President Barack Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev today and signed an agreement to reduce two nuclear stockpiles to as few as 1,500 each. Obama said the two countries "reset" relations. Medvedev called it a "reasonable compromise." (Source)

Under the previous the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1991, Russia and the U.S. agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. The Moscow Treaty required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. According to the new declaration, the U.S. and Russia "will reduce…strategic offensive weapons in such a way that within seven years the maximum numbers of carriers would lie in the range of 500-1,100 and for the warheads within the range of 1,500-1,675." (Source)

Discussions are still ongoing. Will Obama renege on our agreements to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic?

As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama prepared to discuss replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on December 5, 2009, Medvedev said the U.S. must compromise and cancel plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. (Source)

 Russia still claims the bases in Central Europe would pose a threat to its national security. Medvedev said, "We consider these issues are interconnected."

 Under START, signed in 1991, Russia and the U.S. agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions down to 1,700 to 2,200.

 If Medvedev is looking for a compromise, he couldn't have picked a better time. No doubt Obama is receptive to compromising with Russia, even if it means going back on our good faith agreements with Poland  and the Czech Republic. It's no secret our president has been lukewarm about those missile defense shields, which would protect the region from possible Iranian missile attacks.

CNN International reports that North Korea fired seven missiles toward the Sea of Japan on July 4. With a range of 310 miles. Daniel Pinkston, an analyst for a South Korean group called International Crisis Group, said the tests could be just a routine military exercise. "It is worrisome to some degree, but it is different from a ballistic missile launch. It's part of military training, but there seem to be no movements of troops or anything that would suggest preparations for military operations."

 Last month, Japan's Coast Guard reported that North Korea banned ships from its coast by a wide range, fueling speculation that the rogue state was preparing to launch more missiles. North Korea test-fired four short-range missiles last week and at least five short-range missiles last month. The rogue state also conducted a nuclear test. South Korea says North Korea has about 700 short-range missiles similar to the ones fired during the weekend.

 Last week, the Washington Times reported that the U.S. was prepared to intercept a long-range Taepodong-2 missile if our territory was in its sights. North Korea has been threatening to launch the missile for a while. Has the time arrived?

 Air Force General Victor E. "Gene" Renuart said, "The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defense capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, I'm very comfortable, give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM that I've got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any U.S. territory."

 The general also said  North Korea unpredictable. The rogue state backed off on its hinted threat to attack Hawaii with the Taepodong-2, but the U.S. is prepared either way. Our country has been testing the Theater High-Altitude Area Defenses in Hawaii in preparation for a Taepodong-2 attack.

The country reportedly test-fired four short-range missiles this week. Last month, North Korea fired at least five short-range missiles and conducted a nuclear test.

The Washington Times reports that the U.S. is prepared to intercept a long-range Taepodong-2 missile if our territory will be its target. North Korea has been threatening to launch the missile for a while. Has the time arrived?

Air Force General Victor E. "Gene" Renuart said, "The nation has a very, very credible ballistic-missile defense capability. Our ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, I'm very comfortable, give me a capability that if we really are threatened by a long-range ICBM that I've got high confidence that I could interdict that flight before it caused huge damage to any U.S. territory."

Renuart also said North Korea may be planning the test-launch in time for the Fourth of July. In a previous post, we asked whether North Korea was stupid enough to target Hawaii with the Taepodong-2. That remains to be seen. The general called North Korea unpredictable. According to the article, the U.S. has been testing the Theater High-Altitude Area Defenses in Hawaii in preparation for a Taepodong-2 attack.

by Michelle Kaffenberger

 Public diplomacy, at its foundation, is an issue of national security.  While biased news and suppression of a free press spread hatred for America around the world, the US needs now more than ever to have a strong showing of public diplomacy.  We need to defend the principles of freedom and democracy that we hold dear, and thereby protect our nation from the threats that spring from hatred.

 This point was driven home in a recent op-ed authored by eight former secretaries of state- from different administrations and different political parties- who find the current inadequate state of public diplomacy so critical that they teamed up to speak out.

 As the secretaries state, some of the most critical national security issues today, such as failing states and terrorism, require public diplomacy to solve, not just hard military power.  And the military agrees- according to the article both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “have called repeatedly for more robust civilian resources.”  But the State Department and USAID, the primary engines for public diplomacy, are short on public diplomacy leadership, personnel and strategy, leaving many gaps in the public diplomacy effort.

 The military is forced to fill in the gaps that the lack in civilian resources leaves, a role that the military was never meant to play and which diminishes its ability to defend the nation with hard power.

 Luckily, there are some good ideas out there.  The Heritage Foundation, late last year, published an in-depth study of the nation’s public diplomacy which offers recommendations that could bring about vast improvement.  The first recommendation is the establishment of a US Agency for Strategic Communications.  Public diplomacy needs an umbrella agency to integrate and coordinate the various activities.  Right now, efforts are so scattered that the right hand often may not know what the left hand is doing.  And one of the first jobs of the agency should be to establish a strategy for communications and information outreach.  For more of the recommendations, check out the report, but these would be a good place to start.

The views expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Heritage Foundation.

Recently, Security Management published an article highlighting some of the advantages and downfalls of the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST) initiative. BEST was created by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with hopes of finding and stopping serious threats to border security. In order to lessen the extreme violence along the U.S. southern border ICE paired with federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement to create the agency.

Currently 11 BESTs are in place in Texas, California, Washington, New York and Arizona. BEST teams are expected to expand to more ports including Miami and Newark/ New York.
 
We need a solution to the increasing border violence, and BEST works. In 2008 BEST teams made 1,000 criminal arrests and 1,256 administrative arrests. This was a 35 percent increase from 2007. BEST teams also seized over55 thousand pounds of illegal drugs, vehicles, boats and properties. While other agencies in the past have grappled with severe border security issues, BEST teams have an advantage other agencies do not. They have the opportunity to demonstrate smart security that leads to results.

If Napolitano is interested in keeping our borders safe she should increase support for programs like BEST, in addition to others such as the 287(g) program. State and local authorities need increased support to handle the growing border security problem, and programs like these are the way to make this happen. BEST teams have demonstrated what they are capable of, yet remain small in numbers. DHS’s Southwest Border Security Initiative plan to double the BEST team staff is a step in the right direction. Increased support will yield safer borders for the U.S. in addition to our southern and northern neighbors.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out yet again why we need missile defense. North Korea has been threatening to fire a long-range missile at the United States, specifically Hawaii, around July 4th. In response to these threats Secretary Gates has deployed a sea-based radar system and terminal-phase missile interceptors to the Aloha State. In fact, 1.3 million Hawaiians are benefitting from these defenses that many in the current Administration did not even want to build.

 The Obama Administration has proposed a $1.4 billion cut to the missile defense budget. The disconcerting part is that it wants to cut programs to defend our homeland. While the missile defense budget provides more funding for theater defenses to protect our allies and forward-deployed troops, the administration underestimates the current threat. The Pentagon has argued that the threat is from short- and medium-range missiles. However, comments made by Lieutenant-General Patrick O’Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, show that the threat to our homeland has in fact increased over the past six months. In an interchange with Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), General O’Reilly said,

“Sir, I believe it [the threat] has increased significantly…The demonstration of capability of the Iranian ability to put a sat[ellite] into orbit, albeit small, shows that they are progressing in that technology. Additionally, the Iranians yesterday demonstrated a solid rocket motor test which is…disconcerting. Third, the North Koreans demonstrated…that they are improving in their capacity and we are very concerned about that.”

 The budget cut includes cutting programs such as the airborne laser and ground-based interceptors in Hawaii. The administration may also kill the plan for a European missile shield. What is interesting in this case is that cuts in the European shield may be tied to mutual reductions in the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. As the Wall Street Journal article points out, “it would be a mistake to tie decisions on missile defense to anything except what is best for the security of the U.S. and its allies.”

