A curious exchange took place in U.S. Senate hearings on Thursday. The senator from Michigan, Carl M. Levin, expressed surprise at an answer given by the Director of National Intelligence. In answering another senator's question, Director James R. Clapper, Jr., named Russia as the greatest threat to the United States. "I was frankly kind of surprised by your answer," Senator Levin said to Clapper. "[Another senator] asked a very direct question ... and your first answer was Russia; and then you kind of clarified it in terms of saying, well, that's in terms of capability, but they don't have any intent to use that capability; but I still was kind of surprised by your answer. Then the next one was China which also would have the capability, I guess. You didn't mention Iran or North Korea. Those would have been the first two countries that I would have thought of in response to that question. I was really kind of taken aback, almost. I thought it was a very clear question."
It was a clear question, and Clapper answered truthfully. But where Russia is concerned, there is a higher truth; namely, that Moscow built its nuclear arsenal to target Antarctica (or some equivalent). Such a large nuclear arsenal -- the largest on earth -- could not have been built with the United States in mind. What could Clapper be thinking? The national security director responded to Levin by saying, "As I interpret the question, it is which country or countries represent a mortal threat to the United States."
Levin then asked, "[You mean which countries] could have the potential of being a mortal threat?"
Clapper responded, "Iran and North Korea are of great concern." He then added. "I don't know if at this point in time they pose a direct mortal threat to the continental United States." With the exception of North Korea's meager long-range strike capability (i.e., two ICBM equivalents), the destruction of a U.S. city or two is possible. But the United States would not cease to exist if Iran or North Korea attacked. On the other hand, Russia and/or China can hit the United States with enough nuclear firepower to collapse the country's economy and government. (Please note: Some experts may argue that North Korea has a super electromagnetic pulse [EMP] bomb, which could effectively wipe out the U.S. electronic infrastructure, bringing social chaos and mass starvation. A few years ago a Russian general reported to the U.S. government that Russian scientists were helping North Korea to develop a super EMP bomb.)
Americans do not like to discuss the possibility of nuclear war. Even under oath, a high-ranking intelligence official of the United States is not allowed to suggest that Russia is a threat to the United States. Under the present administration, intelligence officials are likely to be punished for accurately describing the threat from Russia. Senator Levin knows this, and during Thursday's hearings he seemed mildly amused at what he must have thought was the self-implosion of Director Clapper.
At the same time, it was perfectly acceptable for Clapper to say (a short while ago) that the Muslim Brotherhood is a non-violent organization; though this claim is entirely false. Such claims suit the administration and its strategy of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. In such matters it is an intelligence official's job to tell American politicians what they want to hear, to downgrade threats or to describe enemies as friends. But you cannot, under any circumstances, characterize Russia as a threat. Senator Levin therefore asked Clapper, with slight smile, "Does Russia or China, at this time, represent a direct mortal threat to the United States?"
Clapper answered, "Well they have the capability because of their strategic nuclear weapons. The intent is low, but they certainly have the capability." (Setting aside fatuous assumption of low intent, the director's statement is actually true and may be verified by anyone who reads Pavel Podvig's reference book, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.)
An expert rhetorician, Senator Levin went directly to the heart of Clapper's statement on Russian and Chinese capabilities: "By that measure we represent a direct mortal threat to both of them, right?" Clapper's hand came up to his mouth. He then acknowledged the senator's point. Leven continued thus: "You wouldn't mind a headline out there saying that the United States represents a direct mortal threat to Russia or China?"
Clapper reiterated his point, agreeing that the United States also represents a grave mortal threat to Russia and China. Thus Senator Levin, with the cooperation of Director Clapper, placed the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. The senator was saying, in essence, that America could be labeled a threat if we used Clapper's logic. And Clapper fully agreed. But then, Senator Joe Manchin attempted to throw a life-jacket to the floundering intelligence director by asking "which country has the intent to be our greatest adversary?"
Clapper answered, "Probably China." In the confusion that followed, Clapper further clarified: "We have a new START Treaty with the Russians so, I guess, I would rank them a little lower because of that, because we don't have such a treaty with the Chinese."
Senator Levin, taken aback yet again, said: "I'm just as surprised by that answer as I was by your first answer." And so, apparently, was the White House. President Obama's national security advisor, Thomas E. Donilon, was dismissive of Clapper's testimony, which also included the assessment that Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi will likely remain in power. Incensed by Clapper's statements, Senator Lindsey Graham has called for President Obama to fire the national security director because his statement "undercut our national efforts to bring about the desired result" in Libya. In other words, an honest assessment of the situation in Libya is not permitted.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden had given a speech at Moscow State University upbraiding the Russians for corrupt legal practices and for failing to uphold the rule of law. "Some of you may say, well, how can you say those things out loud, Mr. Vice President, and expect to have a better relationship? They're necessary to have a good relationship," said Biden to the Russians. Then, in a subversive aside, he told the Moscow State University students not to "compromise on the basic elements of democracy." Biden also met with Russian opposition leaders who explained how the Kremlin unfairly uses the media and the electoral system to maintain control.
If only Senator Levin had been in Moscow with Biden. Would he have used his rhetorical method of "putting the shoe on the other foot" to ask Biden how Americans would feel if a Russian official came to meet with President Obama's political opponents? What if Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin met with Sarah Palin or Ron Paul? Does anyone believe the opposition would be well-served with such a meeting? Perhaps Senator Levin could explain why it is proper for Biden to meet with Russian opposition leaders while it would be improper for Sechin to meet with Palin?
Perhaps Levin would be willing to admit that the leaders in Russia are not like the leaders in the United States, that there is no moral or political equivalence between the Russian political system and the American political system, between Russian missiles and American missiles; between Russian intentions and American intentions.
