SEARCH THE HSDL
Set an Alert to get future results
Results 1231 - 1260 (of 141,167) sorted by relevance sort by date
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Annual Report to Congress on Civil Aviation Security January 1, 1994 - December 31, 1994The FAA's aviation security mission is to protect the users of commercial air transportation against terrorist and other criminal acts. Because terrorists seek to destroy public confidence in the safety of air travel and disrupt this vital segment of the U.S. and world economies, the continued growth of commercial air transportation hinges on the effectiveness of aviation security measures. Protecting the air traffic control infrastructure-FAA facilities and equipment and the employees who operate them-is part of that same mission. The FAA also assists other agencies in the interdiction of drugs coming into the United States. The responsibility for aviation security is a shared one and so are its costs. The FAA continuously assesses threats, assigns measures for both current and increased threat situations through regulations, and works with the aviation industry to implement those measures, using enforcement action when necessary. The aviation industry, through its managers and employees, implements those measures. Air carriers are responsible for applying security measures to passengers, service and flight crew, baggage, and cargo-in short, everyone and everything that enters the aircraft. Airports are responsible for maintaining a secure ground environment and providing local law enforcement support. The cooperation of passengers and the diligence of shippers are also needed.United States. Federal Aviation Administration1995
-
U.S. International Engagement: A Time of Great OpportunitySecretary of State Colin Powell says this is "a time of great opportunity" for the United States because "there is no other ideology...that can truly compete with what we can offer to the world." America, he says, must "use the power we have -- our political power, our diplomatic power, our military power, but especially the power of our ideas -- to remain engaged in the world." Powell became the 65th Secretary of State January 20, after having served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993) and as national security adviser during the Reagan administration. This article contains excerpts adapted from recent public statements made by Secretary Powell that reflect his perspective on key foreign policy issues confronting the administration of President George W. Bush during his first year in office. Remarks include those about the following topics: NATO, Macedonia, Balkans, Russia, China, North Korea, Middle East, Iraq, Western Hemisphere, and Africa.United States. Department of StatePowell, Colin L.2001-03
-
U.S. Defense Challenge: Peace Amid Paradox"We enjoy peace amid paradox. We are safer from the threat of massive nuclear war than at any point since the dawn of the atomic age. And yet, we are more vulnerable to suitcase bombs, to cyber-terrorists, to raw and random violence of an outlaw regime," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at Pentagon welcoming ceremonies on January 26. He became the 21st secretary of defense January 22, and held the same post previously from 1975-77 during the Ford administration. The following are excerpts adapted from recent public statements made by Secretary Rumsfeld that reflect his perspective on national security issues confronting the administration of President George W. Bush during his first year in office. President Bush took office with three goals in mind: to strengthen the bond of trust with the American military, to protect the American people both from attack and threats of terror, and to build a military that takes advantage of remarkable new technologies to confront the new threats of this century. Mr. Rumsfeld plans to pursue five key objectives and implement policies and allocate resources needed to achieve those objectives. First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the contemporary security environment -- a new national security environment. Second, the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces must be assured. Third, U.S. command-control-communication, intelligence, and space capabilities must be modernized to support 21st century needs. Fourth, the U.S. defense establishment must be transformed to address 21st century circumstances. Fifth, reform of DOD structures, processes, and organization. Certainly the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them pose a threat to the security of the United States, its allies and friends. We must ensure that we are devoting the appropriate resources to identify these newer threats, including cyber attack.United States. Department of StateRumsfeld, Donald, 1932-2001-03
-
Setting the U.S. Foreign Policy AgendaRepublicans who now control the White House and both chambers of the legislature have an unprecedented chance to set a new course in foreign affairs, says Senator Jesse Helms. He sees an array of foreign policy priorities headed by efforts to promote freedom and democracy around the world and, at the same time, to reduce the size of "America's bloated foreign aid bureaucracy." Helms is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His comments are excerpted from a speech he delivered January 11 to the American Enterprise Institute. I want to make something perfectly clear to our friends in Russia. The United States is no longer bound by the ABM Treaty -- that treaty expired when our treaty partner (the Soviet Union) ceased to exist. Legally speaking, the Bush Administration faces no impediment whatsoever to proceeding with any national missile defense system it chooses to deploy. There are two things Mr. Helms will press for with the new Administration. First, the Bush Administration should simply un-sign the Rome Statute. Second, we must enact the American Service members Protection Act. This legislation, which Senator [John] Warner and Mr. Helms introduced last year along with a number of our House and Senate colleagues, is designed to protect U.S. citizens from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Why is passage of this legislation important? Because by signing this flawed treaty, President Clinton has effectively endorsed the ICC's fraudulent claim of jurisdiction over Americans. We must take action to make clear that, unless and until the United States ratifies the Rome Treaty, we reject any claim of jurisdiction by the ICC over American citizens.United States. Department of StateHelms, Jesse2001-03