 It is appalling that the Obama administration is seeking to cut the missile defense budget at a time when the threat is increasing. Furthermore, it is important not only to defend against the current threat, but also against the future threat. Cutting programs that may provide information and research vital to creating future defenses that will protect our homeland is extremely irresponsible.

The Associated Press reports that the North Korea ship Kang Nam has reversed course from its supposed target. The ship, which was suspected of carrying banned weapons, reportedly was headed to Myanmar. After North Korea threatened to attack Hawaii, the U.S. sent the destroyer U.S.S. John McCain to intercept the Kang Nam.

 The Kang Nam's destination is still a mystery, and no one knows why the ship changed course. According to the AP, our Navy had been following the ship at a distance. North Korea threatened war if its ships were stopped and inspected.

 Earlier this month, President Barack Obama said that the U.S. was "more than willing to engage in negotiations to get North Korea on a path of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors…[b]ut belligerent, provocative behavior that threatens neighbors will be met with significant and serious enforcement of sanctions that are in place."

 The Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring has written an article about how President Barack Obama's plans for missile defense are putting America at risk. Spring recalls several events that have proved threatening to the U.S. and the world. An excerpt:

 On February 2, 2009, Iran successfully launched a satellite into orbit using a rocket with technology similar to that used in long-range ballistic missiles. On May 20, 2009, Iran test-fired a 1,200-mile solid-fueled ballistic missile. North Korea attempted to launch a satellite on April 6, 2009, which, while failing to place the satellite in orbit, delivered its payload some 2,390 miles away in the Pacific Ocean. This was followed by a North Korean explosive nuclear weapons test on May 25, 2009.

 Spring notes that instead of maintaining or increasing out defense budget in response to these threats, the Obama administration seeks to cut missile defense spending and scale back production. The result is a 15 percent decline in defense spending. The president's response to threats from rogue nations like Iran and North Korea has been shamefully weak. Apparently, the president doesn't take his duty to protect the homeland seriously.

 A majority of Americans believe in strong missile defense, but almost everything the president has done so far exposes a different agenda. Playing party politics at home is one thing, but displaying meekness to the world is another. 

"Further, Congress and the American people need to be reminded that while the United States has made progress in positioning missile defense systems in the field in recent years, the U.S. remains highly vulnerable to this threat," Spring writes. "This is no time for the U.S. to slow the pace of developing and deploying effective defenses against ballistic missiles. Indeed, the Obama Administration and Congress need to accelerate the effort by focusing on developing and deploying the systems that offer the greatest capability."

Spring outlines a detailed proposal for how to build a strong and comprehensive missile defense system. Read the full article here.

The Red Card Solution is a proposal by Helen Krieble, a business woman who owns her own equestrian establishment.  She suffered from not being able to find workers to run her stables because of H2B visas no longer being provided for her.  She, as well as many other businessmen and women, have two choices: higher illegal immigrants and become a criminal or shut down the business.

This is her proposed two-step solution to solve this critical issue:
 Step 1: Provide sector employment agencies, licensed by the government, set up shop in other countries.  These agencies fees will be paid by American employers.
 Step 2:  a. Workers and employers matched
   b. New employee given “Red Card”
   -Secure and tamper proof
   -Holographic Images
   -Protect against counterfeiting
   -Would act as a credit card
   -Only work if person already has a job

There are “Outpost” Agencies that:
 -Match workers with specific jobs
 -Complete a security check
 -Issue a secure smart card

The Heritage Foundation’s Dr. James Carafano states in this documentary that if there was a legal, dependable program where the immigrants could compete fairly for jobs, they would go to their country and register.  A poll states that 71% of immigrants indeed said they would participate in such a program as long as they would work in U.S., cross the border legally and be allowed to return home.  The Red Card Solution would do just that.

For more information on Helen Krieble’s Red Card Solution, please click here.