On freeing A.Q. Khan and channeling our inner Cheney

Posted By David Rothkopf Monday, February 9, 2009 - 6:03 PM Share

Reading about the Pakistani government's decision to free notorious nuclear weapons technology proliferator A.Q. Khan, it was hard not to wonder if we had any enemies in the world more dangerous than some of our "friends." That Khan's misdeeds have not yet resulted in the use of a nuclear device by a terrorist group or a rogue state is fortunate but almost irrelevant in that someday they almost surely will contribute to just such a tragedy. The likes of Khan should not be walking the streets.

Last week, Dick Cheney worried aloud in an interview that the United States would in the not-too-distant future be attacked by terrorists armed with WMDs. He characterized such a threat as "high probability" and said "That's the one that would involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, and the one you have to spend a hell of a lot of time guarding against." He went on to say: "Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11, to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States."

While there is certainly a strong element of legacy-defending in such statements and more than a hint of that dark Cheney worldview that fed into so much Bush era malfeasance, to paraphrase my pal Tom Friedman, just because Cheney says it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Sitting opposite a senior national security type who is close to President Obama the other day, I asked what he thought about the comments. His response was fairly dismissive. "Yes, well, it's a high probability event if you mean sometime in the indefinite future."

While this was a serious, thoughtful guy, I certainly hope he was not providing a glimpse into the current administration's worldview. The stakes are too high for complacency on any level including the fact that if the president gets everything else right and this wrong, he will be judged a failure -- especially given the warning delivered on September 11, 2001.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:BUSH'S LEGACY, PAKISTAN

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GALEWIN

12:40 AM ET

February 10, 2009

Sullenberger

Sir: Interersting post, but I am afraid you fall into the problem that too many ceos do.
The pilot of an airplane is a dictator. He does not have to persuade the flight attendants or passengers to agree. He can take advice from his copilot and air traffic control. But that is, at best, advice. I can hear the questions:
Have you ever landed in water before?
Has anyone?
I can't swim!
The water's very cold!
Will this plane float?
Are rescuers coming?
What about my baby?
Can I take my carry-on with me?
For better or for worse
(clearly better since the Republic has lasted some 275 years), the President has to persuade Congress and the public of the wisdom of his action.
CEO's and pilots act on their own - undemocratically. Presidents, we expect, must take a different tack.
I am certain you do not want a dictatorship in the US. I am certain that we must have the input of the equivalent of the passengers and flight crew and air traffic control in decisions - mundane or life threatening - and get their consent for decisions.
Alas, we'll just have to put up with the messy system that exists.

BRETT

8:50 AM ET

February 10, 2009

The "nuclear suitcase"

The "nuclear suitcase" scenario is certainly improbable - those are possible to make, but they take some very sophisticated nuclear technology that most of the states inclined to use suitcase nukes won't have. Moreover, no terrorists have seemed inclined to make dirty bombs with the radioactive isotopes that are fairly common at hospitals.

I'm more worried about some pissant state getting nukes plus the means of delivering them (like Iran's missiles), and then doing what Iran will probably do when it has them - stall for time while the West plies it with aid and goodies to give up its programs (sort of like how the US and South Korea have done with the Norks, with no success), and take advantage of strategic near-invulnerability to conventional assault to do a lot of de-stabilizing and shenanigans throughout their home region.

BOREDWELL

3:15 AM ET

February 12, 2009

Blamey Cheney

It would be ludicrous to say, not just for America but, in deed, for many other governments, too, the threat of terrorism is imminent. Vigilance, the CIA, even rerouting constitutional guarantees may not prevent such a liklihood. Preparation, rather than prevention, is, arguably, aside from terrorist twitter and clairvoyance, the most any country can to do to ameliorate a catastrophe. I don't mean this as a shoulder shrugging que sera sera comment but as a pragmatic, realistic one. If cloak and dagger Cheney makes more of these characteric predictions is it because he has the crystal ball? He is, more than likely, doing his best to whittle away at Obama current popularity. It is like fear-mongering Cheney to gleefully be in charge of bursting bubbles. Like natural disasters, terrorism, its threat and our vulnerablity to attack is, and always will, remain imminent, in the future, just around the corner. Do we really need the former VP to remind us life is uncertain everyday we are on earth? I believe he would be doing all of us a favor if he would retire into the sunset to wait, hopefully forever, for the day when he can say "I told ya so!"