A new report to Congress demonstrates China is stealing its way to super power status by robbing America of jobs, economic information, manufacturing technology, and military secrets.  Our response to this crisis is analogous to taking a knife to a gunfight.

“Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage,” according to the report by the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX).  Cyber spying represents a significant and growing threat to America’s prosperity.  China, the worst offender, steals American technology as a matter of national policy, and is expected to remain the leading thief unless something dramatic is done.

The annual costs for America of cyber espionage could be $400 billion or more a year, according to ONCIX, which based the report on assessments of 14 American intelligence agencies.  That loss may explain some of China’s economic growth, its trade dominance, and our losses.

Since 2001, America has lost 2.8 million jobs to China, which accounts for 2.2% of our unemployment, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute.  Those losses may be in part due to Chinese cyber espionage, which robs America of its intellectual property, our research and development information, which costs 2.8% of our gross domestic product, and corporate economic data.  That inevitably contributes to our annual trade deficit with Beijing, which was $273 billion in 2010.

China’s cyber espionage is also a danger to our national security.  The  Pentagon’s 2011 report on China’s military alleges Beijing conducts cyber “intrusions” focused on “exfiltrating information” from defense websites.  It “relies on foreign technology … to advance military modernization,” which if Beijing can’t buy, it steals.  Chinese espionage explains the loss to China of American encryption, cruise missile and stealth technologies.

There is also the matter of China’s cyber warfare capabilities, which use some of the same tools, tactics and techniques employed in economic espionage.  The Pentagon report confirms China plans to use cyber attacks to “constrain an adversary’s actions or slow response time by targeting network-based logistics, communications, and commercial activities.”

Recently Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “We could face a cyber attack that could be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor,” according to the Associated Press.  It could “take down our power-grid system, take down our financial systems.  … They could virtually paralyze this country,” warned Panetta.

Cyberspace is the perfect environment for Chinese espionage paralyzing America’s critical infrastructure.  There is little risk of detection because China hides behind proxy computers and routers in third countries.  Cyberspace also makes possible the near instantaneous transfer of enormous quantities of information that accelerates its economic development, and the costs are often devastating to the victim.

ONCIX outlined the costs of cyber espionage.  The costs include the illicit transfer of military technology that could endanger American lives, by putting advanced weapons in the hands of an enemy.  It can also undercut our ability to economically compete with China.  “The theft of trade secrets undermines a corporation’s ability to create jobs,” ONCIX states.  Those secrets are especially significant because they generate revenue, foster innovation, and lay the economic foundation for prosperity.

It is not surprising Chinese officials dispute ONCIX’s report.  Chinese embassy spokesman Wang Baodang claims China opposes “any form of unlawful cyberspace activities,” according to the Washington Post.  Of course, that view depends on your definition of “lawful.”

“Chinese leaders consider the first two decades of the 21st century to be a window of strategic opportunity for their country,” according to ONCIX.  Beijing intends to use this time to exploit all means to promote economic growth and scientific advancement, which may explain the surge of computer network intrusions originating from Internet protocol (IP) addresses in China.

Beijing created Project 863, according to ONCIX, to fund and guide Chinese efforts to surge cyberspace intrusions in order to acquire U.S. technology and economic information.  The project is a vacuum cleaner for “key technologies for the construction of China’s information infrastructure.”  It also focuses collection efforts on marine systems to jump-start development of China’s blue-water navy and feeds Chinese industry with clean technologies, advanced materials and manufacturing techniques, particularly in aviation and high-speed rail sectors.

ONCIX chronicled some of Project 863’s activities to illustrate the scope of the problem.  For example, the report cites a February 2011 intrusion labeled “Night Dragon,” with an IP address located in China that tried to exfiltrate data on global oil, energy and petrochemical companies.  Verisign iDefense identified the Chinese government as intruding on Google’s networks in January 2010 to download its source code, and in the same year there were Chinese breaches seeking information from Fortune 500 companies known to be negotiating with Chinese firms.

The ONCIX report warns the cyber threat will get worse just as nearly all business records, research results, and other sensitive economic and defense data are digitized and accessible on networks worldwide.  That is why America must prepare to cope with four shifts in the cyber environment that make us more vulnerable, states ONCIX.

First, we face a technological shift as the number of devices connected to the Internet increases from 12.5 billion in 2010 to 25 billion in 2015.  This will cause a proliferation in the number of operating systems and end points that cyber thieves can exploit for sensitive information.

Second, an economic shift will influence how cyber users share storage, computing, network, and application resources.  This is called a “cloud computing” paradigm, which is cheaper than existing systems and allows employees more remote access, but increases the opportunities for thieves.

Third, a cultural shift involves the rise in the U.S. workforce with different expectations regarding access to cyber information from any location.  This shift provides great flexibility and perhaps more productivity, but also increases the risk of theft.

Finally, a geopolitical shift means the globalization of economic activities and knowledge creation.  The globalization of economic activity will offer more opportunities for malicious activity.

The rapidly shifting cyber landscape will translate into significant new American vulnerabilities, especially if it continues to rely on current strategies.  ONCIX outlined America’s defensive strategies: improved collaboration, improved analysis and collection, operations (detect, deter, and disrupt collection activity), training and awareness, and outreach to the private sector.

These strategies are all important, but the cyber war will not be won using defense alone.  We must go on the offense with China and other proven cyber thieves such as Russia.

If China refuses to change its espionage attacks, our offensive actions must include trade sanctions, embargoes, and even campaigning to remove China from the World Trade Organization, whose membership we endorsed in 2001.  Beijing’s cyber misbehavior, like its currency manipulation, is more reminiscent of a criminal syndicate than a fair trade partner.

We must also give the Pentagon’s Cyber Command the authority, means and approval to take offensive action against cyber attacks, state-sponsored or otherwise.  American jobs, our economic competitiveness, our secrets, and perhaps our very existence are at stake.

Recent events demonstrate that the so-called Arab Spring uprisings have toppled three North African tyrants that may be replaced by Islamist regimes.  President Barack Obama deserves some credit if that happens, and the consequences could be devastating.

This spring, Obama said, “The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.”  At the time, Obama was reacting to criticism that his Arab Spring policy was incoherent and inconsistent.  He ignored the revolution that ousted Tunisia’s president, pushed for the removal of Egypt’s leader, and launched a war against Libya’s dictator.

Those dictators are now gone, and in their places are countries on the verge of becoming Islamist states, which bodes poorly for the region and America’s interests.

Last week, a Tunisian Islamist party received a plurality (41%) of the votes for a national constitutional assembly, a one-year body charged with writing a constitution and appointing an interim president.

Nahda (renaissance), the first Islamist party to achieve such a victory, is led by Sheik Rached Ghannouchi​, a man who just returned from a 22-year exile in the United Kingdom.  Ghannouchi claims his party is a “broad umbrella party” of Islamists and “an antidote to the Western notion of a clash of civilizations.”

Tunisia’s election impressed Obama so much that last week he hosted that country’s acting prime minister at the White House.  Obama used the occasion to praise Tunisia’s election as an “inspiration” and state he was “deeply encouraged by the progress.”  But perhaps Obama wouldn’t be so sanguine if he knew Ghannouchi’s history.

Martin Kramer, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote a paper about Ghannouchi, which documents the Tunisian’s Islamic extremism and his hatred for America.

Ghannouchi threatened the U.S. in a speech given in Sudan in 1990.  “We must wage unceasing war against the Americans until they leave the land of Islam, or we will burn and destroy all their interests across the entire Islamic world,” Ghannouchi said to the Khartoum audience.

He visited the Islamic Republic in 1979, where he defended the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, claiming it was a “spy center.”  Subsequently he helped “thaw relations between Sunni Islamist movements and Iran.”  He reportedly received a delegation from Hezbollah—Iran’s terrorist proxy—while in Britain.

Ghannouchi’s radicalism was publicized as recently as 2001 on an al-Jazeera broadcast, when he extolled Palestinian suicide bombers and advocated anti-American violence.   Is there any doubt Ghannouchi will try to make Tunisia an Islamist state?

Egypt is trending toward an Islamist regime thanks in part to Obama.  In January, Obama pushed for the removal of Hosni Mubarak​, a staunch ally who kept peace with Israel for 30 years.  Then Obama applauded the revolution that ousted Mubarak as “a positive force for a democratic Egyptian future.”

But the post-Mubarak period hasn’t been “positive,” and time will tell whether it is “democratic.”  So far it is marked by Islamist violence and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood​.  The Brotherhood’s political front, the Freedom and Justice Party, commands 34% of Egyptian votes, the largest of any party, according to polls.

The Brotherhood’s political platform calls for a state in which Sharia (Islamic law) rules.  It promises to create a Supreme Council of Clerics, like the one in Iran, to exercise veto power over all laws.  Other platform issues include forcing non-Muslims to comply with Islamic rules, making women second-class citizens, and a “revised” peace treaty with Israel.

Last year the Brotherhood’s leader, Muhammad Badie, said Muslim regimes must confront Islam’s enemies, Israel and the U.S., and that waging jihad against them is a commandment of Allah.  Further, he said the U.S. is immoral and “experiencing the beginning of its end.”

The rise of the Brotherhood has encouraged incendiary rhetoric and violence against non-Muslims and Israel.  On Sept. 20, Egyptian cleric Muhammad Abdu declared on Al Hekma television, “Tomorrow, we will destroy Israel and wipe it out of existence.”  Such declarations are reminiscent of Iran’s mullahs, and may explain the increase in anti-Israeli violence, such as six militant attacks on Egypt’s gas line to Israel and attacks on the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

Non-Muslim Egyptians are singled out for abuse.  Last month Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Al-Azhar, a center for Islamic learning, called Christians “kuffar”—infidels—and alleged they are guilty of the greatest sin, claiming Jesus Christ is both man and God.  Weeks after Gomaa’s declaration, 26 Coptic Christians were killed and nearly 500 hurt during peaceful protests in Cairo over the latest church burnings.  It is noteworthy that while Muslim mobs attacked the Christians, Egyptian security forces shot live ammunition at the demonstrators and then ran over many with armored personnel carriers.

Libya may very well become an Islamist state.  It is telling and perhaps axiomatic that in August, Obama tried to encourage the Libyans by stating, “The Libya that you deserve is within your reach.”  Maybe the Libyans “deserve” an Islamist government, but few American’s will celebrate that outcome after spending $1 billion to free the country.

Last week the U.S.-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, marked the official victory with a “liberation” speech declaring, “We are an Islamic state,” and then outlined his vision for the post-Muammar Gaddafi​ future.  He said, “This revolution was looked after by god to achieve victory.  And we must go on the right path.”

The “right path,” he explained, is Sharia law, the “fundamental source” of legislation.  All laws that contradict Islam’s teachings will be annulled.  Only “Islamic banking” will be permitted (no interest charged), and polygamy will be reintroduced.  He didn’t address the dress code for women, use of alcohol, freedom of speech, amputations for stealing, stoning for adultery, and other Sharia codes.  Those will follow.

Consider the background of two of the most influential Libyans now helping form that government.  Ali Al-Sallabi, a cleric close to the Muslim Brotherhood, claims to be like Tunisia’s Rached Ghannouchi.  In September, Al-Sallabi criticized Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, who called for Sharia law, an “extreme secularist.”  He has good relations with the Arab emirate Qatar, is an influential backer of the NTC, and has a wide network of contacts in global Islamist circles, according to Reuters.

The second influential figure is the current commander of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdelhakim Belhadj, a former commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is listed by the U.S. State Department as an international terrorist organization.  He fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where he met with Osama bin Laden.  He downplays accusations that he is an extremist, and told the British daily The Guardian that he warned the NTC against “attempts by some secular elements to isolate and exclude others [like Islamists].”

Tunisia, Egypt and Libya may become Islamist states, which could destroy regional democracy, peace, and America’s interests.  An Islamist Egypt would likely quit being an American ally, and stabilizing the region and keeping peace with Israel.  It would likely back Hamas’ violence against Jerusalem, host Islamic extremist groups, and support others who do.

An Islamist Tunisia would help radicalize neighbor Algeria, which previously flirted with Islamic extremism.  Libya would be a wild card if it became an Islamist state.  It has a small population, lots of land, and at least $250 billion in oil reserves.  It sent many jihadists to fight America in Iraq, and could once again become a terrorist haven and seek weapons of mass destruction as did the dictator Gaddafi.

Obama’s Arab Spring policies are partly responsible for removing three North African tyrants.  But, like the legendary Hydra, cutting off the head leaves us with something far more dangerous.

President Barack Obama’s unilateral decision to remove our forces from Iraq prior to year-end hands a major victory to Iran.  Expect Tehran to take advantage of that victory to extend its influence across the Middle East.

Last Friday, President Obama declared in celebratory remarks, “The tide of war is receding,” the Iraq war is ended.  But he failed to tell the American people that after tremendous cost in blood—4,485 killed, 33,169 wounded—and treasure—$800+ billion spent—he gave Iraq to Iran because he lacked political will and diplomatic skills.

Unfortunately Iraq is not ready to be weaned or to deal with hegemonic Iran.  It has made great progress with its security forces, but it lacks vital military assets in intelligence, logistics and naval and air power.  Even the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd Austin, requested that 15,000 to 18,000 troops stay past year-end, especially trainers.  Gen. Babakir Zebari, Iraq’s army chief of staff, agreed his country still needs American military trainers.

Besides training, American forces are needed in Iraq to provide stability against sectarian strife and a wobbly political transition, and to act as a trip-wire against outside forces such as Iran and even ally Turkey, which currently has troops in northern Iraq pursuing terrorists.

Last week, Obama promised to discuss “how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces,” but there is no substitute for a long-term presence like what America has had in South Korea since the end of the Korean War.  Our long-term security presence is especially important in the Middle East, a region known for its volatility, lack of democracy, and strategic importance to the world’s economy because of oil.  But Iraq’s future will be different than ally South Korea’s, and to our collective detriment.

That is because Obama lacked the political will and apparently the diplomatic skills to persuade the skeptical Iraqis to extend our stay.  Of course, the President blames our pending exit on the Iraqis, who refused to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution beyond Dec. 31, a Pentagon requirement if troops remained.

But much of the blame is due to Obama’s waiting until the last minute to try and salvage a deteriorating situation.  He knew the risks associated with leaving Iraq years ago, but he delayed starting the tough diplomatic process until this year.  And it is hard to fathom, even given Obama’s last-minute efforts, that some diplomatic compromise couldn’t be worked given Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s and other leading Iraqi politicians’ support to keep some American troops.

Unfortunately it appears a common joke about the U.S. war in Iraq is coming true on Obama’s watch.  The U.S. spent great treasure and blood to defeat Iraq only to hand it over to the Iranians on a golden platter.  “That’s how it will be read in the region,” a senior Arab official told the Wall Street Journal.  Worse, the official said, it will be seen as “a sign that the U.S. is less committed to the region.”

Now Iran is poised to take advantage of its new leverage in Iraq to better create a Shia crescent across the Middle East.  Parenthetically, Obama’s fumbling aside, Tehran already enjoys an influential relationship with Baghdad leaders such as Prime Minister al-Maliki, who once lived in Iran and now cooperates with the Persians on most regional issues.

Using Iraq to expand regional influence begins with Iran building militias on the Hezbollah model to make Iraq a Shiite vassal state, much like Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini formed Hezbollah (Party of Allah) in 1982.  The horsepower for such a transformation is already inside Iraq in the form of Iran’s Quds Force.

The Quds Force or Corps (translated, The Jerusalem Army) is an autonomous part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).  It answers directly to Iran’s grand ayatollah and is the cleric’s primary mechanism for spreading the Islamic revolution.

The Quds in Iraq is led by Gen. Hussein Mussavi, who is directly responsible for both policy and operations, according to Amir Taheri writing for the New York Post.  Mussavi controls Iraqi armed groups, including the Mahdi Army, the Ramadan Corps and the Brigades of the Right, with the aim to drive the Americans out of Iraq.

It is noteworthy the Quds recently adopted a new slogan, “On our way to Jerusalem, via Baghdad,” according to Taheri.  That means it has a vision to begin using Iraq as it already uses Syria.  Specifically, it will use Iraq as a new base to train fighters, and to forward money and arms to proxy groups across the Arab world.  The goal is to take Jerusalem—that is, destroying Israel—and for that matter the entire region.

U.S. officials indicate the Quds has already increased arms shipments to Iraqi Shiite militias in anticipation of America’s withdrawal, according to the Wall Street Journal.  And using its new base in Iraq, the Qods will be in the catbird seat to further feed unrest across the Middle East to Tehran’s advantage.

The Quds already has training centers at home and in at least five other countries including Iraq.  Operationally it is helping Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad crush internal dissent, arm and train Palestinian Hamas, and recently it was accused by President Obama of backing the foiled plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington.

It is operationally active throughout the Arabian Peninsula.  Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, accused Iran of meddling—“conspiring to destabilize the gulf states by smuggling guns and saboteurs,” according to the New York Post.  

The Saudis accuse Tehran of supporting the Bahraini Shia uprising, the Shiite al-Houthi rebels in northern Yemen, and three weeks ago there was a shooting incident in the Iranian-supported Shia region of Saudi Arabia that wounded nine Saudi soldiers, according to Stratfor, a Texas-based intelligence service.

The loss of Iraq to Iran’s sphere of influence also drains America’s credibility in the region.  Allies such as Saudi Arabia will now distance themselves from the U.S. and either seek accommodation with the hegemonic Iran or use Iraq as a proxy battleground to contest Iran’s new influence.  Other regional partners will follow Riyadh’s lead out of fear of Iran, and as a result, America will find its influence drained.

America’s lost credibility and Iran’s new foothold in Iraq will embolden Tehran to make our efforts in Afghanistan more difficult by assisting our enemy the Taliban.  It will also accelerate Tehran’s march to nuclear weapons status, which might compel Israel to take unilateral action against the threatening atomic-missile seeking regime.

What should the U.S. do at this point?

There is always the possibility the Iraqis will change their mind to allow U.S. troops to remain past year-end.  But if not, then future talks should lead to an ongoing military relationship that serves our mutual interests.  We also need to quickly reassure our regional allies by cooperating closely with them to blunt Tehran’s expansion, which will not be easy or cheap.

President Obama’s lack of political will and poor diplomatic skills robbed the Middle East of a democratic victory and drained our credibility.   Now Tehran will fill the vacuum we left in Iraq to solidify its power and use that country as a platform to grow the Shia crescent.  The result will be a more unstable and highly volatile region that will jeopardize our ally Israel and make a major Middle East war far more likely.

National security leaders warn that proposed military spending reductions by the deficit-reduction super committee will have “catastrophic effects,” inflict “irrevocable wounds” and “critically compromise national security.”  That is why the committee’s pending decision could very well become the tipping point for America’s military.

The special bipartisan deficit-reduction super committee, officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is made up of 12 lawmakers who must find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by Thanksgiving or automatic cuts will kick in, with half coming from defense.  Those cuts on top of others could dangerously degrade our military’s capabilities but help the Obama administration avoid cuts to other federal programs to garner political support from Independents and mitigate the energy of the Tea Party.

National defense is responsible for 20% of federal discretionary spending, but the Pentagon has already suffered deep cuts.  That is why Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified last week that the possibility of another $600 billion in cuts over 10 years would be “catastrophic” and “truly devastate our national defense.”  Those cuts are about 10% of the total Department of Defense budget, not including Overseas Contingency Operations accounts, and with the previous reductions included, it is about 15%.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that such additional cuts “would cause self-inflicted and potentially irrevocable wounds to our national security,” according to the New York Times.

On Oct. 14, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R.-Calif.), chairman for the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), sounded a similar warning in a letter to the super committee.  McKeon wrote that further reductions “will compound deep reductions Congress has already imposed and critically compromise national security.”

Rep. McKeon wrote he agreed with the super committee’s goal of federal deficit reduction, but reminded the members that “not all elements of the federal budget are equal.”  Constitutionally, our government’s first priority must be providing for the common defense.   

Deep defense cuts might be appropriate if threats weren’t growing.  But we face real and growing danger from rogues such as Iran and North Korea, which are developing nuclear weapons.  China is rapidly militarizing to near peer status with the U.S., and Russia is reemerging as a significant power, modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

Our military is also in the 10th year of war.  We are due to leave Iraq by the end of the year (maybe), but we will still be involved in Afghanistan at least until 2014.  Once those forces leave the battlefield, they will require funding for equipment reset.

But last week, Gen. Dempsey predicted our forces will still be fighting the current conflicts for years to come.  He told an Army audience that one of the military’s goals during his stint is to “achieve our national objectives in the current conflicts,” according to TheHill.com.  He went on to say, “That won’t happen during my tenure,” which is expected to last four years.

Rep. McKeon reminded the super committee that the Pentagon is already on an austerity diet.  President Obama and the Congress agreed this summer to an estimated $465 billion reduction over 10 years.  The impact of those cuts could be significant.

That austerity plan calls for cutting 120,000 soldiers and Marines, reducing our overseas presence, reducing the civilian workforce by 110,000 personnel, reducing our nuclear triad (submarines, bombers, missiles), and cutting force structure: 20% fewer Army maneuver battalions, 10% fewer Air Force aircraft and 10% fewer ships.

Gen. Dempsey testified he is trying to determine the impact of these cuts.  He volunteered that the Pentagon is conducting a strategic review to reduce missions, such as in Africa.

“Our presence on the African continent is part of our network of building partners, of gaining intelligence,” Dempsey testified.  But such missions will be cut, as well as those in Latin America, in order to keep a presence in the Pacific region to counter China, and in the Middle East to fight al-Qaeda and monitor Iran.

Should the super committee fail this fall, defense appropriations will be slashed another $600 billion.  That impact, according to an assessment released by the HASC Republican staff, could be dire.  Or viewed cynically, the memo is largely hyperbola to get the most political attention.  Judge for yourself.

Those cuts, when put on top of others already planned, would put defense spending at the lowest level since before World War II​ and diminish end-strength by nearly 200,000 soldiers and Marines, while another 200,000 from the civilian workforce would be furloughed.  That would dump many heroes into a bad job market where unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan vets is at 22% and among wounded vets it is 41%.

There is also the issue of breaking faith with our military.  There are proposals to slash military retirement by those who don’t understand it is deferred compensation for long and dangerous service in austere settings.  Reforming retirement and cutting veteran health care, along with other benefits now under the knife, would risk devastating the all-volunteer military’s recruitment and retention and seriously jeopardize readiness.

These draconian cuts could also mean America would not be able to fulfill all its security commitments.  Specifically, we would have insufficient force structure to “decisively win an engagement in one theater while defending vital interests in another,” according to the HASC Republican staff.  It puts our response to contingencies in North Korea and Iran at risk, it could eliminate two carrier battle groups, and it increases the need to mobilize reserves.

There would be dramatic reductions in force structure that would limit the Pentagon’s ability to support the national military strategy.  Specifically, the HASC staff indicates Army maneuver battalions could decline by 40% (100 to 60), Navy ships could decline by 18% (288 to 238) and Air Force platforms could decline 24% (2,776 to 2,107).

Marine Corps operations would suffer significant degradation.  No longer would the Marines be capable of conducting an opposed amphibious landing with two brigades, in part because the number of amphibious ships could be cut from the required 38 to 17.  Noncombatant evacuations and humanitarian and disaster assistance missions would be cut back, and fewer Marines would be afloat for emergencies.

Our nuclear deterrence could diminish.  Cuts would undermine our nuclear triad—our ability to detect and defend against missile attack, nuclear weapons inventories, and satellite space-launch capabilities.  These cuts could cause allies and adversaries to question our ability to provide a nuclear response to an attack, concludes the Republican staff.

Military infrastructure and the industrial base could suffer a serious blow.  Shipyards could be closed, long-planned military construction projects may be scuttled, and a new round of Base Realignment and Closure would be necessary.  Much of the armed services’ equipment modernization and recapitalization could be put on hold or canceled, including the Joint Strike Fighter​ and the much-needed aerial refueling tanker.

Defense spending may be discretionary, but constitutionally national security is government’s top responsibility.  We live in a dangerous world which demands a significant armed force to protect America across all domains—air, land, sea, space and cyberspace.

America must get its fiscal house in order, and defense should share the burden.  But providing national security on the cheap to avoid cutting social programs to help Democrats’ political fortunes is wrongheaded, and may in fact create a tipping point for America as the world’s leading military power.

A new Pentagon report to Congress admits our military is critically dependent on Chinese-produced materials for high-end weaponry.  This dependency is a self-inflicted wound demonstrating a naiveté regarding Red China, a regime ready to leverage any advantage.

China produces 97% of all rare-earth elements (REE), 17 elements with unique magnetic properties critical for high-tech military equipment such as advanced fighters, lasers, precision-guided munitions and 21st century consumer technology, found in iPhones, wind turbines and X-ray machines.

Our reliance on China for REE is a self-inflicted wound because we knew more than a decade ago the Chinese intended to monopolize the REE market and then use that position for its advantage.  Now Beijing is following through with its monopolistic plans by cutting way back on exports and has shown an inclination to use those exports to leverage disagreements.  No wonder the Pentagon report states it is “essential that a stable non-Chinese source” of REE be established, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In 1997, Deng Xiaoping​, then China’s Communist Party leader, observed that the Mideast may have oil, but China had REE.  With a virtual monopoly of the critical materials, Xiaoping intended for China to control the rare-earth market much as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries controls oil.  That is what happened.

In 2010, China’s REE export quota declined 40% over 2009, and already this year exports are down another 14%.  Now the regime intends to cap REE production, which will further reduce exports to favor domestic manufacturers, according to STRATFOR, a Texas-based think tank.

Such export reductions are a crisis not just because prices could increase 50%, according to the Pentagon report, but because the U.S. and other manufacturing nations previously abandoned their domestic capacity to produce these critical materials.  Restarting new production plants could take up to 15 years, according to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

Worse, China stopped REE exports to Japan in October 2010 following a maritime incident near Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.  That caused a predictable reaction from Japan, the world’s leader in REE-dependent high-tech industries.  Exports were quickly resumed, but the message was clear:  China will use a de facto export embargo to leverage geopolitical conflicts.

The Chinese enjoy a REE monopoly because we are naïve.  We pretend Beijing is like our Western trading partners, which it isn’t.

Back in 2000, we granted Beijing Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status, and then let the Communist regime join the World Trade Organization (WTO).  That naiveté contributed to the present REE nightmare and other China-related economic problems.

Since 2000, our trade deficit with China has tripled.  Further, Beijing’s theft of U.S. intellectual property has become epidemic, the regime has “encouraged” U.S. REE-dependent foreign manufacturers to relocate to China, which robbed American jobs, and Beijing keeps its currency undervalued, which fuels our trade imbalance.  Flash to Washington:  China is not and may never become a free market, and besides, much of Beijing’s profits are plowed into building a giant and sophisticated expeditionary military that threatens the balance of power in the Pacific and potentially around the globe.  

Prior to the 1990s, the U.S. was the global leader in REE production.  That changed because we failed to think strategically about our manufacturing base and because we naively relied on market forces alone.  Meanwhile, China used its MFN and WTO market access to create a global REE monopoly with a combination of cheap labor, virtually nonexistent environmental standards, and state-subsidized loans.

China’s state-owned banks granted subsidized loans to promote social stability through full employment.  Those loans created a massive mining sector that exploded REE production—even though most never recovered their operating costs—and predictably global prices plunged.  The foreign competition, to include the only REE complex in the U.S. at Mountain Pass, Calif., closed.

The plunging REE prices helped fuel the technological revolution, a silver lining.  But the West became hooked on cheap Chinese REE as uses expanded from cathode ray tubes to components for wind turbines, hybrid cars, laptop computers, cellular phones, and at least 36 sophisticated weapons platforms.

Now China is consolidating the REE sector by inducing state-owned giants like Aluminum Corporation of China to assimilate various smaller mines.  China also established a state-level REE storage system to further enhance state control over the strategic resource, according to STRATFOR.

Beijing’s virtual monopoly is working, but it need be only temporary if nations such as the U.S. react as they must.  Fortunately and paradoxically, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful but expensive to mine and extract, but the risk-adverse mining sector likely won’t act without government assistance.  

What should America do to reduce its almost total dependence on Chinese REE?

First, as the Pentagon report states, we need to develop “risk mitigation strategies” for certain elements, including dysprosium, yttrium, praseodymium and neodymium, the most critical for weapons manufacturing.  These elements should be stockpiled for strategic protection.

Second, the Pentagon’s report calls for granting a higher priority to weapons manufacturing over commercial production.  That is a prudent course of action until dependable non-Chinese REE sources are readily available.

Third, the Pentagon’s report, according to RareMetalBlog.com, states that of six domestic REE companies assessed “only one has the facilities and experience to reduce all 17 elements.”  That company is likely Molycorp Minerals, which operates the Mountain Pass facility and indicates its intention to restart operations in 2012.  That is good news, and our government should help Molycorp overcome regulatory issues, raising capital and protecting it from Chinese government market manipulation.

But the Mountain Pass facility lacks the manufacturing assets and facilities to process rare-earth ore into finished components, such as permanent magnets.  Fortunately, Molycorp is cooperating with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory.  That effort will focus on creating commercial-grade, REE magnets, which are the strongest type of permanent magnets, critical for miniaturization, and resist being magnetized in any other direction.

Fourth, Mountain Pass does not have substantial amounts of heavy REE, such as dysprosium, which is used for heat-resistance qualities of permanent magnets in defense systems.  That’s why other U.S. rare-earth sites such as those in Idaho and Montana must be developed, which the GAO admits could take seven to 15 years to bring fully online.  We should also work with allies such as Canada and Australia to develop their mines.

Finally, processing facilities may require new technologies, permissions to use existing technology patents, and environmental solutions.  Government must work with private industry to overcome these challenges.  Government must work with the processing plant operators to harness the best technologies—some of which require cooperation from international patent owners—and to satisfy the environmental concerns while expeditiously moving forward.

China is an economic piranha, not a free market as Beijing’s REE monopoly illustrates.  We need to rebuild our REE supply system and stop being economically naïve regarding China by protecting our defense and private industries from Beijing’s abusive trade policies.

President Obama’s refusal to sell modern fighters to longtime ally Republic of China (Taiwan) dooms that country, frightens our allies, and robs America of needed jobs.  Worse, it tells Communist China that America’s foreign policy and her democratic principles are for sale.

Last week Obama agreed to refurbish Taiwan’s 1980s vintage F-16A/B fighter fleet rather than sell the island nation the much-needed modern F-16C/D fighters or the state-of-the-art stealth F-35, which outmatch China’s fighters.  But according to the Washington Post, an Obama official said the refit deal is “like not getting a Prius and asking for a custom-built Ferrari instead.”  This is a clear indication Obama has no intention of selling Taiwan modern fighters.

But Democratic Taiwan needs sophisticated fighters to defend itself against the militarizing Communist China.  Under Beijing’s principle of “one country, two systems,” it never renounced the use of force to take back Taiwan, which it sees as a renegade province.  The Chinese Nationalist Party fled in 1949 to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War to China’s Communist rulers.

Taiwan has historically relied upon four factors to deter China:  Beijing’s inability to project sufficient power across the 100-mile Taiwan Strait, Taiwan’s technological superiority, the advantages of island defense, and the promise of U.S. intervention.  But Beijing is rapidly closing those gaps, which explains Taiwan’s urgency for the modern fighters.

The cross-strait military balance now favors China, and as a result, Beijing is rapidly approaching the day when it can take the island.  Currently China stations opposite the island nation 1,200 ballistic missiles, thousands of cruise missiles, 68 major naval combatants with 46 amphibious warfare ships, and 490 mostly fourth-generation fighters within non-refueling range of Taiwan.  

Beijing also jeopardizes America’s promise of intervention by fielding a credible anti-access capability.  In the Taiwan Strait area, it deploys 35 submarines equipped with torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles (SS-N-22 and SS-B-27), and China is developing the “carrier-killer” missile, DF-21D, with a range exceeding 940 miles. 

China’s militarization campaign has reversed Taiwan’s technological superiority edge as well.  The difference between the forces will grow even wider with Obama’s “upgrade” plan, and could get worse.

“Realistically, it doesn’t matter if they [the U.S.] sell them [Taiwan] shiny brand-new planes or upgrades, an F-16 is not competitive against a Flanker,” Carlo Kopp, a Chinese aviation expert, told the Wall Street Journal.  China’s Russian-designed SU-27 and SU-30 Flankers can fly further and fight longer than the F-16, any model.  That argues for equipping Taiwan with the sophisticated F-35, something Obama hasn’t even considered.

Obama’s upgrade-only fighter plan clearly violates the intent of U.S. law.  In 1979, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, Public Law 96-8, which obliges the U.S. to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”  But upgrading rather than replacing old fighters ignores the law’s intent, which is why politicians on both sides of the Pacific are crying foul.

U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon (R.-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, labeled Obama’s fighter decision “shortsighted,” and Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the A/B upgrade a “half-measure,” according to the Associated Press.

Taiwanese leaders are especially concerned.  Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou said Taipei needs the new warplanes to continue negotiating with Beijing from a position of strength.  Opposition Democratic Progressive Party legislator Tsai Huang-liang, chief whip of his caucus, labeled the upgrade a “consolation prize” that cannot meet Taiwan’s needs, according to the Taipei Central News Agency.

Obama’s fighter consolation-prize decision sends troubling messages to at least four parties.

First, Obama’s deal tells China the U.S. recognizes that Taiwan is indefensible, a liability, and an obstacle to better bilateral relations.  And it communicates Obama is easily cowed by the Chinese.

Chinese’ reaction to the arms deal was less strident than previous reactions, which suggests the possibility of a backroom deal.  A toned-down Chinese reaction suggests Beijing’s interests are served by the deal, and besides, China wants to maintain stable relations with Taiwan prior to the island’s January 2012 presidential election to avoid stirring up nationalists who seek independence from the mainland.

The “Taiwan is indefensible” message is based on Taiwan’s dwindling deterrence.  This view goes something like this:  The U.S. can only do so much to help Taiwan defend itself against a determined China, and that does not include providing modern weapons and security guarantees.  The only alternative that might reverse the trend is unthinkable, that is, station U.S. forces and or nuclear weapons on the island.

There is also America’s “liability” concern about the strong nationalistic opposition in Taiwan that one day might declare the island’s independence from Beijing.  That would trigger Article 8 of China’s March 2005 “anti-succession law” that authorizes Beijing to use “non-peaceful means” if “secessionist forces … cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China.”  A Chinese attack would drag the U.S. into the conflict that could quickly escalate.

Then again, Taiwan is an “obstacle” to improving relations with China.  The occasional blowup over arms deals and the like inhibit U.S. efforts to deal with China on important issues such as nuclear weapons and cyberspace.  “Resolving” the Taiwan issue arguably helps U.S.-China relations.

Second, Obama’s no-upgrade decision dooms democratic Taiwan by communicating it should resolve tensions with Communist Beijing peacefully by abandoning reliance on security deterrence.  Of course the fighter deal removes Taiwan’s pretense of security leverage, which puts Beijing in the catbird seat.

But there is hope that Taiwan and China can peacefully resolve their half-century-old dispute.  The parties expanded trade, and economic and cultural ties, over the past few years, hoping to bridge their differences.  While these initiatives are encouraging, they have not persuaded Beijing to abandon its unification demand.

Third, the no-upgrade deal communicates to U.S. allies that America is not a reliable partner.  Apparently, the deal violates the intent of the Taiwan Relations Act and marginalizes security promises in order to avoid antagonizing China.  Rep. McKeon said as much:  “A decision to deny a key ally the systems they require for self-defense is troubling … and certainly in the Asia Pacific region, our allies are watching our defense drawdown with a wary eye.” 

Our allies are watching to see whether America will stand by her friends and commitments no matter where the threats are from, even from superpower China.  “I can’t think that our allies will find [Obama’s] choice reassuring,” McKeon added.

Finally, Obama’s decision tells the American people he is willing to forgo significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy by abandoning the sale of the F-16C/Ds to appease China.  This is tough news in a job-thirsty U.S. economy.

A report by the Perryman Group, a Texas-based economic research analysis firm, said the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan “would generate some $8.7 billion in output.”  That report, which is cited by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) in draft legislation favoring the sale, states it would create 23,407 jobs.  

President Obama’s refusal to sell modern fighters to Taiwan communicates some very troubling messages.  It tells Taiwan to surrender to China, tells our allies they cannot depend on American security promises, and tells Americans not to expect needed jobs.  But perhaps worst, it tells the Communist Chinese that America’s foreign policy and principles are for sale.

Sept. 20 is an important day for gay activists because it marks the official repeal of the military’s 1993 homosexual exclusion law (10 U.S.C. § 654).  This happened because the gay-beholden Democrats held power and not because there was a shred of evidence repeal would improve the armed forces.  Now our war-weary, all-volunteer military must cope with the consequences of that decision.

Those consequences could be significant, but the American public has no clue, because the 111th Democrat-controlled Congress repealed the ban in a “lame-duck” session without hearing a single dissenting view.  And President Obama hid behind the cover of a politically inspired Pentagon report marred by poor research and improper activities meant to mislead Congress.

President Obama used his 2010 State of the Union address to call for repeal of the homosexual exclusion law.  The following week, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders,” and subsequently he launched a review to examine the “issues associated with repeal of the law.”  Gates’ review never considered whether lifting the ban was right, but only on mitigating the consequences.

That review included a problem-plagued survey that failed to ask critical questions such as, “Do you favor lifting the homosexual ban?” and it used non-random sampling.  Then it biased the results to support Obama’s repeal agenda.

The Pentagon Inspector General (IG) exposed the review’s politically inspired bias.  Last November, the Washington Post published leaked information from the Pentagon’s review claiming 70% of the military would have no problem serving with open homosexuals.  The IG said in an April 2011 report that the leak was meant “to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the Nov. 2, 2010, elections.”

Not surprisingly the Obama Pentagon failed to correct the unauthorized and misleading report, which was cited in Congress as fact.  The same survey data (question 68a of the July 2010 Pentagon poll) that was used to generate the 70% report can be restated to support a very different conclusion:  In fact 62% of the military predicted at least some negative effects from repeal, while only 18% predicted positive effects.

Congress ignored many report flaws, including the following:

The Pentagon report admits “the majority of views expressed in [140 focus group sessions] were against repeal of the current policy.”
It based its “no-risk” assessment of open homosexuality for military effectiveness on a panel of 11 unidentified, nonscientific personnel.
It dismissed 67% negative views expressed by combatants by suggesting their lack of service with homosexuals feeds the negativity.

Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set military personnel policy (Article I, Section 8) and therefore deserves the blame for any adverse consequences associated with lifting the ban.  Consider six possible consequences.

First, repeal created a “precedent-setting” legal quagmire for the military.  William Gregor, a professor at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kan., wrote in the military journal Parameters that the repealed statute “contained important military policy that extends well beyond the narrow issue of homosexual eligibility.”  Specifically, six of the repealed law’s findings “defined the principles that underlie the established system of military justice and order.”  Their absence creates a “litigious period of indiscipline” whereby issues such as recruitment are subject to legal challenge and reinterpretation, for example, excluding candidates for personal behaviors such as drug abuse.

Second, repeal embraces a category of people associated with high rates of a deadly sexually transmitted virus.  This potentially creates higher health care costs and hurts morale.

The Pentagon admits an increase in homosexuals could increase the number of personnel who are “men who have sex with men,” and that group has the highest known risk of HIV/AIDS.  But the Pentagon contends incidents of HIV/AIDS will be minimal because of regular blood testing.

But in spite of testing, the military already has battalions’ worth of HIV/AIDS-infected personnel, and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex.  These thousands are nondeployable, soak up hundreds of millions of dollars in medical costs annually, and must be replaced overseas by healthy troops, a morale-busting factor.

Third, the Pentagon report dismisses heterosexual privacy concerns by arguing “gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable.”  That is why troops will not be segregated based on sexual orientation, and besides, states the report, most privacy concerns are based on “misperceptions and stereotypes.”

It is paradoxical that few people give gender segregation a second thought due to privacy and modesty concerns, but those same people expect the military to force heterosexuals to share facilities with homosexuals.  But call for co-ed sleeping and bathing facilities and the objections are loud.  Who says homosexuals are any more perfect than anyone else?

Fourth, the Pentagon admits “a large number of service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality.”  Specifically, many troops said repeal “might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.”  The Pentagon dismisses that view at its peril.

Chaplains expressed some of the most intense and sharpest views.  The Pentagon promises chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role … if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”  What about chaplains’ objections to gay marriage?

This April, the chief of naval chaplains issued guidance allowing chaplains to conduct same-sex marriages in some states, but outrage temporarily sidelined that guidance.  Later the Navy said it would allow chaplains to perform gay marriages where it is legal.  What might happen to chaplains that preach or counsel that marriage is only between one man and one woman?

Or for that matter, what might happen to chaplains who object to having a homosexual chaplain’s assistant or hiring a gay youth worker?  Religious-based objections are important among the military’s large faith community.

Fifth, Congress must monitor the impact of open homosexuality for unit effectiveness and readiness.  Social scientists should measure homosexuality’s impact on effectiveness factors such as bonding and morale.  The impact on readiness factors such as recruiting and retention is especially important to an all-volunteer force.

The Pentagon will soon see whether repeal has any effect on the propensity of young people to enlist.  In fact, the Rand Corporation’s report on homosexuality warned military recruiting could decline7% because of repeal, and the Pentagon admits recruiting is getting harder because three-fourths of American youth fail to qualify.

Retention is a critical readiness factor.  Thirteen per cent of current service members told the Pentagon’s working group repeal would shorten their future service, and another 11% said they will consider leaving sooner than planned.  Congress must acknowledge that 24% of the force (341,000 personnel) is a lot of volunteers to ignore.

Finally, the Pentagon claims “strong leadership” will successfully mitigate the problems associated with lifting the ban.  But “strong leadership” has yet to “solve” other social phenomena, including sexual assault.  Why should Congress believe the Pentagon can do any better with homosexuality?

The Pentagon’s 2011 annual report on sexual assault exposes a massive leadership failure.  Only 13.5% of total assaults are reported, says the Pentagon, because service members are “uncomfortable” with reporting or “fear reprisal.”  Besides, the report indicates male victims of sexual assault vary from 6% to 20% of all incidents across the services.  How will open homosexuality impact this problem?

The gay community might celebrate Sept. 20, but this date marks a major failure in Congress’ oversight of the military.  It must now closely monitor the consequences associated with repeal to protect our volunteer force and quickly respond as the inevitable problems occur.

Americans should be very concerned about the White House’s cavalier attitude regarding the release of sensitive national security information.  We pay a high price for politically inspired opportunism, especially when the task of keeping our secrets is becoming more difficult.  We must do better.

Last week the History Channel premiered the documentary “Targeting Bin Laden,” which celebrates “the greatest victory in the war on terror.”  It included interviews with President Obama and his key national security advisers and was chock-full of sensitive national security information that reflects the administration’s full cooperation.

The History Channel evidently tapped many of the same sources used by Nicholas Schmidle to write his incredibly “insightful” Aug. 8 article for The New Yorker.  Together, that article, “Getting Bin Laden,” and the documentary recklessly expose the identities of national security personnel and our special operating forces’ techniques, tactics, procedures and technologies used in the May 2 raid to take down al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Clearly politics was the administration’s rationale for being so generous with our secrets.  Our enemies and Obama’s image benefit, while our national security suffers.

Our security suffers because every enemy spy agency and terrorist will thoroughly examine the documentary and article to update their countermeasures and try to identify the intelligence personnel shown in the documentary.  Not everyone in those pictures was an actor, and the detailed operational information is now compromised.

Unfortunately, the exposure of operational details in the bin Laden raid was only the latest example of the administration casting our security to the wind.  Obama, within his first hundred days in office, publicized secret memos on our interrogation techniques such as the approach used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to interrogate terrorists such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 

Those memos revealed the steps we use to extract information to prevent terrorist attacks.  That release armed Islamist jihadists with invaluable defensive weapons, such as an understanding that our use of waterboarding is “authorized for, at most, one 30-day period, during which the technique can actually be applied on no more than five days” with “no more than two sessions in any 24-hour period.”

The same cavalier attitude is evidenced by the administration’s Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations with the Russians.  Former CIA Director James Woolsey writes in the June 2011 edition of Foreign Affairs that Obama wants to give the Russians classified U.S. technologies and “‘red button authority to prevent the interception of incoming missiles headed for U.S. troops or allies.”

Woolsey explains that the Russians apparently insist the Obama administration surrender sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of the START deal.  Fortunately, Congress discovered the deal and inserted Section 1228 in the Pentagon’s 2012 annual authorization act to deny funds that provide Russia with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

These security compromises and others illustrate the administration’s offhanded treatment of sensitive information.  But Obama’s problem keeping secrets parallels another well-rooted security challenge—leaked government secrets and a complicit media.  Juxtapose the two, and one quickly sees the administration’s double standard.

Specifically, our press has become an open vault for foreign collection, especially with the Internet harnessed to powerful search engines that vacuum up information that often includes leaks of sensitive information.  Foreign agents use that information to develop countermeasures that diminish our operational effectiveness.  The bin Laden case illustrates the problem.

Ari Fleisher, the former press secretary for President George W. Bush, explained the problem.  The press published leaked information that indicated the National Security Agency was “able to listen to Osama bin Laden on his satellite phone,” Fleisher said.  “As a result of the disclosure, [bin Laden] stopped using it … [and] the United States was denied the opportunity to monitor and gain information that could have been very valuable for protecting our country.”

Like terrorists, nation-states take advantage of our leaking.  James Bruce, a CIA official, posted an article on his agency’s website that quotes a former Russian military intelligence officer addressing our intelligence vulnerability.  “I am amazed—and Moscow was very appreciative—at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers.  In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.” 

The Obama administration came to office promising to be transparent, “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness.”  But that commitment morphed into a double standard when it comes to national security.  Specifically, the administration demonstrates a dangerous “openness” in politically favorable cases such as the bin Laden raid and START negotiations, but not when it comes to unfavorable security leaks. 

Rather, the administration vigorously objects when leaks embarrass it, and as a result, has stepped up prosecutions, which is good.  For example, the administration was hurt by the WikiLeaks case involving Julian Assange, the Australian who posted thousands of leaked pages of U.S. documents on the Internet.  Many of those documents and others from insider sources put the Obama administration on the defensive, especially regarding its Afghanistan policy.

To its credit, the administration vigorously prosecutes leakers of government information and is seriously trying to prevent leaks.  Last winter, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a leak-preventing 14-page memo to all agencies.  Interestingly, that memo suggests the agencies use psychiatrists and sociologists to identify disgruntled employees who might leak, among other initiatives.

We need to do four things to better secure our state secrets, beginning with presidential leadership.

First, the American people must demand the President guard the nation’s secrets by eschewing political opportunism such as revealing security information to the doting press.

Second, all federal agencies must educate their force about the legal obligations and possible penalties for failing to safeguard intelligence information.  Managers must know what to look for regarding those vulnerable to leaking and the Obama administration’s OMB memo is a good start.

Third, the Department of Justice needs the tools to identify and prosecute individuals who deliberately share classified intelligence.  We need comprehensive laws that make it easier to prosecute wrongdoers and increase penalties for those who disclose information.

Finally, we need laws that find the balance between protecting journalists and protecting national security.  Media that publish secrets that harm the country must be held accountable.

The Obama administration is dangerously fickle about the nation’s secrets.  It has no problem revealing secrets when it suits its political purposes, but it becomes an aggressive enforcer when it comes to leaks that expose its vulnerabilities.  Our secrets must be closely guarded, no exceptions and especially when it is clear our enemies will benefit.

Al-Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, had a profound impact on Americans who felt vulnerable and doubted their government’s ability to protect them.  Even though there have been security improvements since 9/11 ,serious problems persist.

Consider six post-9/11 security improvements and the challenges that must be overcome to keep America safe.

First, public transportation has improved security especially with airlines but problems persist.

After 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration​ (TSA) was established to handle airline passenger pre-screening and flight security.  The TSA quickly increased security by hardening cockpits, banning items like knives and liquids greater than three ounces, and toughening passenger screening.

Anyone who has flown since 9/11 is aware of the sometimes groping indignities even the aged must endure as a result of tighter passenger screening.  But even these draconian measures suffer serious shortfalls.  Specifically, explosives detection technology lacks reliability, body scanning machines are ineffective at detecting explosives and the TSA should do more profiling.

We also need to improve our watch-listing capability with information-sharing between intelligence and immigration authorities.  Several attempted attacks should have been detected by the U.S. immigration system, such as the known al-Qaeda Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab​, who used a valid U.S. visa to board Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Second, our anti-terrorism war has badly damaged the core al-Qaeda, but the organization’s fight will now come from its franchises and grassroot jihadists.

Al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, threatens to conduct an attack more terrible than 9/11.  Zawahiri just released an Internet message:  “Seek to attack America that has killed the imam of the mujahideen [Osama bin Laden] and threw his corpse in the sea and then imprisoned his women and children.”

But Zawahiri lacks the operational capability to launch another 9/11-style attack because of our past battlefield successes and his recent loss.  Last week a CIA drone attack killed Zawahiri’s operations officer, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.  Rahman was in charge of coordinating attacks against the U.S. and Europe, and managing its far-flung affiliates.  But al-Qaeda’s regional franchises and grassroot jihadist affiliates are quite capable.

The Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which controls much of Yemen, and its Somali partner, Al-Shabaab, have shown both the means and intent to conduct transnational attacks.  In October 2010, AQAP placed explosives onto U.S.-bound flights.  Last week, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Algeria and on the same day Boko Haram, a Nigerian terrorist group aligned with Al-Shabaab, killed dozens of people when it blew up the United Nations headquarters in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja.

But the major threat to the American homeland will come from homegrown operatives who are more difficult to identify.  Last year, 10 Muslim-Americans plotted against domestic targets and five carried out their plots.  Somali communities in Minneapolis and Portland, Ore., are ripe for Al-Shabaab recruiters and others are “self-radicalized” via the Internet.

Third, we need better border security and immigration reform because foreign terrorists exploit these weaknesses.

Eighteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 state-issued identifications that enabled them to easily board planes.  That is why the 9/11 Commission recommended federal standards for the issuance government sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.

The federal government passed the REAL ID Act in 2008 to establish an identification standard.  But to date, only one-third of the states have complied with that law, which creates vulnerabilities and makes us less safe.

Besides, we have a serious illegal immigrant problem for other two reasons.  Our government has operational control of less than half of the porous 2,000-mile Southwest border.  And our visa overstays account for almost half of the illegal immigrants in our country.

We need to control the entire border and enforce the visa system through our biometric entry-exit screening system.  This system checks all individuals who arrive at U.S. borders, checks their identities, and helps prevent known terrorists from entering the country.

Immigration authorities also need to give employers the tools needed to make sure the person they are hiring is legally here.  The current system lacks a verifiable real-time electronic network that, once in place, would quickly identify illegal immigrants.

Fourth, former President George W. Bush said, “The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.”  Bush knew al-Qaeda tried to acquire nuclear weapons in the late 1990s and would have used one in America given the opportunity.

There are nearly 2,000 tons of highly enriched uranium in the world, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons.  Keeping that material out of the hands of terrorists, “who would surely use them,” was the reason President Obama gave for hosting the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.

Unfortunately, the 49 nations represented at the summit are not the problem.  Rogue regimes such as North Korea and our erstwhile ally Pakistan, both nuclear powers, are known weapon proliferators.  More work is needed to prevent these and other countries like Iran from proliferating fissile material and securing known stockpiles.

Fifth, federal law enforcement has overcome many impediments, especially the timely sharing of terrorism-related information but much work remains to be done.

Since 9/11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation​ (FBI) shifted significant resources to international counterterrorism and intelligence gathering with the help of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which oversees the intelligence community.  Those changes have enabled the bureau to disrupt many terrorist plots.

But problems remain for federal law enforcement regarding the terrorism threat, such as the failure to foil the shooting in Fort Hood, Tex.  The FBI​ knew the shooter had become radicalized under the influence of an al-Qaeda extremist, but nothing more than a superficial inquiry resulted.

Finally, America’s foreign policy is a two-edged sword.  Our support of “Arab Spring” revolutions sweeping across the Middle East may help remove tyrants, but the ensuing instability will likely be exploited by terrorists, as appears to be the case in Libya.

The U.S. should align itself with emerging pro-democracy governments that are inhospitable to terrorists.  But our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pew Research Center surveys, have alienated most Muslims.

That is why most Muslims say they don’t trust America’s support for Arab Spring revolutionaries.

Libya illustrates the challenge.  Although the U.S. supported the Libyan rebels’ victory over dictator Muammar Gaddafi​, the end result may be something other than pro-West.  For example, Abdel-Haim al-Hasadi was named commander of the Tripoli military council.  He was once the leader of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate.  Other known Islamists are among the Libyan rebels and may eventually rule that country to our disadvantage.

The 9/11 terrorists had a profoundly dramatic impact on America.  Our subsequent security initiatives kept the country safe, but they must be improved upon if America is to be secure against a morphing and sophisticated enemy.

A new Pentagon report indicates China’s sustained military investments are destabilizing and exposes the Marxist giant’s global ambitions.  The free world had better wake up to the security threat posed by this hegemonic menace.

Last week the Pentagon issued its annual report to Congress, which warns, “China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”

But the report “mischaracterizes and minimizes that threat,” according to Steve Mosher, a social scientist who worked in China and is author of numerous books on the country.  The report “does a disservice to the truth,” Mosher said.

The truth about China’s emerging global threat becomes obvious when Beijing’s intentions, behavior and military modernization are properly exposed.

First, China’s intentions are global and offensive.  Constantine Menges wrote in China: The Gathering Threat, “In the traditional Chinese view, the world needs a hegemon—or dominant state—to prevent disorder.  The Communist Chinese regime believes China should be that hegemon.”

That view was echoed in 2010 by Liu Mingfu, a Chinese senior colonel and author of The China Dream.  Liu said “China’s big goal in the 21st century is to become world No. 1, the top power,” Reuters reported.  The Pentagon’s report stops short of that forecast but admits the regime “anticipates becoming a world-class economic and military power by 2050.”

China’s latest defense White Paper provides evidence of its global ambitions.  The paper, according to the Pentagon report, introduces the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to new global missions intended to grow China’s influence, such as international peacekeeping efforts, counter-piracy operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

These other-than-war operations are made possible by China’s new investments in large amphibious ships, a hospital ship, long-range transport aircraft and improved logistics.  Such assets extend China’s global influence and provide the PLA important expeditionary know-how and capabilities for future operations.

China’s global ambitions are also evidenced by its increased liaison with foreign militaries and increased joint exercises.  Last year, China expanded relations to 150 different militaries, which reflects an effort to collect information and build partnerships.

Beijing’s foreign outreach includes more joint exercises.  In 2010, the PLA participated in 32 joint exercises—up from eight in 2009—to increase its influence, enhance ties with partner states, and provide opportunities to improve capabilities and gain operational insights from more advanced militaries.

China’s White Paper also announces the regime’s “active defense” security strategy, which pretends to focus on defense and promises to attack only if attacked.  But Mosher says China’s use of the term “active defense” is just a euphemism for the PLA’s “determination to strike first in the event of a crisis.”  He concludes “active defense” is “not defensive at all, but is a strategy of offense and expansion.”

Second, China’s behavior has become aggressive, and given its global ambitions, we can expect more bullying across all domains—land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

China is aggressive with Taiwan, a breakaway Chinese democratic republic.  Beijing intends to deter Taiwan independence through intimidation such as the massing of 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles opposite the island or through a threatened preemptive attack.

China aggressively responds to maritime boundary disputes with Japan over the East China Sea and numerous countries in the South China Sea.  Beijing claims both seas, and since 2005 it has harassed foreign vessels, including American ships using those seaways.

Beijing is very aggressive in cyberspace.  In 2010, American and ally computer systems were the target of many intrusions that appeared to originate in China, according to the Pentagon.  Those breaches were aimed at stealing military-related data and the PLA’s cyber units are prepared to “constrain an adversary’s actions” and “serve as a force multiplier.”

Third, the Pentagon’s report provides sobering details regarding China’s technological gap-closing developments that are providing the regime the capacity to conduct high-intensity, global operations.

The report states China developed an anti-access ballistic missile to prevent American aircraft carriers from coming to Taiwan’s defense.  The “carrier-killer” missile could also be used globally against America’s 11 carriers.  The weapon is known as the DF-21D and has a range exceeding 940 miles.

China is developing a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes for long-range missions against well-protected targets—read American military facilities.  A Chinese proto-type, the J-20, was tested earlier this year, but the Pentagon does not expect it to achieve “effective operational capability prior to 2018.”  China has approximately 2,300 operational combat aircraft and another 1,450 older fighters, bombers and trainers.

The Communist regime is developing a global expeditionary capability.  Specifically, Beijing is developing airborne early-warning and control system aircraft that, combined with aerial-refueling programs, will enable the regime to extend its naval air capabilities globally.

The PLA has numerous expeditionary forces, such as three airborne divisions armed with modern equipment.  But China’s most important expeditionary tool is the aircraft carrier.  Beijing recently sea-tested a refurbished Russian carrier, and the Pentagon reports, “China could begin construction of a fully indigenous carrier … which could achieve operational capability after 2015.”

The carrier is the latest addition to China’s modern 274-ship blue-water navy, which includes at least 60 submarines.  China continues to produce a new class of global-capable nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines armed with the atomic-tipped JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile with an estimated range of 4,600 miles.

China deploys a growing satellite network.  Last year, China conducted a “record” 15 space launches to expand its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation and communications constellations.  It is also weaponizing space.

In 2007, China successfully tested a direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon against a weather satellite.  It continues to develop and refine this system as well as other kinetic and directed-energy technologies for ASAT missions.

Finally, China is growing its strategic missile program backed by a developing anti-ballistic missile system.  The Pentagon expects China to invest considerable resources to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which Beijing claims will never be used unless it is first attacked by atomic weapons.

But that view disputes a 2005 statement by Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China’s National Defense University, who said that if the U.S. used conventional arms on Chinese territory, “We will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” according to the New York Times.

The Pentagon reports China added 25 new multi-warhead road-mobile, solid propellant intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to its arsenal in 2010.  Beijing’s growing nuclear arsenal is kept safe in deep underground bunkers connected by 3,000 miles of tunnels, a complex that until this report was kept secret.

The Pentagon also for the first time affirmed China is developing a nationwide missile defense system.  Reportedly Beijing’s nonexplosive, high-speed interceptors can hit missiles at heights of up to 50 miles.  “In January 2010, China successfully intercepted a ballistic missile at mid-course, using a ground-based missile,” according to the Pentagon.

China’s hegemonic intentions, aggressive behavior and sobering militarization demonstrate an emerging, dangerous new global threat.  The U.S. and its allies must prevent China from becoming a global hegemon that would use that position to push its Marxist ideology.