Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 17, 2009
By: Hilzoy

Keeping Us Safe

I wanted to highlight one other bit of the GQ story on Rumsfeld. The author writes:

"What Rumsfeld was most effective in doing," says a former senior White House official, "was not so much undermining a decision that had yet to be made as finding every way possible to delay the implementation of a decision that had been made and that he didn't like." At meetings, he'd throw up every obstacle he could. "Rumsfeld would say, 'Golly, we haven't had time to read all of these documents! I mean, this is radical change!'" the official adds. "And then, if you suggested that maybe he should've read all the documents when everyone first got them a week ago, he'd say: 'Well! I've been all over the world since then! What have you been doing?'"

What a charmer. Here are some specific examples involving Russia:

"Rumsfeld's office cut against Bush's pledge of cooperation and transparency with Russia on "a whole host of things," says this official: the proposed Russian-American Observation Satellite, the Joint Data Exchange Center, plutonium disposition. By 2005 the Bush-Putin partnership had soured for a variety of reasons, including Russia's growing economic swagger and America's Iraq-induced decline in global prestige. But, the official observes, Rumsfeld "did not help the relationship; that's clear." Russia came to believe that the U.S. wasn't interested in cooperating, and Rumsfeld's actions "devalued what the president had originally said. It made the Russians believe he lacked credibility.""

If you're not an arms policy wonk, you might not recognize some of these examples. That would be a shame, since what this paragraph actually means is that Donald Rumsfeld slow-walked proposals designed to do two things that might strike the casual observer as quite important: keep weapons-grade plutonium out of the hands of terrorists, and prevent the accidental launch of nuclear weapons at our cities.

"Plutonium disposition" is part of the general attempt to secure and destroy Russian nuclear material. If you're worried about al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons, securing Russian loose nukes is the most obvious place to start: so obvious that our failure to prioritize this always struck me as one of the abiding mysteries of the Bush administration. There are nuclear weapons sitting around in enormously insecure locations. (Howard Baker: "I'm talking about finished weapons that are barely protected. I'm talking about doors that have an ordinary padlock on them and sometimes not even that." Quoted in Allison, Nuclear Terrorism, p. 74.)

Plutonium disposition is one part of securing loose nukes: the part where you take weapons-grade plutonium and render it unusable. As of mid-2003, here's what we had done:

"The entire nine year program to date has been focused on investing to prepare for beginning to reduce excess plutonium stockpiles in the future."

"Investing to prepare for beginning to reduce" -- that sounds promising! As of April 2007, things had not improved much:

"Although the original agreement called for each side to start off at a rate of two tons of plutonium a year and seek to move to four tons a year, the four-ton objective appears to have been largely abandoned, and the planned Russian program now stretches to 2040. (...)

A wide range of other obstacles have contributed to these slowing schedules and escalating costs. After delays resulting from a year-long Bush administration policy review, the Bush team delayed matters further by demanding that Russia accept liability provisions that would make Russia liable even for damage caused by intentional sabotage by U.S. personnel, a provision Russian negotiators predictably rejected. Because construction of the U.S. and Russian MOX plants had been linked, this dispute resulted in years of delay in both countries. A liability protocol for plutonium disposition, in which the Bush administration effectively abandoned its earlier demands, was finally signed in September 2006, ironically not long after the linkage between U.S. and Russian construction was dropped."

So that's what Rumsfeld dragging his feet on plutonium disposition meant: not helping to destroy weapons-grade material that was often stored in insecure locations, and which a terrorist might use to build a bomb. Thanks, Don.

Here's a description of the Joint Data Exchange Center from the joint US/Russian press release announcing it:

"This agreement (...) establishes a Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC) in Moscow for the exchange of information derived from each side's missile launch warning systems on the launches of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles.

The exchange of this data will strengthen strategic stability by further reducing the danger that ballistic missiles might be launched on the basis of false warning of attack. It will also promote increased mutual confidence in the capabilities of the ballistic missile early warning systems of both sides."

Basically, the fact that the US and Russia have nuclear missiles pointed at one another means that it's rather important to ensure that neither side mistakenly concludes that the other has launched a nuclear strike to which it must respond. After all, you don't want to get into a nuclear war over something like this:

"In 1995 the Russians mistakenly interpreted a Norwegian meteorological missile launch as a launch of a military missile, and the black case of the Russian President was activated for the first time since the end of the Cold War."

The JDEC is basically designed to help prevent that sort of needless catastrophe. But guess what?

"The agreement regarding the JDEC was first signed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Putin at their June 2000 meeting in Moscow. Over the next several years, implementation of the center fell prey to bureaucratic issues between Moscow and Washington such as the question of which side would pay for upgrading the school building that had been selected for the site. In addition, the general disinterest of the Bush administration toward negotiated agreements with Russia, especially when negotiated by earlier presidents, served to shelve the JDEC further. The agreement remains intact, however, and the center could be rapidly established as a venue for confidence building on missile defenses."

