NSF Meeting Jan. 26 – Islam and the Arab Turmoil

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Maria

The National Security Forum Presents:

“Islam and the Arab Turmoil”

 With

 Richard Hobbs, John Jandali, and Larry Martines

 The Ramada Inn, Thursday, January 26th, 9:00 am

The Arab Spring showed early promise of ushering in an era of democracy in the Mideast, but recent events raise instead the specter of Islamic militants seizing power, the peace treaties and tacit arrangements with Israel disintegrating, and Iranian influence spreading. Our distinguished panel will first look at the ideological underpinnings of Islam—how Jihadist in orientation is the religion and what influence does that belief system have in driving events today? The primary focus of the panel, however, will be on analyzing the dynamic political changes underway in the region, following the Egyptian elections (where the Islamic parties won a majority), Syria on the precipice of civil war, unrest in Iran, and ferment in formerly stable monarchies (Bahrain). We will also look at how key Islamic groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood are faring.

COL/Dr. Dick Hobbs will begin the program with an overview of the influence of Islam on contemporary Muslims. Hobbs will assert that Islam is fundamentality a totalitarian ideology, not a religion in the Western sense, but a guide for every aspect of life. He will show that Islam commands the creation of a government ruled by Sharia, that it is a capital crime to leave Islam – apostasy – that violence supersedes toleration – abrogation – and that while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam.

Dr. John Jandali will analyze events in Egypt and Syria, primarily. The recent parliamentary elections in Egypt have given more than 60% of the vote to Islamist parties. What does that mean? Can the U.S., or should the U.S., work with the Muslim brotherhood? Syria has descended into virtual civil war, with the minority Alawite (Shia) government under Bashar al-Assad combating a revolution led by the majority Sunnis. Jandali will also touch on unrest in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Larry Martines will direct special attention to the current condition and future influence of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Should the Syrian government fall, what would this mean for Lebanon, and in particular, Hezbollah. How strong is Iranian influence with both groups, and to what extent will the turmoil in the Middle East, and in Iran itself, impact these groups.

COL/Dr. Richard Hobbs is a retired combat infantry officer, professor, and businessman. He has worked, taught, and written in the international arena for over 50 years including at the Pentagon, the State Department, and in international operations for a major corporation. A.F. John Jandali is of Syrian descent, has a PhD in international politics & economics, is a former professor of Political Science (Wisconsin, UNR), and for the last two decades has been in the private sector, currently VP/ General Manager of Boomtown Casino Reno. Larry Martines, former Director of Nevada Homeland Security, retired from a major law enforcement agency. He is a consultant for “three letter” government agencies on international terrorism, has been a multi-national corporate security chief, and has served on a RAND Global Terrorism think tank.

Please RSVP (ACCEPTANCES ONLY)  by calling 746-3222. A complete breakfast will be served. There will be a $15 dollar charge at the door for the presentation and breakfast. We recommend arriving by 8:30 to enjoy some pre-presentation food and conversation.

Posted in Meetings, Newsletter | Comments Off

The Defense Strategic Guidance: What’s New, What is the Focus, Is it Realistic?

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Maria

President Obama went to the Pentagon to announce the Defense Department’s new “Strategic Guidance”, the document that will serve as the template for weapons acquisition, force sizing, military strategy, budgeting, and geographic focus for the future. It is highly unusual for the President to personally announce the new guidance, but it was clear that Obama wants everyone to understand that, however controversial (and it is), this is the document that will drive force reductions, mission realignments and procurement for the next decade.

The new Defense Guidance is being driven first and foremost by the fiscal crisis. The 2011 budget agreement requires the Pentagon to reduce spending by $487 billion, with $263 billion of that over the next five years! And that’s only if “sequestration” isn’t implemented in FY 2013, a move that would require another $600 billion in cuts!

Geographic and mission shifts

The Guidance shifts the focus of military planning to the Asia-Pacific area, calls for deep reductions of Army and Marine ground forces in favor of air and naval forces, abandons the “2-war” capability concept, and says good-bye to nation building and counter-insurgency operations.

Specifically, the Army will be reduced to 490,000 troops from 570,000 and the Marines to 175,000 from 202,000. The President and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta justified the downsizing by emphasizing that the U.S. is now “looking beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”, and is unlikely to be engaged again in long-term nation building with substantial ground force commitments. The document directly states that “U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations”.  The Pentagon leadership hastened to add that we would retain the “know how” to conduct COIN operations if necessary and the ability to “regenerate” appropriate force levels if required. That might be very hard to achieve.

