Israel
Israel's New US Defense System Already Working
An American radar system that uses X-rays and was placed in the Negev a number of months ago has begun operations. Its purpose is to warn of ballistic missiles, launched from either Syria or Iran. The security establishment says that new system provided indications of recently held Iranian ballistic missile tests, which it says were impressive.

Top U.S. Army officer in Israel to discuss missile defense systems 
A senior U.S. Army officer discussed solutions for intercepting missiles from the Gaza Strip with Israeli officials during a visit here this week, sources in the defense establishment said.

North Korea
N. Korea Statement Raises Worry of a Missile Test
North Korea confirmed Tuesday that it was preparing to launch what outside experts believe is a missile theoretically capable of reaching Alaska and Hawaii. But the North insisted that what it planned to launch was a scientific satellite.

North Korea: The Meaning of the Missile Launch
North Korea has announced its final preparations for a satellite launch, confirming overseas expectations of another long-range missile test. In openly declaring the launch — after months of allowing foreign satellites to observe preparations — Pyongyang is trying to ensure that there is little justification for attempts to shoot down the missile or implement sanctions on North Korea after the launch.

Poland
Poland confirms plans to deploy U.S. Patriot missile systems
U.S. Patriot air defense systems will be placed in Poland regardless of the prospects of the deployment of a U.S. missile defense base in the country, the Polish foreign minister said.

Poland Seeks U.S. Security Ties More Than Missile Defense Plan
Poland is more interested in having a promised American garrison with Patriot missiles and security ties than a U.S. missile-defense system that the Obama administration might scrap anyway, the top Polish diplomat said.

Russia
Moscow help on Iran to missile shield plan
The United States signaled willingness Friday to slow plans for a missile defence shield in eastern Europe if Russia agreed to help stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Report: Russia freezing anti-missile sales to Iran
Russia reportedly froze its pending sale to Iran of anti-missile defense systems.

Moscow Makes Nice—For Now
To judge from the mating signals coming from both sides, you'd think a major thaw in U.S.-Russia relations was imminent. Barack Obama backpedaled on his predecessor's vow to put a missile defense system near the Russian border, and Vice President Joe Biden recently called for "pushing the reset button" in dealings with Moscow, which had also been strained by America's support of NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia Could Affect European Missile Defense Plans, U.S. Says
The United States said Friday that it would keep Russian concerns in mind as it reassesses a plan to field missile defense elements in Europe, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 20).

South Korea
SKorea: NKorea has deployed new ballistic missile
North Korea recently deployed a new type of medium-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Australia and the U.S. territory of Guam, South Korea's Defense Ministry said Monday.

United States
Pentagon to Review Missile Defense Testing Program
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency said yesterday it would complete a thorough review of its missile defense testing system by May to address concerns that it spent enormous sums to develop technologies that were not properly vetted (see GSN, Nov. 3, 2008).

U.S. Missile Defense Project Could Face Major Funding Cut
The U.S. plan to deploy missile shield technology in Europe could be among the big-ticket defense items to face major funding cuts in President Barack Obama's first federal budget proposal, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 24).

Missile defense chief studies long-term testing plans
The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Wednesday he has launched an overall review of testing plans for the controversial system, with results due in May. Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said he preferred a long-term plan rather than a two-year horizon.

US Ready to Intercept NK Missile
The United States has successfully intercepted missiles flying from North Korea three times in virtual scenarios testing its ballistic missile defense system, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday. North Korea, meanwhile, vowed to launch a ``satellite'' into orbit citing Iran's recent successful space mission.

Pentagon, Lawmakers Step Up Call for Military Funding Ahead of Budget Announcement
President Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday night had a little something for everybody, with nods to health care, education, alternative energy and the financial sector.

US missile defense to complete test review by May
After years of criticism that it was spending billions on an anti-missile defense system without adequate testing, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency on Wednesday said it had launched a comprehensive review of its testing plans and would complete it by May 2009.