-
U.S. Security Policy: Protecting the Nation's Critical InfrastructureNational Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice says that protecting the nation's critical infrastructure is a "critically important" national security issue. "It is a paradox of our times: the very technology that makes our economy so dynamic and our military forces so dominating -- also makes us more vulnerable," she says. Rice was sworn in January 22 as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The following are excerpts adapted from recent public statements made by Rice that reflect her perspective on key international security issues confronting the administration of President George W. Bush during his first year in office. Critical infrastructure protection is a critically important issue....Today, the cyber economy is the economy.... virtually every vital service -- water supply, transportation, energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, public health...relies upon computers and the fiberoptic lines, switchers, and routers that connect them. Corrupt those networks, and you disrupt the nation. It is a paradox of our times: the very technology that makes our economy so dynamic and our military forces so dominating -- also makes us more vulnerable.... Protecting our critical infrastructure is a classic national security problem. We want to deter action against us through prevention. Deterrence worked during the Cold War. It may not work here. We also have to remember that the same technology that empowers us, empowers America's adversaries. And our very dominance in conventional military strength, may make those adversaries turn to unconventional battlefields such as cyberspace. In short, it is just not clear that we can count on deterrence to work in this context. That means we have to be prepared for scenarios where we have to restore and reconstitute critical operations quickly once they've been disrupted. And...this is not something that government can tackle on its own. We need to work hand-in-hand with the private sector. Remarks include those on Missile Defense, Russia, Balkans, Iraq, China, and North Korea.United States. Department of StateRice, Condoleezza, 1954-2001-03
-
Agro-Terrorism: What Is the Threat?Agricultural bioterrorism is defined as the malicious use of plant or animal pathogens to cause devastating disease in the agricultural sector. Currently, this topic has received increased attention and discussion within academic, media, and government circles. The US agriculture sector, with subsidiary dependent industries, accounts for around one-sixth of the nation's gross domestic product and one-eighth of its employment. Some analysts contend that the agricultural sector is highly vulnerable to an attack. The potential consequences of a malicious attack on agriculture can be seen in naturally occurring disease outbreaks elsewhere in the world, which have cost billions of dollars and temporarily wrecked entire industries. The costs of a major disease outbreak may affect not only the farmer or producer, but also a series of associated groups and individuals, from agricultural workers and processing facilities to shippers, retailers, and finally consumers.United States. Department of Energy2001
-
Strengthening Nonproliferation: Essential to Global SecurityAs the risk increases that terrorists may seek to acquire or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Berger says the Clinton administration is pursuing three key priorities: strengthening the nonproliferation regime, addressing pressing regional WMD threats, and bolstering defenses against the use of WMD. Berger is the National Security Adviser to President Clinton. Slowing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been a key priority for President Clinton. The reason why is clear: allowing more and more countries, including bitter regional rivals and even terrorist groups, to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and allowing the development of more and more destructive weapons, would make the world a much more dangerous place. So the United States will continue to work hard to strengthen global nonproliferation agreements and efforts. First, we are moving aggressively to strengthen the nonproliferation regime, by which I mean the international consensus and the international agreements and structures aimed at curbing WMD and ballistic missiles. We also will work to strengthen other components of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, including the safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Our second set of priorities focuses on the most pressing regional proliferation challenges. We have a full and important agenda of arms control and nonproliferation issues to address with China. We will continue to work with Russia to strengthen its export control system and to take effective actions against companies and individuals who are violating Russian laws and putting personal gain over Russia's own national interests. On Iraq, we will maintain sanctions until Iraq fully complies with its commitments under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, especially its obligation to eliminate its WMD programs entirely. Our third set of priorities recognizes that, despite our efforts to strengthen the international regime and resolve regional issues, we cannot prevent all forms of proliferation in all cases. Weapons of mass destruction already are out there in the hands of dangerous actors. So we must devote sufficient resources to develop defensive capabilities to protect people in the event these weapons are used.United States. Department of StateBerger, Samuel R.1999-09
-
