Va. Legislator: Dar al-Hijrah Critics Spread Fear and Hate

by John Rossomando


Criticism of extremist rhetoric and the numerous terror plots that have emanated from Falls Church, Va.'s Dar al-Hijrah Islamic center equals "ignorantly painting all Muslims with the same brush" and "dividing the country using fear and hate," a Virginia state legislator said.

Alfonso Lopez, a Democratic candidate for Congress, slammed Fox News host Eric Bolling for denouncing Lopez's resolution honoring the 30^th anniversary of the controversial Virginia mosque.

Bolling criticized the resolution because of Dar al-Hijrah's ties to American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and convicted Fort. Hood shooter Nidal Hassan during a March 19 broadcast.

"For Fox News to smear an important community institution by ignorantly painting all Muslims with the same brush is reprehensible," Lopez wrote on his Facebook page and in a post on the Daily Kos. "At its core, this is a rightwing media attack on the faith and religious freedom of hard-working patriotic Americans."

Lopez created a petition attacking the "right-wing smears of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center" in response to the criticisms from Fox and others. He did not respond to a request for comment from the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The resolution, which passed the Virginia General Assembly March 3, praised the mosque for "promot[ing] cooperation, tolerance and mutual understanding among different faiths."

Dar al-Hijrah may engage in inter-faith outreach. But it also has a checkered history in its preaching, in addition to the radical people it has attracted and the terrorists who prayed there.

Lopez also downplayed the mosque's established connections with terrorism and extremist rhetoric by playing up the charitable activities and interfaith activities it engages in under the rubric of dawah (Muslim evangelism).

"In 2013, the members of the center provided more than $80,000 in assistance to community members struggling to pay their rent, and served 200 families from all faith backgrounds each week through their weekly food bank," Lopez wrote on his Facebook page.

That's lovely, but it doesn't erase the mosque's history and law enforcement assessments of it. U.S. Department of Homeland Security reports obtained by the IPT have noted that the mosque "has been under numerous investigations for financing and [providing] aid and comfort to bad orgs and members" and have called it a "front for Hamas operatives in U.S."

Among those bad members, Awlaki served as an imam at Dar al-Hijrah before leaving the United States. Two 9/11 hijackers attended services there, as did Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and terrorist financier Abdurrahman Alamoudi.

The Washington Post noted in 2011 that "almost no other mosque in the country has been linked to so many cases of alleged terrorism."

Meanwhile, radical material continues to be peddled by the mosque.

Books the Investigative Project on Terrorism bought during a Dar al-Hijrah's book sale last fall included texts sanctioning hatred and violent jihad against non-Muslims. These books raise questions about the mosque's commitment to tolerance and understanding.

· Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book The Desired Muslim Generation, opines that "Palestine will ultimately be freed and the Jews conquered. The whole universe will be on their side; even trees and rocks will somehow support them by saying: 'O Muslim O Abdullah [slave of Allâh (I)] Here is a Jew hidden behind me come and kill him.'"

Qaradawi writes that Muslims who wage violent jihad believe "their religion is so precious to them that their worldly life has become despicable."

"They fight in Allah's cause, so they kill [others] and are killed," Qaradawi writes, citing Surah 9:111 of the Quran.

· The Last Apocalypse, An Islamic Perspective, written by A.R. Kelani, speculates that the dajjal – Islam's Antichrist – will be a Jew and that "Allah will destroy all religions except Islam."

· In Pursuit of Allah's Pleasure , another book purchased at Dar al-Hijrah's sale, slams imams who teach that all religions are equal and says that following "iman" – essentially the Golden Rule – is the only thing that is required.

"We need to wage Jihad, for without it the flag of Islam will never he raised and the forces of disbelief will continue to dominate our lives. Jihad is the [m]eans by which we can establish the Caliphate after having removed the disbelieving rulers who have replaced the law of Allah by man-made laws," In Pursuit of Allah's Pleasure says.

· The Ideal Muslim Society, by Dr. Muhammad Ali Hashimi, talks about diverting zakat funds, ordinarily used as charity to help the poor, to fund jihad.

"The most important of these (other uses for zakat) is jihad for the sake of Allah because the Muslim ummah should focus on conveying its message to the world," Hashimi writes.

Radical ideas also come from mosque leadership.

The mosque's chief imam, Shaker Elsayed, has repeatedly endorsed violent jihad. Just last year, he spoke at a Northern Virginia high school where he preached that Muslim men would be last in line except if it was for "arms for jihad."

"Are we afraid because they may call us terrorists?" Elsayed asked. "You are a terrorist because you are a Muslim," Elsayed said. "Well give them a run for their money. Make it worth it. Make this title worth it, and be good a Muslim.

"Be a good Muslim who fights back when there is an attack on yourself, on your community, your society, your nation, your religion, your dignity, your honor, your women, your children or your neighbors."

This was not the first time Elsayed has endorsed terrorism. In a December 2002 speech, he took issue with the labels "suicide bombers, homicide bombers, or murderers, or killers."

"To decide that this man is a martyr or not a martyr, it is a pure religious matter," Elsayed said. "Nobody who is not Muslim has any right to decide for us, we the Muslims, whose is a martyr or another. We as Muslims will decide that. It is in-house business."

Esam Omeish, a former Dar al-Hijrah board member who remains an occasional preacher at the mosque, similarly endorsed violent jihad in an October 2000 speech. In it, he congratulated Palestinian terrorists for "giving up their lives for the sake of Allah and al-Aqsa." In another speech two months later, he praised Palestinians for knowing "that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."

He was the president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim American Society (MAS). Dar al-Hijrah belongs to MAS, and MAS has operations on the mosque's property. Omeish reportedly hired al-Awlaki to be the mosque's imam.

Dar al-Hijrah's rogue's gallery also includes Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a Hamas operative who is serving an 11-year sentence for obstructing a federal terrorism investigation into the terrorist group's activities. Ashqar, a former mosque board member, helped organize a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia with other Hamas operatives.

In November, the mosque hosted Hassan Hachimi, the head of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood's political bureau. While there, Hachimi condemned the United States for classifying al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group.

Preaching hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims has been a longstanding problem at Dar al-Hijrah.

For example, a Nov. 12, 2004 sermon by Imam Johari Abdul Malik promised that Islam would become the "first religion in America" and that it would be better to "be a Muslim under these conditions than a kaffir (unbeliever) under any conditions."

Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti, another Dar al-Hijrah imam, also showcased the mosque's commitment to tolerance in a December 18, 1998 where he said, "Just like Allah promises us, he will stand in his promise and the curse of Allah will become true on the Jews. The curse of Allah will become true on the Americans and the tyrannies."

There are plenty of mosques in Virginia that engage in interfaith dialogue without sermons and literature promoting jihad and which have not served as magnets for terrorists and their supporters. Pointing out Dar al-Hijrah's full history is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

Demanding that people not point out that documented history, on the other hand, appears to be a naked play for political support by a legislator with bigger ambitions than the General Assembly in Richmond.


John Rossomando

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4340/va-legislator-dar-al-hijrah-critics-spread-fear

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Boko Haram Violence Escalates in Nigeria

by Alex Finkelstein

Amnesty International estimates so far this year that Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria has killed 1,500 people, according to a report released Monday. The Islamist terror group has carried out the majority of the killings, especially against civilians, but Amnesty also reports that Nigerian security forces have also committed human rights violations.

Originally founded in northeast Nigeria in 2002 to impose Sharia Law, Boko Haram carried out its first attack in 2009. The group, whose name translates to 'Western education is forbidden,' began widespread, sectarian attacks against Christians in 2010. After bombings and shootings inside schools and police stations, the U.S. State Department officially classified the group as a terrorist organization in November 2013.

Men look at the wreckage of a car following a bomb blast in Abuja last year. The terrorist group Boko Haram was suspected. (Photo: AFP)

Violence escalated over the past month after Boko Haram raided a government barracks on March 14th in an attempt to free nearly 2,000 members imprisoned by Nigerian security forces. Boko Haram is also responsible for a suicide bombing on March 25th that killed eight. Nigerian security forces decided to brutally retaliate and crack down in response to the attempted prison break. Soldiers apparently recaptured 600 detainees and summarily executed many of them without a trial then buried them in mass graves.


The Nigerian military has struggled to handle the asymmetric tactics of Boko Haram; the government's aggressive use of force has further inflamed sectarian divisions. About 250,000 people have been displaced and nearly three million are affected by the conflict. Nigeria's government believes education is one of the best ways to combat extremism and has created unity schools, aimed at integrating the two religious groups. However, students are often afraid to go to school, and education reform remains contentious in the capital city of Lagos.


Alex Finkelstein

Source: http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/blog/2014/04/boko-haram-violence-escalates-in-nigeria

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

State Department can't Account for $6 Billion in last 6 Years

by Thomas Lifson

Another Hillary Clinton legacy at the State Department is going to need a lot of explaining, aside from Benghazi and the lack of any notable achievements. There has been, in the most charitable interpretation, grave sloppiness in spending and accounting for money at the cabinet agency run by Hillary Clinton.  Brianna Ehley of the Fiscal Times notes an Inspector General’s report that will further tarnish any claims Mrs. Clinton might make to be an effective leader:

In a special “management alert” made public Thursday, the State Department’s Inspector General Steve Linick warned “significant financial risk and a lack of internal control at the department has led to billions of unaccounted dollars over the last six years. (snip)
The lack of oversight “exposes the department to significant financial risk,” the auditor said. “It creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file. It impairs the ability of the Department to take effective and timely action to protect its interests, and, in tum, those of taxpayers.”
In the memo, the IG detailed “repeated examples of poor contract file administration.” For instance, a recent investigation of the closeout process for contracts supporting the mission in Iraq, showed that auditors couldn't find 33 of the 115 contract files totaling about $2.1 billion. Of the remaining 82 files, auditors said 48 contained insufficient documents required by federal law.
In another instance, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement issued a $1 billion contract in Afghanistan that was deemed “incomplete.”

Imagine Hillary Clinton debating one of the several GOP governors who have established budget discipline and led their states to solvency.  Scott Walker, for instance.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/state_department_cant_account_for_6_billion_in_last_6_years.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Muslim Clerics: Women should Cease to Exist

by Ethel Fenig

Hey liberal feminists--feminazi this:
(And no, this is not a joke.)  

Islamabad - Sharia Correspondent: The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) concluded their 192nd meeting on Thursday with the ruling that women are un-Islamic and that their mere existence contradicted Sharia and the will of Allah. As the meeting concluded CII Chairman Maulana Muhammad Khan Shirani noted that women by existing defied the laws of nature, and to protect Islam and the Sharia women should be forced to stop existing as soon as possible. (bold added)The announcement comes a couple of days after CII’s 191st meeting where they dubbed laws related to minimum marriage age to be un-Islamic.
After declaring women to be un-Islamic, Shirani explained that there were actually two kinds of women – haraam and makrooh. “We can divide all women in the world into two distinct categories: those who are haraam and those who are makrooh. Now the difference between haraam and makrooh is that the former is categorically forbidden while the latter is really really disliked,” Shirani said.
He further went on to explain how the women around the world can ensure that they get promoted to being makrooh, from just being downright haraam. “Any woman that exercises her will is haraam, absolutely haraam, and is conspiring against Islam and the Ummah,whereas those women who are totally subservient can reach the status of being makrooh. Such is the generosity of our ideology and such is the endeavour of Muslim men like us who are the true torchbearers of gender equality,” the CII chairman added.
Officials told Khabaristan Today that the council members deliberated over various historic references related to women and concluded that each woman is a source of fitna and a perpetual enemy of Islam. They also decided that by restricting them to their subordinate, bordering on slave status, the momineen and the mujahideen can ensure that Islam continues to be the religion of peace, prosperity and gender equality. (bold added)

Muslim girls being lead off in chains to meet their new husbands. The leading experts in Islamic Law met recently at the 191st meeting of the Council of Islamic Ideology and declared as un-Islamic any laws attempting to establish a minimum age for girls to be married
There is nothing left to add.  

Ethel Fenig

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/muslim_clerics_women_should_cease_to_exist.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

MEMRI Report Illustrates Abbas' Duplicity

by IPT News


Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' stated positions on the core issues framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are completely contradictory when addressing an Israeli or Western audience versus the Palestinian people and the Arab world. A Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) report outlines the contrasting positions concerning refugees, Jerusalem, and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

For example, Abbas offers two completely different positions over the rights of Palestinian refugees. He told Israelis visiting Ramallah that he did not wish to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees and their decedents.

"We only put the issue of the refugees on the negotiating table because it is a sensitive matter that must be resolved in order to end the conflict, and so that the refugees are pleased with the peace agreement. In any case, we do not wish to flood Israel with millions and change its demographic makeup. That is nonsense and what was written in the Israeli press is untrue," Abbas said.

