Behind the Numbers

As August draws to a close, we're waiting for that usual spate of stories that details American military deaths in Iraq over the past month. Earlier this year, when U.S. forces were averaging more than one hundred fatalities a month, the casualty stories were front-page news, proof that the recently-launched troop surge was not working.

Last month, the tone of those articles shifted dramatically, with news that monthly death toll had dropped sharply, from 101 in June, to 79 in July. However, as we've noted before, stories about "body counts" are not always an accurate indicator of what's happening on the battlefield. By that standard, some of the most successful military campaigns in history would be judged as failures, because they resulted in significant casualties.

Additionally, most of the casualty coverage from Iraq has made no mention of enemy deaths, for a couple of reasons. First, that data is often difficult to compile, while U.S. fatalities are dutifully reported by the Defense Department. Secondly, the idea that we're killing large numbers of terrorists detracts from the "meat grinder" template that's been established with the monthly casualty stories and other reporting from Iraq.

That's why the "slant" of the August casualty statistics should prove interesting--and illustrative. Ahead of General Petraeus's report on the troop surge (due in a couple of weeks), the monthly casualty stories provide an opportunity for the MSM to prepare their "backdrop" for his assessment. It's a safe bet the press reporting will highlight the "failures" of Iraq's government, despite significant progress by coalition security forces. In a similar vein, the most casualty totals can be used to paint the "high cost" at which that progress was achieved.

With the end of the month just a few hours away in Baghdad, the U.S. fatality total for August stands at 79--the same number recorded last month. That will likely generate such headlines as "American deaths hold steady in August," or "Combat deaths inch upward," (assuming that there are additional fatalities that have not yet been reported by DoD). In either case, the implication is the same: We're still losing 80 soldiers a month, so our "progress" is clearly limited.

But that analysis is wrong on multiple levels. Not only have the number of attacks dropped steadily, U.S. combat deaths have also continued their decline. Unlike this forum (and other milblogs), the MSM simply lumps all of the monthly fatalities together, regardless of cause. Fact is, our forces in Iraq suffer a number of non-hostile casualties each month, the results of illnesses, accidents and other mishaps. That may be little consolation to the families, but it is an important consideration if you're using combat deaths as an indicator of "progress."

Using data from the icasualties web site, we determined that 54 U.S. military personnel were killed in combat in Iraq during August. The other 25 died mostly in accidents, including two helicopter crashes that claimed a total of 19 American lives. The continued drop in combat deaths follows a trend that's become increasingly evident, as detailed by this monthly breakdown, which includes the number of hostile fire and non-combat deaths:

Month/Total Fatalities/Hostile/Non-Hostile

April 104 94 10
May 126 118 8
Jun 101 92 9
Jul 79 66 13
Aug 79 54 25

In other words, Americans combat deaths in Iraq has dropped by almost 50% over the past three months--while the number of troops in harm's way has increased (the surge hit its peak less than two weeks ago), with a corresponding spike in our operational tempo. We mourn for all of our fallen heroes, but the significant drop in casualties--during a period of greatly expanded operations--offers clear proof that the surge is working, and that their sacrifice was not in vain.

Now, let's see how much of that "analysis" makes its way into the monthly casualty sorties that will appear over the weekend.

Nowak Gets a Break

A Florida judge has ruled that disgraced former astronaut Lisa Nowak no longer has to wear her GPS monitoring bracelet, while she awaits trial on charges of assaulting and attempting to kidnap a romantic rival.

In a decision released yesterday, Orange County Circuit Court Judge Marc Lubet granted Nowak's request to remove the ankle bracelet, which tracked her movements anywhere in the world. Officials involved in the monitoring program told the Orlando Sentinel that Nowak's bracelet was removed from her leg by the end of the day.

The monitoring device was attached to Nowak almost six months ago, as part of the conditions for her release from jail. In her petition to have the bracelet removed, the Navy Captain complained about the cost she was required to pay ($105 a week) and how it interfered with her lifestyle.

As we noted in a previous post, Nowak's complaints were largely without merit--and Judge Lubet agreed. In his ruling, the judge said that the former astronaut's rationale for removing the bracelet--it was too heavy, prevented her from exercising, kept her from traveling on commercial aircraft--was insufficient. However, Lubet decided to grant her request anyway, noting Nowak's compliance with the monitoring effort and the absence of criminal behavior in her past.

Judge Lubet also decided that the bracelet was not serving its intended purpose, protecting the woman that Nowak attacked, Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman. After being attacked by the Navy officer at the Orlando Airport in February, Shipman made "three or four" trips to Houston to see her boyfriend, then-astronaut Bill Oefelein, who was previously involved with Nowak. According to Lubet, her willingness to visit Houston--where Nowak also lived--suggested that the GPS device offered no protection to Shipman.

While ordering the bracelet removed, Judge Lubet set additional restrictions on Nowak's activities that prevent her from visiting Florida (where Shipman resides) or Virginia (where Oefelein is now assigned) without the court's permission. Those directives will also be incorporated into a formal order from Nowak's commanding officer, raising the possibility of military punishment--as well as court penalties--if she violates the restrictions ordered by Lubet.

The judge has yet to rule on two other motions filed by Nowak's attorneys. They ask that her statments to police and items seized from her car be dismissed as evidence if the case goes to trial.

***

While Lubet's decision to remove the monitoring bracelet was a clear victory for Nowak, her defense team still faces an uphill battle with their planned insanity defense. As one legal expert told the Sentinel, "generally, you argue an insanity defense when you don't have anything else to argue."

Another Step Backwards

HH-60 Pave Hawk. The Air Force is still searching for its replacment, and delays in that program could mean that some of the current CSAR choppers will be flying long after their projected retirement date (USAF photo via Air Force Times)

Efforts to field a new helicopter for Air Force combat search and rescue (CSAR) units have suffered another setback.

Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office announced that the competitors for the helicopter contract--Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky--will be allowed to revise their bids because the Air Force has changed its methods for calculating maintenance costs. Previously, the GAO ruled that the service erred in determining projected maintenance costs for the three choppers, the HH-47 (built by Boeing), the US-101 (a European design produced under license by Lockheed) and Sikorsky's S-92.

While acknowledging that its maintenance calculations were off, the Air Force refused to let the three contractors revise their bids. That touched off another round of protests from Lockheed and Sikorsky, prompting the most recent GAO ruling. Ten months ago, the Air Force actually awarded a $15-billion contract to Boeing for a CSAR version of its CH-47 Chinook. But, as Air Force Times reminds us, that deal was put on hold, due to objections from Lockheed and Sikorsky.

Obviously, there's a need for transparency (and accountability) in the contracting process, and CSAR crews deserve the best platform for their demanding mission. But continued haggling over the helicopter deal suggests that we're entering a new era of defense contracting. If the initial process doesn't go you way, file and appeal and keep keep them coming until your company wins the contract--or, at least gets another shot at the contract.

Here's the bottom line: the Air Force (arguably) made a mistake when it bought the HH-60 Pave Hawk for the CSAR mission 20 years ago. It's load capacity is severely limited; with a full rescue crew on-board, there's only room for two litter patients. There's also recognition that the "traditional" rescue mission of rescuing downed pilots or aircrew members has changed; a more likely assignment for today's CSAR crews is the exfiltration of SOF personnel, which (typically) requires greater lift capability and a more rugged airframe.

The HH-47 met those requirements, and it's a big reason that Boeing won the CSAR contract last November. Opponents of the Boeing product have argued that the chopper is too noisy for rescue missions, but that ignores an important fact: the Army's elite SF aviation unit recently took its new Chinook variant (the MH-47G) into combat over Afghanistan, and the results have been impressive to date. If the MH-47 is stealthy enough for the Night Stalkers, it should be quiet enough for CSAR.

Meanwhile, those HH-60s keep getting older, and their lift capacity will never improve. When the HH-47 contract was announced last fall, the Air Force hoped to receive the first helicopter in 2009; with the GAO's mandate to re-open the bidding process, the delivery date will be delayed until at least 2010 or 2011. That's important, because the planned replacement of the HH-60s will occur over a 12-year span, meaning that some Pave Hawks may still be in service in 2022, long after their projected retirement.

Or, if airframe stress and reliability become an issue, the Air Force will simply retire the Pave Hawks on schedule, while waiting for the final deliveries of the new CSAR helicopter. That would result in significant operational gaps, with some units having limited capabilites due to aging or limited equipment. It's not the sort of thing that aviators, SOF personnel and other "potential" CSAR customers want to hear.

At some point, somebody is the Pentagon needs to say "enough" and end the bidding process once and for all. All three helicopters had the opportunity to "show their stuff," and with the revised maintenance costs, we should have a firm idea of how much it will cost to keep them flying. With the next round of bids, Air Force (and DoD) officials should have enough information to make a final decision, allowing the service to get on with the process of buying and fielding a new rescue chopper. The GAO could be helpful as well, by waving off the protests that will inevitably come from the losing contractors. A final decision on the "new" rescue platform has been delayed long enough.

But sadly, we think the "helicotper wars" are far from over. The proposed CSAR platform contract is not only lucrative, it's attracting a lot of political interest as well. Sikorsky's S-92 would be built in Connecticut, so Senators Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd are lined up behind it; the assembly plant for Lockheed-Martin's US-101 is located in New York, so you can imagine which chopper is being supported by Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton. As for the Boeing aircraft, it would be produced in Pennsylvania, the home of influential GOP Senator Arlen Spector. With billions of dollars (and hundreds of jobs) at stake, it's doubtful that any of these pols will "surrender" the CSAR contract without a fight.

In the late summer of 2007, the Air Force is no closer to buying a new rescue helicopter than it was a year ago. And, if the haggling and protests continue, we may be stuck in the same rut a year from now. For something as imporant as a CSAR helicopter, it's simply no way to do business.

More Proof that Libs Don't Understand Radio..

...Bonneville International is pulling the plug on "Washington Post Radio," which aired on one of its stations in the nation's capital. The 17-month experiment, which featured Post reporters in a blend of news and talk programming (just imagine how exciting that was) failed to attract an audience and was losing money. So much money that Bonneville and the Post decided to terminate the partnership barely half-way through their three-year agreement.

When the format was launched in early 2006, it was described as "NPR on Caffeine" (and they wonder why it floundered!). But the station failed to attract even one percent of the D.C. listening audience, and WTWP--clever call letters, huh?--was mired in 18th place in the most recent Arbitron ratings, ranking just ahead of a "Christian Contemporary Hits" station, a couple of second-string country outlets, and an AM station playing "Latin Pop."

By comparison, Citadel-owned WMAL-AM, with a conservative talk line-up that includes Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, is #8 in the market with a 3.4 rating. Ironically, the market's most popular AM station is another Bonneville news outlet, WTOP, which does not brand its coverage with the Washington Post.

While the paper's primary role was to provide reporters (and stories) for discussion, the failure of "Washington Post Radio" suggests that the outlet has limited appeal, even in its home market. Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie described the venture as a "good experiment" which is media exec-speak for "Thank God Bonneville lost most of the money on that one."

To no one's surprise, there are no plans to resurrect "Washington Post Radio" on another station in the market. The format is expected to be replaced by--you guessed it--a conservative talk line-up featuring Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz, among others.

Bonneville is a large broadcasting group that owns some news/talk powerhouses, including KSL in Salt Lake City. So, they're not a bunch of numb-skull, arrogant upstarts (hellooo, Air America). That's why we were a bit surprised when the WTWP concept was unveiled almost two years ago; it struck us as a sure-fire loser, despite the Post's dominance of the D.C. print media market. "NPR on caffeine" is not something that sounds like a ratings-grabber and sure enough, the experiment failed miserably.

Back to the newspaper, boys and girls, where your particular brand of "news" and "analysis" can still attract an audience. Leave radio for the pros.

Two Years Later

I didn't watch last night's cable news programs on the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, largely because the media template was established well in advance.

Let me see if I've got it right: two years after the storm, many residents are still hurting, particularly in New Orleans. Large sections of the city remain a wasteland; thousands are living in FEMA trailers and many more have fled to other locations, vowing to never return. Among those who still have a home, many are embroiled in lawsuits with insurance companies, which have refused to pay damage claims. Others are haunted by memories of the storm, and fears that another major hurricane will strike the region soon.

My "summary" is not intended to belittle the suffering of those who experienced Katrina. As I've written before, the storm (and its aftermath) represent a personal tragedy for my family. The hurricane destroyed our oldest daughter's home in coastal Mississippi. The subsequent strain of recovery and relocation eventually resulted in a divorce, with the corresponding, psychological impact on my daughter, her child, and her former spouse. I genuinely understand what the storm victims experienced, and what they continue to endure.

But, as Larry Kudlow points out in a column at RealClearPolitics, there is an unreported story from Hurricane Katrina that cuts to the heart of the recovery effort. How much, he asks, has the federal government spent on New Orleans and the Gulf Region since the storm?

The total (so far) is $127 billion, including tax relief. Put another way, the federal largess is enough to write a $425,000 check for the 300,000 people left in New Orleans. Perhaps, as Mr. Kudlow suggests, we'd be better off in using that approach. A White House "fact sheet" details $50 billion spent for rebuilding schools, levees and other infrastructure; that total also includes $16.7 billion for housing recovery.

What happened to the rest of that money? Your guess is as good as mine.

And what the taxpayers--and residents--getting in return? Conditions in parts of New Orleans remain grim; despite a significant drop in population, the city has become America's murder capital. The homicide rate is 40% higher than before Katrina, and twice as high as cities like Newark, Detroit and Washington, D.C.

So what's the solution? Why more government money, of course. With the presidential election barely a year away, politicians are falling over each other, vowing not to "fail" New Orleans again.

Clearly, the seeds of disaster in New Orleans were sown long before Katrina churned ashore and the levees broke. Decades of corruption, failed leadership, bureaucratic inefficiency and wasted spending created a city that was unprepared for a catastrophic--though long-expected--natural disaster. Now, the same failed system, led by many of the same inept politicians, is supposed to rebuild the Gulf South.

As Mr. Kudlow observes, the region needs a plan built around free market solutions, not endless government spending. And we've seen that, to a degree, in neighboring Mississippi. Just days after the storm, the State Legislature met in emergency session, and approved the relocation of dock-side casinos to dry land. Republican Governor Haley Barbour and the Democratic-controlled legislature understood that the casinos were--and are--the economic engine that drives the coastal economy in Biloxi, Gulfport, and surrounding communities.

Moving the casinos ashore not only offered greater protection against future storms, it also primed the region's economic pump. The relocation process created thousands of construction jobs, boosted local spending, and allowed the casinos to reopen in a matter of months. That allowed employees to regain their jobs (stimulating more economic activity), and the return of gamblers to the coast. Gaming revenue is now at an all-time high in Biloxi.

Admittedly, legalized gambling has its own downside, and many in Mississippi would have preferred that the casinos never return. And, there are many residents in the state's coastal counties who are still struggling. But two years later, Mississippi is much further along in the rebuilding process, not because of politics, but because state and local leaders understood the benefits of a market-based recovery model. Did that receive any play on the cable news channels last night? I rather doubt it. After all, it's much easier to show a victim in New Orleans who's still waiting for Uncle Sam to ride to the rescue; someone who's still hoping that some of that federal aid will somehow "trickle down."

Why We Don't Need a Draft

Give Lance Corporal Mark Finelli his due: when America called, he responded. A former investment advisor for Morgan Stanley, he was in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11. After surviving that horrific day, he served in the Marine Corps, and fought in the battle to retake Fallujah in 2005. He's been in his share of tough spots, and as a combat veteran, deserves our thanks and gratitude.

But that doesn't make him an expert on all things military, or grant him the "absolute moral authority," once ascribed to Mother Sheehan That's why Lance Corporal Finelli is dead wrong in his Newsweek op-ed, advocating a return of the draft because "the children of privilege" no longer serve.

According to the Pentagon, no service personnel have died in an MRAP. So why isn’t every Marine or soldier in Iraq riding in one? Simple economics. An MRAP costs five times more than even the most up-armored Humvee. People need a personal, vested, blood-or-money interest to maximize potential. That is why capitalism has trumped communism time and again, but it is also why private contractors in Iraq have MRAPs while Marines don’t. Because in actuality, America isn’t practicing the basic tenet of capitalism on the battlefield with an all-volunteer military, and won’t be until the reinstitution of the draft. Because until the wealthy have that vested interest, until it’s the sons of senators and the wealthy upper classes sitting in those trucks—it takes more than the McCain boy or the son of Sen. Jim Webb—the best gear won’t get paid for on an infantryman’s timetable

[snip]

It’s not hard to figure out who suffers. The 160,000 servicemen and women in Iraq are the latest generation of Americans to represent their country on the field of battle. And like their predecessors, they are abundantly unrepresented in the halls of power. As a result, they’ve adopted what I find to be a disturbing outlook on their situation: many don’t want the draft because they believe it will ruin the military, which they consider their own blue-collar fraternity. They have heard the horror stories from their dads and granddads about “spoiled” rich officers. Have no doubt: there is a distinct disdain for networked America among the fighting class of this country.

[snip]

President Bush was determined to keep the lives of nonuniformed America—the wealthiest Americans, like himself—uninterrupted by the war. Consequently, we have a severe talent deficiency in the military, which the draft would remedy immediately. While America’s bravest are in the military, America’s brightest are not. Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I’ll bet that in six months they could render IED’s about as effective as a “Just Say No” campaign at a Grateful Dead show.

Let's begin with Finelli's arguments about MRAPs. According to his logic, the IED-resistant vehicles have been slow to reach the troops because their ranks don't include the sons and daughters of wealth and power. It sounds convincing, but the facts prove otherwise. MRAP has been the Pentagon's top acquisition priority for over a year, dating back to the days of Don Rumsfeld (another guy who supposedly didn't care about the grunts in harm's way).

In fact, the biggest reason that MRAPs haven't reached the field is not bureaucratic indifference--it's the military acquisition system. Unlike a private contractor, DoD can't simply pick up the phone and order 7,000 mine-resistant vehicles and demand delivery next week. Even in a "crash" program, prototypes have to be evaluated and competitive bids solicited before production can begin. And, if a manufacturer doesn't have sufficient capacity--as was the case with one MRAP producer--then the process takes even longer. Getting better equipment to the battlefield requires a streamlined acquisition process and higher production rates, not bureaucrats and politicians who "care more."

For what it's worth, the equipment issues that Finelli witnessed in Iraq are nothing new. Consider what happened during World War II, when everyone served and the country was united in its effort to defeat facism. We entered World War II with fighters (P-39, P-40, F4F) that were decidedly inferior to their German and Japanese counterparts. A lot of American pilots paid the price for their poor equipment, trying to match the turn and climb capabilities of Japanese Zeros, or German ME-109s. In time, we developed fighters that were more than a match for the enemy aircraft--most notably, the P-51 Mustang and F6F Hellcat, but they didn't arrive in sufficient numbers until late 1943 and early 1944--more than two years into the war.

On the ground, our "main" battle tank (the M4 Sherman) was no match for the more heavily armored and better-gunned Panthers and Tigers of Hitler's Panzer divisions. Losses in tank crews and equipment were appalling; between D-Day and V-E Day, the Army's 3rd Armored Division had a cumulative loss rate of 600% among its Shermans, with thousands of tankers killed or wounded. At one point during the Battle of the Bulge, the Army was assigning recently-arrived infantry replacements as tank crews, and sending them into battle with only one day of training in a Sherman. And remember: this was during a war when politicians and bureaucrats supposedly had a vested interest in providing the best equipment and training for our "boys."

As for Finelli's contention that a draft would "improve" the military, various studies and analyses reach the opposite conclusion. In today's, all-volunteer force, a recruit typically stays in uniform two years longer than his (or her) counter-part in the conscription-based military of the early 1970s. Lower turnover results in a more experienced and motivated force, with higher performance and reduced training costs.

Additionally, today's volunteers--as evidenced by their willingness to serve--are more likely to meet qualifications for military service. And that becomes a critical consideration when only 28% of the military's primary recruiting target (men between the ages of 17-24) meet the basic criteria for serving in the armed forces. The vast majority of American youth--including potential draftees--do not qualify for the armed services, the result of issues including obesity, poor academic performance, past criminal behavior, and the use of psychotropic drugs for legitimate medical conditions. Prospective conscripts are beset by these same problems--and perhaps in greater numbers than volunteers-- meaning the military would spend more money on screening and drafting personnel, to find those who can actually serve.

And, contrary to Finelli's claims of a "talent deficiency," today's military volunteers are demonstrably brighter than their civilian counterparts. In the enlisted ranks, over 90% are high school graduates (in the Air Force and Navy, that number is over 95%), compared to only 70% in the general population. Among officers, virtually all have college degrees, and in the mid-level and senior grades (O-4 and above) over half have completed graduate school. As with the enlisted force, the education level of our military officers is significantly higher than civilian population. In fact, given the disparity in education between today's volunteer force and corresponding, civilian demographic groups, a draft would actually lower education levels in the military.

Finally, Finelli's belief that a squad of "draftees" from MIT and CalTech could solve the IED problem in six months is pure fantasy. If defeating roadside bombs and suicide attacks was simply an engineering problem or technology exercise, we would have neutralized those threats long ago. Unfortunately, there is no single "silver bullet" for the problem. Taking down bomber networks requires a multi-faceted approach, involving everyone from Marines and soldiers on patrol, to the airman who operates the UAV sensors that monitor suspicious locations, the spooks who assemble bits and pieces of the intel puzzle, and of course, the EOD techs--all volunteers, and mostly junior enlisted and NCOs--who actually disable the IEDs.

Today's U.S. military is the brightest and best-trained fighting force this nation has ever fielded. Certainly, the demands of simultaneous conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have overtaxed ground units, and at some point, we won't be able to sustain current deployment levels. But there isn't a troop shortage because Jenna Bush, Chelsea Clinton and the Kerry Kids took a pass on military service. It's because successive administrations in the 1980s and 1990s, acting on the advice of senior military officers, decided we could get by with fewer soldiers and Marines. As a result, we deleted eight divisions (160,000 troops) from the Army, and reduced the Corps to pre-Vietnam levels.

Don Rumsfeld was right about one thing: you go to war with the Army you've got, not the one you want. The template for today's armed forces was established long before George W. Bush entered the White House, and many of the equipment decisions date back a decade--or longer. Overcoming past mistakes takes time, as evidenced by efforts to expand the Army, and get badly-need MRAPs to the troops. But, to their credit, the politicians and military planners who shaped today's military got one thing right, by sticking with an all-volunteer force, and providing the pay, benefits and other incentives to keep them in uniform.

While we commend Lance Corporal Fenelli for his service, his notions about a draft are simply misguided. Bringing back conscription might expand the ranks--at a significantly higher cost--but there's no evidence that the draft would improve the quality (and performance) of those who serve.

Taking a Pass

When the Class of 2007 at the U.S. Naval Academy received their diplomas and commissions two months ago, one of their best-known members was conspicuously absent.

But it wasn't academic issues or medical problems that kept Midshipman Jason Tomlinson from becoming Ensign Tomlinson, and embarking on a career as a naval surface warfare officer. Shortly before his scheduled departure from Annapolis, Tomlinson--a star player on the academy's football team over the last four seasons--simply elected "not to graduate," a decision that stunned his coaches and fellow Midshipmen.

According to the Annapolis Capital (which recently broke the story), Midshipman Tomlinson had a change of heart, faced with the prospect of spending five years in uniform after graduation:

"I came to realize during my senior year that the military just was not for me. I had been thinking about it for a long time, I prayed about it a lot and I had to do what I felt was right in my heart," Tomlinson said yesterday when contacted by The Capital.

"I did not think it would be fair to the men I would be serving alongside and leading to go into this with reservations and misgivings. My heart wasn't in it."

Capital sportswriter Bill Wagner reports that Tomlinson's teammates and Navy head football coach Paul Johnson tried to convince him to go through with graduation and his military commitment, to no avail. While the service mulls his future, Tomlinson remains a Middie, assigned to the Naval Station facility on the Severn River, near the Academy.

A Navy spokesman told the paper that the service has two options for re-couping the costs of Tomlinson's education; make him pay the bill (an estimated $140,000), or require him to serve in the fleet, as an enlisted sailor. Tomlinson is expected to learn his fate in the near future.

There are reports that Tomlinson's "doubts" about a Navy career may stem from his success on the gridiron. Despite playing in a run-oriented offense, Tomlinson finished his career at Annapolis as the #10 receiver in school history, catching 67 passes for 1,078 yards. Tomlinson also excelled as a punt returner, and was a key figure in the resurgence of Navy's football program. During his four-year career, the Midshipmen logged a 35-15 record, and never lost to rivals from West Point and the Air Force Academy.

In the process, Tomlinson attracted attention from pro scouts, who were impressed by his intelligence, size and speed. But, with Tomlinson obligated for five years of active-duty service, he was not selected in the recent National Football League draft. However, scouts believe that the former Navy player has the skills to make it in the NFL, provided that his pro career isn't delayed. Critics claim that Tomlinson's decision skip graduation is aimed at clearing his entry into next year's NFL draft, or signing a free-agent contract with a pro team.

That's assuming, of course, that the Navy decides to let him go, and only requires that Tomlinson repay the cost of his education. At the NFL's minimum salary for rookies ($286,000), Mr. Tomlinson could retire a significant chunk of that debt, and there are indications that the former Navy star could command a much bigger contract, either as a 2008 draft selection, or a free agent. Under that scenario, it would be very easy for Tomlinson to write a check, pay for his education, and still have lots of money in the bank.

But Tomlinson must be aware that the Pentagon's favored method of recouping lost education funds is through military service, not repayment. As an ROTC instructor in the mid-1990s, I experienced a similar incident. One of my female cadets, heading for pilot training after graduation, suddenly "found love" and decided that the Air Force didn't fit her future plans. The cadet's wealthy parents even offered to write a check and repay the costs of her scholarship. Assuming that the service would take the money and forget about her, our cadet began planning an elaborate wedding. The instructor staff at the detachment (including your humble correspondent), cautioned against it, reminding her that the Air Force could demand active duty service to recoup its losses.

Sure enough, the service mandated just that. And, when she discovered that her enlisted job choices would be extremely limited, the cadet had another change of heart, and remained with the ROTC program (over my objections, I might add). Not surprisingly, the flake eventually wiggled out of her pilot slot, electing to join her boyfriend in the space and missile career field. Not long after graduation and commissioning, she suffered a "nervous breakdown" in training at Vandenburg, and left the service altogether. So much for the taxpayer's investment.

Jason Tomlinson doesn't fall in the same category as that loony cadet, but he clearly has ulterior motives for avoiding military service. And that makes me wonder: if Tomlinson had reservations about military duty (or, alternately, ambitions for a pro football career), why not resign earlier from Annapolis? I've known several players who left a service academy after their sophomore years, allowing them to pursue an athletic career before their service commitment kicks in (generally, the military does not seek "recoupment" from cadets who resign before their junior year).

Or, why not follow in the footsteps of Roger Staubach, Napoleon McCallum and David Robinson, Annapolis grads who fulfilled their military commitment and pursued successful careers in pro sports. For both McCallum and Robinson, the Navy modfied or reduced their service commitments, and the service might make similar accomodations for Midshipman Tomlinson. Air Force Academy grad (and Outland Trophy winner) Chad Hennings went on to a very successful career as a defensive lineman for the Dallas Cowboys--after meeting his service obligation as a fighter pilot, and flying combat missions over northern Iraq.

But the average NFL career lasts only three years, and Tomlinson apparently fears that his talent will erode during years of duty on a ship. So, he'd rather back out now, in hopes of landing a pro football deal while he still has the requisite skills to earn some serious money.

Unfortunately for him, Tomlinson's dream may go unfulfilled--and rightly so. As a Midshipman for four years, Jason Tomlinson was acutely aware of the service commitment entailed in a Naval Academy education. And, to his credit, he stayed with the program, on track to graduate and earn his commission until some sports agent likely whispered in his ear and promised NFL mega bucks, if only Tomlinson could find some way out of his service commitment. Just take a pass on graduation, offer to repay the education bill, and use an NFL salary to write the check. That seems to be the "plan."

I can only wonder if Midshipman Tomlinson will be surprised when the Navy announces that he will join the fleet as an enlisted sailor, in order to repay the Annapolis education. He may also be shocked to learn that the service won't bend over backwards to find him a job. In counseling my dim-witted cadet of a decade ago, I discovered that most "recoupment" enlistees in the Air Force would up as cooks or truck drivers. I'm guessing that a similar fate awaits Tomlinson in his Navy "career."

When you get a full-ride, four-year college education (and a chance to develop your football skills) on the Navy's dime, then the service should recive some sort of "return" on its investment. Three or four years of swabbing decks, scrambling eggs or driving a truck may not equal the cost of an Annapolis degree, but it's an appropriate fate for a young man with strange notions about "service."

The Plot Thickens

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an illuminating article which suggested that the Clinton/China fund-raising machine was back, and operating in high gear. Analyzing campaign contribution lists and other public records, Journal reporter Brody Mullins discovered that some of Mrs. Clinton's biggest contributors lived in a modest bungalow in Daly City, California, the home of a Chinese-American clan. Collectively, six members of the Paw family have given $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, and $45,000 to Hillary Clinton during the same period.

These donations are more remarkable since the Paws appear to be a middle-class family. The father makes $49,000 a year as a letter carrier; his wife is a homemaker. Their four adult children have jobs ranging from mutual fund executive, to school attendance officer. Yet, the Paws can not only meet their monthly bills in a high-cost-of-living area (San Francisco), they also donate sizable sums to the Democratic Party.

But, as Mr. Mullins reports, the Paws donations are attracting scrutiny for other reasons, too. The family apparently never made a political contribution until 2005, they rapidly moved to the upper echelons of Democratic donors. Additionally, contributions for the Paws seem to track with those of Norman Hsu, a Chinese-American businessman who is a major Clinton fund-raiser. Interesting, Mr. Hsu (who controls a half-dozen clothing manufacturing companies) once listed the Paws' modest home as his address.

While the Federal Election Commission considers a potential probe of the Paws' donations, the Los Angeles Times has discovered that Norman Hsu has a slightly checkered past. Turns out that the Democratic fund-raiser is also a wanted fugitive; he skipped out on a three-year prison sentence almost fifteen years ago, after entering a "no contest" plea on grand theft charges:

Hsu's legal troubles date back almost 20 years.Beginning in 1989, court records show, he began raising what added up to more than $1 million from investors, purportedly to buy latex gloves; investors were told Hsu had a contract to resell the gloves to a major American business.

In 1991, Hsu was charged with grand theft. Prosecutors said there were no latex gloves and no contract to sell them.Hsu pleaded no contest to one grand theft charge and agreed to accept up to three years in prison.

He disappeared after failing to show up for a sentencing hearing. Bench warrants were issued for his arrest but he was never found. Ronald Smetana, the prosecutor who handled the case for the state attorney general, described Hsu as a fugitive. "Do you know where he is?" Smetana asked.

Turns out that Hsu has been hiding in plain sight, hosting high-profile fund-raisers for Democratic candidates and raising thousands in campaign donations since 2004. According to the LA Times, Hsu and his associates have, over the years, raised money for some of the biggest names in the Democratic Party, including, Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware. Like Clinton, Obama and Biden are also seeking their party's presidential nomination.

With Hsu's criminal past now exposed, we're waiting to see if California authorities will finally arrest him and send him to prison. We're also wondering if any of the Democratic pols who took Hsu's money will return the contributions, given what we know about their donor's former crimes. And most importantly, we're watching the FEC, to see if they mount a serious investigation into the Hsu case. As a former FEC official told the WSJ, "there are red flags all over this one."

Likewise, we'd also like to know about any ties between Mr. Hsu, his associates, and the Chinese fund-raising machine that was instrumental in Bill Clinton's presidential victories of 1992 and 1996. That operation raised millions of dollars from individuals and organizations with ties to the Beijing government. It was later revealed that PRC intelligence agents actually met with Mr. Clinton in the White House, part of a massive influence-peddling campaign mounted by the Beijing government and its military.

While no links have been established between Mr. Hsu and the John Huang/Charley Trie operation of the mid-1990s, an inquiry into possible contacts and relationships is clearly in order. The last Democratic fund-raising scandal resulted in the compromise of sensitive missile technology (primarily through the Hughes-Loral deal), and John Huang's participation in secret CIA briefings, thanks to his post as a senior Commerce Department official. Huang later pleaded guilty to charges of making illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1999. Deposed in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, Huang "took the 5th" more than 2,000 times when asked if he had ties to Chinese intelligence. Readers will recall that Mr. Huang was a long-time employee of Indonesia's powerful Lippo Group, an organization with proven ties to Beijing's intelligence establishment.

Where does the trail of Norman Hsu and the Paw family lead? The American people have a right to know.

She Was Crazy About Him...Or Maybe, Just Crazy

Attorneys for disgraced former astronaut Lisa Nowak are planning an insanity defense when she goes on trail next month for assault and the attempted kidnapping of a romantic rival. The AP has details:

Nowak suffered from major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, insomnia and "brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors," defense attorney Donald Lykkebak wrote. He said the already-petite woman had also recently lost 15 percent of her body weight and struggled with "marital separation."

"This notice does not challenge competence to stand trial, but only raises insanity at the time of the offense," he wrote.

Nowak, 44, was charged with attempted kidnapping, battery and burglary with assault after allegedly driving nearly 1,000 miles (1,609 kilometers) from Houston to Orlando to confront Colleen Shipman, the girlfriend of a former pilot Nowak had been involved with.

A psychologist friend of ours opined several months ago that Nowak's bizarre trek was indicative of mental illness. We have no reason to doubt his diagnosis, but we're not sure that defense will convince jurors to go easy on the Navy Captain. Nowak's trial begins next month.

If Nowak was mentally ill at the time she attacked Ms. Shipman, that raises a disturbing question: how did the warning signs escape NASA flight surgeons, who work closely with the astronauts and examine them on a regular basis?

Oh, that's right. Those are the same flight surgeons who--according to a recent NASA report--let some astronauts blast off into space, legally intoxicated.

Isn't the space agency about due for another house-cleaning?

Follow the Money (Clinton Campaign Edition)

The Wall Street Journal's Brody Mullins has a fascinating report in today's paper that suggests the Clinton campaign machine is--0nce again--raking in some serious cash from rather unusual sources.

Mr. Mullins investigative piece focuses on a "tiny, lime-green bungalow" in Daly City, California, which is home for the Paws, a Chinese-American family. According to campaign donation records, six members of the Paw family have donated $45,000 to Mrs. Clinton since 1995, and given a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates during the same period. That places the Paws among the Top 5 donors to the Clinton campaign, topping even the Maloof family of Las Vegas, which owns the Palms Casino and the Sacramento Kings basketball team, among other holdings.

More impressively, the Paws have apparently become major political donors without the wealth of the Maloof family, or the hedge fund and real estate tycoons who make up the rest of Mrs. Cllinton's Top 5. Public records reviewed by the Journal show that the Paws own a small gift shop. Additionally, William Paw, the family patriarch, works as a letter carrier, earning about $49,000 a year. His wife, Alice, is a homemaker. The couple's three grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company, to school attendance "liaison" and mutual fund executive.

And, if you don't find that sort of financial acumen intriguing, here's another angle that raises more suspicions:

The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money-raising events.

People who answered the phone and the door at the Paws' residence declined requests for comment last week. In an email last night, one of the Paws' sons, Winkle, said he had sometimes been asked by Mr. Hsu to make contributions, and sometimes he himself had asked family members to donate. But he added: "I have been fortunate in my investments and all of my contributions have been my money."

That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't explain why Mr. Hsu (a multi-millionaire who lives in New York) once listed the Paw home as his address, according to other public records reviewed by the WSJ. However, the paper's reporting did raise the ire of Mr. Hsu, his attorney, and a spokesman for the Clinton campaign:

Mr. Hsu, in an email last night wrote: "I have NEVER asked a single favor from any politician or any charity group. If I am NOT asking favors, why do I have to cheat...I've asked friends and colleagues of mine to give money out of their own pockets and sometimes they have agreed."

Lawrence Barcella, a Washington attorney representing Mr. Hsu, said in a separate email: "You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no factual support for this story and if Mr. Hsu's name was Smith or Jones, I don't believe it would be a story." He didn't elaborate.

A Clinton campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said in an email: "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

A former official with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told the Journal that the unusual two-year pattern of donations "justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions."

Officially, there are no records that Mr. Hsu reimbursed the Paws for their donations to the Democratic Party, and no indication that Mrs. Clinton ever met members of the family. As the Journal observes, in some cases the candidates are unaware of payments made on their behalf.

But there are compelling reasons for the FEC to take a look at these donations. Beyond the questions of how a middle-class family can make such large contributions--and why they follow the pattern of Mr. Hsu, there's the issue why the Paws suddenly became political activists. According to the Journal, the family never made a campaign contribution until the 2004 presidential election, when they began givign to John Kerry, and their donations correlated to those of Mr. Hsu.

Finally, the Journal doesn't raise another issue that bears scrutiny: is there any connection between this fund-raising activity and the infamous "PRC connection" highlighted in Year of the Rat, by Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II. Their book details the sordid relationship between the Clinton-Gore campaign and Chinese intelligence operatives, and others with ties to the People's Liberation Army. It was that relationship that brokered thousands of dollars in campaign contributions; meanwhile, senior administration officials--including President Clinton--played host to at least one PLA intelligence officer, along with Chinese arms merchants and others eager to gain political influence (and access to U.S. technology).

At this point, the only thing that the Paws have in common with those former Clinton donors is their ethnic Chinese background. But their sudden rise to prominence as donors to Mrs. Clinton--and other Democrats--certainly merits an FEC inquiry. It would also be helpful to know if the Paws (and Mr. Hsu) ever crossed paths with John Huang, Johnny Chung and other Chinese-Americans who raised money for the Clintons a decade ago. This has nothing to do with race; it has everything to do with how campaign money is raised, and whether any laws were broken.

Your Government Schools at Work

Lauren Upton during her nationally-televised blonde moment (NBC via AssociatedContent.com)

In less than a minute last Friday night, South Carolina's entrant in the "Miss Teen USA Pageant" managed to make herself a national laughingstock, providing a completely incoherent answer to a judge's question on why many Americans can't find their country on a map.

The Talkmaster, You Tube and other sites have the video (if you haven't seen it already). From what we can gather, Miss Teen South Carolina (Lauren Caitlin Upton), believes that our geography woes are the result of...well, you figure it out:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children."

For the record, Ms. Upton was third runner-up in the pageant (draw your own conclusions). And, according to World Net Daily, she's a product of South Carolina's public school system, graduating from Lexington High School last June with a 3.5 GPA.

In fairness, we should point out that Ms. Upton is only 17--still a proverbial "skull full of mush," as El Rushbo might observe. She appeared nervous, and the pageant was broadcast live--no chance for retakes. And, by her own admission, Upton apparently lost her train of thought, although some might say that particular choo-choo is easily derailed. Whatever the reason, it was an extreme blonde moment of the worst kind, and thanks to the internet, her discourse on geography will live on forever.

What we find interesting is the (apparent) lack of media interest in Upton's own educational background. World Net Daily is one of the few outlets who bothered to find out where the contestant acquired her knowledge of geography (and other subjects), although the information was apparently available in her pageant biography.

Now, let's suppose for a moment that Miss Upton had been homeschooled. Do you think the media coverage would highlight that element, as a possible explanation for her blonde moment? If your answer was "yes," move to the head of the class. Instead, we get comments from her former principal, who remembers Upton as a "well-rounded" student (ahem) that took honors classes before graduating.

And despite her televised meltdown, we won't dispute the principal's characterization of his recent graduate. Lauren Upton probably is a bright young woman, but she's also a product of our government schools. Reading between her garbled syntax and incomplete thoughts, it looks like she was aiming for a typical liberal response, suggesting that our education system (and students) are suffering because of the effort (and resources) being devoted to the War in Iraq.

And where do you suppose she learned that?

***

ADDENDUM: In hindsight, it appears that Ms. Upton's mental debacle may be the shrewdest beauty pageant move since Vanessa Williams decided to post nude, or Tara Conner developed her drug habit. The video of Upton's "answer" has received over two million hits on You Tube, and she was a guest on the Today Show thing morning. For better or worse, a lot of people know who Lauren Upton is. Unless you watched the pageant, you've probably never heard of Hilary Cruz, the Colorado teen who actually won the competition.

Today's Reading Assignment

Retired Navy Vice-Admiral John Scott Redd, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Photo by Lawrence Jackson/Associated Press

At MSNBC.com, Newsweek's Mark Hosenball and Jeffrey Bartholet have posted an exclusive interview with retired Navy Admiral John Scott Redd, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

It's an interesting read, although many of Admiral Redd's answers are hardly surprising:

On bin Laden's desire to hit the U.S. (and other western targets): "We have very strong indicators that Al Qaida is planning to attack the West."

The difficulty of tracking down the Al Qaida leader: "If we knew where he [Osama bin Laden] was, he'd either be dead or captured."

His thoughts on a developing terror threat to the United States: "We’ve got this intelligence threat; we’re pretty certain we know what’s going on. We don’t have all the tactical details about it, [but] in some ways it’s not unlike the U.K. aviation threat last year. So we know there is a threat out there. The question is, what do we do about it? And the response was, we stood up an interagency task force under NCTC leadership."

Are we in a better position to deal with the terrorist threat? We are better prepared today for the war on terror than at any time in our history. We have done an incredible amount of things since 9/11, across the board. Intelligence is better. They are sharing it better. We are taking the terrorists down. We are working with the allies very carefully. We are doing the strategic operational planning, going after every element in the terrorist life cycle. So we have come a long way. But these guys are smart. They are determined. They are patient. So over time we are going to lose a battle or two. We are going to get hit again, you know, but you’ve got to have the stick-to-itiveness or persistence to outlast it.

Unfortunately, the lines of questioning offered by Hosenball and Bartholet followed the "typical" MSM template. The Newsweek correspondents repeatedly asked about possible connections between Iraq and global terrorism, asserting that our military operations have created a breeding ground for new terrorists. Readers will note that the team from Newsweek failed to asked how many terrorists who've been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan might have otherwise been assigned to missions in Europe and the United States.

But we digress. Fact is, Hosenball and Bartholet missed a golden opportunity to inquire about the organizational "health" of Admiral Redd's organization, one of the most important links in our defense against terrorism. Just last week, the long-awaited CIA IG report described the organization's predecessor, the counter-terrorism center (CTC) as a dysfunctional agency in the years leading up to 9-11, an organization engaged in a running battle with the National Security Agency (NSA) over sensitive terrorist communications intercepts. When NSA finally agreed to share the information, the CTC implemented a lazy response, detailing only one officer to NSA headquarters (for a limited time), to review transcripts of terrorist conversations. As a result of those (and other) failures, the CIA Inspector General has recommended Accountability Boards for two former Directors of the CTC.

It's one of the most damning indictments of senior intelligence leadership in U.S. history. And, in light of those revelations, the Newsweek correspondents should have pressed Admiral Redd on his efforts to ensure that the NCTC doesn't fall into the same, sad shape. While much of the NCTC's work is classified, the director should be able to furnish recent examples of inter-agency teamwork and cooperation (under his leadership), proving that the center can perform its assigned mission. Given the opportunity, we'd also ask Admiral Redd if the problems identified by the IG report were still evident when the new organization stood up in 2004.

Clearly, the Newsweek reporters missed a golden opportunity. While Admiral Redd is a proven leader, it's very easy for any senior government official to talk about "inter-agency task forces" with "all the players" working together. Fact is, we had the same type of structures in the old CTC before 9-11, and they failed miserably, thanks to bureaucratic distrust and squabbling, among other reasons. And, many of the players from that era are now working in the NCTC. Has the organizational climate really changed?

With terrorists concocting new plots against the CONUS, Americans need to know if the NCTC represents the "way ahead" or if the new organization is simply papering over long-festering problems. While Admiral Redd's comments sound reassuring, they are predictably vague, and that's why Hosenball and Bartholet should have pushed for more specific answers. But, if you're locked into a particular theme or template in covering terrorism--or any other issue--it's difficult to ask the right questions, at the right time.

SERE For All?

Among the prized possessions from my military career is a small bit of parachute canopy, probably no more than 1' x 1', and covered with the names of fellow airmen, officers and enlisted. Together, we endured Air Force Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) Training at Fairchild AFB, Washington, in the late summer of 1992. At the end of the course, the other students presented me the autographed piece of parachute, in recognition of my "leadership" during the program which included two stints in a mock POW camp.

Almost two decades later, I'm still grateful for that bit of silk and the Fairchild "Survival School" stands out as one of the most vivid memories of my Air Force experience. Virtually anyone who's been through the program would probably agree; over 17 days of field and classroom instruction (the length of the course in the early 1990s), you learn a lot about yourself, your comrades, and your ability to persevere under trying conditions.

And most importantly, you learn that the "school"--while highly realistic--is a walk in the park compared to a real POW compound. All of us emerged from Fairchild with even more respect (and admiration) for heroes like Jim Stockdale, Robbie Risner, Bud Day, John McCain and other prisoners of war, men who endured unspeakable torture and degradation for years, yet emerged from captivity with their integrity and honor intact.

My thoughts on Fairchild--and the experiences of real POWs--were prompted by today's Air Force Times article on plans to expand SERE training for airmen. Apparently, the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced service leaders that all airmen need some form of SERE training. The Air Force Chief of Staff, General Mike Moseley, has tasked Air Education and Training Command (which runs the Fairchild program) to develop a game plan, and present it to a meeting of senior generals in October. After that, Moseley will decide how to implement the training plan.

“We’ve got to start training the total force,” said Chief Master Sgt. John Myers, the SERE career field manager. “It’s a matter of time before we have the airman transporter or ... clerk or personnel specialist that steps outside the wire for a tour of town and gets grabbed. We’re a target ... out there

[snip]

The most immediate concern, said Maj. Gen. Mark Zamzow, AETC’s director of operations, is to expand training for airmen deploying on assignments that will routinely take them outside the wire — serving, for example, on security forces, provincial reconstruction teams and explosive ordnance disposal teams. Those airmen, Myers said, need exposure to all four elements of SERE and at least some hands-on training — and they need it now.

The proposed expansion represents a sea change in the service's SERE training policy. For years, the Fairchild course was aimed at personnel considered most vulnerable to being captured: pilots, navigators, other aircrew members and special forces personnel, as well as airmen who provided survival and resistance training at the unit level, namely intelligence and life support specialists. While the school could "surge" to train more personnel during extended periods of conflict--such as Vietnam--individual classes were relatively small (my section had only 30 students, as I recall), emphasizing hands-on instruction.

Obviously, "ramping-up" the training pipeline will create some issues that must be addressed before the program can be fully implemented. It takes at least a year to fully train SERE instructors, who provide training in each phase of the program. Historically, the SERE instructor career field has been all-volunteer, and one of the smallest in the Air Force. Expanding the instructor cadre--while maintaining the desired standards of knowledge and professionalism---represents a major challenge.

So too, is the issue of facilities. The notion of providing some level of SERE instruction to each of the Air Force's 330,000 military members means that other sites will be required, allowing Fairchild to concentrate on its traditional mission of training those most at-risk. So, where are the other "venues" for SERE training?

Under the program that's likely to emerge, we can envision some type of introductory instruction during Air Force basic training at Lackland AFB, Texas, Air Force ROTC summer camps and Officer Training School (Air Force Academy cadets already receive basic survival training as part of their curriculum). This would represent a logical complement to the "combat skills" training unveiled by the service last year.

More detailed instruction would (presumably) follow at the new Common Battlefield Airmen Training (CBAT) Program, which will eventually be established at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Arnold AFB, Tennessee or Moody AFB, Georgia. The Air Force filed its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for CBAT instruction at the proposed sites last year. Air Education and Training Command hopes select a location, build required facilities and have Phase I of the program operational by 2011.

Eventually, CBAT would train up to 14,000 airmen a year--and provide an excellent venue for expanded SERE instruction. We assume that those 14,00 airmen would include many of those identified for enhanced SERE training. Personnel requiring lower levels of instruction would (presumably) receive that training during basic at Lackland, through a commissioning program, and at their eventual duty station.

From my perspective, sending more airmen to "survival" training is an idea that's long overdue. General Zamzow is correct; the days when the "typical" airman was far from the combat zone (and seemingly immune to capture) are long since past. More training means a better chance of survival for any airman who falls into enemy hands, or finds themselves in a survival or evasion environment. It won't make a real evasion trek (or POW camp) more pleasant. But with the right training, you can learn to endure--and even prevail--in the most demanding of circumstances. And it's exactly the type of training needed by airmen going "outside the wire."

***

ADDENDUM: We've got to wonder if Chief Myers comment about someone who gets "grabbed on a tour of the town" was a back-hand reference to Maj Jill Metzger, who "disappeared" on a shopping trip in Kyrgyzstan last year. As readers of this blog know, Metzger turned up three days later, claiming that she'd been abducted, but managed to over-powered her captors and ran 30-40 miles to freedom.

While many in the ranks doubt Metzger's story, she was placed on an 18-month "temporary" retirement in July, to recover from her ordeal. As far as we know, Metzger is the only Air Force member who's disappeared on a "tour of the town" in recent memory. However, no one has suggested that the new training program be named "Camp Metzger." Preparing for phony abductions is something learned on your own.

Also, for clarification's sake, I am a proud graduate of the "Combat Survival Training" course at Fairchild (then known as SV-80A), and the late, lamented Water Survival course, previously held at Homestead AFB, Florida. The Homestead program was memorable because the curriculum included two parasail rides over Biscayne Bay. Unfortunately, Hurricane Andrew destroyed that facility, and the water training program was split between Fairchild and NAS Pensacola.

As for Fairchild, the outdoor training isn't bad if you don't take the course in winter. Resistance training, in a word, sucks. However, it sucks even more if you're one of the "lucky ones" who must attend "Advanced Resistance Training," which is lasts another week beyond SV-80A. Fortunately, the training requirements for my aircraft ended with the basic course, and I did not have to stick around for advanced resistance program, then referred to as "Beatings 201."

Paging Senator Obama

We're guessing that this AP dispatch from Kabul won't make its way into a Barack Obama campaign speech:

NATO: Taliban making false accusations

Less than a month after the Democratic Presidential candidate accused U.S. forces of "air-raiding" Afghan villages--and inflicting civilian casualties--NATO officials are (again) pointing out something that should be patently obvious. The Taliban routinely lie about civilian deaths and collateral damage (surprise, surprise) as part of their propaganda effort to discredit coalition forces:

The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan accused Taliban militants Monday of falsely reporting civilian casualties to discredit Afghan and international forces.

[snip]

The U.S.-led coalition made the claim Monday after Afghan elders alleged that up to 18 civilians were killed late Sunday by coalition troops in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold.

Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman, said credible intelligence suggested the claims were fabricated as part of a propaganda war. "The insurgents continue to follow their pattern of falsely reporting civilian casualties," she said.

NATO-led forces, whose operations in Helmand are being supported by U.S.-led coalition troops and aircraft, insist that no noncombatants were killed in the fighting. The claims could not be independently verified due to the remoteness of the area where the clash took place.

Less than two weeks ago, we noted that the Taliban's exaggerated claims of civilian casualties were hardly new, and in some cases, the terrorists were actually responsible for their deaths. In at least two engagements earlier this year, Taliban fighters used Afghan villagers as human shields, and after one battle, they removed their own casualties, leaving the bodies of dead civilians behind.

Fortunately, the Taliban's propaganda efforts have had no impact on NATO's military campaign (so far). Contrary to Obama's claims, allied airpower in Afghanistan has been carefully employed, and the results have been impressive. While the AP claims that the number of attacks in Afghanistan has increased, they fail to report that virtually all of those strikes are ineffective and have resulted in significant casualties among insurgents. For example, recent Taliban assaults on Firebase Anaconda were abject failures; massing against the fortified allied position--and operating in broad daylight--the terrorists were quickly repulsed, suffering at least 30% KIA in their first attack.

But, as we've observed in the past, the Taliban's battle plans--and continuous propaganda efforts-- are equally aimed at the western media (and political elites), as well as our military forces on the ground. And, in this era of hyper-partisan politics and press coverage, a resounding Taliban defeat on the battlefield plays a completely different way in media reporting, or on the campaign trail. The terrorists (and their propaganda machine) must be very happy, indeed.

As for Mr. Obama, he was last seen in that favorite refuge of Democratic politicians, an African-American church. And not just any church--a New Orleans congregation, and on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Speaking from the pulpit (gee, whatever happened to separation of the church and state), Senator Obama told the crowd that the nation had failed to "lift up" New Orleans long before Katrina, citing the city's persistent struggles with poverty and poor public schools. His solution: more government programs and spending that (ultimately) would be about as successful as his "reconstruction plan" for Afghanistan.

Ookie's Bottom Line

UPDATE//1106 EDT//AP reports that Vick has formally entered the reported plea deal. Sentencing has been set for 10 December. In accepting Vick's guilty plea, Judge Hudson emphasized that he is not bound by sentencing guidelines, and can impose the maximum penalty of five years in prison.

"You're taking your chances here. You'll have to live with whatever decision I make," Hudson.

***

Later this morning, disgraced NFL star Michael Vick will formally enter a plea deal in a Richmond, Virginia, federal court, on charges of dog-fighting and conspiracy. The charges stem from Vick's role in a dog-fighting operation that was run from his infamous "Bad Newz Kennels" in rural Surry County, from 2002 until earlier this year.

After Vick enter his plea, Federal District Judge Henry Hudson will likely set a sentencing date for later this year. When he imposes punishment on the Falcons' quarterback, the penalties are likely to include 12-18 months in prison, and a fine of up to $250,000. Under his plea deal, Vick admitted to his role in staging dog fights and killing animals that "failed to perform." Vick's plea makes no mention of gambling on the blood sport, an admission that could cost him what's left of his NFL career.

While the expected jail sentence will keep Vick off the football field for at least two seasons, the former Virginia Tech All-American will pay an ever steeper price in lost wages, bonuses and endorsement deals. Tim Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran the numbers in a story that was published yesterday--and the numbers are simply staggering.

According to attorneys, sports marketing experts and football executives interviewed by the AJC, Michael Vick's little hobby could wind up costing him in excess of $100 million, including $71 million in lost salary under a 10-year, $130 million contract that he signed in 2004.

According to the NFL Players Association, that contract calls for Vick to receive a salary of $6 million this season, followed by $7.5 million in 2008, $9 million in 2009, $10.5 million in 2010, $12 million in 2011, $12.5 million in 2012 and $13.5 million in 2013, plus incentive bonuses.

Now, all of that money could be gone.

The only part of Vick's contract that might matter now is the clause that allows the Falcons to terminate it if he "has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club."

Michael McCann, a Mississippi College School of Law professor who often writes on sports legal issues, said the Falcons clearly can terminate the contract, although legal and salary-cap tactics will drive the timing of such action. For example, the Falcons probably would have to keep Vick under contract — albeit suspended without pay — until resolving the issue of signing bonus repayments.

"I think they're going to argue the signing bonus reflects an understanding Vick would play for the totality of the contract, and clearly he's not able to satisfy that," McCann said. "They're not going to get all of it back, but I think they have a pretty compelling argument to get some of it back."

How much could be debated, because of the creative way in which the Falcons structured Vick's bonuses for salary-cap management purposes.

[snip]

Unlike Vick's football contract, the specifics of his endorsement deals with Nike, Rawlings and other companies have never been made public.

But in its ranking of America's highest-paid athletes last year, Sports Illustrated estimated Vick's endorsement income at $7 million annually. And Oregon's Swangard said that, if not for the dogfighting scandal, a "conservative" estimate of Vick's ongoing endorsement earnings over the next 10 years would have been an average of $5 million per year.

"There is $50 million on the marketing side that has disappeared," Swangard said.

Nike on Friday terminated Vick's endorsement contract without pay, and at least seven other deals have either been suspended or allowed to expire.

"There is no corporation that will touch Michael Vick again, ever," said Ronn Torossian, president and chief executive officer of New York-based 5W Public Relations, which has represented athletes and entertainers.

Given the barbarity of his crimes--training dogs to fight to the death, betting on those matches and personally killing dogs that didn't measure up--we'd say that Michael Vick is getting what he deserves. And, ordinarily, we'd agree that Vick deserves a chance to return to the gridiron, once his prison sentence is complete.

But letting Vick play again requires resolution of the gambling issue. The NFL--like other pro sports leagues--maintains a strict, zero tolerance policy on players wagering on any sport, for obvious reasons. With Vick's plea deal (and expected sentence) skirting around the gambling issue, it will be up to the NFL to investigate that matter, determine Vick's innocence or guilt, and if necessary, impose the appropriate sentence.

Officially, the league's investigation into Vick's activities is on-going. But the federal investigation turned up substantive evidence that Vick paid bets lost by "Bad Newz Kennels" from personal funds. A simple check of the quarterback's bank records may offer conclusive proof that Vick bet on dog-fights, giving Commissioner Roger Goodell enough reason to impose the ultimate penalty for illegal gambling--a lifetime ban from the league.

In our view, confirmation of Vick's gambling activities should be enough to end his NFL "career," once and for all. But, as we've noted previously, there are more than a few football coaches and general managers who'd be willing to give Ookie another shot, figuring he might have a few good years left after that prison stretch, and they can sign him for a fraction of his old Falcons' contract.

But, if Mr. Goodell is concerned about larger issues--namely, enforcement of the league's anti-gambling policy and its image as a while--then he must resist calls from within the NFL (and from the "civil rights" establishment) to give Michael Vick another chance. When the scope of Vick's gambling activities is finally established, Commissioner Goodell must impose the maximum punishment.

That's the real "bottom line" for "Ookie" Vick--and the National Football League.

ADDENDUM: In a few discussions of the Vick case, the word "tragedy" has actually been used to describe his fall. Admittedly, "tragedy" is an over-used word in the modern vernacular, often assigned to any unfortunate event, even those in which the "victim" (an ever more-overused term) is a willing participant. From our perspective, the only tragic aspects of the Vick case involve those animals who were killed or maimed for "sport" by the crew at Bad Newz Kennels. As for Mr. Vick, the synthesis of greed, arrogance, indifference and stupidity writ large are not the basis for tragedy. For his actions, the infamous "Ron Mexico" is getting what he deserves.

A Flight into History

Army Air Corps YB-17s intercept the Italian liner "Rex" 800 miles east of New York City on May 12, 1938. Sixty-nine years later, B-52s are re-creating the historic mission, with today's planned intercept of a Navy cargo ship on the Atlantic (USAF photo via Shreveport Times)

Sixty-nine years ago, a flight of B-17 bombers took off from Langley AFB, Virginia, and headed out over the Atlantic Ocean. Their mission: intercept the Italian liner Rex, headed for New York City, demonstrating that American airpower could defend our shores at great distances.

With a young navigator named Curtis LeMay in the lead B-17, the Army Air Corps bombers completed their assignment, buzzing the Rex about 800 miles east of New York. It was a stunning accomplishment for the bomber crews; in an era before inertial navigation systems and GPS, locating the fast liner in the open ocean was no mean feat.

The Rex mission--which occurred on May 12, 1938--marked the first major triumph of LeMay's storied career; seven years later, at the end of World War II, the Ohio State ROTC graduate would be a Major General, after leading bomber commands in both Europe and the Pacific. He became a full General at 44--the youngest since U.S. Grant--built Strategic Air Command into the nation's nuclear deterrent in the 1950s, and later served as Air Force Chief of Staff under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

Heavy publicity of the liner intercept also provided a timely boost for the B-17. Three years earlier, a prototype crashed during a test flight, prompting the Army to cancel an order for 67 B-17s. Only a legal loophole allowed B-17 proponents to order 13 additional aircraft for service testing. Those bombers--an upgraded version designated the YB-17--made the intercept of the Rex, and helped secure the aircraft's operational future.

Early today, three B-52s launched from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, on a flight that commemorates the 1938 mission, and underscores the ability of long-range bombers to strike at potential maritime threats. Details of the mission profile haven't been released, but our sources say the "target" for today's mission is the USNS John T. Bobo, a 670-foot, Military Sea Command Roll-On/Roll-Off ship. Barksdale is home of the Air Force's 2nd Bomb Wing, a successor to the unit which flew the Rex mission in 1938.

Reporters from selected media outlets (including the Shreveport Times) are flying with the bomber crews, and they're expected to post reports and photographs later today. Obviously, much has changed in aviation technology over the past seven decades, but locating a single ship in a vast sea--even a large RO/RO like the Bobo--remains difficult. It will be interesting to learn how much advance information the B-52 crews had on the route of the vessel, and whether the Bobo was allowed to maneuver (or use other tactics) to evade detection. We're told that mission planners declined assistance from a national agency in attempting to locate the Bobo. That suggests that the crews are confident in their own abilities (and onboard sensors), or they have good information about the ship's projected location.

We're also told that the "scenario" for today's mission involves the intercept of a ship that poses a terrorist threat against the CONUS. While B-52s units have long been equipped--and trained --for maritime defense missions, the scenario may re-ignite a long-running debate between the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard over who is best-qualified to deal with such threats.

There's also the thorny issue of whether a long-range bomber would ever be allowed to attack a terrorist vessel heading toward the CONUS, and under what circumstances. The decision to launch such a strike would (clearly) depend on timely, accurate intelligence information about the ship, its cargo and its intentions. While our database on merchant shipping and cargoes has improved markedly since 9-11, there are still significant gaps. Without conclusive proof that a vessel is on a terrorist mission--and poses an imminent danger to the U.S.--it's doubtful that an armed B-52 would be dispatched to engage it.

Still, few platforms are better-suited for long-range maritime surveillance (and strike) than the Buff. If Osama bin Laden's "navy" (once said to number 20 vessels) has designs on a CONUS target, then today's B-52 mission serves as a reminder that we can reach out--and engage them--long before they reach our shores.

Somewhere, "Bombs Away LeMay" is smiling.

Today's Reading Assignment

In today's Opinon Journal, Max Boot examines President Bush's recent comparison of Iraq to Vietnam and finds it isn't inaccurate--just incomplete.

Worth Saving?

Unfortunately, the demands of other projects delayed our comments on the recently-declassified (and released) executive summary by the CIA Inspector General, assessing the agency's performance in the years leading up to 9-11.

The assessment, which was requested by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), has been sitting on the shelf for more than two years, and the agency vigorously fought to prevent its release. The current CIA Director, Air Force General Mike Hayden, claims that release of the report could be "distracting."

"I thought release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the front lines of a global conflict," Hayden said. "It will, at a minimum, consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well-plowed."

CIA's desire to keep the summary confidential is reflected in its former classification markings. The entire document was once marked with the ORCON caveat, which stands for "originator controlled." While ORCON is often used for classification purposes, it also has a useful administrative function. Had that caveat remained in effect, anyone in government wishing to cite or republish the report would have to secure permission from the CIA. And, if you think such permission would have been forthcoming from Langley, you must believe that George Tenet really had a comprehensive plan for getting Osama bin Laden.

If there's any good news in the executive summary, here it is: As far as the IG can determine, CIA employees broke no laws in their counter-terrorism activities before 9-11. The bad news? The agency's efforts in the years before the attacks were characterized by bureaucratic incompetence and bungling on a scale that is almost unimaginable.

Apparently, bin Laden and his Al Qaida operatives had little to fear from the CIA; as the IG discovered, the agency was beset by ineffective leadership, serious resource shortfalls, squabbles with other agencies, and the lack of a viable plan for analyzing--and combating--the terrorist organization, among other problems. Describing the agency as an intelligence calamity waiting to happen would be charitable. Among the IG's key findings:

• [Director of Central Intelligence] Tenet and the agencies under his supervision lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11.
• The CIA's analysis of the terror threat before September 2001, was lacking.
• Counter terror funding was ineffectively managed.
• The CIA station monitoring bin Laden was overworked and lacked expertise and training.
• Information about two of the hijackers including their travel to the U.S. in the summer of 2001 was not shared in a timely manner with law enforcement agencies.

The stunning, substantive details of those failures are well-documented in the summary, suggesting that the CIA was adrift, rudderless and unaccountable in the years leading up to 9-11. Mr. Tenet steadfastly maintains that he had a plan to counter Al Qaida, but (according to the IG), that plan was never effectively communicated or implemented within the agency. Analysis of the terrorist organization was slipshod; prior to the 9-11 attacks, the CIA's last major assessment on bin Laden was completed in 1993.

And, if that weren't enough, the agency was often scrambling to fund its counter-terrorism efforts. At one point, Director Tenet had to "go around" the Clinton Administration and obtain $1 billion in supplemental funds through then-Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Cooperation with other agencies was notably lacking; within the CIA, officers viewed "detailees" from other organizations as "informants," and they were rarely assigned meaningful work.

The atmosphere of mutual distrust engulfed other agencies as well. The National Security Agency (NSA), then run by General Hayden, refused to share unedited transcripts of communications intercepts (COMINT) with the CIA. While the IG summary doesn't specify the reason for that policy, NSA staffers were undoubtedly concerned about the CIA's reputation for leaks, and feared that some of their most sensitive information could wind up on the front page of The New York Times. The IG does note that NSA offered to allow an officer from the CIA-run Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) to be detailed to Fort Meade, and cull the transcripts for useful information.

Predictably, the CTC sent only one of its staff to NSA for a brief period in 2000, missing another opportunity to glean significant information on Al Qaida leaders and the group's activities. More distressingly, the CIA Director did nothing to resolve the impasse between his agency and the NSA, despite the "priority" he assigned to the counter-terrorism issue.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the IG summary is its recommendation for Accountability Boards to review the performance of (a) the former DCI, Mr. Tenet; (b) the CIA Executive Director in the late 1990s; (c) the Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) and (d) the two senior officers who served as Director of the CTC during the same period. In other words, the IG is inferring that CIA management--at the organization's highest levels--failed miserably at their responsibilities in going after Al Qaida, and should be held accountable for their desultory performance (emphasis mine).

To our knowledge, there has never been a similar indictment of senior leadership in the modern history of the intelligence community. But, as the CIA IG observes, the failures leading up to 9-11 were systemic, indicating an organization that was unprepared for the Al Qaida mission, and whose failures contributed to the disaster on 9-11.

The blunt assessment of CIA failures begs another, critical question: has the agency really changed since the late 1990s? Loyalists would say yes, noting the thousands of new employees, new leadership, and better inter-agency cooperation. But call us skeptics; read Kent's Imperative (or other blogs that focus on the intelligence community), and you'll discover that some of the training and experience issues that hobbled the CTC a decade ago still exist. There are also legitimate concerns about the poisonous, political atmosphere that persists within the agency, as illustrated by selective leaks of National Intelligence Estimates and the Valerie Plame affair.

Which brings us to the bottom line: given the failures outlined in the IG summary, is the CIA worth saving? We believe the jury's still out on that one. The new leadership team has made efforts at reform, and to its credit, the CIA has scored some victories in the GWOT. But the agency's reluctance to release the summary suggests a hide-bound organization that can't come to terms with its glaring failures, and remains resistant to change.

That's why we can't wait until the next intelligence failure to determine what's wrong with the CIA. The SSCI should commission another, independent assessment, comparing the CIA before 9-11 against its performance today. Hopefully, that inquiry would show an organization that is much improved and more effective than the CIA of ten years ago. If not, then we need to consider how the Central Intelligence Agency can be replaced.

Ookie Gets Railroaded

The sordid saga of NFL star Michael "Ookie" Vick is now a civil rights issue, at least in the eyes of some NAACP officials.

In interviews on NBC's "Today" show and with the Associated Press, interim NAACP President Dennis Courtland Hayes said the Falcons quarterback--accused of running a multi-state dog-fighting ring--"must account for what he has done." But Mr. Hayes also cautioned against condemning Vick too quickly, and said that some of his defenders are expressing "frustration" over disparities in the criminal justice system that disproportionately pays attention to African-Americans and Hispanics.

“While no dog deserves to be mistreated, the backdrop includes the perception among some African-Americans that the criminal justice system treats them like animals and that nobody seems willing to do anything about the disparity.”

Hayes, who said the national group did not have an official position on the case, said he didn’t want to speculate about whether Vick was being treated differently because he is black.

“He may in fact be being treated better than some African-Americans and Hispanics who don’t have the resources and financial means that he has,” Hayes said. “On the other hand, there might be some of a different race or different ethnicity who might be treated a bit differently.”

Give me a break. Mr. Hayes comments on "disparities" in the criminal justice system--and warnings about a "premature" condemnation of Michael Vick--suggests that his group has a position on the case--they simply don't want to say it, knowing it would create a public relations nightmare for the NAACP.

But, for argument's say, we'll play along with Mr. Hayes for a moment. And, we'll even support the NAACP's long-standing position that the poor and minorities often lack the legal resources to successfully defend themselves in court.

But the idea that Michael Vick is being singled out because of his race is laughable. Forget about his skin color; Mr. Vick belongs to that segment of society that can afford the best legal team and wage a protracted court fight, if necessary. Vick's lead attorney in the dog-fighting case (Billy Martin) doesn't work cheap, and he's been logging lots of billable hours since signing on with his high-profile client.

And of course, Vick's attorneys had the option of taking the case to trial, attempting to persuade a jury that their client was innocent. But, faced with a mountain of evidence seized from Vick's property--and three co-defendants willing to testify against him--defense attorneys convinced the former Virginia Tech star to accept a plea deal. They clearly understood that Vick stood little chance of beating the federal dog-fighting and conspiracy charges--not to mention the racketeering charges that prosecutors threatened to tack on.

So, under the advice of highly competent--and well-paid--attorneys, Mr. Vick will plead guilty next Monday to one count of "conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture." He still faces possible charges in Virginia, where his "Bad Newz Kennels" operated openly for more than five years. State charges of animal cruelty (and other crimes) could get Vick another 40 years in jail.

But forget about such trivial stuff. According to another NAACP official, the focus should now be on Vick's rehabilitation and a speedy return to the NFL.

Atlanta NAACP Chapter President R.L. White said Monday that we should "welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football,'' said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country.''

Translated, let's give Vick another chance so we can claim some organizational clout, and who knows, maybe Ookie will send us a little love, in the form of a fat donation check.

The NAACP's continued defense of Michael Vick is another indication of the organization's sad decline. Even a seasoned race-baiter like Al Sharpton--usually the first to cry discrimination--took a pass on defending the Falcons quarterback, siding with animal rights activists instead. But NAACP refuses to abandon Ookie's sinking ship. In his recent interview with the AP, Mr. White suggested that Vick's plea deal was more about "cutting losses" than guilt or innocence, and expressed regret that, with the plea deal, "the facts of the case might never be known."

For that, Mr. White should be grateful. The allegations in Vick's case are extremely disturbing, and testimony at trial promised to be graphic. Mr. Vick's co-defendants were prepared to testify that the NFL star staged numerous dog fights over a five-year period, bet thousands of dollars on the blood sport, and executed dogs that failed to perform, by hanging, strangling and electrocution.

Given the sheer barbarity of what transpired at "Bad Newz Kennels," we're unconvinced that Michael Vick deserves a second chance. Besides, there's also the issue of accepting responsibility for your actions, and in that department, Ookie's been slow off the mark. When allegations against him first surfaced last April, he tried to shift blame on his associates, and quickly sold the property, for barely half it's $750,000 value. We suppose that might also be classified as "cutting your losses."

But forgotten amid the swirl of investigation, indictments, plea deals and media coverage are some of the surviving victims of Mr. Vick's "hobby." When police and animal control agents first raided Vick's property, they found 53 pit bulls on the premises. The deadline for claiming those animals is today. Not surprisingly, no one has stepped forward to claim the dogs, who will likely be euthanized.

Admittedly, there's little hope of rehabilitating dogs who've been bred to fight. But there's no reason that their former owner couldn't set aside some money for long-term care. Yeah, food and vet bills for 53 pit bulls over the next decade could get expensive, but Vick isn't without means. But it was easier to turn his back on the dogs that were once used for amusement and sport. Just one more write-off for the NFL superstar.

Which makes the NAACP's defense of Vick that much more preposterous. Mr. Vick wasn't prosecuted because of his skin color or his celebrity status. He ran afoul of the law because he eagerly engaged in the most barbaric of sports, with absolutely no concern (or compassion) for the animals were were maimed or killed.

How do you defend--let alone, rehabilitate--someone like that?

***

From our "With Friends Like This" Department, check out the comments of NBA player Stephon Marbury, who simply believes that Ookie "fell into a bad situation." He also likens dog fighting to hunting:

"I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."

Knicks fans must be so proud.

Behind the Numbers

Mark Twain's famous line about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" crossed our minds when we saw this Air Force Times headline about the incidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among Air Force women who've served in combat:

One-fifth of female airmen in combat get PTSD

It's not that we doubt the claims of female airmen with PTSD--far from it. There's no doubt that women serving in combat suffer from that often-debillitating condition, along with their male counterparts. What we find curious is how the researchers (at the University of Michigan) apparently arrived at their total, prompting the Air Force Times article that suggests PTSD is a major problem among female airmen who've deployed.

Let's begin with some basic Air Force demographics, to put the numbers in their proper context. At the end of 2006, the service had 340,664 personnel on active duty; of that total, just under 67,000 were women, or 16.9% of the force. Women comprise just over 18% of the Air Force officer corps, and 20% of its enlisted ranks. In terms of the military has a whole, women in the Air Force represent roughly 5% of the active duty force. Female representation in the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (AFRES) is slightly lower than the active component.

Now, here's a more salient statistic, courtesy of Chief Buddy, who's been tracking USAF deployments for years. His data shows that 53% of Air Force personnel have never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Using that benchmark, that means that no more than 32,000 Air Force women have served in a war zone over the past six years.

We can't find any reliable data on the number of female airmen who've actually seen combat in the Middle East, and the Michigan study doesn't say how it defines combat service. But the Defense Manpower Center did provide contact information (to the Michigan researchers) on 2,344 Air Force women who've deployed at least once since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Of that total, 1.114 met the study's "inclusion criteria" (which were not defined), and became the study sample. Twenty percent of those surveyed (a total of 222 female airmen) say they're experiencing at least one major symptom of PTSD.

But the root cause(s) of those symptoms may be difficult to trace. Michigan researchers found that work-family conflicts are (apparently) a predictor of PTSD among female airmen. Almost 30% of the the participants, and 36% had a dependent child during their deployment, suggesting that the survey was slightly biased toward those likely to be torn between work and family. In other words, many of the respondents may have been pre-disposed toward PTSD symptoms, based on existing "stressors" in their lives.

Additionally, the Michigan research makes no mention of other factors that may contribute to PTSD, such as sexual harassment and assault. And, there's no comparison to PTSD rates among female veterans of other conflicts. With a little digging, we discovered that 25% of female veterans of the Vietnam War eventually developed PTSD, compared with 16% of the women who served during Operation Desert Storm. In both cases, PTSD rates were higher among female veterans than their male counterparts. If those figures are accurate, then the number of women experiencing PTSD symptoms after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is consistent with previous wars.

Finally, we'd like to see a more detailed breakout of the 222 female airmen, identified as having at least one PTSD symptom by the Michigan study. How many of those women identify combat situations as the trigger point for their condition, and how many of them were traumatized by other events--such as a sexual assualt--that led to PTSD symptoms?

We'd also like more analysis on (perhaps) the most startling statistics produced by researchers. They found that most of the women planned to continue their military careers, despite the stress they might face:

"51 percent of the women surveyed said it was "very likely" or "extremely likely" that they would continue to serve in the Air Force. About 18 percent said it was "likely" they would re-enlist."

In other words, almost 70% of the women who "met the criteria" for a DoD-funded PTSD study are likely to re-enlist in the Air Force, with the knowledge that they could be deployed and face the same situations again. That suggests that most of the women find the stress of serving in a war zone (and for some, the added burden of family-job conflict) is manageable, allowing them to continue their military careers. And that may indicate that the "problem" outlined in the Michigan research isn't as bad as the headlines might suggest.

Teddy's Latest Defense Ploy

The F-35 Lightning II. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy (and other members of Congress) have been earmarking millions of dollars to develop an "alternate" engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--an engine that the Air Force doesn't want (photo courtesy JSF program office)

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy would never be described as a good friend of the U.S. military. But, for all his rants about Abu Ghraib and Donald Rumsfeld, the good Senator (like other members of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body), certainly knows how to bring home defense bacon.

We recall his trip to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (before the last round of base closures), essentially "shopping" for programs and jobs that could be transferred to a more preferable installation, say, Hanscom AFB outside Boston. Kennedy's expedition wasn't completely successful, but it was amusing to watch the leaders of Air Force Material Command fall over themselves in hosting the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. We rather doubt that the generals and senior civilians at Wright-Pat had much affection for Teddy, but it was clear that they didn't want to wind up on his enemies list. And not surprisingly, the BRAC Commission--and the Air Force--found a way to keep Hanscom open.

Fast forward a couple of years, and Senator Kennedy has a new plan for diverting millions of defense dollars to his home state, and other parts of the U.S. At the urging of General Electric, Kenndy has been earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an "alternate" engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Last month, CBS News reported that Kennedy has earmarked over $100 million for the engine project this year alone. So far, roughly $1.6 billion of your tax dollars have been spent on the engine, which is (you guessed it) a GE product. And coincidentally, GE's jet engine division has a plant in Lynn, Massachusetts, which (according to Kennedy) would have a stake in producing the "alternate" power plant.

There's only one problem. The Air Force doesn't want the GE engine. Pratt & Whitney has already won the engine contract for the F-35, which is being built by Lockheed Martin. By all accounts, the Pratt & Whitney powerplant is meeting--and exceeding--performance expectations. The Air Force has asked Congress to kill the "alternate engine" program for two years, and divert those billions to more worthwhile programs.

Not surprisingly, those requests have fallen on deaf ears. Senator Kennedy, along with members of the Ohio Congressional Delegation (GE also has an engine factory north of Cincinnati) keep earmarking dollars for the alternate powerplant, claiming that the project will save money, improve competition, and bolster our manufacturing base.

However, those claims are demonstrably false. As Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute noted in a recent analytical column for UPI, the alternate engine program is nothing but defense pork. Improve competition? The engine contract has already been competed several times, and each time, the Pratt and Whitney product won. Save money? Various analyses demonstrate that adding a second supplier doesn't reduce costs, and since DoD will be the only customer for the GE engine, the alternate powerplant will actually make the F-35 more expensive.

In terms of bolstering our manufacturing base, GE is already the world's largest producer of aircraft engines, and will do just fine without the F-35 program. And, as Mr. Thompson notes, the company has no plans to actually build the "alternate engine" in Massachusetts; in fact, GE has a history of shuttering manufacturing plants in New England. So much for Kennedy's claim that the F-35 engine would bring hundreds of jobs to his home state.

Of course, serious earmark reform would end Kennedy's little sop to GE's aviation division. But fixing the earmark process is about as likely as killing the F-35 alternate engine program. The latest defense bill contained over $5 billion in earmarks, and masters of pork barrell spending--including Ted Kennedy--can always find new, creative (and expensive) ways to bring the bacon.

Tracking Bears

Less than two weeks ago, we predicted that Russian TU-95 Bear bombers will stage a mission against the U.S. east coast before year's end (if not sooner), resuming a profile that hasn't been flown since the Cold War.

We're standing by that forecast, because all indicators suggest that Russian bomber crews are still preparing for such a flight. According to Sky News, a Bear H flew a mission over the North Atlantic last Friday, prompting an intercept by RAF "Typhoon" fighters. It represented the first operational intercept for the Typhoon since the new fighters assumed Britain's air defense alert mission earlier this summer. The Typhoon is replacing the RAF's aging fleet of Tornado F3's, which have performed the air defense mission for more than 20 years.

By our count, this is at least the second "Bear" mission flown against the U.K. so far this year. Russian bombers have also flown profiles against Norway, Alaska, and earlier this month, they passed within 300 miles of U.S. air and naval bases on Guam--their most aggressive mission in more than a decade. The sudden spike in bomber activity came after a decade of inactivity, when Russia's Bear, TU-22M Backfire and TU-160 Blackjacks flew infrequently, the result of cutbacks in Moscow's military budget.

But with Russia now awash in oil revenue, the Kremlin has more money for new military hardware--and increased training with existing systems. At the opening of yesterday's Moscow Air Show (the largest since the Soviet era), President Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to revive the Russia military, and make aircraft production "a priority." Aides to Mr. Putin told the U.K. Guardian that the effort may include renewed production of TU-95 and TU-160 bombers.

The Russian leader clearly understands the symbolism of bomber flights against the west, making it virtually certain that one or two Bears will stage a mission against our east coast later this year. Following a profile used during the Cold War, the Russian aircraft will cruise along the edge of U.S. airspace, prompting an intercept by Air National Guard F-15s and F-16s. The most likely destination for the TU-95s is Cuba, although a longer flight to Venezuela cannot be ruled out. After a brief stay in the Caribbean, the Russian bomber(s) will return home, following a similar route along the eastern seaboard.

To some degree, a resurrection of Russia's strategic bomber force was to be expected--perhaps inevitable. If Moscow was serious about maintaining a strategic triad (consisting of manned bombers, land-based ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles), then a resumption of long-range training missions by Bears and Blackjacks would be necessary. And, with more oil money flowing into the national treasury, Putin finally has the to fund his bomber fleet.

However, it is worth noting that Russia's strategic bomber force remains a shadow of its former self. Thanks to arms reduction treaties, aging airframes and limited resources after the collapse of communism, the number of Russian bombers has been significantly reduced from Cold War levels, and it's doubtful that Putin will build more than a handful of new Bears or Blackjacks, for several reasons.

First, money for new bombers could be better spent on aircraft (and other weapons systems) that can be used by Russian forces and sold for export. Some of the weaponry currently on display in Moscow is clearly aimed at that market, including variants of the Flanker fighter, and the S-400 air defense system.

Secondly, Russia's bomber force (though quite capable) was never the strategic equivalent of its U.S. counterpart. The bulk of Moscow's strategic forces was always concentrated in land-based missiles, with smaller numbers of SLBMs and manned bombers. It's a trend that remains evident today; Russia's most important strategic program is its deployment of silo and mobile versions of the SS-27 ICBM, which will form the backbone of Moscow's nuclear forces for decades to come. Funding for more Bears and Blackjacks will remain a lower priority, despite Mr. Putin's promise.

Finally, the Russian design bureau responsible for building bombers (Tupolev) is also the nation's largest builder of commercial aircraft--a market that Putin desperately wants to crack. While Tupolev has been largely idle for the past decade, Boeing and Airbus have racked up billions of dollars in aircraft orders. If Mr. Putin and Tupolev's management team are serious about becoming a player in the commercial aircraft business, then they must devote most of their effort (and money) in that arena. And that means fewer rubles for new bombers.

However, the prospect of new Blackjacks and Bears rolling off the assembly line can't be completely dismissed. Adding a few more airframes to the bomber fleet would be far cheaper that building and operating new ballistic missile subs--the leg of the Russian triad that has suffered the most over the past 20 years. Mr. Putin and his advisers are also aware that manned bombers are an extremely flexible option, with employment in both nuclear and conventional roles. To counter the USAF's impressive global strike capabilities, then Russia must rebuild its own bomber force, to some degree. And, we're seeing the early steps of that process, with a resumption of long-range training missions, and talk about building more bombers.

***

ADDENDUM: Arrival of the Typhoon was certainly welcomed by RAF air defense pilots. The older, Tornado air defense variant (ADV) was poorly suited by that mission, with limited climb and maneuvering capabilities. In fact, when Russian MiG-29 Fulcrums first flew to the U.K.'s Farnborough Airshow in the late 80s, Tornado ADV pilots assigned to escort them had to radio air traffic controllers, who instructed the Russians to descend to a lower altitude. The air defense Tornado was such a pig that it couldn't climb fast enough to meet the approaching Russian fighters.

While the Typhoon is a vastly superior aircraft to the Tornado F3, its performance is roughly akin to a late-model F-15, SU-27 or Rafale. It is not the equivalent of fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 or F-35, except in terms of price. At roughly 67 million pounds per aircraft, the Typhoon is slightly cheaper than the Raptor, and about the same price as the F-35.

One more thought: with the RAF managing to get its latest fighter in an "action shot" alongside a Bear, what are the odds that an F-22 will be involved in the intercept if--and when--the TU-95s fly a mission along our east coast.

Winners and Losers (Ookie Plea Deal Edition)

Michael Vick won't formally enter his plea deal with federal prosecutors until next week, but that hasn't the chattering class from speculating about how much jail time the Falcons quarterback will receive--and if he has any future in the NFL.

We're already on the record with a predicted sentence of 16 months and an end to his pro football career, assuming that federal judge Henry Hudson lives up to his tough reputation--and that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell does the right thing by banning Vick for life, based on the gambling element of his dog-fighting and conspiracy case.

Michael Vick's transition from pro football stardom to convicted felon has been both swift and stunning. And like all cases, the Vick saga has produced its share of winners and losers, ranging from the key participants, to individuals and organizations that played a lesser role. A few of them are listed below:

WINNERS:

Chuck Rosenberg. Confirmed two months ago as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Vick prosecution represented Mr. Rosenberg's first high-profile case in his new post. As a University of Virginia law grad (and former assistant U.S. attorney in the state), Rosenberg understood the potential difficulty in prosecuting Vick, who has been a football icon since his prep days at Warwick High School in Newport News, and collegiate stardom in Virginia Tech. Despite that potential obstacle, Mr. Rosenberg made Vick's prosecution a priority, and his prosecutors (Michael Gill and Brian Whistler) quickly secured plea agreements with Vick's co-defendants, forcing the NFL star to seek his own deal. Sending Michael Vick to jail won't make Rosenberg a shoo-in candidate for Attorney General in a future Republican administration, but it certainly won't hurt his reputation, either.

Defensive Coordinators in the NFC South. While Vick's performance as an NFL quarterback is somewhat overrated (after six years in the league, his quarterback rating is only 75.7), there was little doubt that his mobility gave defensive coordinators fits. Now, with Vick heading to jail, defensive coordinators for the Saints, Buccaneers and Panthers--who play the Falcons twice a year--can breath a bit easier. Vick's replacement--former Lions QB Joey Harrington--has an even lower rating, and he's no threat as a scrambler.

The ASPCA. While PETA reps ran for the cameras--and tried to use the Vick case for their own benefit--the ASPCA did the real work, assisting federal officials in their investigation. The ASPCA remains at the forefront of efforts to stop dog-fighting while PETA is pre-occupied with staging media events.

LOSERS

Michael Vick. Threw away a $130 million NFL contract. Blew millions in endorsement deals. And for what? A chance to run his own, interstate dog-fighting ring. Yeah, it may enhance his street creds, but Vick's eager participation in the most barbaric of sports destroyed both his reputation and career. Need we say more?

The Atlanta Falcons. Build your future around a quarterback with "no real friends in the clubhouse" and illegal "hobbies" on the side? Sure. Mortgage much of salary cap "wiggle room" against that same player? Absolutely. Trade a promising young QB (Matt Schaub) and keep Joey Harrington as your back-up? You bet. Team most likely to finish dead last in their division for the next 2-3 years (at least)? Why, the Atlanta Falcons, of course.

Arthur Blank. The Home Depot co-founder--and Falcons' owner--gave Vick the keys to his franchise, despite questionable conduct in the past (both on and off-the-field). Now Blank's team is stuck with a quarterback that was rejected by the lowly Detroit Lions, while trying to negotiate a settlement on Vick's fat contract, and overcome a public relations disaster. It's the type of managerial acumen that resulted in Blank's retirement at Home Depot, and his replacement by a new CEO (Bob Nardelli), who further depressed company stock values--and the size of Blank's personal fortune.

PETA. As we've noted from Day One, the Vick scandal should be a major embarrassment to the media-hungry animal rights organization. Vick's "Bad Newz Kennels" set up shop and operated for more than five years in Surry County, Virginia--barely 35 miles from PETA's headquarters in Norfolk. And, the group's claims about its "national" focus are no excuse. During the same period that Vick ran his dog-fighting operation (2002-2007), PETA staffers were involved in at least two, local animal-rights cases which prove that the organization has misplaced priorities, and is more adept at media manipulation than actually preventing animal cruelty.

Gerald Poindexter. As Commonwealth's Attorney in Surry County, Mr. Poindexter has been a shining example of prosecutorial incompetence. While Chuck Rosenberg's staff was already building its strong case against Vick, Mr. Poindexter told reporters (in early June) that he "didn't have a single investigative report in his file." And while federal prosecutors were preparing indictments, Mr. Poindexter suggested that me might present evidence to a local grand jury in July--a deadline that passed without event. Now, Poindexter says he may present his case in September, roughly a month after Vick enters a guilty plea on federal charges. Saying that Mr. Poindexter has been overly deferential to Surry County's Most Famous (Former) Resident--and his attorneys--would be an understatement.

Buried at the Bottom

Normally, health issues are beyond our areas of interest, but for this AFP story, we'll make an exception. According to the story, cancer survival rates are up in Europe, with nations on the eastern side of the continent beginning to close the gap with their western neighbors.

Good news, right? Well, that actually depends on where you live. Read a bit more, and you'll see that the study actually takes a backhand swipe at Britain's government-run, national health care system. Turns out that the British system--sometimes cited as a potential model for universal care in the U.S.--has produced cancer survival rates that lag well behind the European average:

The study, published in the British journal The Lancet, showed a clear link between high rates of survival and the amount spent on health, but pointed out that Britain lagged well behind other countries with similar national health budgets.

An accompanying editorial in the influential journal called for a "fundamental reassessment" of Britain's cancer policy in light of the fact that survival rates were comparable to eastern European countries that spent two-thirds less.

"So has the cancer plan worked? The short answer is seemingly no," it concluded, suggesting that the National Health Service should be "divorced from political control and short-term political gains."

The 23-country study, the largest of its kind, said that the survival rate for the most common cancers -- colorectal, lung, breast and prostate -- and for ovarian cancer was highest in Nordic countries, with the exception of Denmark, and in central Europe.

It was somewhat lower in southern Europe, including Spain and Italy, lower still in Britain and Ireland, and lowest in eastern Europe.

According to The Lancet, Europe needs a "continent-wide" cancer plan, to promote more modern diagnostic and treatment facilities. Of course, that begs an obvious question: how can government-managed (and funded) health programs encourage cutting-edge solutions, in systems based on rationed care and cost controls? It a question that should also be posed to Democratic presidential candidates, who have been promising universal health care on the campaign trail.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the AFP article does get around to comparing cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, but it's buried at the bottom of the story. We can only guess the reasoning behind that editorial decision, but the numbers from the study are revealing:

For patients diagnosed in 2000-2002, survival for patients across Europe with tumours was significantly lower than in the United States: 47.3 percent for men and 55.8 for women, compared to 66.3 and 62.9 percent respectively, the study noted.

Amazing, isn't it? The nation faulted for its failure to provide universal coverage has produced a significantly higher survival rate among cancer patients. Maybe that's why you see a number of wealthy European patients at U.S. hospitals and research centers. Waiting for their state-run system to provide needed care--or upgrade to newer treatments--could prove fatal.

The U.S. health care system is far from perfect. But its advantages are clearly illustrated in that European study, even if no one wants to acknowledge it.

Meanwhile, Back in the West Bank

We've expressed serious reservations about the U.S. campaign to "prop up" Fatah, in light of the recent Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. From our perspective, Yasser Arafat's successors are a chip off the old block--thoroughly corrupt, cowardly, and with eroding support among the people they purport to represent. From our perspective, the only "viable" solution is to allow the Israeli military to remove the terrorists from Gaza and the West Bank, reorganize both regions as protectorates (under international control), and slowly train a new generation of Palestinian leaders, with an eye toward long-term independence.

Unfortunately, there's virtually no support for that approach. Instead, the Bush Administration and its allies in Europe continue to back Palestinian "President" Mahmoud Abbas, issuing proclamations of support and promising more financial aid. The Israeli government is also "on board" in the effort to keep Mr. Abbas afloat, promising continued cooperation with the Palestinian leader. Their short-term goal: keep Abbas (and Fatah) going, and prevent Hamas from acquiring the West Bank as well.

So, how's it going? Well, barely two months after the Gaza takeover, there are numerous signs from the West Bank that Hamas is prepared to seize control in that area as well. Members of the Tribe has a series of recent headlines that foretell Hamas's coming victory in the West Bank. As reported in the U.K. Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post and the Christian Science Monitor, the same combination of lawlessness and corruption that sealed Fatah's fate in Gaza is still evident in the West Bank. Meanwhile, Hamas gains strength, and the so-called Palestinian "security forces" are powerless to stop it.

Our response? Write even bigger aid checks to the Abbas government (or what's left of it), in the vain hope that the money will reach its intended recipients (the Palestinian people), and not wind up in off-shore bank accounts of Fatah officials.

What a plan.

What a mess.

And it's only going to get worse.

In a couple of months, the Washington crowd will be asking who "lost" the West Bank, and there will be lots of finger-pointing and even Congressional hearings. The answer to that question is painfully obvious; the West Bank will go the way of Gaza because (a) the Palestinians cast their lot with a band of corrupt thugs, then replaced them with terrorists, and (b) western nations (and their ruling elites) insisted on backing the thugs, long after any hope for success--or reform--vanished.

Back to you, Secretary Rice and Prime Minister Olmert.

H/T: Discarded Lies.

The Latest Military Fraud

Former Marine Sergeant Tim Debusk is facing jail time for falsely claiming that he earned the Purple Heart during service in Iraq. He goes on trial in Topeka, Kansas next month (image courtesy Marine Times/First Sergeant Earl McIntosh, USMC, Ret).

Having never been a "guest" of the feds, we don't know how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) assigns cell mates. But it looks like the good folks of Topeka, Kansas have found a prospective "roomie" for Corporal Richard McClanahan, the ex-Army trooper who's heading to the slammer for claiming a chestful of military decorations he never earned, including the Congressional Medal of Honor. McClanahan recently pleaded guilty to federal charges in Amarillo, and will be sentenced in a few weeks.

Now, Topeka residents have discovered their own military fraud. But the case of former Marine Sergeant Tim Debusk is slightly different from McClanahan. Unlike Corporal McClanahan--who pulled brig time for the same medal scam while in uniform and received a less-than-honorable discharge--Sergeant Debusk's duty performance was satisfactory, even commendable. Debusk served as a Marine Corps supply clerk from 1998 to 2002, and was recalled to active duty in 2004-2005. After completing his individual ready reserve commitment, Debusk received an honorable discharge from the Corps in January of this year.

Records show that Sergeant Debusk earned an Iraq Campaign Medal during his stints on active duty, although it's unclear when he deployed. However, there is no documentary evident that Debusk ever served in combat, or was wounded in action. And that's where his problems begin.

A few months ago, retired First Sergeant (E-8) Earl McIntosh, a member of Topeka's Marine Corps League, received a copy of a citation Debusk provided in applying for a Purple Heart license plate. The medal citation (which has been posted at the Military Times websites) looked like an obvious "cut-and-paste job." Clerks at the local DMV smelled a rat, and so did First Sergeant McIntosh. He forwarded the phony citation to the Marine Corps Reserve Center in Topeka and local police.

The subsequent investigation revealed that Debusk's claim was fraudulent. Now, the former Marine is facing federal charges of "dealing in false identification documents" and "making a false writing." If convicted, he could receive up to six months in prison, and a $5,000 fine. Debusk's trial is scheduled to begin on September 7th.

By the fraud standards of Richard McClanahan--who also claimed that he earned the Legion of Merit, three Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, in addition to the Medal of Honor--Tim Debusk is a veritable piker. But they're cut from the same cloth, and both deserve to be punished. Few deeds are as contemptible as "stealing" valor from those who have actually earned it on the battlefield.

Debusk is certainly entitled to his day in court, but based on the available evidence, there seems to be little doubt about his guilt. It seems likely that the former Sergeant will get some "downtime" in the federal clink, all because he coveted a Purple Heart license plate for his car, and figured that no one in Topeka would question his "doctored" citation.

If Debusk is convicted, we're hoping that someone at the BOP has a sense of irony, and assigns the former Marine NCO and the ex-Army corporal to the same cell. That way, the two frauds can spend hours regaling each other with phony tales of military heroism and imaginary medals. Debusk and McClanahan: sounds like a cell-mate match made in corrections heaven.

***

More on the McClanahan case can be found at this website (run by one of his ex-wives) which details his fraudulent claims. There's also a link to a recent column by Jon Mark Beliue of the Amarillo Globe-News, which highlights the scope of the problem. Until the Stolen Valor Act was passed in 2005, only individuals who falsely claimed to be Medal of Honor recipients could be prosecuted. Under the new law, anyone who fraudulently claims to be a decorated veteran can be jailed and fined.

And, Mr. Beliue reports, the impostors are everywhere. Over the past two years, the FBI has received over 700 complaints about phony veterans, or ex-military personnel with medals they never received. FBI agent Mike Sanborn told the Globe-News that he currently has 17 active investigations under the Stolen Valor Act. Past violators include a federal judge--who claimed two Medals of Honor--a CEO, a police chief and a mayor.

Most do it for attention (or to flesh out a resume), but some have financial motives as well. Before his fraud was exposed, Richard McClanahan conned his hometown of Boys Ranch, Texas out of $9,000 in scholarship money and $2,000 in "other" donations. He even pressured a local Ford dealer for a car, in recognition of his "status" as a Medal of Honor recipient.

Sadly, phonies like McClanahan are only the tip of the iceberg. For every "poster boy" like the former Army medic, there are countless others who crank out fraudulent citations and buy medals off eBay, in an effort to impress a girlfriend, get a job, or just obtain a specialized license plate. All deserve to be exposed--and prosecuted--for their crimes. That's why First Sergeant McIntosh and those Topeka DMV clerks deserve a special thanks, for helping the feds nail another military fraud.

Ookie Cops a Plea

As expected, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has agreed to a plea deal with prosecutors in his federal dog-fighting and conspiracy case.

Details of the agreement have yet to be released, but court sources (and media reporting) indicate that Vick's sentence will almost certainly include jail time, probably a year to 18 months in a federal minimum-security prison. Prosecutors originally imposed a deadline of last Friday to accept the plea bargain--or face additional charges--but the timeline was extended, as they negotiations continued with attorneys representing the NFL star.

Vick and his legal team are expected to appear in federal court in Richmond next week, and formally enter the plea agreement. In addition to jail time, the former Virginia Tech All-America is expected to receive a stiff fine and probation. A sentencing date has not been set, but it may be announced when Vick makes his latest court appearance next week. Federal Judge Henry Hudson, who is hearing the case, is known for his "rocket docket," so Vick and his co-defendants may have only a short wait before learning their fate.

Announcement of the plea deal was a far cry from the bravado Vick displayed when the dog-fighting allegations first surfaced in April. After federal investigators found evidence of dog fights and animal cruelty at the quarterback's property in rural Surry County, Vick told an Atlanta interviewer, "Man, all I have to worry about is winning football games."

But his confidence quickly faded as authorities uncovered more evidence that the Falcons star was a key player in a multi-state dog-fighting ring, and personally executed animals who failed to perform. The quarterback's expected defense took a further blow when his three co-defendants cut their own deals with prosecutors, agreeing to testify against Vick. When those plea agreements were announced, attorneys representing Vick began their own negotiations with the feds.

It was a stunning fall for a player once considered one of the "marquee" names in the NFL. Since the dog-fighting allegations first surfaced, Vick has become a pariah, both in the league and our society as a whole. Millions of dollars in endorsement deals have been cancelled or suspended; the Falcons quarterback has been hounded by animal rights activists wherever he goes, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has been forced to suspend Vick temporarily; at this point, a season-long suspension seems almost inevitable.

In fact, the pending resolution of the federal case against Michael Vick places the matter squarely back in Goodell's court. And, the league commissioner faces a tough decision: given evidence of gambling in various dog fights, does Goodell impose a longer suspension on Vick, or levy the ultimate sanction, banning him from the NFL for life? The pending plea bargain apparently makes no mention of the associated gambling, leaving the league (and the Falcons) to wrestle with that issue.

Assuming that the NFL and the team also take a pass on the gambling accusations, then Vick will be free to resume his pro career upon release from prison. As it stands, the Falcons star will miss at least one full season (and possibly two), delaying his return until 2009 at the earliest. At that time, Vick will be almost 30 years old, and on the downhill slope of his career. There's also the question of how many teams--if any--would be willing to take a shot on Vick, given the nature of his crimes.

It's a sad--but appropriate end--for a man whose ghastly "hobby" brought shame upon himself and his profession.

The Showdown Continues

U.S. Army's Warrior UAV. Any similarity to the USAF Predator is purely intentional (GlobalSecurity.org)

Back in April, we noted the looming fight over which branch of the armed services would serve as "executive agent" for the military's medium and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Air Force essentially threw down the gauntlet to its sister services, arguing for the executive agent role, based on its extensive experience in developing (and operating) the Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk systems. In a memo sent to senior defense officials last March, the Air Force Chief of Staff (General T. Michael Moseley) stated that the executive agent function was a natural fit for his service, which is already conducting "joint, interdependent warfare from the air, and through space and cyberspace." As executive agent for UAVs, the Air Force would become the Pentagon's "lead agency" in developing and employing unmanned drones.

Not surprisingly, the other branches of the military were reluctant to go along. All have their own UAV programs in the pipeline and fear that those programs would be cut--or eliminated altogether--in favor of Air Force systems. An article in Sunday's Financial Times suggests that the various services remain as entrenched as ever, just weeks ahead of a decision on the "executive agent" issue by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. FT reports that senior Army and Air Force generals are also lobbying key members of the House and Senate, expecting that the controversy will eventually involve Congress as well.

Critics of the "executive agent" concept claim that the Air Force plan would inhibit development of some UAVs, and result in a drone force that doesn't meet the need of the other services. In response, the USAF believes that without an executive agent, the Pentagon will wind up with multiple drones for the same mission (at a higher costs), and an employment strategy that would "tie" UAVs to specific units--without consideration of more "flexible" options.

As we noted previously, the idea of an executive agent makes a great deal of sense, both operationally and logistically. And, with its extensive expertise in UAVs, the Air Force is the logical service to lead the effort. But that won't satisfy the other armed services, who (as a group) have lagged behind on drone development and deployment, relying instead on USAF platforms like Predator and Global Hawk. Now, with the own programs--like the Army's Warrior--finally in the pipeline, the other services see the executive agent proposal as an attempt to muscle them out of the UAV business.

Clearly, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have their own UAV requirements that must be met. But a close look at the Warrior highlights some of the Air Force arguments in favor of an executive authority. The Warrior looks a lot like a Predator, which was developed (and built) by the same contractor, General Atomics. And not surprisingly, the Army platform has range, endurance and surveillance capabilities that are similar to the older Predator system. Do we really need to spend an extra $1 billion on Warrior when more Predators could do the same job?

The Army and the Air Force would have different answers for that question, and there's the rub. For more than 60 years, the services have argued about the best way to provide air support for troops on the ground. The Army long believed that "assigning" air assets to specific units was the best approach, while the Air Force favored a more flexible system, placing them under the direction of an air component commander who allocates aircraft where (and when) they are needed most.

It's called "centralized control/decentralized execution," and it's a fundamental principle of how the USAF does business. But the Army views that as a recipe for non-support, noting that the Air Force never seems to have enough UAVs to support all ground operations, and wants notification 48-72 hours in advance, to facilitate remote control of the drones from Creech AFB near Las Vegas, where most of them are based. By having its own UAVs--and controlling them from the battlefield--the Army believes it can increase coverage and make the drones more responsive.

The Army also dismisses Air Force claims about safety of flight, noting that there have been few collisions between UAVs and other aircraft. None of those incidents have resulted in serious damage to manned aircraft, and the Army believes that the old maximum of "big sky/little aircraft" will continue to prevent accidents.

But there other issues are also at stake in this debate. First and foremost, there's the question of how Army-operated UAVs will integrate with the Air Force-developed ISR architecture established for drone operations. Through a system of intel downlink and analytical sites (known as Distributed Common Ground Stations, or DCGS), information from the UAVs is immediately assessed, analyzed and upchanneled to key customers, including U.S. Army units. If Army systems operate largely outside this network, much of the information they collect could be lost, or "stove-piped" within Army channels. There's also the issue of duplicating target coverage, if Army UAV ops are properly coordinated through the air commander, and listed in the day's air tasking order (ATO) and intel collection plan.

While we believe an executive agent would be useful in eliminating systems redundancy (and in directing the development of common doctrine and tactics), those benefits are likely to be ignored in the scramble for acquisition dollars, and protecting service programs. At this point, the advent of Army systems that largely duplicate Predator seem all but assured. The real challenge may lie in trying to integrate UAVs with similar capabilities, in the broader context of a joint air campaign.

Deferred Until December

The Airbus/Northrup-Grumman KC-30 [and]



Boeing's KC-767. One of these aircraft will win the Air Force KC-X competition, and a contract to build the service's next-generation tanker aircraft.


The Air Force will wait until the end of the year to announce the winner of a $40-billion tanker contract, extending talks with bidders beyond the original, October deadline.

According to the AP, the two-month delay is viewed as a cautionary move by defense industry analysts, given the controversy the contract has created. Rivals Boeing and Northrup-Grumman are competing to provide 179 new tanker aircraft for the Air Force. The so-called KC-X program will form the backbone of the service's tanker fleet well into the 21st Century.

Boeing, which boasts that it has built refueling aircraft for 75 years, is offering a military version of its 767 jetliner, which has been in wide service for more than 20 years. The Northrup-Grumman entrant, the KC-30, is a tanker variant of the European Airbus A330. If Northrup-Grumman wins the contract, the new tankers would be built at an assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama, to blunt criticism about the Pentagon's possible purchase of a "foreign" tanker.

Boeing's 767 has been in service for more than a quarter-century, gaining a reputation as a reliable, long-range jetliner. The A330 first flew a decade later, and 480 have been produced--about half as many as the more popular 767. Northrup-Grumman claim that the KC-30 can off-load 20% more fuel than the KC-767 and haul significantly more cargo than its Boeing-built rival.

However, Boeing notes that its tanker is cheaper than the Airbus jet (about $40 million a copy), and it can access a wider network of spare parts and maintenance facilities, given the larger number of 767s in operational service. Parts "commonality" was one of the key considerations when the USAF acquired 55 McDonnell-Douglas KC-10s in the 1980s; each of those tanker/cargo aircraft can use roughly 88% of the parts found on DC-10/MD-11 aircraft, which are now produced by Boeing, thanks to a corporate merger with McDonnell-Douglas.

Ironically, the current competition between Boeing and Northrup-Grumman might not have materialized, except for the infamous "tanker scandal" which engulfed the service--and the Chicago-based defense contractor--a few years back. In mid-2002, the Air Force approved a plan to lease KC-767s from Boeing; however, that deal collapsed when it was discovered that the service's senior civilian contracting official--Darlene Druyun had negotiated a job with the contractor while overseeing the tanker deal. Druyun was eventually sentenced to nine months in prison.

Congressional reaction to the tanker scandal all-but-ensured that Boeing would have a competitor when the contract was re-opened for bidding. Enter the KC-30, built upon Airbus's initial success in selling the tanker to Britain, Australian, the United Arab Emirates and most recently, Saudi Arabia. While the number of tankers purchased is rather small, it gave Airbus (and its European defense partner, EADS) a toehold in the tanker market, which it quickly parlayed into USAF tanker competition, through the alliance with Northrup-Grumman.

Boeing has also sold small numbers of KC-767s to other countries; the Italian Air Force became the new tanker's "launch customer" in 2005, and plans to purchase four aircraft. Additionally, Japan's Air Force is also acquiring four KC-767s, to complement an equal number of AWACS aircraft, also based on the 767 airframe.

In the end, Boeing's years of tanker experience, long relationship with the USAF, and the implied pressure to "buy American" will likely carry the day. The KC-30 is a fine aircraft, but it carries an 81% greater "ground footprint" than the older KC-135, meaning that you can't fit as many of the Airbus tankers onto small airfields in combat zones. A USAF analysis also suggests that the KC-30 would require more extensive logistical and infrastructure support, limiting its ability to deploy worldwide.

Whatever the outcome, the Air Force's December decision on the tanker contract will certainly generate controversy, and (possibly) more delays. Late last year, the service awarded Boeing a multi-billion dollar deal to build its new Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) helicopter, prompting protests from other contractors. As a result, the contract was re-opened for bids, giving rivals Sikorsky and Lockheed-Martin another crack at Boeing and its winning CH-47 design.

While that process may ensure fairness, it will also delay deliveries of needed choppers to rescue units now equipped with the HH-60 Pave Hawk. A similar delay in the tanker competition will slow replacement of aging KC-135s, at a time when some of the oldest variants have been grounded due to structural problems. Not too many years ago, announcement of a winner meant just that: a defense firm had submitted a proposal that met price and performance standards, putting it ahead of the competition. At that point, the losers (typically) dusted themselves off and moved on, concentrating their products on other programs up for bids.

That's not how the game is played today. The recent CSAR helicopter controversy illustrates had competitors can persuade DoD to re-open a contract. essentially giving them another shot--and forcing the original "winner" to restate its case. In some cases, there are legitimate performance and cost issues that require reconsideration. However, the precedent established by CSAR-X suggests that the future award of major defense contracts will only be a prelude to continued wrangling, lobbying and rebidding.

The bottom line for the acquisition process is delivering the best hardware and services to our military, at a fair price. Unfortunately, we are approaching a day when the "politics" of the process trump everything else, resulting in significantly longer lead times and potentially higher prices for critical defense systems.

Confirming Our Suspicions

A hat tip to John Hinderaker at Powerline, who found this AP "preview" of Christiane Amanpour's three-night, CNN documentary entitled "God's Warriors, Watching promos for the program (which airs this week) it seems clear that Ms. Amanpour's work will attempt to paint fundamentalists from the three major religions--Islam, Judaism and Christianity--with the same brush, while ignoring the obvious differences. Mr. Hinderaker's read of the AP review merely confirms our suspicions:

"It's hardly worth the trouble to point out the stupidity of confounding Christian "fundamentalism"--the most commonly accepted definition of which is a belief in the literal truth of the Bible--with Islamic "fundamentalism," whose distinguishing characteristic is a desire to impose Sharia on the world, and kill everyone who resists."

Of course, that won't stop Ms. Amanpour from trying to make the connection. For her segment on "Christian Warriors," the CNN correspondent focuses on a group called BattleCry which (among other things) promotes chastity among its members. In noting how girls at some BattleCry events are encouraged to wear long dresses, Amanpour asks the group's leader how it is different from the Taliban.

Well, let's see...as far as we know, BattleCry allows young women to venture outside their homes without the escort of a male relative. There are no reports of the organization executing women who "shame" their families by engaging in sex outside of marriage, and from what we can tell, female members of BattleCry can obtain an education, through government or home schools. And a long dress is a far cry from a Burka.

But, apparently it's all the same to Christiane Amanpour, so we won't be watching "God's Warriors."

The Stench From Lansing

It hasn't received much attention beyond the Michigan media, but two senior officers in that state's National Guard stand accused of abusing pay rules to maximize their federal pensions, after joining the state payroll.

Major General Thomas Cutler and Brigadier General Richard Elliot are under investigation by the Pentagon, to determine if they accepted state promotions, yet extended their time on the federal payroll, collecting thousands of dollars in additional pay and benefits. Cutler, who serves as commander of the Michigan guard, is accused of taking that route in 2002, and Elliot allegedly used the same approach in 2005, according to a recent investigation by the Detroit Free Press.

Meanwhile, the human resources officer who alerted her superiors to concerns about Elliot's pay arrangements says she was rebuked and stripped of supervisory duties after coming forward. She has asked the Pentagon to investigate why the Michigan National Guard's inspector general closed her complaint instead of forwarding it to the Department of Defense for scrutiny, as part of a whistle-blower complaint.

Cutler, speaking on behalf of himself and Elliott on Monday, said they acted properly at all times and did not retaliate against the employee, Maj. Angela Fink.

"I've worked long and hard to maintain my integrity and honesty," said Cutler, a career officer and pilot who commands Michigan's 12,000 National Guard members.

Cutler said he and Elliott had the right under federal rules to stay on the federal payroll to -- in his case -- collect pay for about two months of unused annual leave accumulated at Selfridge and -- in Elliott's case -- to collect pay for six weeks of unused leave and 20 weeks of compensatory time.

A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va., said Guard rules typically require federal employees to leave their posts at a base within 14 days of beginning a state Guard job -- and to take accumulated vacation time and other benefits as a lump sum, not use that time to extend their service.

The spokesman, Rick Breitenfeldt, said published DOD regulations also prohibit Guard employees from being paid for unused compensatory time. The rules prevent the Guard from making big cash payouts for accumulated compensatory time.

Breitenfeldt said the Michigan Guard is citing an exemption to the rules -- and the Defense Department's office of inspector general is now sorting out whether Cutler and Elliott acted appropriately.

As leaders of the Michigan National Guard, Culter and Elliot are state employees, and fall under a chain of command which begins with Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm. A spokesman for Granholm told the Free Press that the governor is "pleased" that the Defense Department is looking into the pay scandal.

A better might question might be what did the Granholm know, and when did she know it? Culter was hand-picked by the governor to run the state guard in 2003. He also serves as Director of the state's Department of Military and Veteran's Affairs, an agency with over 3,000 employees and a $400-million annual budget. Culter is also the same officer who brought Elliot to serve at the state headquarters in Lansing two years ago, following a path similar to his own.

Describing Cutler and Elliot as controversial choices might be an understatement. Not long before Granholm named the new guard commander in 2003, Cutler (who then served as commander of the Selfridge Air National Guard Base) and Elliot, one of his top assistants, were accused of discrimination by a black female employee at the post. The case wound up in federal court, and two months ago, a judge sided with the plaintiff, granting her the job she sought, $25,000 in damages and back pay.

Now, in light of the pay controversy, Cutler and Elliot may face similar complaints.

Elliott's pay arrangement led another top officer in the Michigan National Guard to ask payroll officials last fall for "the same deal Gen. Elliott has," according to whistle-blower complaint records filed with the Department of Defense.

The comment brought Elliott's payroll status to the attention of Maj. Angela Fink, a human resources officer for the state's National Guard. She went to Cutler.

Cutler, she said, told her, "Well, it's OK. I did it, too."

He also told her, she said, that before she accused a senior officer of an impropriety, "You better have done your research."

In November, she also alerted the Michigan Guard's inspector general, Army Col. Mark Van Drie. He later closed the case without forwarding it to the Pentagon for review. Cutler said she had asked whether regulations prohibited the arrangement, and when Van Drie checked and determined it wasn't an issue, the matter was dropped.

Fink said her immediate supervisor subsequently scolded her and stripped her of her duties as the deputy director for the human resources office.

The next day, Fink said she approached Cutler, who two years earlier had assigned her to the deputy position. She said he told her she needed to do some "soul searching" and "take some long walks in the evenings."

Cutler didn't dispute what Fink said in an interview Monday.

Having dealt with the guard (at various levels) during my military career, the Michigan pay scandal is disturbing, but hardly surprising. The rules are different in the guard; politics trumps everything else, and those with connections can rise far and fast. But, by openly flaunting the pay rules so openly--and possibly, punishing someone who blew the whistle--Major General Cutler and Brigadier General Elliot may pay their own price, and see their military careers come to an end.

And rightfully so. The rules on transferring from "federal" to "state" guard status are fairly clear, designed to prevent senior officers from "cashing in" on unused compensatory time when they make the transition. It's doubtful that the Defense Department Inspector General will support Michigan's claim of an "exemption," leaving Cutler and Elliot in violation of the rules.

The whole episode stinks to high heaven, and if Governor Granholm believes she can escape the stench, guess again. Two of Granholm's highest-ranking guard officers are accused of serious financial misconduct, and both have apparent problems with discrimination as well. Moreover, the "double-dipping" by Cutler and Elliot was so widely-known that other guard members demanded it as well, suggesting that the two generals created a "culture of corruption" within the Lansing headquarters, then (essentially) dared a whistle-blower to challenge them.

Perhaps the Free-Press should ask Governor Granholm if she "stands behind" her guard commander, and the man Culter picked to run the Michigan ANG. They might also ask is this is another example of the cronyism that Ms. Granhold has tolerated--and even defended--in the past.

What Went Wrong in Lebanon

Today's Washington Times has a brief summary of the latest Israeli post-mortem on last year's war with Hizballah. The new study, conducted by recently-appointed Defense Minister Ehud Barak, finds the Israeli Army was poorly prepared for conflict with the terrorist organization. Barak's team discovered that after years of concentrating on guerrilla warfare and counter-terrorism operations, Israeli ground forces lacked the training for larger-unit operations, and had developed a "risk adverse" mindset, aimed at minimizing casualties at all costs.

Examining the lessons of the war, colleagues say, Mr. Barak has been disturbed by how far the ground army had regressed since fighting in 1982 against Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization and the Syrian army in Lebanon.

Meeting last week with reservists from an armored brigade, Mr. Barak was told by a tank gunner that his current tour gave him his first look at a tank shell in five years.

"No one will wait five years before the next live-fire exercise," Mr. Barak replied.

Before last summer's war, training had shifted from conventional warfare and the maneuvering of large combat units to small-scale tactics and policing duties.

A lack of training and an aversion to accepting casualties manifested repeatedly last year, Mr. Barak's assessment found.

In at least one instance, a tank battalion was unable to complete its orders to advance at night through difficult terrain because it had inadequate training in nighttime movement.

While the Olmert Report focuses on the military aspects of last year's war, the failure cannot be properly analyzed without considering its political context. We've written extensively on that topic, noting that while Israel had the military forces required to achieve a decisive victory, its leaders lacked the political will to get the job done. Changing political goals--and strategy--morphed into a plan for defeat. At one point, Israeli troops returning from the front launched a public petition drive to continue the war, after Prime Minister Olmert accepted an ill-advised cease-fire. With the mission unfulfilled, they understood that another war in Lebanon was inevitable.

The good news is that the IDF can rectify the training issues identified by Mr. Olmert and his team--assuming the new defense minister moves quickly to address those problems. But changing the mindset described in the report--and summoning the political will to fight a protracted (and likely, bloody) war remains problematic. Olmert remains in office, and there's no sign that he's developed a backbone over the past year. Meanwhile, Israel's enemies grow stronger--and bolder--setting the stage for a new conflict, and likely, on their timetable.

***

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline notes that the report favors policies that Barak pursued as Prime Minister, including the pull-out from Gaza. While I concur with that criticism, I'm slightly less optimistic about the IDF's ability to change its existing mindset and training policies. The comments of that tank gunner suggest that some of last year's hard lessons have not been fully absorbed. That's a bit bewildering, given the deficiencies in unit-level tactics (and leadership) that were identified last year.

Additionally, it will be interesting to see how much of the recently-announced, $30 billion defense deal with the U.S. will be devoted to training and tactical improvements. While some of that package must be allocated to high-tech weapons (most notably, a rocket defense system), it's also clear that Israel must spend more money on old-fashioned, combined arms training at the battalion and brigade level. The next war with Hizballah will be ultimately won (or lost) by the soldiers of the IDF--assuming that they're properly trained, and the politicians will let them finish the job.

Last Train to Memphis

Americans are notorious for their ignorance of our own, shared past. As a result, modern history has become a blur for millions of Americans, punctuated only by "Where Were You?" moments that recall momentous events. Using that approach, the last 70 years are often defined by the Attack on Pearl Harbor; the JFK assassination; the fatal shootings of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King; the Challenger explosion, and of course, 9-11. It's a lazy--but distinctively American--approach to our history.

Another one of those "Where Were Moments" happened thirty years ago today, with the passing of Elvis Presley. For me. the recollections of that day are crystal clear. I was a 19-year-old college freshman, working a summer job as a fill-in DJ at a radio station in my home town, not far from Memphis. After subbing on the midday shift and recording a couple of commercials, I headed home, with vague plans for the evening.

Rolling along the highway, I switched the radio to WREC in Memphis. Back in those days, WREC was a "middle-of-the-road" (MOR) station, playing Sinatra, Doris Day and other artists that weren't exactly my cup of tea. I was looking for an updated weather forecast that would follow CBS news at the top of the hour.

The network's 4 p.m. newscast began with the usual, electronic "sounder, " followed quickly by the opening lines of Love Me Tender, and the anchor--I believe it was David Jackson--announcing that Elvis Presley was dead.

I remember pulling over on the side of the road, stunned at the news. He was only 42, far too young, larger-than-life and seemingly indestructible. But my own grief was measured; in those days, I wasn't much of an Elvis fan. With his lapse into self-parody at the end of his career, Elvis was (seemingly) irrelevant, both as an artist and a cultural force.

Even in his hometown, Elvis had become a target to lampoon and ridicule; a Memphis DJ named Rick Dees had a recurring bit called "Pelvis Live from Waistland," featuring a distracted Elvis who "ate too many jelly doughnuts" and literally exploded. It was a crude metaphor for what happened on the afternoon of August 16, 1977. To his credit, Dees stopped playing the spoof when Elvis died, but the image of a bloated, drug-addicted Presley persisted, a symbol of celebrity excess and self-destruction.

Fortunately, history has been kinder--and more balanced--in its treatment of the King. The early, tell-all biographies and record sets were followed by more serious (and scholarly) dissections of Elvis's life and music. For members of my generation--who rejected him as anything but hip--the turning points came with the compilation of his early recordings for Sun Records and Peter Guralnick's masterful, two-volume biography, Last Train to Memphis and Careless Love, published in 1994 and 1999, respective.

Collectively, the Sun Sessions and the Guralnick biography were--and are--revelations; the Sam Phillips-produced recording sessions (available in various forms since the late 70s) have been described as the "big bang" of rock and roll. Elvis wasn't the original rocker, but he was the first to synthesize bluegrass, R&B, rock, gospel and rockabilly into a seamless, searing package. Not long before Elvis visited Phillips's recording studio for the first time, the #1 song in America was Patti Page's (How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window? an obnoxious song that epitomized pop music's stagnation in 1953. Within three years, Elvis would change music--and the wider culture--forever, and the transformation began his recordings at Sun.

Similarly, Guarlnick's books present a man who is infinitely more complex--and compelling--than popular stereotypes. Far from a singer who merely "covered" black artists, Elvis had an encyclopedic knowledge of multiple music genres, and openly ackowledged the influence of black artists like Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, Rufus Thomas and B.B. King. It was Presley's impromptu take on Crudup's (That's) All Right Mama which convinced Sam Phillips that his "discovery" had a future as a recording artist. And, as Mr. Guralnick noted in a recent New York Times op-ed, Elvis understood the potential impact of his celebrity--and his music:

It was what he believed, it was what his music had stood for from the start: the breakdown of barriers, both musical and racial...Asked to characterize his singing style when he first presented himself for an audition at the Sun recording studio in Memphis, Elvis said that he sang all kinds of music — “I don’t sound like nobody.” This, as it turned out, was far more than the bravado of an 18-year-old who had never sung in public before. It was in fact as succinct a definition as one might get of the democratic vision that fueled his music, a vision that denied distinctions of race, of class, of category, that embraced every kind of music equally, from the highest up to the lowest down."

Guralnick's writings--along with those memorable Sun sessions--celebrate the Elvis that should be remembered (and revered) on this 30th anniversary of his passing. Sadly, they've been all-but-forgotten in this week's media coverage, which has focused on the familiar aspects of his life.

Last night, for example, CNN devoted an entire hour to a "guided tour" of Graceland, featuring Larry King and Elvis's ex-wife, Priscilla. It was a bizarre event; reading from his note cards on camera, it was painfully obvious that King knew nothing about Presley. As for Priscilla, she repeatedly pointed out renovations that occurred after she divorced Elvis, creating the impression that her husband celebrated her departure with a major remodeling job. Interspersed with those segments were exterior shots of the annual, candlelight vigil outside the mansion, thousands of faithful Elvis fans wilting in a stifling, Memphis heatwave.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with visiting Graceland and paying your respects. But Elvis is much more than the original rock icon who suffered a sad and startling decline. Leonard Bernstein described him as "the greatest cultural forces of the 20th Century," and that may not be an exaggeration. But appreciating Elvis Presley, both as an artist and a man, is an individual discovery, or perhaps, rediscovery. It was only years later--and after his passing--that many of us began to recognize his astounding talent, and the revolution he ignited in the 1950s.

If you're so inclined, find a copy of the Sun Sessions for your CD player, or pick up a copy of Last Train to Memphis. Then, sit back and marvel at what once was--and will always be.

Today's Reading Assignment

Ralph Peters at his best, with "Killing for Congress, in today's New York Post.

Obama's Air Raid

Democratic Presidential candidate (and amateur airpower strategist) Barack Obama

Based on his recent comments about "invading" Pakistan and taking our nuclear option off the table, Illinois Senator (and Presidential hopeful) Barack Obama has demonstrated--beyond any shadow of a doubt--that he's unprepared to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Yet, Mr. Obama persists in demonstrating his incompetence in military and security affairs. Just yesterday, Senator Obama observed that "We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan]. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

The Senator's remarks drew instant criticism from a spokesman for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, although (predictably) Mr. Obama's Democratic rivals remained silent. We're guessing that the other Democrats harbor similar thoughts, or they're just content to watch Obama slowly destroy his own candidacy.

From a military perspective, there are clear problems with Senator Obama's "analysis." First and foremost, the U.S. military does not engage in the indiscriminate bombing of villages in Afghanistan--or anywhere else. If Mr. Obama had even a rudimentary knowledge of air operations, he would understand that bombing missions generally fall under two categories, interdiction and close air support.

As the name implies, interdiction raids are aimed at preventing the enemy from achieving specific military goals. While these strikes are typically planned at least a day in advance, they are based on firm intelligence indicators. In other words, if an Afghan village is a target, it's only because the Taliban are conducting operations there, and the air strike will be limited to those military elements, with strict ROE on target identification and weapons employment.

However, most of our air operations in Afghanistan are classified as close air support (CAS) , designed to help our troops on the ground. CAS missions are usually classified as pre-planned or immediate. Pre-planned sorties allocate specific assets to certain ground units or a geographical area, at a pre-determined time. Immediate CAS missions are flown in support of troops in contact. In both cases, the attacking aircraft are, invariably, under the control of a ground observer, who identifies the enemy, briefs the pilots and literally "talks" them onto the target. But then again, we rather doubt that Senator Obama is familiar with a "nine-line" briefing.

And, beyond the lamentable fact that innocent civilians are often killed in war, there may be another reason that Afghan villagers are falling victim to NATO bombs. As a Reuters correspondent noted in a report filed earlier this year, the Taliban have a long history of using human shields in their operations, hiding among civilians to conceal their activities and discourage allied attacks. During fighting around the Kajaki Dam in February, Taliban fighters even used children to shield their retreat.

In another February battle, NATO troops witnessed the Taliban removing the bodies of dead and wounded fighters after an air strike, leaving behind the remains of villagers, who may have been used as human shields. That tactic allows the Taliban to claim that the U.S. and its allies are "targeting" civilians, while covering up their actions that prompted the air strike.

Fortunately, that little ploy isn't having much of an impact on the battlefield. The air campaign in Afghanistan has ramped up in recent months, and it's a major reason that the Taliban's "spring offensive" never got off the ground. However, exaggerated Taliban claims of civilian casualties from bombing raids produce a different effect in Washington--and on the campaign trail--where a presidential wannabe is again declaring despair and defeat.

You'll note that no one is asking Senator Obama about his "plan" for Afghanistan, which (like most of his defense pronouncements) seems painfully inept. If his comments are any indication, the Obama strategy for Afghanistan would be based heavily on reconstruction programs. That's fine, but rebuilding a country is predicated on a security environment that allows those efforts to proceed. Remember that battle around Kajaki Dam? It was aimed at eliminating the local Taliban presence, so that reconstruction of the dam's power plant and transmission lines can continue.

And getting rid of the Taliban means killing them.

Using airplanes.

Dropping bombs.

Surely the Senator from Illinois can grasp those fundamental concepts. But then again, it's easy to over-estimate Barack Obama.

***

ADDENDUM: Powerline reports that the AP rushed to Obama's defense last night, claiming in a "fact check" article that "western forces have been killing Afghan civilians at a faster rate than insurgents." That analysis is based on a rather dubious AP count, and even the wire service acknowledges that "tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify." We might add that some of those reports come from tribal "elders" who are Taliban sympathizers, or falsely claim civilian casualties, to prevent terrorist reprisals against their villages.

Eyes in the Sky

Here's a suggestion for some enterprising reporter (assuming there are any left). Keep an eye on the office of Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit. Any second now, an ACLU attorney is bound to rush through the door, with an emergency request to "halt" the expanded use of spy satellites for domestic purposes.

As outlined in today's Wall Street Journal, the nation's top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation's "vast" network of spy satellites. Under a decision made three months ago, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell, granted wider access to spy satellite imagery to other civilian agencies and law enforcement. Until now, as the Journal notes, access to that data (beyond the defense and intelligence communities), has been restricted to such agencies as NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and only for the purpose of scientific and environmental study.

The prospect of greater domestic use of spy satellites is bound to throw the ACLU into a tizzy, sending them in search of a friendly federal judge, and some sort of temporary injunction. You may recall that Judge Taylor (a Carter appointee) ruled last year that the NSA domestic surveillance program was unconstitutional, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, that little setback won't deter the ACLU; nor will their remote prospects for success in challenging the domestic imagery program. As soon as the organization can find someone who's being "harmed" by the new initiative, the ACLU will be in court, claiming that the domestic use of spy satellites is a major threat to our privacy and other civil liberties.

And ordinarily, it might be. But reading the WSJ article carefully, you'll find that the program will be initially aimed at enhancing border security, protecting key infrastructure and assisting first responders after natural disasters. In other words, the imagery will provide wide coverage of area targets--something spy satellites do very well. They won't be zooming in on 79 Wistful Vista (or any other private address) in the initial phase of the program, and it's doubtful that they will ever be used for that purpose, for several reasons.

First, there is an obvious concern about civil liberties. Charles Allen, the former senior CIA officer who now runs intel operations for the Department of Homeland Security, says his agency will "take time" before providing spy satellite imagery to law enforcement agencies. He told the Journal that DHS will have a team of lawyers to review requests for access or use of the systems.

"This all has to be vetted through a legal process," he says. "We have to get this right because we don't want civil-rights and civil-liberties advocates to have concerns that this is being misused in ways which were not intended."

The envisioned "process" will likely build on the example of USGS Civil Applications Committee, which vetted past requests for overhead imagery, primarily for map-making and scientific research. A new DHS branch, the National Applications Office, will control access to overhead imagery by law enforcement and other civilian agencies.

Secondly, as Mr. Allen points out, the limits of satellite technology create restrictions on what those platforms can collect. It's a popular misconception that the U.S. operates a large fleet of spy satellites, able to pinpoint a specific car (or individual) at will. In reality, the number of imagery satellites is relatively small and they constantly orbit the earth, limiting their "dwell time" over specific locations.

Additionally, the requirement for domestic coverage will place further demands on the constellation--demands that must be carefully weighed against service life, operating costs and other factors. Keeping sensors switched on to cover CONUS targets will mean that batteries, communications links and other components wear out faster. Maneuvering a satellite to optimize imagery of a certain port or other infrastructure components will require more fuel--or an earlier replacement of the platform. These are key considerations in an era when spy satellites typically cost billions of dollars, and are expected to remain on orbit for years.

Finally, there's the very real possibility that Congress and the Courts will get involved in the oversight process, given the lack of existing regulations and legal precedent. Given the recent, bruising fight over the NSA surveillance program, it's likely that the administration may offer some "compromise" over the domestic imagery initiative, formalizing the process through the National Applications Office, or even creating an imagery equivalent of the FISA court. While that process would be cumbersome, the White House--and Congress--might be willing to accept that option, creating a legal mechanism for domestic imagery surveillance, and allowing the program to proceed.

However, the legal wrangling over this effort will likely continue for years--and that may not necessarily be a bad thing. There are a number of unanswered questions about using imagery satellites against CONUS targets which require clarification from the legal system.

For example, let's say that an imagery bird is "tasked" for surveillance of an east coast port. Some of the resulting intel "products" cover not only the port complex, but the surrounding neighborhoods as well. Reviewing the data, an imagery analyst notes something suspicious and zeroes in on a particular backyard. The images suggest that possible terrorist activity is on-going at that location, and an attack may be imminent.

What to do? Under existing guidelines (or the lack thereof), the surveillance can continue without a warrant or a judge's approval. Few would argue against the need to keep an eye on the suspicious activity, but at what point does local law enforcement get involved? Can the cops use information derived from overhead surveillance in convincing a judge to sign a search warrant? What can be disclosed in the discovery phase of the case? What about classification issues? These are but a few of the questions that require some sort of legal resolution.

The real key is balancing the legal concerns against the necessary use of overhead imagery platforms in domestic surveillance. In our current threat environment, the initiative described in the WSJ article is both prudent and overdue, with necessary safeguards for individual liberties. The ACLU is obviously free to challenge the program--and we'd be surprised if they didn't--but civil libertarians (and complicit judges) should not be allowed to halt the effort until every legal aspect can be addressed. As we've learned in the FISA debate, a domestic surveillance program can easily operate within the confines of the law--and produce intelligence information that saves American lives. There's no reason the imagery program can't function in the same, productive, law-abiding--manner.

***

ADDENDUM: Government lawyers who will (eventually) defend the imagery initiative in court must be thanking their lucky stars for Google Earth. In an era when commercial satellite services are providing high-resolution services, it will be more difficult for the ACLU to claim that the government is invading someone's privacy, when the similar information--on the same targets--can be obtained by anyone with a computer and a credit card.

ADDENDUM:

Stick a Fork in Michael Vick

..he's done, although the legal and administrative gyrations will continue for a few more months.

On the legal front, ESPN is reporting that Vick's attorneys are trying to negotiate a plea deal with federal prosecutors on the conspiracy and dog-fighting charges filed against the NFL star. Sources tell ESPN that Vick's legal team is encouraging the Falcons quarterback to accept the deal, if it includes less than one year of jail time. However, Vick has apparently not decided whether to enter a plea bargain, or take his chances in court. His case goes to trial in November.

Meanwhile, other media outlets are suggesting that prosecutors already have an offer on the table: 16 months in jail for a guilty plea, or face the prospect of more charges being filed. Vick's "hometown" newspaper--the Newport News Daily Press--reports that the feds are threatening a superseded indictment against the former Viriginia Tech star, adding racketeering charges to those already filed.

The more serious racketeering charges carry a maximum 20-year prison sentence, compared to a six-year term for conspiracy and dog-fighting. Originally designed to fight mob crime in the 1970s, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute has used broadly in recent years, in a variety of federal cases.

As the alleged leader of an interstate dog-fighting ring, Vick is certainly a target for a RICO indictment, and with his former associates now cooperating with the feds, prosecutors seem confident in their ability to charge Vick with more serious crimes--or use a threatened indictment to secure a guilty plea on lesser charges.

While Vick's legal position is certainly tenuous, his NFL career could probably survive his current woes. A 16-month jail term would force him to miss two seasons, but given Vick's relative youth (he just turned 27) and exceptional talent, there are probably teams that would give him a shot, after his release from prison.

Never mind that he participated in a gruesome, barbaric "sport," and brutally executed dogs that failed to perform. A mobile quarterback with an outstanding "arm" is something rare, indeed, and there are NFL coaches and general managers who would welcome Vick to their teams, assuming he can get past his legal problems.

Unfortunately, Michael Vick's "second act" in the National Football League seems increasingly improbable, thanks to related accusations that have surfaced in the dog-fighting case. Court papers and media reports indicate that "Ookie" Vick bet large sums of money on individual fights, as much as $250,000 in recent years (by some accounts). If those allegations can be proven, it puts Vick in violation of the NFL's ban on gambling.

Participation in gambling is the surest way to end a pro sports career, as Mr. Vick will soon discover. True, there are no indications that the Falcons quarterback bet on NFL games, but any accusation of gambling by players is taken very seriously--and thoroughly investigated. Confirmation of Vick's activities could earn him a life-time ban from the league, the NFL's "maximum" penalty for gambling.

As of this writing, the league is still looking into the matter, and hasn't announced whether Vick will be suspended for the 2007 season. But sources tell ESPN that a suspension appears inevitable, while the league continues its investigation. And, it doesn't take a legal analyst to figure out that the NFL is devoting most of its efforts to the gambling allegations. Vick's participation in dog-fighting will bring him public ruin (and jail time), but it's the gambling connection that will, ultimately, end his NFL career.

Ookie's (Other) Stoolies

It's been said that there's no honor among thieves, and the same apparently holds true in dog-fighting rings.

Put another way: the legal woes of NFL star Michael "Ookie" Vick just got worse.

Late today, federal prosecutors in Richmond, Virginia, announced that plea deals have been reached with the remaining defendants in Vick's dog-fighting case. That means that the Falcons quarterback will be going it alone when he goes on trial later this year.

When federal indictments were handed down last month on dog-fighting and conspiracy charges, only one of the defendants, Tony Taylor, pleaded guilty to his role in the operation, which was allegedly run from Vick's former property in Surry County. Now, less than a month later, Vick's two remaining co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, have made their own deals with prosecutors and will enter pleas later this week, according to WRIC-TV in Richmond.

Collins Spencer, the former Fox News and CNN anchor now working as Vick's spokesman, said defense attorneys were surprised at the latest plea agreements. In fact, it's their reaction that we find a bit surprising. From what we can tell, Vick's projected defense will be based (at least in part) on the "I wasn't home" excuse. With the star quarterback spending most of his time in Atlanta, the theory goes, Taylor, Peace and Phillips had the run of the property, and served as the primary managers of "Bad Newz Kennels," the name given to the dog-fighting operation.

It's also a safe bet that Vick's defense lawyers planned to pit the co-defendants against each other, looking for contradictions in their testimony, and painting them as opportunists, eager to cut a deal and save their own skin.

Vick's lead attorney, Billy Martin, may still attempt a variation on that defense. But with the other defendants cutting a deal with the feds (and providing testimony that will be consistent (and damaging) to Mr. Vick, the defense team's job just got a lot tougher.

Of course, Vick is still entitled to his day in court, and there is a chance he might win the case, given his popularity in Virginia (or at least, some parts of the state), and the ability of defense attorneys to discredit the testimony of co-defendants. But don't bet on it.

Vick did get a bit of good news yesterday. The NFL announced that it has not reached a decision on suspending the Falcons' star for the year, responding to media reports that Vick would be forced to sit out the season. A league spokesman says that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is still weighing evidence, and won't reach a decision for another week or so.

In other words, Vick is still (officially) a member of the Falcons. But he's still banned from training camp, and his prospects for taking a snap this year are very slim, indeed--about the same odds of him beating those federal dog-fighting and conspiracy charges.

Your Tax Dollars at Work (Mass Transit Edition)

The Washington, D.C. Metro. Thanks to a government program, some federal workers have found a way to turn a profit on their daily commute.

Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. area (and other cities) have a unique transportation "benefit," subsidized by the U.S. tax payer. Under a long-standing transit compensation program, federal workers receive pre-paid "Metrochecks" or a debit card, allowing them to use public transportation for free and reduce congestion on crowded freeways that serve their area.

All told, the federal government spends about $250 million a year on public transit benefits for its employees, with more than half of that amount in the D.C. area. According to the Department of Transportation (which runs the program), there are 120,000 federal workers in the "National Capital Region" who receive the benefit, at a cost of $140 million a year.

The transit program has been around for years and for almost as long, there have been reports of federal employees who sell their Metrochecks or SmartTrip debit cards, turning a nice little profit on their taxpayer-funded "benefit." A Senate committee asked the Government Accountability Office to look into those allegations, and you can probably guess what they found.

Investigating only three days of internet sales, the GAO confirmed at least 20 federal employees who were fraudulently selling their Metrochecks on eBay. GAO investigators also purchased transit benefits from three other federal workers on Craig's List, while others inflated their commute costs to receive the monthly, maximum reimbursement ($105) under the program. Among the investigation's findings:

--Over that three-day period, GAO investigators found 58 individuals selling Metrochecks on eBay. Twenty were selected for investigation, and it was determined that all 20 were federal workers. Collectively, they sold more than $21,000 in Metrochecks over the past two years. In some cases, the sellers never used public transit to get to work, or were on extended leave from their government jobs.

--Investigators also purchased $840 in transit benefits from three federal employees who were advertising on Craig's List. One of the sellers--an Air Force Captain--set up a designated meeting spot with his military e-mail account, and promised to show up at the location in his "service dress uniform." After the GAO investigator concluded the purchase, the officer explained that he usually rode to work with another Pentagon employee, and had no actual, out-of-pocket transit expenses, making him ineligible for the program.

--The GAO also identified at least 41 individuals receiving benefits who (a) apparently don't work for the federal government; (b) left federal service, but didn't return their unused benefits, or (c) continued to receive Metrochecks or SmartCard payments after leaving their federal jobs.

So, how much is this costing the taxpayer? Based on their limited data sample, the GAO estimates that during 2006 alone, federal agencies paid at least $17 million in fraudulent transit benefits, and possibly much more. Some estimates put the real amount at $25 million in the D.C. area alone. Factor in potential fraud in other cities where the program operates, and the final cost is much higher.

And in case you're wondering, employees at agencies participating in the program are required to sign a certification statement as part of the benefit application process. The certification confirms that the worker is eligible for for the program, will not sell or transfer benefits, and is not requesting more than the needed amount of benefits.

Incidentally, the GAO report on transit benefit fraud was released almost four months ago, and generated a minor media splash. There were stories in the Washington Post (and other outlets), creating enough publicity (or so you'd think) to drive the sellers off-line, or make them more cautious.

Guess again. There are currently two sets of Metro Checks up for auction on eBay, and more for sale on Craigslist as well. And that leads us to the real bottom line: how many of those employees--identified in the original GAO "sting," have been punished for their misconduct? We're guessing that number is extremely low, if any have been punished at all. No wonder some federal workers are still selling their transit benefits on-line, with the taxpayers getting taken for a ride.

***

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with encouraging government employees to use mass transit, or compensating those who do. The problem, of course, lies in the implementation and administration of the transit program. Too many employees are allowed to sign up with little more than a vague promise to use public transporation, and no follow-up to ensure that the benefits are used for their intended purpose. In terms of fixing the program, that's easy, too. Tighten up the audit process, and prosecute anyone who sells their benefits. After a while, even the sleaziest of public employees will decide it's not worth the risk, and fraud will virtually disappear.

Readers will also note that there wasn't much of an outcry from that Senate panel when they received the GAO report. And for good reason. With the exception of DoD, federal employees tend to vote Democratic, and party leaders aren't about to upset a key constituency over a "little" fraud in a benefit program.

Watching the Camps

Bill Roggio was the first to report some rather significant--and possibly, troubling--developments from Pakistan's tribal region, where Al Qaida (and its Taliban allies) have established a new safe haven over the past year. On Saturday, Mr. Roggio noted an article by Asia Times writer Syed Saleem Shahzad, claiming that Al Qaida and Taliban camps have "emptied out" over the past month, ahead of anticipated strikes by the Pakistani military, and possibly, by U.S. special operations forces.

The implications of that move are obvious. Not only will scores of terrorists live to fight another day, but it also raises renewed questions about security and loyalty within the Pakistani military. According to Mr. Shahzad, the U.S. had developed extensive intelligence on 29 suspected camps in the Waziristan and passed the information to Islamabad, in preparation for an expected offensive. The quick exodus of insurgents from that camp suggests (once again) that the Taliban has a number of "friends" in the upper echelons of Pakistan's military (particularly within the intelligence service or ISI), who provide tipoffs and warning to the terrorists.

Shahzad's sources also claim that "all but one of the 29 camps" have been dismantled, although U.S. officials (questioned by Bill Roggio) deny that report. Clearly, there's a critical difference between an abandoned camp (or one where no activity is observed), and a facility that is being disassembled. Empty camps would suggest that Al Qaida and Taliban elements have temporarily relocated, moving into defensive positions against expected Pakistani attacks, with plans to return once the government's offensive ends.

Another--albeit less likely--explanation is that the Taliban and Al Qaida have become increasingly aware of U.S. satellites (and other surveillance platforms), scheduling training and other "outside" activity to coincide with known "breaks" in coverage. Information on various spy satellites and their coverage windows in readily available on the internet, and years of aircraft and UAV flights along the Afghan border have provided insight into their operational patterns as well.

While terrorists could use that data to developed their own "activity scheduling" program to inhibit our surveillance efforts, they would face the challenge of disseminating that information to widely-scattered camps in a timely manner. Beyond that, the "absence" of activity is likely based on all-source intelligence reporting, which indicates that the camps are empty, at least for now. In other words, not only are the imagery platforms showing an absence of activity, it's being confirmed by SIGINT and other measures.

But would Al Qaida and the Taliban be willing to permanently surrender their Waziristan bases? That's the $64,000 question, and for now, it defies a clear answer. Most of the analysts we spoke with believe that the terrorists would give up their safe havens only if (a) their training and logistical goals had been met; (b) they were anticipating a permanent Pakistani military presence in the region, (c) they anticipate access to better locations/facilities in the near future, or (d) they plan to return to the camps in the months ahead.

While the Waziristan camps have been a boon for Al Qaida and their Taliban allies, they have not achieved mid or long-term training and logistics goals in the past year. Like any other military organization (or more, correctly, quasi-military organization), the terrorists face the challenge of recruiting, training and equipping enough fighters for a multi-front war. A permanent shut-down of the 29 camps--without dedicated replacements--would put Al Qaida and the Taliban in the same fix they faced before the Waziristan Accords: a need to prepare more terrorists for jihad, without the large-scale training facilities that operated openly in Afghanistan in the late 1990s.

We also concur with Bill Roggio's assessment that the "threat" of a Pakistani military presence did not force the evacuation. As he notes, limited Pakistani forays into Waziristan have come at a high price, and despite hints from Islamabad, there are no signs of a pending government offensive into the tribal lands. Attacks by the Pakistani military may be limited to air and artillery strikes against "known" targets (i.e., the camps), so a temporary evacuation would allow terrorists to minimize their losses, and return after the offensive ends.

In terms of accessing "new" locations, the terrorists may have that opportunity in the coming weeks. Mr. Shahzad's article identified two "war corridors" that represent key axis of communications in potential battles with Pakistani forces. Success in those clashes would allow Al Qaida and Taliban operatives to extend their reach, and move closer to areas now under government control. Relocating the camps to those areas would make them more accessible, but also more vulnerable to future Pakistani attacks. Barring a major change in the balance of power, such a relocation seems unlikely.

Available information suggests that the fourth option--a return to the Waziristan camps--appears most likely. With winter looming on the horizon, the terrorists know that any Pakistani offensive (or U.S. SOF raids) will be of limited duration, allowing them to reoccupy their safe havens in a matter of weeks. That suggests that the current "evacuation" serves two operational goals: minimizing losses from potential strikes against the camps, while putting more fighters in the field to deal with potential ground incursions by Pakistani forces. Once the "immediate" threat eases, the terrorists will likely return to their camps, which are still being maintain by skeleton staffs.

***

ADDENDUM: There has been considerable speculation about the camps' sudden evacuation, and possible attacks by Al Qaida inside the CONUS. As one intelligence official told Bill Roggio, there were a number of experienced terrorists in those camps, operatives who are quite capable of conducting operations overseas. While we concur that assessment, it is worth remembering that those terrorists were a minority within the "local" Al Qaida population. Most of the fighters who recently dispersed were likely trained for operations within the region--Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Today's Good News From Iraq

More evidence that the surge is working, ahead of General Petraeus's report to Congress next month.

First, U.S. commanders in Iraq say the number of "high-profile" Al Qaida attacks have dropped by almost 50% since the surge began earlier this year. Military officials tell USA Today that the number of large scale attacks--hitting such facilities as mosques, markets and other "soft targets," aimed at producing mass casualties--have declined, from an average of 130 a month in March, to around 70 in July.

The decline reflects a clear shift on the battlefield:

Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaida’s networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaida sanctuaries and bases.

“The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in ’06,” said retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. “We’ve got it now.”

Keane spoke from Iraq.

The effectiveness of coalition attacks has been enhanced through better intelligence. One former brigade commander in Iraq reports a dramatic increase in tips from Iraqi civilians, which often provide the location of insurgents, or their IEDs.

Army Colonel Ralph Baker, now assigned to the Pentagon, says that U.S. troops now get 23,000 tips a month from ordinary Iraqis, four times the number of a year ago. Improvements in the security situation make it easier for Iraqis to provide information to the Americans, with less fear of retribution from Al Qaida.

Officers interviewed by USA Today cautioned that Al Qaida retains the ability to carry out "sensational" attacks, and noted continuing problems with Shiite militias, armed by Iran. The number of explosively-formed penetrator (EFP) attacks increased to 35 in July, compared to a monthly average of 23 between March and June. The EFPs are provided by the Iranians, and employed by Shiite factions, allowing them to target even heavily armored vehicles.

But the article fails to mention that the surge will (likely) achieve similar results with the Shiites. With Al Qaida in retreat--and a mountain of new intelligence--U.S. commanders can devote more resources to the Shia "problem" and their Iranian support network. Last week's highly-publicized strike in Sadr City targeted a Shia/Iranian EFT cell, resulting in the deaths of 32 terrorists. We also learned last week that "Mookie" al-Sadr has high-tailed it to Iran (again), suggesting that Shia militants--and their leaders--are feeling the heat.

Make no mistake: the battle for Iraq is far from over. But the tide of battle has clearly shifted, creating problems for Al Qaida and its allies, various Shiite militant factions, and members of the American left, who long ago cast their lot with a U.S. military defeat in Iraq.

And They Wonder Why We Despise Them

We found a couple of interesting items in today's ShopTalk, the on-line forum for broadcast news professionals. The first indicates that most Americans consider the news media to be biased, inaccurate and uncaring about the people they report on; the second item shows why so many of us feel that way.

We'll begin with some poll numbers, from the respected Pew Research Center, as reported by AFP:

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".

Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.

The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.

Here's a complete breakout of the Pew survey, also available at the organization's website.



Views of Press Values and Performance, 1985-2007 (Pew Research Center)

And, if you wonder why many Americans hold journalists in such low esteem, consider the example of Jodi Applegate, a former NBC reporter who now anchors a morning show for WNYW, the Fox-owned station in New York. Ms. Applegate will be on the cover girl of next month's More magazine, and in a conversation with the New York Daily News, she positively gushed over her own image:

I like it," she says. "It's not a typical photograph I would have taken of myself. I literally sort of teared up after I saw it. I think it's my favorite picture."

And if only her late mother could see her now!

"It [the photo shoot] was right after Mother's Day and I was thinking about my own mom. She passed away many years ago, but I was thinking that she would have been so happy to know that I grew up to have great experiences like that."

For the record, here's the photograph that moved Ms. Applegate to tears:




In case you're wondering, More is a magazine aimed at women over 40, offering advice on "dating younger men" and similar, weighty topics. Sounds like the magazine found the perfect cover girl in Applegate, who proves (once again) that the media is populated with shallow, self-infatuated twits, enamored of themselves, and nothing else.

We can only imagine how many mirrors she has at home.

The Nowak File (Remote Monitoring Edition)

As she awaits trial on charges of attacking and trying to kidnap a romantic rival, former astronaut Lisa Nowak has petitioned a Florida court to remove the ankle bracelet that allows authorities to keep tabs on her.

In a petition filed by her attorney, Nowak (a Navy Captain now stationed in Corpus Christi, Texas) called the bracelet unnecessary and too expensive. Nowak originally agreed to the device as a condition for her release, after being arraigned on charges of attempting kidnapping, battery and burglary with assault. She is accused of attacking Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman at the Orlando International Airport last February. Both Shipman and Nowak were vying for the affection of another astronaut, Navy Commander Bill Oefelein.

Under the terms of her release, Nowak is charged $105 a week for the monitoring bracelet, and has paid almost $3,000 for the device so far. According to the AP, she also claims that the bracelet interferes with her ability to exercise, drive a car, fly on a commercial plane and monitor her children in the pool.

Additionally, Captain Nowak's attorneys claim that the bracelet's manufacturer violated their client's privacy, using the case to tout their product. In motion to remove the device, the attorneys claimed that the company president invited the media to his office in early May, and specifically shared "what the bracelet could reveal about Lisa Nowak."

A Florida judge hasn't ruled on Nowak's request, but we'll go out on a limb and predict that her motion will be rejected. Too expensive? You decide. Here's a link to the current military pay chart, published by the Military Times newspapers. Capt Nowak was commissioned in 1985, but as a Naval Academy grad, her time at the "Boat School" also counts for pay purposes, and in calculating the date she entered service. So, as a Captain (O-6) with 26 years of service, she receives $145,182.05 in basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) and basic allowance for housing (BAH). She also receives $250 a month in flight pay.

All told, Captain Nowak earns just under $150,000 a year. Obviously, she's got bills to pay--not to mention attorney's fees--but it's hard to believe that someone making over $12,000 a month can't afford $105 for a monitoring bracelet that keeps her out of jail. We're guessing that a lot of other folks facing charges in Florida (with much lower incomes) find some way to pay their bill--a point the judge will probably make in response to Nowak's motion.

As for her other arguments, let's be charitable and say they're without merit. As a staff officer who's "flying a desk" (pending outcome of the Florida case), Nowak is, most likely, on an "individual" physical training program, meaning that she doesn't have to turn out and exercise with everyone else. If it's embarrassing to wear that bracelet in the gym, then exercise at home, or wear a pair of sweat pants that cover the device.

And, if it interferes with her ability to drive a car, fly on an airliner or splash in the pool with her kids, well there are obvious remedies for those problems as well. But you'll note that Nowak's attorneys use the term "interfere" rather than "prohibit." In other words, wearing that device is humiliating and inconvenient for the former astronaut, so the court should remove it.

Rubbish. Lisa Nowak is facing serious charges, and she's lucky to be out of jail. If that bracelet is a bit embarrassing or awkward, well it's designed that way. The court has a right to track the movements of accused criminals who are out on bond, and the public has right to know that such individuals are in their midst. If that means a little inconvenience for the accused, too bad.

In fact, we're a bit surprised that Nowak's defense team filed the motion. It seems to suggest that their client deserves special treatment, given her former career as an astronaut. We'd say that Captain Nowak lost that consideration when she went on that 900-mile road trip, and attacked Colleen Shipman in Orlando. We believe that the Florida court will be unimpressed with Nowak's motion, and the good Captain will still be wearing the device when she goes on trial next month.

***

As always, we'll defer to the legal experts in our audience, but we've been consistently puzzled by the actions of Nowak's attorneys in this case. Long before the bracelet became an issue, one of her lawyers (Donald Lykkebak) pitched a fit with the media, insisting that his client did not wear a "space diaper" during her journey to confront Captain Shipman. Huh? His client is accused of serious crimes, and Mr. Lykkebak wants to correct the "diaper" story. Way to go, counselor.

And, more recently, the Nowak defense team took offense at NASA's use of her incident to investigate astronaut health and conduct, which revealed that some were legally intoxicated as they blasted off into space. While Captain Nowak was not one of the astronauts who were tipsy at liftoff, the lawyer claimed that linking her name to the report further sullied her reputation.

That's assuming, of course, that Captain Nowak has any reputation left to sully.

Bears Preparing for an East Coast Run?

A Russian TU-95 Bear H strategic bomber. Recent Bear missions against western targets in the Pacific and North Atlantic suggests that the bombers may resume flights along the U.S. east coast, something that hasn't happened since the Cold War (photo: GlobalSecurity.org)

They were an infrequent, though powerful symbol of the Cold War; occasional flights by Russian TU-95 "Bear" bombers along the U.S. eastern seaboard. Launching out of bases in central Russia, the huge, long-range bombers would fly north toward the Kola Peninsula, then swing southwest along the Norwegian coast and head for the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap. After passing Iceland, the Russian bomber (usually a single-ship) continue on its west/southwest heading, flying parallel to the east coast before landing in Cuba.

Thanks to timely intelligence cueing, the flights rarely came as a surprise. The Bears were closely tracked along their journey, and shadowed by Norwegian, British, American and Canadian Air Force jets, depending on their flight route. If we had a carrier battle group in the area--a frequent target for TU-95 show-of-force missions--Navy fighters participated as well. While the Russian flights served as a notice of their long-range strike capabilities, the "escorting" F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, CF-18s and F-18s reminded Bear crews that they were hardly invulnerable.

With the end of the Cold War, the bomber leg of Moscow's strategic triad essentially collapsed. Russian bombers--and their crews--spent most of their time on the ground, due to fuel shortages and funding woes. Flights along our eastern seaboard stopped, and missions against Iceland, Norway and various Pacific rim targets decreased dramatically.

But, Russia's economy growing rapidly (and defense spending on the increase), the bomber arm of their military is making a comeback. Earlier this year, Russian TU-95s have flown profiles against Britain, Norway and Alaska, and on Wednesday, two Bear crews staged their most aggressive mission in years, flying across the central Pacific, and passing within 300 miles of U.S. air and naval bases on Guam. The TU-95 flight coincided with on-going U.S. military drills in the area; it was the first Russian bomber flight flown against Guam since the Cold War.

As you might expect, Moscow is bragging about the mission, claiming that the Bears actually passed over the island, and "exchanged smiles" with the U.S. pilots sent to intercept them. But a U.S. official told the BBC that the TU-95s never came close enough to warrant an intercept, a fact confirmed by our own DoD sources. However, the Russian aircraft were easily within cruise missile range of the island; the Bear "H" variant used on Wednesday's mission carries the AS-15 Kent" air-launched cruise missile, which has a maximum range of 1500 NM.

Russia claims that its recent bomber flights represent a "return to business" as usual, and that's probably a fair assessment, given the resurgence of its bomber forces and the recent chill in relations between Moscow and Washington. But that begs an important question: in light of this weeks Guam flight (and recent Bear missions against other U.S. and western targets), is Russia preparing for that most provocative of profiles, a TU-95 flight along the eastern seaboard?

A number of indicators suggest that such a mission may be in the offing. First, as demonstrated by the recent Bear sorties the Pacific, Russian long-range aviation crews certainly have the resources--and training--to conduct that sort of mission. Secondly, with the inactivation of the USAF's Iceland-based air interceptor squadron, the Russians may feel more confident in their ability to "slip through" the GIUK gap, and achieve a measure of tactical surprise, though we certainly have "other means" for tracking Bears over the North Atlantic.

Additionally, the "friendship" between Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez alleviates another problem associated with a Bear flight to Cuba--the availability of fuel for local operations, and the return flight to Russia. With Venezuela now providing at least 80,000 barrels of oil to Cuba each day, local stocks of aviation fuel have reportedly increased, meeting a key logistical requirement for the prospective mission.

And, with Chavez now buying Russian arms--including 24 SU-30 Flankers--there's the outside chance that the "next" east coast Bear flight could terminate in Venezuela, rather than Cuba. That would allow Vladimir Putin (and the Venezuelan dictator) to send a powerful message to the United States, highlighting their growing alliance, and the potential for Russian bombers to strike at key targets in the Western Hemisphere, including the Panama Canal.

At this point, there's no firm indication of a pending "Bear" mission along the eastern seaboard, although one Air Force analyst we spoke with believes that such a flight is "inevitable," and will likely occur before year's end. Since 9-11, the U.S. air defense posture has improved dramatically, although the number of pilots and aircraft on alert remains lower than during the Cold War.

As of this morning, there are no reports of an increased alert status among key east coast air defense units (Otis ANGB, Massachusetts; Atlantic City, New Jersey, Langley AFB, VA, Jacksonville, Florida and Homestead AFB, Florida). Intelligence cueing would likely provide hours of advance warning, giving those units plenty of time to scramble their aircraft and escort the Bears. By some estimates, the U.S. maintains at least 35 fighters on air defense alert at all times, along with eight air refueling tankers and one E-3 AWACS.

While the fighters and tankers are already in position, the flight of a TU-95 would require the E-3 to deploy from its base in Oklahoma, to a location along the east coast. The AWACS aircraft would be used for control and coordination of the air defense mission, as the Russian bomber flies along the edge of U.S. airspace. Our sources tell us there is at least one AWACS at an east coast base this morning, but its presence appears related to routine training, and not an expected Bear mission.

Raptor Arrival

F-22 Raptors of the 90th Fighter Squadron arrive at their new home, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska (Bill Roth/Anchorage Daily News).

The Air Force's F-22 Raptor program reached another milestone yesterday, with the arrival of eight aircraft at their new home, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

It marks the first time that the F-22--or any stealth aircraft--has been permanently assigned to an installation outside the CONUS. While stealth platforms have temporarily deployed to overseas locations in the past (including a F-22 squadron from Langley AFB, VA that spent part of last summer at Elmendorf), Wednesday's arrival represented the next step in the Air Force's basing strategy--putting its most advanced fighter closer to potential adversaries.

Elmendorf's proximity to Europe and the Far East was noted by General Paul Hester, Commander of Pacific Air Forces, who was on hand for the ceremony. He said that Alaska's "unique strategic location" made it ideal location to house "the most deadly tool in the box."

The Alaskan base will eventually receive a total of 40 F-22s, enough for two squadrons. Roughly 20% of the Air Force's Raptor fleet will be housed at Elmendorf, which becomes the third installation to receive the new fighter, after Langley (which has two operational squadrons), and Tyndall AFB, Florida, where F-22 pilots are trained.

Wednesday's arrival ceremony coincided with an Air Force announcement that it has signed a production contract with Lockheed Martin for the "last batch" of 60 F-22s now scheduled for production. The service now plans to acquire 183 Raptors, down from the 300 jets it originally hoped to buy. There has been talk about a possible F-22 sale to Japan which would keep production lines open, while the Air Force lobbies for additional Raptors.

After Elmendorf's 3rd Fighter Wing receives its complement of F-22s, Holloman AFB, New Mexico will begin the conversion process, taking delivery of its first Raptor in late 2008. An F-22 squadron at Hickam AFB, Hawaii will begin taking shape after that. Smaller numbers of Raptors at stationed at Edwards AFB, California (for flight testing), and with the U.S. Weapons School at Nellis AFB, Nevada, for advanced tactical training.

In the interest of "balance" (we suppose), the Anchorage Daily News ran a companion AP article that recites frequent criticisms of the F-22: it's too expensive, we already have air domiance, it's the wrong weapon for the Global War on Terror. We've discussed--and debunked those arguments (at length) in previous posts. With China's expanding military threat, a nuclear North Korea and a resurgent Russia, stationing Raptors in Alaska makes a great deal of military sense, putting them close to the potential fight, and giving our forces the asset they need to ensure air dominance for decades to come.

More Recalibration

Barely a week ago, we noted a discernible shift among some Democrats (and their friends in the press) on the troop surge in Iraq, and its prospects for success. Media panelists on Chris Matthews's weekend show warned about the dangers of an early pull-out, and even suggested that Iraq is a front in the wider War on Terror--comments in stark contrast to prevailing MSM attitudes on the conflict, which shaped earlier "Quagmire" and the "Surge Won't Work" Themes."


About the same time, a ranking House Democrat, South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, suggested that a positive report on Iraq from General David Petraeus could cause serious problems for his party, and effectively end efforts to force a pull-out or "de-fund" the war. We viewed Clyburn's comments (along with those of the media pundits) as a veiled warning to Democratic politicians: you'd better get out in front of improving conditions in Iraq, or pay a political price down the road. It's a particularly odious brand of recalibration, but it's how the game in played in Washington.


And sure enough, the political shift is continuing. This AP story details recent praise for the surge--and progress in Iraq--by some of the war's most vocal critics, Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. According to AP reporter Kimberly Hefling, the "Democrats' choice to acknowledge the military's progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear." In other words, the Democrats are hedging their bets, to save their own political skin.


It's a safe bet that more Democrats will join Levin, Durbin and Reed in the coming weeks, ahead of the Petraeus report. The real question is when will the first Democratic presidential hopeful climb on the "Surge-is-Working" bandwagon, and try to claim credit for its success (by confirming General Petraeus as our top commander in Iraq)? Hillary is the most likely to make that move, and barring bad news from the war zone, it's likely to happen in the coming weeks.


We're also wondering when the GOP will run that first TV ad, chastising Democrats for their on-again/off-again support for the war. Don't hold your breath, given the fact that many Republicans were running for the tall grass just weeks ago, urging a "new approach" in Iraq.

H/T: Powerline

Another Military Fraud Exposed

Former Army Corporal Richard McClanahan, wearing an impressive rack of decorations he never earned (Military Times photo).

Meet former Army Corporal Richard McClanahan. The one-time medic was kicked out of the service in 2005, pulling time in the brig and receiving a less-than-honorable discharge upon his release.

According to this Air Force Times article, McClanahan got in trouble for claiming decorations he never earned, including the Congressional Medal of Honor. For what it's worth, Corporal McClanahan also claimed to have three Purple Hearts, three Silver Stars and the Legion of Merit. Army records indicate that McClanhan never received an award for valor, and his only overseas assignment was in Korea, not the Middle East.

Flash forward a couple of years, and McClanahan is in the dock again, this time on federal bank fraud charges and--you guessed it--claims that he is a Medal of Honor recipient. The FBI began investigating McClanahan after he told local residents about his impressive collection of medals, which would have made him one of the most highly-decorated soldiers in history. By comparison, fellow Texan Audie Murphy--the most-decorated U.S. service member of World War II--received two Silver Star, (and more than 30 other medals), earned in 27 months of combat service across Sicily, Italy and France.

Fortunately, the good folks of Amarillo, Texas (McClanahan's home town) weren't buying, and they called the feds. Falsely claiming that you've won the Medal of Honor is a felony, punishable by up to a year in jail. According to the Amarillo Globe-News, McClanahan was facing two counts of false claims about the receipt of military medals, and additional charges of making false statements to obtain a bank loan. Under an agreement with prosecutors, the former corporal will plead guilty to the Medal of Honor and bank fraud charges. A sentencing date has not been set.

"This is an unfortunate situation that is more common than we believe," said George Rasley, a spokesman for Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry, who also received complaints about McClanahan's medal claims, and referred them to the FBI.

What Mr. Rasley fails to mention is that such cases received little attention--and there were few prosecutions--until Texas businessman B.G. Burkett published Stolen Valor almost a decade ago. In his book, Burkett uncovered scores of "phony" Vietnam-era veterans, or former service members who claimed decorations they never received.

It's also worth noting that the first edition of Stolen Valor was self-published by Burkett; while the book eventually became a best-seller (and remains in print to this day), the major publishing houses initially took a pass on his work, claiming that "wasn't a market" for an expose on fraudulent veterans, and exaggerated claims about service members who served in Vietnam.

And, sadly enough, that indifference is a major reason that phonies like Richard McClanahan or Jesse MacBeth or Jimmy Massey can perpetuate their charades. Massey, a former Marine, claimed that his unit committed atrocities in Iraq until his lies were exposed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Michelle Malkin, among others. MacBeth made similar claims--and became a poster-boy for the anti-war movement--until it was revealed that he had been discharged from the Army during basic training. However, Massey and MacBeth were clever enough to peddle their stories to reporters and activists anxious to prove misconduct among American troops--without bothering to check the veracity of their claims.

McClanahan, on the other hand, falls into the "other" category of fraudulent vet--the "hero" ready to trade his valor for personal gain. The photograph of McClanahan in the Air Force Times story shows the corporal in his full dress uniform, bedecked with a chest full of medals and devices, along with "Special Forces" and "Airborne" tabs. We'll bet that McClanahan's little fraud fooled a few people, too. It would be interesting to learn if he listed that phony Medal of Honor on that loan application, in an effort to impress the bank.

The Times doesn't explain where the image came from, but it looks like a cropped version of an "official" Army photo, usually found in personnel records. If that's the case, then it may explain how he ran afoul of the military justice system. When the photographer saw McClanahan--a corporal, on his first enlistment--with the most impressive rack of decorations this side of Matt Urban or David Hackworth--he notified superiors, and the "hero" was on his way to the brig. That scenario would also confirm our suspicions that McClanahan is a genuine idiot, willing to trade his military career for illusions of heroism and fame, based on medals he never earned.

While McClanahan deserves jail time for his deceit, he won't be the last military member to embellish his exploits for personal gain. In a society where most Americans have no connection with the armed services, it's often easy to fool the media--and members of the public--with false claims of heroism, or dark tales of atrocities, supposedly committed by our troops. For every McClanahan, MacBeth and Massey exposed as frauds, there are doubtlessly more, waiting in the wings for their moment of infamy.

Today's Reading Assignment

The British-French CVF (DefenseTech.org)

...Norman Polmar, at DefenseTech.org, on Britain's plans to build two real aircraft carriers, scheduled for completion in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The new vessels will replace the three small "Harrier carriers" that entered service in the early 1980s.

With their "split island" design, the British carriers will have a rather striking (some might say odd), appearance. The CVF carriers are smaller than their American counterparts, displacing about 65,000 metric tons, compared to the 100,000 (long) tons displacement of our Nimitz-class. The vessels' embarked air wing will consist of U.S.-designed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and helicopters.

While the U.S. will soon have an "all-nuclear" carrier fleet (with the pending retirement of the USS Kitty Hawk), the CVF design with be conventionally powered, with a top speed of 25 knots. The British apparently decided that the added cost and complexity of a nuclear propulsion system over-ruled potential benefits, namely, a higher cruising speed.

While the smaller "Invincible" class ships (and their Harrier V/STOL jets) performed yeoman service in the Falklands conflict and other operations, it was clear that Britain needed a bigger carrier--with more capable aircraft--for future contingencies. Enter the CVF.

It's nice to see the Royal Navy get back in the game with a more capable design, one that will be shared with the French. According to Mr. Polmar, the French CVF is scheduled for completion in 2015, but with their current carrier (the Charles deGaulle), scheduled for a refit and refueling in the same timeframe, it's doubtful that France can meet that schedule.

We only hope the French can find more reliable propellers for their new carrier. Enroute to the U.S. in 2000, the deGaulle lost one of its screws, and the French MOD promptly discovered that the supplier had gone bankrupt.

The AP Strikes Again

We had to check our calendar when this wire service headline popped up on our computer screen last night:

U.S. troop deaths up after drop in July

Barely one week into the new month, AP writer Sally Buzbee seems anxious to tamp down encouraging reports about last month's drop in U.S. casualties, suggesting that August will be much worse.

"The spate of recent U.S. deaths — 19 so far in August — seems certain to intensify the debate over U.S. progress to calm Iraq and gain ground against militants ahead of a key September report to Congress."

U.S. deaths had dropped slightly in July to 79 — the lowest monthly tally since 70 were killed in November. Before July, more than 100 American troops died each month in the April-to-June period as the U.S. military struck out at insurgents on dangerous streets and cities across Iraq.

But U.S. commanders say rogue Shiite militias have stepped into the gap left as Sunni insurgents have been pushed back, and are now responsible for most attacks on Americans in Baghdad and surrounding districts. Such a trend would elevate fears that Iraqi forces are not yet able to maintain security even when insurgents are beaten back. Large numbers of Iraqi police are believed also to hold allegiances to Shiite militia groups

A bit later in her report, we discover the basis for Ms. Buzbee's assessment, a comparison of "average" daily troop deaths in Iraq:

Although U.S. military deaths dropped in July, a wider accounting of the figures offered a sobering overview.

The daily average for U.S. troop deaths in July was at least 2.55 — higher than the daily averages of 2.25 last year, 2.32 in 2005 and 2.33 in 2004. So far in August, the daily average is 2.71.

Never mind that American casualties remain astonishingly low, in comparison to past conflicts. Never mind that the security situation in Iraq has improved dramatically in recent months--a development noted by AP military reporter Robert Burns last week. And never mind that Ms. Buzbee's barometer of operational success--the daily casualty average --would judge all military campaigns as ghastly failures. With the Petraeus Report looming on the horizon, the AP correspondent feels compelled to temper good news with her analysis that our death toll is on the rise (again).

But are the August numbers higher than July?. Using data from the Iwar database, we compared U.S. deaths for the period 1-7 July and 1-7 August 2007, and discovered the number of fatalities in the first week of August was actually lower than during the same period last month. Here's the day-by-day breakdown of the two periods:

1-7 July 2007

1 July: 7
2 July: 1
3 July: 0
4 July: 3
5 July: 7
6 July: 9
7 July: 1

Total for the week: 28

1-7 August 2007

1 August: 1
2 August: 5
3 August: 0
4 August: 5
5 August: 4
6 August: 5
7 August: 1

Total for the week: 21

The decrease is also reflected in Ms. Buzbee's favorite benchmark, the daily average. Calculated in terms of total deaths per day (3.0) and combat fatalities per day (2.85) , the averages for the first week of August are lower than during the same period last month.

But you won't find that in the AP report, which focuses (instead) on comparisons with years past, providing the statistical basis for their claimed "increase." Still, even that analysis is slightly flawed; the reported "jump" is actually lower than many analysts predicted, given the on-going troop surge and the increase in combat operations.

However, we must caution against reading too much into the AP assessment--or our own comparison, for that matter. Obviously, the death of even a single military member is too many, and we look forward to the day when we won't be writing about casualties in Iraq.

Beyond that, any "analysis" of this sort is militarily irrelevant, as any student of history knows. For the record, an average of 239 Marines died during each day of the month-long battle of Iwo Jima (1945), and we lost 358 troops a day during the three-month Normandy campaign in 1944. Of course, both battles ended in decisive Allied victories.

We may yet see the a similar outcome in Iraq. But we're guessing that the AP's coverage of that event would take a very different slant, particularly if Ms. Buzbee is doing the reporting.

The Soul of the Destroyer

Bock's Car, the modified B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, 9 August 1945 (Wikipedia.org)

Tomorrow marks the 62nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. It was the second--and last--Japanese city to be targeted with nuclear weapons, in hopes of bringing the Pacific War to a close, without a protracted (and bloody) Allied invasion of Japan's home islands.

By all accounts, the strategy achieved its goal. The destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima persuaded the Japanese war cabinet to accept the Allied terms of surrender, which they had rejected only weeks earlier. That decision--forced by the obliteration of two Japanese cities--saved millions of lives on both sides, helping pave the war for a peaceful occupation of Japan, and transformation of that nation into a liberal democracy.

But, as we noted on the Hiroshima anniversary earlier this week, Harry Truman's decision to use atomic weapons has been discredited and demonized over the past seven decades. It was morally reprehensible, critics charge, and militarily unnecessary. Under the weight of a naval blockade and the continued fire-bombing of its cities, they argue, Japan would have surrendered in a matter of months, around the time of the scheduled invasion (1 November).

But many of those military forecasts were fatally optimistic. Japan had marshaled remaining reserves of gas, ammunition and personnel for a final, desperate defense of the home islands. The recently-completed Okinawa campaign had resulted in 72,000 Allied casualties (mostly American); projections for invasion of Japan suggested that more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel would be killed or wounded, with even higher casualties among Japanese civilians that would assist their army in defending the homeland.

As recounted in Richard Frank's Downfall: The End of the Japanese Imperial Empire, the mission of Japan's populace was foretold in the Imperial Headquarters' war journal, which made it clear that all Japanese were expected to resist the invasion:

"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.

Such thoughts were echoed by General Anami Korechika, the hard-line Army Minister who observed:

"Even though we may have to eat grass, swallow dirt, and lie in the fields, we shall fight on to the bitter end, ever firm in our faith that we shall find life in death"

The prospect of fighting the entire population of Japan--on their home soil--led some American military leaders to reassess the invasion's prospects for success. By August 1945, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King, and the Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Chester Nimitz, expressed concerns that the planned invasion might end in a Japanese victory, allowing them to sue for peace on more favorable terms. By some estimates, the assault on Kyushu would result in 300,000 Americans killed, wounded or captured, a staggering toll for a nation anxious to see the war end.

Given those estimates, our ability to decisively defeat Japan in 1945--using conventional weapons--was far from assured. From a military perspective, Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb was clearly justified. One Japanese official later described the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the concurrent Soviet invasion of Manchuria), as "gifts from the gods," allowing the war to end quickly, and without an invasion of the home islands.

The morality of Truman's choice is more problematic, at least in the minds of many liberals. In today's Washington Post, novelist Nora Gallagher muses on "The Soul of the Destroying Nation," a title taken from Gandhi's observation about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said that the attacks “resulted for the time being in destroying the soul of Japan. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see.”

Ms. Gallagher reports that she has been mulling over that question since completing her latest novel Changing Light, set against the backdrop of the Manhattan Project, and the dawn of the nuclear age. From her perspective, the U.S. changed--and for the worse--when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation?

What happened to us as a nation on August 6, 1945? Did the use of a weapon designed to ruthlessly annihilate whole cities contribute to where we find ourselves today? How did Hiroshima erode our sense of morality, what we permit ourselves as a nation to do? How did it affect our fragile sense of what is permissible for one human being to do to another? Finally, what is the connection between Hiroshima and Guantanamo, Hiroshima and Abu Ghraib?

What has happened, indeed?

Well, the nation that developed the atomic bomb--and used it to end the most destructive war in history--remains the global champion for freedom and liberty. The United States that helped transform defeated foes into democratic allies is the same nation that led the fight against Soviet communism, and eventually defeated that threat as well. Hundreds of millions of people across Europe and Asia owe their liberty (directly or indirectly) to a nation that ushered in the nuclear era, and used those same weapons to keep the peace for more than 60 years. It's the same nation that returned from World War II and established a more prosperous, just and equitable society for all its citizens. America is far from perfect, but I'd say our collective soul is in pretty good shape.

Ms. Gallagher sees only senseless slaughter at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, agonizing over the innocents who died in both cities. But was suffering unique to the civilian population of Japan? Hardly. Most of the British who died in The Blitz were civilians. The same holds true among residents of Hamburg and Dresden, devastated by Allied fire raids in 1943 and 1945, respectively. And, lest we forget, the combined casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are roughly equal to those inflicted during the Rape of Nanking, perpetuated by the forces of Imperial Japan.

Revisionists like Ms. Gallagher prefer to view the atomic bombings as isolated, horrific events, outside the prism of a global war and President Truman's determination to end it, once and for all. In that wider context, Mr. Truman faced the most difficult of moral dilemmas--unleashing atom bombs that would kill thousands, in the hope of saving millions; civilian and soldier, friend and foe alike.

Militarily and morally, history records that Harry Truman made the right decision, reflecting a national soul that is rooted in freedom, not destruction. And finally, to answer Ms. Gallagher's question, the only "connection" between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Guantanamo lies in the shared determination to defeat our enemies, save innocent lives, and defend freedom.

Harry Truman understood that. Nora Gallagher clearly doesn't.

When Making Up the News Was a Respectable Profession

Say it ain't so.

The Weekly World News, the outrageous tabloid that never let the facts get in the way of a good story, will cease publication at the end of this month.

It would be appropriate if the paper was vaporized by space aliens, or the final issue had been foretold by Nostradamus, but alas, the WWN suffered a more mundane fate--declining circulation among readers who actually believed the wild tales, or those merely in search of a good laugh. During its heyday in the late 1980s, the WWN had a million readers a week; in recent years, circulation has plunged below 90,000, prompting the paper's owners, American Media, to pull the plug.

In today's Washington Post, Peter Carlson offers an appreciation of the WWN, and the reporters who "cast aside the tired old conventions of journalism, such as printing facts."

Of course, there's more than a touch of irony in that statement. Given the recent history of American journalism, we'd say the WWN has a lot of company in that department. Just ask Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, Jack Kelley and Scott Thomas Beauchamp, to name a few. And, if this January essay by a former journalism student is any indication, there are a few more fabulists in the pipeline.

And maybe that's what separates The Weekly World News from its highbrow brethren in the mainstream media. At least the tabloid was honest about its chicanery.

Remember Feminist Talk Radio?

Okay, I'd actually forgotten about the effort by Gloria Steinem, Rosie O'Donnell, Jane Fonda and their friends to challenge conservatives in the talk radio wars. But GreenStone Media, which counted Steinem, O'Donnell, Fonda and other notable libs as investors, launched its feminist network (with some fanfare) last year.

Now, Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer reports that GreenStone is about to join Air America on the ash heap of failed liberal talk efforts. On Monday, trade publications indicated that GreenStone will soon fold, after failing to attract affiliates (and listeners) for its "lifestyle-oriented" programs. As with Air America, there was an exodus of top executives from GreenStone as it burned through more than $3 million in start-up funding.

As Mr. Maloney observes, the feminist talk network failed for the same reasons as Air America. Not only did GreenStone greatly over-estimate the "demand" for its programming, it also hired hosts with virtually no radio experience, women who had nothing in common with their audience.

Having slaved over a hot microphone for more than a few years, we always like to remind prospective hosts that radio isn't as easy as it looks (or sounds). Forget about political views; simply communicating information clearly, against the demands of timing and format, is very tough work. Relatively few broadcasters can do it with style and flair; only a handful--including El Rushbo, Sean Hannity and Neal Bootz--make it genuinely compelling.

So here's a little advice for other libs who want to take the radio plunge: before you hit the airwaves, try to put real broadcasters in the executive suite, and behind the microphone. A recent runner-up from Last Comic Standing is bound to flop as a host, and that former late-night TV talk show producer is out of his element with a radio show.

But that reality seems lost on liberals who want to re-invent talk radio in their own image. As long as they can round-up some venture capital, hire clueless stand-up comics as hosts, and foist their "product" on a handful desperate stations--the leftist foray into talk radio will continue, and continue to fail, miserably.

You May Recall....

...that 2007 was supposed to be the year of a major Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. Various analysts and experts predicted that the terrorists would launch their largest "spring offensive" to date, with attacks capable of "overrunning" a NATO base.

But a funny thing happened en route to that predicted resurgence. NATO units--with the notable exception of the French and Germans, who are forbidden to engage in combat ops--went on the offensive instead, taking the fight to enemy strongholds. Allied commanders also unleashed their air power, using it to target Taliban units in remote sanctuaries, or as they moved toward potential targets. As Strategy Page notes, Taliban "war bands" of 50-100 men have been devastated by allied strikes, with one-third of the force typically killed in action, and many of the survivors wounded or captured. Not exactly a plus for terrorist recruiting.

Such losses have prompted a shift in Taliban tactics, with increased use of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and kidnapping. But even those measures have done little to increase popular support among the local populace. Afghan civilians have learned that Taliban gatherings tend to invite air strikes, so some villages are engaging in gun battles with the terrorists. Suicide attacks are equally unpopular, forcing the Taliban to rely on "foreigners" for martyrdom missions.

Kidnapping, on the other hand, offers the promise of ransom money and publicity for the cause. But even that tactic may backfire. Most of the South Koreans recently abducted by the Taliban are women, and Afghans consider that disgraceful. Strategy Page also observes that a terrorist effort to target teachers also failed, resulting in more armed resistance to the Taliban.

For the record, the bad guys did attempt a major attack against a coalition base. It happened earlier today, at Firebase Anaconda, in southern Afghanistan. A 75-man Taliban "war band" attacked the base on three sides, using rockets, grenades and small-arms fire. Predictably, about one-third of the terrorists died; they failed to inflict any serious damage, and the insurgents were never a threat to overrun the base. Four Afghans were wounded in the fighting; there were no U.S. casualties.

Strategy Page opines that the Taliban are a declining threat, and believes that better-armed (and financed) Afghan drug lords pose a greater, long-term challenge. We won't go that far; with safe havens available in neighboring Waziristan, the Taliban have an opportunity to re-group, although their limited support among locals will make it difficult to attract new recruits. And that means that frontal assaults on NATO bases--like the one at Anaconda--will remain a rarity.

The Beauchamp File

Let's begin with a hat tip to Michael Goldfarb of the WorldwideStandard.com. When The New Republic printed the latest dispatch from its infamous "Baghdad diarist" last month, Goldfarb smelled a rat. The diarist's claims about shocking conduct among GIs in Iraq--mocking a woman disfigured by an IED; running over dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles, wearing the skull of a dead child beneath a helmet--struck Mr. Goldfarb as highly improbable, if not completely false.

But Goldfarb did more than write the obligatory protest column. He mobilized a battalion of expert fact-checkers (the military blogger community), engaged Army public affairs officers and even challenged The New Republic to verify their writer's claims. Initially, the magazine and its editor, Franklin Foer, stood behind the diarist, who revealed himself as Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp. On July 26th, Private Beauchamp announced that he was willing to "stand by the entirety of my articles for TNR under my real name."

But now, as Paul Harvey would say, we know the rest of the story. About the time that Beauchamp was defending his claims in the pages of the magazine, he was also being interviewed by Army investigators. And under their questioning, he provided a much different version of the events printed in TNR. A military source close to the investigation told Michael Goldfarb that Beauchamp has signed a sworn statement, admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth." So far, there's been no comment from the magazine, which has a history of reporters who invent their own "reality" (Helllooo, Stephen Glass).

Additionally, Mr. Goldfarb received a statement from an Army public affairs officer, Major Steve Lamb, confirming the results of the investigation:

"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

In other words, Scott Thomas Beauchamp has been fully exposed as a liar and a fraud, an embarrassment to his unit, his chain-of-command and the United States Army. What happens next? A senior Army PAO in Iraq told Confederate Yankee over the weekend that Beauchamp could be subject to administrative punishment--possibly a Letter of Reprimand. Since administrative actions are not releasable to the public, we may never know what punishment (if any) Beauchamp receives for his escapades.

An equally salient question is how much longer Beauchamp remains in Iraq--or the Army, for that matter. There are indications that Private Beauchamp has run afoul of the military justice system in the past. In a blog entry from last September, Beauchamp identified himself as a Private First Class, but he's currently listed as a Private, suggesting that he lost a stripe somewhere along the way. With his current problems--and the prospect of more non-judicial punishment, Beauchamp appears headed for an administrative discharge, if his commanders are so inclined (and there's no reason to believe they aren't).

We're also guessing that Private Beauchamp is on his way out of the war zone, if he hasn't departed already. Having slandered his fellow soldiers, there's no way a company or battalion commander can afford to keep Beauchamp on their roster. Put another way: if you're on patrol in Baghdad, can you trust someone like Beauchamp to watch your back, or do his assigned job in a competent, professional manner?

In the heat of battle, soldiers aren't fighting for lofty ideals or over-arching strategy; they're fighting for the guy next to him, the members of their squad and their platoon. It's a relationship built on trust, with the knowledge that your buddies will make the same sacrifice that you'd make for them. With his lies and distortions in The New Republic, Private Beauchamp destroyed the trust of his fellow soldiers, rending him ineffective for almost any military endeavor this side of KP.

We predict that Private Beauchamp will be on a plane for Germany very soon, and spend the last months of his Army career on "weeds and seeds" detail. That will give him plenty of time to further embellish his war experiences, but we doubt that TNR will be willing to print them. In the interim, we owe a debt of thanks to Michael Goldfarb and other members of the "truth squad" that exposed Beauchamp and the willing dupes at The New Republic.

Sadly, we haven't heard the last of Private Beauchamp. Once out of uniform, he will probably change his story again, claiming that his affidavit was "coerced," or he signed the document to protect other soldiers. And that will probably be sufficient to land him a book contract, with a movie deal to follow. In another era, Beauchamp would be ridiculed and reviled; in today's MSM culture, the Private still has an opportunity to profit from his lies and distortions. At worst, he'll probably be a featured speaker at the 2008 YearlyKos Konvention.

***

More on Beauchamp's possible fate from an Army Lawyer (H/T Baldilocks). The JAG also suggests that the Private is headed for some sort of administrative separation.

Getting it Right

The Enola Gay on the ramp at Tinian in August 1945 (Wikipedia).

Sixty-two years ago today, a B-29 nicknamed Enola Gay set off on its appointment with destiny. In its modified bomb bay, the massive Superfortress carried a single weapon: an atomic bomb, earmarked for the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Just after 8:15 a.m., local time, Enola Gay dropped the weapon, which detonated about 2,000 feet above the city center. An estimated 70,000 Japanese military personnel and civilians died in the blast; thousands more eventually succumbed to the long-term effects of radiation unleashed by the bomb.

Almost immediately, a debate began over necessity of the Hiroshima attack--and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, which followed three days later. Many of the scientists who helped developed the weapon rejected its employment, as did a number of senior U.S. military personnel, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff. All believed that Japan was defeated militarily, and opposed Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, early opposition to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Hagasaki (based on moral and military principles) has morphed into something more sinister, a revisionist belief that the attacks were not the concluding acts of World War II, but rather, an opening blow in the Cold War. According to this view of history, the strikes against the two Japanese cities were not only unnecessary; they were wrong, even criminal.

Amid such rot (which always appears this time of year), it's refreshing to see someone get it right on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and better yet, to see his thoughts published in--of all places--the U.K. Guardian, which will never be identified as conservative paper.

Yet, that's exactly what you'll find on today's opinion page in the Guardian, where liberal writer Oliver Kamm presents a strong case for Truman's fateful decision. He notes that U.S. military opposition to the bomb was muted; there is no documentary evidence that any senior officer publicly disagreed with the Commander-in-Chief. While some expressed misgivings in private (as Eisenhower did in a conversation with Secretary of War Henry Stimson), none of the generals and admirals resigned over Truman's decision, nor even offered to step down. Whatever their concerns, America's military leaders decided they could live with the President's choice.

On the other hand (as Kamm observes) there was ample evidence that the planned invasion of Japan would result in thousands of additional casualties on both sides. In the Okinawa Campaign (April-June 1945), the U.S. suffered 72,000 casualties, to secure the airfields and anchorage that the islands offered. Victor Davis Hanson and other historians believe the staggering toll from Okinawa--and the prospect of even higher losses during an invasion of Japan--influenced the decision to use the atomic bomb, in hopes of ending the war sooner.

Indeed, some Japanese historians believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed the "peace elements" within their nation to prevail; prior to the raids, there was considerable division within the government over whether Japan should surrender, and what terms it might agree to.

As for the notion that Japan was "already defeated," Kamm quotes one of Japan's highest wartime officials, Kido Koichi, who estimates that the atomic bombings "prevented" 20 million Japanese casualties. That suggests a foe who was determined to continue the fight, no matter what the cost. That suggests a war that would have dragged on for years, at a shocking cost in human lives.

Additionally, it's worth remembering that some of our forecasts about an early Japanese surrender were inherently flawed. The post-war U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey claimed that Japan would have surrendered before the end of 1945, under the weight of sustained fire-bombing attacks against urban areas. But the assessment was predicated on the deployment of additional B-29s to the Pacific Theater, and the transfer of some air assets from Europe as well.

Military data indicates that there were only about 1,000 B-29s in the Pacific in August 1945; the Superfortress had a troubled development and deployment history, the result of a complex design and the "rush" to get the new bombers into combat. While some of those "teething" problems had been mitigated by mid-1945, there is no guarantee that the Army Air Corps could have (a) deployed the required number of additional bombers and crews; (b) secured and prepared the required bases, and (c) destroyed a sufficient number of Japanese cities to force a "conventional" surrender by late 1945. In that respect, the Bombing Survey's predictions about a sustained campaign against Japan are hopelessly optimistic.

History should record that President Truman--a man who was completely unaware of the atomic bomb program until FDR's death--made the necessary and difficult decision to use those terrible weapons on Hiroshima and Nagaskai. As Mr. Kamm writes:

"..Our side did terrible things to avoid a more terrible outcome. The bomb was a deliverance for American troops, for prisoners and slave labourers, for those dying of hunger and maltreatment throughout the Japanese empire - and for Japan itself.

Today's Good News?

"Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping"

According to one analyst, "This more or less legalizes the NSA program," which (of course) was first exposed by The New York Times almost two years ago. While the bill signed by the President provides a legal framework for the surveillance program, there is one slight problem. Thanks to the Times, terrorists are acutely aware of our efforts to monitor their communications, and they've improved their own security practices.

We can only wonder how much more effective the surveillance effort might have been had the Times not published their little "exclusive" back in December 2005. Yesterday's bill-signing represents a milestone event in the effort to monitor terrorist communications, but so was the Times article. Even with expanded surveillance powers, we can only wonder how much we're missing, thanks to our friends at the NYT.

Iran's "New" Fighter

According to the Jerusalem Post, Iran has begun series production of its "new" Lightning close-air-support fighter.

We placed that adjective in quotation marks for obvious reasons. Standard definitions of what constitutes a "new" aircraft don't necessarily apply to Iran. By Tehran's loose standards, the "Lighting" is new; by everyone else's definition, the aircraft is simply a re-manufactured F-5 Freedom Fighter that Iran purchased from the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

We've written about Iran's F-5 effort--and other boastful defense programs--over the past year. In every case, the "efforts of Iranian experts" fail to match Tehran's claims of some sort of defense break-through. The Lightning (or Azarakhsh, in Farsi) is simply an enlarged F-5 with a second vertical stabilizer and marginally better avionics. Various intel assessments indicate that Iran has about 50 F-5s left in its inventory; there are no indications as to how many of those airframes may be re-built as "Lightnings."

In terms of performance, the "new" fighter is still, essentially, an F-5, based on technology that is at least 40 years old. In a close-air-support role, the Lightning has a limited payload and loiter time--certainly, nothing on the order of an AH-64 Apache helicopter, or U.S. Air Force A-10. Iran claims that the Azarakhsh can drop a laser-guided, 2000-pound bomb; but test video released by Tehran showed the aircraft firing only a pair of rockets. In other words, the fire support offered to ground troops by the Iranian jet is modest, at best.

When test footage of the Azarakhsh was released last year, Iranian officials bragged that the "new" aircraft was similar to the U.S. F-18, "only more powerful." While the press dutifully reported that claim, it was immediately ridiculed (and dismissed) by defense experts, who recognized Tehran's fighter for what it was--a slightly modified F-5. It's worth noting that exaggerated claims about the Azarakhsh came from some of the same outlets (notably the Associated Press) that also published Iranian boasts about development of a "stealth" missile (in reality, a conventional missile covered with radar-absorbent paint that likely peeled off in flight), and it's new, high-speed torpedo (a World War II-era Russian design that works only against non-maneuvering targets, or those that don't employ counter-measures).

Admittedly, not every reporter who works for the AP or the Jerusalem Post has a background in military matters. But it would be helpful if editors did a bit more fact-checking before they publish Iran's latest defense claims. There's a world of difference between a modified F-5 and more modern fighters like the F-18, F-15, and F-16. Likewise, there's nothing to support the claim (found in today's Post article) that Iran is now planning for production of "fifth-generation" aircraft.

For those who don't follow military aviation, "fifth-generation fighter" is the term applied to state-of-the-art aircraft like the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor (already in service) and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, now entering low-volume series production. The Raptor and the F-35 combine advanced avionics, weaponry and sensors in stealthy airframes built for super cruise (in the case of the F-22), or have the V/STOL capabilities found in the JSF.

It's a quantum leap from fourth-generation fighters (like the F-15, F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon and Russian Flanker models) to fifth-generation aircraft. So far, Iran has demonstrated a modest ability to modify third-generation jets from the 1960s and early 1970s. There is absolutely no evidence that Tehran could design--let alone, indigenously produce--a fourth-generation fighter, let alone something on the scale of JSF. On their current track, Iran will be ready for fifth-generation technology sometime in the latter half of this century. By that time, we'll be operating our seventh or eighth-generation of fighters--assuming that manned combat aircraft still exist at that juncture.

However, Iran's comments about producing "advanced" aircraft could be an allusion to another story that's been making the rounds. It's been recently reported that Moscow and Tehran are in talks for the sale of up to 250 advanced Flanker variants, to replace older U.S. fighters that form the backbone of the Iranian Air Force.

While we still have strong doubts about the viability of that deal, any sale would likely include a provision for "kit assembly" of SU-30s in Iran, or even "co-production" of the jets at an Iranian factory. Such agreements are common in aircraft sales; both Turkey and South Korea have built U.S. F-16s (under license) in their own factories, a move that helped both countries expand their aviation and technology base.

Russian marketers have tried to depict some Flanker variants as "fifth generation" fighters, and the Iranians would certainly accept that definition. While it doesn't meet western standards for fifth generation status, the SU-30 does incorporate rudimentary elements of stealth in its design, and it makes limited use of composite construction. So, Iranian comments about "planning for production" of fifth-generation planes may be a reference to the reported Flanker deal.

But that raises another question: if Iran is pursuing a Flanker agreement, why waste time with a re-engineered F-5? The answer may be two-fold: first, it allows Iran to make incremental improvements in its aerospace engineering and manufacturing capabilities, in advance of a SU-30 deal. And secondly, it may give Iranian engineers and technicians something to work on, while waiting for the first Flankers to arrive.

As we noted last week, Russian Flanker production is currently maxed-out with existing orders for China and India, among other customers. Without a major expansion of manufacturing facilities in Russia, Iran may have to wait years for large-scale deliveries of finished aircraft, or kits that can be assembled in-country. Until then, the "Lightning" program will serve as a stop-gap, both technologically and operationally.

For Contractors Only?

A recent posting on an adult web site is causing a stir in the Iraq War Zone. And no, this isn't another example of a military member who's posed nude for a skin mag, or turned up in a porn film. Rather, it's an offer for military contractors who might want a little "R&R" in the coming months--for a price.

According to the posting "Tori of Atlanta" will be offering her (ahem) "services" to private contractors deployed to Iraq. The message, which appeared on the Erotic Review website, indicates that Tori will soon embark on a three-month "Middle East Tour," including a stint in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

"I am in a unique position of entertaining from a secured compound," she writes, encouraging contractors to visit her site for details, and make arrangements for a "taste of home" during their stint in Iraq. According to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (which broke the story in the MSM), Tori's "entertainment sessions" will be limited to contractor personnel. Military members need not apply:

"My apologies but at this time I am UNABLE to plan any meetings w/ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY. (*The members of PMC community has an exclusive arrangement during this visit*) Kisses, Tori."

[snip]

Tori limits her invitation to contractors who are registered with the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, a Baghdad-based trade group that, according to its Web site, represents about 50 companies, including Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater USA. The trade association's logo is reproduced at the bottom of the posting.

A spokesman for the trade group told the Pilot that his association does not, nor will ever condone the type of activity suggested. An investigation into the announcement is underway, and the association has threatened to expel any member involved in "promoting, condoning, or participating in those activities."

We're guessing that Tori's claims are nothing more than a publicity stunt, although it's surprising that anyone in that dubious business would want to attract attention (after all, vice cops surf the internet, too). As a result, Tori may have a few (non-paying) visitors at her house in the coming days. With the latest "D.C. Madam" gaining headlines--not to mention possible book and movie offers--perhaps "Tori's" "Middle East tour" is aimed at garnering media attention, hoping to land a similar deal.

Besides, there's the real question of how the Atlanta escort would actually get into Iraq, and set up shop at her "bullet-proof" villa in the Green Zone. Officially, the State Department discourages "unnecessary" travel to Iraq (for obvious reasons). For Americans willing to make the trip, there are now passport and visa requirements; foreigners planning to stay for more than 10 days must also obtain a residency stamp from the Iraqi police, which requires proof of employment and results of an HIV test, among other documentation. The days when an American could simply fly into Baghdad and get a visa at the airport are over. Similar requirements exist in other countries that may be included on her "tour."

But that's not to say that a well-financed (and possibly, well-connected) entrepreneur like Tori couldn't secure the required documents. Indeed, there's the possibility that employees of one of the security firms helped "orchestrate" the tour, placing her on their list of Iraq-bound employees, and provided assistance in obtaining the necessary documents, arranging travel and providing accommodations. Wonkette, who was the first with this "item" in the blogosphere, claimed that Tori was supposed to deploy this week, suggesting that her travel arrangements were already complete.

While Tori's arrival might do wonders for contractor morale, it would come with a serious downside for any sponsoring company. In theory, the U.S. or Iraqi governments could suspend or terminate the contract of any firm that sponsored or condoned illegal activities, including prostitution. We say "in theory," because there's been much controversy about the lack of accountability among contractors in Iraq. In many cases, the federal government has been willing to look the other way, provided that the controversy isn't too serious, and the contract is being fulfilled. However, they'd probably draw the line at allowing an "escort service" to entertain clients at any location within the Green Zone.

At this point, we're guessing that Tori's little Middle East Tour is under some high-level scrutiny--assuming it was actually planned in the first place. Morale concerns aside, no defense contractor wants to be identified as a "pimp" for an escort service, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments don't want that sort of enterprise operating in the Green Zone. It's a safe bet that U.S. and Iraqi officials, along with officials from various contractor firms, are scrutinizing lists of recently-arrived or in-bound personnel, looking for anyone who might fit Tori's profile.

Not that this sort of thing hasn't happened before. Prostitutes have long been part of the "camp followers" that inevitably accompany an army into a war zone. The days of brothels next to a post have long since passed (at least in the U.S. military), but for those interested that type of "professional" can still be found, even in middle eastern countries with strict laws against prostitution. Since the first Gulf War, plenty of working girls have set up shop in Bahrain, catering to a western military and contractor clientele. In fact, some of the hotels on the island are described as little more than brothels, so Tori might have some cut-rat ecompetition if she stops in Manama.

***

An e-mailer who alerted us to the story wondered if the website (and the announcement) might be part of a "sting" operation. However, another e-mail indicates that Tori's website looks like "the real deal," with a complete list of her services. If we had to guess, we'd say that she's "in the business," although her publicity efforts have likely derailed the Middle East tour, or at least, the Baghdad leg of her trip.

Your Tax Dollars at Work (Conference Edition)

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn

Some elements of DoD are in a mad data scramble, trying to determine how much money was spent on conferences and meetings last year.

It may sound like something out of a John Cleese management training video, but the number-crunching is no joke. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a persistent critic of government waste, send a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in mid-June, requesting a summary of his department's conference activity between October 1 2006 and May 31st of this year. According to Mr. Coburn, the DoD response must include the following data:

-- Total amount spent by the Defense Department and its agencies on conferences during the referenced period, including general support, programming, staff salaries, travel and other related cots.

--A full listing of each conference that received DoD support, including meeting location, dates, the number of employees who attended, the sponsor of the conference, and the total cost of the event.

--The total number of conferences in which Defense Department personnel participated, and the total number of employees who participated

Coburn, who serves as the ranking member of the Senate subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, apparently believes that the Pentagon is spending too much money on meetings and conferences. He made a similar request for Fiscal Year 2005, and is tracking the growth in that element of the DoD budget. The Pentagon was supposed to submit its response to Senator Coburn by July 16th, but some military elements were still processing the request this week. With a little luck, Mr. Coburn may get the requested data after Labor Day.

You're probably asking the same thing Senator Coburn wants to know: just how much does the military spend on conferences? We obtained a copy of last year's response (compiled by the Defense Department's Comptroller General), which indicates that DoD spent just over $79 million dollars on meetings and conferences in FY' 05; estimates for the following year put that expenditure at $91.4 million, a 15% increase.

Spending by the military services and other DoD components generally followed the upward trend, with some exceptions. The Army's FY '06 budget for conferences is pegged at $27.6 million, a 21% increase over the previous year. Navy spending in that category more than doubled (from $8.9 million to $15.1 million), but the Marines showed the largest increase; their spending for conferences and meetings soared from $450,000 in FY '05, to just over $2 million in FY '06--a 361% increase. The Air Force conference outlays actually decreased during the same period, as did spending for "defense-wide" conferences. DoD figures show that the Air Force spends about $20 million a year on conferences, while defense-wide forums require $26 million in annual expenditures.

In an era of $500-billion dollar defense budgets, $91 million is relative chump change--enough to fund the Iraq War for about five hours, or just a fraction of what DoD spends on an annual basis. And, we'll spare you the usual, bleeding heart analogies about how much health care or how many school books we could purchase with that money. Fact is, many of the conferences and meetings are vital, allowing participants to share ideas and work on programs that have a direct impact on combat capabilities. If a particular forum gets more MRAP vehicles in the field sooner, it's probably worth the cost, even if it's held in a "choice" location, with a golf course nearby.

But we also commend Senator Coburn for his latest waste-busting effort. In recent years, the Pentagon has invested heavily in state-of-the-art video-teleconferencing (VTC) and other information-sharing technologies. Many--if not, most--DoD facilities have an "unclassified" VTC facilities, and quite a few have secure video links that allow transmission of classified material as well. The investment wasn't designed to end face-to-face conferences and similar gatherings, but it was supposed to hold the line on their growth--and the associated travel costs.

Figure it this way: send a military member or DoD civilian "on the road" for a week, and the government has a travel bill of roughly $1,000, including air fare, rental car, hotel and per diem. Send that same individual to a "high cost" area like Washington, D.C., Europe, or the Far East, and the cost goes even higher. Then, multiply the "individual" bill by 12, 20, 40, or 60--the number of people that participate in a single conference, and you can see where that $79 or $90 million budget comes from.

Senator Coburn is asking the right question: if the Defense Department has access to advanced communications and information-sharing technology, does it really need to spend that much on conferences? The answer to that one seems clear, with an equally obvious caveat: DoD can get much more "bang" for its meeting buck by emphasizing forums that actually matter, and don't merely occupy an annual slot on a conference center calendar.

For example, we know of an intel analytical group that meets at least once a month by VTC, but still holds a yearly conference in a warm, sunny location. Is that worth the expense? Or, can you justify renting an expensive, "off-site" facility for a NATO working group meeting that was (actually) a "job audition" for a DoD civilian, hoping to impress his European counterparts.

In our experience, there is plenty of fat that can be trimmed from the Pentagon's conference budget. But making those cuts is another matter altogether. Once on the schedule, these DoD meetings and forums tend to take on a life of their own, becoming an annual (or semi-annual) rite for participants, particularly if the conference is held in a garden spot, preferably near a golf course.

The Next Phase

The AP is reporting that the U.S. military has launched a new air campaign south of Baghdad, aimed at choking off the flow of weapons and insurgents reaching Baghdad.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who leads the 3rd Infantry Division, also said he and other commanders feared insurgents would try to stage a massive attack ahead of a pivotal report due in mid-September to the U.S. Congress on political and military progress in Iraq.

[snip]

Lynch said he gave the order on Wednesday for the division's 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade to begin Operation Marne Husky, the latest in a series of offensives in the capital and surrounding areas.

The new operation is aimed at disrupting insurgents who fled a recent crackdown on the rural areas of Arab Jubour and Salman Pak in a predominantly Sunni area south of the capital.

Lynch also noted a "marked and increasing Iranian influence" in weapons and the training of Shiite extremists in restive areas south of Baghdad.

According to Major General Lynch, the air campaign is targeted at the same region where a surveillance drone discovered more than 50 Iranian-made rockets, aimed at a U.S. Forward Operating Base. The discovery prevented an attack against the base, but it indicated that growing numbers of Shiite insurgents are operating south of the Iraqi capital.

While you won't find it in the AP dispatch, there are several inferences that can be drawn from General Lynch's comments. First, because the U.S. doesn't use air power indiscriminately, announcement of the air campaign suggests that we're getting good intelligence on terrorist activity in the region. It's a safe bet that surveillance drones have been following insurgents as they move into outlying areas, so when the Apaches of the 3rd Aviation Brigade head out, they know where to look for targets, and what to watch for.

Secondly, the air campaign won't be an "Army only" show. Fixed wing assets from Balad will also be involved, giving commanders more flexibility--and persistence--in hammering the terrorists from the air. And, the effort will go on around the clock, thanks to the impressive night/all-weather capabilities of the AH-64s and various Air Force assets.

And finally, if the effort announced by General Lynch sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Earlier this year, U.S. commanders in Afghanistan unleashed air power on the Taliban, with impressive results. Attack helos and other platforms caught a number of terrorist formations as they marshaled or moved toward intended targets, killing large numbers of the enemy. The "air campaign" in Afghanistan is one reason that the Taliban's anticipated "spring offensive" never really materialized, and the terrorists shifted to other tactics, including suicide bombings and kidnappings.

However, there is one major difference between the effort in Afghanistan, and the latest air offensive in Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan (where aviation units often struck terrorist safe havens that were difficult to reach by vehicle, or on foot) the "Marne Husky" campaign is aimed at areas where U.S. ground units have been operating, in force, for more than two months. After pushing the terrorists out of their old haunts in Salman Pak and Arab Jabour, Lynch is pursuing them into southern Diyala Province, creating more targets for his aviators, and prepping the battlefield for future ground operations.

The Rest of the Story

Air Force Major Jeff Peterson poses in front of his HH-60 Pave Low helicopter. In July 2005, Peterson led a chopper crew that pulled Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell from a mountain in Afghanistan, a rescue made under near-impossible flight conditions (Tucson Citizen via Air Force Times)

One of the summer's best reads is Lone Survivor, the story of Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell, one of four Navy SEALs dispatched on a dangerous mission along the Afghan-Pakistan border in July 2005. As Luttrell recounts in his book, the SEAL element was supposed to conduct surveillance, and (if possible) kill a known Taliban leader who was rebuilding his forces in the area.

But the mission (codenamed Operation Red Wing) went quickly awry; a handful of local goat herders stumbled upon their position, and according to Luttrell, the SEALs voted to spare their lives. Within an hour, they were surrounded by scores of Taliban fighters, who launched a fierce firefight with the special forces element. Three of the SEALs died in the fighting that ensued; Luttrell survived by fighting off six Taliban fighters dispatched to kill him, and crawling seven miles to an Afghan settlement, where villagers risked their lives to protected the wounded SEAL, and summon help.

While riveting, Luttrell's recollections of the firefight--and his subsequent escape--have sparked controversy. The father of the SEAL element leader, Lieutenant Michael Murphy, told Newsday that the book doesn't match Luttrell's early account of the battle, relayed to the families of his dead comrades after returning from Afghanistan. The elder Murphy said that Luttrell's book was a "disservice" to his son, and the other SEALs who died on the ill-fated mission.

Lone Survivor also omits some details of the rescue mission that ultimately saved Petty Officer Luttrell. After the first rescue helicopter crashed (killing 16 SEALs and Army aircrew personnel), military planners mounted another effort, using Air Force HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters supported by A-10s, AC-130 gunships, and SOF troops on the ground. The rescue team mounted their first effort on the night on 30 June 2005, but could not pinpoint Luttrell's location.

They tried again the following night, and writer Blake Morlock of the Tucson (Arizona) Citizen has provided new details of the harrowing rescue mission, in an article reprinted by Air Force Times. Morlock tracked down Air Force Reserve Major Jeff "Spanky" Peterson, the HH-60 pilot who, along with his crew, plucked Luttrell off a cliff-side terrace in an Afghan village, with only inches to spare:

They flew in that night in darkness through the canyons leading up the mountains. It was more than dark; it was pitch black. Clouds blocked the stars, so Peterson’s night-vision goggles had no ambient light to amplify. His “Forward Looking Infrared” sensors, which pick up temperature changes, were on the fritz, and his infrared goggles weren’t working properly either. So he was basically blind while flying inside a narrow canyon.

He had only [Lt Col] Macrander’s helicopter [the other HH-60] as a reference. It’s all he could see.

When they found the landing site, the plan was to have the AC-130 shine an infrared beacon on it, but at 30 seconds out, he heard the call “negative burn.” Water vapor blocks infrared waves, and the clouds that night were turning into a blindfold.

[snip]

He was coming down, though, with scant room to maneuver. The rotor kicked up dust from the ground. Now Peterson was blinded inside a swirling brown vortex.

Peterson’s gunner and engineer could see the ground beneath him, but Peterson saw only brown. He started to drift toward the cliff wall that would shatter his rotor and bring his bird rolling down the mountain.
“Stop left!” he heard.

“Like a good pilot, I go hard right,” he said, but his co-pilot anticipated this natural reaction and held his hand out so the control stick couldn't move too far to the right to send them over the cliff.
Then he saw something off in the distance with his NVGs that looked like a “hanging plant.” It gave him a fixed reference so he could descend.

“I’m committed now,” he said. “That’s when everything goes into slow motion.”

He dropped down and his wheels hit the ground. He looked out his window and saw that he was less than 2 feet from the cliff.

Seconds later, pararescuemen loaded Luttrell into the helicopter, and Major Peterson took off, carrying the wounded SEAL to safety.

Peterson's name isn't mentioned in Lone Survivor, but he's a hero nonetheless. His rescue of Petty Officer Luttrell was an amazing feat of airmanship, one that deserves to be told. The recovery of Marcus Luttrell was anything but routine, and his survival is due (in no small measure) to the Air Force chopper crew that pulled him from the mountainside.

The Audacity of Idiocy

Fresh from his vows to "sit down" with dictators and (possibly) invade Pakistan, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is now suggesting a "no nukes" pledge as part of his foreign policy platform.

Drudge has the early details, apparently in advance of a wire service story:

"Obama said in grilling with AP reporter Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance'... 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table'...

Huh?

So much for that nuclear deterrent. Might as well scrap those Minuteman IIIs, Trident ballistic missile subs, and the thousands of tactical nukes in the U.S. arsenal. In a matter of a few seconds, over the course of barely 40 words, the man-who-would-be-president told America's adversaries that our nuclear option is off the table in any scenario. Or maybe just when civilians might be affected. Or, perhaps Senator Obama realized that's he's over his head in discussing national security policy (again), and needs more time to hash it out.

From our perspective, Mr. Obama's position seems clear enough. Under his administration, the United States would move from a "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons (long a cornerstone of our national security strategy), to rejecting their use altogether. Never mind that there are plenty of scenarios which could require a nuclear response, including a North Korean invasion of South Korea; a push by Beijing to take Taiwan, Iranian or Syrian regimes with ICBMs (possible within the next decade), or simply a resurgent Russia.

In a world fraught with perils, maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent makes a great deal of sense; eight successive U.S. administrations have made the necessary investments in strategic and tactical nuclear forces, with the vow to use them if circumstances required. Obama's "proposal" would break with 60 years of national security policy, and reveals thinking that is moronic and absurd. Those faint sounds you hear are champagne corks in Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow, gleefully celebrating the prospect of an potential American president who would willfully surrender his nuclear capability.

In most election cycles (and for most candidates), this trifecta of security policy gaffes would be enough to derail a presidential bid. But with his "rock star" status, Senator Obama will likely retain his standing in the polls, and keep raking in the campaign contributions. After all, the junior senator from Illinois is simply advocating ideas that are consistent with the radical fringe of the Democratic politics--the same element that now controls the party. Mr. Obama may take a few jibes in the next Democratic presidential debate, but it won't torpedo his campaign.

Once upon a time, the party of FDR, Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Carl Vinson demanded candidates that were serious about national security. Alas, that day has long since passed; Senator Obama is merely version 5.0 of the Democratic politician who has been on the wrong side of defense and security issues for the past three decades. Not too many years ago, Democratic senators like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd--now running as "second-tier" candidates--openly opposed Ronald Reagan's efforts to deploy nuclear-tipped Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles to Western Europe, to counter the Soviet threat.

Readers will recall that Biden, Dodd and other Democratic leaders denounced Mr. Reagan's move as "provocative," and "dangerous," predicting that the deployment would lead to a new arms race or a nuclear confrontation. Instead, the basing of U.S. missiles in Europe demonstrated our resolve, and helped bring about the end of Soviet communism.

But the Democrats never learned from that mistake, preferring (instead) to burnish their image as the anti-military, "weak-on-national-security" party of the American left. And, given that ideological foundation, is it any surprise that a leading Democratic politician--a serious presidential candidate--would someday suggest that, as president, he would never use nuclear weapons, under any circumstances?

Mort Kondracke of Roll Call describes Obama's vision as both exciting and naive. He's being far too charitable. We'd say the senator's comments are naive and dangerous, proving that he's far too inexperienced for the world stage. But, at least he comes by his ideas naturally, incubated by a party that's been drifting toward his position for more than 30 years.

***

Less than a month ago, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration signed with the Obama campaign, and stumped for the candidate in Iowa. Some sample comments:

"(Obama's) has the judgment and courage to be the next Commander in Chief," Gration told a crowd of political activists gathered at the Le Mars American Legion Wasmer Post #241 Monday morning. "He's demonstrated this courage when he spoke out against the ill-advised and ill-conceived war in Iraq. He did it before the war started when many others were unwilling to do the same."

"That's exactly the type of courage our next Commander in Chief will need to bring our troops home responsibly," the former Air Force pilot added. "That's exactly the type of courage we'll need to help restore our leadership throughout the world."

"We need Barack Obama,"

[snip]

"The 2008 presidential election will be framed by who is the best person for the job," he speculated, "and who will the most effective leader."

"In my opinion," Gration remarked, "that is Barack Obama."

We should be thankful that General Gration is retired.

Terror Targets Down the River?

Burlington, Iowa rail bridge across the Mississippi River, one of the seven "high traffic" rail crossings of that waterway (Wikipedia).

In the wake of last night's tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the FBI was quick to announce that the incident was not the work of terrorists. That assessment was based on several factors, most notably the lack of explosions or suspicious activity around the I-35W span, and the apparent, systemic failure of the bridge, which crossed the Mississippi River.

At this point, all signs point toward some sort of design or construction failure as the likely cause of the disaster. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is reporting that the I-35W bridge was rated "structurally deficient" during a 2005 inspection, and a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) told the paper that vibration from construction work and a passing train may have contributed to the collapse, which killed at least four people.

While the Minneapolis investigation is expected to focus on structural and maintenance issues, it may be time to revisit the potential terrorist threat to critical bridges. Since March, insurgents in Iraq have used vehicle bombs to damage or destroy at least six major bridges, including three in the Baghdad area. In the U.S., there have been periodic reports about terrorist threats to major spans over the past six years, including the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

Fortunately, the domestic threat has (so far) failed to materialize. The Brooklyn plot was laughable; a 34-year-old Pakistani-born truck driver--with apparent Al Qaida ties--reportedly planned to topple the span with a blow torch, and eventually gave up on the idea, although his actions did land him in federal prison. The alleged threat to the Golden Gate was almost immediately discredited by the FBI when it was announced in 2002.

While attacks against those landmarks would cause massive traffic problems--and give terrorists a major psychological victory--some of the most lucrative bridge targets are located in the nation's heartland, at rail crossings over the Mississippi River. Forty percent of the nation's freight rides the rails, and much of it crosses the Mississippi at one point or another.

Since the mid-1800s, scores of rail bridges have been built across the river, but today, the majority of freight trains pass at seven major crossings: Little Falls, Minnesota; LaCrosse, Wisconsin; Clinton, Fort Madison, and Burlington, Iowa; Thebes, Illinois, and Memphis, Tennessee. Collectively, at least 680 million gross tons of freight cross these bridges each year. The Clinton span (which is owned by the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe railroad, has the distinction of being the busiest crossing, handling 160 million gross tons a year--almost one-quarter of the freight that crosses the seven major bridges.

Security for these crossings rests primarily with the railroads and local law enforcement. Rail carriers claim that they have improved security practices since 9-11, but an investigation by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (published last January), found little or no police presence along key rail routes, and shoddy security practices at both hazardous chemical plants and the railroad lines that serve them. Visiting rail facilities from New Jersey to the West Coast, a Tribune-Review reporter was never questioned as he climbed trains, photographed derailing levers and peeked into control boxes that control rail traffic.

Results of that investigation provides little assurance about security at rail bridges that span the Mississippi. Many of the crossings are located in small towns (with limited police resources), and there's no evidence that the railroads protect the bridges more effectively than the trains and rail yards visited by the Tribune-Review.

Could terrorists damage or destroy one of the major rail crossings? Based on existing security measures--and the Iraq example--the answer is probably "yes." It wouldn't take much to drive a truck laden with explosives onto a bridge and detonate it, or place charges at key points on the structure, and trigger them with timers or a pressure switch, activated by a passing train. The results of such a strike would be devastating, destroying the bridge or disabling it for months, and snarling cross-country shipments of coal and other critical cargo. Successful bridge attacks would also close sections of the Mississippi to barge traffic, limiting water-borne shipments as well.

Are terrorists considering such attacks? While there have been no reports of a credible "bridge plot" since 9-11, two events over the last year did raise concerns. In July 2006, a large, floating "pipe bomb" was discovered in Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans. Authorities said the device--which wasn't large enough to damage a bridge--had the characteristics of a "test run." Despite an aggressive investigation, local and federal authorities have been unable to find the bomb maker, and determine the motivation behind the device. A floating "IED" could be used against bridge piers and supports, although it would take a huge amount of explosives to damage or destroy those concrete structures.

More recently (in early June), authorities in the St. Louis area were investigating the theft of a "large" amount of explosives from a training facility used by local police and FBI agents. Officials said that C-4, "several" sticks of dynamite, fuses and igniters were stolen from the facility in St. Charles County. According to one police spokesman, the amount of missing explosive material was enough to "blow up a bridge." That analogy was telling, since St. Louis has a number of bridges across the Mississippi (mostly for road traffic) and five of the critical rail crossings are within a 300-mile radius of the city.

Return of the Caribou?

C-7 Caribou (GlobalSecurity.org)

Many Vietnam-era veterans can tell stories of "white knuckle" flights in the back end of a C-7 Caribou, the small, twin-engine transport that performed yeoman service in Southeast Asia.

Capable of carrying a three-ton payload (at ranges up to 500 miles), the Caribou was ideal for ferrying troops and cargo to isolated fire bases and special forces outposts, operating from runways that were too short for other transports, including the C-130 Hercules. Many of the "airfields" visited by the C-7 were little more than dirt strips carved out of the jungle. Take-offs and landings on those runways were sometimes an adventure, both for the crew and their passengers.

With the end of the Vietnam War, Air Force interest in the so-called "assault airlift mission" languished. The service retired its last C-7 in 1985, opting instead for larger tactical airlifters (like the venerable Hercules), and long-range strategic transports (such as the C-5 and C-17), capable of delivering heavy loads over long distances. For both the Cold War, and later, in support of operations in the Middle East, both the Pentagon and the Air Force preferred airlifters that could carry tanks or large numbers of troops; small, twin-engine transports like the C-7 were viewed as relics, almost unique to the conflict in Southeast Asia, and of little use on the "modern" battlefield.

Reading Rand's new report on airlift support for counter-insurgency operations (COIN), we're wondering if it's not time for a new version of the Caribou (or a similar transport), optimized for that unique mission. The growing focus of counter-insurgency efforts in U.S. national security policy has re-ignited the debate over how airlift forces can best support that mission, with emphasis on the type(s) of platforms needed, how those assets should be organized, as well as the doctrine and training requirements.

The authors of the study, Robert Owen and Karl Mueller, disagree. They believe that the Air Force's current airlift assets can provide required support for COIN operations, with modifications in crew training and operational doctrine. While we're certainly not questioning the integrity or objectivity of Messrs Owen and Mueller, their analysis certainly represents the "preferred" Air Force answer. The service considers airlift as one of its "core" missions, and has battled other branches of the military (most notably the Army) when they've tried to develop their own air transport capabilities.

But is the Air Force's current "mix" of C-130s and C-17s suitable for the COIN airlift mission? Owen and Mueller believe that they are (with some important caveats), but we're not convinced, for several reasons. First, the C-17 will form the "backbone" of our strategic airlift fleet into the middle of this century. While the Globemaster III is exceptionally capable, the Air Force freely admits that it doesn't have enough of them, and every C-17 allocated for COIN support will create further shortfalls in strategic airlift capabilities.

Secondly, there's the issue of how much risk you're willing to accept for a $200 million airlift that's already in short supply. As the Rand study notes, insurgent forces around airfields and bases used by COIN forces may have advanced, shoulder-fired SAMs, capable of damaging or downing a C-17. While the aircraft has impressive short-field capabilities (for a four-engine jet transport), it's hard to imagine that Air Mobility Command--which controls Air Force airlift assets--would send such a valuable asset into that sort of environment. The C-17 has on-board counter-measures, but there's always the chance that the insurgents will upgrade, using more advanced MANPADs that can defeat the aircraft's defensive suite.

Besides, delivering cargo and passengers into austere bases is a specialty of the C-130, which also has on-board defenses for the MANPAD threat. But the Hercules fleet is getting long in the tooth; as of April 2007, the Air Force had grounded or placed flight restrictions on 51 of its oldest C-130s because airframe stress made them unsafe for normal flight.

Making matters worse, Congress has required the service to maintain some retired C-130s for possible recall, a move that preserves jobs and funding in Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units, but does little to improve airlift readiness or capabilities. And you won't be shocked to learn that aging C-130s will not be replaced on a "one for one" basis by the newer "J" model. That means an airlift shortfall in the Hercules community as well, with fewer airframes to support COIN operations, and more routine missions.

We should note that the Air Force--and the Army--are purchasing 78 smaller C-27 Spartans, also known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). Deliveries of the new transport (which can carry up to 9 tons of cargo) are expected to begin in 2010; however, the Rand analysis suggests that even an upgraded version of the Spartan is poorly suited as an "assault airlifter," lacking the short and rough field capabilities needed for that mission.

While Owen and Mueller believe that current airlift forces (and organizations) are up to the COIN support mission, they warn that the Air Force can't sustain that posture much longer. If counter-insurgency remains a focus of U.S. military operations--as expected--both the service and the Pentagon will eventually have to bite the bullet, and make the appropriate investment in a new assault airlifter, and aligning that platform to optimally support its operational customers.

With the Air Force now straining to finish F-22 production (and budget for the F-35, new UAVs and a new manned bomber), finding money for a new "assault transport" may prove as tough as some of those C-7 landings back in 'Nam.

Predicting IEDs?

The heroism and sacrifice of EOD technicians like Staff Sergeant Joshua Mattero (previous post) is a reminder of the herculean battle being waged in Iraq against the enemy's only viable weapons--Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and their vehicle-borne counterparts, better known as VBIEDs.

By some accounts, the various task forces, working groups and agencies assigned to the counter-IED mission are spending upwards of $6 billion a year, and their budget will see further increases as the conflict continues. In defense circles, the IED/VBIED threat represent a rather grim "growth" industry, with DoD spending freely on almost any project or program that promises to diminish the danger on the ground.

In some respects, finding a solution for the IED problem is a bit like cancer research; in all likelihood, there will never be a single, "magic bullet" cure, but various programs and efforts can provide more options for mitigating the threat. The on-going troop surge clearly provides one of the best deterrents, eliminating terrorist sanctuaries where IEDs, suicide vests and VBIEDs can be manufactured, and distributed to the bombers.

Improved surveillance and better intelligence are also keys; as Michael Yon and others have noted, the terrorists littered the city of Baqubah with IEDs before the recent U.S. attack, but our forces largely avoided that threat, in part because Iraqi civilians pointed out where the bombs had been placed. U.S. Weapons Intelligence Teams, comprised of intelligence operatives, EOD techs and other specialists, have also proven effective in going after IED networks.

But in some respects, the progress has been agonizingly slow. Despite a dramatic reduction in U.S. combat deaths last month, IEDs remain the #1 killer of American troops in Iraq. Data from the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count database indicates that improvised explosive devices (of all types) accounted for 46 of the 66 combat fatalities in Iraq last month, or 70% of that total (You'll note that we do not include deaths from non-hostile causes in our totals, unlike the MSM).

Totals for April, May and June of this year are strikingly similar. IEDs were responsible for 66% of our combat deaths in April, 73% in May and 75% in June. And remember: our troops find (and neutralize) at least 40% of the bombs before they go off; without their valiant efforts, the toll of dead and wounded from IEDs would be significantly higher.

What's been missing from our counter-IED efforts (to date) has been a tool for predicting where bomb attacks are likely to occur. The problem isn't a lack of data; aerial surveillance, signals intelligence (SIGINT), human intelligence (HUMINT), operational reporting and other sources generate reams of information. But wading through that data has been difficult; as with other analytical tasks, it's a monumental challenge to simply separate the wheat from the chaff, let alone connect the dots.

But very soon, our forces in Iraq (and elsewhere) may get a powerful tool to perform predictive analysis of IED events. The Air Force's C2ISR (Command and Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) Battlelab, based at Langley AFB, Virginia, is working on a system called RADII (Rapid Assessment and Dissemination Information Infrastructure), which can be programmed to look for key data relationships, and dynamically generate actionable information from constantly-updated data.

RADII is being developed by Sensis, a defense firm that has traditionally specialized in air traffic control and air defense systems. A former colleague sent us an unclassified summary of RADII, which is now in its third development spiral, adding the predictive analysis capability. The information provided to us gives no indication of when the system will be operationally deployed; we can only assume that the generals and senior civilians running the counter-IED program are aware of RADII, and will put it in the field as soon as possible.

How is RADII different from other analytical tools? According to project managers, the system not only correlates information from a wide range of databases, it also employs a recursive learning algorithm that can be "trained" to discover emerging patterns in new data, and compare it to "historical" events of interest. In other words, if RADII finds a correlation between on-going events in a certain location (and finds a correlation to similar activities associated with past IED attacks), it will note the associate, and generate a warning for analysts, who can pass it on to units in the field.

RADII also allows the strongest correlations to be graphically displayed, in either a "links and nodes" wiring diagram, or on maps or imagery of the local area. The graphical depiction is particularly useful in showing how seemingly unrelated events and facilities may actually be part of an IED network, allowing more effective targeting of its elements, and the assessment of where future events are likely to occur.

But will it work? As with any analytical tool, RADII will be only as good as the information it processes--and the people who use it. False or inaccurate data will result in false alarms and wasted effort, and it's worth noting that Sensis and the Air Force are keeping the analyst squarely in the loop, allowing RADII to take advantage of user "refinements," based on their experience and expertise. Put more succinctly, the developers recognize that there's no substitute for a trained analyst, the RADII would be best employed with intel specialists who have past experience in Iraq and the IED mission.

Despite that, we believe that RADII could prove to be an important addition in the fight against IEDs. Sorting through vast databases, establishing correlations, comparing them to past bomb attacks and learning over time, RADII could finally give the spooks an effective tool for revealing predicting IED activity--and identifying the networks that support it--allowing war fighters to target the "system" before the bombs go off.

Requiem for a Hero

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Joshua Mattero (DoD Photo via Newport News Daily Press)

We've written at length about the extraordinary young men (and women) who perform the most dangerous job in Iraq--Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). In many respects, the Iraq conflict may be the first, true "EOD War," pitting Allied teams--mostly American--against an enemy whose only effective weapon is the roadside bomb, or a vehicle-mounted explosive device.

The complexity of these bombs has only increased over the last four years; IEDs have been hidden in almost anything you can imagine (including the carcasses of dead animals and children's toys). The terrorists also use a dizzying array of electronic devices to remotely detonate their bombs, ranging from cell phones and vehicle "keyless" entry systems, to garage door openers. This steady evolution in enemy tactics has forced EOD technicians to adapt and improvise as well.

Despite that challenge, our troops still locate--and neutralize--at least 40% of the IEDs before they go off. Efforts to detect those devices have become a multi-billion dollar Pentagon effort, encompassing everything from UAVs to the "forensic" analysis of JSTARS survelliance data. But once discovered, the job of actually disarming or neutralizing the device inevitably falls on an EOD team.

If you've ever wondered what type of person volunteers for such duty, today's Newport News (VA) Daily Press provides some idea. Columnist Tamara Dietrich profiles Army Staff Sergeant Joshua Mattero, an EOD team leader who died last week in Iraq. Sergeant Mattero was on his second Iraq deployment when he was killed in action. Called out by the discovery of three IEDs, he neutralized two before the third device took his life.

The military EOD training program at Eglin AFB, FL has one of the highest wash-out rates of any DoD school. And rightfully so. Only the elite wear the EOD badge, and by all accounts, Staff Sergeant Mattero was one of the very best at that most dangerous and demanding of jobs.

Last year, a total of 15 military EOD techs were killed in the line of duty, the most since World War II. In a war that's claimed over 3,000 U.S. military personnel, those losses represent only a tiny fraction of our total combat losses. But given the small size of the EOD community, those losses are significant, indeed. Virtually every EOD tech knows someone who's been killed or wounded "on the job." Along with Sergeant Mattero, other names will be added to the Eglin Memorial for 2007. Remember their families, friends and colleagues in your prayers.

And, if you're so inclined, consider a donation to the EOD Memorial Committee, which funds scholarships for the sons and daughters of current and former technicians, including those killed in action.