The decline of arms control as an instrument of policy in the Bush Administration is charted in a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service, which surveys the evolution of the field over the last several decades.
“The Bush Administration has altered the role of arms control in U.S. national security policy,” the CRS report states.
“The President and many in his Administration question the degree to which arms control negotiations and formal treaties can enhance U.S. security objectives.”
“Instead, the Administration would prefer, when necessary, that the United States take unilateral military action or join in ad hoc coalitions to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
“The absence of confidence in arms control has extended to the State Department, where the Bush Administration has removed the phrase ‘arms control’ from all bureaus that were responsible for this policy area.”
See “Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements,” January 29, 2007.
The proposed Office will resurrect the long-closed Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the archive of which has been maintained by FAS for decades at https://ota.fas.org/.
If Congress needs help understanding the risks and rewards of a piece of technology, they shouldn’t have to rely solely on the sparknotes from a salesman. The rub is much simpler: Congress needs nerds.
If we set up the new OTA to do its job well, members will see it as the first stop to see what issues are lurking around the corner. They will bring their questions early. And they will keep coming back for more.
Even the best-designed policy rests on assumptions about who will staff it, how it will be funded, whether the responsible institutions have ever coordinated, and if the goals are achievable.