Yet, when Abbas spoke to a Palestinian audience, he said "the right of return is a personal right. No country, authority, organization or even Abu Mazen or [other] leaders can deny anyone of his right."

In separate remarks to students in Ramallah, Abbas said, "If you want to return to Israel and receive an Israeli citizenship or not – you are free [to decide]." In this context, Abbas is clearly advocating for a Palestinian right of return to pre-1967 Israel, should the individual refugee and his/her descendants decide to do so.

Addressing an Israeli audience, Abbas stressed that Jerusalem would not be divided in any future peace agreement, but would have two municipalities with an appropriate coordinating body.

To Palestinians, he promised that, "Occupied Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, since without it there will be no solution. No one is authorized to sign [such an agreement]. He added: "Without East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital there will be no peace between us and Israel. I heard that they object to mentioning Jerusalem in any negotiations or talks."

Abbas told his Israeli audience that the PA would accept a United Nations decision that Israel is a Jewish state. To Palestinians, he vowed that the PA "not recognize [Israel as a Jewish state], we will reject this and it is our right to not recognize the Judaism of the state."

MEMRI's analysis comes on the heels of Abbas' decision to seek statehood benefits from 15 international bodies despite promising not to make such a move during ongoing peace talks. Those talks now face collapse.

MEMRI's report shows the folly of accepting Abbas' talk of peace and reconciliation when it is directed at Israeli and Western audiences. Read the whole report here.


IPT News

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4338/memri-report-illustrates-abbas-duplicity

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Come Get Us"

by Peter Huessy

The entire purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter possible threats to the United States, especially the use of nuclear weapons against us by a major nuclear-armed state. They are primarily weapons of "war prevention" rather than "war fighting."
Destroying a mere 10 targets would be a far less daunting task than taking on the 567 American nuclear assets an adversary has to fear today. Why would anyone make it easier for our enemies to target U.S. nuclear forces? The Global Zero study even admitted this critical flaw. What assessment has been done by Global Zero to determine that the world is going to be a lot less dangerous then?

In the latest proposed defense budget, a preview of which had been discussed a day earlier by DOD leaders at the Pentagon, on February 26, 2014, Doyle McManus of the LA Times took Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to task for not slashing the funding for the US nuclear deterrent.

McManus concluded that U.S. nuclear deterrent forces can be dramatically curtailed through a series of sleight-of-hand moves mixed in with a mash of disarmament happy talk, including cooking the books on the relevant nuclear numbers based almost entirely on a 2012 report by an organization known as "Global Zero."

McManus began with the claim that, "Almost every expert on nuclear weapons agrees that the United States has a far larger nuclear force than it needs to deter attacks," including more warheads and platforms upon which the warheads are carried. He then reassures his readers that the U.S. has even more nuclear weapons than our main adversary Russia, so there apparently is nothing to worry about.

What are the facts?

It is true that Russia does not publish exact date on its nuclear forces. Two arms control experts, Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Robert Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, explain "Russia does not disclose how many nuclear weapons it has....[we] use public statements made by Russian officials, newspaper articles, observations from commercial satellite images, private conversations with government officials, and analysis of Russian nuclear forces over many years to provide the best available unclassified estimate of Russian nuclear forces."[1]

With those caveats in mind, they place Russian nuclear warheads -- deployed on platforms, in reserve and awaiting dismantlement, at 7800 while U.S. warheads are estimated to be 7400.

While the U.S. and Russia both will deploy roughly an equal number of warheads on their long-range strategic systems as required by the New Start Treaty of 2010, Russia has a major advantage in smaller-yield nuclear weapons. These are generally thought to be mated to shorter-range delivery systems, often referred to as "tactical nuclear weapons" for which there are no arms control limits.

Even the current estimates of greater numbers of Russian tactical nuclear weapons assume we are not underestimating Moscow's nuclear stockpile which we did throughout the Cold War.[2]

This Russian advantage was highlighted in an essay by the former Commander of the US Strategic Command and the top military authority over America's nuclear deterrent, retired Admiral Richard Mies. In the Spring 2012 issue of Undersea Warfare Magazine, dedicated to the nuclear strategic deterrent mission[3], the retired admiral explained Russia's warhead advantage -- that could actually be as great as four to one -- by highlighting the US elimination of most of its tactical nuclear warheads and our countries lack of warhead production capacity, which contrasts sharply with Russia's many thousands of theater nuclear weapons it has kept in its stockpile and its robust warhead production capability.