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat: Remarks by the President on IraqPresident Bush outlines Iraqi threat at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio in October 2002. He emphasizes the threat in terms of "terrible weapons" that Iraq has upon America's peace and ties it into the Iraqi regime: "tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat..." The President's speech includes a reminder of what had occurred on September 11. Moreover, President Bush addresses the concerns questioning the urgency and nature of the threat. In doing so, he describes how Iraq itself "stands alone:" "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people...this same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States." He lists the activities and weapons such as ballistic missiles that Iraq possesses and links terrorist activity to Iraq: "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks." Lastly, he mentions that Congress will vote on the Iraqi situation and that he asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military. "To secure peace and to lead the world to a better day are his last remarks."United States. White House Office2002-10-07
-
Foreign Policy Challenges Facing the Bush Administration"At least four broad challenges seem likely to top the foreign policy agenda facing the Bush administration," says Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The first of these, he says, "concerns relations with America's allies, especially the Europeans and Japanese." Also of key importance are relations with Russia, the "unique problems and choices" posed by China, and the Middle East, which "represents perhaps the most dangerous single foreign policy challenge facing the United States." Lieber is editor and contributing author of "Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the 21st Century," to be published Summer 2001 by Prentice-Hall. The United States continues to occupy a unique role in world affairs. In each of the areas of foreign and security policy cited here, as well as in trade, international economic policy, and non-traditional foreign policy arenas such as the environment, climate change, disease, refugees and humanitarian intervention, international cooperation is rarely effective without an active American role. The task for the new Bush administration will thus be to face these multiple challenges in such a way that it provides leadership without becoming overextended, maintains American primacy, engages other countries to act jointly wherever possible, and sustains domestic support for the policies and the level of resources needed to carry them out effectively. This role is not only indispensable internationally, but it reflects the critical national interests of the United States.United States. Department of StateLieber, Robert J., 1941-2001-03
-
President Pleased with U.N. Vote: Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution, the Rose Garden'In his speech in the Rose Garden in November 8, 2002, President Bush addresses the United Nations Security Council's resolution regarding Iraq. The resolution states that Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands by aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and undermining the effectiveness of weapons inspectors with ploys, delays, and threats. The President states: "the resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test -- a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm; welcome full inspections, welcome full inspections, and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade." The President's remarks can be heard via the main link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021108-1.html.United States. White House Office2002-11-08
-
National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual ReportThis report provides information on progress over the past year in implementing the National Drug Control Strategy. It details trends in drug use and availability; assesses the costs of drug abuse to our society; and outlines accomplishments of federal prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction, and international programs. We remain committed to the Strategy that focuses on shrinking America's demand for drugs, through prevention and treatment, and attacking the supply of drugs through law enforcement and international cooperation. Drug use is preventable. If children reach adulthood without using illegal drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, they are unlikely to develop a chemical-dependency problem later in life. To this end, the Strategy seeks to involve parents, coaches, mentors, teachers, clergy, and other role models in a broad prevention campaign. Drug dependence is a chronic, relapsing disorder that exacts an enormous cost on individuals, families, businesses, communities, and nations. Addicted individuals frequently engage in self-destructive and criminal behavior. Treatment can help them end dependence on addictive drugs. Treatment programs also reduce the consequences of addiction on the rest of society. Providing treatment for America's chronic drug users is both compassionate public policy and a sound investment. Along with prevention and treatment, law enforcement is essential for reducing drug use in the United States. Illegal drug trafficking inflicts violence and corruption on our communities. Law enforcement is the first line of defense against such unacceptable activityUnited States. White House Office2000
-
National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary (February 2002)Funding by department for FY 2001 to FY 2003 is displayed in Table 1. Demand reduction efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and ONDCP will fund new and innovative approaches for drug treatment, provide basic research on drug use, and continue prevention efforts aimed at children and adolescents. Resources for supply-reduction programs in the Departments of Justice, Treasury, Transportation, State, and Defense will continue enforcement operations targeting domestic sources of illegal drugs; enhance interdiction efforts along trafficking routes to the United States, support security along the Southwest Border, and aid efforts in Colombia and the Andean region.United States. White House Office2003