Panetta said the U.S. will increase its power projection capabilities, “focus on enhanced presence”, capitalize on our “technological edge”, maintain a force that is flexible, adaptable and nimble, and, above all, be cost effective. Hmm?  Does this sound like Don Rumsfeld 10 years ago?

Geographically, the shift of emphasis to the “Asia-Pacific” theater portends a major rethinking of our base and force presence in Europe. Look for a major drawdown of our presence there and a demand that our allies take on more of the regional commitments as well as assisting in our global responsibilities. This all makes strategic sense given the low threat level presently in the European theater.

The enhanced presence will mainly be in the waters south of east Asia, but not with respect to Korea, ironically considering the turmoil in Pyongyang following the death of Kim Jong Il. Nor does it say anything about Japan. The focus is on China and the oceans and seas nearby.

The Guidance is quite clear with respect to the abandonment of any pretense of maintaining the ability to fight two major contingencies simultaneously. In reality we lost that option years ago, if we ever really had it, but this is the first time that it has been acknowledged. We now will have the ability to fight one major war, while handling other minor contingencies. Realistic.

What is driving the new focus of the Guidance clearly are concerns over the growing military might of China and what is seen as the PRC’s expansionist goals in the South China Sea and beyond. Thus in place of the “Air-Land Battle” doctrine of the Cold War era, the Defense Guidance emphasizes the priority that the “Air-Sea Battle” doctrine now has.

What are the weapon choices for implementing this guidance?

The President stated that “We will continue to get rid of outdated Cold-war systems, so that we can invest in the systems for the future”. What might these weapons be? Probably nuclear weapons for starters, although they are relatively inexpensive. Secretary Gates already cut the buy on the F-22, thinking that there is no country that could significantly challenge our air superiority. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, hobbled by cost overruns and serious technical issues, might be a candidate for reduced purchases. Ironically, given the stress on power projection, the Pentagon also plans to reduce our aircraft carriers from 11-10 (probably reflecting valid conclusions that the Chinese will soon have missile capabilities to take out carriers and surface ships rather quickly).

Cyber warfare is highlighted often in the Guidance, so expect significant increases in denial capability as well as offensive cyber intrusion capabilities. Look for an expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Predator drones, which have become a mainstay of our counter-terrorism operations and will be more fully integrated into war planning for major contingencies.

Any capability that enhances the work of Special Operations forces will be given a high priority since CIA-JSOC forces and requirements will receive more attention. In countering threats in places like Yemen, Somalia, or even Pakistan, the direction will favor the employment of aerial drones and Special Operations forces. They are cheaper and less politically intrusive.

The Defense Guidance comes under quick and heavy criticism

Critics were quick to dump on the new Guidance. Some feel the focus on a singular threat (China) in place of “strategic pluralism” fails to anticipate where threats may arise. They note that we have been very weak in forecasting where U.S. forces might need to be committed over the past 20 years, and the Guidance foregoes flexibility on that front. They also point out the maintaining “multiple capabilities” complicates a potential enemy’s planning.

Nearly everyone adversely impacted by this shift has raised alarm bells, including organizations that protect military retiree and health benefits, which will certainly be reduced! Army and Marine related groups are understandably apoplectic, as are major defense firms producing weapons for the current environment or for the “Fight two major wars simultaneously” contingencies. Not too many main battle tanks to be coming off the assembly lines in the future.

In sum however, these critics fail to take under consideration the fiscal crisis the country faces. Reductions across the board are coming down the line and the Pentagon cannot be exempted. Indeed, as the President pointed out, we will continue to spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined! And with a public mood decisively shifting away from “foreign entanglements”, the Defense Guidance does reflect political as well as economic realities.

Do you agree? For your information the Defense Guidance is attached. Take a shot at rewriting it!

Tyrus W. Cobb

Former Special Assistant to the President

For National Security Affairs

 

Click here: http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

 

Posted in Domestic News, Homeland Security, Newsletter | Comments Off

NSF Meeting January 5th – The Euro-Crisis

Posted on January 2, 2012 by Maria

The National Security Forum Presents:

 “The European Economic Crisis:

Implications for the U.S.”

 With

 Dr. Gerald O’Driscoll

 Senior Fellow, the CATO Institute

The Ramada Inn, Thursday, January 5th, 9:00 am

 Some time back we believed the worst possible outcome to the European fiscal crisis was a Greek default. Now a much wider disaster seems all too likely as the Eurozone could become the center of another global financial crisis. Markets have lost faith, driving up interest rates and threatening the stability of even major states, Italy most importantly. (Italy owes $2.5 trillion and must refinance $530 billion of that debt in 2012. It recently issued new debt at 8%, a rate that—if sustained—could force the country into default). A full-blown breakup of the Eurozone, given the exposure of American banks and investors there, would undoubtedly spread the crisis to U.S. financial institutions.

A sense of how vulnerable the U.S. economy could be if the euro currency union cracks apart is scary, especially if one considers the volume of American exports to the euro zone—about $330 billion a year—and several hundred billions more in U.S. investments and several trillions of dollars of other financial contracts between the two economies. U.S. banks alone have more than $220 billion at risk through investments in German and French banks alone.

Will European countries return to local currencies? Would that provoke civil strife in Europe (UBS AG predicted just that)? Would a disorderly collapse of the euro-zone lead to a global financial crisis? The new Chairman of the JCS has openly worried that the defense budgets of our European allies will decline precipitously. Warranted?

Gerald O’Driscoll is a widely quoted expert on banking and monetary policy. He has served as Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation, was VP and Director of policy analysis at Citigroup, and was VP and senior advisor at the Dallas Fed.  Dr. O’Driscoll holds a PhD in economics from UCLA and has appeared on Fox, CNBC, Bloomberg and other media outlets.

The session will be held at the Ramada Inn on East 6th St between Sutro and Wells Avenues. A full breakfast will be served ($15 payable at the door). Please RSVP to this email or by calling 746-3222 (ACCEPTANCES ONLY!). The session is open to the public but we do need RSVPs from those wishing to attend. Coffee will be on at 8:15, the breakfast out by 8:30. Come early and enjoy some conversation with old friends.

Links to articles:

Click here: Austerity Reigns Over Euro Zone as Crisis Deepens – NYTimes.com

Click here: Nobody Understands Debt – NYTimes.com

Posted in Meetings, Newsletter | Comments Off

The Collapse of the Soviet Union

Posted on December 26, 2011 by Maria

Marxist-Leninist doctrine predicted that capitalism would collapse on the “ash heap of history” as global communism triumphed as an economic system. Instead, 20 years ago Sunday it was the vanguard of the international communist movement, the Soviet Union, which disintegrated.

The two individuals who played the most prominent roles in bringing about the end of the USSR were President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. The policies formulated and implemented by both had very different objectives in mind, but the end result was the same.

Beyond Détente: Promoting Fundamental Change in the Soviet System

Early in the Reagan administration a fierce fight had erupted regarding the wisdom of engaging the Soviet Union. Many conservatives were convinced that détente had shown that any attempt at negotiations or engaging Moscow was doomed to failure. They also tended to believe that the USSR was on the ascendancy, particularly in the global arena, witness the success of Moscow’s backing for “National Liberation Movements” in Africa, Southwest Asia, and Central America. They leaned toward the sense that the regime, albeit aging, was firmly in control in Moscow and that any real change seemed impossible.

I was asked in 1981 by the National Security Council, through the then Military Assistant, ADM John Poindexter, to prepare a series of point papers on the state of the USSR and what US policy initiatives might be considered. I had just completed a 2-year IREX fellowship, which brought me to the USSR off and on the past two years.

My view was: The Soviet leadership was aging, the economy was in difficult straights (my dissertation was on the Soviet economy/energy dilemma), and the U.S. could pressure the USSR to achieve political and military change. Not sure how much impact the memos had, but they fed into the cauldron of competing opinions erupting within the Administration.

President Reagan was opposed to détente, but open to negotiating with the Soviets. This would come, in his mind, only after he had reversed the American military decline, resuscitated the economy, and restored confidence within the U.S. body politic. By 1983 he felt that we should reconsider our stance of not engaging the Soviets, based on what he perceived to be further Soviet decline and U.S. restoration of power and confidence. Yes, the 1984 elections and Nancy’s prodding had a role in his thinking, but he was also buffeted in the other direction continually by the naysayers.