Missile defense capable, but needs more testing
U.S. missile defense is prepared to defend against North Korean threats, but the system needs more testing before Pentagon officials can endorse its capabilities with "high confidence," the top Defense Department tester said.

U.S. Secretary Of State To Chart 'New Path' In Middle East
One week after a whirlwind tour of Asia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will set off on March 1 for the Middle East and Europe. Clinton will visit Egypt, Israel, and the West Bank to examine prospects for charting a "new path" in the region, U.S. officials say.

Exclusive: John Bolton on ‘The Coming War on American Sovereignty’Pam Meister
Speaking to a packed room at the opening day of CPAC in Washington D.C. yesterday, former UN Ambassador John Bolton warned convention attendees of something he believes “goes to the heart of the Obama administration” and that will affect not only us but our children and grandchildren.

Missile defense capable, but needs more testing
U.S. missile defense is prepared to defend against North Korean threats, but the system needs more testing before Pentagon officials can endorse its capabilities with "high confidence," the top Defense Department tester said.

Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan
With two missile strikes over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan, attacking a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government.

Missile Defenseless?
Baker Spring, a national security research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, specializes in assessing the threat of ballistic missile strikes from Third-World countries and other U.S. national-security issues.

Task force says StratCom is spread too thin
A Defense Department task force thinks the U.S. Strategic Command has taken on too many new missions that detract from its historic, vital role as leader of U.S. nuclear deterrence.

Examiner Editorial: Missile defense works and America needs it
When former President Ronald Reagan refused to bargain away an untested missile-defense system, he forced the Soviet Union to give up plans of nuclear hegemony and helped destroy the international Soviet threat.

Warfare Requires both Sword and Shield
The evolution of the crisis in Gaza is a stark reminder that the fundamental nature of war in the Middle East is changing: Our enemies are stockpiling ballistic missiles that can reach every city in Israel. It is long past time to begin taking this threat seriously and to make the decisions and investments that will raise comprehensive missile defense to the level of a critical national priority.

The Cato Institute recently held a forum titled, “Mexico’s Drug War: The Growing Crisis on Our Southern Border.” Latin America and Drug Policy panelists included: Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance; Vanda Felbab-Brown, Foreign Policy Fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Daniel T. Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute.

Mr. Carpenter spoke first, presenting a very grim view of the situation in Mexico. At its current rate, the estimated number of cartel related killings for 2009 is around 8,000 and Mexico has recently replaced Columbia with the kidnapping capital of the world. Mr. Carpenter believes that despite all of the proposed solutions, the legalization of drugs in America would be the only possible solution for the quick end to this violence. It would not be a panacea by any means, but it would be a far better system then we currently have.

Mrs. Felbab-Brown believes that the most effective way to curb the violence in Mexico would be to rethink law enforcement, and take an approach similar to that of Brazil or Columbia. This would involve three phases. The first phase is a military one, in which the state would pronounce its preponderance by a large military operation in the most violent areas. The second phase would involve massive police reform, since corruption plagues the Mexican police force. The third phase would involve replacing the military presence with a more effective, less corrupt police force. Mexico also needs to establish an intelligence service that can strategically target crime as it crops back up.

Mr. Griswold took a different approach to the debate. Instead of referencing solutions to cartel crime, he argued heavily against sealing off our Southern border, a proposal supported by many in America. A complete wall on our border would be expensive, futile and self-defeating in his words. It would be a violation of liberty to those that live in the border towns, and it would deeply affect our ability to trade with one of our key partners. Instead, Mr. Griswold proposed the legalization of work, or in other words, the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Nadelmann, a self proclaimed “social justice libertarian” believes that a “Columbia” approach involving a strong offensive against drug operations could effectively lower violence in the short run. However, the drug trade is a matter of supply and demand, and so long as there is demand in America and across the world, it will be supplied. This is a problem that won’t be won through military might, we’ve tried it for 40 years, and it has largely not been effective. Mr. Nadelmann doesn’t go so far as to openly endorse the legalization of drugs, but he thinks it needs to be considered as a potential solution. The subject of drug legalization in America has long been a taboo one, and we need to have an open dialogue on the subject in order to assess our best options.

Experts at The Heritage Foundation recognize the severity of Mexico’s current volatile unrest. More than ever, Mexico and America’s national interests have become intertwined, socially, culturally and politically. Because of this, it is in America’s best interest to promote a peaceful and stable society to our south.

The previous administration supported the introduction of the Merida Initiative, a $1.5 billion counter-drug assistance package to Mexico and other Central/South American countries. So far, about $300 million of this has been dispersed to our south, allowing Mexico to improve their counter-narcotics training and equipment. But it hasn’t been enough. Only through our continued support of the Merida initiative and the further distribution of these funds, can we show our allies to the south that we stand firmly beside them in their effort to quell the drug cartels.  

Further, a significant amount of weaponry employed by the drug cartels comes from America. We need to renew our efforts to curb this illegal trafficking. Finally, America needs to develop comprehensive immigration reform that would include temporary work programs. There is an inextricable link between immigration reform and the reduction of border violence. Immigration reform would thus go a long way to reducing violence.

One concern with the newly established Department of Homeland Security was that there were too many “political” positions in the leadership, jobs that were not filled by career professionals but went to folks brought in by the administration. The problem was not just the potential to politicize homeland security, but also that when an administration was replaced there would be no one left to run the department. Even Secretary Chertoff recognized the problem and sought a better balance, filling some of the 200 political positions with career professionals or leaving the political positions vacant and putting deputy career professionals in charge.

In the homeland security policy shop, for example, all the appointments below the assistant secretary level were given to career officials, including the four deputy assistant secretaries under the Assistant Secretary for Policy.

That policy may be changing. Reports are the new Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development are going to be political appointments. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development appointment is really interesting since it oversees immigration policy and is reportedly going to a former staffer of Senator Kennedy (one of the co-sponsors of the failed 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill).

Unlike assistant secretary and higher appointments, deputy assistant secretaries are not subject to review and confirmation by the Congress.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

It is pretty much clear where things stand in the debate of FEMA in or out of the Department of Homeland Security. Everyone is waiting on the White House including the new secretary of the department.

FEMA can only be moved out by legislative fiat and it is unlikely that any bill would clear all the hurdles to get to the president's desk as a stand alone measure. That means it would have to go in omnibus legislation. Leadership likely won't do that without a go ahead from 1600 Pennsylvania.

There is plenty of evidence FEMA is working well in the department. Last year was one of the busiest disaster years on record and FEMA and the department did fine. In fact, the new secretary didn't even feel the need to go to the scenes of the most recent FEMA deployments until well after operations were underway.

The other issue with taking FEMA out is the cost involved. It cost a bundle to stick it in. It will cost more to pull it out. In era when the White House wants to save money that is something to think about. The cost of removing FEMA would come from the department's top line--right out of the money meant to protect us.

With no time to study the issue and no serious evidence to prove taking FEMA out is a good idea, the only other reason to do it is "ye olde politics." If the administration moves FEMA for a "political" calculation it will have crossed the line in the sand...going back to the pre-9/11 days when turf meant more than keeping the country safe, free, and prosperous.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

In her testimony today before the House Homeland Security Committee, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano made it clear that her agency would not be able to meet the 2012 deadline for the 100 percent screening mandate. This mandate which draws its authority from the 9/11 Implementation Bill of 2007, requires 100 percent screening of maritime cargo prior to its entry into the United States.

The 100 percent screening mandate is a perfect example of a law that sounds like a good idea, yet is completely implausible. Currently 11.5 million containers enter America each year from over 700 foreign ports. Even if DHS was physically able to implement this procedure, it would hardly be the most effective method to protect us from harmful imports. Furthermore, 100 percent screening would bog down international trade, and lull Americans into a false sense of security. Congress’s own test pilot, the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) indicated that 100 percent screening would not make us safer.

Experts at The Heritage Foundation have argued strongly against the 100 percent cargo screening since its inception, and instead promote 10 plus 2. 10 plus 2 is an additional mandate meant to supplement the 100 percent screening by forcing exporters to provide specific information before their cargo can be shipped. This plan is much more effective due to its adaptive nature, which allows DHS to adjust information requirements through a risk based assessment. After all, are we to believe that each of the 11.5 million containers entering our country every year pose the same level of threat?

 Thank you Mrs. Napolitano for standing up to Congress on this important issue, we simply hope they will listen.

Speaking yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed his concern that a Mumbai-like attack could occur on American soil. Though Americans typically associate terrorist attacks with organized bombings, armed assault threats cannot be dismissed. In fact these types of attacks are more easily organized and can rapidly be executed by small independent groups with little financing.

Director Mueller stated that he was specifically fearful of "pockets of people around the world that identify with al Qaeda and its ideology" despite lacking a formal connection to the terrorist organization. As an example, Mueller referenced Shirwa Ahmed, the first naturalized US citizen to conduct a suicide bombing. Ahmed was a native Somali who lived for some time in Minnesota before returning to Somalia to carry out his attack.

Since the devastating terrorist attacks in Mumbai, expert Jim Carafano of The Heritage Foundation has written extensively on the subject of armed assault counterterrorism. Unfortunately, these types of attacks are not new. Chechen rebels have conducted similar standoffs in Russia, sometimes with more devastating results than those of Mumbai. Nor are these attacks new in America. It’s been less than two years since six terrorists were thwarted in their attempt to assault Fort Dix in New Jersey. So, what can be done to prevent such attacks?  

For starters, the US Government needs to take both a defensive and offensive approach. First, in order to prevent attacks from being planned in the first place, we must continue to develop information sharing techniques between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that was fostered in the Patriot Act. Additionally, we must continue to develop the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) under the office of the Director of National Intelligence. Second, America must remain on the offense to drive the initiative away from our enemies. This can be done by integrating armed assault scenarios into Homeland Security protocol and reevaluating financial public preparedness programs. Specifically, funds must be allocated to geographic regions based on risk assessments, a procedure not currently employed.  

National Geographic recently released a new special on the Hi-Tech War on Terror. The documentary will discuss the importance of “new technologies designed to protect airliners from explosions, create a high-altitude missile detection system, add security sensors to shipping containers, build an electrical grid using superconducting cables and scan people from a distance to determine if they have malicious items.” According to a Special Report by the Heritage Foundation on Competitive Technologies for National Security, “innovation will always be a national security ‘wildcard.’” America has maintained an edge on the world because of its technological advancements, and that edge is slipping away because of America’s failing education system and immigration policies.

The United States must establish a legislative framework that encourages technological development. The Cold War was a great era for American science advancement. Policies must be implemented immediately that:

 -reform the education system to ensure that our schools and teachers are able to produce a future generation capable of competing with the rest of the world in any field

- encourage immigration of the best and the brightest by expanding the HIB visa program

-increase funding for technological projects such as missile defense and satellite systems

 - provide incentive for science, math, and technology studies

In conjunction, these policies will help improve the posture of the United States technologically as well as increase the safety and security of the homeland.

Today, North Korea has indicated that they have begun preparations to launch what they are referring to as an “experimental communications satellite” into orbit. This rhetoric, which is by no means a new tactic, has been used before in an attempt to legitimize a ballistic missile test. In 1998, North Korea launched their Taepodong-1 ballistic missile over Japan, claiming to have put a satellite into space. More recently, Iran successfully launched its first domestically produced satellite in an effort to flaunt its ballistic missile capabilities.

