As the conventional weaponry and training of the other regional states has caught up to that of Israel, the Israeli government has relied increasingly on its unacknowledged nuclear capability to deter its potential adversaries, reducing the effect that U.S. regional arms sales have on Israel's QME. For Washington, arms sales are powerful political and military signals of the U.S. intention to stand by its allies, both Israeli and Arab. At the same time, the potential adversaries against whom QME must be maintained are changing. States such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia now pose less threat and even find themselves strategically aligned with Israel in their desire to contain and deter Iran's regional aims and the development of the Islamic Republic's own nuclear capacity.

Because the strategic bifurcation of the Middle East into Israel and a monolithic Arab bloc is no longer relevant, traditional assumptions regarding QME do not hold true anymore. For example, the sale of sophisticated conventional weaponry to Arab states no longer necessarily implies a corresponding reduction in Israel's QME. Instead, such a sale is a double-edged sword, reducing Israel's QME to the extent such Arab states continue to represent Israeli adversaries, but increasing Israel's QME by increasing the military capability of states aligned with it in their desire to deter Iranian aggression. Any new concept of Israel's QME should consider this dynamic and both inoculate Israel against threats from its neighbors and account for Israel's and the United States's mutual interest in ensuring that moderate Arab states retain sufficient capability to deter Iranian belligerence.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Israel's victories, first in the 1967 Six-Day war and then in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, led Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to conclude that Israel could not easily be defeated militarily. This realization set the stage for the future Egyptian-Israeli settlement and bolstered the argument within the Israeli government that QME served a political as well as military function. After the 1973 war, the United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, replacing France as Israel's largest arms supplier. [5] The U.S. government, however, also continued to supply weaponry to Israel's neighbors, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, to counter Soviet arms sales in the region. Today, Israel remains the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military financing, recently signing a $30 billion military aid agreement, equivalent to a 25 percent increase in military assistance over the next decade. [6]

Ronald Reagan made the commitment to Israel's qualitative edge explicit, an assurance every subsequent U.S. administration has reiterated. [7] Nonetheless, during the Reagan years, the qualitative gap between Jerusalem and Riyadh shrank dramatically. [8] With the 1981 sale of AWACS airborne radar systems to Saudi Arabia, the United States eroded the Israeli Air Force's edge over any hostile Arab coalition. As Israel's technological advantage in weapon systems diminished throughout the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. officials argued both that the Israeli military still maintained the QME at the subsystem level, with improved software and more lethal targeting systems, and also that superior Israeli tactics, training, logistics, and morale compensated for Arab high-tech arms purchases. [9] Israeli officials disagree. Since the mid-1980s, many of Israel's traditional adversaries including Egypt and Jordan have taught their troops U.S.-style combat tactics, sent their officers and senior enlisted troops to U.S. and European military courses, and participated in joint exercises with U.S. and other Western forces. The degree to which Israeli combat tactics remain superior to those of its Arab foes has decreased, but to what extent is uncertain. [10]

U.S. officials have fulfilled QME commitments to Israel either by downgrading the capability of weapon systems that it sold to Arab states or by upgrading versions sold to Israel. [11] On several occasions, the United States sold "balancing" weapons packages [12] to the Israelis whenever a major deal was concluded with Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern states. [13]

While increased U.S. arms sales and involvement in the Middle East since the 1980s may have degraded the capability gap between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel's not-so-secret nuclear arsenal is the ultimate expression of its QME. According to unclassified U.S. intelligence estimates, Israel possesses between 75 and 130 nuclear weapons. [14] Israel will not confirm that it has nuclear weapons, choosing instead to maintain a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" in which it says it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. No adversary can initiate hostile action against Israel without considering potential nuclear retaliation. That the White House never openly questions Israel's need for this arsenal or criticizes its expansion demonstrates U.S. commitment to QME, particularly because this silence is at odds with articulated U.S. positions on nuclear nonproliferation.

DETERMINING THE QME

Israeli military officials also have some input. At the annual Defense Department Joint Political Military Group meeting, Israeli officials list systems whose possession by their adversaries they deem threatening to their QME. Israeli policymakers define their QME as "the ability to sustain credible military advantage that provides deterrence and, if need be, the ability to rapidly achieve superiority on the battlefield against any foreseeable combination of forces with minimal damage and casualties." [15] In assessing QME, Israel focuses on the threats from advanced weapon systems rather than on platforms, with the exception of submarines and unarmed aerial vehicles. Other Israeli considerations include geographic proximity, transferability, precedents, and synergy between different systems.

While there is no congressionally-mandated requirement to submit a report on Israel's QME from a qualitative or quantitative basis, Section 404(c) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (P.L. 102-138) requires the President to submit to Congress annually the Middle East Arms Transfer Report, which documents all transfers of conventional and unconventional arms by any nation to the Middle East and Persian Gulf region and analyzes their effect on the regional military balance. Additionally, when the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress of proposed arms sales to the Middle East, it includes a statement about the expected impact on Israel's QME. Still, no U.S. intelligence agency conducts an annual review of Israel's QME or the impact of U.S. arms sales in the region, and Congress can and has objected to the executive branch's determinations of weapons release. In 1998, for example, congressmen raised concerns that "sales of sophisticated equipment could erode Israel's qualitative edge over its Arab neighbors, if the Gulf states were to join a joint Arab military action against Israel." [16]

There is no official U.S. government definition of QME, and the QME is not mentioned in the national security strategy, although this ambiguity may be intentional. Secretary of State Warren Christopher voiced the common understanding, though, when he stated that "we will maintain Israel's qualitative military edge and its ability to defend itself, by itself." [17] For fiscal year 2007, the Defense Department's foreign military financing submission states that its assistance to Israel would serve three U.S. goals:

Maintaining the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) qualitative edge in the regional balance of power; strengthening Israel's ability to deter threats and defend itself;

Preventing regional conflict; assisting Israel in achieving our shared goals of countering terrorism and weapons of mass destruction [WMD] proliferation;

Building the confidence necessary for Israel to take calculated risks for peace, as evidenced by Israel's disengagement from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank in 2005. [18]

PROBLEMATIC STATUS QUO

Such issues highlight the lack of analytical framework or methodology to assess QME. According to the Israeli definition, QME can equate to Israel versus most of the Arab Middle East and Iran, but, if U.S. policymakers took the traditional Israeli definition at face value, Washington could not arm Persian Gulf allies that support U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran. This is significant, given the fact that both the Persian Gulf states and Israel rightly view the Iranian regime as their greatest military concern.

The Iranian challenge to U.S. interests is acute. [19] It remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism. [20] The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps exploited the July, 2006, Hezbollah war with Israel to advance its regional policy goals in the Levant. Iranian officials have provided training, funds, and weapons to a variety of Shi‘i militias in Iraq that used improvised explosive devices to maim and kill U.S. and Coalition troops. [21] The regime has utilized instability in Iraq and Afghanistan to reassert an Iranian claim to regional power status.

Iran's weapons of mass destruction capability and ballistic missile arsenal are significant. U.S. intelligence agencies have determined Iran is likely pursuing chemical and biological weapons. While such weapons would be of limited military value, they could nevertheless change the nature of a conflict, as they would have psychological and possibly political effects far greater than their actual military impact. [22] Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East. One of the most disturbing aspects of the Iranian WMD program is its determined effort to construct ballistic missiles that will enable Tehran to deliver conventional or, potentially, chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads against its neighbors in the region and beyond. Iran claimed last fall that its Shahab-3 missile can strike targets at distances up to 1,200 miles, including Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and southeastern Europe. Iran's Shahab-4 will have twice that range at 2,400 miles, allowing Iran to strike Germany, Italy, and Moscow. [23]

The Iranian government has developed an extensive infrastructure, from laboratories to industrial facilities, to support its research for nuclear weapons. It has continued its efforts since December, 2005, to resume enrichment of uranium, in defiance of the international community. [24] Short of military intervention and subsequent regime change, the Islamic Republic could have a nuclear weapon sometime in the beginning to the middle of the next decade.

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious strategic threat to the United States and its allies because the leadership in Tehran would be emboldened to advance its ambitions in and outside of the region, both directly and through terrorist proxies. Nuclear weapons could thus lower the threshold for Iran's use of conventional force. Iranian decision-makers might believe that their nuclear arsenal would protect the country from retaliation and so might act more readily against U.S. forces and allies both in the region and elsewhere. As RAND Corporation's David Ochmanek argues, a " nuclear-armed Iran is likely to demonstrate more risky and assertive behavior — particularly in areas like terrorism — and significantly increase the risks for escalation, even if unintended." [25] A nuclear Iran would also exacerbate regional tensions, especially given the possibility that Israeli officials would seek to preempt Iranian capability.

A NEW STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

This has led to what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes as "a new strategic alignment" in the Middle East that pits Washington and those governments with a desire to strengthen peace and stability against those who support the violent extremism of states such as Syria and Iran. In this alignment, U.S. policymakers count as their allies Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with the leaders of Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq. [26]

For the first time, Israel and most Arab countries in the Middle East find themselves partners because of their mutual shared distrust of Iran. Their strategic alliance — which exists, even if it remains unacknowledged—could represent the first line of defense and deterrence for the United States against Iran.

To help strengthen this tenuous coalition designed to contain Iranian influence and bolster regional defenses and deterrent capabilities, the U.S. government initiated the Gulf Security Dialogue, a diplomatic effort focused on arms sales and assistance such as port security and energy infrastructure protection for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman. [27] A failure of this strategic partnership to mature would further embolden Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and enable it to undermine U.S. interests in a variety of spheres. [28]

In such a situation, reassessing the manner in which the U.S. government considers the QME is necessary. At present, no Arab state appears eager to launch a war with Israel. Iraq is no longer a threat. Syria suffers from aging equipment and a limited Air Force capability, [29] and the Middle East peace process has, for all practical purposes, eliminated Jordan as a danger to Israel and muted any Egyptian threat, at least in the near term. While Hezbollah's perceived victory in the Summer of 2006 could encourage potential Arab adversaries such as Syria to accelerate development of asymmetric warfare capabilities, conventional war is extremely unlikely in the near to mid term. Israel does face a growing asymmetric threat from organized terrorist units, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, and weapons of mass destruction, but Jerusalem retains its advantage in space reconnaissance, long-range missiles, nuclear weapons, and anti-tactical ballistic missiles, all of which are part of Israel's deterrence strategy. Asymmetrical threats and terrorist attacks will still likely remain Israel's most pressing day-to-day concern, one that Israel's QME will be incapable of neutralizing, but any existential threat will likely be external. Israeli strategists also worry about longterm regime stability in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, but such future concerns cannot drive U.S. policy away from addressing immediate, high-priority threats to itself and its allies, which, in this case, center upon the common Iranian threat.

This will require U.S. clarification with Israel over the QME. Israeli officials still consider sale of advanced weapons to regional Arab states to represent erosion of their qualitative edge. By the Israeli definition of QME, they are correct: Any weapons release to an Arab country adversely affects Israel's QME. But there are signs that the Israeli government is beginning to take a more pragmatic stance, with regard to U.S. arms sales to Washington's Arab allies. The U.S. government — both the Bush administration and various congressional committees — have, since early 2007, been considering a $20 billion weapons package to Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states. Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not publicly objected to these sales and has acknowledged the need for Washington to support Arab states opposed to Iran. But pro-Israel lobbyists still use their influence in Congress to suggest limits to the package, such as restricting deployment of certain systems to the immediate Persian Gulf region and eliminating specific precision systems from the sale. [30]

What if Washington does not supply weapons to Middle Eastern states? What might occur if the U.S. policymakers accede to Israeli pressure not to counterbalance Iranian aggression with arms sales to Arab allies? Increased instability is the likely result, with more sectarian strife in Iraq and uncertainty in Lebanon. With an emboldened Iran fueling instability, many Middle Eastern countries will spend more on high-tech arms from external suppliers, while accelerating their indigenous capabilities to develop and produce rockets, missiles, and other weaponry.

Should the U.S. government decline to provide weaponry, a number of countries, including Russia, China, France, Great Britain and others, would fill the gap without regard to QME concerns. [31] For example, in 2006, Saudi officials signed a memorandum of understanding with the British government to purchase 72 Typhoon multi-role jet fighters worth approximately US$21.2 billion, and Riyadh is currently negotiating with Russia to buy 150 T-90 tanks worth at least $1 billion. The United Arab Emirates' Air Force has solicited bids for an aerial electronic warfare and early warning platform, a deal worth about $1 billion. [32]

Should U.S. companies lose arms sales to the region, the U.S. government will also lose leverage and senior leader access, counter-proliferation influence and procurement savings inherent to each sale, as well as interoperability, which is crucial, should there ever be a crisis requiring U.S. deployment and Coalition operations. The effect could be longterm. If, for example, U.S. officials do not sell the littoral combat ship [33] to Saudi Arabia, it could take between twenty and thirty years until U.S. officials would have another opportunity to regain influence with the Royal Saudi Naval Forces. In the past, relationships forged through weapons sales and security cooperation have led to increased basing rights, pre-positioning of equipment, and access to port facilities. Past weapons sales proved crucial to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in the global war on terrorism.

Fulfillment of arms sales packages does not equate to abandoned leverage. The Pentagon retains influence with provision of repair parts, technical assistance, and upgrades. U.S. authorities are more likely to limit weapons sales to less capable export variants or smaller quantities than other exporting nations. For example, the recently delivered advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) for the Saudi Arabian Air Force are less capable than the NATO-standard version provided to Israel. Precision targeting systems like the Harpoon II and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) are dependent upon U.S. supplied software, which could be cut off, if need be.

A NEW APPROACH

One possible way to reassess Israeli QME with regard to future weapons sales to the region would be a regional, security-based approach. At present, no "decision tree" exists to aide analysts when considering weapons sales to Middle Eastern states.

Under such a system, U.S. officials would have to determine that any potential weapons sale bolsters regional alliances and deters radical regimes such as those in Syria and Iran, that the country's strategic framework within the region justifies the sale, that the country's possession of this system or capability supports its own national security interests, and that the system promotes interoperability with the U.S. military. If the answers are negative, the request for the sale should be denied. However, if they are affirmative, the arms sale might then be addressed against Israeli concerns.

Such analysis would consider whether the proposed system would erode Israeli technical advantages in other areas, to include armor, self-propelled artillery, targeting and counter battery systems, air intercept and strike aircraft, attack helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, standoff precision guided air-to-ground munitions, surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles, and theater ballistic missile defense. Finally, analysis should assess whether the sale of this system would lessen Israel's deterrent advantage from a psychological standpoint. If the answers are "no," the arms sale might be approved; however, if the answer to any questions were "yes," the request should then be further analyzed in context of regional dynamics. This would address whether other countries in the Middle East already possessed the system or capability, or if other countries such as France, Britain, China, or Russia also sought to sell the system to the country in question. If the answers are negative, analysts might consider wild card scenarios, such as the risks that the capability could proliferate to other countries or non-state actors within the region, and whether U.S. ability to influence the country through training and spare parts sales would outweigh those risks. If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," the request for the weapons sale would be analyzed against a number of mitigating factors.

The U.S. government has often sold downgraded weapon systems to Arab states and upgraded versions to Israel or leveraged "balancing" weapons packages to the Israelis alongside sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Analysts might continue to determine if a downgraded version of the weapon is available and whether U.S. officials could mitigate technical capabilities through the withholding of maintenance, satellites, software upgrades, guidance data links, global positioning systems, or digital imagery enhancement techniques.

The interagency could adopt other analytical tools as well, such as a capabilities-based approach using a doctrinal, organizational, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and facilities methodology to analyze Israel and likely combinations of its regional adversaries. The U.S. government could sponsor war games using simulations to analyze the effects of arms sales on Israeli QME. Such simulations use investigative/causative or deterministic/process flow modeling to help correlate how minute changes in a system affect the behavior on the entire system. Examples include Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)'s situation intuitive assessment model, a decision-making tool that breaks down complex issues so that important relationships can be recognized and evaluated, and the Institute of Electrical Engineers' STELLA model, a dynamic simulation model that allows qualitative analysis of a system and determination of the cause and effect relationships between activities.

A paradigm shift in how U.S. and Israeli policymakers approach the QME will not only enable Washington to renew its public commitment to ensure Israel's survival, but, by creating a mechanism to help defend moderate Arab states from the Iranian threat, it will also begin to repair the image of the United States in at least part of the Arab world. It is not in the interest of either the United States or Israel to allow misapplication of QME to hamper combined response to the threat of Iranian aggression and terror.

NOTES:

[2] "Maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge: Dilemmas for the Bush Administration," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dec. 16, 2001.

[3] Romesh Ratnesar, "May 14, 1948," Time Magazine, Mar. 31, 2003; "Letter from Eliahu Epstein to President Truman, May 14, 1948, Telegram regarding President Truman's announcement that the U.S. had officially recognized Palestine's new provisional government," Harry S Truman Library and Museum collection, accessed Aug. 23, 2007.

[4] Yuval Steinitz, "The Growing Threat to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dec. 11, 2003.

[5] "Israel: The Yom Kippur War," Brittanica Online, accessed Sept. 18, 2007.

[6] The New York Times, Aug. 17, 2007.

[7] Colin L. Powell, remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C., Mar. 19, 2001.

[8] "Maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge."

[9] See, for example, LTC Stephen H. Gotowicki, "Considering a U.S. Military Force on the Golan: Confronting Hyperbole, Paranoia, Hysteria, and Agendas," Foreign Military Studies Office, U.S. Army, May 8, 1996.

[10] "The Qualitative Edge," JINSA Online, Apr. 1, 1994; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel's Uncertain Strategic Future," Parameters, Spring 2007, pp. 37-54.

[11] Shai Feldman and Abdullah Toukan, Bridging the Gap: A Future Security Architecture for the Middle East (New York: Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict Series, Carnegie Corporation, 1997), chap. 3, p. 48.

[12] "AMRAAM Said NOT to Impact on Israel's Qualitative Military Edge," JINSA Online, May 1, 1995.

[13] The New York Times, Sept. 27, 1992.

[14] "Israel: Nuclear Weapons," Federation of American Scientists, accessed Aug. 21, 2007; BBC News, Aug. 23, 2000.

[15] "Israel's Qualitative Military Edge," Israeli delegation presentation to the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Group (DPAG), Washington, D.C., Apr. 4, 2006.

[16] Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 25, 1998.

[17] Warren Christopher, "Maintaining the Momentum for Peace in the Middle East," speech at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., Oct 24, 1994; Barry Rubin "The United States and the Middle East, 1994," in Ami Ayalon and Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, eds., Middle East Contemporary Survey, 1994, vol. 18 (New York: Westview Press, 1996), accessed Oct. 19, 2007.

[18] "Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2007," U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Feb. 13, 2006, p. 462.

[19] "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States," U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, Washington, D.C., Aug. 23, 2006.

[20] "Country Reports on Terrorism, 2004," U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Apr. 2005, p. 88.

[21] "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat," Aug. 23, 2006.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] U.N. Security Council resolutions 1696, 1737, and 1747.

[25] "Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment or Engagement?," summary, RAND Public Policy Forum Conference, Washington, D.C., Mar. 21, 2007.

[26] Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, "The New Way Forward in Iraq," testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2007.

[27] The Boston Globe, Mar. 21, 2007; Condoleezza Rice, interview with Reuters, Dec. 16, 2006; Jim Saxton (Rep.-N.J.), "Reshaping Our Iran Policy," The National Interest, Jan. 3, 2007.

[28] Dalia Dassa Kaye, "A Strategy for Iran," United Press International, Feb. 10, 2006.

[29] Gotowicki, "U.S. Military Force on the Golan," p. 9.

[30] The New York Times, Aug. 17, 2007.

[31] Defense News (Springfield, Va.), Mar. 12, 2007.

[32] Defense News, Mar. 12, 2007.

[33] Defense Industry Daily (Thetford Ctr., Vt.), Dec. 11, 2006.

William Wunderle, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and Andre Briere, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, are both Middle East political military planners in the Joint Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) Directorate of the Joint Staff. The authors thank D. Christian Addicott and Major Alyssa Drew, U.S. Army, for their advice. The foregoing article by Lieutenant Colonels Wunderle and Briere does not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Defense.

Wunderle's and Briere's article was originally published in the Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008, and can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a think tank which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.

Return to Top of Page

Go to the WEBSITE INDEX

Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies

Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles

Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2007

Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights

Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage

CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION

LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:

Africa: Black Africa * Africa: North Africa * American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.

POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS

POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE

Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy

INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

---

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity