Four area high school seniors were honored recently with scholarships presented by the Tidewater Chapter of the National Naval Officers Association (NNOA) and Titus Masonic Lodge 592. From left to right are Vice Admiral Joseph R. Papp Jr., U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Atlantic Area, recipients Michael Protacio, Bianca Lascano, Aaron Cunningham, Cheri Farrior and Maj. Gen. Cornell A. Wilson Jr., Deputy Commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command, Norfolk. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Dennis Neal)
Naval Officers Association awards scholarships to local students
FLAGSHIP Newspaper, Naval Station Norfolk, VA
By Dennis Neal, MARFORCOM
Naval Officers Association awards scholarships to local students
FLAGSHIP Newspaper, Naval Station Norfolk, VA
By Dennis Neal, MARFORCOM
NORFOLK — Four area high school seniors were honored recently at the Vice Admiral Samuel L.Gravely Jr. Scholarship Banquet with scholarships presented by the Tidewater Chapter of the National Naval Officers Association (NNOA) and Titus Masonic Lodge 592. The banquet was conducted, May 9 at the Breezy Point Officers’ Club on board Naval Station Norfolk.
The recipients of the Vice Admiral Samuel L. Gravely Jr. Scholarship from NNOA were:
•Bianca X. Lascano of Suffolk, a senior at Nansemond River High School, who received a $2,500 scholarship. Lascano plans to attend Norfolk State University in Norfolk, majoring in Chemistry. Her parents are Juan and Darlene Lascano of Suffolk.
•Michael Protacio of Norfolk, a senior at Norfolk Academy, who received a $1,500 scholarship. Protacio plans to attend Yale University in New Haven, Conn., majoring in Music. His parents are Patrick and Barbara Protacio of Norfolk.
•Cheri Farrior of Newport News, a senior at Woodside High School, who received a $1,500 scholarship. Farrior plans to attend North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University in Greensboro, N.C., majoring in Mass Communication. Her parents are Jerry and Cheryl Farrior of Newport News.
The recipient of the 2008-2009 Titus Masonic Lodge 592 Scholarship was:
•Aaron Cunningham of Suffolk, a senior at Menchville High School, who received a $1,000 scholarship. Cunningham plans to attend Old Dominion University in Norfolk, majoring in Business. His mother is Joyce Amey Cunningham, of Suffolk.
The guest of honor and speaker at the banquet was Maj. Gen. Cornell A. Wilson Jr., Deputy Commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command (MARFORCOM) in Norfolk, who challenged the scholarship awardees to “grow in wisdom and compassion” and to be prepared to give back to society and assist other young people as they were being assisted that evening.
Wilson, a 37-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, is a native of Hartsville, S.C. and graduate of the University of South Carolina. As Deputy Commander of MARFORCOM, headquartered at Naval Support Activity, Norfolk, Maj. Gen. Wilson serves as second-in-command of all East Coast-based Marine Corps operating and associated supporting establishment forces – approximately 74,000 military and civilian personnel.
The Tidewater Chapter of the National Naval Officers Association, headquartered in Norfolk has more than 90 members comprised of active duty and retired U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps officers. Volunteerism allows the Tidewater Chapter of the NNOA to award over $5,000 in scholarships each year to deserving high school seniors in the Hampton Roads area. They have continued to stretch their influence in the community by actively engaging youth at their partner school, Campostella Elementary School in Norfolk, working with veterans, and donating time and resources to provide food for low-income families throughout the year.
The Vice Admiral Samuel L. Gravely Jr. Scholarship Banquet is the culminating event of the NNOA’s annual mission of fostering a positive image of the United States sea services in the local community. The scholarships are awarded in honor of Vice Admiral Samuel L. Gravely Jr., who was the first African American to command a U.S. Navy warship, to be promoted to flag officer rank and to command a Naval fleet. Vice Admiral Gravely Jr.’s illustrious military career spanned 38 years, and he retired from active duty in 1980. He passed away at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, on Oct. 22, 2004.
Tuesday’s Early Bird leads with an article from the Los Angeles Times, and a similar story in the Washington Post, that report the U.S. is jeopardizing its chances of success in Afghanistan by mistakenly inflicting casualties on civilians in airstrikes that undermine support for the war among the general population, the top U.S. military officer said Monday.Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the aerial bombing this month of a village in western Afghanistan that killed an undetermined number of civilians as one that has occurred despite changes in procedures aimed at reducing such deaths.
Agence France-Presse reports that Pakistan isn't using U.S. military assistance to expand its nuclear arsenal, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said on Monday."I am not aware of any U.S. aid that's gone towards nuclear weapons," Mullen told a gathering at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank.He said that the one exception was a portion of U.S. funds in the past few years focused on "improving" security safeguards for Pakistan's nuclear weapons, "which is exactly what we like."
As the Quadrennial Defense Review debates the need for various costly weapons, key military personnel programs must not become budgetary sacrificial lambs, the military's top officer warned today, InsideDefense.com reports.“We’re going through a big debate right now about systems, major acquisition programs – what we should buy for the future,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said in a speech at the Brookings Institution. “What we should buy for the future is to make sure we get it right for our people. That’s healthcare, that’s housing, that’s benefits, that’s the compensation package, that’s bonuses, all those kinds of things.”Mullen commended the attention Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey have put into these priorities. Addressing such costs guarantees U.S. security in the future, he said.When asked whether the QDR -- which is set to produce recommendations on an array of topics this summer -- should shift a significant amount of money from procurement toward personnel costs, he said it is too early to tell. “We’re not far enough into the QDR to be able to say that -- whether that’s an answer,” he replied.
Pakistan said Monday that troops were locked in bloody street battles with Taliban fighters in the northwest's Swat Valley as rival politicians united behind the offensive to eliminate the Islamist militants, Agence France-Presse reports.The military said its troops are closing in on Swat's capital, Mingora, which is under Taliban control, and has issued a map showing security forces in a pincer movement pushing down from the north and up from the south.[Also Monday, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said that 1,454,377 people have been registered as fleeing the fighting since May 2 and that 1,323,427 of them are living outside camps set up for the displaced.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Pakistani officials responded Monday to an assertion by the top United States military officer that the country was expanding its nuclear arsenal. At a Congressional panel last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, left, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yes when asked whether there was evidence that Pakistan was adding to its nuclear weapons systems and warheads. On Monday, Pakistan’s information minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, said: “Pakistan does not need to expand its nuclear arsenal, but we want to make it clear that we will maintain a minimum nuclear deterrence that is essential for our defense and stability.”In comments at a forum in Los Angeles, the Central Intelligence Agency director, Leon E. Panetta, said that the United States did not know the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, but he was confident that there were “pretty secure” measures to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military's ban on service members found to be gay, the Wall Street Journal reports.A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn't be required to argue the merits in her individual case.The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.
A planned U.S. missile shield to protect Europe from a possible Iranian attack would be ineffective against the kinds of missiles Iran is likely to deploy, according to a joint analysis by top U.S. and Russian scientists, the Washington Post reports.The U.S.-Russian team also judged that it would be more than five years before Iran is capable of building both a nuclear warhead and a missile capable of carrying it over long distances. And if Iran attempted such an attack, the experts say, it would ensure its own destruction."The missile threat from Iran to Europe is thus not imminent," the 12-member technical panel concludes in a report produced by the EastWest Institute, an independent think tank based in Moscow, New York and Belgium.
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: All the papers lead with news that President Obama will announce new standards for automobile emissions and increase fuel-efficiency targets. (Slate Magazine)
2. The nightmare scenario: Why you should worry about Pakistan’s nukes. (Foreign Policy)
All the papers lead with news that President Obama will announce new standards for automobile emissions and increase fuel-efficiency targets. The new regulations will mark the first time that the government will set rules on automobile emissions and combine it with fuel-economy standards. The rules would require new cars and light trucks sold in the United States to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required under federal law that was passed in 2007. The Wall Street Journal declares that the move "would accelerate the largest government-mandated transformation of vehicles on the American road since the late 1970s and early 1980s." The Los Angeles Times calls it a "potentially pivotal shift in the battle over global warming" as well as "a vindication of California's long battle to toughen standards."
The Washington Post reports that the new rules came as a result of negotiations between the administration, California, and the auto industry that have been going on "since the first days of the administration." Everyone characterizes this as a win for all the parties involved. California has long asked for a waiver to set its own emissions standards but has now agreed to accept the federal limits, which amounts to pretty much what it wanted except the automakers have more time to adjust. For their part, the automakers get the national standard they have long been craving and will be dropping their legal challenges against California. The new standard, coupled with other requirements Congress passed in 2007, would increase the cost of an average car by $1,300. The New York Times states that the new standard "will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today." The administration says the new regulation will reduce U.S. oil consumption by 5 percent a year. USA Today points out that if the new rules push automakers to build smaller cars, "highway safety could decline" since they're less safe in crashes.
