In the aftermath of those infamous nuclear incidents at Minot AFB, North Dakota and Hill AFB, Utah, the Air Force has implemented major reforms within its nuclear enterprise.
Among the many changes is a new evaluation program, built around "no notice" inspections. Under the old system, nuclear-capable units received notice of evaluations months in advance, giving them time to prepare.
However, a number of Air Force wings still managed to flunk their nuclear surety inspections, which measures unit readiness in categories ranging from maintenance to safety. By one estimate, roughly half of the service's nuclear units failed their inspections over the past decade.
The "no-notice" approach is designed to help reverse that trend, forcing units to prepare for evaluations that could, quite literally, occur at any time.
But will the new inspection scheme achieve the desired results? The jury's still out on that one, for a couple of reasons. First, the new evaluation system is in its infancy, and secondly, it's hard to tell how units are faring under no-notice inspections.
Case in point: the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Last week, the B-52 unit became the first Air Force wing to undergo a no-notice NSI. But results of the evaluation have not been released, raising speculation that the wing fared poorly.
In fairness, the USAF discourages the public release of inspection results. But, if you do a Google search of results for Operational Readiness Inspections or NSIs, you'll find plenty of units who trumpet the outcome of successful evaluations, and a few that acknowledge less-than-impressive results.
Earlier this month, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana announced that it had failed a nuclear surety inspection, but there would be no changes in wing leadership. In May of this year, the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot also flunked an NSI, but those results were first revealed by this blog, not the unit's public affairs office. The unit later confirmed that there were discrepancies in the evaluation, which prompted another visit from inspection teams in August. During that inspection, the 5th Wing earned passing grades.
Officially, the results of the Barksdale NSI have not been released and there's no requirement for the 2nd Bomb Wing to disclose them. But in light of recent failures, the public is entitled to greater transparency regarding Air Force nuclear operations. That's why the unit would be well-served by revealing the overall grade on its recent NSI, without divulging details that could compromise security.
But don't hold your breath. Barksdale never announced the results of its previous nuclear inspection, which occurred less than a month after the Minot mishap in 2007. In From the Cold filed a Freedom of Information Act request for results of that evaluation. We're still waiting for a response.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
One More Shot
Military prosecutors will be in court tomorrow, attempting to overturn a trial judge's ruling that would prevent punishment for Colonel Michael Murphy, who served as a JAG for more than 20 years, despite being disbarred in two states.
Murphy was Commander of the Air Force's Legal Operations Agency--and on the fast track to flag rank--when it was discovered that he had no law license and had been disbarred by Texas and Louisiana in the early 1980s. Murphy not only lost his command (and future chances at promotion), he also faced prison time on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, failure to obey a general regulation and larceny of more than $500.
When the Air Force outlined the case against Colonel Murphy, it seemed like a slam dunk. He never informed superiors of his disbarment, and continued to serve in positions that required a law license. At government expense, Murphy also attended conferences and meetings for credentialed attorneys, actions that (apparently) prompted the larceny charges.
But prosecutors were dealt a devastating blow in early September, when Army Colonel Stephen Henley, the trial judge, ruled that Murphy cannot be punished even if he is convicted. Henley, who was appointed to hear the case because of Murphy's senior status in the Air Force JAG Corps, made his ruling because the White House Military Office has refused to release classified details of Murphy's service between 2001 and 2005.
Without that information, the judge decided, Colonel Murphy's defense team would be limited in its ability to demonstrate his "good conduct and performance" during the sentencing phase of the trial, which Henley called a "substantial right of a military accused."
As Air Force Times reports, the White House's refusal to disclose information has become a veritable "stay out of jail" card for Murphy:
The information about his tenure at the White House would not relate to the facts of whether Murphy possessed a valid law license, but it could be useful in presenting what is known as the “good airman defense” – a doctrine in military law that allows the defense to present information about the defendant’s character and job performance.
Murphy served with distinction there, earning unrestrained praise from superiors on his performance reports.
One of the reports cited in court documents says, “Few will ever know the contributions he has made to the security and continuity of our nation, but I do.” Another calls Murphy “a national security asset of the highest order.”
During his tenure at the WHMO, Murphy deployed to Baghdad immediately after the initial invasion of Iraq, where he provided support and security to an Iraqi agent who was helping the coalition secure Shiite support, according to an award citation. He also came under fire multiple times while escorting large sums of money that were to be funneled into the Iraqi economy, the citation says.
[snip]
Beginning in June 2007 —immediately after charges against Murphy were filed — his defense team began seeking access to classified information regarding his duties and performance at the White House, according to the Sept. 5 ruling by Henley.
Friday's arguments will be made before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals at Bolling AFB in Washington. Whatever its ruling, the decision of the Air Force court is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest in the military. A ruling from that court could only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As AFT observes, a petition to the appeals court for the armed forces could delay Murphy's courts-martial by another year. Not that the disgraced JAG is in a hurry for his day in court; over the past six months, the seemingly air-tight case against Murphy has slowly unraveled. Some legal analysts believe that if the Air Force court upholds Henley's ruling, the prosecution of Colonel Murphy will collapse, and the remaining charges will be dropped.
At that point, Murphy will waltz out the door, with a full pension and other retirement benefits.
Murphy was Commander of the Air Force's Legal Operations Agency--and on the fast track to flag rank--when it was discovered that he had no law license and had been disbarred by Texas and Louisiana in the early 1980s. Murphy not only lost his command (and future chances at promotion), he also faced prison time on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, failure to obey a general regulation and larceny of more than $500.
When the Air Force outlined the case against Colonel Murphy, it seemed like a slam dunk. He never informed superiors of his disbarment, and continued to serve in positions that required a law license. At government expense, Murphy also attended conferences and meetings for credentialed attorneys, actions that (apparently) prompted the larceny charges.
But prosecutors were dealt a devastating blow in early September, when Army Colonel Stephen Henley, the trial judge, ruled that Murphy cannot be punished even if he is convicted. Henley, who was appointed to hear the case because of Murphy's senior status in the Air Force JAG Corps, made his ruling because the White House Military Office has refused to release classified details of Murphy's service between 2001 and 2005.
Without that information, the judge decided, Colonel Murphy's defense team would be limited in its ability to demonstrate his "good conduct and performance" during the sentencing phase of the trial, which Henley called a "substantial right of a military accused."
As Air Force Times reports, the White House's refusal to disclose information has become a veritable "stay out of jail" card for Murphy:
The information about his tenure at the White House would not relate to the facts of whether Murphy possessed a valid law license, but it could be useful in presenting what is known as the “good airman defense” – a doctrine in military law that allows the defense to present information about the defendant’s character and job performance.
Murphy served with distinction there, earning unrestrained praise from superiors on his performance reports.
One of the reports cited in court documents says, “Few will ever know the contributions he has made to the security and continuity of our nation, but I do.” Another calls Murphy “a national security asset of the highest order.”
During his tenure at the WHMO, Murphy deployed to Baghdad immediately after the initial invasion of Iraq, where he provided support and security to an Iraqi agent who was helping the coalition secure Shiite support, according to an award citation. He also came under fire multiple times while escorting large sums of money that were to be funneled into the Iraqi economy, the citation says.
[snip]
Beginning in June 2007 —immediately after charges against Murphy were filed — his defense team began seeking access to classified information regarding his duties and performance at the White House, according to the Sept. 5 ruling by Henley.
Friday's arguments will be made before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals at Bolling AFB in Washington. Whatever its ruling, the decision of the Air Force court is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest in the military. A ruling from that court could only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As AFT observes, a petition to the appeals court for the armed forces could delay Murphy's courts-martial by another year. Not that the disgraced JAG is in a hurry for his day in court; over the past six months, the seemingly air-tight case against Murphy has slowly unraveled. Some legal analysts believe that if the Air Force court upholds Henley's ruling, the prosecution of Colonel Murphy will collapse, and the remaining charges will be dropped.
At that point, Murphy will waltz out the door, with a full pension and other retirement benefits.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Missing Gitmo (Already)
This much seems certain: sometime next year, President-elect Barack Obama will close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What happens next is still unclear, but many of prisoners being held there will wind up in American courtrooms and prison cells, wreaking havoc in our legal and corrections systems.
Remember the Zacarias Moussaoui, the Al Qaida terrorist who was captured less than a month before the 9-11 attacks? Legal proceedings against Moussaoui dragged on for almost four years and, on more than one occasion, resembled a judicial farce. At various points, Moussaoui professed his innocence, declared himself guilty and even represented himself in court. His behavior was consistent with terrorist training manuals, which encouraged operatives to make a mockery of western judicial systems.
Multiply the Moussaoui trial by a factor of several hundred, and you've got some idea of what awaits the federal court system. But Mr. Obama remains undeterred, and in fairness, he may have little choice. As Ed Morrissey reminds us, the Supreme Court has, on two separate occasions, rejected the military tribunal system established by the Bush Administration.
But rather than pursue the matter in Congress (and the courts), the Obama team is determined to shut down Gitmo. Still, they haven't answered the most important questions: (1) how will the detainees be tried, and (2) can you sustain a viable intelligence system with analysts and operatives subject to questioning--and identification--in open court?
Those are but two reasons that abandoning the tribunal system (and closing) Guantanamo will eventually be regarded as colossal mistakes. But let's add one more to the list. Gitmo is tailor made for handling another problem that transcends international borders and jurisdictional authority.
We refer to pirates, particularly those operating along the coast of Somalia. While their recent hijackings of merchant vessels have gained international headlines, the piracy problem has existed for years. Making matters worse, there is the thorny issue of what to do with the pirates in the event they're captured.
Turn them over to the Somali government? What a joke. Somalia is the world's best example of a failed nation-state, with no functioning government and nothing approaching a viable criminal justice system, unless you count the Islamic courts run by an Al Qaida affiliate in the southern part of that country. The notion that Somalia could punish the pirates in ludicrous.
As for the nations--and navies--currently chasing the bad guys (and we use that term loosely), there are legitimate questions about jurisdictional authority. Could a U.S. Navy frigate, operating in the Gulf of Aden, detain pirates attacking a merchant vessel flagged under another nation's flag? And, what to do with them once they're taken into custody?
With the required international agreement, piracy suspects could be taken to Gitmo, detained there, tried by an international tribunal, and serve out their sentence--at the same, secure location.
Unfortunately, Gitmo has been forever tarred by administration critics, false claims of improper treatment and years of legal wrangling. We can't envision any scenario where the U.N. (or any other international body) authorizing the use of Guantanamo as a jail for international pirates.
Instead, the United Nations is suggesting tougher sanctions against Somalia as a way to curb piracy, and the Russians have suggested ground ops against pirate villages. Good luck with those proposals. The pirates operating around the Horn of Africa don't seem overly concerned.
***
On the issue of dealing with terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is warning that Congress must address that issue again. In a column published in today's WSJ, Mr. Mukasey argues that the habeus corpus requirement for detainees has created a hodgepodge of inconsistent decisions in the federal courts. If Congress doesn't establish firm guidelines, he observes, we will be forced to choose between exposing intelligence assets in open court, or allowing terrorists to jump the immigration line and enter the United States.
Mukasey's op-ed offers three sound proposals for giving detainees a fair trial without crippling our legal system. Well worth a read. Ironically, the column appeared just hours after Mukasey collapsed while giving a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington. While Mr. Mukasey (who is 67) appears to be recovering quickly, keep him in your prayers. NRO's Andy McCarthy reminds us that Mukasey is a public servant of the first order. He has reprinted the text of Judge Mukasey's speech, which is equally superb.
Remember the Zacarias Moussaoui, the Al Qaida terrorist who was captured less than a month before the 9-11 attacks? Legal proceedings against Moussaoui dragged on for almost four years and, on more than one occasion, resembled a judicial farce. At various points, Moussaoui professed his innocence, declared himself guilty and even represented himself in court. His behavior was consistent with terrorist training manuals, which encouraged operatives to make a mockery of western judicial systems.
Multiply the Moussaoui trial by a factor of several hundred, and you've got some idea of what awaits the federal court system. But Mr. Obama remains undeterred, and in fairness, he may have little choice. As Ed Morrissey reminds us, the Supreme Court has, on two separate occasions, rejected the military tribunal system established by the Bush Administration.
But rather than pursue the matter in Congress (and the courts), the Obama team is determined to shut down Gitmo. Still, they haven't answered the most important questions: (1) how will the detainees be tried, and (2) can you sustain a viable intelligence system with analysts and operatives subject to questioning--and identification--in open court?
Those are but two reasons that abandoning the tribunal system (and closing) Guantanamo will eventually be regarded as colossal mistakes. But let's add one more to the list. Gitmo is tailor made for handling another problem that transcends international borders and jurisdictional authority.
We refer to pirates, particularly those operating along the coast of Somalia. While their recent hijackings of merchant vessels have gained international headlines, the piracy problem has existed for years. Making matters worse, there is the thorny issue of what to do with the pirates in the event they're captured.
Turn them over to the Somali government? What a joke. Somalia is the world's best example of a failed nation-state, with no functioning government and nothing approaching a viable criminal justice system, unless you count the Islamic courts run by an Al Qaida affiliate in the southern part of that country. The notion that Somalia could punish the pirates in ludicrous.
As for the nations--and navies--currently chasing the bad guys (and we use that term loosely), there are legitimate questions about jurisdictional authority. Could a U.S. Navy frigate, operating in the Gulf of Aden, detain pirates attacking a merchant vessel flagged under another nation's flag? And, what to do with them once they're taken into custody?
With the required international agreement, piracy suspects could be taken to Gitmo, detained there, tried by an international tribunal, and serve out their sentence--at the same, secure location.
Unfortunately, Gitmo has been forever tarred by administration critics, false claims of improper treatment and years of legal wrangling. We can't envision any scenario where the U.N. (or any other international body) authorizing the use of Guantanamo as a jail for international pirates.
Instead, the United Nations is suggesting tougher sanctions against Somalia as a way to curb piracy, and the Russians have suggested ground ops against pirate villages. Good luck with those proposals. The pirates operating around the Horn of Africa don't seem overly concerned.
***
On the issue of dealing with terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is warning that Congress must address that issue again. In a column published in today's WSJ, Mr. Mukasey argues that the habeus corpus requirement for detainees has created a hodgepodge of inconsistent decisions in the federal courts. If Congress doesn't establish firm guidelines, he observes, we will be forced to choose between exposing intelligence assets in open court, or allowing terrorists to jump the immigration line and enter the United States.
Mukasey's op-ed offers three sound proposals for giving detainees a fair trial without crippling our legal system. Well worth a read. Ironically, the column appeared just hours after Mukasey collapsed while giving a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington. While Mr. Mukasey (who is 67) appears to be recovering quickly, keep him in your prayers. NRO's Andy McCarthy reminds us that Mukasey is a public servant of the first order. He has reprinted the text of Judge Mukasey's speech, which is equally superb.
"We are Ready to Deal With Iran"
Those are the words of Israel's Air Force commander, regarding a possible air strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities.
Major General Ido Nehushtan made the comments in a conversation with the German paper Der Spiegel, which was published on Tuesday. During the interview, Geneal Nehushtan said a potential strike is a political decision, and not a question of Israel's military capabilities:
A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities "is a political decision," the IAF commander said, "but if I understand it correctly, all options are on the table… The Air Force is a very robust and flexible force. We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."
When asked by the paper whether the Israeli military was able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, which are spread around the country and partly located underground, Nehushtan said, "Please understand that I do not want to get into details. I can only say this: It is not a technical or logistical question."
Nehushtan said the cutting edge capabilities of the IDF in the region were not only a derivative of the advanced technologies it uses.
"Modern technology is one thing, but the biggest advantage we have is our soldiers and officers. Israel is a small country. We neither have a big population nor natural resources. Our biggest asset is our human resources. And it is the Air Force that makes best use of it," he said.
While Nehushtan's comments were clearly calibrated for Iranian consumption, there was little bluster in his remarks. The Israeli Air Force has been preparing for a potential strike against Iran for years, with periodic updates. Two years ago, a group of IAF officers told their USAF counterparts that plans for an attack were complete, and they (reportedly) include forward operating bases for commando teams that would support the mission.
The real question, of course, is whether Israel would actually order the strike. With the nation preparing for elections in February, the consensus has been that any decision will wait until the next prime minister takes office.
But events could force a shorter timeline. Iran is continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. By one estimate, Tehran could obtain its first nuclear device in as little as two years; that means that a raid aimed at derailing the Iranian program would be mounted sooner, rather than later. However, most intelligence agencies believe that Tehran won't obtain the bomb until after 2010, suggesting that Israel has a slightly wider window for military action.
However, U.S. politics will also play a role in Tel Aviv's eventual decision. Israeli officials view the incoming Obama Administration as being even less supportive of an attack against Iran than the current Bush White House. Based on that consideration, Israel could launch a strike under its current, caretaker government, before Obama takes office in January.
At this point, it's difficult to say how close Israel might be to a military attack against Iran. The IDF won't tip its hand, beyond vague statements like the one issued by Major General Nehushtan. In fact, given Israel's expertise in military deception, it's quite likely that any strike would be successfully concealed until the moment of execution.
Clearly, the Israelis don't want to tip their hand, but at some point, events in Iran (and elsewhere) may force a final decision. The next few months in the Middle East promise to be consequential, at the very least.
***
General Nehushtan's comments came as the IAEA announced that Tehran is rapdily increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium, which could be rendered into a nuclear device. According to experts interviewed by the Financial Times, Iran could reach "breakout" status by early next year, leaving it just one step away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear device.
Just one more factor for the geopolitical calculus in Washington--and Tel Aviv. Mr. Obama, that first 3 a.m. phone call is closer than you think.
Major General Ido Nehushtan made the comments in a conversation with the German paper Der Spiegel, which was published on Tuesday. During the interview, Geneal Nehushtan said a potential strike is a political decision, and not a question of Israel's military capabilities:
A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities "is a political decision," the IAF commander said, "but if I understand it correctly, all options are on the table… The Air Force is a very robust and flexible force. We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."
When asked by the paper whether the Israeli military was able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, which are spread around the country and partly located underground, Nehushtan said, "Please understand that I do not want to get into details. I can only say this: It is not a technical or logistical question."
Nehushtan said the cutting edge capabilities of the IDF in the region were not only a derivative of the advanced technologies it uses.
"Modern technology is one thing, but the biggest advantage we have is our soldiers and officers. Israel is a small country. We neither have a big population nor natural resources. Our biggest asset is our human resources. And it is the Air Force that makes best use of it," he said.
While Nehushtan's comments were clearly calibrated for Iranian consumption, there was little bluster in his remarks. The Israeli Air Force has been preparing for a potential strike against Iran for years, with periodic updates. Two years ago, a group of IAF officers told their USAF counterparts that plans for an attack were complete, and they (reportedly) include forward operating bases for commando teams that would support the mission.
The real question, of course, is whether Israel would actually order the strike. With the nation preparing for elections in February, the consensus has been that any decision will wait until the next prime minister takes office.
But events could force a shorter timeline. Iran is continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. By one estimate, Tehran could obtain its first nuclear device in as little as two years; that means that a raid aimed at derailing the Iranian program would be mounted sooner, rather than later. However, most intelligence agencies believe that Tehran won't obtain the bomb until after 2010, suggesting that Israel has a slightly wider window for military action.
However, U.S. politics will also play a role in Tel Aviv's eventual decision. Israeli officials view the incoming Obama Administration as being even less supportive of an attack against Iran than the current Bush White House. Based on that consideration, Israel could launch a strike under its current, caretaker government, before Obama takes office in January.
At this point, it's difficult to say how close Israel might be to a military attack against Iran. The IDF won't tip its hand, beyond vague statements like the one issued by Major General Nehushtan. In fact, given Israel's expertise in military deception, it's quite likely that any strike would be successfully concealed until the moment of execution.
Clearly, the Israelis don't want to tip their hand, but at some point, events in Iran (and elsewhere) may force a final decision. The next few months in the Middle East promise to be consequential, at the very least.
***
General Nehushtan's comments came as the IAEA announced that Tehran is rapdily increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium, which could be rendered into a nuclear device. According to experts interviewed by the Financial Times, Iran could reach "breakout" status by early next year, leaving it just one step away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear device.
Just one more factor for the geopolitical calculus in Washington--and Tel Aviv. Mr. Obama, that first 3 a.m. phone call is closer than you think.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The First Broken Promise?
In an article for The Weekly Standard, Alan Dowd, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, wonders where Barack Obama will "land" on the issue of missile defense. On the campaign trail, candidate Obama offered at least two different positions on the issue.
During one memorable sound bite, he vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," but offered a revised stance a few weeks later, in a debate with John McCain. When the topic arose in that national forum, Mr. Obama offered a measure of support, saying "I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."
So, which one will it be?
We'll find out in the coming weeks and, as Mr. Dowd writes, President-elect Obama would do well to stick with his more recent position. Both Tehran and Pyongyang are continuing their efforts to develop long-range missiles. Left unchecked, both will eventually have systems capable of delivering a nuclear weapon against the CONUS.
Meanwhile, Iranian missiles can already threaten most of the Middle East and southeastern Europe; North Korea's medium and intermediate range systems are capable of reaching the entire Korean peninsula and Japan. They can also threaten more distant targets including Guam, Hawaii, and portions of Alaska.
To counter that threat, the U.S. and its allied partners have been working--and deploying--a series of ballistic missile defense systems. As Mr. Dowd notes, these systems have achieved an 81% success rate since 2001, in a series of increasingly complex, hit-to-kill tests. He observes that " a growing global coalition prefers those odds over the zero-percent chance of success guaranteed by shutting down the missile defense program or consigning it to the lab."
But that's where missile defense technology may wind up, if Mr. Obama sides with members of his own party. A number of Senate Democrats, led by Carl Levin of Michigan, have threatened to slash missile defense spending by imposing unrealistic performance criteria. Under their standards, even successful programs like the Navy's Aegis/Standard Missile-3 ER would be in jeopardy, because they can't achieve a 100% success rate.
Obviously, Levin and his colleagues understand that no defense system can meet the benchmark--but that's the idea. By setting the bar impossibly high, they can justify extreme cuts in missile defense because the technology simply doesn't "measure up."
Of course, our adversaries are also attempting to influence the debate. Russia has threatened to deploy SS-26 missiles in the Kaliningrad region, allowing them to target interceptor rockets that the U.S. plans to base in Poland. North Korea and Iran have staged missile tests this year, offering a preview of their response to our planned deployments.
Will our next president take the bait? Mr. Obama's debate comments suggests he might support some forms of missile defense, but the president-elect will face still opposition from Congressional Democrats--the same Congressmen and Senators he needs to pass other elements of his agenda.
Against that backdrop, we can't see President Obama putting up much of a fight for missile defense programs. In fact, the next commander-in-chief is already sending mixed signals on the missile shield for western Europe. Only a day after Obama seemed to support the proposal (in a phone conversation with Poland's president), an aide clarified his position, saying the president elect was "non-committal" on the topic.
That's hardly reassuring to our allies, who have invested their own money--and political capital --in missile defense. That's why they hoping that Barack Obama will break his "original" campaign promise, and sustain key missile defense initiatives. As Mr. Dowd observes, at least 12 openly hostile regimes are currently working on missile programs--programs that pose a current or future threat to the U.S. and its allies. That alone should be enough for Mr. Obama to break with members of his party on the missile defense issue.
But don't get your hopes up.
During one memorable sound bite, he vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," but offered a revised stance a few weeks later, in a debate with John McCain. When the topic arose in that national forum, Mr. Obama offered a measure of support, saying "I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons."
So, which one will it be?
We'll find out in the coming weeks and, as Mr. Dowd writes, President-elect Obama would do well to stick with his more recent position. Both Tehran and Pyongyang are continuing their efforts to develop long-range missiles. Left unchecked, both will eventually have systems capable of delivering a nuclear weapon against the CONUS.
Meanwhile, Iranian missiles can already threaten most of the Middle East and southeastern Europe; North Korea's medium and intermediate range systems are capable of reaching the entire Korean peninsula and Japan. They can also threaten more distant targets including Guam, Hawaii, and portions of Alaska.
To counter that threat, the U.S. and its allied partners have been working--and deploying--a series of ballistic missile defense systems. As Mr. Dowd notes, these systems have achieved an 81% success rate since 2001, in a series of increasingly complex, hit-to-kill tests. He observes that " a growing global coalition prefers those odds over the zero-percent chance of success guaranteed by shutting down the missile defense program or consigning it to the lab."
But that's where missile defense technology may wind up, if Mr. Obama sides with members of his own party. A number of Senate Democrats, led by Carl Levin of Michigan, have threatened to slash missile defense spending by imposing unrealistic performance criteria. Under their standards, even successful programs like the Navy's Aegis/Standard Missile-3 ER would be in jeopardy, because they can't achieve a 100% success rate.
Obviously, Levin and his colleagues understand that no defense system can meet the benchmark--but that's the idea. By setting the bar impossibly high, they can justify extreme cuts in missile defense because the technology simply doesn't "measure up."
Of course, our adversaries are also attempting to influence the debate. Russia has threatened to deploy SS-26 missiles in the Kaliningrad region, allowing them to target interceptor rockets that the U.S. plans to base in Poland. North Korea and Iran have staged missile tests this year, offering a preview of their response to our planned deployments.
Will our next president take the bait? Mr. Obama's debate comments suggests he might support some forms of missile defense, but the president-elect will face still opposition from Congressional Democrats--the same Congressmen and Senators he needs to pass other elements of his agenda.
Against that backdrop, we can't see President Obama putting up much of a fight for missile defense programs. In fact, the next commander-in-chief is already sending mixed signals on the missile shield for western Europe. Only a day after Obama seemed to support the proposal (in a phone conversation with Poland's president), an aide clarified his position, saying the president elect was "non-committal" on the topic.
That's hardly reassuring to our allies, who have invested their own money--and political capital --in missile defense. That's why they hoping that Barack Obama will break his "original" campaign promise, and sustain key missile defense initiatives. As Mr. Dowd observes, at least 12 openly hostile regimes are currently working on missile programs--programs that pose a current or future threat to the U.S. and its allies. That alone should be enough for Mr. Obama to break with members of his party on the missile defense issue.
But don't get your hopes up.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Case Continues
On the eve of this year's presidential election, attorneys representing John McCain went before a federal judge in Virginia, asking him to preserve--and count--military absentee ballots that were received after the submission deadline.
It was a timely--and valid--request. As we've noted before, members of the armed forces are the most disenfranchised segment of the electorate. By one estimate, roughly two-thirds of absentee votes submitted by overseas military personnel go uncounted, for a very simple reason--they don't receive their ballots in time to meet state submission requirements.
In Virginia, for example, the law requires that absentee ballots be returned by 7 p.m. on election night to be counted. But local election officials in the state--like most around the country--mailed out the ballots well after the 45-day deadline established by a 1986 federal law. Under that standard, absentee ballots in Virginia should have gone to the post office in late September; but in most counties around the state, they weren't mailed out until mid-October--or later.
Anticipating a close race in Virginia, the McCain campaign asked Federal Judge Richard L. Williams to preserve late-arriving ballots, and count them. Williams agreed to preserve the ballots, pending a 17 November court hearing.
When the two sides returned to the courtroom today, the judge removed the McCain campaign as a plantiff in the lawsuit. However, he rejected state claims' that the suit is moot, because it would not affect election results. Instead, Judge Williams agreed to let the Justice Department replace the campaign as the plantiff in the case. A hearing on the merits of the case is scheduled for next month.
It's unclear if Williams will actually order the votes to be counted, but today's ruling is a partial victory for military absentee voters, and those fighting to preserve their election rights. Justice Department attorney Alberto Ruisanchez said it's important to ensure that votes are properly counted, both in this year's election and future contests.
We heartily concur. But we still wonder why it took the McCain campaign--and the Bush Administration--so long to intervene. The disenfranchisement of military personnel is hardly new, but (to our knowledge) the McCain lawsuit was the only legal action attempted during this election cycle. Likewise, the White House has never thrown its support behind GOP-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier for military members to vote.
Unfortunately, that decision represents another missed opportunity for the Bush team. With almost 70% of military members voting Republican, the administration--and its Justice Department--should have done far more to ensure the voting rights of those who wear the uniform.
It was a timely--and valid--request. As we've noted before, members of the armed forces are the most disenfranchised segment of the electorate. By one estimate, roughly two-thirds of absentee votes submitted by overseas military personnel go uncounted, for a very simple reason--they don't receive their ballots in time to meet state submission requirements.
In Virginia, for example, the law requires that absentee ballots be returned by 7 p.m. on election night to be counted. But local election officials in the state--like most around the country--mailed out the ballots well after the 45-day deadline established by a 1986 federal law. Under that standard, absentee ballots in Virginia should have gone to the post office in late September; but in most counties around the state, they weren't mailed out until mid-October--or later.
Anticipating a close race in Virginia, the McCain campaign asked Federal Judge Richard L. Williams to preserve late-arriving ballots, and count them. Williams agreed to preserve the ballots, pending a 17 November court hearing.
When the two sides returned to the courtroom today, the judge removed the McCain campaign as a plantiff in the lawsuit. However, he rejected state claims' that the suit is moot, because it would not affect election results. Instead, Judge Williams agreed to let the Justice Department replace the campaign as the plantiff in the case. A hearing on the merits of the case is scheduled for next month.
It's unclear if Williams will actually order the votes to be counted, but today's ruling is a partial victory for military absentee voters, and those fighting to preserve their election rights. Justice Department attorney Alberto Ruisanchez said it's important to ensure that votes are properly counted, both in this year's election and future contests.
We heartily concur. But we still wonder why it took the McCain campaign--and the Bush Administration--so long to intervene. The disenfranchisement of military personnel is hardly new, but (to our knowledge) the McCain lawsuit was the only legal action attempted during this election cycle. Likewise, the White House has never thrown its support behind GOP-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier for military members to vote.
Unfortunately, that decision represents another missed opportunity for the Bush team. With almost 70% of military members voting Republican, the administration--and its Justice Department--should have done far more to ensure the voting rights of those who wear the uniform.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Sink the Bismarck
A Fairley Swordfish, the antiquated World War II torpedo bomber that helped sink the German battleship Bismarck (Daily Mail photo).
On the afternoon of May 24, 1941, the men of the Royal Navy's 825 Squadron received a desperate assignment. Launching their Swordfish biplanes from the carrier Victorious, the squadron was to locate and sink--or at least damage--the mighty German battleship Bismarck.
Earlier that day, the search for the Bismarck had taken on a new urgency. It was no longer a matter of locating (and neutralizing) Nazi Germany's most powerful ship, to prevent raids against Allied convoys. The hunt for the Bismarck was now a matter of British pride.
Hours before the pilots, observers and gunners of 825 Squadron learned of their mission, the Bismarck sunk the battle cruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, in a surface battle in the Denmark Strait. Hit in one of her ammunition compartments, the Hood exploded and sank in less than three minutes; only three British sailors survived.
