and analyzed to discover generalizable laws of the universe.

To be sure, historians are dogged pursuers of evidence and will travel the world over to find a document or conduct an interview that might shed light on the past. They also construct stories to help us understand worlds gone by. But the facts do not speak for themselves, and the linear, surface narrative that so appeals to our brains is often misleading. Immersing oneself in the past sensitizes you to how unusual, unexpected, and non-linear history can be. Historians traffic in ironies, unintended consequence, and are often the ambulance chasers of surprise. We live in that gap that Thompson identifies, between a world structured by discoverable natural laws and the dimension where “weird, incredible things” are happening. We try to make sense of both and bring these worlds together. We try to understand and explain the origins and consequences of seismic events like the assassinations of presidents, while trying to understand if that man with the black umbrella should worry us at all.

What do I mean by a “historical sensibility”? It goes beyond our notions as to what historians do: collecting evidence, largely from archives, to tell stories about the past. I define it as a familiarity with the past and its powerful and often unpredictable rhythms. A historical sensibility is less a method than a practice, a mental awareness, discernment, responsiveness to the past and how it unfolded into our present world. Developing this sensibility can provide many benefits and insights to the decision-maker facing complex issues and radical uncertainty about the future, not the least of which is humility and prudence. Scholar and policymaker Eliot Cohen has termed it the “historical mind,” which he aptly describes as a “way of thinking shaped by one’s reading of history and by using history as a mode of inquiry and a framework for thinking about problems.”

What are the qualities to this orientation and how can one obtain it? A historical sensibility includes several characteristics. First, this sensibility demonstrates a toleration and even appreciation of uncertainty, surprise, and unintended consequences in human affairs, and a comfort with indeterminacy and multi-causal explanations. It makes the unfamiliar familiar, while revealing the unfamiliar in what was believed was well-understood. Furthermore, the historical sensibility provides an empathy (though not necessarily a sympathy) for the past — a willingness to understand historical subjects on their own terms and as products of a particular time and place. This also means developing a consciousness of the powerful hold that history exerts on other cultures, leaders, and nations. It also acknowledges the fundamental importance of the perspective of the observer. Though the historian strives for an elusive objectivity, she admits that the who, what, and when of the historian matters quite a bit when reconstructing the past. Finally, a historical sensibility recognizes and appreciates complexity and, though willing to be proven wrong, casts a skeptical eye on claims of parsimonious models that claim to explain, generalize, and predict complex social, cultural, and political behavior. As Gordon Wood eloquently stated,

"To possess a historical sense does not mean simply to possess information about the past. It means to have a different consciousness, a historical consciousness, to have incorporated into our minds a mode of understanding that profoundly influences the say we look at the world."

Or to quote the historian and policymaker Phil Zelikow:

"The path of complexity is difficult, but the rewards include more lifelike fitness training for the intellect. And seen through a microscope, including a historian’s microscope, the world can be far stranger and more fascinating than anything that can be seen by the unaided eye."

The best historical work, and the adept historical sensibility, combines and integrates these insights and methods, to develop both a better understanding of the past and what it can tell us — and not tell us — about the choices and circumstances we face today. Sympathetic to the concerns of both the social scientist and the decision-maker, I identified nine tools, lessons, and advantages a historical approach might provide to a policymaker.

I will not go through them all here. Some are obvious, like “vertical history,” which is assessing the temporal, or short, medium, and long term causes of an event, and how they interact. Or “horizontal history,” which looks at the spatial dimension of history, or how different issues are interconnected and related. Another tool of the historical sensibility is teasing out the unintended consequences of actions. When President Eisenhower approved financing for dams and irrigation canals in Afghanistan in the 1950s, he hoped to improve agricultural productivity in a developing nation. He did not aim to make possible the creation of one of the world’s largest opium fields.

A less obvious lesson from this sensibility is that history teaches decision-makers about something I call “chronological proportionality,” or the weight of historical events. The issues that most grab our attention today and dominate the headlines of newspapers are not likely to be the questions that have the most important long-term consequences. In 1967 and 1968, for example, American newspapers had far more print on the war in Vietnam than on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the Six-Day War in the Middle East, or political changes in China and Eastern Europe, but what event mattered most to long term U.S. and global interests from our current perspective? Or consider historian Erez Manela’s path-breaking work on U.S. policy towards global efforts to eradicate smallpox during the same period. During the first seven decades of the 20th century, 300 million people died of smallpox, twice the number killed by wars during the same period. In 1967 alone, two million people fell to smallpox. Less than a decade later, the disease was eradicated. Manela demonstrates how a combination of factors and actors came together, far below the level of high policy but still the result of discrete decisions, to generate policy outcomes that had profound global consequences that few recognized at the time or since.

It is not always clear in real-time what matters most, though a historical sensibility can sensitize us to look for real-world consequences in unusual places. Will the recent U.S. presidential election seem like the key issue we faced 30 or 40 years from now, when perhaps some deeper, more fundamental shifts (the climate or demographics, for example) or a completely unexpected event shapes the realities of that future world? We don’t know, but it is worth considering.

Relatedly, history conditions decision-makers to understand that policy decisions made in world capitals are often far less important in shaping what matters in the world that other, often less visible historical forces. Culture, technology, demographics, and geography, for example — all are critical forces that are less pliable to policy than we often think.

My favorite examples are three events that took place within a very short period of time: the sale of the early Apple personal computer, the release of Star Wars — the highest grossing motion picture of all time, and the famous 1976 “judgment of Paris” in which previously unknown wines from Napa Valley bested established French wines in a blind taste test. In other words, policymakers in Washington in the mid-1970s who were pouring over economic data, looking at crime statistics and urban crisis, witnessing political chaos abroad, and fearing a Soviet military behemoth that appeared to be winning the arms race had little reason to be optimistic about the future.

But the future was being made elsewhere and in different ways than policymakers understood in places like California, where deep and often obscure historical forces were working to transform the U.S. economy, society, technological base, and culture in ways that would have profound effects on American power and world history.

A deep historical perspective should also allow the decision-maker to avoid outcome or retrospective bias, or fall into the trap of what I call “understanding the Third Balkan War.” As former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pointed out: “History is written through a rear-view mirror but it unfolds through a foggy windshield.” If the past is to be of use to policymakers, it must be exploited in a way that avoids what economists call “the curse of knowledge,” or that cognitive bias that emerges that in hindsight, the outcome of a historical event was more predictable than was likely the case. Since we know how past events have turned out, we can easily assume that the causal path that led to the event was inevitable. But most complex and difficult policy choices involve what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has called “51/49” decisions: In other words, it is very difficult to know, a priori, whether a difficult policy choice will turn out correctly, even if in retrospect it seemed obvious. This is true for good policies as well as bad, which an immersion in history and an understanding of the past should tell us.

This point relates to why we should be careful not to cherry pick events from the past or be unaware of horizontal connections, as mentioned above. During what Fred Logevall has called the “long 1964,” the Johnson administration made what was, in retrospect, a tragic and unwise decision to escalate America’s role in the war in Southeast Asia. Looked at both in hindsight (we know the outcome) and in isolation (just focusing on American policy in Southeast Asia) President Johnson and his advisors look inept. At the same time, however, the same administration carried out an impressive debate and discussion of how to respond to what was seen as a far greater long-term danger — the Peoples Republic of China’s detonation of an atomic device in October 1964. This process led to a sophisticated and successful nuclear nonproliferation policy that resulted in the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and established the principles that guide U.S. policy to this day. Did the same people who crafted these complex strategies simply lose 20 IQ points when the discussion turned to Vietnam? In fact, making policy in real time is extraordinarily difficult. History should avoid simplistic judgments based solely on future outcomes that could not be anticipated.

Finally, a historical sensibility conditions the observer to recognize perspective. We know that it is important to understand how others view and understand the past. But there is also a temporal aspect to perspective. Let me give you an example: Imagine a country that possessed the world’s eighth or ninth largest economy, which was politically dominated by its aggressive military and surrounded by seemingly insurmountable security challenges. Let’s say you told the leaders of that country:

"Follow the grand strategy I suggest, and in a very short period of time, from a historical perspective, you will possess the world’s second largest economy, built on a thriving technological base, be relatively secure, and develop a healthy democracy and a civic culture that was largely pacifistic."

A country would have to be crazy to pass up that deal, but it effectively describes a Japan in 1940 compared to 1970. Japan pursued a disastrous war that left its country in ruin. Only decades later, however, the country had transformed its economy, governance, and security situation in ways that were the envy of the world. History is full of surprises and unintended consequences, and intent only rarely produces the obvious and desired outcome. Or imagine this exercise: A publisher provides a scholar with 300 pages to write the history of the world between 1945 and 1990. Even though the subject and end date would remain the same, we can easily imagine the book chapters might look much different when revised in 2000, 2020, or 2045, than it would when originally published in 1990. History reveals that how you assess the past does not only involve who is involved, but when the question is asked.

Perspective also encourages the policymaker to challenge their assumptions and constantly revise their understanding of the past. Many things that we believe to be true are often not. How many of you think you know the story of the famous baseball player, Ty Cobb? Baseball fans recognize Cobb as the greatest hitter who ever lived, but they also grew up with stories of his mean-spiritedness, cheating, violence, and racism, hated by his fellow baseball players.

This image was repeated in various fora over the years and accepted as gospel truth, until Charles Leerhsen started researching a biography and soon recognized that the received wisdom was completely wrong. It turns out Cobb was an avid student of history descended from a long line of abolitionists who enjoyed acting on the stage. While he was a passionate and aggressive ball-player, Cobb was well respected and liked by his contemporaries and demonstrated a racial sensitivity unusual for the age. Leehrsen highlights why the myth of the terrible Cobb emerged — an unscrupulous biography by Al Stump simply made up sensational stories to sell books — and why it persisted for decades. Leerhsen explains, “It is easy to understand why this is the prevailing view. People have been told that Cobb was a bad man over and over, all of their lives. The repetition felt like evidence.”

• • •

The benefits of history to policy are not obvious. As a discipline, it sits awkwardly but proudly between the humanities and the social sciences. History provides few “off the shelf” lessons, makes no predictions, and resists easily generalization. It is better at demonstrating what an event or phenomena is not than identifying what it is. History is as likely to be misused than provide lessons, and it often resists efforts to become “applied.” Compared to its other, more muscular cousins in the social sciences, history can look anemic. As Gordon Wood points out,

"Unlike sociology, political science, psychology, and the other social sciences, which tend to breed confidence in managing the future, history tends to inculcate skepticism about our ability to manipulate and control purposefully our destiny."

Historians are also strange people, very different from policymakers, at times intellectually chaste and at others times wildly promiscuous. Chaste in their obsession to uncover ever last shred of evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant; promiscuous in their ability to create whole worlds and civilizations on the written page largely from their imaginations. What other avocation could obsessively fight over the precise timing of a telegram sent between two political leaders on the eve of war in 1914 but boldly and out of thin air name and define whole historical periods? It is easy to forget that categories such as the Middle Ages or the Renaissance or the Modern World do not exist in nature but are instead the creative result of the historian’s imagination, or that, as the great historian Simon Schama points out, the very concept of a “French Revolution” was not completely solidified until established by historians almost a half-century after the event. Bringing this world of history together with policy is not easy or natural.

Unfortunately, knowledge is no guarantee of success. The double firsts Sir Anthony Eden earned in Persian and Arabic while at Oxford did not prevent him from pursuing disastrous policies towards Iran and Egypt when he was the prime minister of Great Britain. History can offer lessons, insights, and even methods, though they are often meager and must be used cautiously and with care. The most important quality of a historical sensibility, the most valuable gift provided by an immersion in the past, is humility. From the world of social science, where bold predictions and generalizations are the realm of the coin, and from the universe of policymakers, where difficult choices demand clear answers and decision can have enormous consequences, this may not seem like much. Perhaps that is the point — making difficult decisions facing complexity and the radical uncertainty of the future is very hard. Even the best ideas will only help so much, though given the stakes, even those marginal improvements are well worth seeking. Perhaps it is helpful to remember the words of Sir Michael Howard: “The true use of history, whether civil or military, is not to make man clever for the next time, it is to make him wise forever.”



Francis J. Gavin is the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security Policy Studies at MIT. His writings include Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age. In January 2017, Gavin will become the inaugural director of the Henry A Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at SAIS-Johns Hopkins

 

[Housecarl]

"Hummm...." regarding the article's conclusions....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/garamendi-no-halt-for-nuclear-modernization-programs-in-sight

Garamendi: No Halt for Nuclear Modernization Programs in Sight

By: Aaron Mehta, November 16, 2016 (Photo Credit: Defense Department/Aaron Allmon)

WASHINGTON – There is little hope for the non-proliferation community to slow down nuclear weapons modernization in the next few years, a Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday.

Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee, said he expects his colleagues to push ahead with the full nuclear modernization plan.

“I think the reality is that the momentum that has been built into the nuclear modernization issue, in all of its elements, is significant and in the near-term, that is this year -- this year’s appropriation, continuing resolution, omnibus, whatever it happens to be -- will further that momentum and push it one more year forward, creating even greater momentum,” he said.

“So at least in the short term, that is this year and next year, I don’t think that is going to change,” Garamendi added. “We are on a trajectory with a lot of momentum behind it that will carry these issues forward.”


Defense News
Carter: Nuclear Triad ‘Bedrock of Our Security’


Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon is working towards modernizing its fleets of nuclear-capable submarines, bombers, ICBMs and cruise missiles, as well as updating nuclear warheads. It is a major effort that budget experts warn could eat the Pentagon's funding over the next decade, but one that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has called the "bedrock" of American security.

The congressman was speaking at an event hosted by the Ploughshares Fund, a nuclear non-proliferation group that Wednesday presented a new report on nuclear advice for the next president. Garamendi praised the group’s work, but expressed doubt that it would penetrate with either the current Congress or the new administration of Donald Trump.

Gallery

“It needs to be studied. It needs to be taken into account in the days ahead,” he said. “Having said that I have a pretty clear notion that it won’t be, and that concerns me greatly. I’m really, really concerned that the ideas, the direction that are put forth here may very well not be looked at.”

Garamendi, who predicted the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would get done in the next two to three weeks, also sounded the alarm that unless Congress reverses course on supporting broad nuclear modernization, there would be wide-reaching implications.

“The United States, Russia and China are clearly marching down the path of a new nuclear arms race,” he warned. “Here we go again. Tit for tat, escalate here, escalate there. That’s where we’re going folks, as sure as we’re all in this room, that’s exactly where we’re going.”