Ookie Gets Railroaded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Knicks fans must be so proud.

Behind the Numbers

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

One-fifth of female airmen in combat get PTSD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teddy's Latest Defense Ploy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking Bears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

Winners and Losers (Ookie Plea Deal Edition)

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

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

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

WINNERS:

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

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

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

LOSERS

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

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

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

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

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

Buried at the Bottom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Back in the West Bank

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

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

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

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

What a plan.

What a mess.

And it's only going to get worse.

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

Back to you, Secretary Rice and Prime Minister Olmert.

H/T: Discarded Lies.

The Latest Military Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Ookie Cops a Plea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Showdown Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deferred Until December

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirming Our Suspicions

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

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

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

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

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

The Stench From Lansing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Went Wrong in Lebanon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Last Train to Memphis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's Reading Assignment

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

Obama's Air Raid

Democratic Presidential candidate (and amateur airpower strategist) Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And getting rid of the Taliban means killing them.

Using airplanes.

Dropping bombs.

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

***

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

Eyes in the Sky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

ADDENDUM:

Stick a Fork in Michael Vick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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