As Britain sought revenge for the Hood, the task of intercepting the Bismarck seemed daunting, if not impossible. The German dreadnought had sustained minor damage in its engagement with the British battle cruiser and its sister ship, Prince of Wales. But Bismarck was making more than 20 knots, steaming east toward the safety of Nazi-occupied France and Luftwaffe air cover. The window for catching Bismarck was already closing.
Against that backdrop, nine Swordfish of 825 Squadron departed Victorious in fading daylight. With their fabric and steel frame construction, the torpedo bombers were vulnerable to a variety of threats, including small arms fire, anti-aircraft guns and enemy fighters. First introduced in 1934, the Swordfish was obsolete by the time World War II began, but it remained in operational service. And on that May evening in 1941, the hopes of the Royal Navy--and all of Britain--rested on nine antiquated biplanes, and the 27 airmen who flew them.
It was a long shot, at best. The Victorious had joined the fleet less than a month earlier, and many of the Swordfish crews were equally inexperienced; some had made their first carrier landing only days earlier. Members of 825 Squadron had never conducted a combat strike, but the unit commander, Lieutenant Commander Eugene Esmonde, assured superiors that his men were up to the task.
Still, Esmonde had a couple of factors working in his favor. His Swordfish were equipped with the latest surveillance radar, and Royal Navy vessels were still shadowing Bismarck. Just before midnight, having sighted the enemy vessel visually and on radar, 825 Squadron launched its attack.
Their effort was gallant, but the results were disappointing. Bismarck put up a hail of anti-aircraft fire, and her skipper, Captain Ernst Lindemann, expertly dodged at least seven torpedoes.
But one of the Swordfish pilots was waiting to release his torpedo. Lieutenant Percy Gick, leading an element of three aircraft, launched his attack from starboard, but was dissatisfied with the angle. While the other Swordfish in his element pressed on--and missed--Glick elected to climb back into the clouds and maneuver around to port.
He reappeared as two other Swordfish crews launched their weapons. Gick's attack surprised the Germans and even the skillful Captain Lindemann couldn't outmaneuver the last torpedo. It exploded amidships, squarely in Bismarck's armored belt.
The torpedo inflicted little actual damage, but it did slow the Bismarck, at least indirectly. Lindemann's efforts to avoid the British torpedoes--and concussion from Gick's direct hit--loosened collision mats, installed to limit flooding in damaged forward compartments after the Hood engagement.
As a result, Bismarck's speed dropped below 20 knots, slowing the battleship's progress toward France, and giving the British more time to close in for the kill. Forty-eight hours later, Swordfish from another carrier, Ark Royal, sealed the battleship's fate. A torpedo launched by Sub-Lieutenant John Moffat jammed Bismarck's rudder and steering gear, leaving the giant ship steaming in a circle.
Hours later, the German vessel was decimated by a British surface force, led by the battleships King George V and the Rodney. But contrary to popular belief, Bismarck didn't slip beneath the waves until she was finally scuttled by her crew. Hundreds of German sailors jumped into the cold water, but the threat of U-boat attack prompted the British to suspend rescue operations. Of the Bismarck's 2,200 man crew, less than 300 survived.
***
One of the men who helped sink the Bismarck died this week. Les Sayer was the radio operator-gunner for Percy Gick, the Swordfish pilot whose torpedo slowed the German battleship. As the U.K. Daily Mail recounts, Sayer remembered staring down at the ocean after a shell splash from the battleship ripped the aircraft's fabric exterior. Sayer won the Distinguished Service Medal for his exploits during the Bismarck mission. After the war, he spent more than 30 years in civil aviation with various European airlines.
Mr. Sayer was also one of the last survivors of 825 Squadron. Three members of the unit were lost on a subsequent sortie to locate the Bismarck, and thirteen others died nine months later, on a mission against two other German capital ships, the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen, during their famous dash up the English Channel. Among those lost on that day was Eugene Esmonde, the resourceful commander who found the Bismarck on the May evening, in the gathering darkness of the North Atlantic.
Earlier that day, the search for the Bismarck had taken on a new urgency. It was no longer a matter of locating (and neutralizing) Nazi Germany's most powerful ship, to prevent raids against Allied convoys. The hunt for the Bismarck was now a matter of British pride.
Hours before the pilots, observers and gunners of 825 Squadron learned of their mission, the Bismarck sunk the battle cruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, in a surface battle in the Denmark Strait. Hit in one of her ammunition compartments, the Hood exploded and sank in less than three minutes; only three British sailors survived.
As Britain sought revenge for the Hood, the task of intercepting the Bismarck seemed daunting, if not impossible. The German dreadnought had sustained minor damage in its engagement with the British battle cruiser and its sister ship, Prince of Wales. But Bismarck was making more than 20 knots, steaming east toward the safety of Nazi-occupied France and Luftwaffe air cover. The window for catching Bismarck was already closing.
Against that backdrop, nine Swordfish of 825 Squadron departed Victorious in fading daylight. With their fabric and steel frame construction, the torpedo bombers were vulnerable to a variety of threats, including small arms fire, anti-aircraft guns and enemy fighters. First introduced in 1934, the Swordfish was obsolete by the time World War II began, but it remained in operational service. And on that May evening in 1941, the hopes of the Royal Navy--and all of Britain--rested on nine antiquated biplanes, and the 27 airmen who flew them.
It was a long shot, at best. The Victorious had joined the fleet less than a month earlier, and many of the Swordfish crews were equally inexperienced; some had made their first carrier landing only days earlier. Members of 825 Squadron had never conducted a combat strike, but the unit commander, Lieutenant Commander Eugene Esmonde, assured superiors that his men were up to the task.
Still, Esmonde had a couple of factors working in his favor. His Swordfish were equipped with the latest surveillance radar, and Royal Navy vessels were still shadowing Bismarck. Just before midnight, having sighted the enemy vessel visually and on radar, 825 Squadron launched its attack.
Their effort was gallant, but the results were disappointing. Bismarck put up a hail of anti-aircraft fire, and her skipper, Captain Ernst Lindemann, expertly dodged at least seven torpedoes.
But one of the Swordfish pilots was waiting to release his torpedo. Lieutenant Percy Gick, leading an element of three aircraft, launched his attack from starboard, but was dissatisfied with the angle. While the other Swordfish in his element pressed on--and missed--Glick elected to climb back into the clouds and maneuver around to port.
He reappeared as two other Swordfish crews launched their weapons. Gick's attack surprised the Germans and even the skillful Captain Lindemann couldn't outmaneuver the last torpedo. It exploded amidships, squarely in Bismarck's armored belt.
The torpedo inflicted little actual damage, but it did slow the Bismarck, at least indirectly. Lindemann's efforts to avoid the British torpedoes--and concussion from Gick's direct hit--loosened collision mats, installed to limit flooding in damaged forward compartments after the Hood engagement.
As a result, Bismarck's speed dropped below 20 knots, slowing the battleship's progress toward France, and giving the British more time to close in for the kill. Forty-eight hours later, Swordfish from another carrier, Ark Royal, sealed the battleship's fate. A torpedo launched by Sub-Lieutenant John Moffat jammed Bismarck's rudder and steering gear, leaving the giant ship steaming in a circle.
Hours later, the German vessel was decimated by a British surface force, led by the battleships King George V and the Rodney. But contrary to popular belief, Bismarck didn't slip beneath the waves until she was finally scuttled by her crew. Hundreds of German sailors jumped into the cold water, but the threat of U-boat attack prompted the British to suspend rescue operations. Of the Bismarck's 2,200 man crew, less than 300 survived.
***
One of the men who helped sink the Bismarck died this week. Les Sayer was the radio operator-gunner for Percy Gick, the Swordfish pilot whose torpedo slowed the German battleship. As the U.K. Daily Mail recounts, Sayer remembered staring down at the ocean after a shell splash from the battleship ripped the aircraft's fabric exterior. Sayer won the Distinguished Service Medal for his exploits during the Bismarck mission. After the war, he spent more than 30 years in civil aviation with various European airlines.
Mr. Sayer was also one of the last survivors of 825 Squadron. Three members of the unit were lost on a subsequent sortie to locate the Bismarck, and thirteen others died nine months later, on a mission against two other German capital ships, the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen, during their famous dash up the English Channel. Among those lost on that day was Eugene Esmonde, the resourceful commander who found the Bismarck on the May evening, in the gathering darkness of the North Atlantic.
The "A" Word
The Air Force's renewed emphasis on accountability was a key factor in the recent firing of a wing commander at Kunsan AB, Korea.
Sources tell Air Force Times that Colonel Bryan Bearden, the former leader of the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, lost his job because superiors lost confidence in his ability to lead. Bearden's dismissal came after recent inspections revealed problems in the wing's maintenance group.
Those problems caused Gen. Howie Chandler, Pacific Air Forces commander, to lose faith in Bearden’s leadership, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.
A PacAF press release said he was fired because “duty performance factors” led Chandler to conclude “new leadership was required to maintain the highest levels of precision and reliability.”
[snip]
Bearden is not being investigated for any wrongdoing, sources said, but he presided over the wing during a series of recent inspections that found problems with the maintenance group’s adherence to technical orders and standards of documentation.
Maintenance is a critical function for any fighter wing, so it's not surprising that General Chandler decided to dismiss Bearden. Discrepancies in the maintenance complex impact the wing's ability to train and generate combat sorties--a situation that is unacceptable in any unit, particularly one that is located less than 200 miles from the Korean DMZ.
As readers of this blog know, the Air Force launched a major accountability movement after last year's nuclear mistakes at Minot AFB, North Dakota and Hill AFB, Utah. The commander of Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was fired last fall after crews mistakenly loaded nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52, which ferried them to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.
More recently, a number of senior officers--including several generals--received administrative punishment over the Hill incident, when fuses for an ICBM's nuclear warhead were accidentally shipped to Taiwan.
However, the accountability movement may have its limits. As we noted yesterday, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana ran into problems during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI). Unsatisfactory grades in two elements of the evaluation resulted in an overall failing grade, and another visit from the IG team.
But there won't be a leadership change at Malmstrom. After the inspection results were revealed, the wing's parent organization (Air Force Space Command) announced that the leader of the 341st, Colonel Michael Fortney, would keep his job. According to a press release, Space Command has determined that the wing has the "right leadership team" in place to make required changes.
Admittedly, Air Force commanders need some degree of flexibility in handling troubled units. In some cases, the failings are well below the command level and corrective measures can be implemented without removing the wing commander. In other instances, widespread or serious discrepancies may dictate a change in senior leadership.
Unfortunately, "flexibility" is sometimes an excuse for selective accountability. We've seen cases in the past where failing commanders were given a second chance on the strength of their connections. We're not saying that was the case at Malmstrom. But it is rather odd that Fortney kept his job after failing an NSI--in a new era of "strict accountability" among nuclear-capable units.
What the Air Force could use is a little more clarity in such matters. In the days of Curt LeMay, any wing commander who failed an NSI--regardless of the reason--could expect a quick dismissal, no exceptions. Maybe that's what the service needs to get its nuclear enterprise back on track.
Sources tell Air Force Times that Colonel Bryan Bearden, the former leader of the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, lost his job because superiors lost confidence in his ability to lead. Bearden's dismissal came after recent inspections revealed problems in the wing's maintenance group.
Those problems caused Gen. Howie Chandler, Pacific Air Forces commander, to lose faith in Bearden’s leadership, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.
A PacAF press release said he was fired because “duty performance factors” led Chandler to conclude “new leadership was required to maintain the highest levels of precision and reliability.”
[snip]
Bearden is not being investigated for any wrongdoing, sources said, but he presided over the wing during a series of recent inspections that found problems with the maintenance group’s adherence to technical orders and standards of documentation.
Maintenance is a critical function for any fighter wing, so it's not surprising that General Chandler decided to dismiss Bearden. Discrepancies in the maintenance complex impact the wing's ability to train and generate combat sorties--a situation that is unacceptable in any unit, particularly one that is located less than 200 miles from the Korean DMZ.
As readers of this blog know, the Air Force launched a major accountability movement after last year's nuclear mistakes at Minot AFB, North Dakota and Hill AFB, Utah. The commander of Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was fired last fall after crews mistakenly loaded nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52, which ferried them to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.
More recently, a number of senior officers--including several generals--received administrative punishment over the Hill incident, when fuses for an ICBM's nuclear warhead were accidentally shipped to Taiwan.
However, the accountability movement may have its limits. As we noted yesterday, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana ran into problems during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI). Unsatisfactory grades in two elements of the evaluation resulted in an overall failing grade, and another visit from the IG team.
But there won't be a leadership change at Malmstrom. After the inspection results were revealed, the wing's parent organization (Air Force Space Command) announced that the leader of the 341st, Colonel Michael Fortney, would keep his job. According to a press release, Space Command has determined that the wing has the "right leadership team" in place to make required changes.
Admittedly, Air Force commanders need some degree of flexibility in handling troubled units. In some cases, the failings are well below the command level and corrective measures can be implemented without removing the wing commander. In other instances, widespread or serious discrepancies may dictate a change in senior leadership.
Unfortunately, "flexibility" is sometimes an excuse for selective accountability. We've seen cases in the past where failing commanders were given a second chance on the strength of their connections. We're not saying that was the case at Malmstrom. But it is rather odd that Fortney kept his job after failing an NSI--in a new era of "strict accountability" among nuclear-capable units.
What the Air Force could use is a little more clarity in such matters. In the days of Curt LeMay, any wing commander who failed an NSI--regardless of the reason--could expect a quick dismissal, no exceptions. Maybe that's what the service needs to get its nuclear enterprise back on track.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Changing of the Guard
When Barack Obama takes office, he will apparently appoint a new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a new leader for the wider intelligence community.
Sources tell the Washington Post that former Air Force General Michael Hayden, the CIA Director, and retired Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, expect to be replaced by the new administration.
The expectations of Hayden and McConnell are based on the fact that the Obama transition team has not reached out to either intelligence official. Additionally, key Democrats have called for their replacement when Obama takes office in January.
Quite frankly, we'd be surprised if the new president retained either man for his national security team. General Hayden and Admiral McConnell have become convenient targets for left, on issues ranging from interrogation techniques and domestic wiretapping, to the rendition of terrorist suspects to their native countries. In fairness, many of the issues surfaced under their predecessors, although Mr. Hayden served as director of the National Security Agency for six years, a period that coincided with the 9-11 attacks, and domestic surveillance programs to ferret out possible terrorists.
Both Hayden and McConnell are career intelligence officers who are (reportedly) worried about a transition during a time of war. And those concerns are justified, particularly since their potential replacements, former CIA officials John Brennan and Jami Miscik, and onetime Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, have been "out of the loop" for a while.
In terms of experience, Brennan once served as chief of staff for former CIA Director George Tenet. Ms. Miscik was also a member of Tenet's team, working as his executive assistant before concluding her career as the agency's Deputy Director of Intelligence. Lake was once Bill Clinton's nominee to lead the CIA, until he withdrew his name, due to Republican opposition. Dr. Lake probably sealed his fate by expressing doubts about the guilt of Alger Hiss in a TV interview.
From our perspective, Brennan, Miscik and Lake are less-than-impressive candidates. But that's not to say that an Obama nominee couldn't get up to speed and become a capable leader. But there is also a need for an orderly transition at the top of the intelligence community, given the threats we now face. It makes little sense to can Hayden and McConnell on Day One of the new administration, and leave those posts vacant for weeks, or even months.
And the transition problem doesn't end there. The departure of General Hayden and Admiral McConnell will be accompanied by dozens of subordinates, charged with the supervision of key intelligence programs and functions. If history is any guide, filling those positions will take even longer, leaving the community without senior leadership for an extended period of time. Hayden and McConnell are not without their faults, but they have provided stable, competent leadership at a time the intelligence community needed it most.