-
Drug Availability Estimates in the United StatesDrug availability estimates for 2001 were developed for the four major drugs: cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. This effort responded to a request from the U.S. Attorney General for measurement of the quantity of illicit substances available to drug users in the United States. There is significant uncertainty in these estimates due to the illicit and clandestine nature of the various drugs, and the limited data currently collected to aid in these analyses. Therefore, caution is urged in the application of these estimates. Six interagency working groups (one for each of the drug-types, a consumption working group and a seizure working group) were formed and staffed by members of the following federal agencies: Crime and Narcotics Center, U.S. Customs, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, El Paso Intelligence Center, Joint Interagency Task Force West, National Drug Intelligence Center, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Treasury, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator. This document is the compendium of the reports from each of the six working groups.United States. White House Office2002-12
-
United States-Mexico Bi-National Cooperation Against Illicit Drugs: Main Results and Performance Measures of Effectiveness 1995-2000Bilateral and multilateral cooperation is indispensable to combat drug abuse and trafficking effectively. The U.S. and Mexico are working cooperatively to reduce the demand for illegal drugs through prevention, education and public awareness, treatment, training and research. In addition the two countries are cooperating to stop drug trafficking, money laundering, diversion of essential and precursor chemicals, and firearms trafficking. Since the inception of the High Level Contact Group (HLCG), the U.S. and Mexico have accepted that both countries are drug producers, drug consumers, and drug transit countries. Based on this understanding, Mexico and the United States have proceeded with technical exchanges and cooperative projects in the areas of, control of illicit cultivation, drug treatment, and demand reduction. In the area of law enforcement, we have seen the arrest of some major traffickers and collaborated on important cases. We have improved interdiction. In demand reduction, we cooperated in reducing demand for illegal drugs in both countries through science-based prevention, treatment, communications, research, and linking the public health and public safety systems. Combating both sides of the illegal drug phenomenon, drug supply and demand, has been a concern and a goal in Mexico and in the United States for decades. Consequently, each country has created its own anti-drug policies and programs, incorporating support for international cooperation to combat these illicit activities as one of its main elements. In the mid-90s, this shared concern translated into a broad and comprehensive bilateral cooperation effort framework, not limited to isolated programs of technical cooperation, personnel training or mutual legal assistance. The creation of a broad and balanced binational cooperation plan, that would respond to the complexity of the problem in the United States and in Mexico, was necessary in order for the efforts from both countries to have greater effectiveness.United States. White House Office2001
-
Estimation of Cocaine Availability: 1996-2000The 1998 National Drug Control Strategy specified five goals and thirty-two supporting objectives that will guide the government's anti-drug program over the next decade. The Strategy's five goals amount to reducing the supply of and the demand for illicit drugs by 50 percent by year 2007. The nation's ability to meet these goals depends on its efficacy at reducing drug availability through source country programs, transit zone interdiction, and domestic law enforcement. Having adopted this assessment for monitoring the success of the nation's anti-drug programs, one critical input -- the topic of this paper -- is a reliable estimate of cocaine availability at various points in cocaine's flow from source to the United States. This report updates the Sequential Transition and Reduction (STAR) model through 2000, providing the best current basis for measuring the flow of cocaine from producer nations, through the transit zones, across the nation's borders, and throughout the U.S.United States. White House Office2002-03
-
Immigration Offenders in the Federal Criminal Justice System: 2000In fiscal year 2000, 16,495 persons were referred to U.S. attorneys for a suspected immigration offense as the most serious charge. This represents a record high in a rising trend following passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. In addition to immigration offenses, U.S. attorneys prosecuted an increased number of noncitizens charged with other offenses -- particularly drug trafficking offenses. Between 1985 and 2000 the number of noncitizens prosecuted by U.S. attorneys for drug trafficking offenses increased from 1,799 to 7,803. The 1996 act authorized increases in law enforcement by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Following enactment, the number of INS law enforcement officers increased from 12,403 to 17,654. The Border Patrol received almost two-thirds of the additional officers. About 75% of the increase in referrals to U.S. attorneys for immigration offenses between 1996 and 2000 was observed in the five States that received the greatest number of new INS officers.United States. Department of Justice2002-08
-