The LAT and WP front, while everyone covers, claims by the Sri Lankan government that Tamil Tiger chief Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed yesterday, effectively bringing to an and the 26-year civil war that killed around 100,000 people. Throughout his years at the helm of the rebel group, Prabhakaran "created one of the most ruthless and sophisticated insurgencies, with many of the tactics he pioneered becoming standard procedure for militant groups around the world," declares the LAT. The NYT points out that some believe the insurgency will come back using the militant tactics that were a hallmark of its existence, such as suicide bombings. But many others say that without Prabhakaran, the Tigers don't have anyone else to lead them. Everyone points out that it was Prabhakaran's ruthlessness and unwillingness to compromise with the government as he fought for a Tamil homeland that led to the destruction of the movement he had built over the years.
While people in Colombo, Sri Lanka's capital, celebrated in the streets, many within the Tamil community stayed indoors, afraid of what this development could mean for them. Even though many Tamils had long grown wary of the war, they still often saw the Tigers as their "only hope against the discrimination and alleged human rights abuses" of the government, notes the Post. Now many within the Tamil community are worried this victory over the Tigers will translate into violence against them.
The Washington Post reports that the new rules came as a result of negotiations between the administration, California, and the auto industry that have been going on "since the first days of the administration." Everyone characterizes this as a win for all the parties involved. California has long asked for a waiver to set its own emissions standards but has now agreed to accept the federal limits, which amounts to pretty much what it wanted except the automakers have more time to adjust. For their part, the automakers get the national standard they have long been craving and will be dropping their legal challenges against California. The new standard, coupled with other requirements Congress passed in 2007, would increase the cost of an average car by $1,300. The New York Times states that the new standard "will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today." The administration says the new regulation will reduce U.S. oil consumption by 5 percent a year. USA Today points out that if the new rules push automakers to build smaller cars, "highway safety could decline" since they're less safe in crashes.
The LAT and WP front, while everyone covers, claims by the Sri Lankan government that Tamil Tiger chief Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed yesterday, effectively bringing to an and the 26-year civil war that killed around 100,000 people. Throughout his years at the helm of the rebel group, Prabhakaran "created one of the most ruthless and sophisticated insurgencies, with many of the tactics he pioneered becoming standard procedure for militant groups around the world," declares the LAT. The NYT points out that some believe the insurgency will come back using the militant tactics that were a hallmark of its existence, such as suicide bombings. But many others say that without Prabhakaran, the Tigers don't have anyone else to lead them. Everyone points out that it was Prabhakaran's ruthlessness and unwillingness to compromise with the government as he fought for a Tamil homeland that led to the destruction of the movement he had built over the years.
While people in Colombo, Sri Lanka's capital, celebrated in the streets, many within the Tamil community stayed indoors, afraid of what this development could mean for them. Even though many Tamils had long grown wary of the war, they still often saw the Tigers as their "only hope against the discrimination and alleged human rights abuses" of the government, notes the Post. Now many within the Tamil community are worried this victory over the Tigers will translate into violence against them.
The NYT fronts a look at how banks will now be looking at ways they can make more money from some of their best customers. Well, "best customers" might be how you might commonly think of the people who pay their bills in full and on time every month, but they're actually called "deadbeats" in the industry because they don't generate much revenue for the companies. These customers have not only failed to give much revenue to the poor credit card companies, but they dared to demand things like cash-back rewards and frequent flier miles. That may soon be a thing of the past. Now that Congress wants to impose limits on how much the companies can charge riskier borrowers, they're looking at how they can increase revenue from those with good credit. Banks are likely to bring back annual fees, cut back reward programs, and charge interest immediately upon a purchase. Or at least that's what banks want people to believe as they furiously lobby lawmakers, who are discussing a wide variety of rules that could soon be imposed on card companies. "Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems," said the head of the American Bankers Association.
The NYT fronts word that Zamay Khalilzad, the former ambassador to Aghanistan, might soon take up a powerful position inside the Afghan government. Khalilzad has been in discussion with Hamid Karzai to take on a government position that would essentially be the chief executive officer of Afghanistan. There has been lots of talk that Khalilzad might run for president, but he missed the filing deadline. The move would benefit Karzai, not only because it would help get a potential rival on his side but also because Khalilzad is widely respected in the United States and his appointment would come at a time when the administration has made it obvious that it is growing tired of Karzai. But officials insist the administration had nothing to do with the arrangement.
To top of document
The NYT fronts word that Zamay Khalilzad, the former ambassador to Aghanistan, might soon take up a powerful position inside the Afghan government. Khalilzad has been in discussion with Hamid Karzai to take on a government position that would essentially be the chief executive officer of Afghanistan. There has been lots of talk that Khalilzad might run for president, but he missed the filing deadline. The move would benefit Karzai, not only because it would help get a potential rival on his side but also because Khalilzad is widely respected in the United States and his appointment would come at a time when the administration has made it obvious that it is growing tired of Karzai. But officials insist the administration had nothing to do with the arrangement.
To top of document
Few who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 will forget the fear and apprehension they felt. The world stood on the brink of a nuclear holocaust as U.S. ships imposed a blockade to force Soviet missiles out of Cuba. Everyone heaved a sigh of relief as the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles in exchange for an American pledge not to invade Cuba, but all agreed a cataclysmic nuclear war had been only narrowly averted. Of the lessons that came from this episode, the one that stands out is that never again should the United States be put in a position where its cities are so close to nuclear destruction. Many assumed that lesson had been learned as decades of arms control, détente, and the end of the Cold War seemingly removed the specter of nuclear attack from our collective consciousness.
Well, just when you thought it was safe not to worry about nuclear annihilation, a new crisis has emerged that actually poses a greater threat of an American city being obliterated by a nuclear weapon than anything that occurred during the Cold War: As Pakistan becomes engulfed in chaos, there is a real chance that its nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of extremists determined to kill as many Americans as they can. Although the public has yet to pay much attention to what is happening in Pakistan and there is nowhere near the level of hysteria that gripped the United States nearly 50 years ago, the prospect of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan exploding on American soil is much higher than a Soviet attack from Cuba ever was. If anything can make one nostalgic for the bad old days of the Cold War, what is happening in Pakistan today is surely it.
It helps to first look back at the Cold War to see why the current nuclear threat from Pakistan is so much worse. To be sure, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union each had some 10,000 nuclear warheads ready to strike each other. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could prevent the other from launching a devastating attack, nor could either country defend itself once a strike had been launched. The conflict between communism and capitalism, a series of regional confrontations, and the natural competition between the two strongest states in a bipolar system all threatened to turn the Cold War hot. And yet, a superpower nuclear war never happened. The reason the Soviet Union and the United States never came to nuclear blows is crystal clear: Deterrence worked. The leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States recognized that launching a nuclear attack would be suicidal, and neither leadership embraced death for their countries or themselves.
What is happening today in Pakistan, sadly, is very different. Pakistan has far fewer nuclear weapons -- about a hundred -- than the Soviet Union had during the Cold War. But it is far more likely that one of those weapons will be used against the United States because it is not the government of Pakistan that would order them to be launched. Pakistan hosts a wide range of extreme Islamist groups that seek to harm the United States. Of particular concern are the Taliban and al Qaeda, both of which originated in Pakistan. Both groups are blood enemies of the United States. Al Qaeda in particular has declared its intention to kill between 4 and 10 million Americans as payback for U.S. policies in the Middle East. If al Qaeda acquired a nuclear weapon and smuggled it into an American city, deterrence would be of little use. What threat could be invoked against al Qaeda terrorists to prevent them from killing millions of Americans once they had the capability to do so? Given its fanatical aims, lack of a "return address," and embrace of death, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of a threat that would dissuade al Qaeda or a similar group from carrying out its horrific mission the way the Soviet Union was deterred during the Cold War.
The key, then, is to prevent extremist groups such as al Qaeda from getting control of a nuclear weapon in the first place. The good news is that nuclear weapons are not easy to make. They require fissile material such as plutonium or highly enriched uranium, which is beyond the capability of any group, including the Taliban and al Qaeda, to manufacture on its own. The only way for nonstate actors to get a nuclear weapon is acquiring one from a country that has one, and the most likely country where that would happen is Pakistan.
Even before the present crisis, Pakistan had been a hotbed of instability. Much of Pakistan's population is dirt poor; separatist movements have been active throughout the country; half of its people are illiterate; Islamists have penetrated the military; and the government has never exercised control over vast portions of its territory. Democracy has come and gone, with no elected government ever succeeding another. Pakistan has already experienced a horrendous civil war, and it remains the only nuclear-armed state to have experienced a successful coup.
As bad as the situation has been in the past, it has never been worse than it is today. The Taliban has moved from its sanctuaries along the Afghan-Pakistani border to come within 60 miles of the capital city of Islamabad. No longer members of a fringe movement, Taliban fighters have linked up with al Qaeda and other extreme Islamist movements in Punjab, Pakistan's most important province. The combination of the Taliban's local appeal with al Qaeda's global reach presents a nightmarish threat for the United States and much of the rest of the world. The threat is not so much that the Taliban and al Qaeda will take over Pakistan or that the state will collapse. The Pakistani military is probably too powerful for that to occur -- at least for now. Rather, the danger is of continued, escalating violence engulfing ever larger portions of Pakistan, with the government increasingly unable to restore control.
A Pakistan plunged into chaos raises the threat that its nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of those who would use them against the United States or its allies. This scenario could come about in several ways.
First, though safe for the time being, the Pakistani government might eventually fall victim to the Taliban onslaught, raising the prospect of a jihadi, nuclear-armed state. Maybe the United States could deter an al Qaeda-Taliban regime from launching a nuclear attack (it would have a return address), but maybe not. Fanatics like the Taliban and al Qaeda are not easily dissuaded.
Second, the weapons might be seized by the Taliban, al Qaeda, or some other extremist group. Such a seizure is most likely when the nuclear weapons are taken from their facilities, assembled, and moved around, as is the case when Pakistan fears a disarming strike from India. One can imagine jihadists deliberately provoking a crisis with India (à la the 2008 Mumbai attacks) precisely to get the nuclear weapons on the road, where they can be grabbed. One can also envision some variant of the above. A Taliban government, infused with religious fervor, might simply give the nuclear weapons to al Qaeda or some similar group for use against the United States, Israel, or India. A collapsing Pakistan might encourage security personnel to sell the weapons they are guarding, to wrest some profit from an otherwise dismal future. A Pakistan engulfed in crisis might simply be unable to defeat a determined assault on its nuclear arsenal, especially if the attackers have inside help. Once seized, it would be child's play to smuggle the weapons into an American city (just think of the tons of drugs brought into the United States each day). Whatever the scenario, the prospect of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of religious terrorists is a nightmare no American wants to face.
The leadership of the United States recognizes the seriousness of the Pakistani threat, but has not figured out what to do about it. The United States provided Pakistan with a $100 million program to secure its nuclear arms, but it's unclear how Pakistan spent the money and whether what it did had any effect. Constraining U.S. efforts are Pakistani suspicions that the more the United States knows about its arsenal, the greater the likelihood that the United States will destroy or seize Pakistani nuclear arms in the event of a crisis. As a result, the United States does not know where all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons are located. Nor has the United States placed "permissive action links" (PALs) -- ATM-like locks for which one must know the code to arm the nuclear weapon -- on Pakistani nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis are concerned that any U.S. device placed on their weapons would be able to reveal their locations or disarm them remotely. As such, if a Pakistani nuclear weapon is stolen, the thieves might well be able to detonate it. Nor can the United States ensure that the right people are developing and guarding the nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis have told the Americans that they are careful in the selection of their nuclear technicians and guards, but who knows whether they are telling the truth or whether the Pakistani government is even capable of monitoring its personnel. It is worth remembering that the notorious Pakistani arms dealer A.Q. Khan sold sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea under the very noses of those who were supposed to supervise his activities.
What then can the United States do to reduce the threat from Pakistan? Washington must first do more to mitigate the tensions between India and Pakistan, thus encouraging the Pakistanis to redirect their military away from the Indian threat and toward the more pressing dangers posed by the Taliban. The United States must be more creative in ways that might help the Pakistanis ensure the security of their arsenal, including assisting them with better command-and-control procedures and safer deployment options for their nuclear forces (thus avoiding a hair-trigger posture). For the long term, the United States can work to build up the Pakistani state, improve Pakistan's education system, enhance its economy (through the elimination of tariffs on Pakistani textiles), and subtly convince the Pakistanis that the moderate Islam for which the country is known is the best path.
Although all of these steps are necessary, none will end the threat of a Pakistani nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. So what the United States must do is confront the awful possibility that the Taliban or al Qaeda might one day get its hands on a Pakistani nuclear weapon. To prepare for that contingency, Washington must do more to learn where the Pakistani nuclear arms are located (to destroy or seize them), do a better job at preventing the smuggling of nuclear weapons, and, most horribly, prepare for the nightmare of losing an American city to a Pakistani bomb. That means issues such as continuity of government and public health plans must be made now, for "the day after." It also means that Washington must do better at determining the source of a nuclear explosion and think seriously about how to react if one occurs. Lashing out at Pakistan, especially if the regime was not behind the attack, makes little sense. Learning from the Pakistanis just how many weapons went missing, how it happened, and whether it could happen again might not be as emotionally satisfying as a counterstrike, but makes more sense.
Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Americans and Soviets recognized that a nuclear strike would be folly. The same is not true for the groups that are poised to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons. With luck, we may all survive this crisis. But that does not change the realization that an American city faces a far greater threat of nuclear destruction from a wayward Pakistani nuclear weapon than it ever did from a deliberate Soviet attack.
Steven R. David is professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book is Catastrophic Consequences: Civil Wars and American Interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment