Sunday, July 28, 2013

A Hero Among Heroes


Colonel George "Bud" Day, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valor as a POW in North Vietnam, died yesterday at his home in Shalimar, Florida at the age of 88.  Day, an Air Force fighter pilot, was the most decorated U.S. service member since General Douglas MacArthur (photo courtesly "Outside the Beltway" blog). 


A genuine American hero has died.

Colonel George "Bud" Day, the legendary fighter pilot who never gave away sensitive information, during five years of torture and deprivation in North Vietnam--and received the Medal of Honor for his exploits--passed away Saturday in Shalimar, Florida at the age of 88.

Almost every airman knows the story of Bud Day--or at least they did before the Air Force went on its recent "sensitivity" and "self-awareness" crusade.  Put it this way: back when the USAF valued a warrior ethos, few men were more respected or admired than Colonel Day, whose conduct was a model for any service member facing a sadistic enemy and impossible odds, with little hope for quick recovery or repatriation.  From his obituary in The New York Times:

When he volunteered for duty in Vietnam and was assigned to a fighter wing in April 1967, Colonel Day, then a major, had flown more than 4,500 hours in fighters.
On Aug. 26, 1967, he was on a mission to knock out a surface-to-air missile site 20 miles inside North Vietnam when his F-100 was hit by antiaircraft fire. He suffered a broken arm and eye and back injuries when he ejected, and he was quickly captured.
Major Day was hung upside-down by his captors, but after his bonds were loosened, he escaped after five days in enemy hands. He made it across a river, using a bamboo-log float for support, and crossed into South Vietnam. He wandered barefoot and delirious for about two weeks in search of rescuers, surviving on a few berries and frogs. At one point, he neared a Marine outpost, but members of a Communist patrol spotted him first, shot him in the leg and hand, and captured him.
This time, Major Day could not escape. He was shuttled among various camps, including the prison that became known as the Hanoi Hilton, and was beaten, starved and threatened with execution. His captors demanded that he reveal escape plans and methods of communication among the prisoners of war as well as information on America’s air war.
In February 1971, he joined with then-Commander Stockdale, the ranking American in the prison camp, and other prisoners in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” while rifle muzzles were pointed at them by guards who had burst into a prisoners’ forbidden religious service.      

It was Colonel Day and Jim Stockdale, along with John Flynn, Jeremiah Denton and Robbie Risner, who set the example for scores of American airmen imprisoned at the Hanoi Hilton and other North Vietnamese POW camps.  As the war dragged on, there seemed to be little hope for their release--a fact repeatedly underscored by their captors.  Amid the constant routine of beatings, starvation, threats and boredom, Day (and other senior officers) provided exemplary leadership, inspiring others to hold out--and hold on--against the North Vietnamese.

A personal note:  I never had the honor of meeting Bud Day, but I've known several men who spent time with him in the Hanoi Hilton.  They described him with tremendous respect and even a touch of awe. That alone spokes volumes about Colonel Day's character and integrity.  To a man, those who survived the horrors of captivity in North Vietnam are heroes; yet man of them held a special reverence for the Air Force fighter pilot who endured the worst anyone could imagine, never broke, and inspired his comrades to rally against their captors.  Bud Day truly was a hero among heroes.

After his return from Vietnam, Colonel Day received the Medal of Honor (along with Jim Stockdale) from President Ford at a moving White House ceremony.  While Day returned to flying status (and eventually became Vice Commander of an Air Force wing at Eglin AFB, FL), he never reached flag rank.  Passed over for promotion to brigadier general, Day retired from active duty in 1977 and opened a law office near the base (he earned a law degree from the University of South Dakota in the late 1940s), and spent the rest of his life in private practice.

As an attorney, Day handled a wide variety of cases, but he was best known for a class action suit on behalf of thousands of military retirees who were stripped of their medical benefits at age 65 and told to apply for Medicare.  Day won the case in federal district court in 2001, but the judgment against the U.S. government was overturned on appeal a year later.  But Day's tireless efforts eventually prompted Congress to fix the problem by instituting the "Tricare for Life" program, making military retirees eligible for coverage from both plans.

According to the Northwest Florida Daily News, funeral arrangements for Colonel Day are pending, although his burial will likely be at a military cemetary in Pensacola, Florida on Thursday. Hundreds--perhaps thousands--of mourners from the region's large military community are expected to pay their final respects.  It will be interesting to see what sort of "official" delegation the Air Force puts together.  Bud Day was always a straight shooter who managed to ruffle a few feathers; remembering his departure from active duty almost 40 years ago, the Colonel likened many of the service's leaders as "quasi-political" managers.

Calling his description prophetic would be an understatement.  Five decades later, the Air Force's senior officer corps is rife with politicians and yes-men, while warriors like Bud Day are few and far between.

Memo to General Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff: take a day out of your busy schedule and attend Colonel Day's funeral this week.  Many of your airmen have never heard of his courage or tenacity, and your presence would be a wonderful first step in re-focusing the service on the values embodied by George Day.

And while you're at it, get rid of the sensitivity and touchy-feely training.  Take the money being wasted on those programs and buy copies of Colonel Day's memoir (Return With Honor) and Robbie Risner's superb The Passing of the Night.  Then, get those books into the hands of as many junior officers and mid-level NCOs as possible, and introduce them to men of absolute honor, courage and integrity.  I personally guarantee that those books will do more to revive true Air Force principles--and boost morale--than a decade's worth of self-awareness garbage.  Do it as a tribute to Colonel Day and General Risner, but more importantly, do it for a service that desperately needs to hear their message.                      
       

      

Monday, July 22, 2013

From (Beneath) the Sea

Earlier this month, Israel destroyed a shipment of advanced anti-ship missiles in the Syrian port of Latakia. The missiles, which had just been received from Russia, posed a serious threat to naval units operating in the eastern Mediterranean, so a strike was ordered by Israeli leaders.


In the past, such operations have been assigned to the IAF. With scores of F-15s and F-16s in its arsenal, the Israeli Air Force has more than enough assets to secure the airspace, suppress Syrian air defenses and take out the anti-ship missiles in their storage facility. Indeed, some early reports suggested that an air strike was used to eliminate the latest missile threat.

But more recent accounts suggest that Israel used a much different military option. The London Sunday Times (and other sources) now suggest that the Yakhont P-800 missiles were destroyed by cruise missiles launched by an Israeli submarine, stationed off the Syrian coast (emphasis ours).

If that information proves accurate, it represents a new chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. While various nations in the region operate submarines, none had previously demonstrated the ability to fire extended range cruise missiles while submerged. There had long been speculation that Israel gained that ability when it began acquiring its advanced, Dolphin-class diesel-electric boats from Germany; so far, a total of four boats have been delivered and two more are on the way.

While the exact capabilities of Israel's newest subs have not been disclosed, intelligence reporting indicates the boats have at least one firing tubes that are far larger than required for employing torpedoes. That fueled speculation that the new subs would also serve as cruise missile platforms, and that capability may have been confirmed by the Latakia strike.  Intelligence and press reporting indicate that Israel may have tested a submarine version of its Popeye stand-off missile more than a decade ago; that variant reportedly has a range of up to 1,500 miles.  

If Israel can now fire cruise missiles from a stealth platform, that represents a game-changer for the Middle East, and it may signal that a strike against Iran's nuclear program is approaching. While some arm-chair tacticians focus almost exclusively on the air element, many military analysts believe an actual Israeli strike would combine multiple assets, including tactical aircraft, special forces and cruise missiles.

Under that scenario, Dolphin submarines of the Israeli navy would deploy to the Persian Gulf and launch cruise missiles against key targets supporting nuclear facilities, including air defense nodes, logistical sites and command facilities. Many of the cruise missiles would be employed against softer, above-ground facilities (assuming they are not fitted with nuclear warheads); that would allow Israeli fighters to target below-ground nuclear complexes with bunker-busting bombs. Special forces would be used to attack nuclear sites that can't be easily targeted by aircraft or cruise missiles, and remove equipment and material from selected locations, proving Tehran's nuclear intentions once and for all.

Diesel-electric boats are well-suited for operations in the Persian Gulf, and there has been periodic speculation about Israeli obtaining basing rights in places like Azerbaijan, or the Kurdish Region of northern Iraq. That would greatly decrease the distance Israeli forces would have to travel and increase the amount of firepower available for the raid. However, maintaining tactical surprise would be much more difficult, given the number of intelligence assets on the ground in those locations.

Still, an Israeli cruise missile strike against Iran--as part of a larger operation against Tehran's nuclear program--cannot be dismissed. Iran has virtually no defense against a cruise missile attack, and utilizing those weapons in concert with other platforms would wreak havoc in the air defense system, improving Israeli prospects for success, and reducing the threat posed to tactical aircrews. Jerusalem understands the limitations of an "air-only" option; by some estimates, the IAF could dispatch only two dozen fighters for a long-distance raid against Iran (largely due to limited air refueling assets). That automatically limits the number of targets that could be struck, and almost ensures that some elements of the nuclear program will survive. By launching cruise missiles from submarines, Israel can attack a larger target set--or, at a minimum--accomplish tasks that would otherwise be assigned to fighter aircraft or special forces personnel, freeing them for other assignments.

Some experts still believe that an Israeli strike on Iran is not in the offing, for a variety of reasons. We're not so sure; just this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Tehran is getting dangerously close to having enough uranium for its first nuclear weapon, and said Israel will act to prevent that from happening, even if it means going it alone.



Thursday, July 18, 2013

Where in the World is Colonel Bristol?

***UPDATE***

7/19/2013.  In a sudden about-face, the Pentagon has agreed to let Colonel Bristol speak with Congress about last year's attack on our consulate in Benghazi.  DoD relented after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Jason Chaffetz complained about the military's reluctance to make Bristol available.  According to the UK Daily Mail, the same Pentagon flack who claimed that Bristol could not be compelled to testify because he was retired is now blaming an administrative error for that statement.  Earlier this week, Marine Corps Times reported that Bristol is on terminal leave, but remains on active duty until 1 August.

Today's announcement is clearly a step forward, but it is worth noting that officials and military members involved in the Benghazi episode were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements after the incident.  Incidentally, the Daily Mail had little difficulty locating Colonel Bristol at his retirement home in northern Virginia, a task the American media was unable--or unwilling--to perform.

***    

This should come as no surprise. 

The same administration that has lied, obfuscated and stone-walled over the Benghazi scandal is at it again.

Remember Colonel George Bristol?  In recent months, he has emerged as a key figure regarding our military response--or more correctly, the lack of a response--to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya last fall.  At the time of that debacle, Colonel Bristol (a career Marine) was serving as Commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, part of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), headquarted in Stuttgart, Germany. 

In that role, Colonel Bristol had detailed knowledge of special forces assets that might have been employed to assist American diplomats and security contractors who were under attack.  Four U.S. officials, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.  There was no military response; early reports suggested that we lacked assets in the region at the time the assault began.  When it was revealed that an American SOF team was actually on the ground in Tripoli--with an airplane waiting to fly them to Benghazi--the narrative changed.  Current accounts suggest the team was "held" in Tripoli in case U.S. facilities in that city came under attack.  Various administration officials have also denied claims that the commander of that SOF unit, Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson was told to "stand down" when he volunteered to respond to the situation in Benghazi.

Through it all, the one person we haven't heard from is Colonel Bristol.  When Congressional investigators first learned of his role, they asked DoD about the possibility of Bristol testifying before the House Oversight Committee (and other panels) who are looking into the debacle.  Initially, DoD claimed it could not compel Bristol to testify because he was "retired."  Colonel Bristol left his post at AFRICOM in March of this year, following a change-of-command ceremony.  In his farewell speech, Bristol said an "evil" has taken hold in Africa and it is "up to us to stomp it out."

But it turns out that Bristol isn't retired (not yet).  Marine Corps Times writer Dan Lamothe did a little digging and discovered that Bristol is still on active duty.  Technically, he's on terminal leave, which means he's using accumulated leave and permissive temporary duty (TDY) days to prepare for retirement.  But he doesn't go on the retired list until 1 August. 

That means he's still on active duty.  And that means Bristol's superiors can compel him to testify before Congress.  However, the window for such a directive is closing fast, and the Pentagon shows no urgency in delivering that order to Colonel Bristol.  In fact, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insisted that Congress had missed an opportunity for his testimony, since no invitation was extended before his "retirement."  From Marine Corps Times:

“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”    

But clearly that's not the case.  Like much of the Benghazi matter, Bristol's status, whereabouts and his sudden departure from the post at AFRICOM are shrouded in mystery.  Consider these developments:

- Colonel Bristol retired from his JTF slot just six months after the consulate attack, and only one year into his command tour.  Most commanders serve a minimum of two years in their posts before moving on.  It is worth noting that Bristol (a former enlisted Marine) was nearing mandatory retirement after 38 years of active-duty service.  But extensions can be granted for individuals in key positions, and the JTF post would qualify for that sort of dispensation.  Additionally, there are legitimate questions as to why the Marine Corps would spend thousands of dollars in permanent change-of-station funds to send a senior Colonel to Europe for only one year.   

- The former joint task force commander has seemingly disappeared after his change-of-command ceremony in Germany a few months back.  Efforts by various media outlets to contact him have proven unsuccessful, and Congressional staffers have had similar luck in trying to track him down.  Did we mention that all military members have a "final" address on their retirement orders, used to determine where the retiree's personal property will be shipped, and establish a final place of residence.  In rare cases, the retiree may use someone else's address; I knew an Air Force Colonel who listed the home of a former Air Force Academy as his retirement address (he was going through a bitter divorce and trying to conceal assets from his wife).  But that is the exception and not the rule; going through proper channels, Congress should be able to gain Bristol's retirement location from the Marine Corps, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), or both.  

- The good Colonel is spending a lot of time on terminal leave.  While it's not uncommon for retiring service members to spend 30 or 60 days in that status before retirement, Bristol will be in that category for for 122 days--a full, four months.  To accumulate that much leave time, Colonel Bristol had to carry over the year-to-year "max" (75 days); utilize all leave accumulated during the current fiscal year (25 days) and take three weeks of permissive TDY, which is allowed in conjunction with permanent change-of-station moves.  Not entirely unheard of; many military members try to "bank" as much leave as possible in conjunction with their retirement.  Colonel Bristol did one helluva job in maximizing leave in the months before retirement--and covering his tracks.  So far, no one can find the mysterious Colonel, who had a long career in special ops, and is credited with developing the Marine Corps' current martial arts training program.  

Obviously, DoD is in no mood to help Congress locate Colonel Bristol.  But we've also got to wonder if our legislators are really serious about the task.  Given the various databases and resources outlined above, finding George Bristol should be a relatively simple process.  Yet, members of the House and Senate seem no closer to securing his testimony than they were a few months ago.   Obviously, Congressional Democrats are concerned about what Bristol might say; in his former position, Colonel Bristol was almost certainly involved in the high-level consultations on the evening of September 11, 2012, and the ultimate rejection of a military response.  But we're also starting to wonder about members of the GOP.  They deserve great credit for pursuing the truth on Benghazi; so why aren't they being more aggressive in pursuing the testimony of the senior special ops officer for the Africa region, on a night when such assets were available--and desperately needed--but never used.             

                         

Saturday, July 13, 2013

A Few More Amateurs, Please

One of the arguments against citizen-journalists is that we lack the "training" and "experience" to get the story right.

After yesterday's little snafu at KTVU in Oakland, it looks like we could use a few more amateurs in the newsroom.

Along with its Bay Area competitors, KTVU has been relentlessly covering the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 for the past week. So, when someone called the newsroom and offered up the names of the cockpit crew, folks in the newsroom thought they had a real exclusive, since the pilots have not been publicly identified.

Having worked as a print and broadcast reporter, I understand the pressures associated with breaking news and trying to scoop the competition. But it's not enough to be fast, you've also got to be accurate, or at least that's what I learned in J-school 30+ years ago.

So, with that in mind, look at the full-screen graphic that KTVU offered as part of its report. What are the odds that these are the actual names of the pilots? And, what are the odds that someone was trying to "prank" KTVU?



If you chose the latter option, give KTVU a call, because they're going to looking for a new reporter, producer, executive producer, news director and anyone else associated with this debacle. Breaking news or not, it is simply mind-numbing to consider that such an obvious prank made it on the air, during KTVU's noon newscast. To it's credit, the station quickly apologized, and claimed it had "confirmed" the information with the National Transportation Safety Board. Riiigggghhhtttt....

Either the NTSB is completely clueless, or they wanted to see just how far Channel 2 was willing to go with its little exclusive.

We should also note that KTVU isn't exactly a podunk operation. The station is the Fox affiliate for the San Francisco area, and it's owned by Cox, one of the largest media companies in the United States. For years, Channel 2 has dominated local news ratings in the mornings and in prime time, and the station has been honored on multiple occasions for outstanding journalism, most recently with three Edward R. Murrow Awards, announced this past April.

If the CBS News legend were still alive, he might ask the station to give those awards back. KTVU isn't a place that typically hires rookie reporters or producers. We're guessing that the "team" that put those inaccurate--and offensive--names on the air has decades of collective experience. Yet, they were successfully pranked by someone who knows a little about the news business, and the furious scramble to be first. Feed the assignment desk, a reporter, or a producer, an "exclusive"--even if it's an obvious prank--and watch the fun begin.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, KTVU not only "broke" those fictitious crew names on the air, but on its website and through social media as well. In the length of time required to compose a tweet, someone at Channel 2 could have easily placed another call to someone at the NTSB and verified that "Capt Sum Ting Wong" was not in command of the ill-fated flight. For the record, the NTSB also claims that it never provided the initial confirmation to KTVU, and for once, we'll side with the feds.

Today's gaffe on Channel 2 is just another reminder of the deplorable state of American journalism. Accuracy and multiple-sourcing on stories has been replaced by single sources (usually anonymous), often of dubious credibility. It will be interesting to see if the original source can ever be confirmed. In the meantime, perhaps Howard Stern will tell his followers to go easy on KTVU, and maybe Homer Simpson can convince Bart to stop calling the station's assignment desk, while Channel 2 tries to salvage a bit of its professional image.
***
ADDENDUM:  If it's any consolation to the crew at KTVU, here's another sterling example of media idiots on parade.  In its coverage of the George Zimmerman verdict, USA Today quotes one Howie Felterbush, who was in the crowd outside the courthouse, offering his support for the defendant.  Here's the pull-quote, courtesy of Deadspin:

  















Sunday, July 07, 2013

The Grounding

While the world media has been focused on yesterday's crash landing of an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 at San Francisco International Airport, the following aviation-related announcement caught our eye; from Reuters, via Yahoo News:

An Israeli F16 warplane crashed at sea on Sunday due to an engine malfunction and Israel subsequently grounded all its F15 and F16 combat aircraft pending a review of the incident, a military spokesman said.


The pilot and navigator on board managed to safely bail out of the U.S.-made plane and a military rescue unit came to evacuate them by helicopter, the spokesman and Israeli media reports said.

"An F16 combat aircraft crashed earlier today in the sea after the engine malfunctioned," the spokesman said. He added that the air force commander had decided to "ground all F16 and F15 planes until circumstances of the incident are reviewed." 
 
Israel's decision strikes us as a bit odd, for a couple of reasons.  First, operating a single-en gine fighter (like the F-16) carries certain hazards, including limited options when the powerplant quits working.  We know an Air Force F-16 driver that managed to "dead stick" a Viper into Kunsan AB, Korea, back in the early 1990s, from a distance of almost 20 miles.  That pilot had the good fortune to be at high altitude (20,000) when his GE engine gave up the ghost, giving him enough time and speed to make flawless emergency landing without power.  For his efforts, he received an Air Medal, one of the few awarded in peace time.   

But for most Viper pilots, the sudden loss of your engine usually leaves two choices: get it on the ground--and fast--or grab the handles and eject.  We know another F-16 pilot who had to bail out from an older "A" model in the late 80s, just moments after takeoff.  He later told us: "I knew it was time to get out when I saw the flames go shooting past the cockpit."  That particular pilot got two "swings" in his chute before he touched down, just off the end of the runway.   Based on limited evidence, it sounds like the two-person crew of the IAF F-16 had a similar choice.  When their engine failed off the Gaza coast, they had no choice but to eject, since Israeli warplanes don't "divert" to Palestinian airports.    

Needless to say, the IAF has lots of experience in F-16 operations and losses of aircraft (and pilots) in the past has not resulted in the grounding of the entire fleet, as well as their F-15 squadrons (which utilize the same type of Pratt & Whitney engine.  Wide-scale stand downs typically occur in response to a catastrophic failure, such as the cracked longeron that caused a Missouri Air National Guard F-15 to break apart in-flight five years ago.  That accident prompted the grounding of all F-15s around the world, until their longerons--a critical component that helps hold the aircraft together--could be inspected.  We've never heard of an engine issue forcing a fleet-wide grounding, particularly when you consider that the Pratt & Whitney and GE engines used in various F-16 models have outstanding reliability and safety records.    

It's also a bit strange that the IAF would ground the two aircraft responsible for the much of its offensive and defensive capabilities.  With scores of Eagles and Vipers on the ground, it's practically an invitation to Israel's foes to mount some sort of aerial action, ranging from a UAV mission (like the one staged by Iran and Hizballah a few months ago), to an actual air strike by Iranian assets, or the Syrian Air Force.    

And that brings us to another possibility: is today's crash being used as some sort of deception plan?  As we've noted in the past, the Israelis are masters at tactical and strategic deception; virtually every major military operation in the history of the Jewish state has been preceded by some sort of deception operation.  Before the 1967 war, for example, Israeli TV showed footage of soldiers on holiday, enjoying a trip to the beach, while preparations for the lightning strike against their Arab foes were underway.  The IAF also conducted "feint" operations for weeks before that conflict, flying up to the edge of Egyptian airspace before turning back.  The flights became so routine that the Egyptian Air Force stopped responding to them.  On the first day of the war, the Israelis simply didn't turn back, and destroyed the EAF on the ground.    

How would the current grounding fit into a deception plan?  Many major air operations are preceded by a maintenance stand down, giving maintenance crews enough time to prepare a maximum nuber of jets for combat.  If key F-15I and F-16I units suddenly stopped flying, foreign intelligence services would instantly lock onto that development as a possible sign of an impending Israeli strike.  But with all IAF F-15 and F-16 squadrons on the ground, it will be easier for the IAF to mask potential raid preparations.    

One more thought: in all likelihood, the F-16 that crashed today is still at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.  It's difficult to see how the IAF could determine the exact cause of engine failure so quickly--and deduce that today's problem could affect all front-line fighters.  All modern air forces lose jets to engine failure on a regular basis; such mishaps are rarely enough to warrant the grounding of the entire fleet, even when the powerplants have a history of problems.  But today's mishap does give the IAF a valid reason to put their jets on the ground and get ready for whatever lies ahead.    

In closing, we offer this final tidbit: the coming days represent a period of extremely low lunar illumination in Iran--ideal conditions for a night attack against Tehran's nuclear facilities.  Yes, it's quite a stretch from an Israeli F-16 crash to a potential strike against Iran.  But today's crash in the Mediterranean does give the IAF a rather convenient excuse to put a lot of planes on the ground--for preventive maintenance and inspections--at just the right time.             

Saturday, July 06, 2013

The Man Who Almost Lost the War






















Major General Daniel Sickles.  The most famous--some would say notorious--political general of the Civil War, Sickles's actions on the battlefield contributed to the stunning Union defeat at Chancellorsville, and he almost lost Gettysburg as well (Library of Congress photo via the Civil War Trust) .    


This week marked the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the epic clash that set the final course of the Civil War, even though months of bitter and bloody fighting would follow. After Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee and his storied Army of Northern Virginia could no longer threaten wide swaths of northern territory with all-out invasion, setting the stage for a decisive victory that force the Union to negotiate a peace with the Confederacy. And after Gettysburg, the rest of the war would be waged almost entirely on southern soil, through costly campaigns of attrition and logistics that Lee could not afford to fight, let alone win.


That is the essence of Gettysburg, the turning point of the war in the east. After a string of defeats, managed by incompetent generals, the Army of the Potomac finally beat Lee and forced him to retreat south, giving Union forces a desperately-needed shot of confidence. There would be more mistakes and bungles after Gettysburg, but for the army in blue, the road from that Pennsylvania rail hub inevitably led to Appomattox and final victory.

Still, Gettysburg' s sesquicentennial raises inevitable questions that haunt historians--and generals--for centuries that follow? What if Lee's best corps commander, Stonewall Jackson, had not been killed at Chancellorsville a few months earlier? Would his natural aggressiveness and prescient sense of the battlefield have led to the Confederates' capturing the key high ground at Gettysburg on Day One or Day Two? Under that scenario, Gettysburg would have likely ended in a Union disaster, with Lee's victorious forces taking Harrisburg and parading through Philadelphia within a week.

But Jackson's potential impact on the battle is only one of the "what if's" still being debated by historians and strategists. Suppose Lee had been in better health and relied less on his staff, which often delivered incomplete or inaccurate information for his decision-making. Or, what if Abraham Lincoln tarried and left General "Fighting Joe" Hooker in command of the Army of the Potomac for a few more days, instead of replacing him with George Gordon Meade? Bold as a planner but often timid in the field, it's hard to imagine Hooker getting the best of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. And for that matter, what if Jeb Stuart's Confederate cavalry had been properly positioned during the campaign? They spent much of the run-up to Gettysburg on the "backside" of Lee's Army, denying him a key reconnaissance asset and badly-needed intelligence.

Still, the ultimate "what if" from Gettysburg may rest not at the army level, but instead, with a single Union corps commander who almost lost the battle--and the war--single-handedly. We refer to Major General Dan Sickles, the Tammany Hall politician who used his connections to wrangle a commission at the outset of the war, a move aimed at restoring his public image after being acquitted on murder charges!