Changing Face of TransportationThe Changing Face of Transportation provides a historical perspective for policymaking. It reviews the major policy milestones of the past quarter century and the social and economic context for those milestones. Secretary Slater provides a logical foundation for making future policy choices and challenges the transportation enterprise to aspire toward higher marks of excellence, moving beyond what we think is possible and also thinking globally. Some future policy choices are apparent already and, as with the choices envisioned by former Secretaries of Transportation, undoubtedly many more will emerge as the future unfolds. Today, we can look forward with confidence knowing that our transportation system reflects the remarkable achievements of the Clinton-Gore Administration in striving to meet our nation's transportation needs. Under their leadership, virtually every law governing major transportation programs has been renewed, including the Trucking Industry Deregulation Act of 1994, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21), and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21). These Acts provided record-level infrastructure investments, increased funding flexibility, expanded the proven strategies of public participation in the planning process, and affirmed this Administration's top transportation priority of improving safety and creating opportunities for all Americans. The ramification of this extraordinary era will positively shape transportation in the coming decades. Chapter 7 specifically deals with transportation and national security.United States. Department of Transportation2000
-
National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual ReportPrior to 1999, Congress required the Administration to submit a National Drug Control Strategy each year. The most recent Strategy was submitted in February 1999. Public Law 105-277 now requires the president to submit an Annual Report to Congress on the progress made in implementing the Strategy.* An initial Annual Report was submitted in February 2000. General reporting requirements of the Annual Report include: 1. Assessment of federal success in achieving National Drug Control Strategy goals and objectives (using the Strategy's Performance Measures of Effectiveness system). This analysis includes an assessment of drug abuse and availability in the United States as well as prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction, and international programs. 2. Modifications during the preceding year of the National Drug Control Strategy or national drug control performance measurement system. 3. Explanation of how the Administration's budget proposal is intended to implement the National Drug Control Strategy. 4. Measurable data from the annual performance measures. 5. An assessment of private-sector initiatives and cooperative efforts dealing with drug control among federal, state, and local governments.United States. White House Office2001
-
Transformation of U.S.-Russian RelationsThe path to a dramatically new relationship between the United States and Russia was not laid by chance -- it evolved by design, beginning early in 2001, says Matthew A. Cordova, Deputy Director of the Office of Political-Military and Regional Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. Engagement by President Bush and the U.S. national security team with its Russian counterpart laid the groundwork for Russian President Putin's historic decision to stand with the West in the aftermath of September 2001, he says, and since then, positive trends in the new U.S.- Russia relationship have accelerated. In view of the 21st century challenges ahead, the United States has embarked on the road to a vastly changed and improved relationship with Russia. The new strategic framework we are developing with Russia provides a strong base to continue the transformation of our critical bilateral relations, manage our differences, and create opportunities for both countries, in tandem with our allies and friends.United States. Department of StateCordova, Matthew A.2002-07
-
New U.S.-Russian Strategic Framework: A Preliminary AssessmentThe new strategic arms accord between Russia and the United States, though lacking the teeth of previous agreements, seems likely to provide a framework in which both sides will reduce their deployed offensive forces, save money, comply with their international nonproliferation requirements, and continue to defuse the legacy of their nuclear confrontation. The fact that it was reached despite the nearly simultaneous demise of the ABM Treaty is testament to the wisdom and flexibility of President Putin as well as to the negotiating efforts of the Bush administration. However, the Bush administration's attention to nonproliferation issues has been variable and insufficient to date. After coming into office threatening to cut, rather than expand the Nunn- Lugar and related programs, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was finally convinced to sustain ongoing activities. Admittedly, they are not always completely effective, and the programs involve some waste, but the stakes are too high and the issue too urgent to expect or await a more perfect program. Sustaining the programs at their previous levels does not suffice, however. Now the danger is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin will wish to claim the nuclear problem largely solved, pointing to their new framework on traditional offensive and defensive issues, just as Presidents Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev or George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev expected the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and START efforts to solidify their places in the history books. However, that type of old-fashioned negotiation success will not suffice. If anything, it was the easy and the less important part of the equation. The Bush administration, in particular, needs to view the accomplishments of the May 2002 Moscow summit as no more than the first page in the new U.S.-Russian nuclear framework, and get back to work soon.United States. Department of StateO'Hanlon, Michael E.2002-07
-
Transforming the U.S.-Russian Relationship: Putting Power Politics in its PlaceThere are a number of specific ways Russia and the United States, both separately and together, have contributed to the creation of the new strategic framework. At the outset, however, it is critical to recognize the two overarching contributions of these two governments. The Russian government's general contribution to the strategic framework is its recognition that it need not calculate its self-worth on the basis of whether it has more power than the United States. Rather, it now appears willing to judge its success primarily by its ability to improve the quality of the lives of its people. As the joint declaration states, "We [the United States and Russia] recognize that the security, prosperity, and future hopes of our peoples rest on a benign security environment, the advancement of political and economic freedoms, and international cooperation." Unlike the Soviet Union, the Russian government seems to have its priorities right. The overarching U.S. contribution to the strategic framework is similar to those that it has made in other contexts: an attitude of magnanimity toward previous adversaries. The United States is not fearful of a powerful Russia; rather, it seeks to avoid a threatening Russia. The newly transformed U.S.-Russian relationship will not only allow both sides to reduce sharply the number of deployed strategic offensive nuclear weapons; it also will allow Russians "opportunities that they could not have dreamed of as citizens of the Soviet Union," says Baker Spring, the F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation. The Russian people should not be, to quote Masha Lipman, "passive and reluctant" supporters of a cooperative policy toward the United States. They should be rejoicing. They will be the recipients of the tangible benefits of a relationship between the United States and Russia that is no longer guided by desperate attempts to achieve a position of dominance. With it, the Russian people will no longer be asked by their government to make sacrifices in the name of a political contest with the United States. They should therefore recognize the opportunity that is being presented to them by the new U.S.-Russian relationship.United States. Department of StateSpring, Baker2002-07
-
U.S.-Russian Front against Terrorism and Weapons ProliferationThe Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has demonstrated that "extraordinary international relationships are possible to improve controls over weapons of mass destruction," says U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (Republican-Indiana). He says programs similar to this U.S.-Russian effort are needed to address proliferation threats around the world. The Nunn-Lugar model can help build the foundation for an effective coalition that combats terrorism and secures weapons and materials of mass destruction around the world. Russia and the United States are the key players in establishing such a coalition. This cooperation can be grounded successfully in mutual self-interest. By proposing that the next phase of the war on terrorism focus on weapons of mass destruction, and by forming a coalition to combat it, Presidents Bush and Putin would be addressing arguably the most important problem in international security today. Such a coalition could provide both presidents with focus for the qualitatively new post-Cold War relationship they have propounded, but to which they have yet to give major content. It would be a fitting replacement for the old-style bilateral arms control regimes whose era is drawing to an end. The United States and Russia can forge the most far-reaching and effective alliance for peace the world has ever witnessed. The last 10 years have shown that nothing is impossible. The next 10 years must show how Russia and the United States subdued terrorism and led our countries and all who joined with us to security and an enriched quality of life.United States. Department of StateLugar, Richard2002-07
-
Ballistic Missile DefenseThe United States plans to work closely with its allies, as well as allied militaries and industries to develop an integrated, global system "to detect, track, intercept, and destroy threat ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight," says David Martin, Deputy for Strategic Relations at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The fundamental goal of the planned system, he says, "is to defend the forces and territories of the United States, its allies, and friends as soon as practicable." The integrated global BMD System will incorporate incremental capabilities to detect, track, intercept, and destroy threat ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight using kinetic- and directed-energy kill capabilities and various deployment approaches. MDA plans to develop and field these capabilities working closely with allies, their industries, and their militaries. Accordingly, MDA has implemented a flexible international acquisition strategy to provide a timely, capable system that paces the evolving threat. Thus the approach protects against uncertainty and ensures that the United States will have some ability to defend itself, its deployed forces, allies, and friends from a ballistic missile attack should the need arise.United States. Department of StateMartin, David2002-07
-
Transportation Indicators Report - December 2002This report is intended to provide timely, easily accessible information for the transportation community. It was developed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and is updated each month on the BTS website (www.bts.gov). Each indicator is placed under a heading corresponding to one of the five strategic goals of DOT -- safety, security, mobility, economic growth, and environment. Some indicators are related to more than one strategic goal. The indicators fall under two broad categories: those that provide context about the economy and society in which transportation functions, and those that convey information about an aspect of transportation. To the extent possible, these latter indicators are transportation-wide in scope; however, some apply to only part of the transportation system. Reference tables at the beginning of the document provide key statistics about U.S. social and economic characteristics, and about the extent of the transportation system.United States. Department of Transportation2002-12
-
Strategic View of Where the Army is: Homeland Defense and Issues of Civil-Military RelationsThere is a proper understanding within the U.S. Army that the military must minimize its involvement in domestic affairs. Yet, the armed forces have been called on more and more to provide direct aid and support in domestic crises that range from Hurricane Andrew to the terrorist bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Quick, efficient, and effective responses in these and other cases have generated calls for the armed forces to take the lead in confronting the complex issues of contemporary homeland defense because the military knows how to plan for and conduct crises operations, and the federal armed forces are not hamstrung by "artificial" legal constraints, boundaries, or jurisdictions. Because of contradictions among the missions that the Army is now expected to perform and because of the mismatch of resources provided to perform those diverse missions, the Army is in a quandary. The bottom line is that the Army is torn between "fighting the big wars" and preparing for and executing "operations other than war." The hesitancy of the U.S. Army to accept wholeheartedly the missions it is currently being given is thus cause for concern regarding its professionalism. Professionalism, in general, is in decline within western democracies. Professionalism is a result of at least two factors. First, it depends on the effectiveness with which the institution performs its functions. And, second, it depends on the relationship of the profession to society it serves. Therefore the Army must do everything possible to do its job right and well. It is necessary to define clearly and consistently the Army's institutional purpose and the jurisdiction of its professional work. This chapter will proceed to place these problems into the strategic context of military professionalism -- a topic little studied in the military now and even less understood outside the profession. We will analyze two issues within the profession now impeding healthy institutional adaptation to the new era -- the officer corps' intellectual muddle over the purpose of the Army, and their ethical muddle over the role of self-sacrifice in the profession's ethos. We believe these two unresolved contradictions have contributed in very significant ways to the Army's inability thus far to deal effectively with vexing issues such as domestic defense at home and force protection abroad.Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies InstituteSnider, Don M., 1940-; Nagl, John A., 1966-; Pfaff, Tony2000-10
-
In Support of the Civil AuthoritiesMilitary assistance to civilian authorities is not a new concept. From before the birth of this nation, the military, whether militia or regular or both, has habitually supported local, state, and federal civilian authorities in times of manmade or natural disaster, civil unrest, or other situations. This support was very often questionable in legality and usefulness. Over time, though, numerous laws and directives have transformed this supporting relationship into an institutionalized interdepartmental and interagency coordination and planning process. The changing nature of threats, however, has expanded the scope of the military's responsibilities in support of civilian authorities. This old mission now involves an ever-widening array of diverse military and Department of Defense (DoD) organizations and agencies equipped with new terminology and new, evolving concepts. The United States faces myriad threats today besides those caused by natural phenomenon. Groups opposed to the thrust of the U.S. post-Cold war policies have multiplied in recent years. The openness of the U.S. society provides an opportunity for our enemies to operate with more freedom than they would have in more restrictive venues. Also exacerbating the threats is the global proliferation of cheap Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Threats can be defined broadly as international or domestic in nature. International threats fall into one of three separate categories: international terrorism, transnational threats, and conventional attacks. Domestic terrorism stems from domestic groups who are based and operate entirely within the United States, its territories, or possessions, and whose activities are directed at elements of the federal, local, or state governments or the U.S. civilian population.Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies InstituteHaus, Donald A.2000-10
-
Evolving Roles and Missions for the Reserve Components in Responding to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass DestructionThe U.S. received a wake-up call with the Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, and Khobar Towers bombing incidents. These seminal events spurred Congress and federal, state, and local government agencies to actively assess the nation's readiness to respond to an incident involving a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The federal government has made WMD consequence management (CM) preparedness one of five major program thrusts associated with countering domestic threats, and the President's budget contains $1.5 billion towards defense against WMD in FY01. Almost 42% ($630M) is dedicated to preparing for and responding to a WMD incident. Within the $630M, $75M is targeted to Reserve Component (RC) integration into this vital area. Early on, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established that Reserve components needed to be fully integrated into the Department's WMD response capabilities. The "Tiger Team Report," Defense Reform Initiative #25, and two Defense Planning Guidance documents have identified roles and missions and funding responsibilities for the RC. Also in January 1998, Defense Reform Initiative #25 requested a DoD plan for integrating the Guard and Reserve into domestic WMD terrorism response. The approved plan leverages unique Guard and Reserve capabilities to improve DoD's ability to plan for and respond to the significant and growing threat posed to the U.S. by WMD. Concurrently, it created a new type of unit (WMD Civil Support Team [CST]) to help fill the existing gaps in civilian response capabilities. The Guard and Reserve share many of the same capabilities, which include aviation operations, search and rescue, engineer operations, transportation, maintenance, law enforcement, fire-fighting, mortuary affairs, explosive ordnance, bridging operations, communications, command and control, medical assets, and chemical capabilities. The WMD CSTs (formally known as Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection [RAID] Teams) were designed to be state assets, operating within federal doctrine, but under the command and control of the state governor and therefore, they are able to respond to a local/state disaster or emergency well before federal response assets could be brought to bear.Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies InstituteEmbrey, Ellen2000-10
-
Maritime Strategy for Homeland SecurityThe U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Homeland Security Strategy links the objectives of the National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Homeland Security to the U.S. Maritime Domain and serves as a capstone document for Coast Guard homeland security operations. The strategy articulated in this document describes how Coast Guard forces will achieve the national objectives for homeland security. The United States National Security Strategy has shifted focus from traditional concepts of deterrence which dominated defense policies during the Cold War to a forward-reaching, pre-emptive strategy against hostile states and terrorist groups. The purpose of the National Strategy for Homeland Security is to mobilize and organize our Nation to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attacks. It provides direction and a framework for action to the federal government departments and agencies that have a role in homeland security. This Maritime Strategy follows the direction of both higher level strategies while acknowledging the uniqueness of the U.S. Maritime Domain, including the complexity associated with shared use of the oceans and waterways, long-standing international respect for freedom of navigation, and the transitional seams among America's air, land, sea, and subsurface borders.United States. Coast Guard2002-12
-
Distinctly American Internationalism for a Globalized WorldThe long-awaited National Security Strategy provides a sophisticated portrayal of the emerging U.S. role in world affairs for the early 21st century. Contrary to the expectations of critics, it is neither hegemonic and unilateralist, nor ultra-militarist and focused on pre-empting enemies. Instead, its assessment of U.S. interests and values results in a "distinctly American internationalism" aimed at creating a balance of power that favors human freedom and makes the globalized world a safer and better place. Intent on judging how to apply U.S. strengths, this strategy pays weighty attention to handling today's dangerous security problems and countering the threats posed by terrorists and tyrants. But it also aspires to promote global economic progress, democracy, and human freedom in troubled regions. One of its key goals is to double the economies of poor countries within a decade. The strategy shows that the United States is a superpower willing to pursue new policies that cut against the grain of established practices when necessary. But it also makes clear that the United States will be a responsible leader of the democratic community and a full participant in alliances and multilateral institutions, including the United Nations. Even if allies and partners provide help, many of the world's problems will be hard to fully solve anytime soon. Quelling specific threats may be feasible but difficult. Creating peaceful security affairs in multiple regions could be nebulous and complex. While European-Russian relations are hopeful, the triple agenda of preserving tranquil relations with China in fluid Asia, dampening the Indo-Pakistan rivalry, and stabilizing the Middle East/Persian Gulf will be a tall order. Likewise, promoting economic prosperity and democracy everywhere promises to be frustrating and time-consuming. The new U.S. strategy thus has its work cut out, it likely will have to set priorities and acknowledge limits, and it may experience setbacks. But even if it is only partly successful in ways that bring safety to the United States and its allies coupled with measured progress in turbulent regions, it will have served its purposes and made a worthy contribution.United States. Department of StateKugler, Richard L.2002-12
-
New Era in U.S. Strategic ThinkingSeptember 11 marked the start of a new era in American strategic thinking. The terror attacks of that morning have had an impact comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, that propelled the United States into World War II. Before September 11, the Bush administration had been in the process of developing a new national security strategy. This was taking place through the Quadrennial Defense Review as well as in other venues. In an instant, however, the September 11 attacks transformed the international security environment. An entirely new and ominous threat suddenly became a reality and dictated a new grand strategy for the United States. This new policy, dubbed the "Bush Doctrine," focuses on the threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. International reactions to the Bush Doctrine have been more complex, and differences with allies and other countries have emerged concerning Iraq, the Middle East, and the extent to which the United States should be more "multilateral" in its approach to a wide range of international problems. Much of this dissent remains rhetorical, however, and extensive cooperation in military and intelligence efforts continues to take place. Some of the foreign reactions are an inevitable consequence of American primacy. Yet the muted reaction and tendency for it to remain largely symbolic reflect the lack of effective means of international enforcement through existing regional and world institutions. Ultimately, the Bush Doctrine represents a strategy to defend the United States against potential attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Further, it embodies a unique American world role in helping to protect others against such devastation.United States. Department of StateLieber, Robert J., 1941-2002-09