The mounting and fueling process hasn’t begun yet, so it is unlikely that a missile could be launched within the week. However, reports from Pyongyang’s state run news agency have employed the strongest language yet to indicate that they are approaching this phase. The ballistic missile that North Korea plans to launch is the Taepodong-2, their longest range rocket. Though their last launch attempt failed in 2006, it is generally believed that this rocket is capable of reaching Alaska. Some experts have even suggested that upgrades to the Taepodong-2 could allow it to reach the US pacific seaboard.

As enemies of America continue to develop ballistic missile technology and parade their capacity for destruction, we must remain on the defensive. Experts at The Heritage Foundation have been on the forefront of the ballistic missile defense (BMD) discussion since its inception. Now more then, it is time to seriously invest in this technology. Simply put, our vulnerabilities to rogue nations and terrorist cells obtaining this technology dictate the necessity of a strong ballistic missile defense.

A news article “Zero-sum deportation game” raised concerns that though Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used an aggressive enforcement approach for illegal immigration the past few years, the percentage of criminal illegal immigrants being deported has dropped. The percentage of total criminal removals has dropped from 38.9% in 2001 to 31.29% in 2007. However, the actual number of removals has increased to almost 100,000 in 2007 compared to the 73,545 in 2001. Considering the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not considered criminal aliens, and that the actual number of criminal aliens removed has increased, the idea that ICE has “relaxed its requirements for deporting criminals” is disingenuous.

That being said, the detention and removal process is far from perfect. ICE still fails to deport all the identified criminal aliens allowing those who have finished their jail sentence to be released back into U.S. society. In order to meet this problem some have recommended that ICE set priorities for their enforcement efforts, focusing mainly on criminal aliens. This policy will be more harmful than helpful.

If ICE begins to mainly deport criminal aliens and forego those detained solely on immigration violations they are essentially sending the message that illegal immigration is acceptable as long as they don’t break any other law. This message will cause the growth of illegal immigration. The inability to reduce the illegal population will make the task of arresting criminals like finding a needling in a haystack. Furthermore, the criminal activity which ICE focuses on, e.g. human smuggling and document fraud rings, are a product of illegal immigration. As long as nothing is done to address the overall illegal immigration problem, these crimes are going to continue to persist.

The report “Next Steps for Immigration Reform and Workplace Enforcement,” outlines recommendations for enforcement. One of which, is the need for appropriate resources for ICE to deal with a problem that has been ignored for several decades.

Yesterday, the White House called in Homeland Secretary Napolitano to chair one of the breakout sessions at the President’s “fiscal responsibility summit.” Her session focused on what the government buys. AP published a summary of the discussions. Most of the talk focused on rules and policies for hiring government contractors. It all sounded pretty pathetic with politicians mouthing tired old lines about government contracting without any substantive analysis to back them up.

Indeed, most of their answers sounded like they’ll make contracting less, not more efficient--layering on more layers of oversight and requirements that will drive-up costs. For example, according to AP, “Napolitano asked the panel, made up of lawmakers and interest group leaders, whether federal contracting should come with strings attached, requiring businesses, for example, to provide employees health care if the company receives government work.” Even some of the legislators recognized that is a bad idea. “Most opposed such a mandate, arguing it would keep some small businesses from seeking federal contracts and increase the cost of some projects. ‘There are a lot of practical problems with it,’ Levin said.”

Adding more bureaucracy and rules to a contracting system already crushed by rules is a really bad idea. Senator McCain introduced a particularly horrible suggestion—more red tape, yet another agency that would have to review every contract. As national security analyst Baker Spring wrote, “public auditors should not be permitted to drive govern­ment policy.”          

What government can and should do if it wants more bang for its buck is simple-become a better customer. The shabby state of the federal contracting work force was at the root of the most serious problems in contracting for support for operations in Iraq. Napolitano faces similar challenges in her own department. And that is where she should start to look if she wants to cut contracting costs in a sensible and responsible manner.