Imagine Bill Clinton's libido in the body of a 19th century politician who viewed a civil war as a golden opportunity to reinvent himself. That was Dan Sickles, a man once described by Harper's Weekly as "loved more sincerely and hated more heartily than any other man of his day." As a military leader, he was (arguably) the most incompetent general in a conflict that was filled with them. During his brief time in uniform, he almost managed to lose the war not once, but twice, yet survived his transgressions and lived into a ripe old age, shaping popular history to emphasize his "accomplishments" (while minimizing his own, disastrous mistakes), and lobbying--successfully--to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, 32 years after the war ended.

Born to an upper-middle-class family in New York (his father was a politician and patent lawyer), Dan Sickles learned the printing business before becoming an attorney and running (successfully) for the state legislature. Controversy and scandal quickly became hallmarks his career; Sickles was censured by the New York legislature for escorting a known prostitute into its chambers. Undeterred, he later took her to England and presented her to Queen Victoria, introducing her under the surname of one of his political rivals.

Sickles sent the working girl home after his wife arrived in Europe, where he was serving as secretary of the U.S. Embassy in London. Naturally, the marriage had been scandalous; Sickles married his wife a few years earlier, when she was only 15 or 16 and he was 33. Returning to America in 1855, Sickles was elected to Congress as a Democrat. He remained a notorious womanizer but when his wife strayed, Sickles confronted her lover, Phillip Baton Key II, the District Attorney of Washington, D.C. and shot him dead (Key was unarmed). Sickles promptly surrendered to authorities, hired a high-priced legal team and beat the murder rap with a claim of temporary insanity--the first time that defense had been successfully used in an American court.

When the Civil War began, Sickles saw an opportunity for rehabilitation. He raised four regiments of volunteers in his native New York, and was appointed a Colonel in one of those units. Using his political connections, Sickles continued to rise in the ranks, and was promoted to Brigadier General in September 1861. Given his reputation--and complete lack of military experience--there was hesitation in Washington about giving Sickles flag rank and greater responsibilities; in fact, Congress initially refused to confirm his commission, forcing their former colleague to temporarily relinquish his command.

But once again, Sickles' political ties paid off; he was not only restored to the rank of brigadier general, but President Lincoln nominated him for a second star in late 1862, and his good friend Joe Hooker--by then Commander of the Army of the Potomac--gave him command of III Corps a few months later. At the time, Sickles was the only corps commander in the Union Army who was not a West Point graduate. And while Sickles had proved competent leading a brigade at Seven Pines and the Seven Days engagements, he was clearly unprepared to lead a division, let alone an entire corps. His ineptitude would have near-cataclysmic consequences for the Union in the months that followed.

At the Battle of Chancellorsville, fought in early May 1863, Sickles was assigned to hold the center of the Union lines while Hooker attempted a risky, double envelopment of Lee’s forces. On May 2, advance elements of his III Corps observed large numbers of Confederate troops marching parallel to his lines. Sickles assumed the Rebels were retreating, but it was actually General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s Corps marching around the Union flank, executing one of the most audacious (and successful) attacks of the war.

Assuming he could easily overtake and defeat the “retreating” Confederates, Sickles opened a wide salient in the Union lines, leaving his forces vulnerable to attacks from both sides, and isolating XI Corps. Lee and his commanders quickly took advantage of Hooker—and Sickles’s—mistakes, routing a Union force that was more than twice their size. Not surprisingly, Sickles’ effusive after-action report makes no mention of his errors, and he worked diligently to ensure that other summaries hewed close to his version of events.

General Hooker was relieved as Commander of the Army of the Potomac in late June 1863, literally on the eve of Gettysburg. Lee was already on the move, and the new Union commander, General George Meade, had no time to make changes among subordinates, or his headquarters staff. Given the opportunity, Meade would have almost certainly replaced Dan Sickles. While everyone agreed that the former politician was fearless on the battlefield, his poor judgment (and lack of military training) created the potential for catastrophe in combat

Making matters worse, Meade and Sickles openly detested each other; the III Corps commander had been a close associate of the departed Hooker (and believed that Meade played a role in his dismissal). From his perspective, Meade viewed Sickles as an amateur, more concerned about burnishing his “record” than following orders. Sickles, for his part, used his connections with the media to denigrate Meade at every opportunity, knowing that his new superior despised the press, and rarely defended himself in the papers.

Gettysburg was not a “planned” engagement; the collision of Confederate and Federal forces outside the small Pennsylvania town, coupled with key terrain, determined that the battle would be fought there. As Meade formulated his strategy, he ordered Sickles and III Corps to anchor the left end of the Union lines along key terrain including Cemetery Ridge and Little Round Top. On the morning of 2 July, Meade sent his son and aide, Captain George Meade, to ensure that Sickles had followed instructions. But General Sickles refused to talk with the younger Meade; eventually, he traveled to the commander’s headquarters and asked for help in positioning III Corps. Meade didn’t have time to inspect Sickle’s positions, but he sent his artillery chief to assist the Corps commander.

Returning to his unit, Sickles told the artillery commander that he wanted to move III Corps roughly ½ mile forward of the line ordered by General Meade Sickles believed the shift would put his troops in better defensive terrain, but it created tremendous headaches for Meade, and once again, left key elements of the Union Army badly exposed:

The primary disadvantage of Sickles’ position was that the Third Corps was too far in advance of Meade’s army to receive support. Meade’s reinforcements had to cover ½ mile of open ground and Sickles negated Meade’s interior lines. The essentially straight line along Cemetery Ridge, which Meade intended Sickles to occupy, was approximately 1,600 yards in length. Sickles’s Third Corps had roughly 10,675 effectives and he would later claim that he lacked sufficient strength to man Meade’s front. Yet the new position covered a front that was nearly twice as long; approximately 3,500 yards. Despite his efforts to refuse them, his flanks were in the air.

One of the biggest criticisms directed at Sickles was that by moving forward he abandoned Little Round Top--- viewed by many as the key to the Union left because it was the highest defensible point in the immediate vicinity. Not a problem for Sickles because over the next 50 years he would repeatedly lie and say that he did occupy Little Round Top and supervised the placement of reinforcements up there.

By the time Meade became aware of Sickles’s move, Rebel artillery was already bombarding Union lines. It was too late for III Corps to return to its original position. General Meade was left with no choice but to reinforce Sickles’s line. As the Confederate attack unfolded, III Corps was pushed back with heavy losses and by late afternoon, Rebel forces (under the leadership of Lieutenant General James Longstreet) occupied most of Sickles’s modified position. However, III Corps elongated lines forced Longstreet to spread his forces over a wider front, slowing his assault. As darkness fell, Meade still occupied Cemetery Ridge, denying Longstreet—and Lee—the opportunity to win the battle on that day.

As for Sickles, he was wounded by a stray cannon ball around 6:30 pm, while attempting to rally his disintegrating forces. He was carried to the rear on a stretcher, puffing on a cigar and waving to his men. Sickles’s mangled right leg was amputated later that evening, and it soon became a key element of his self-proclaimed heroics. He donated the limb to the Army’s medical museum (where it remains on display to this day) and arranged quick transit back to Washington, where General Sickles received dozens of visitors and promulgated his own version of what happened at Gettysburg.

Sickles’s wound proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Union. It ended his career as field commander, though he later served as Military Governor of South Carolina before leaving the Army as a Major General. The rest of Dan Sickles life was just as colorful—and controversial—as his military career. After his wife died, Sickles became part of the U.S. diplomatic mission to Spain. In that role, he maintained his hard-drinking and womanizing lifestyle. According to some accounts, he fathered children with a deposed Spanish queen, and later married a noblewoman in Madrid. However, she quickly discovered that Sickles was a rogue and lived apart from him for most of the next 30 years.

Returning home once again, Sickles was elected permanent head of the New York state commission charged with raising money for civil war monuments and placing them on various battlefields. The former general remained in that post for years, until $28,000 turned up missing, and officials threatened to prosecute Sickles for embezzlement. Along the way, Sickles also blew through a $7 million fortune from his father, and won re-election to Congress. During his final terms in the House, Sickles focused most of his attention on preserving the Gettysburg battlefield. Once asked why there was no statue honoring him at Gettysburg, Sickles replied that the “entire battlefield” was his monument. He was also awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1897, for his supposed heroism at Gettysburg.

Predictably, even Dan Sickle’s passing was steeped in controversy. He died in 1914, and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery, beneath a surprisingly modest headstone. But members of his family insisted that Sickles wanted to be buried at Gettysburg and they’ve spent the past century lobbying the government—unsuccessfully—to move him from Arlington to the battlefield in Pennsylvania.



Sunday, June 30, 2013

Mr. Snowden's "Helpers"

Today's reading assignment, from Edward Jay Epstein, writing in The Wall Street Journal. He expounds on points we made in a previous post, examining the "assistance" given to Edward Snowden in exposing the NSA's enhanced surveillance efforts:


In March 2013, when Edward Snowden sought a job with Booz Allen Hamilton at a National Security Agency facility in Hawaii, he signed the requisite classified-information agreements and would have been made well aware of the law regarding communications intelligence.

[snip]

Mr. Snowden took that position so he could arrange to have published classified communications intelligence, as he told the South China Morning Post earlier this month. The point of Mr. Snowden's penetration was to get classified data from the NSA. He subsequently stated: "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked, that is why I accepted that position."

[snip]

Before taking the job in Hawaii, Mr. Snowden was in contact with people who would later help arrange the publication of the material he purloined. Two of these individuals, filmmaker Laura Poitras and Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald, were on the Board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation that, among other things, funds WikiLeaks.

In January 2013, according to the Washington Post, Mr. Snowden requested that Ms. Poitras get an encryption key for Skype so that they could have a secure channel over which to communicate.

In February, he made a similar request to Mr. Greenwald, providing him with a step-by-step video on how to set up encrypted communications.

So, before Mr. Snowden proceeded with his NSA penetration in March 2013 through his Booz Allen Hamilton job, he had assistance, either wittingly or unwittingly, in arranging the secure channel of encrypted communications that he would use to facilitate the publication of classified communications intelligence.

On May 20, three months into his job, Mr. Snowden falsely claimed to his employer that he needed treatment for epilepsy. The purpose of the cover story was to conceal his trip to Hong Kong, where the operation to steal U.S. secrets would be brought to fruition.

As Mr. Epstein observes, Snowden's flight to Hong Kong was anything but a spur-of-the-moment decision. We're guessing that the self-styled "whistle-blower" could afford the airfare on his $10,000 monthly salary from Booz, Allen Hamilton. But coordinating--and paying for--the other elements in his "expose" is a completely different matter. Hong Kong is a pricey destination, and we're guessing he didn't stay in the local equivalent of Motel 6. There's also the matter of the safe house where he spent part of his stay; retainers for his Hong Kong legal team and of course, the private jet flight that eventually took him to Moscow.

It's a plan with a lot of moving parts, and not something that was orchestrated solely by Mr. Snowden. Obviously, Greenwald and Poitras were major players (along with the WikiLeaks organization), but even those individuals (and Julian Assange's outfit) don't have the resources to pull of this sort of caper without a little extra help. That might have come from Chinese and Russian intelligence organizations, which may have accessed Snowden's electronic library of state secrets during his stay in Hong Kong and more recently, Moscow.

And here's another question for you to ponder. Why did Greenwald (a well-known, left-wing blogger and journalist) and Poitras, a celebrated documentary film maker, respond to the queries of Edwin Snowden, then an unknown defense contractor? Virtually anyone who blogs or makes films about the shadowy world of intelligence receive "over-the-transom" messages from insiders who claim to have devastating information on just about any issue or topic you can imagine. Most are cranks, and their e-mails are summarily deleted.

Yet, there was something in Snowden's initial communications that intrigued both Greenwald and Poitras, to the extent they were soon following his instructions for setting up encrypted communications, which would eventually be used to help Snowden leak state secrets and plot his escape from U.S. authorities. What was it about Edwin Snowden that brought Greenwald and Poitras into the loop--and made them willing accomplices?

Or, was their participation cleverly orchestrated by outside parties, to support the cover story of a idealistic whistle-blower, bent on exposing government wrong-doing, while attempting to evade its legal tentacles? Judging by their past actions, both Mr Greenwald and Ms. Poitras aren't exactly friends of the federal government--or American democracy. New Zeland blogger Trevor Loudon discovered that Greenwald has been a featured speaker at various socialism conferences since 2011, and Laura Poitras was present on a Baghdad rooftop just before a passing U.S. military patrol was ambushed in 2006--a rather odd coincidence that put her on the government's radar. Details from The Weekly Standard:

But perhaps it isn't such a mystery why the U.S. government might want to question Poitras if you simply crack open John R. Bruning's 2006 book, The Devil's Sandbox: With the 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry at War in Iraq. Contary to Greenwald's claim that Poitras has never been accused of any wrongdoing, Devil's Sandbox details the explosive allegation that Poitras had foreknowledge of a November 20, 2004 ambush of U.S. troops but did nothing to warn them.

Brandon Ditto led the platoon that came under fire that day. Speaking Tuesday evening by phone with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Ditto said it seemed that Poitras "had pre-knowledge" of the ambush. He recalled the events he witnessed that day, confirming the details described in Devil's Sandbox.

During a patrol of Adhamiya early in the morning of November 20, two soldiers in Ditto's platoon noticed a woman standing on a rooftop next to a man while holding a camera. They found that very odd. "Usually when you see someone planted on a rooftop with a camera, they're waiting for something, and right after that is when we got ambushed just down the road," Ditto told me Tuesday night. "So it seems that she had pre-knowledge that our convoy, or our patrol, was going to get hit."

Ms Poitras (and her supporters) have likened the government interviews--and searches at our borders--to harassment. Members of the Oregon National Guard, who were ambushed in Baghdad that day, see it a bit more differently.







Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The Price of Admission

The Edward Snowden affair grows curiouser and curiouser by the day, as Alice might say.


As of this writing, the man who exposed the crown jewels of NSA's intelligence-gathering activities is still on the international concourse at the Moscow Airport, apparently awaiting a flight to Havana, the next stop on his way to Ecuador.

So far, Mr. Snowden has missed at least two flights to Cuba, but (apparently) he has little to worry about--at least on the Russia leg of his global adventure. Various Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, have stated they have no intention of turning Putin over to U.S. authorities. True, there is no formal treaty covering such matters between the United States and Russia, but we have extradited at least seven individuals back to Moscow in recent years. As in most aspects of the bi-lateral relationship, extradition is clearly a one-way street.

But the travels of Edward Snowden raise some rather interesting (and dangerous) possibilities. While much of the world hails him as a hero, there is the very real chance that Snowden is nothing more than a spy, masquerading as a whistle-blower. As Bloomberg reported yesterday:

U.S. intelligence agencies are investigating whether Edward Snowden’s leaks may be a Chinese intelligence operation or whether China might have used his concerns about U.S. surveillance practices to exploit him, according to four American officials.

The officials emphasized there’s no hard evidence yet that Snowden was a Chinese agent or that China helped plan his flights to Hong Kong and then to Moscow, directly or through a witting or unwitting intermediary. Rather, they are duty-bound to probe such a worst-case scenario for the U.S., said the officials, who are familiar with the case and asked not to be identified to discuss classified intelligence.

To be fair, the potential "Beijing connection" may be little more than an effort by the intel community--and the Obama Administration--to cover their collective posteriors. Counter-intelligence officials were reportedly aware of Snowden's massive download of NSA collection documents in mid-May, about the time he left Hawaii and traveled to Hong Kong.

Yet, the collective resources of the FBI (on American soil) and the CIA (overseas) were unable to prevent Snowden from leaving the United States. Equally embarrassing, the same agencies have had difficulty keeping up with him as he circles the globe, and there has been no talk about possibly nabbing him. Might we suggest a little light reading about the Mossad operation that capture Adolf Eichmann in Argentina?

Meanwhile, there are hints that Snowden may have shared that treasure trove of top secret documents with his Chinese hosts during that sojourn in Hong Kong. Call it the "price of admission." While the former British colony enjoys more autonomy (and freedom) than other parts of China, the harboring of an individual like Mr. Snowden doesn't happen by accident, or without the approval of senior leadership in Beijing.

And, given the fact the Chinese have been so accommodating to the former intelligence analyst, it's quite likely they got something in return; namely, detailed information on NSA collection efforts against the PRC's computer networks. With that sort of windfall, it's quite reasonable that Beijing would offer protection, clearance for a private jet flight on to Moscow, and other forms of compensation.

In other words, Snowden may be no different from Robert Hanssen, Rick Ames, John Walker and other turncoats who sold out their country for good, old-fashioned cash. After all, Snowden needs some way to pay the bills, beyond future income for book and movie deals. For the type of information he may have provided, Snowden could receive millions of dollars from spymasters in Beijing and Moscow. That could support a very comfortable lifestyle in Havana, Quito, or other locations beyond the reach of American extradition laws.

And, consider this recent revelation. Snowden has admitted that he applied for the contractor job at Booz, Allen, Hamilton because it meant greater access to information on the NSA program. He reportedly took a substantial pay cut (down to $120,000 a year) to change jobs, and he spent just a few months with the contractor's Hawaii operation before stealing the NSA files and heading to Hong Kong. Sounds more like espionage than a whistle-blower operation.

As we noted in a previous post, issues raised by Snowden regarding domestic spying and the collection of data on millions of Americans deserve a full debate. But the "leakers" real motives also deserve closer examination. His (apparent) willingness to share information with China (and other hostile powers) suggests a motive beyond protection of our civil liberties.

***

ADDENDUM: While it's hard to find a winner in this sordid mess, but we think we've found one: the public relations department at Booz Allen Hamilton. Read or watch any media piece on Snowden and it's difficult to find a mention of his former employer. With all the intention focused on NSA and its activities, the century-old management consultant firm (which derives 99% of its income from the federal government) has remained quiet--and out of the limelight.

Not bad, considering the fact that Booz Allen Hamilton made the decision to hire Snowden and assigned him to the post that granted access to some of the nation's most sensitive intelligence secrets. And not bad, given the fact that company security failed badly when their employee was downloading reams of sensitive documents. Wouldn't surprise us if members of the firm's p.r. staff get bonuses for their handling of this "crisis," bonuses derived from federal dollars provided by you, the taxpayer.

Monday, June 17, 2013

In Our Name

Like most spooks, past and present, we've been watching the NSA affair with a great deal of interest--and more than a little concern.

Readers will note that we didn't refer to the agency's mass acquisition of personal information (on millions of Americans) as a "crisis."  After all, political leaders of every stripe have assured us that accessing your phone records and the data-mining of your internet activities is a necessary tool in the war on terror.  In fact, this may be the only time in recent history that President Obama; Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator John McCain, and Congressman Mike Rogers have agreed on something.  Their logic goes something like this: in the battle against unseen enemies, with the ability to inflict mass chaos and casualties with no warning, it's sometimes necessary to surrender a bit of your privacy, in exchange for "security."  Hold that thought; we'll get back to it in a minute.

Of course, we would have never learned the extent of the NSA's activities without the "efforts" of one Edward Snowden, a high school drop-out who subsequently washed out of Army basic training.  Despite a limited education and tissue-thin resume, Mr. Snowden landed a $200,000 a year job as an employee of Booz, Allen, Hamilton, the venerable defense contractor.

Assigned to a post in Hawaii, Mr. Snowden said he quickly learned of the NSA surveillance program and grew concerned.  So, one day he took a flash drive to work--in direct violation of security policies--and downloaded a trove of documents describing what the agency was up to.  Then, he hopped a plane for Hong Kong, where he shared the information with the UK Guardian.  And the rest, as they say, is history, though we're far from the bottom in the NSA imbroglio.

Since the Guardian's first story appeared last month, Snowden has been described as everything from a hero to a traitor.  The erst-while whistleblower claims he is not trying to evade authorities, but it's clear that he didn't choose Hong Kong on a whim.  Extraditing him from that locale may prove far more difficult than securing his legal return from a place like Canada or Great Britain.  Meanwhile, some are suggesting that Snowden may face a more sinister fate, at the hands of a government assassin, or on the receiving end of a drone-fired missile, the current, preferred method for eliminating certain enemies of the state.

While Mr. Snowden isn't exactly a sure bet for old age, his legacy is far more complex.  For starters, he clearly violated the non-disclosure agreements he signed upon receipt of his security clearance, and his disclosures have clearly damaged national security.  For that, he is deserving of punishment, after a full and fair trial.   If Snowden truly wanted whistle-blower status, there is a mechanism for that, the same one followed by William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, Thomas Drake and Edward Loomis, all former NSA officials who filed a formal complaint against the agency in 2002, alleging that it wasted "millions and millions of dollars" on Trailblazer, a system designed to analyze communications traffic carried on various networks, including the internet.

For their troubles, each of these individuals lost their security clearances, while Binney and Wiebe were treated to a full-scale FBI raids on their homes in 2007.  The whistle-blowers were threatened with criminal prosecution, but those charges later evaporated, though Drake eventually entered a guilty plea to a single misdemeanor count of "exceeding the authorized use of a computer."  All paid a steep price for their actions, but they worked within the system.  The same cannot be said of Edward Snowden.

In fact, Mr. Binney believes that Snowden may have already crossed the line from whistle-blower to traitor.  From the Washington Free Beacon:

Snowden “is transitioning from whistleblower to a traitor” by leaking information on clandestine operations designed to gather intelligence on the Russian and Chinese governments, Binney said.

“That’s not a public service,” he insisted.

Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they’re doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.

But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don’t think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that’s not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service. 

We would argue that Snowden has morphed into full-blown celebrity leaker, following the model of Julian Assange.  There will be more media interviews and perhaps even a book or movie deal before the feds find some way to corral Edward Snowden.  Looking towards his own future, Snowden should remember that Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, avoiding the threat of extradition to Sweden (on sexual assault charges) if he sets foot outside the diplomatic compound.  Meanwhile, the man who supplied many of the documents leaked by Assange (US Army Private Bradley Manning) is facing a long stint at Leavenworth for downloading thousands of classified documents from DoD computer networks, reports that were eventually published at Assange's WikiLeaks website.

Still, even critics concede that Snowden has a point.  As Mr. Binney and his fellow whistle-blowers testified, NSA has been collecting data domestically for years, with the willing assistance of telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon.  And the program has moved well beyond the "selective" program described by intelligence officials when the agency's warrantless wiretapping program was exposed in 2005.

According to various sources, the NSA has the ability to gather virtually every phone call, e-mail and internet search on the planet, then run them through incredibly fast computer networks, mining the data that helps identify activity patterns.  Commercially-available encryption systems still pose a challenge, but NSA is working on that problem, too.  At a research center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, agency scientists and engineers are building super computers capable of running at exaflop speed--that's one million, trillion operations per second.  Very useful in performing complex tasks, such as logging and categorizing every phone call dialed in America every day (emphasis ours), or performing brute force calculations required to break advanced encryption systems.

By some accounts, NSA has already achieved an incredible breakthrough in computer speed, creating machines in the 10-20 petaflop range, optimized for code-breaking.  Others suggest the agency isn't quite there yet, opining that the new Utah Data Center is being built to store vast amounts of information until the next generation of NSA computers can begin plumbing its voluminous haul.

So why does this matter?  In the post 9-11 era, most Americans believe that increased surveillance is a necessity, to prevent future, disastrous attacks on our country.  But that begs an obvious question: why does Verizon hand over the phone records for my 90-year-old neighbor, a retired school teacher who spends most of her time gardening?  Clearly, she poses no security threat, but her monthly phone logs have been dutifully passed on to Fort Meade, along with those of millions of other Americans who simply signed on with a telecom company for internet or phone service.  Her only "crime" was selecting a communications provider who decided to get in bed with the NSA, perhaps in exchange for future, favorable rulings from the FCC and other government regulators.  

And what happens to that data?  In recent weeks, we've learned that another federal agency, the IRS, shared information from Tea Party groups (and other conservative organizations) with left-wing media organizations, which then published or broadcast the "leaked" data.  Clearly, the IRS (and its databases) were utilized to suppress the activities of political groups the government didn't like.  What assurances do we have that the mountains of data being collected by NSA--which absolutely dwarf what the IRS has on hand--won't be used for similar, nefarious purposes?

Or for that matter, can we trust the government with information collected (supposedly) for the public good?  The same metadata on your personal habits, financial transactions and other activities can be easily gathered by other federal agencies as well.  Suppose your credit or debit card activities reveal a pattern of frequenting fast food joints, visiting bars or liquor stores and purchasing cigarettes.  Wonder what the Obama death panels would do with that data?

Of course, the feds would tell you that such ideas are far-fetched--even ludicrous.  Besides, increased surveillance is necessary to keep us safe (or so we're told).  The government also insists that its domestic monitoring has actually foiled "several" terrorist plots; the exact number depends on who you're talking to.  That invites an obvious retort: if the program was working so well, why did it fail to detect such obvious threats as Major Nidal Hassan, the Army psychiatrist who was communicating with known Al Qaida terrorists overseas before going on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood?

Or how about the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the bombings at this year's Boston Marathon.  Russian security services provided two separate warnings about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who had just returned from a year in Dagestan, a visit that (reportedly) included visits with Muslim terrorists.  If the NSA program is working so well, how did the older sibling escape the NSA dragnet, even with a tip-off from a foreign security service?  No intelligence agency is perfect, but the examples of Hassan and the Brothers Tsarnaev offer disturbing counter-points to the "success" of the NSA program.

Edward Snowden deserves to be punished, but the debate he has spurred must also be a part of the public discourse.  Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, who will never be confused with an ACLU member, says on-going surveillance activities go "far beyond" what was envisioned in the 2001 Patriot Act, a law that Mr. Sensenbrenner played a key role in crafting.  It's time to ask exactly what is being done in our name, and what we've surrendered in our collective yearning for "safety."                                                      

Monday, June 10, 2013

Will Assad Prevail?

Not long ago, it was difficult to find any credible analyst who thought Syrian President Bashir Assad would remain in power more than a few weeks.  Conventional wisdom held that Assad was a goner; it wasn't a matter of if he would be overthrown, but when.  With Rebel forces gaining ground (and Assad's army crumbling around him), the demise of the Syrian dictator seemed all-but-inevitable.

But such predictions proved premature, to say the least.  Not only has Mr Assad managed to fend off the rebels, there are signs he may be gaining the upper hand.  Just last week, regime forces recaptured Qusayr, a key town that links Damascus with its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.  Fighting in that area was described as fierce and key Hezbollah units suffered heavy casualties, but for now, Assad and his partners hold the key terrain, sustaining an overland route needed to keep the regime in power.  In fact, a senior Israeli official recently stated that be expects Assad to prevail.  While other Israeli representatives quickly distanced themselves from that comment, a growing number of analysts (in the Middle East and Washington) privately concur with that assessment.

Why have Assad's fortunes improved so dramatically?  For starters, his friends in Tehran and Beirut have gone "all in" with their support.  Thousands of fighters from Hezbollah and the IRGC Qods force are fighting alongside Assad 's troops.  Russia has also made a dramatic show of support, promising to send S-300 air defense missiles to Syria.   Delivery of those weapons would greatly complicate Israeli or western efforts to establish no-fly zones over civilian areas or target arms transfers to Syrian or Hezbollah.  The tepid U.S. response to that vow suggests that Moscow, Tehran and Hezbollah have little to fear from Washington.

Conversely, the Syrian opposition remains beset by in-fighting and factionalism.  Most of the early, secular leaders have been replaced by Islamic radicals, who are now fighting among themselves.  Obviously, it's hard to topple a dictator when the various anti-regime elements are battling each other.  And of course, the intramural fighting lessens some of the pressure on Assad's forces, giving them more time to re-arm and regroup.

Just how much has the situation changed?  Experts interviewed by The Wall Street Journal say that Assad's fall is "unlikely" in the foreseeable future, a remarkable shift from assessments offered only two months ago:

Some intelligence analysts now think Mr. Assad could hold onto power or even prevail in the conflict. That view is at odds with those of others within the intelligence community who think recent military gains by Syrian government forces and Hezbollah fighters aren't likely to alter the overall trajectory of a conflict that they still think will end with Mr. Assad's removal, the officials said.
In April, the U.S.'s top intelligence official told Congress that the opposition was slowly but surely gaining the upper hand in the civil war and that Mr. Assad's capabilities were deteriorating more rapidly. U.S. officials now say the U.S. underestimated the extent to which Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Russia would double down in support of Mr. Assad, staving off—if not reversing—the regime's decline. 

While some members of Congress have urged the administration to provide lethal aid to the Syrian rebels, the Obama Administration has been reluctant to pursue that course.  Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, believes the window for providing effective aid to the rebels has "passed," and believes the U.S. should remain on the sidelines--permanently.

Others disagree.  Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee sent a letter to President Obama this week, urging him to provide weaponry to the rebels.  But, as many observers have noted, the administration's actions in Syria have often failed to match its rhetoric.  With Assad now gaining the upper hand, it seems unlikely that Washington will step in and provide more lethal support to the rebels.  It is also worth noting that Damascus has a few "friends" in the administration (including Secretary of State John Kerry), making it even tougher to cobble together a military aid package for the rebels.

To be sure, Assad's survival is far from guaranteed.  But he's in a much better position now than he was a couple of months ago.  Now, with rebel forces in disarray--and logistical support dwindling--Bashir Assad may be able to weather the storm and eventually prevail.  Indeed, if the current trajectory holds, we may look back on the past two years as another lost opportunity, much like Iran's Green Revolution of 2009.  Given an opportunity to significantly damage (or even remove) an implacable foe, the west blinked, and allowed an enemy to survive.  The consequences of that decision will be felt for decades to come.          

Sunday, June 02, 2013

A Time for Reflection



















A radar image on the El Reno, Oklahoma tornado on 31 May; the convergence of red and green shows the location of the twister; the small, pink dots represent the GPS locations of storm chasers pursuing the storm.  Three of those killed by the tornado were experienced chasers (Twitter image @JustinHobson85, via The Capital Weather Gang)  


As a native of tornado alley (southern branch), I was riveted by last night's images from Oklahoma City.  In some respects, they represented a nightmare scenario for meteorologists, law enforcement, rescue teams and emergency managers: powerful, long-track tornadoes taking direct aim at a major metropolitan area, during the evening rush hour.  So far, at least ten individuals are confirmed dead in the region's second major tornado outbreak in as many weeks.  Three of the victims were veteran storm chasers, once featured on a Discovery Channel reality show.

While that loss of life is tragic, it could have been much worse.  The Friday night tornadoes moved through some of the most heavily populated communities in central Oklahoma, including the city of Moore, which is still recovering from last month's deadly twister that killed 24 residents.  Watching those deadly funnels plow through suburban and urban neighborhoods served as a stark reminder of nature's fury and the fact that some tornadoes will exact a human toll, particularly if you're caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Last night, the "wrong place" were the interstate highways that bi-sect Oklahoma City.  The evening's first deadly twister literally followed I-40 across the region, while other tornadoes moved along I-35, which runs north and south through the state.  On a late Friday afternoon, both freeways were crowed with commuters, truckers, vacationers, storm chasers and local residents trying to flee the storm.

Which brings us to a rather interesting post in today's "Capital Weather Gang" blog in the Washington Post.   Based on what happened in OKC, they have (rightly) described Friday as the "day that should change tornado actions and storm chasing forever," noting that some of the storm's victims were motorists caught on local interstates when the tornadoes arrived.  And the storm chasing community wasn't immune, either.  A GMC Yukon that was part of the Weather Channel's chase team was caught in a tornado near El Reno, Oklahoma, sending the vehicle tumbling more than 200 yards.  Meteorologist Mike Bettes and two videographers in the SUV were injured.  An vehicle driven by another chaser lost its hood when it ventured too close to the same funnel.

Mr. Bettes later stated that his "life flashed before his eyes" during those horrifying moments.  And he counts himself lucky.   According to state officials, five of the nine people killed in the Friday tornadoes died in their cars.  Now, authorities are trying to figure out why so many individuals were on the road as life-threatening storms approached.

One reason was timing; super-cell thunderstorms developed rapidly on Friday afternoon and began generating tornadoes as thousands of motorists were heading home.  The interstates became parking lots; traffic slowed to a crawl as the twisters arrived, tossing cars into the air and tipping 36-ton tractor-trailer rigs on their sides.  Portions of I-35 and I-40 were closed for several hours during the height of the storms, as first responders tried to reach stranded and injured motorists.

But there is also evidence that some residents took to the roads in an effort to escape the approaching twisters.   At one point, TV meteorologist Mike Morgan of KFOR-TV suggested that viewers might be able to drive away from the El Reno storm (the Post has a link to that portion of the station's coverage, around the 8:30 mark in that segment).  Other media outlets have published or broadcast accounts of individuals who evaded the Moore tornado in their cars.  Collectively, that coverage may have encouraged more people to take to the roads, and "drive to safety."

Obviously, that "approach" is fraught with peril.  Motorists trying to flee the storm only create more congestion on the roads.  Making matters worse, they are often driving into conditions that are already dangerous--even when you exclude the tornado threat.  Heavy rains, street flooding, inoperable traffic signals and high winds are just some of the hazards faced by drivers attempting to flee the storm.  And in some cases, residents actually abandon safe locations and wind up in the middle of a tornado.

One of the best examples of this mistake occurred on "Terrible Tuesday," the storms that struck Wichita Falls, Texas and surrounding areas on April 11, 1979.  Forty-two people died in the twister that struck the Texas city, and researchers who studied the storm made a startling discovery: 25 of the victims perished in their cars, and many left homes that were undamaged by the storm.  Attempting to flee the tornado, many residents actually drove into danger and some paid for that mistake with their lives.  

More than 30 years later, it's hard to believe that people in the heart of tornado country are still trying to outrun storms.   It also a bit puzzling that some media outlets may be encouraging individuals to take to the roads when they may be safer at home.   In fairness, some people do need to bug out before a tornado, most notably those who live in mobile homes.  There is also a school of thought that residents who don't have an underground shelter should evacuate when facing an "unsurvivable" storm, like the one that struck Moore last month, or the 1997 F-5 tornado that devastated Jarrell, Texas, leveling homes and sucking asphalt from local roads.

But it's almost impossible for a casual observer--or frightened resident--to make that determination  in the moments before a tornado arrives.  That's reason enough for most people to stay put and stay off the roads.  At the height of Friday's tornado emergency, the NWS in Norman tweeted that I-35 looked like a "parking lot," jammed with motorists who--literally and figuratively--had no place to go.  As bad as it was, it could have been much worse.
***
As for the storm chasers, they know the danger and accept the risks that come with their occupation.  You can also make a case that their observations aid meteorologists in understanding tornadoes.  But there may be limits to their contributions.  The Capital Weather Gang reposted an item from Dr. Charles Doswell, a veteran storm chaser and severe weather expert who bemoaned the devolution of chasing:

I can’t say I have any wish whatsoever to seek to keep up with what chasing has become…

I look at the videos people claim are fantastic on FB [Facebook] but I see almost no quality video. Most of it is the “edgy” sort of “reality video” that’s all the rage these days. People cheering and having “stormgasms” while they bounce down some road on the way to a close encounter. In those close encounters, for the most part, the video sucks (by my standards).

And that brings us to one of the real culprits behind all of this: the media.  While TV coverage of severe weather provides a valuable public service, it's no secret that the "wall-to-wall" attracts more eyeballs.  By some estimates, non-stop coverage of weather events boosts a station's audience by 15-20%, the same viewers who may come back for the local news, featuring the same reporters, anchors and meteorologists who were covering the storm.  So it's little wonder that many local stations spend hours tracking severe weather, touting their contributions to public safety, while quietly watching their audience share.  

The same holds true for cable outlets like Discovery and The Weather Channel.  Both have found ratings gold in storm chasing, and events like the annual "Tornado Hunt" on TWC are heavily promoted and publicized.  Attracting--and keeping--an audience, depends (in part) on getting the most spectacular video, giving some chasers more reason to push the envelope.  TV executives should examine their own motives in airing that footage and putting such programs on the air.  Unfortunately, that group is the least likely to engage in any degree of introspection.

It is worth noting that the three chasers who died Friday, Tim Samaras, his son Paul and Carl Young had decades of experience and had a reputation for being cautious.  Both Tim Samaras and Young were meteorologists and Paul Samaras provided photographic support for their expeditions.  Much of their work focused on developing instruments that could be placed in the path of a tornado and provide better measurements of its fury.  But nature has no respect for scientific curiosity and on a street in El Reno, Oklahoma, the three men ran out of room.  And time.                            

   

          

Monday, May 27, 2013

Memorial Day

On this Memorial Day, we offer a column first published four years ago at Examiner.com.  As we remember.

****

Slowly and sadly, Memorial Day is becoming just "another" holiday, better known for cookouts and retail deals than its intended purpose--honoring our fallen military heroes.  If you doubt this trend, watch TV for a few minutes this weekend.  There are plenty of ads for cars, furniture and clothes, (but unless you're watching Fox News), little is little mention of why Monday is a solemn, special day.  
But for anyone who ever wore the nation's uniform--or those who understand the high price of freedom--Memorial Day will never lose its meaning.  For us, the last Monday in May brings memories of friends and family members who gave their lives on the battlefield, or died in service-related mishaps.  This may sound quaint, but their sacrifice (and the day that honors it) should not be a pretext for a mattress sale.  
That's one reason I stay away from the malls and the beach on Memorial Day.  Instead, my thoughts usually focus on three individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice and touched my own life in the process.  For me, Memorial Day is about Walter, Ken and Mike.  
I never knew my Uncle Walter.  He was my mother's kid brother, a child of the Great Depression who grew up poor in a small Mississippi town.  After graduating from high school in 1942, he followed the path taken by many young men: he joined the Marine Corps.  Two years later, he was a trained rifleman, part of the 1st Marine Division that had been assigned to the invasion of Peleliu, in the southwestern Pacific.  
Seven decades later, the battle remains steeped in controversy.  Historians and military analysts argue that the invasion was unnecessary.  But General Douglas MacArthur argued that he needed the island to support the planned re-taking of the Philippines.  MacArthur's plans were eventually approved by FDR and the attack on Peleliu began on September 15, 1944.   
What followed was--arguably--one of the toughest battles fought by U.S. forces in World War II, complicated by countless blunders and miscalculations.  General William Rupertus, commander of the 1st Marine Division, confidently predicted that his crack unit would wrap up the battle in just three days.  Rupertus didn't know that his division was out-numbered by Japanese defenders (dug into a honeycomb of defensive positions), or that the preliminary naval bombardment inflicted virtually no damage on the enemy.    
General Rupertus was also unaware that the Japanese had changed their tactics, shifting most of their fortifications away from the invasion beaches.  As the Marines moved inland, they ran into an almost impenetrable wall of pillboxes, machine-gun nests and carefully-concealed artillery positions.  The invasion quickly bogged down--it would take U.S. forces more than two months to secure the island--and the Marines paid dearly for their commanders' mistakes.  
One of them was my Uncle Walter.  He died on the second day of the battle, as his regiment advanced under withering fire.  A fellow Marine later told my mother that Walter was literally vaporized by a Japanese artillery shell.  To this day, my uncle is classified as Missing in Action; graves registration teams couldn't find enough remains to confirm his death in battle.  
I met Ken during my own military career, some forty years later.  He was an F-4 driver in the same unit where I served as the intelligence officer.  In some respects, he was a typical fighter jock; supremely confident and highly skilled.  But he was also a genuinely nice guy, one of the most popular members of our squadron.  Though only a Captain, he was widely regarded as one of the best pilots in our wing.  His future seemed limitless.   
But like my uncle, Ken's future also went unrealized.  We lost him on a "routine" training mission, though that adjective is often misused.  Little is routine about taking high-performance combat jets on simulated combat missions.  En route to a bombing range in northeastern Georgia, four of our F-4s descended for the low-level portion of their flight, practicing skills they would use to evade Soviet air defenses in central Europe.  It was something our crews did on a daily basis.  
Ken's Phantom was the last in a four-ship formation.  As they flew over a river, a flock of birds suddenly lifted out of the tree line, directly into the path of the F-4.  Multiple bird strikes took out both engines, fatally crippling the aircraft.  Ken did everything right; he pulled back on the control stick to gain altitude, called "Mayday" over the radio, and started the ejection sequence for himself and his weapons system officer (WSO).
The back seater escaped unharmed, but something went wrong when Ken's ejection seat deployed .  Parachute Lines became wrapped around his upper body and snapped Ken's neck as the chute deployed.  Searchers found the faulty chute and his body about 24 hours later, hanging from a tree near the crash site.  The following week we gathered in the base chapel to remember our departed comrade.  I had the honor of reading "High Flight" at the end of the Memorial Service.  Even today, I cannot read or recite the lines of John Gillespie Magee Jr.'s epic poem without thinking about Ken, another pilot who died too young, in the service of his country.  
Sacrifice also defined the life of Mike, the third hero who occupies my thoughts on Memorial Day.  He originally hoped to become an Air Force officer through the ROTC program where I was an instructor, but struggled academically.  When it became apparent that Mike would not meet the required time line for graduation and commissioning, it became my job to release him.  Having never been a scholarship student, Mike didn't owe the Air Force--or the country--anything.  He had the option of simply fading back into the student population, earning a degree, and getting on with life.    
But Mike--predictably--had other ideas.  After learning that a commission was out of reach, He promptly asked about enlisting as an airman, and I put him in touch with a local recruiter.  In hindsight, Mike's reaction was anything but surprising.  He was always the first cadet to volunteer for a project and see it through.  His determination was inspiring, and Mike earned the respect and admiration of his fellow cadets and the detachment staff.   
A few months after Mike enlisted, I got a phone call from his recruiter.  He reported that Mike hit another academic buzz saw in the airborne radio operator's course, and had dropped out of that program.  I remember writing a letter of recommendation, urging the service to retain Mike, and assign him to a new career field.  Happily, the Air Force concurred and sent Mike to an Army base in Virginia, where he was trained as a Black Hawk helicopter crew chief. 
It soon became apparent that Mike had found his niche.  He became an outstanding crew chief in a search-and-rescue squadron, maintaining HH-60 Pave Hawks helicopters.  Mike's performance led to his selection as a flight engineer, part of a helicopter aircrew.  
On March 23, 2003, Mike and the other members of his crew were deployed to Afghanistan.  They received word that two young Afghan girls were in desperate need of medical evacuation and treatment at a U.S. hospital.  The girls' village was located high in the mountains; the weather was already bad and deteriorating.   
Despite those risks, Mike and his crew took off, in an HH-60 with the call-sign "Komodo 11."  They were accompanied by a second rescue helicopter.  En route to the distant village, Komodo 11 crashed, killing Mike and five other crew members.  He was 29 years old,    
You won't find the names of Mike, Ken and Walter on the list of America's revered military heroes.  But they are heroes nonetheless, brave men whose selfless sacrifice embodies the best of our nation.  On this (and every) Memorial Day, they deserve thanks, gratitude and remembrance from a nation whose freedom they helped secure.

They deserve nothing less.  .
.