Managing the intel transition is a rather simple proposition; as much as the Democrats may dislike the current CIA Director and DNI, they need to decide which official they can tolerate for a few months, maybe even a year. In the mean time, the Obama team can start the process of replacing other senior officials, in a timely, orderly manner.
Now, if they could only do something about the quality of their likely nominees.
Sources tell the Washington Post that former Air Force General Michael Hayden, the CIA Director, and retired Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, expect to be replaced by the new administration.
The expectations of Hayden and McConnell are based on the fact that the Obama transition team has not reached out to either intelligence official. Additionally, key Democrats have called for their replacement when Obama takes office in January.
Quite frankly, we'd be surprised if the new president retained either man for his national security team. General Hayden and Admiral McConnell have become convenient targets for left, on issues ranging from interrogation techniques and domestic wiretapping, to the rendition of terrorist suspects to their native countries. In fairness, many of the issues surfaced under their predecessors, although Mr. Hayden served as director of the National Security Agency for six years, a period that coincided with the 9-11 attacks, and domestic surveillance programs to ferret out possible terrorists.
Both Hayden and McConnell are career intelligence officers who are (reportedly) worried about a transition during a time of war. And those concerns are justified, particularly since their potential replacements, former CIA officials John Brennan and Jami Miscik, and onetime Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, have been "out of the loop" for a while.
In terms of experience, Brennan once served as chief of staff for former CIA Director George Tenet. Ms. Miscik was also a member of Tenet's team, working as his executive assistant before concluding her career as the agency's Deputy Director of Intelligence. Lake was once Bill Clinton's nominee to lead the CIA, until he withdrew his name, due to Republican opposition. Dr. Lake probably sealed his fate by expressing doubts about the guilt of Alger Hiss in a TV interview.
From our perspective, Brennan, Miscik and Lake are less-than-impressive candidates. But that's not to say that an Obama nominee couldn't get up to speed and become a capable leader. But there is also a need for an orderly transition at the top of the intelligence community, given the threats we now face. It makes little sense to can Hayden and McConnell on Day One of the new administration, and leave those posts vacant for weeks, or even months.
And the transition problem doesn't end there. The departure of General Hayden and Admiral McConnell will be accompanied by dozens of subordinates, charged with the supervision of key intelligence programs and functions. If history is any guide, filling those positions will take even longer, leaving the community without senior leadership for an extended period of time. Hayden and McConnell are not without their faults, but they have provided stable, competent leadership at a time the intelligence community needed it most.
Managing the intel transition is a rather simple proposition; as much as the Democrats may dislike the current CIA Director and DNI, they need to decide which official they can tolerate for a few months, maybe even a year. In the mean time, the Obama team can start the process of replacing other senior officials, in a timely, orderly manner.
Now, if they could only do something about the quality of their likely nominees.
A Tale of Two Inspections
For an Air Force wing commander, an operational readiness inspection (ORI) or Nuclear Surety Inspection (NSI) represents the defining moment of your tour. The evaluation represents the commander's ultimate report card and will determine--to a large degree--their future prospects for promotion.
That's why the results of two recent inspections are rather revealing, and deserve additional scrutiny, In recent weeks, the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan AB, Korea and the 341st Missile Wing, located at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, fared poorly during recent evaluations.
In the case of the 8th Wing, the unit actually passed its most recent ORI (conducted in April 2007), but that evaluation--and subsequent inspections--revealed major problems in its maintenance group. The discrepancies were apparently so serious that the wing commander, Colonel Bryan Bearden, was relieved of his duties by General Howie Chandler, the commander of Pacific Air Forces.
Sources tell Air Force Times that the problems at Kunsan stemmed from poor adherence to technical orders and documentation issues within the maintenance complex. Technical orders (or TO's) provide detailed guidance for repairing aircraft and other equipment. The process also requires extensive documentation of problems discovered and the actions taken to correct them. TO compliance and documentation are major inspection items for all Air Force maintenance organizations.
Ironically, Bearden served as commander of the 43rd maintenance group at Pope AFB, North Carolina before assuming the top job at Kunsan in May. Based on that assignment (and more than more than 15 years of experience as an F-16 pilot), Bearden had detailed knowledge of maintenance procedures, and what's required in terms of documentation. That may be one reason that General Chandler was quick to give Bearden the boot.
From the general's perspective, Colonel Bearden had the background to fix problems in his maintenance complex--but somehow failed to get the job done. In fact, given Bearden's limited tenure at "The Kun" it appears that the maintenance issues predated his arrival, and he was sent to the base (in part) to fix that part of the wing.
A PACAF press release said that "duty performance factors" led to Bearden's dismissal. It's also worth noting that Kunsan's maintenance group commander, Colonel Harry Truhn, remains on the job, despite his organization's performance problems. That suggests a potential conflict between Truhn and his former boss; perhaps Bearden was willing to tolerate standards that the maintenance group commander found unacceptable. Or, perhaps General Chandler simply wanted to send a signal, and the ultimate responsibility for the wing's performance rested with Colonel Bearden, not his subordinates.
As anyone who's served at Kunsan will tell you, being commander of "The Wolfpack" is one of the toughest jobs in the Air Force. Everyone at the base is one a one-year remote tour; with the constant turnover of personnel, it's difficult to sustain an experienced, combat-ready team. And, with the DMZ less than 200 miles away, the 8th Wing is on the tip of the proverbial spear, facing a very real North Korean threat.
But that doesn't excuse poor performance. Scores of wing and group commanders have served their time at Kunsan, maintaining the standards required of a front-line combat unit. Colonel Bearden had his chance and (obviously) came up short. Now his replacement, Colonel Jerry Harris, will get a chance to turn things around.
While Bearden moves to a new assignment, his counterpart at Malmstrom, Colonel Michael Fortney, escaped a similar fate. Fortney's unit received failing grades in two elements of its recent NSI, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating for the overall evaluation. But Air Force Space Command, the wing's parent organization, has already announced that there will be no leadership changes at the 341st. According to a press release, Space Command believes "the right leadership" is in place to make the needed changes at Malmstrom.
Fair enough. There's nothing in Air Force inspection guidelines that mandates the firing of a commander of a failing unit. And, while contrasting a fighter wing to a missile unit may seem like an apples-and-oranges comparison, there are similarities between the situations at Kunsan and Malmstrom. Both wing commanders had been on the job for only six months, and both had troubled maintenance organizations that were affecting the unit as a whole.
But Fortney kept his job, despite the USAF's new, tougher critieria for nuclear inspections--and recent problems in the service's nuclear enterprise. Malmstrom is at least the fourth nuclear unit to fail an NSI this year, but Colonel Fortney will keep his job. That will raise new questions about accountability, supposedly a cornerstone of the Air Force's nuclear reform effort.
That's why the results of two recent inspections are rather revealing, and deserve additional scrutiny, In recent weeks, the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan AB, Korea and the 341st Missile Wing, located at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, fared poorly during recent evaluations.
In the case of the 8th Wing, the unit actually passed its most recent ORI (conducted in April 2007), but that evaluation--and subsequent inspections--revealed major problems in its maintenance group. The discrepancies were apparently so serious that the wing commander, Colonel Bryan Bearden, was relieved of his duties by General Howie Chandler, the commander of Pacific Air Forces.
Sources tell Air Force Times that the problems at Kunsan stemmed from poor adherence to technical orders and documentation issues within the maintenance complex. Technical orders (or TO's) provide detailed guidance for repairing aircraft and other equipment. The process also requires extensive documentation of problems discovered and the actions taken to correct them. TO compliance and documentation are major inspection items for all Air Force maintenance organizations.
Ironically, Bearden served as commander of the 43rd maintenance group at Pope AFB, North Carolina before assuming the top job at Kunsan in May. Based on that assignment (and more than more than 15 years of experience as an F-16 pilot), Bearden had detailed knowledge of maintenance procedures, and what's required in terms of documentation. That may be one reason that General Chandler was quick to give Bearden the boot.
From the general's perspective, Colonel Bearden had the background to fix problems in his maintenance complex--but somehow failed to get the job done. In fact, given Bearden's limited tenure at "The Kun" it appears that the maintenance issues predated his arrival, and he was sent to the base (in part) to fix that part of the wing.
A PACAF press release said that "duty performance factors" led to Bearden's dismissal. It's also worth noting that Kunsan's maintenance group commander, Colonel Harry Truhn, remains on the job, despite his organization's performance problems. That suggests a potential conflict between Truhn and his former boss; perhaps Bearden was willing to tolerate standards that the maintenance group commander found unacceptable. Or, perhaps General Chandler simply wanted to send a signal, and the ultimate responsibility for the wing's performance rested with Colonel Bearden, not his subordinates.
As anyone who's served at Kunsan will tell you, being commander of "The Wolfpack" is one of the toughest jobs in the Air Force. Everyone at the base is one a one-year remote tour; with the constant turnover of personnel, it's difficult to sustain an experienced, combat-ready team. And, with the DMZ less than 200 miles away, the 8th Wing is on the tip of the proverbial spear, facing a very real North Korean threat.
But that doesn't excuse poor performance. Scores of wing and group commanders have served their time at Kunsan, maintaining the standards required of a front-line combat unit. Colonel Bearden had his chance and (obviously) came up short. Now his replacement, Colonel Jerry Harris, will get a chance to turn things around.
While Bearden moves to a new assignment, his counterpart at Malmstrom, Colonel Michael Fortney, escaped a similar fate. Fortney's unit received failing grades in two elements of its recent NSI, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating for the overall evaluation. But Air Force Space Command, the wing's parent organization, has already announced that there will be no leadership changes at the 341st. According to a press release, Space Command believes "the right leadership" is in place to make the needed changes at Malmstrom.
Fair enough. There's nothing in Air Force inspection guidelines that mandates the firing of a commander of a failing unit. And, while contrasting a fighter wing to a missile unit may seem like an apples-and-oranges comparison, there are similarities between the situations at Kunsan and Malmstrom. Both wing commanders had been on the job for only six months, and both had troubled maintenance organizations that were affecting the unit as a whole.
But Fortney kept his job, despite the USAF's new, tougher critieria for nuclear inspections--and recent problems in the service's nuclear enterprise. Malmstrom is at least the fourth nuclear unit to fail an NSI this year, but Colonel Fortney will keep his job. That will raise new questions about accountability, supposedly a cornerstone of the Air Force's nuclear reform effort.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Gathering Storm
An Iranian Sajjil missile is launched from a test site west of Tehran (Associated Press photo via Fox News)
Barack Obama's first international "test" moved a bit closer to reality today, with Iran's test of a new, solid-fuel missile that can strike targets in Israel--and southeastern Europe--more accurately (and with less warning) than other missiles in Tehran's inventory.
Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar identified the missile as the Sajjil, which was launched from a test complex western of Tehran. The two-stage system has a reported range of 1,200 miles, allowing it to reach targets as far away as Greece and Israel. Iranian officials claim that the Sajjil is Iran's first medium-range missile to use solid fuel technology, similar to that found in more advanced systems produced by Russia, China and the West.
While the test launch was a major step for Iran's missile program, it also represented another failure. U.S. defense officials report that th Sajjil suffered an engine failure in the early stages of its flight and traveled only 180 miles, less than 20% of its advertised range. Similar failures have also occurred in past launches of extended range versions of the Shahab-3, Tehran's first medium-range ballistic missile.
Unlike the Sajjil, the Shahab-3 uses liquid fuel to power its engines. While liquid-fuel engines represent proven technology, they also pose operational problems. The missile must be fueled before launch, raising the potential for accidents--or detection by intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. It can take up to an hour to fuel an older Iranian SCUD or Shahab-3 and in some cases, the missile must be elevated to firing position before the propellant and oxidizer can be loaded.
By comparison, solid fuel is stable and can be stored in the missile for extended periods of time. That decreases the "signature" associated with operations--you don't need oxidizer and propellant trucks following your launcher vehicle around the countryside. With a smaller signature, it becomes more difficult to spot (and interdict) missile operations.
That problem is further compounded by the rapid response time of solid fuel missile systems. With liquid fuel missiles, there is often a lag between the receipt of launch orders and the actual event, increasing the vulnerability of the weapon--and its crew--to enemy interdiction efforts. The problem is particularly acute in Iran's ballistic missile force; many of its Shahab-3 launchers cannot raise a fully-fueled missile, meaning that the airframe must be elevated prior to fueling operations.
Those difficulties are largely eliminated by the use of solid-fuel missiles. With the propellant (and warhead) already on-board, a solid-fuel system can respond much more rapidly to operational tasking. Using standard "shoot-and-scoot" tactics, a Sajjil crew could fire their missile and move to an alternate site for re-loading and new tasking. That makes the job of "Scud hunting" (or, in this case, MRBM hunting) that much more difficult.
Additionally, Iran has taken steps to help conceal its missile and rocket forces, improving their prospects for survivability. In the spring of 2005, for example, western intelligence analysts were surprised to find pre-surveyed launch sites for SCUDs and battlefield rockets near the Persian Gulf coastline. The sites had been used in a late-winter exercise involving Iranian missile units, but the deployment locations weren't discovered until well after the training ended. That discovery underscores the difficulty associated with finding ballistic missiles and rockets in the field.
Tehran has also developed a concealed launch site which could support a surprise attack against Israel, U.S. targets in the Gulf region, or locations in southeastern Europe. When Iran's missile base at Bakhtaran was built several years ago, analysts noted a rather unusual feature in one of the underground bunkers. Iranian engineers left a rather wide opening in the top of the bunker, which was burrowed beneath a hill.
More detailed analysis revealed the opening was actually a launch shaft for Shahab-3 missiles, which are based at the facility. The underground cavern was large enough to allow a missile to be elevated to launch position and fired through the shaft. Using the subterranean complex, Iranian crews could prepare and fire the missile with little chance of detection. It was an ideal facility for staging a "bolt from the blue" strike against one of Iran's enemies.
Development of the Sajjil will make that scenario even more likely. A solid-fuel system is a much safer option for an underground launch, since the missile uses a more stable propellant. Couple that with improved reaction times, and you have an ideal weapon for the Bakhtaran complex. Clearly, Iran's new missile has significant technical hurdles to overcome, but those challenges are not insurmountable.
And, of course, Tehran is continuing its quest to develop a nuclear warhead, capable of delivery by medium and long-range missiles. That represents the ultimate weapon for for a first-strike system, like the one tested today in the Iranian desert.
***
ADDENDUM: So, how does the missile launch figure into the "challenge" for Mr. Obama? Consider this possibility: Iran would benefit from a crisis that sends oil prices spiraling. Tehran typically stages major military exercise in the late winter/early spring that includes ballistic missile units. The next Sajjil test could well occur during that time frame, part of an Iranian effort to provoke the U.S. and test the mettle of the new commander-in-chief. This won't be the last time that Mr. Obama (and his advisers) have to deal with Tehran's new missile.
Today's event also underscores the importance of the recent deployment of a U.S. X-band radar to Israel. Capable of detecting missile launches at long range, the radar will give Israeli officials an additional 60-70 seconds of warning time, critical in any "surprise attack" scenario.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Greatest Day in History
Ninety years ago tomorrow, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns fell silent along the western front. The Armistice had been signed and World War I was officially over, though fighting in the Italian Alps and the Middle East would persist for several weeks.
Popular images of that first Armistice Day depict shell-shocked combatants emerging from the trenches, stunned by the now-quiet guns and the end of the terrible carnage that had claimed millions of lives.
But those notions are deceiving. Fact is, there was a great deal of activity in the final days and hours leading up to the end of World War I. While the generals were aware that the fighting would end on 11 November, bitter--even desperate--fighting continued up to the end in many sectors. By one estimate, at least 11,000 men died on that final day of the war, more than the number that perished during the D-Day invasion a generation later.
The horror (and futility) of the conflict's final hours has been captured in a pair of recent books, Joseph Perisco's Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day, 1918 (published three years ago), and the more recent The Greatest Day in History: How, on the Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month, the First World War Finally Came to an End, by Nicholas Best, the British journalist and critic.
Mr. Best's book was published last month, but like Perisco, he brings an eye for detail and irony to his subject. Among the millions present for the final act of World War I, he finds the already-famous (including the youngest general in the U.S. Army, one Douglas MacArthur) and the soon-to-be-infamous. Miles from the front lines, an Austrian Corporal was recuperating from his injuries in a military hospital near Berlin; his name was Adolph Hitler.
Popular images of that first Armistice Day depict shell-shocked combatants emerging from the trenches, stunned by the now-quiet guns and the end of the terrible carnage that had claimed millions of lives.
But those notions are deceiving. Fact is, there was a great deal of activity in the final days and hours leading up to the end of World War I. While the generals were aware that the fighting would end on 11 November, bitter--even desperate--fighting continued up to the end in many sectors. By one estimate, at least 11,000 men died on that final day of the war, more than the number that perished during the D-Day invasion a generation later.
The horror (and futility) of the conflict's final hours has been captured in a pair of recent books, Joseph Perisco's Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day, 1918 (published three years ago), and the more recent The Greatest Day in History: How, on the Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month, the First World War Finally Came to an End, by Nicholas Best, the British journalist and critic.
Mr. Best's book was published last month, but like Perisco, he brings an eye for detail and irony to his subject. Among the millions present for the final act of World War I, he finds the already-famous (including the youngest general in the U.S. Army, one Douglas MacArthur) and the soon-to-be-infamous. Miles from the front lines, an Austrian Corporal was recuperating from his injuries in a military hospital near Berlin; his name was Adolph Hitler.
The war's end was anything but a surprise. German offensives in the spring and summer had been repulsed with terrible losses, and morale plummeted. In late September, the Army Chief of Staff, General Erich Ludendorff, warned that his forces faced not only defeat, but "annihilation." His bold gamble to achieve total victory on the western front had failed.
Meanwhile, Allied forces were on the advance, bolstered by the ever-expanding American Expeditionary Force. With the enemy in retreat, French, U.S. and British generals were anxious to press their advantage, even if an armistice was in the offing. That possibility first surfaced on the evening of 7 November, when a German delegation requested terms from Marshal Foch, the Allied Supreme Commander. "I have no proposals to make," Foch told the Germans, informing them that the war would continue while he obtained the consent of allied governments.
As Joseph Perisco writes, the senior American commander, General John J. Pershing, considered an armistice "equally repugnant." There can be "no conclusion until Germany is brought to her knees," he said. Conciliation, he claimed, would only lead to future war. Pershing wanted Germany's unconditional surrender.
So, the fighting dragged on, even when it became clear that the armistice would go into effect. The Germans didn't sign the agreement until the morning of the 11th, but radio traffic between various allied headquarters anticipated the war's end. However, few commanders issued orders aimed at limiting combat during the conflict's final hours.
So, the advance continued, with little regard for the cost. The British, still stung by their retreat from Mons, Belgium in the first year of the year, moved to recapture the city as the armistice approached. The commander of a French regiment issued two orders, for an attack to begin at 9 a.m., and to cease-fire at 11 a.m. Canadian troops also launched new assaults as the cease-fire loomed.
But it was the AEF, still a relative newcomer to the war, that launched some of the heaviest attacks in the final hours of the war. One of Pershing's Corps Commanders, Major General Charles Sumerall, ordered his Marines to cross the Meuse River under heavy fire. Hundreds were killed or wounded.
In another sector, an American division commander pressed his attack because the "unit lacked proper bathing facilities," putting (in Perisco's words) "cleanliness above survival." An artillery battery commander named Harry Truman put down one last barrage in the war's closing hours, giving his men a chance to test the "extended range" shells they had just received. In a letter to his wife, Truman expressed a desire to "scalp" a few Germans.
By various estimates, at least 300 American troops died between midnight and 11 a.m. on 11 November. But those numbers are suspect; they do not include casualties among U.S. units attached to British and French units. The actual total is believed to be much higher. Pershing's own, official report indicates that the last American died in battle at 10:59 a.m., only one minute before the armistice went into effect.
And to what end? As Perisco notes, allied troops could have easily marched into the same areas after the cease-fire, with no loss of life. But the opportunity for career advancement, or to inflict additional punishment on the enemy proved irresistible. That's one reason that the last hours of the war were an extension of the preceding years. The slaughter continued until that last moment, on day the British papers called "the greatest in history"
Today's Reading Assignment
"How to Survive Media Bias," a primer found in Kathryn Jean Lopez's most recent syndicated column, and reprinted at NRO. She recounts the recent, MSM "hatchet job" on Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who was pilloried for on MSNBC's "Hardball," for questioning Barack Obama's ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
This is an unrepentant terrorist who says he wishes he would have bombed more people. Remember, this is a man who bombed the Pentagon and was happy to be bombing Americans, as well. This is not a person that the president of the United States would want to be associated with.
For her troubles, Ms. Bachmann was called a "hatemonger"--and worse. As Ms. Lopez reports, left wing talk show host Mike Malloy (he's still on the air?) likened the Congresswoman to someone who would "have rounded up Jews for the Nazis," or given typhoid-infected blankets to native Americans.
After that dust-up, Bachmann was given up for dead, at least politically. The Republican National Committee reportedly pulled funding for her campaign, leaving Ms. Bachmann on her own. Democrats were salivating at the prospect of another seat falling into their column.
But Congresswoman Bachmann didn't give up. She fought back, speaking directly to her constituents, largely through talk radio. And, she eeked out a narrow victory on Election Night, while scores of other Republicans went down to defeat.
As Ms. Lopez notes, there's a lesson for the GOP in Michelle Bachmann's successful effort to keep her seat. It's the same advice we offered a few days ago. Republicans need to embrace their "media base," and it isn't MSNBC, the broadcast networks, or dinosaur print publications.
This is an unrepentant terrorist who says he wishes he would have bombed more people. Remember, this is a man who bombed the Pentagon and was happy to be bombing Americans, as well. This is not a person that the president of the United States would want to be associated with.
For her troubles, Ms. Bachmann was called a "hatemonger"--and worse. As Ms. Lopez reports, left wing talk show host Mike Malloy (he's still on the air?) likened the Congresswoman to someone who would "have rounded up Jews for the Nazis," or given typhoid-infected blankets to native Americans.
After that dust-up, Bachmann was given up for dead, at least politically. The Republican National Committee reportedly pulled funding for her campaign, leaving Ms. Bachmann on her own. Democrats were salivating at the prospect of another seat falling into their column.
But Congresswoman Bachmann didn't give up. She fought back, speaking directly to her constituents, largely through talk radio. And, she eeked out a narrow victory on Election Night, while scores of other Republicans went down to defeat.
As Ms. Lopez notes, there's a lesson for the GOP in Michelle Bachmann's successful effort to keep her seat. It's the same advice we offered a few days ago. Republicans need to embrace their "media base," and it isn't MSNBC, the broadcast networks, or dinosaur print publications.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
A Lease Deal With Deadly Consequences?
Various media outlets are reporting that the Russian Navy has suffered another, fatal submarine accident.
A Russian naval spokesman tells Reuters that 21 sailors died in the mishap, and 21 more were injured. The name of the vessel and the accident location were not disclosed, but Russian sources indicate that the destroyer Admiral Tributs was assisting the rescue operations. Normally based at Vladivostok, the largest base in the Russian Pacific Fleet, the Tributs participation suggests that that mishap occurred near the naval facility.
We also know that the unnamed sub had a crew that was much larger than normal. According to Russian sources, at least 208 personnel were on board the sub at the time of the mishap. A "standard" crew for a Russian Akula-class attack submarine is between 50-100 men; a Los Angeles-class attack boat of the U.S. Navy has a complement of 129.
Why the over-sized crew? Galrahn at InformationDissemination offers the most logical explanation. The sub that suffered the fatal mishap is (likely) the same attack boat that Russia has leased to the Indian Navy. Delhi has signed a 10-year, $650 million deal to lease the vessel from Russia, with delivery expected next year.
Citing Russian press accounts, Galrahn reported late last month that the Akula-type sub was undergoing sea trails off the Soviet Pacific coast--the same area where the accident occurred. The expanded crew included Russian and Indian sailors, as well as shipyard personnel. At this point, it's unclear if Indian personnel and Russian contractors were among the dead and injured.
Initial reports suggest the mishap began with the "unsanctioned functioning of the fire extinguishing systems.” The Russian spokesman didn't explain what that means, but it suggests that crew members were caught in spaces where oxygen was in short supply; without access to emergency breathing equipment--and training in how to use it--survival would be difficult.
The accident was the latest in a long string of submarine tragedies in the Soviet and Russian navies. Eight years ago, an Oscar II attack submarine, designated the Kursk, sank in the Barents Sea after an accident. The entire crew--more than 100 men--perished. In 1989, 42 of the 69 crew members of a "Mike" class boat were lost after their submarine sank off Norway. That accident was blamed on a fire that caused mechanical malfunctions on board the sub.
During the "Mike" disaster, most of the crew made it out of the stricken boat, but there weren't enough life rafts, and many of the crew members perished in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. With more than 200 men crowded on that Akula, it's not difficult to envision a scenario where men couldn't access emergency breathing equipment, or were not trained on its proper use.
By some estimates, more than 500 Russian sailors have died in submarine accidents over the last 50 years. The sub involved in the latest accident is believed to be a fairly new hull that was overhauled in anticipation of the transfer to India.
A Russian naval spokesman tells Reuters that 21 sailors died in the mishap, and 21 more were injured. The name of the vessel and the accident location were not disclosed, but Russian sources indicate that the destroyer Admiral Tributs was assisting the rescue operations. Normally based at Vladivostok, the largest base in the Russian Pacific Fleet, the Tributs participation suggests that that mishap occurred near the naval facility.
We also know that the unnamed sub had a crew that was much larger than normal. According to Russian sources, at least 208 personnel were on board the sub at the time of the mishap. A "standard" crew for a Russian Akula-class attack submarine is between 50-100 men; a Los Angeles-class attack boat of the U.S. Navy has a complement of 129.
Why the over-sized crew? Galrahn at InformationDissemination offers the most logical explanation. The sub that suffered the fatal mishap is (likely) the same attack boat that Russia has leased to the Indian Navy. Delhi has signed a 10-year, $650 million deal to lease the vessel from Russia, with delivery expected next year.
Citing Russian press accounts, Galrahn reported late last month that the Akula-type sub was undergoing sea trails off the Soviet Pacific coast--the same area where the accident occurred. The expanded crew included Russian and Indian sailors, as well as shipyard personnel. At this point, it's unclear if Indian personnel and Russian contractors were among the dead and injured.
Initial reports suggest the mishap began with the "unsanctioned functioning of the fire extinguishing systems.” The Russian spokesman didn't explain what that means, but it suggests that crew members were caught in spaces where oxygen was in short supply; without access to emergency breathing equipment--and training in how to use it--survival would be difficult.
The accident was the latest in a long string of submarine tragedies in the Soviet and Russian navies. Eight years ago, an Oscar II attack submarine, designated the Kursk, sank in the Barents Sea after an accident. The entire crew--more than 100 men--perished. In 1989, 42 of the 69 crew members of a "Mike" class boat were lost after their submarine sank off Norway. That accident was blamed on a fire that caused mechanical malfunctions on board the sub.
During the "Mike" disaster, most of the crew made it out of the stricken boat, but there weren't enough life rafts, and many of the crew members perished in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. With more than 200 men crowded on that Akula, it's not difficult to envision a scenario where men couldn't access emergency breathing equipment, or were not trained on its proper use.
By some estimates, more than 500 Russian sailors have died in submarine accidents over the last 50 years. The sub involved in the latest accident is believed to be a fairly new hull that was overhauled in anticipation of the transfer to India.
Another Procurement Holiday?
A lot of people have been waxing nostalgic for the 1990s. You know, that supposed era of peace, prosperity and fat 401k accounts.
But the decade of the 90s had a dark side--and we're not referring to Clinton's cigar and that infamous stained dress. In an effort to keep his poll numbers high (and secure re-election), President Clinton put off a number of key decisions, setting the stage for debacles that followed.
As we've recently discovered, he opened the door for the sub-prime lending mess, by putting the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids, and threatened banks that refused to lend to risky customers. Mr. Clinton also put his cronies in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-public institutions that bought up the loans and packaged them as securities. Folks like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick got rich while running those organizations into the ground, and triggering the recent economic collapse.
In terms of national security, Bill Clinton is remembered, most infamously, for ignoring the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Despite a series of attacks at home and abroad, he refused to response decisively, encouraging terrorists to up the ante and execute the 9/11 attacks.
But there's another element of the Clinton legacy (and the 1990s) that often goes ignored. We refer to the so-called "procurement holiday" that gripped the Pentagon during that decade. Critical decisions on major weapons programs were postponed or shelved, forcing the Pentagon to extend the service lives of existing systems. Investor's Business Daily aptly described the problem--and its consequences--in an editorial published earlier this year:
In the first six years of the Clinton administration, Bush 41's budget projections for weapons procurement were slashed by $160 billion. For fiscal 2000, the Congressional Budget Office said $90 billion a year was needed to hold procurement steady. The Clinton procurement budget was a mere $55 billion. During the Reagan buildup (fiscal 1981-87), we spent an average of $131 billion on procurement.
[snip]
Because we didn't spend enough on defense and procurement during the Clinton years, it's going to be expensive to catch up. Because we're still spending too little on defense, the Air Force's original plans for 750 F-22 Raptors to replace the aging F-15 has been reduced to just 183.
MacKenzie Eaglen, senior policy analyst for national security at the Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service:
"The U.S. Air Force has been engaged in continuous combat for the last 17 years with fewer airplanes today than in 1990 — only increasing their age more quickly. Moreover, current Air Force plans call for retiring two F-15s for every new F-22 brought into service."
To be fair, the administration of George W. Bush has, in some respects, ignored the problem as well. It was his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who elected to cap F-22 production at 183. He has also incurred the wrath of lawmakers, for refusing to spend $140 million allocated for buying parts and supplies needed for the next batch of Raptors.
But that little squabble seems trivial to what lies ahead. There are signs that DoD is bracing for major budget cuts, which may lead to a new "procurement holiday" under an Obama Administration.
Given the recent meltdown in the financial sector--and projected decreases in government revenue--some budgetary modifications were inevitable. But according to The New York Times, Pentagon leaders are quietly preparing for a "worst case" scenario:
Across the military services, deep apprehension has led to closed-door meetings and detailed calculations in anticipation of potential cuts. Civilian and military budget planners concede that they are already analyzing worst-case contingency spending plans that would freeze or slash their overall budgets.
The obvious targets for savings would be expensive new arms programs, which have racked up cost overruns of at least $300 billion for the top 75 weapons systems, according to the Government Accountability Office. Congressional budget experts say likely targets for reductions are the Army’s plans for fielding advanced combat systems, the Air Force’s Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy’s new destroyer and the ground-based missile defense system.
For his part, the new commander-in-chief has promised to keep defense spending at current levels, at least initially. But, Mr. Obama has also promised to cut spending on military programs that he considers "unproven," including missile defense. He has also pledged to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, a move that he claims would save $10 billion a month.
But analysts warn that some of those savings are illusory, at least in the early stages. Moving equipment back to the states is an expensive proposition, and the planned expansion of ground forces will consume much of the money now devoted to the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have made no secret of their desire to cut defense spending. Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank recently proposed a 25% reduction in the military budget; while that goal is far-fetched, there is strong Democratic support for substantive reductions in defense, in favor of social spending.