Given current Russian aggression against Ukraine, and its massing of 20,000 troops on Ukraine's eastern border,[4] the US-Russian nuclear balance may be a critical aspect of whether hostilities break out between Ukraine and Russia.

McManus however appears to make light of Russian nuclear modernization. He references comments from Brookings Institute arms control expert Steven Pifer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who explains away Russian nuclear weapons modernization as indicative only that "Putin needs the political support of the small towns in Russia that produce military equipment."

McManus also similarly leads us to believe that it is only members of the U.S. Congress "from missile states" who support the nuclear missiles making up our nuclear Triad for land, sea and air because they provide jobs in their states.

He does bow briefly in the direction of "fairness," with an aside that representatives in Congress "might" be motivated by "honest differences in strategy," but in his essay, that remark is the only indication that there might indeed be reasonable differences in strategy among Americans concerning their nuclear deterrent future.

As explained by leading nuclear expert Dr. Mark Schneider[5], Russia has adopted a nuclear weapons use doctrine that allows for the first use of nuclear weapons in local and regional wars not only in response to WMD attack but also in a conventional war. Schneider underscores that it was Putin who was directly responsible for this doctrine when he was National Security Council Secretary in the 1990s. He signed the policy into law as acting President of Russia in 2000.

This doctrine even goes so far as to view the first use of nuclear weapons in a crisis as a "de-escalation of a conflict." Additionally, Russia employs various types of nuclear attack threats as a means of intimidating its neighbors. Since 2007, there have been about 15 overt Russian nuclear targeting threats from senior officials, including four from Putin.

Then McManus, having assumed Russia has fewer nuclear warheads than America (highly certain a false assumption) and that Russian arms modernization is largely due to retail politics and not a hostile intent against the US or its allies (again a highly dubious assumption), endorses the Global Zero 2012 report.[6]

The report calls for cutting our deployed nuclear warheads to no more than 450-900 from our current deployed inventory of roughly1600 strategic weapons. It also simultaneously eliminates 95% of all our nuclear platforms (bombers, submarines and ICBMs) that carry our warheads, ending up with a nuclear force of eight submarines, zero ICBMs and a token (18-21) number of nuclear capable bombers compared to the current force of 567 ICBMs, submarine, launch control centers and bombers.

Does this study make any sense?

In more detail: at three recent Triad-related conferences in the past 18 months, top nuclear experts gathered in Washington, D.C., Minot, North Dakota and Kings Bay, Georgia to discuss the future of nuclear deterrence. They addressed a key issue of whether the United States should continue to support, modernize and deploy a Triad of nuclear forces -- submarines, land based missiles and strategic bombers.

The three main bombers of the US strategic bombing fleet: The B-52, B1-B, and B2. (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

Included in these meetings were the top officials in the USAF and Navy, as well as top civilian and military officials from the current and previous administrations. These included the past Chief of Staff of the USAF and Strategic Air Commander General Larry Welch and the then current commander of US Strategic Command General Robert Kehler.

At these three events, top American nuclear officials -- currently serving and retired -- all fully supported the nuclear Triad of missiles, bombers and submarines and the current plan to modernize and sustain the force into the future.[7]

Many arms control groups support the Triad as well. The Federation of Americans Scientists, the Stimson Center and the Arms Control Association, for example, all support the continued deployment of a strategic nuclear Triad including bombers, submarines and land-based missiles although at lower warhead levels than those allowed by the 2010 New Start Treaty.

Central to the Global Zero report's conclusions and endorsed by McManus is the false assumption that current American nuclear policy assumes our entire stockpile of weapons of nearly 5000 warheads is somehow "needed for deterrence" and is far more than is needed.

But the day-to-day deterrent force of the United States numbers around 2000, including theater or tactical nuclear weapons. Warheads in storage facilities or awaiting dismantlement -- which are included in the 5000 number -- are hardly available for either day-to-day deterrence or a possible future emergency build-up. Should the geostrategic landscape change for the worse, however, there are warheads in reserve for a build-up of U.S. forces. So there is no argument that 5000 warheads are now required for deterrence.

But having said that, the question remains: What number of nuclear warheads should the US maintain in its deterrent? For the past 70 years that has been based largely on a simple axiom: We wish to maintain a secure retaliatory capability so that should the U.S. be attacked first with nuclear weapons, our secure retaliatory capability is sufficient that it would be able completely to destroy any adversary and its military capability.

Not every American president would want to be forced to use nuclear weapons in a crisis; thus every American president has called for a capability to ensure we can retaliate -- go second -- in the use of such awesome weapons even if many of our own nuclear weapons are destroyed by an adversary hitting us first.

Not having to go first is what helps insure crisis stability. Therefore our deployed day-to-day in-the-field warhead numbers need to exceed those that would be available for retaliation, as some percentage of our force -- land based missiles in silos and submarines in port and bombers not on alert -- could be destroyed by an adversary in a first strike.

That secure retaliatory capability, however, is designed never actually to be used -- just to be demonstrated every day as indicative of America's resolve and capability. But even if designed never to be fired in anger, our nuclear arms have to possess a demonstrated capability to make sure that under any scenario, any nuclear-armed adversary will not be able to secure any advantage -- during a crisis or conventional conflict -- by striking us with nuclear weapons.

In support of its push to go to low levels of nuclear weapons, the Global Zero study makes the astounding claim that existing threats to the US such as terrorism "cannot be resolved by using our nuclear arsenal"[8], as if any American leader has ever thought nuclear weapons could solve geostrategic disputes. The entire purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter possible threats to the United States, especially the use of nuclear weapons against us by a major nuclear-armed state.

Nuclear weapons serve not only as a deterrent against major war, but also as a hedge against an uncertain future, a guarantee of our security commitments to our allies and friends, and a disincentive to those who would contemplate developing or otherwise acquiring their own nuclear weapons. They are primarily weapons of "war prevention" as opposed to "war fighting."

At the dawn of the nuclear age Frederick Dunn, Bernard Brodie, Arnold Wolfers, Percy Corbett and William T.R. Fox explained "Thus far [prior to 1945] the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its principal purpose must be to avert them."[9]

Here Global Zero makes the further mistake by asserting "the capacity to deliver 900 warheads would project a threat of draconian dimensions to any aggressor country,"[10] thus who could oppose their conclusion that 900 warheads is sufficient for deterrence purposes?

But remember the entire inventory of deployed warheads supported by Global Zero is 900 weapons. To deliver all these weapons against an enemy implies that the US would be going first in a crisis -- an event that has never been (to my knowledge) American policy, and to suggest it could be is a dramatic and highly destabilizing idea.[11]

While on the surface it appears 900 warheads would be available to use if we were attacked, that number is belied by the further proposal by Global Zero that half of these warheads would not be ready to be deployed but would be in storage.

On top of that, Global Zero then additionally proposes that the remaining 450 submarine missile warheads not in storage be taken off "alert" and not be able to be fired for 24-72 hours from when a threat emerges. This is tantamount to taking our entire nuclear deterrent and locking it away and eliminating it from any role in day to day deterrence.[12]

It is thus unclear from the Global Zero report whether -- because it would take so long to reconstitute the force from a de-alerted posture -- the U.S. would have any warheads in a day-to-day secure retaliatory force. Are we therefore going to trust that our adversaries will wait 24-72 hours prior to attacking us, or between attacks on us, knowing full well that we could not retaliate? Is this a new deterrent policy of "fair fight only"?

Worse, while we may de-alert, we could never be sure our adversaries had de-alerted: other countries' de-alerts are simply not verifiable by technical means such as satellites, which are all that is presently available to verify such activity apart from continuous intrusive on-site inspections which have never been agreed to by Russia for any previous arms agreement.

This leads to the possibility that in a crisis, each adversary would seek to put its missiles surreptitiously back on alert -- or never take them off alert in the first place -- and thereby be able to launch first, along with the great advantage a first launch would provide.

According to the Global Zero proposal, American submarine warheads would also have to be stored in secure areas on land; thus making them useless for day-to-day deterrence. Submarines, according to Global Zero, could be on ocean patrol without any warheads aboard.

Deterrence then would be reduced to one "big bluff," that assumed an adversary would wait days or weeks until the U.S. re-armed its submarines and placed them on patrol, from where they could resume their deterrent role. How is this an improvement in deterrent policy?

Finally, to get to a level of 900 deployed warheads, Global Zero makes the further proposal that all ICBMs, or land-based missiles, be eliminated. This move would lead to the situation where America has fewer than 10 discrete nuclear targets -- submarines at sea (4-6), submarines at our two ports in Washington and Georgia and one bomber base -- which if taken out would leave the U.S. without any nuclear capability.

Also, at some time in the future with all warheads stored on land or de-alerted, our entire submarine capability might be destroyed using non-nuclear cruise missiles against U.S. bases and ports and underwater torpedoes against U.S. submarines at sea.

Destroying a mere 10 targets would be a far less daunting task than taking on the 567 American nuclear assets an adversary has to fear today. These are made up of 12 submarines in port and at sea, some 40-60 B-52 and B2 bombers and 495 land based missiles silos and their launch control centers.

Why would anyone make it easier for our enemies to target U.S. nuclear forces and take America out of the nuclear business? 500 targets is indeed a formidable task to attack successfully. But fewer than 10? Why make attacking America inviting?

The Global Zero study even admitted this critical flaw. It acknowledged that if there were a future anti-submarine warfare [ASW] breakthrough capable of finding U.S. submarines at sea, the conclusions of the study that eliminating ICBMs is safe to do would have to be discarded.[13]

Thus McManus makes the potentially deadly mistake of assuming the nuclear deterrent Global Zero proposed now (no ICBMs) is somehow sufficient for the future when technology could make the U.S. submarine force vulnerable -- and at a time when it is difficult enough to determine what exactly the technological threats we face are, let alone the Chinese or Russian potential threats in 2030, 2040 or 2060, the very periods during which our planned future deterrent must do its job.

What assessment has been done by Global Zero to determine the world is going to be a lot less dangerous then, or that technology will not change our requirements? Or that a future ASW breakthrough is not in the cards? None that is in the report. Asserting the world is going to be safe does not make it so.

Not only U.S. security may be placed in jeopardy; at least 31 allied nations now depend upon America's nuclear umbrella. If they believe the U.S. is adopting rash proposals that would undermine our nuclear deterrent, there may well be enormous potential pressure on our allies to seek their own nuclear deterrent, thus contributing to increased WMD proliferation.[14]

While McManus tries to make it appear there is only one view of the future of nuclear deterrence, there is actually no uniform view among experts regarding the number of warheads, platforms or reserves the U.S. should maintain. There is, however, an overwhelmingly predominant view of American nuclear experts that a Triad of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles should be maintained, and that 1550 deployed warheads -- what we have now -- is a reasonable and sound number.

Finally, McManus attempts to seal his argument with the claim that the cost of modernizing the U.S. Triad nuclear deterrent will somehow "break the bank." He relies on Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution, who says the U.S. cannot afford simultaneously to modernize all three legs of its Triad, the nuclear warhead and laboratory enterprise and the necessary command and control facilities.

But is this true?

McManus quotes a Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report that asserts that nuclear modernization efforts over the next decade would cost roughly $350 billion or $35 billion a year. And he concludes that is too much.

Unfortunately, the CBO report is based on seriously flawed assumptions, primarily because it can only reflect information that is fed to it, so if this information is faulty, the projected program cost will be faulty as well, as we have clearly seen with the contrast between the projected and real expenses of Obamacare.

The CBO projects, for example, that a new land based missile would cost $30-$50 billion more than the cost projected by a new February 4, 2014 RAND report. The CBO also includes all the new conventional bomber costs in these estimates, even though, as former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller explained, the cost of the added nuclear capability is only 3% of the bombers' cost.

The new bomber is going to be built for conventional or non-nuclear purposes regardless of whether it eventually becomes capable of carrying and delivering nuclear weapons. Logically then, one would count the cost of the new bomber not as a new cost to nuclear deterrence but part of the ongoing ordinary modernization of our non-nuclear bombers.[15]

The CBO added in both the cost of missile defense and some of the costs to stop proliferation -- and then, apparently arbitrarily, added yet another $60 billion in "inflation" costs over ten years. The projected costs of American missile defense programs are allocated at nearly 95% for defenses against non-nuclear-tipped missiles, and thus can hardly be accurately counted as a cost of nuclear deterrence. In addition, the projected "inflation" estimates of CBO are totally arbitrary and assume that current program estimates will only increase in the future although just recently joint US Navy and USAF missile work has cut new technology additions by 50%. In short both the missile defense costs and the inflation estimates can be reasonably removed from the CBO cost estimates for the future U.S. nuclear deterrent.

What then would a reasonable modernization and sustainment program cost? Over the next 10 years, this author's analysis concludes that the U.S. could reasonably spend somewhere between the current annual outlay ($21 billion) and the high CBO estimate ($35 billion). Simply taking out the excess missile defense, bomber, inflation and ICBM costs estimates from the CBO leaves one with an annual required nuclear deterrent modernization expenditure of roughly $27-30 billion annually, a modest increase from current expenditures.

As some other studies have shown, such an estimate is reasonable.[16] The annual costs for a fully modernized U.S. deterrent would probably peak at around $27-31billion a year for 3-4 years, and then decline. This was the projected cost laid out for future nuclear programs by the Department of Defense CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] in a study done precisely to estimate DOD and DOE nuclear deterrent costs.[17]

Nuclear deterrent costs now come to 3.7% of all defense spending, a sharp drop from nearly 18% at the end of the Cold War. By 2025, for example, a $27 billion annual modernization investment in our nuclear deterrent -- should we decide that is an appropriate investment -- would still be approximately only 4% of the projected defense budget, and less than half of 1% of the federal budget.

By comparison, we now spend $18 billion a year on job training programs which the GAO studied -- and for which it could not find any justification. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, there are fraudulent tax returns claiming at least $4.2 billion annually in child tax credits to illegal aliens each year.

The GAO also found that the U.S. government has 2100 data centers -- compared to 432 ten years ago -- across 24 federal agencies. It concludes that the U.S. could save $200 billion over the next decade just by consolidating them.[18]

Taken together the U.S. could take this money and pay the entire current strategic nuclear modernization plans of the United States twice over.

Summary

Deterrence requires a secure retaliatory capability, which only a Triad of nuclear forces can provide -- as has been true for the past 69 years. Lower levels of weapons, based on too few platforms, could lead to serious instabilities in a crisis where the temptation to use such weapons would increase.

In looking to the future, the threats the U.S. faces are many, extreme and dispersed. Some could erupt in superpower confrontation. To deter the use of nuclear arms, the U.S. should be totally secure in the knowledge that it could retaliate with a secure second strike.

President Reagan said early in his presidency that given the stakes involved, America's defenses needed a "significant margin of safety" to ensure no adversary armed with nuclear weapons attacked. Today, that margin requires a Triad of forces. And at half-a-percent to one percent of the federal budget, such nuclear safety is a bargain.[19]

---

[1] 2013 Status of World Nuclear Forces, Federation of American Scientists, 1725 DeSale Street, Washington, D.C. 20036.
[2] "Disinformation," Commentary, July 1982, by Edward Jay Epstein.
[3] "The Strategic Deterrence Mission: Ensuring a Strong Foundation for America's Security," by Admiral (ret.) Richard Mies, Undersea Warfare, Spring 2012, p.12.
[4] Fox News, Special Report by Brett Baier, Friday, March 21, 2014.
[5] Dr. Mark B. Schneider, Senior Analyst, National Institute for Public Policy June 20, 2012 Talking Points from Remarks made to an Air Force Association, National Defense Industrial Association and Reserve Officers Association Seminar.
[6] "Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission Report, 2012, Global Zero.
[7] See the transcripts of the remarks of the more than 35 experts that presented papers at the events.
[8] Op.cit. p.20.
[9] "The Absolute Weapon", New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1946, pp 21-107
[10] Op Cit, p.9
[11] Remarks by former USAF Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, Kings Bay, Georgia, November 6, 2013.
[12] Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission Report, 2012, Global Zero, p. 14-16.
[13] Ibid, p.6.
[14] See for example, the remarks on June 11, 2013 by Senator Jon Kyl to the AFA-NDIA-ROA Congressional Seminar Series on Nuclear Deterrence, "The Enduring Requirements of US Strategic Security".
[15] Remarks by James Miller, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "Nuclear Deterrence: New Guidance, Constant Commitment", Seminar Presentation to the AFA-NDIA and ROA, July 17, 2013.
[16] The Future of America's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, by Evan Montgomery, CSBA Briefing at the Center for Strategic International Studies, December 5, 2013
[17] CAPE summary material provided in briefing by USAF General James Kowalski, Commander, US Global Strike Command, Minot, North Dakota, May 4, 2013.
[18] Government Waste by the Numbers, Fox News March 1, 2011.
[19] "A 21^st Century & Affordable Nuclear Deterrent", Exchange Monitor Sixth Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, February 11-14, 2014.


Peter Huessy

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4245/come-get-us

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.