This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

August 28, 2009
Week in Review: Afghanistan, Iran and the global economy

In Afghanistan, the war has become more deadly than ever and there’s talk of sending even more U.S. troops as the presidential election remains in dispute. There is more talk from European leaders about sanctions in Iran. And as Japan fades and China rises, we examine the global economic implications for the U.S.

Garrick Utley, president of the Levin Institute of the State University of New York and a former NBC News correspondent and anchor and Rana Foroohar, senior editor of Newsweek’s international editions overseeing coverage of business and economics, join Martin Savidge to discuss the top stories of the week.




[…] Week in Review: Afghanistan, Iran and the global economy […]


Sanctions, that an Idea. There probably have been no sanctions on Iran for the last twenty-five years. US does not sell even spare passanger airplane part to Iran causing multiple civilian aircraft crashes and many civilian death.
The best memory I have is when Papa Bush had the Iranian civilian aircraft shot down with all the passangers on it. Seems to me a more terrorist act when a state downs a civilian aircraft than when say a crazy religious zealot does it.


Could WF please do a report on this?

But America has rejected the desire by 160 other countries to have United Nations talks about banning an arms race in space, an extravagantly unilateral approach whose appeal you might have thought would have been tarnished by its experience in Iraq.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.

The label full spectrum dominance implies
that US forces are able to conduct prompt,
sustained, and synchronized operations with
combinations of forces tailored to specific
situations and with access to and freedom to
operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air,
and information. Additionally, given the global
nature of our interests and obligations, the
United States must maintain its overseas
presence forces and the ability to rapidly
project power worldwide in order to achieve
full spectrum dominance.

Global Attack is “the ability of the Air Force to
attack rapidly and persistently with a wide range of munitions
anywhere on the globe at any time.”19

How can the space medium be further exploited to counter terrorism?

Exploiting the space medium should continue to be the aim
of the US Air Force’s space supremacy vision.

For example, the US in October 2005 voted “no” for the first time on
the annual United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution on
the need for a treaty on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
Space (PAROS), whereas the traditional US action for at least
the past decade has been to abstain. (The US was the only “no”
vote; Israel abstained; 160 countries voted “yes.”)18

The Chief of Staff, US Air
Force’s (CSAF’s) Title X, US
Code wargame, Global Engagement,
has showcased several
types of space capabilities
including tungsten rods (fragmentary
penetrators) launched
from space at speeds up to
Mach 17 and CAVs that will deliver these precision weapons
anywhere on the globe in less than 60 minutes.

Thanks to space, our forces are able to move faster and fight smarter and more precisely. Those are keys to success in any war, but particularly in the type of unconventional counterinsurgency operations we’re conducting in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world in the Global War on Terrorism.”12

Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the Naval War College, wrote: “The blunt and even confrontational language of the new policy puts the United States at odds with the priorities of the other space-faring nations. … The language … is so broad that it reads more like a blanket claim to hegemony in space…”4

In a speech given in February 1957, the late General Bernard
A. Schriever, USAF, retired, clearly gave his vision on the
future of space and space superiority. He said, “Our safety as
a nation may depend upon our achieving ‘space superiority.’
Several decades from now the important battles may not be sea
battles or air battles, but space battles …”38

Space warfare is on the horizon.

Another concept with momentum is exploiting “near-space,”
which is the atmosphere between 65,000 and 325,000 feet.24
For example, Raytheon Corporation is working on concepts involving
short duration (hours or less), medium duration (hours
to weeks), and long duration (weeks to months) type space
platforms. Such platforms include unmanned aerial vehicles,
airships, steerable balloons, and static balloons.25

Another possible option is deploying a small space vehicle
that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20 times the
speed of sound.11 These types of hypervelocity weapons are
not meant to be “offensive” in space. Their intent is to strike
targets on the ground, in the air, on the seas, and so forth.

The key is to not allow the terrorists to get to the point that
they could inflict severe and catastrophic destruction on the
space segment(s).

To further examine the prospect that space will become a
battlefield in the future and how using space can counter terrorism,
one must examine how a number of the US Air Force’s
distinctive capabilities relate to space power and their use in
countering terrorism.

Conducting counter terrorism operations from space and with
space-based assets is a logical step, one that will become even
more compelling in the future.

Through the years, our domestic/national space policies progressed
from promoting space for scientific purposes through
the controversial Space Defense Initiative of the Reagan administration
to the 1996 Clinton administration policy that is
being updated by the Bush administration. This new national
space policy, “is expected to give a green light to the already
articulated by DoD and US Air Force strategy to fight ‘in, from,
and through space,’ turning upside down some 40 years of US
policy and practice that put a priority on the peaceful uses of
space.”33 It is in step with the current Bush administration’s
policy of “preempting” aggressors before they can inflict harm
against the US or coalition forces.


oh god!!!!!!!!!!!! look at that woman’s nose.


Martin Savidge did a great job. Why is he leaving?I have seen his replcement many times and she is an excellent anchor,however you already had one.


Ken Turner is right!

That’s why I am disappointed that Mr. Martin Savidge, as of today, will only be hosting at least once a month.

Mr. Savidge, always professional, smart, charismatic, and a joy to watch.

Everyday I watch World Focus. Mr. Savidge will surely be missed on a daily basis. ***I’m just not sure there’s anyone who can make this program more successful or joyful to watch. Sorry, but that’s my opinion.


Why does an intelligent, educated woman (Rona) use non-words, such as “uneffective”, “yeah”,”gonna” – is it just laziness? I watch your show for better-than average news; please don’t subject me to a Valley Girl’s dialogue.

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2021 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television