Posted on Fri, Mar. 16, 2007
TERRORISM
Cuba -- How scared should we be?
BY PHILIP PETERS
peters@lexingtoninstitute.org
According to a defector, Cuba has a secret, underground laboratory
southeast of Havana called ''Labor Uno,'' where biological agents --
''viruses and bacteria and dangerous sicknesses'' -- are being developed
for military use.
The administration calls Cuba a ''state sponsor of terrorism,'' so if
the defector's story is true, Cuba would represent what President Bush
terms one of the worst national security threats of the 21st century:
the world's most dangerous weapons in the hands of the world's most
dangerous people.
How scared should we be?
Not scared at all, if we judge by the administration's policies and
public statements, none of which betray concern, much less certainty,
about any threat emanating from Cuba.
The defector, Roberto Ortega, was Cuba's top military doctor. He visited
Labor Uno in 1992 while he was escorting a visiting Russian delegation.
Ortega may be entirely truthful, but the Iraq experience teaches that
fragments of interesting information do not amount to ''slam-dunk''
intelligence.
Indeed, the Iraq intelligence failure led U.S. agencies to reassess
their views on weapons programs worldwide. The result came in August
2005 when, with Ortega's account in hand, these agencies downgraded
their Cuba assessment, concluding unanimously that it was ``unclear
whether Cuba has an active offensive biological-warfare effort now, or
even had one in the past.''
But the administration gives us more reasons to sleep easy.
• Cuba missed the ``axis of evil.'' With the exception of now-departed
John Bolton, senior officials responsible for security matters have been
silent about Cuba. In October 2005, Bolton's successor as the State
Department's top security official, Robert Joseph, did not mention Cuba
in a global survey of weapons of mass destruction issues. Cabinet-level
officials routinely chide Cuba's human rights abuses but mention no
security concerns.
• Ana Montes unchallenged. After Cuban spy Ana Montes was discovered to
be working as the administration's top Cuba defense-intelligence analyst
in 2001, Bolton and other officials charged that she had skewed U.S.
intelligence, including a famous 1998 report that called Cuba's military
capabilities ''residual'' and ''defensive'' and its threat
''negligible.'' But in six years, the administration has issued no
report offering a less benign assessment, even though it would serve its
political interests to do so. Montes' betrayal, we can deduce, involved
leaking the identities of agents and other U.S. secrets to Cuba rather
than distorting U.S. intelligence.
• Migration exception. If the administration had the slightest concern
about terrorism coming from Cuba, it would not have a unique, open-door
policy toward undocumented Cuban migrants, where we welcome those who
reach our shores or Mexican border crossings and release them into the
community within hours. This may make humanitarian sense, but it is
truly a pre-9/11 policy in a post-9/11 world. It tells Cuba, if indeed
it is a terrorist state, to infiltrate operatives not through
cloak-and-dagger ruses but mixed in with everyday migrants.
• No negotiations. In return for a promise to cap its nuclear program,
North Korea will receive fuel oil and direct talks with Washington that
could lead to normalized relations. Similarly, Iran has been offered
rewards for ending its nuclear ambitions. In the Cuban case, the
administration seeks no talks and does not pursue Ortega's
recommendation that international inspectors go to Cuba. Apparently, the
administration sees nothing to talk about.
What we are left with is that the only visible U.S. action in response
to a Cuba-related security issue is a maritime exercise to prepare for a
possible migration crisis in the Florida Straits.
Floridians can therefore go back to worrying about hurricanes, tornadoes
and inadequate insurance coverage -- until, that is, Raúl Castro figures
out that a new weapons program might be the ticket to achieve normal
relations with the United States.
Philip Peters is vice president of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/43180.html
TERRORISM
Cuba -- How scared should we be?
BY PHILIP PETERS
peters@lexingtoninstitute.org
According to a defector, Cuba has a secret, underground laboratory
southeast of Havana called ''Labor Uno,'' where biological agents --
''viruses and bacteria and dangerous sicknesses'' -- are being developed
for military use.
The administration calls Cuba a ''state sponsor of terrorism,'' so if
the defector's story is true, Cuba would represent what President Bush
terms one of the worst national security threats of the 21st century:
the world's most dangerous weapons in the hands of the world's most
dangerous people.
How scared should we be?
Not scared at all, if we judge by the administration's policies and
public statements, none of which betray concern, much less certainty,
about any threat emanating from Cuba.
The defector, Roberto Ortega, was Cuba's top military doctor. He visited
Labor Uno in 1992 while he was escorting a visiting Russian delegation.
Ortega may be entirely truthful, but the Iraq experience teaches that
fragments of interesting information do not amount to ''slam-dunk''
intelligence.
Indeed, the Iraq intelligence failure led U.S. agencies to reassess
their views on weapons programs worldwide. The result came in August
2005 when, with Ortega's account in hand, these agencies downgraded
their Cuba assessment, concluding unanimously that it was ``unclear
whether Cuba has an active offensive biological-warfare effort now, or
even had one in the past.''
But the administration gives us more reasons to sleep easy.
• Cuba missed the ``axis of evil.'' With the exception of now-departed
John Bolton, senior officials responsible for security matters have been
silent about Cuba. In October 2005, Bolton's successor as the State
Department's top security official, Robert Joseph, did not mention Cuba
in a global survey of weapons of mass destruction issues. Cabinet-level
officials routinely chide Cuba's human rights abuses but mention no
security concerns.
• Ana Montes unchallenged. After Cuban spy Ana Montes was discovered to
be working as the administration's top Cuba defense-intelligence analyst
in 2001, Bolton and other officials charged that she had skewed U.S.
intelligence, including a famous 1998 report that called Cuba's military
capabilities ''residual'' and ''defensive'' and its threat
''negligible.'' But in six years, the administration has issued no
report offering a less benign assessment, even though it would serve its
political interests to do so. Montes' betrayal, we can deduce, involved
leaking the identities of agents and other U.S. secrets to Cuba rather
than distorting U.S. intelligence.
• Migration exception. If the administration had the slightest concern
about terrorism coming from Cuba, it would not have a unique, open-door
policy toward undocumented Cuban migrants, where we welcome those who
reach our shores or Mexican border crossings and release them into the
community within hours. This may make humanitarian sense, but it is
truly a pre-9/11 policy in a post-9/11 world. It tells Cuba, if indeed
it is a terrorist state, to infiltrate operatives not through
cloak-and-dagger ruses but mixed in with everyday migrants.
• No negotiations. In return for a promise to cap its nuclear program,
North Korea will receive fuel oil and direct talks with Washington that
could lead to normalized relations. Similarly, Iran has been offered
rewards for ending its nuclear ambitions. In the Cuban case, the
administration seeks no talks and does not pursue Ortega's
recommendation that international inspectors go to Cuba. Apparently, the
administration sees nothing to talk about.
What we are left with is that the only visible U.S. action in response
to a Cuba-related security issue is a maritime exercise to prepare for a
possible migration crisis in the Florida Straits.
Floridians can therefore go back to worrying about hurricanes, tornadoes
and inadequate insurance coverage -- until, that is, Raúl Castro figures
out that a new weapons program might be the ticket to achieve normal
relations with the United States.
Philip Peters is vice president of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/43180.html
No comments:
Post a Comment