The next time you hear Dick Cheney talk about how the Bush administration kept us safe, don't just think about 9/11, the people who have died in the Iraq war, etc. Think about the fact that this administration slow-walked things like mechanisms to keep us from being incinerated because of a mistake and measures to destroy Russian weapons-grade plutonium so that it didn't fall into the hands of terrorists.

Hilzoy 5:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Thanks, but I've already made up my mind about Rumsfeld. You are entirely too kind. He's lower than whale shit.

Posted by: anonymous on May 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like a prima facie case of treason to me.

Posted by: Ahistoricality on May 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

When my tinfoil hat is set just right, I could swear that the Bush Administration wanted a nuclear war.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on May 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

This attempt to lay it all at Rumsfeld's feet is as transparent as all the other efforts being made to rewrite history.

The entire Bush administration should be in JAIL awaiting EXECUTION for treason.

Posted by: getaclue on May 17, 2009 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Staggering incompetence, petulant empire-building, stubbornness, ego-stroking--if the American people remained safe it was despite not because of the "efforts" of these boobs.

Posted by: Paul on May 17, 2009 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Paul sums it up rather nicely-I was always rather ambivalent about the Clinton administration-but compared to Bush and his collection of incompetents (I include Cheney in this category), he comes across as a giant.

Posted by: Phil on May 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

My impression after skimming the article - I'll read it in more detail later - is that Rumsfeld's obstructionism during Katrina was the catalyst for getting rid of him. If so, it's nice to know someone lost their job over the debacle, but it's a shame the Bush admin covered up the story of who and why. After Cheney, my favorite candidate for public scorn and humiliation is Donald Rumsfeld.

Posted by: mcmama on May 17, 2009 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming any of this is true (and why should we?), hilzoy carefully avoids presenting any of the reasons for this alleged "slow walk", so how is a reasonable person to judge?

Posted by: am2 on May 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

hilzoy carefully avoids presenting any of the reasons for this alleged "slow walk", so how is a reasonable person to judge?

Hilzoy is not a mind-reader. A "reasonable person" can arrive at their own conclusions about the whys -- Rumsfeld's long-time ideological investment in painting the Russians as enemies, his well known monomaniacal obsession with being obeyed and agreed with over actual security concerns or the well-being of the armed forces, and his petulant defensiveness in the face of any real assessment of his job performance.

Take your pick.

But the whys aside, the whats are clear: he absolutely fucking sucked at his job, and the armed forces suffered greatly for it.

Posted by: trex on May 17, 2009 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with all of this.

But the real failure goes back to Bush I and Clinton. The US had much more leverage then, not to mention money, and could have eliminated this threat.

Doing so would have meant a reduction in American nuke stocks and spending a fair amount of money. But cheap at the price. Unless, of course, you are committed to a war footing in an environment without thread.

Posted by: jayackroyd on May 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

"What Rumsfeld was most effective in doing... was finding every way possible to delay the implementation of a decision that had been made and that he didn't like."

In gaming circles, this is known as a "dick move." Maybe we should call it a "don move."

Posted by: inkadu on May 18, 2009 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, there is a wealth of information in that GQ article about Rumsfeld.

Farther down in this GQ article it is revealed that Rumsfeld balked at sending U.S. search-and-rescue helicopters to New Orleans to rescue people stranded on rooftops after Hurricane Katrina hit and the levees broke, delaying deployment of any search-and-rescue helicopters (stationed 200 miles away) for days while people died.

When I first read this, I thought of the story reported within two weeks after Katrina hit of one helicopter from a Pensacola airbase that did help rescue stranded people within hours after New Orleans flooded.

This helicopter had been dispatched on a resupply mission to an airbase located just outside New Orleans. After dropping off the supplies, the pilots then diverted to help pluck people from rooftops in NO, making dozens of rescue runs, until they ran low on fuel and had to return to their Pensacola airbase for refueling.

Imagine their surprise when they got back to base, were ordered to stand-down and were subsequently severely reprimanded.

I was shocked when I read about this on-line back in September 2005. And now the GQ article fleshes this story out a little more, making it quite clear that Donald Rumsfeld wasn't too interested in any U.S. military helicopters assisting U.S. citizens dying in New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (to say nothing about that U.S. hospital ship anchored off the Louisiana coast, unused) and makes me wonder if he ordered that these Pensacola helicopter pilots be reprimanded for daring to rescue people off rooftops in New Orleans and ferry them to safety.

Posted by: The Oracle on May 18, 2009 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

Those reprimands should be removed from the flyer's service records. They were heroes who did the right thing until ordered to stop. Saving the lives of American civilians at risk in disasters is clearly part of the US military's reason to exist no matter what Rumsfeld said.

Posted by: anonymous on May 18, 2009 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly


Place Your Link Here

--- Links ---

Boarding Schools

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Bad Credit Loan

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Flowers

Personal Loan

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs