The Air Force wants more of these extremely expensive planes, but the whole thing is totally unnecessary. But, hey, it’s not like we have any kind of security-related missions ongoing that require large numbers of a completely different kind of military and diplomatic resources so why worry about this stuff? And of course beyond the pure waste of funds, there’s the risk of a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more we give in to defense contractors and build pointless weapons systems while yelling “China threat! China threat!” the more likely it becomes that people in Beijing are going to start saying “holy crap, look at this giant anti-Chinese defense build-up the Americans are undertaking” then you’ve got arms races, mutual suspicion, regional conflict, etc. It’s all bad news.

Unless you make very expensive military aircraft for a living, that is, in which case it’s great.

According to Walter Pincus, the US government is paying less attention to the safety and security of our nuclear arsenals. That doesn’t seem very smart to me at all. Robert Farley points out that in addition to the direct costs “the presence of weak safety procedures in the U.S. makes it harder to get other nations to take such procedures seriously, especially those (such as Russia, India, and Pakistan) which run a much more serious risk of a nuclear accident.”

It’s really pretty hard for me to think of things more worth paying attention to than the safety and security of our own nuclear weapons. This shouldn’t be a difficult problem for a rich country with a lavishly-financed defense establishment.

On Noam Scheiber’s recommendation, I checked out Dexter Filkins’ article about George Packer’s new play “Betrayed” and it sounds like a fascinating piece of theater. I wasn’t happy with Packer’s complaints about stateside reactions to Iraq, but it’s unquestionably true that actual events in Iraq feel very emotionally distant here in the Western Hemisphere and everything that helps break that distance down is important.

I’m shocked, shocked to learn that the right has no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to FISA. These people should really try to wrap their minds about the fact that the country is very likely to put a “liberal fascist” in the White House in a few months and maybe — just maybe! — it’s not a great idea to have this child-like faith that the essence of good government is utterly untrammeled domestic surveillance.

For a more substantive take on the whole FISA/telecom immunity issue than I’ve been able to muster, check out my friend libertarian tech policy analyst Tim Lee’s Slate article from a few days ago which runs down most of the relevant information. It is, however, worth dwelling here a bit on the precedent. If the executive branch comes to a private company and asks it to do something illegal, the executive branch has powerful ways of making the company see things its way. Being on the good side of the incumbent administration is a good place to be.

But still, companies will think twice about cooperating with illegal requests if they’re sure that doing so will come around and bite them in the ass in the long run. But if you create the situation the Bush administration is proposing — where failure to comply with illegal requests has negative consequences, but agreeing to comply with illegal requests lets you off scot free — then no company going forward is going to have any reason to refuse to comply with any sort of illegal requests. In essence, the immunity provision would gut whatever other restrictions the new FISA law might contain. Meanwhile, it’s good to see Steny Hoyer standing tall:

Now, the president asserts that the expiration of the protect America act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security Council advisor on terrorism says that’s not true. Former assistant attorney general says that’s not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that’s not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the protect America act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. So i tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear. Unfounded fear. 435 members of this house and every one of us, every one of us wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us — not one of us wants to subject America or Americans to danger. The president’s assertion is wrong. I say it categorically. The president’s assertion is wrong.

As I argue in Heads in the Sand, it’s important to approach these things from a self-confident point-of-view rather than a defensive one. When Bush says something outrageous, you have to act like you’re outraged not like you’re frightened that his outrageous statements will cause the voters to punish you. Confidence alone, obviously, isn’t nearly enough to win political fights but it is a necessary precondition of doing so.

On Monday, General Petraeus — the unfailing font of wisdom who Must Be Listened To At All Times — praised Syria for its enhanced cooperation with our forces in Iraq. Naturally, yesterday Bush issued some new anti-Syrian sanctions tied to Syria’s lack of cooperation with our efforts in Iraq.