Reagan’s policies were laid out in 1983 in NSDD–75, titled “U.S. Relations with the USSR”. The document directed two core objectives: first, “to contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism”, and second, “to promote the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system”.

The directive also laid out specific goals: In Eastern Europe, loosening Moscow’s hold on the region; with respect to Afghanistan, it was to “keep maximum pressure on Moscow….and ensure that the Soviets’ political and military costs remained high” while the occupation continued.

NSDD-75 was a very ambitious strategic guide, one that overtly would attempt to “change” the Communist system by ending the Party’s monopoly on power and bringing about the weakening of the Soviet economy. The directive called for a more ambitious media penetration (RFE, Radio Liberty) into the USSR and its vassal states, assistance to groups in the Soviet empire who would topple the Communist regimes, and using our technological and economic leverage (e.g., to stop the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe).

Reagan and Gorbachev: One wanted to reform the Soviet system; the other to fundamentally change it

For Reagan the immediate goal was to insure that the Soviets bore the burden for actions they were taking to support anti-Western political movements, and for pouring a considerable portion of their national wealth into the defense-industrial sector. For Gorbachev, who came to power in 1985 after years of desultory “leadership” behind aging and infirm General Secretaries–Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko–the objective was to reform a stagnating economic system through restructuring (“perestroika”) and greater openness (“glasnost”).

We did not fully appreciate at that time that Gorbachev, unlike his predecessors, was fully aware of the depths that the Soviet economy had fallen. It also appears that Gorbachev was deeply concerned about the President’s SDI program (“Star Wars”), believing that what was at stake was more than just a space defense program. He believed that if the United States once and for all combined its technological superiority with its economic potential, America would make an enormous “skachok” (leap) ahead. The General Secretary knew that he needed to redirect resources away from the defense sector to rejuvenate the stagnating Soviet economic system, but first he must stop the U.S. potential to jump ahead—which he feared our pursuing SDI would do.

To do that he had to put a brake on Reagan’s military build-up. He also realized that deep and fundamental reforms of the corrupt, centrally managed political system needed to be undertaken. While he recognized that this would cause some disruption, he failed to anticipate that the changes he was implementing would soon spiral out of control.

Reagan was not content to allow events to proceed in the USSR on Gorbachev’s timetable. The United States took several measures to impose a burden on Moscow if it chose to continue its aggressive support of national liberation movements, its domination over East Europe, and for extensive funding of the military. Reagan directed that the U.S. support resistance movements against the Soviets in Central America and Africa, provide advanced missiles (e.g., Stingers) to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and support revolutionary movements in East Europe.

Specifically, working closely with Pope John Paul II (not well known even today!), the U.S. provided intelligence and economic support for the Solidarity movement in Poland that led to the first crack in the Soviet Empire. Reagan also secured support from Lane Kirkland, head of the AFL-CIO, which provided key assistance to Solidarity.

America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to “turn on the oil spigot” and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Soviets’ primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.

By 1986 the war in Afghanistan led to increased public discontent, the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster seemed to personify the regime’s ossification and inability to handle crises, and the economy declined in the face of bad harvests and low global oil prices. Glasnost had led to the appearance of more popular media outlets, which then proceeded to highlight corruption in the highest echelons, rampant alcoholism, what the Stalinist regime had really done to the populace, and other formerly taboo topics.

The Empire Crubles: 1989-91

James Mann argues persuasively that Ronald Reagan defied the advice of his more hard line advisers and skillfully led the negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev that led to the fall of the Soviet Union (“The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan”). I would agree. In fact, the President was constantly told by his chief intelligence experts, principally then Deputy Director of the CIA, Bob Gates, most Pentagon officials, and many State Department experts, that the General Secretary was not seeking fundamental change of the Soviet system and that at any rate it remained strong and impervious to outside leverage. Reagan disagreed and on many occasions overruled his advisors and directed that we engage the Soviet leadership in negotiations while continuing to exert pressure on the USSR’s economy. I believe that history has shown Reagan to be right in the course he chose.

By 1989 Moscow was faced with increasing challenges. Afghanistan was clearly a failure, and the regime agreed to withdraw Soviet forces that year. Confronted with large street demonstrations in East Europe against the puppet regimes, Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze refused repeated pleas from their Warsaw pact allies to intervene militarily—as they had done in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. As a result the Berlin Wall tumbled down, Germany was reunited, and Solidarity assumed power in Poland and Vaclev Havel’s “Velvet revolution” succeeded in Prague. And in 1991, following a failed coup attempt, the USSR itself dissolved.

In the end, the combination of greater political and social freedoms instituted by Gorbachev and the proactive policies implemented under Reagan to impose severe economic and political burdens on Moscow together led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, on Christmas Day, 1991.

-      Tyrus W. Cobb

Minister of Enlightenment

December 23, 2011

 

Posted in Domestic News, General News, Newsletter | Comments Off

National Security Global Roundup

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Maria

The Drone Dilemma: Iran has the real thing. Now what?

High level defense sources confirm that the drone the Iranians have displayed on TV is, in fact, an intact RQ-170 Sentinel. The capture—however it was done—is a severe blow to America’s super-secret surveillance program, leaving advanced, highly sensitive technology in the hands of an arch-enemy.

The sources also confirm that the beige-colored drone is a CIA adaptation of the craft. It is programmed to automatically return to its base of operation should it lose communication with its control central. No one is sure why it apparently “landed itself” safely in Iran, over which it was probably conducting surveillance. The Iranians claim they penetrated the drone’s internal communications and brought it down. This is highly doubtful, even should the Iranians have had Chinese or Russian “assistance”, which is also unlikely.

Why the Sentinel did not have a self-destruct mechanism is not known. It may have and the drone simply “thought” it was returning to its base of operations. Whatever, the Iranians have a golden opportunity to sell the drone intact or in pieces to certain adversaries. U.S. officials are concerned that others may be able to reverse engineer the chemical composition of the drone’s radar-detecting paint or the craft’s sophisticated optics technology that enables operators to make positive identifications of terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet high. The sensors would be very important for countries like China to exploit.

In Russia, voters, despite a fraudulent election, hand Putin a major defeat

Vladimir Putin’s “United Russia” party suffered a major setback at the polls, potentially losing its parliamentary majority just months before Putin seeks to return to the Presidency. The results will likely force the Party to form a coalition with opposition parties. United Russia garnered at best 47% of the vote, compared to its 64% in the previous election four years ago, and probably would have been much less if the authorities hadn’t resorted to ballot stuffing and illegal voting.

The election has emboldened the opposition, which has staged huge rallies and parades in Moscow, this time with the grudging permission of the authorities. Putin himself has been booed when he has made public appearances, something that he claims—as only a former KGB officer could suggest—was the result of American “meddling” in Russia (specifically Secretary of State Clinton).

Before anyone starts rejoicing, keep in mind that the major beneficiaries of United Russia’s fall have been the Communist Party, and the strongly nationalist Liberal Democratic Party led by the erratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky. So far those reaping the fruits of Putin and Medvedev’s downturn have not been the forces advocating for greater democracy and liberalization, although corruption and nepotism have been a focus. So far this is not a “Russian Spring”, perhaps more a “Russian revanchism” (return to the days of a “strong leader”?), but hold on—this shift is far from over.

Europe avoids a collapse—for now—but the debt crisis is far from solved

The 27-nation European Union summit ended with a band-aid being placed on the continent’s economic crisis, enough to get by for now but far less than what is necessary to seriously address Europe’s burgeoning debt crisis. While some breathed a sigh of relief that a global economic meltdown was averted, in fact the EU tried—and failed—to come up with a grand plan to fix the underlying fundamental challenge. At best they kicked the can down the road for a few months. That’s all.

The only “concrete” result of the Summit was a pledge—nothing more—to work towards a new treaty binding them together in an effort to save the Euro. Leaders have tried, and repeatedly have failed, to come up with a solution to the debt crisis, especially among the southern “PIGS”—Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy. The pact that emanated from this meeting is very complicated, may require national referendums to pass, must be accomplished in a matter of months when it has taken years in the past to achieve even modest changes, and must overcome powerful employee unions’ opposition to any austerity measures.

The big winner, if there was one, from the meeting was Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the session signaled the growing clout of Germany. At the same time it marked a further distancing of the United Kingdom from the Continent and the increasing isolation of Britain from Europe—much of that due to PM David Cameron’s refusal to join in the commitment to a new treaty. Cameron himself sought a face-saving compromise, one that would allow him to satisfy the intense anti-Europe sensitivities of his Conservative Party. Cameron had incurred the wrath of his own party back home by suggesting the UK should be helpful in assisting its neighbors save the Euro. Ironically, Cameron is very much in synch with Germany and France as a leading advocate of austerity that Merkel and Sarkozy are pushing.

Both Merkel and Sarkozy said they had no interest in trying to placate Cameron and the UK. As a result, Britain is even further isolated in Europe.

The net result of the Summit is that the crisis has once again been delayed, Germany—and to a lesser extent France—has solidified its leadership and dominant position in European economic issues, Britain is even more isolated, and the countries on the southern rim must take domestically impossible austerity measures to reduce spending and rein in government employee compensation. Hmm—sound familiar?

JCS Chairman Dempsey reiterates that the most critical security issue is the Economy

Former Chairman of the JCS Admiral Mike Mullen raised some eyebrows when he stated explicitly that the biggest threat facing the U.S. was the national debt. This week the current Chairman, Army General Marty Dempsey, extended that worry further by saying that today “We are extraordinarily concerned about the health and viability of the euro….because of the potential for civil unrest and the breakup of the European Union”. Wow—very unusual for a CJCS, to say the least.

The comments illustrate two points. First, one would expect the country’s top military man to comment on global terrorism threats, the military challenges in the Mideast, or what rogue nations like North Korea or Iran do. Here the Chairman is again saying that the economy and particularly the debt crisis, are at the top of the challenges we face. Second, his focus illustrates that the European economic crisis is also an unexpected concern and focus of our military commanders—the health of the economies of our key allies.

The national budget has also fixated the top military and civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, since the failure of the so-called “Super Committee” means that the stipulations proscribed in the Budget Control Act passed by Congress now come into play. This “sequestration” means that government spending will be automatically cut by $1.2 trillion in 2013, with the axe falling primarily on the Defense Department. In addition to the $350 billion of cuts already agreed on, DOD could lose up to another trillion dollars—nearly a fifth of the total—from its projected spending plans through 2023. If that happens, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, America would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the fewest ships since 1915, and the smallest air force in its history.

Well, it’s doubtful that sequestration will actually happen, but given the paralysis that now encompasses the nation’s capital, who knows?

NRC Chairman Jaczko is causing the nation serious damage his colleagues charge? So why has he not been removed?

Even though he has been the subject of an extremely scathing report by the Inspector General of his own agency. Even though now all four of his fellow commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say that they have “grave concerns” that the NRC Chairman, Greg Jaczko, is causing “serious damage” to the Commission and has created a horrible work environment marked by “bullying” and a total “lack of understanding”, he has not been removed.

How could this be? This is the Chairman who overrode a Technical Panel review that concluded that closing the Yucca nuclear waste repository was illegal. But he brushed aside that conclusion and ordered the Repository to be shuttered anyway. Congressman Darrell Issa says that the letter of complaint from Jaczko’s fellow commissioners shows a serious breach of trust. Commissioners and staff have complained about the Chairman’s “brusque” style, that the Commission’s staff operates in an atmosphere of intimidation, and that his behavior is “absolutely unacceptable”.

So why has he not been replaced? President Obama has the authority and has been urged to do so by Congressional representatives? How is that such incompetence, corrosive behavior, widely condemned unilateral decisions, and having created a “chilled work environment”, could permit him to stay on, you might ask. How could it be that a Chairman of a key agency who has been lambasted by his own Inspector General could stay on?

Oh, silly us. We forget that Jaczko formerly worked for SEN Harry Reid, the Majority Leader and key ally for the President’s legislative agenda, whose opposition to the Yucca repository is well known. It appears that Reid will not permit his one time lackey, or staffer, to be replaced. In fact, just today, SEN Reid labeled the charges against Jaczko as nothing but “a politically-motivated witch hunt”. Did he forget that two of the four Commissioners are Democrats appointed by President Obama?

It also appears that Nevada’s senior leadership, including SEN Dean Heller, GOV Brian Sandoval, and former SEN Dick Bryan, who heads up the state Committee on Nuclear Projects, are content to not raise any concerns and leave this corrosive individual in charge of the very important NRC, despite his demonstrated incompetence and lack of trust and support. And that’s a shame, isn’t it?

Tyrus W. Cobb

Minister of Enlightenment, the NSF

December 11, 2011

Posted in Domestic News, Eastern Europe, Iran, Middle East, Newsletter | Comments Off