The way ahead seems painfully obvious. Between Mr. Obama's pledge to cut selected programs--and wider Democratic plans to reduce military spending--the Pentagon will wind up with less money in the years ahead. And unfortunately, major acquisition programs represent the most convenient (and likely) targets, allowing Obama and his allies to trim billions from military spending.
That result in more aging weapons remaining in service for even longer periods of time. For example, if Obama decides to reduce the F-35 program, that means that many F-16s (built in the 1980s) will solider on almost indefinitely. So far, we haven't seen any Falcons fall apart in flight, but the stress of training and current deployments will make the aircraft more difficult to maintain over an extended service life.
Given the financial issues facing this country--and the national security preferences of the party now in charge--it's not hard to envision another procurement holiday under an Obama Administration. That means that Mr. Obama's successor will face even greater defense challenges in 2012 or 2016.
***
ADDENDUM: Democratic analysts have long argued that "exotic" programs like missile defense can be easily cut, along with such big-ticket items as the F-22 and F-35. But potential cuts will be felt throughout DoD, affecting such programs as the C-17 transport, and upgrades of older airframes, like the C-5. That, in turn, would mean substantial reductions in critical military capabilities, at a time we can ill afford them.
But the decade of the 90s had a dark side--and we're not referring to Clinton's cigar and that infamous stained dress. In an effort to keep his poll numbers high (and secure re-election), President Clinton put off a number of key decisions, setting the stage for debacles that followed.
As we've recently discovered, he opened the door for the sub-prime lending mess, by putting the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids, and threatened banks that refused to lend to risky customers. Mr. Clinton also put his cronies in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-public institutions that bought up the loans and packaged them as securities. Folks like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick got rich while running those organizations into the ground, and triggering the recent economic collapse.
In terms of national security, Bill Clinton is remembered, most infamously, for ignoring the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Despite a series of attacks at home and abroad, he refused to response decisively, encouraging terrorists to up the ante and execute the 9/11 attacks.
But there's another element of the Clinton legacy (and the 1990s) that often goes ignored. We refer to the so-called "procurement holiday" that gripped the Pentagon during that decade. Critical decisions on major weapons programs were postponed or shelved, forcing the Pentagon to extend the service lives of existing systems. Investor's Business Daily aptly described the problem--and its consequences--in an editorial published earlier this year:
In the first six years of the Clinton administration, Bush 41's budget projections for weapons procurement were slashed by $160 billion. For fiscal 2000, the Congressional Budget Office said $90 billion a year was needed to hold procurement steady. The Clinton procurement budget was a mere $55 billion. During the Reagan buildup (fiscal 1981-87), we spent an average of $131 billion on procurement.
[snip]
Because we didn't spend enough on defense and procurement during the Clinton years, it's going to be expensive to catch up. Because we're still spending too little on defense, the Air Force's original plans for 750 F-22 Raptors to replace the aging F-15 has been reduced to just 183.
MacKenzie Eaglen, senior policy analyst for national security at the Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service:
"The U.S. Air Force has been engaged in continuous combat for the last 17 years with fewer airplanes today than in 1990 — only increasing their age more quickly. Moreover, current Air Force plans call for retiring two F-15s for every new F-22 brought into service."
To be fair, the administration of George W. Bush has, in some respects, ignored the problem as well. It was his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who elected to cap F-22 production at 183. He has also incurred the wrath of lawmakers, for refusing to spend $140 million allocated for buying parts and supplies needed for the next batch of Raptors.
But that little squabble seems trivial to what lies ahead. There are signs that DoD is bracing for major budget cuts, which may lead to a new "procurement holiday" under an Obama Administration.
Given the recent meltdown in the financial sector--and projected decreases in government revenue--some budgetary modifications were inevitable. But according to The New York Times, Pentagon leaders are quietly preparing for a "worst case" scenario:
Across the military services, deep apprehension has led to closed-door meetings and detailed calculations in anticipation of potential cuts. Civilian and military budget planners concede that they are already analyzing worst-case contingency spending plans that would freeze or slash their overall budgets.
The obvious targets for savings would be expensive new arms programs, which have racked up cost overruns of at least $300 billion for the top 75 weapons systems, according to the Government Accountability Office. Congressional budget experts say likely targets for reductions are the Army’s plans for fielding advanced combat systems, the Air Force’s Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy’s new destroyer and the ground-based missile defense system.
For his part, the new commander-in-chief has promised to keep defense spending at current levels, at least initially. But, Mr. Obama has also promised to cut spending on military programs that he considers "unproven," including missile defense. He has also pledged to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, a move that he claims would save $10 billion a month.
But analysts warn that some of those savings are illusory, at least in the early stages. Moving equipment back to the states is an expensive proposition, and the planned expansion of ground forces will consume much of the money now devoted to the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have made no secret of their desire to cut defense spending. Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank recently proposed a 25% reduction in the military budget; while that goal is far-fetched, there is strong Democratic support for substantive reductions in defense, in favor of social spending.
The way ahead seems painfully obvious. Between Mr. Obama's pledge to cut selected programs--and wider Democratic plans to reduce military spending--the Pentagon will wind up with less money in the years ahead. And unfortunately, major acquisition programs represent the most convenient (and likely) targets, allowing Obama and his allies to trim billions from military spending.
That result in more aging weapons remaining in service for even longer periods of time. For example, if Obama decides to reduce the F-35 program, that means that many F-16s (built in the 1980s) will solider on almost indefinitely. So far, we haven't seen any Falcons fall apart in flight, but the stress of training and current deployments will make the aircraft more difficult to maintain over an extended service life.
Given the financial issues facing this country--and the national security preferences of the party now in charge--it's not hard to envision another procurement holiday under an Obama Administration. That means that Mr. Obama's successor will face even greater defense challenges in 2012 or 2016.
***
ADDENDUM: Democratic analysts have long argued that "exotic" programs like missile defense can be easily cut, along with such big-ticket items as the F-22 and F-35. But potential cuts will be felt throughout DoD, affecting such programs as the C-17 transport, and upgrades of older airframes, like the C-5. That, in turn, would mean substantial reductions in critical military capabilities, at a time we can ill afford them.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Stay Classy, Mr. President-Elect
Did you hear Barack Obama's howler at today's press conference?
Between all the "uh's" and "um's" (too bad you can't use a Teleprompter during a Q&A session), the next president managed to get off this joke, at Nancy Reagan's expense.
Politico's Ben Smith is one of the few reporters to include the tasteless comment in his coverage. We're guessing he won't have a seat on Air Force One for very long. Most MSM outlets, including those reliable stenographers at the AP, deleted Obama's attempted humor from their stories.
Here's the Associated Press version:
As he prepares to join an exclusive club of presidents, Obama said: "I've spoken to all of them that are living" and has reread some of President Lincoln's writings.
Quite a difference from Obama's actual remarks, as captured on video and in Ben Smith's remarks:
[Obama] in his first post-election press conference that he's spoken to all the former presidents — Carter, Bush, Clinton, as well as the current Bush — and, looser than he's been in months, dares a joke at the expense of the widow of the most recently deceased.
"I have spoken to all of them who are living," he says. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances," he says.
He was responding to a question, from the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, about whether he'd spoken to all of the "living" former presidents.
As others have noted, both Mr. Smith and Barack Obama got it wrong. Former President Gerald Ford passed away after Ronald Reagan, and Nancy never held seances--that was the domain of Mary Todd Lincoln. Mrs. Reagan reportedly consulted with astrologers after her husband nearly died in a 1981 assassination attempt.
And, did we mention that Nancy Reagan is recovering from a fractured pelvis? I'm sure Obama's remarks will speed her healing. But then again, why should the president-elect show any compassion for the 86-year-old widow of the late president, a woman that (to our knowledge) has never said anything unkind about Mr. Obama.
Simply.
Beneath.
Contempt.
Yeah, he's a uniter all right.
***
UPDATE: Politico now reports that Obama has called Mrs. Reagan, and offered an apology.
Between all the "uh's" and "um's" (too bad you can't use a Teleprompter during a Q&A session), the next president managed to get off this joke, at Nancy Reagan's expense.
Politico's Ben Smith is one of the few reporters to include the tasteless comment in his coverage. We're guessing he won't have a seat on Air Force One for very long. Most MSM outlets, including those reliable stenographers at the AP, deleted Obama's attempted humor from their stories.
Here's the Associated Press version:
As he prepares to join an exclusive club of presidents, Obama said: "I've spoken to all of them that are living" and has reread some of President Lincoln's writings.
Quite a difference from Obama's actual remarks, as captured on video and in Ben Smith's remarks:
[Obama] in his first post-election press conference that he's spoken to all the former presidents — Carter, Bush, Clinton, as well as the current Bush — and, looser than he's been in months, dares a joke at the expense of the widow of the most recently deceased.
"I have spoken to all of them who are living," he says. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances," he says.
He was responding to a question, from the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, about whether he'd spoken to all of the "living" former presidents.
As others have noted, both Mr. Smith and Barack Obama got it wrong. Former President Gerald Ford passed away after Ronald Reagan, and Nancy never held seances--that was the domain of Mary Todd Lincoln. Mrs. Reagan reportedly consulted with astrologers after her husband nearly died in a 1981 assassination attempt.
And, did we mention that Nancy Reagan is recovering from a fractured pelvis? I'm sure Obama's remarks will speed her healing. But then again, why should the president-elect show any compassion for the 86-year-old widow of the late president, a woman that (to our knowledge) has never said anything unkind about Mr. Obama.
Simply.
Beneath.
Contempt.
Yeah, he's a uniter all right.
***
UPDATE: Politico now reports that Obama has called Mrs. Reagan, and offered an apology.
Closing the Tinsley Case?
We may never know why Brigadier Thomas Tinsley took his own life.
Tinsley, the commander of the Air Force's 3rd Wing at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, shot himself in the basement of his home on the night of 27 July. Despite a quick response from the commander of the base hospital and other personnel, Tinlsey could not be saved and was pronounced dead a short time later.
While the USAF originally refused to rule General Tinsley's death a suicide, the service has now reached that conclusion. After a three-month inquiry, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations has ruled that Tinsley killed himself. As Air Force Times reports:
A three-month Air Force Office of Special Investigations inquiry, which concluded in early November, determined that Tinsley intentionally shot himself once in the chest with a large-caliber handgun, but investigators were unable to turn up a motive.
Investigators found no suicide note, history of mental illness or evidence of financial or criminal trouble that might lead someone to take his own life.
“Often with a suicide, you have a pretty good idea” of motive, said an Air Force official familiar with the case. “This investigation did not yield that. ... There wasn’t anything definite that provided the ‘why.’ ”
[snip]
Investigators determined the cause of death was one gunshot wound to the chest with Tinsley’s personal weapon — a Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50-caliber revolver, which the manufacturer touts as the world’s most powerful revolver. The five-chamber weapon, found with Tinsley’s body, contained one spent shell casing and four empty chambers.
At the time of his death, Tinsley was considered one of the rising stars in the Air Force. His assignment as 3rd Wing commander followed multiple below-the-zone promotions, and a 22-month stint as executive officer to General Michael Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff.
There had been speculation that the general's death might be linked to the various scandals that en snarled Moseley, and ultimately resulted in his dismissal as Chief of Staff. Tinsley served as Moseley's executive officer from August 2005 until July 2007, a period that included the "Thundervision" controversy.
During that episode, Air Force Major General Stephen Goldfein, then commander of the Air Warfare Center at Nellis AFB, Nevada, steered a $50-million audiovisual contract to a firm with personal ties to Moseley. The chief of staff spent time at the CEO's home in Pennsylvania while the contract was under review. Air Force officials later rescinded the contract, and Goldfein received administrative punishment for his actions.
While Congressional leaders have questioned Moseley's role in the matter, he has never been charged with wrong-doing. Additionally, there is no indication that investigators spoke with General Tinsley regarding the contract. Moseley's actions in the Thundervision episode are now the target of a second DoD investigation, launched at the request of Senators Carl Levin and John McCain.
Without a suicide note--or more definitive proof--we may never know why General Tinsley took his own life. But there is one previously-unreported sidelight that underscores the Air Force's reaction to the incident, particularly at the flag rank.
At the time of Tinsley's death, a number of senior officers were gathered at Langley AFB, Virginia for the annual Combat Air Forces-Mobility Air Forces (CAF-MAF) Conference. Despite the importance of that meeting, the Commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), General Howie Chandler, immediately departed for Elmendorf.
Perhaps it was just an act of kindness for a bereaved family. After all, the 3rd Wing falls under Chandler's command. But it is a sad fact that Air Force members commit suicide on a regular basis, and there is no personal intervention by four-star generals. Obviously, the fact that Tinsley was also a flag officer changes the circumstances (to some degree), along with the fact that Tinsley led a PACAF wing.
Still, it's reasonable to ask why Chandler didn't dispatch his Vice-Commander, or simply stop at Elmendorf after the two-day conference ended? Those questions have not been answered, and likely never will. General Chandler's rush to Alaska is just one more intriguing element of a case that is still shrouded in mystery.
Tinsley, the commander of the Air Force's 3rd Wing at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, shot himself in the basement of his home on the night of 27 July. Despite a quick response from the commander of the base hospital and other personnel, Tinlsey could not be saved and was pronounced dead a short time later.
While the USAF originally refused to rule General Tinsley's death a suicide, the service has now reached that conclusion. After a three-month inquiry, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations has ruled that Tinsley killed himself. As Air Force Times reports:
A three-month Air Force Office of Special Investigations inquiry, which concluded in early November, determined that Tinsley intentionally shot himself once in the chest with a large-caliber handgun, but investigators were unable to turn up a motive.
Investigators found no suicide note, history of mental illness or evidence of financial or criminal trouble that might lead someone to take his own life.
“Often with a suicide, you have a pretty good idea” of motive, said an Air Force official familiar with the case. “This investigation did not yield that. ... There wasn’t anything definite that provided the ‘why.’ ”
[snip]
Investigators determined the cause of death was one gunshot wound to the chest with Tinsley’s personal weapon — a Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50-caliber revolver, which the manufacturer touts as the world’s most powerful revolver. The five-chamber weapon, found with Tinsley’s body, contained one spent shell casing and four empty chambers.
At the time of his death, Tinsley was considered one of the rising stars in the Air Force. His assignment as 3rd Wing commander followed multiple below-the-zone promotions, and a 22-month stint as executive officer to General Michael Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff.
There had been speculation that the general's death might be linked to the various scandals that en snarled Moseley, and ultimately resulted in his dismissal as Chief of Staff. Tinsley served as Moseley's executive officer from August 2005 until July 2007, a period that included the "Thundervision" controversy.
During that episode, Air Force Major General Stephen Goldfein, then commander of the Air Warfare Center at Nellis AFB, Nevada, steered a $50-million audiovisual contract to a firm with personal ties to Moseley. The chief of staff spent time at the CEO's home in Pennsylvania while the contract was under review. Air Force officials later rescinded the contract, and Goldfein received administrative punishment for his actions.
While Congressional leaders have questioned Moseley's role in the matter, he has never been charged with wrong-doing. Additionally, there is no indication that investigators spoke with General Tinsley regarding the contract. Moseley's actions in the Thundervision episode are now the target of a second DoD investigation, launched at the request of Senators Carl Levin and John McCain.
Without a suicide note--or more definitive proof--we may never know why General Tinsley took his own life. But there is one previously-unreported sidelight that underscores the Air Force's reaction to the incident, particularly at the flag rank.
At the time of Tinsley's death, a number of senior officers were gathered at Langley AFB, Virginia for the annual Combat Air Forces-Mobility Air Forces (CAF-MAF) Conference. Despite the importance of that meeting, the Commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), General Howie Chandler, immediately departed for Elmendorf.
Perhaps it was just an act of kindness for a bereaved family. After all, the 3rd Wing falls under Chandler's command. But it is a sad fact that Air Force members commit suicide on a regular basis, and there is no personal intervention by four-star generals. Obviously, the fact that Tinsley was also a flag officer changes the circumstances (to some degree), along with the fact that Tinsley led a PACAF wing.
Still, it's reasonable to ask why Chandler didn't dispatch his Vice-Commander, or simply stop at Elmendorf after the two-day conference ended? Those questions have not been answered, and likely never will. General Chandler's rush to Alaska is just one more intriguing element of a case that is still shrouded in mystery.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Way Ahead?
In the wake of Tuesday's GOP meltdown, there is no shortage of advice on how the party can rebuild itself, and reverse the losses of 2006 and 2008. We offered our own advice yesterday; so far, the RNC hasn't requested a detailed briefing. Go figure.
Over at Slate, a panel of Republican luminaries--Tucker Carlson; Ross Douthat, Doug Kmiec, Jim Manzi, Kathleen Parker and Christine Todd Whitman--offered a dialogue on the party's future. Some of their advice is rather obvious; Mr. Douthat says we have "no one to blame but ourselves." Tucker Carlson echoes something we suggested--nominating someone who is articulate, for a change.
In terms of policy, Mr. Manzi offers a pair of detailed suggestions; fix K-12 education, and once the southern border is secured, offer some sort of comprehensive immigration policy, allowing the world's best and brightest to settle in our country.
Both proposals sound eminently sensible, but ultimately, both are fatally flawed. Republicans have been trying to claim the education issue for more than two decades, with only marginal success. Under his proposal, Manzi suggests a federal role in education equivalent to that of the Securities and Exchange Commission in financial markets. Parents and students would enjoy greater choice in schools, and funding would follow their selections.
In terms of oversight, the government would develop (and administer) standardized tests measuring student achievement. Schools would be required to publish performance data, which would be marketed by private sector information firms, akin to rating services for mutual funds. Manzi believes this would lead to better educational choices, and acculturate more Americans to a market economy.
Mr. Manzi also believes that immigation should be less of a law enforcement issue, and more of a recruiting process. With our borders secure, he opines, the U.S. could open immigration centers around the world, targeting individuals with the skills and education needed for our economy. If nothing else, it solve the talent problem facing our high-tech industry.
Unfortunately, both ideas are DOA, at least for now. Democrats are prepared to gut "No Child Left Behind" because it demands accountability for local schools. To keep the NEA happy, the Obama administration will increase federal funding, while decreasing requirements for performance and oversight. This may be the time to propose a new approach for our schools, but the idea won't get much traction with the Democrats in charge--and their media allies touting Obama's "new approach."
The immigration proposal will also be rejected because it's far too restrictive. Despite overwhelming public opposition, the Democrats remain in favor of open borders, and they'll pursue that policy over the next four years. Illegals represent an irresistable mass of Democratic voters, so the party (and their president) have little incentive to seal the borders, short of another terrorist attack.
Mr. Manzi is correct in demanding that Republicans stand for something, and articulate those views to the American people. And, he's correct is asserting that a return to Reaganism simply won't work. But his ideas are a little too advanced for a party in need of basic reform. Before considering something as esoteric as education or immigration reform, the GOP must return to Reaganism, and the timeless beliefs that form the foundation of the party's ideology.
The party needs to believe in something, and the maxims of Mr. Reagan are a good place to start. What Manzi proposes are tactical policy shifts, allowing the GOP to stake out territory not far from the Democrats. Ronaldus Magnus would be appalled. Policy differences, he once observed, should be painted in bold colors, not weak pastels. As Republicans stumble forward, the simplicty--and boldness--of Mr. Reagan is clearly lacking.
Over at Slate, a panel of Republican luminaries--Tucker Carlson; Ross Douthat, Doug Kmiec, Jim Manzi, Kathleen Parker and Christine Todd Whitman--offered a dialogue on the party's future. Some of their advice is rather obvious; Mr. Douthat says we have "no one to blame but ourselves." Tucker Carlson echoes something we suggested--nominating someone who is articulate, for a change.
In terms of policy, Mr. Manzi offers a pair of detailed suggestions; fix K-12 education, and once the southern border is secured, offer some sort of comprehensive immigration policy, allowing the world's best and brightest to settle in our country.
Both proposals sound eminently sensible, but ultimately, both are fatally flawed. Republicans have been trying to claim the education issue for more than two decades, with only marginal success. Under his proposal, Manzi suggests a federal role in education equivalent to that of the Securities and Exchange Commission in financial markets. Parents and students would enjoy greater choice in schools, and funding would follow their selections.
In terms of oversight, the government would develop (and administer) standardized tests measuring student achievement. Schools would be required to publish performance data, which would be marketed by private sector information firms, akin to rating services for mutual funds. Manzi believes this would lead to better educational choices, and acculturate more Americans to a market economy.
Mr. Manzi also believes that immigation should be less of a law enforcement issue, and more of a recruiting process. With our borders secure, he opines, the U.S. could open immigration centers around the world, targeting individuals with the skills and education needed for our economy. If nothing else, it solve the talent problem facing our high-tech industry.
Unfortunately, both ideas are DOA, at least for now. Democrats are prepared to gut "No Child Left Behind" because it demands accountability for local schools. To keep the NEA happy, the Obama administration will increase federal funding, while decreasing requirements for performance and oversight. This may be the time to propose a new approach for our schools, but the idea won't get much traction with the Democrats in charge--and their media allies touting Obama's "new approach."
The immigration proposal will also be rejected because it's far too restrictive. Despite overwhelming public opposition, the Democrats remain in favor of open borders, and they'll pursue that policy over the next four years. Illegals represent an irresistable mass of Democratic voters, so the party (and their president) have little incentive to seal the borders, short of another terrorist attack.
Mr. Manzi is correct in demanding that Republicans stand for something, and articulate those views to the American people. And, he's correct is asserting that a return to Reaganism simply won't work. But his ideas are a little too advanced for a party in need of basic reform. Before considering something as esoteric as education or immigration reform, the GOP must return to Reaganism, and the timeless beliefs that form the foundation of the party's ideology.
The party needs to believe in something, and the maxims of Mr. Reagan are a good place to start. What Manzi proposes are tactical policy shifts, allowing the GOP to stake out territory not far from the Democrats. Ronaldus Magnus would be appalled. Policy differences, he once observed, should be painted in bold colors, not weak pastels. As Republicans stumble forward, the simplicty--and boldness--of Mr. Reagan is clearly lacking.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
No One Asked Us, But...
So far, the RNC hasn't asked for our assessment of yesterday's electoral defeat. Not that we expect it; from what we hear, the jockeying and back-biting has already begun; more urgent tasks--including a critical analysis of what went wrong and what should be done to re-build the party--will have to wait.
Toward that latter goal, we humbly offer our take on John McCain's defeat, and where the party should go from here. The good news is that conservatism is far from finished; in fact, where it actually appeared on the ballot, it flourished. Voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved referendums that banned gay marriage.
That's right, a majority in California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, rebuked liberal judges who had flaunted state law, and allowed gay couples to tie the knot. Did we mention that the leaders of Proposition 8 were mostly church pastors and other grass roots organizers? Or that supporters of gay marriage (including Hollywood) spent millions against the initiative? In the bluest of states, conservatives took on the liberal establishment and won.
There were other glimmers of hope for conservatives on Tuesday, but you have to look hard to find them. At this writing, it appears that Harry Reid will be denied his "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate, and Democratic gains in the House won't be as large as first feared. In some states, the GOP remains on the ascendancy; Republicans in Tennessee captured majorities in the state house and senate for the first time in more than 40 years.
Still, there's little doubt that the Republican brand has been badly damaged and is in need of repairs. And that was painfully obvious at the top of the ticket, when John McCain (and the GOP) ran a gallant, yet flawed campaign. Amid the ashes of that effort, the party must begin to rebuild and prevent another debacle in 2012. As a part of that process, we suggest the party adopt the following suggestions:
1. Never Nominate Another Inarticulate Candidate. This marked the fifth consecutive presidential campaign where the GOP nominee was less articulate than his rival. Of course, no one can really remember what Bill Clinton promised in '92 or '96; what about classic quotes from Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry four years later? Heck, even Barack Obama's speeches were little more than fluff.
But, in comparison to John McCain's mechanical stump speech, even Obama's boilerplate sounded like soaring poetry. Why does it matter? Because in an age of soundbites and an ill-educated electorate, coherence on the campaign trail is equated with competence as a leader. Conservatives need someone who can forcefully articulate their message with style and flair. It is ironic that several GOP candidates met those criteria (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney come to mind), but they couldn't secure the nomination. Thankfully, McCain appears to be the last Republican presidential candidate with the problem.
2. Money, Money, Money. By promising to accept public financing, Senator McCain helped seal his own fate. With a limited budget, the GOP nominee couldn't match Obama's advertising blitz and didn't launch ads in some states (including Virginia) until it was too late. The irony, of course, is obvious. As a champion of campaign finance reform, Mr. McCain helped create the system that helped sow his political defeat. The money lesson from 2008 is simple; public financing is for losers. If the party wants to win in 2012, the GOP needs to rebuild its money machine and match the Democrats dollar for dollar.
3. Bloodsport, Anyone? Sad to say, but many Republicans were still abiding by Queensbury rules while the Democrats fought a back-alley brawl. Democrat opposition research became fodder for their allies in the MSM, while Mr. McCain took the high road. Democrats howled about the "attacks" on Barack Obama's past associations, but fact is, the messages were rather mild. McCain himself took Reverend Wright off the table, and his attacks on other, radical associates of Obama (hellooo, Bill Ayers) were half-hearted, even tepid. Governor Sarah Palin was far more effective in that role, until she was savaged by the media, and McCain put her under wraps for a week or so in late September.
Bottom line: politics is a blood spot, where winning is a prerequisite for governing. Until Republicans understand that--and fight--they won't become a majority party again.
4. Know Your Media Base. There was consternation in the McCain camp when his buddies from The New York Times launched a full-scale assault of the Senator and members of his family. Running against the anointed favorite of the press corps, McCain somehow thought he would remain a media darling. And, at the same time, he was slow to cultivate relations with members of the conservative "new" media, including talk radio. Conservative hosts eventually supported McCain--they had no other choice--but their enthusiasm for the nominee matched his indifference to them. One result? The GOP base remained fractured until Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. Future Republican presidential nominees need to know--and support-- their real friends in the media, and they don't work for the Washington Post.
Memo for any Republican considering a run in 2012. Get out in front of opposing a "new" Fairness Doctrine, and you'll get a leg up on the nomination.
5. Don't Abandon Timeless Messages. Four years into an Obama administration, the concepts of lower taxes, less government and strong national security will probably resonate with the electorate. But the Republicans need to find someone who can give voice to those principles and, better yet, offer a record based on those same values. The notion of a "Big Tent" needs to be given the boot. Ronald Reagan brought Democrats and independents into the party by selling his ideals--not modifying them to suit various segments of the electorate.
6. Rebuild State and Local Parties. GOP loyalists were stunned when they lost Ohio and Virginia on Tuesday. But John McCain's loss was preceded by a reversal of Republican fortunes in both states. Democrats captured most statewide offices in the Buckeye State in 2006, and defeated Republican Senator Mike DeWine to boot. In Virginia, Democrats have won two consecutive gubernatorial races, and the last two campaigns for U.S. Senate. Until the GOP fixes its problems in both states, Democrats will likey expand their gains.
The good news is that conditions in Ohio and Virginia can be remedied, if the GOP rallies around proven leaders like former Congressman John Kasich in Ohio, and Attorney General Bob McDonnell in the Old Dominion. The bad news is that neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are in even worse shape.
7. Assemble a More Effective Leadership Team in Washington. Like it or not, the minority leaders in the House and Senate will be the faces of the GOP, at least until 2010. We've been told that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Ohio Congressmen John Boehner want to keep those jobs, but with all due respect, it may be time for a change. We support Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's bid for minority whip, and more responsibility for another Republican rising star, Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling, and our own favorite, Indiana's Mike Pence.
8. Learn to Fight Back. John McCain suffered (in part) because Democrats were able to link him, successfully to George W. Bush. The President, in turn, became a pariah because he was defined in terms selected by his political opponents and their allies in the MSM. How did Mr. Bush respond? Mostly, he didn't. Apparently, he believed that getting down into the political mud sullied his office and the nation's view of it. That's a touching idea, but it is horribly misguided in a era of non-stop news cycles. For only a brief, shining moment--during the late Tony Snow's stint as press secretary--did the White House forcefully engage its critics, and present its message with clarity and vision.
Good luck to the GOP--they'll need it.
Toward that latter goal, we humbly offer our take on John McCain's defeat, and where the party should go from here. The good news is that conservatism is far from finished; in fact, where it actually appeared on the ballot, it flourished. Voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved referendums that banned gay marriage.
That's right, a majority in California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, rebuked liberal judges who had flaunted state law, and allowed gay couples to tie the knot. Did we mention that the leaders of Proposition 8 were mostly church pastors and other grass roots organizers? Or that supporters of gay marriage (including Hollywood) spent millions against the initiative? In the bluest of states, conservatives took on the liberal establishment and won.
There were other glimmers of hope for conservatives on Tuesday, but you have to look hard to find them. At this writing, it appears that Harry Reid will be denied his "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate, and Democratic gains in the House won't be as large as first feared. In some states, the GOP remains on the ascendancy; Republicans in Tennessee captured majorities in the state house and senate for the first time in more than 40 years.
Still, there's little doubt that the Republican brand has been badly damaged and is in need of repairs. And that was painfully obvious at the top of the ticket, when John McCain (and the GOP) ran a gallant, yet flawed campaign. Amid the ashes of that effort, the party must begin to rebuild and prevent another debacle in 2012. As a part of that process, we suggest the party adopt the following suggestions:
1. Never Nominate Another Inarticulate Candidate. This marked the fifth consecutive presidential campaign where the GOP nominee was less articulate than his rival. Of course, no one can really remember what Bill Clinton promised in '92 or '96; what about classic quotes from Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry four years later? Heck, even Barack Obama's speeches were little more than fluff.
But, in comparison to John McCain's mechanical stump speech, even Obama's boilerplate sounded like soaring poetry. Why does it matter? Because in an age of soundbites and an ill-educated electorate, coherence on the campaign trail is equated with competence as a leader. Conservatives need someone who can forcefully articulate their message with style and flair. It is ironic that several GOP candidates met those criteria (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney come to mind), but they couldn't secure the nomination. Thankfully, McCain appears to be the last Republican presidential candidate with the problem.
2. Money, Money, Money. By promising to accept public financing, Senator McCain helped seal his own fate. With a limited budget, the GOP nominee couldn't match Obama's advertising blitz and didn't launch ads in some states (including Virginia) until it was too late. The irony, of course, is obvious. As a champion of campaign finance reform, Mr. McCain helped create the system that helped sow his political defeat. The money lesson from 2008 is simple; public financing is for losers. If the party wants to win in 2012, the GOP needs to rebuild its money machine and match the Democrats dollar for dollar.
3. Bloodsport, Anyone? Sad to say, but many Republicans were still abiding by Queensbury rules while the Democrats fought a back-alley brawl. Democrat opposition research became fodder for their allies in the MSM, while Mr. McCain took the high road. Democrats howled about the "attacks" on Barack Obama's past associations, but fact is, the messages were rather mild. McCain himself took Reverend Wright off the table, and his attacks on other, radical associates of Obama (hellooo, Bill Ayers) were half-hearted, even tepid. Governor Sarah Palin was far more effective in that role, until she was savaged by the media, and McCain put her under wraps for a week or so in late September.
Bottom line: politics is a blood spot, where winning is a prerequisite for governing. Until Republicans understand that--and fight--they won't become a majority party again.
4. Know Your Media Base. There was consternation in the McCain camp when his buddies from The New York Times launched a full-scale assault of the Senator and members of his family. Running against the anointed favorite of the press corps, McCain somehow thought he would remain a media darling. And, at the same time, he was slow to cultivate relations with members of the conservative "new" media, including talk radio. Conservative hosts eventually supported McCain--they had no other choice--but their enthusiasm for the nominee matched his indifference to them. One result? The GOP base remained fractured until Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. Future Republican presidential nominees need to know--and support-- their real friends in the media, and they don't work for the Washington Post.
Memo for any Republican considering a run in 2012. Get out in front of opposing a "new" Fairness Doctrine, and you'll get a leg up on the nomination.
5. Don't Abandon Timeless Messages. Four years into an Obama administration, the concepts of lower taxes, less government and strong national security will probably resonate with the electorate. But the Republicans need to find someone who can give voice to those principles and, better yet, offer a record based on those same values. The notion of a "Big Tent" needs to be given the boot. Ronald Reagan brought Democrats and independents into the party by selling his ideals--not modifying them to suit various segments of the electorate.
6. Rebuild State and Local Parties. GOP loyalists were stunned when they lost Ohio and Virginia on Tuesday. But John McCain's loss was preceded by a reversal of Republican fortunes in both states. Democrats captured most statewide offices in the Buckeye State in 2006, and defeated Republican Senator Mike DeWine to boot. In Virginia, Democrats have won two consecutive gubernatorial races, and the last two campaigns for U.S. Senate. Until the GOP fixes its problems in both states, Democrats will likey expand their gains.
The good news is that conditions in Ohio and Virginia can be remedied, if the GOP rallies around proven leaders like former Congressman John Kasich in Ohio, and Attorney General Bob McDonnell in the Old Dominion. The bad news is that neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are in even worse shape.
7. Assemble a More Effective Leadership Team in Washington. Like it or not, the minority leaders in the House and Senate will be the faces of the GOP, at least until 2010. We've been told that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Ohio Congressmen John Boehner want to keep those jobs, but with all due respect, it may be time for a change. We support Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's bid for minority whip, and more responsibility for another Republican rising star, Texas Representative Jeb Hensarling, and our own favorite, Indiana's Mike Pence.
8. Learn to Fight Back. John McCain suffered (in part) because Democrats were able to link him, successfully to George W. Bush. The President, in turn, became a pariah because he was defined in terms selected by his political opponents and their allies in the MSM. How did Mr. Bush respond? Mostly, he didn't. Apparently, he believed that getting down into the political mud sullied his office and the nation's view of it. That's a touching idea, but it is horribly misguided in a era of non-stop news cycles. For only a brief, shining moment--during the late Tony Snow's stint as press secretary--did the White House forcefully engage its critics, and present its message with clarity and vision.
Good luck to the GOP--they'll need it.
About that Test...
While President-elect Obama basks in the glow of his electoral victory, our adversaries are apparently working on that "test" that Joe Biden talked about.
Just hours after Mr. Obama president-elect, Russia announced that it will base surface-to-surface missiles within range of our planned missile defense site in Poland.
According to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, Moscow will deploy short-range SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region to "neutralize" the planned missile defense system. He also stated that Russia plans to jam a radar located in the Czech Republic, used to detect in-bound missiles and guide the Polish-based interceptors.
With a range of at least 400 km, Iskander missiles based in Kaliningrad would be able to target the defensive site in Poland. The proposed deployment is the most serious challenge to U.S. plans to base missile defenses in eastern Europe. Washington has stated (repeatedly) that the defensive shield is designed to protect the continent from missiles launched from rogue states, such as Iran. Moscow rejects that argument, claiming that the system is actually aimed at Russia.
While Moscow has long opposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe, the timing of today's announcement is no accident. Mr. Medvedev and his political puppet master, Vladimir Putin, are quite aware of yesterday's election results in the United States. With the departure of George Bush, who championed the deployment, the Russians are mounting a challenge to his successor, who is opposed to "unproven" missile defense systems.
In some respects, the SS-26 movement to Kaliningrad is the first "shot across the bow" of the incoming administration. Moscow is waiting to see if Obama has "steel in his spine," and will stand up to a deliberate Russian provocation. So are our eastern European allies, who wonder if the new president will stand with them against the Russian bear.
***
On a related note, Iran is warning the U.S. "not to violate its airspace." Get ready for that 3 a.m phone call.
Just hours after Mr. Obama president-elect, Russia announced that it will base surface-to-surface missiles within range of our planned missile defense site in Poland.
According to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, Moscow will deploy short-range SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region to "neutralize" the planned missile defense system. He also stated that Russia plans to jam a radar located in the Czech Republic, used to detect in-bound missiles and guide the Polish-based interceptors.
With a range of at least 400 km, Iskander missiles based in Kaliningrad would be able to target the defensive site in Poland. The proposed deployment is the most serious challenge to U.S. plans to base missile defenses in eastern Europe. Washington has stated (repeatedly) that the defensive shield is designed to protect the continent from missiles launched from rogue states, such as Iran. Moscow rejects that argument, claiming that the system is actually aimed at Russia.
While Moscow has long opposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe, the timing of today's announcement is no accident. Mr. Medvedev and his political puppet master, Vladimir Putin, are quite aware of yesterday's election results in the United States. With the departure of George Bush, who championed the deployment, the Russians are mounting a challenge to his successor, who is opposed to "unproven" missile defense systems.
In some respects, the SS-26 movement to Kaliningrad is the first "shot across the bow" of the incoming administration. Moscow is waiting to see if Obama has "steel in his spine," and will stand up to a deliberate Russian provocation. So are our eastern European allies, who wonder if the new president will stand with them against the Russian bear.
***
On a related note, Iran is warning the U.S. "not to violate its airspace." Get ready for that 3 a.m phone call.
Disgraceful
Today's first post-election reading assignment comes from Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a Democratic lawyer and investigative reporter who interned with John Kerry's legal team in 2004. Writing in today's WSJ, he bemoans the classless disrespect shown to President Bush by many Americans --a majority of them members of his own party.
In his words:
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Truth be told, Mr. Bush has not been a failed president. He met the challenge of 9/11 by taking the fight to our enemies. Remarkably, there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since that time. In Iraq, he rejected the advice of the so-called "wise men" and adopted a surge strategy that brought us to the brink of victory. Economically, he presided over 56 months of growth and record-low unemployment until the recent collapse in the housing sector and on Wall Street.
And, Mr. Bush even offered something for "big government" types with his ground-breaking "No Child Left Behind" education plan--the first effort at systemic accountability in our public schools, and a massive, Medicare prescription drug benefit, something Democrats promised for decades, but could never deliver.
To be sure, President Bush has his flaws. But, as Mr. Shapiro observes, he deserved better than he received from his countrymen. Will he receive some sort of rehabilitation over time, like Harry Truman? Probably not. The country has changed, and liberals need a perpetual bogeyman to blame for the country's ills. That's why Mr. Bush will remain a scapegoat for virtually anything that goes wrong, long after he retired to Crawford.
In his words:
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Truth be told, Mr. Bush has not been a failed president. He met the challenge of 9/11 by taking the fight to our enemies. Remarkably, there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since that time. In Iraq, he rejected the advice of the so-called "wise men" and adopted a surge strategy that brought us to the brink of victory. Economically, he presided over 56 months of growth and record-low unemployment until the recent collapse in the housing sector and on Wall Street.
And, Mr. Bush even offered something for "big government" types with his ground-breaking "No Child Left Behind" education plan--the first effort at systemic accountability in our public schools, and a massive, Medicare prescription drug benefit, something Democrats promised for decades, but could never deliver.
To be sure, President Bush has his flaws. But, as Mr. Shapiro observes, he deserved better than he received from his countrymen. Will he receive some sort of rehabilitation over time, like Harry Truman? Probably not. The country has changed, and liberals need a perpetual bogeyman to blame for the country's ills. That's why Mr. Bush will remain a scapegoat for virtually anything that goes wrong, long after he retired to Crawford.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
In Praise of Local TV News
Some say that 2008 will be remembered as the "year that journalism died." And, watching the media's fawning coverage of Obama over the past year, it's difficult to challenge that assertion.
Still, there are a few, faint glimmers of hope and in a most unlikely spot--local TV news. For decades, local stations have been the whipping boy of media critics and their brethren in the national press. Local newscasts are often derided (and sometimes fairly) for being sensational and consultant-driven in their content, with non-stop coverage of crime and traffic accidents.
But that characterization is slightly unfair, when you consider that some local stations have done yeoman work in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. In some cases, local reporters and anchors have tackled stories that the broadcast and cable networks refused to touch.
The most famous example (so far) is the tough interview of Joe Biden by WFTV (Orlando) anchor Barbara West. While Ms. West was pilloried for her questions, she broached topics consistently ignored by the network types, who've been covering Biden for months, or even years. The Democratic vice-presidential nominee also faced tough questions from an anchor team at KYW-TV in Philadelphia.
And, in a year when fraudulent and duplicate voter registrations are a serious concern, stations in Georgia, Ohio and Florida actually tried to find out if people were voting in multiple states. Reporters and researchers from WSB-TV (Atlanta), WCPO-TV (Cincinnati) and WFTV and WFTS (Tampa) poured over records in the three states. Their findings are both startling and disturbing; they found more than 100,000 Georgia voters are also registered in one of the other states.
WSB also found at least three Georgia residents have also cast ballots in another state--triggering an investigation by the Secretary of State's office. Something tells us there are more "multi-state" voters where those came from. We hope the team at WSB (and their colleagues in Florida and Ohio) will continue their work.
Meanwhile, someone ought to ask ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN if they have any plans to cover this story. We'll give FNC a partial pass, because reporters like Eric Shawn have been following the voter registration fraud story for weeks.
Kudos to the "blow dried" local TV types who are running rings around the competition on one of the most important--and under-reported--stories of the year.
Still, there are a few, faint glimmers of hope and in a most unlikely spot--local TV news. For decades, local stations have been the whipping boy of media critics and their brethren in the national press. Local newscasts are often derided (and sometimes fairly) for being sensational and consultant-driven in their content, with non-stop coverage of crime and traffic accidents.
But that characterization is slightly unfair, when you consider that some local stations have done yeoman work in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. In some cases, local reporters and anchors have tackled stories that the broadcast and cable networks refused to touch.
The most famous example (so far) is the tough interview of Joe Biden by WFTV (Orlando) anchor Barbara West. While Ms. West was pilloried for her questions, she broached topics consistently ignored by the network types, who've been covering Biden for months, or even years. The Democratic vice-presidential nominee also faced tough questions from an anchor team at KYW-TV in Philadelphia.
And, in a year when fraudulent and duplicate voter registrations are a serious concern, stations in Georgia, Ohio and Florida actually tried to find out if people were voting in multiple states. Reporters and researchers from WSB-TV (Atlanta), WCPO-TV (Cincinnati) and WFTV and WFTS (Tampa) poured over records in the three states. Their findings are both startling and disturbing; they found more than 100,000 Georgia voters are also registered in one of the other states.
WSB also found at least three Georgia residents have also cast ballots in another state--triggering an investigation by the Secretary of State's office. Something tells us there are more "multi-state" voters where those came from. We hope the team at WSB (and their colleagues in Florida and Ohio) will continue their work.
Meanwhile, someone ought to ask ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN if they have any plans to cover this story. We'll give FNC a partial pass, because reporters like Eric Shawn have been following the voter registration fraud story for weeks.
Kudos to the "blow dried" local TV types who are running rings around the competition on one of the most important--and under-reported--stories of the year.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Before You Go to the Polls
A couple of reading assignments, on what may lie ahead:
The Iranian Missile Crisis, from Investor's Business Daily (and)
"From 9/11 to 11/4", by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal.
The Iranian Missile Crisis, from Investor's Business Daily (and)
"From 9/11 to 11/4", by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal.
Going to Court
Attorneys representing John McCain will be in a federal courtroom in Richmond tomorrow, in an effort to preserve military absentee votes.
The McCain campaign claims that ballots were sent too late to be counted in Tuesday's presidential election. A complaint filed by the candidate's legal team asks that Virginia to count military absentee ballots post-marked by Tuesday, and received by November 14th.
Virginia's deadline for absentee votes to be received is 7 p.m. Election Day.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Williams has scheduled arguments for 1:30 p.m. tomorrow. The McCain lawsuit alleges that Virginia violated federal law by mailing absentee ballots late. A 1986 federal statute requires that absentee ballots be sent to military personnel in foreign countries at least 45 days before a federal election.
Using that guideline, ballots should have been mailed by September 20th; however, the McCain team alleges that many Virginia counties didn't send out absentee ballots until last month. That means that the votes of thousands of military personnel--who are overwhelmingly Republican--may go uncounted.
It is unclear how Judge Williams might rule in this case--or if his decision might be issued in time to affect the outcome of the election. But, in a separate case, the judge declined to implement voting changes requested by the NAACP.
As we've noted in previous posts, the disenfranchisement of military personnel is a serious problem. By some estimates, at least two-thirds of all absentee votes cast by armed forces members (and their families) go uncounted--often, for the reason stated in the McCain lawsuit. Military members often receive their ballots late, and can't return them in time to meet state deadlines.
The McCain team should be commended for their effort, but we wonder why they waited so long to file their suit--and limited their efforts (at least so far), to Virginia. The Old Dominion isn't the only state with a large population of absentee military voters, or local officials who are tardy in mailing out the ballots.
If absentee ballot procedures aren't reformed, the disenfranchisement of military personnel and their families will continue. That's why the GOP would be well-advised to seek legal remedies on a larger scale (and at an earlier date) in future elections.
The McCain campaign claims that ballots were sent too late to be counted in Tuesday's presidential election. A complaint filed by the candidate's legal team asks that Virginia to count military absentee ballots post-marked by Tuesday, and received by November 14th.
Virginia's deadline for absentee votes to be received is 7 p.m. Election Day.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Williams has scheduled arguments for 1:30 p.m. tomorrow. The McCain lawsuit alleges that Virginia violated federal law by mailing absentee ballots late. A 1986 federal statute requires that absentee ballots be sent to military personnel in foreign countries at least 45 days before a federal election.
Using that guideline, ballots should have been mailed by September 20th; however, the McCain team alleges that many Virginia counties didn't send out absentee ballots until last month. That means that the votes of thousands of military personnel--who are overwhelmingly Republican--may go uncounted.
It is unclear how Judge Williams might rule in this case--or if his decision might be issued in time to affect the outcome of the election. But, in a separate case, the judge declined to implement voting changes requested by the NAACP.
As we've noted in previous posts, the disenfranchisement of military personnel is a serious problem. By some estimates, at least two-thirds of all absentee votes cast by armed forces members (and their families) go uncounted--often, for the reason stated in the McCain lawsuit. Military members often receive their ballots late, and can't return them in time to meet state deadlines.
The McCain team should be commended for their effort, but we wonder why they waited so long to file their suit--and limited their efforts (at least so far), to Virginia. The Old Dominion isn't the only state with a large population of absentee military voters, or local officials who are tardy in mailing out the ballots.
If absentee ballot procedures aren't reformed, the disenfranchisement of military personnel and their families will continue. That's why the GOP would be well-advised to seek legal remedies on a larger scale (and at an earlier date) in future elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)