Keep an Eye on Korea

While the world remains focused on the U.S. debt ceiling crisis, North Korea may be preparing for another military provocation against its southern neighbor.

South Korea's Chosun Ilbo, citing recent intelligence data, reports that Pyongyang may soon launch a major military exercise along its western coast.

"... government sources say, based on information from intelligence teams, North Korea appears poised for a rare, large-scale military drill.

Government officials, who do not want to be named, say they are "observing closely" North Korean positions. But they say there are no indications the massing of military personnel appears to be anything more than a drill.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, addressing reporters in Washington on Monday, did not make mention of the apparent preparations in North Korea for a military exercise. But the admiral did express concern that Pyongyang’s military will conduct some sort of action against the South again, at some point.

According to South Korean intel reporting, North Korea has assembled a "significant" number of troops and MiG-21 fighters at two bases along the Yellow Sea coast, along with more than 20 naval vessels.

The military build-up is in the same area where ROK forces and the North Korean military have clashed in recent years. There was a major naval engagement in 1999 that resulted in the sinking of a DPRK patrol vessel. In March of last year, one of Pyongyang's submarines torpedoed and sank a South Korean corvette, killing more than 40 sailors. And just six months later, DPRK artillery units shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island, killing two soldiers, and triggering the latest standoff between the two rivals.

North Korean preparations come ahead of the annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise conducted by U.S. and South Korean forces. Pyongyang has long protested the drill, claiming that it is a rehearsal for an invasion of the North. Never mind that Freedom Guardian (and its predecessor, Ulchi Focus Lens) are purely defensive in nature. Kim Jong-il will use any excuse to ratchet up tensions on the peninsula, and attempt to milk more assistance from Seoul and Washington.

While such tactics are hardly new, the reported level of North Korean military activity is highly unusual for this time of year. Traditionally, DPRK troops spend their summers engaged in "agricultural projects," trying to help eek out their country's meager harvest. Following the end of Pyongyang's annual Winter Training Cycle (December-March), military activity slows dramatically and comes to a virtual standstill during the late spring and summer.

Given North Korea's chronic shortages of food, fuel and electricity, it's rather doubtful that Kim Jong-il would authorize these preparations merely to rattle the sabre. More disturbingly, ROK intel officials claim the elder Kim and his son (designated heir Kim Jong un) recently visited DPRK naval command headquarters in Pyongyang. The Kims conducted a similar inspection of coastal artillery units last November, just hours before they opened fire on Yeonpyeong Island.

A master of brinkmanship, Kim clearly sees an opportunity on the Korean Peninsula. He believes the U.S. is pre-occupied with domestic issues and unlikely to respond forcibly to his next provocation. He is also counting on a restrained response from Seoul, similar to the one that followed the loss of the corvette and the shelling of Yeonpyeong last year. In both cases, South Korea did not respond with direct military force, and Kim Jong-il expects a similar reaction this time around.

Recent military moves in North Korea--virtually unreported in the U.S. media--remind us that the world is still a dangerous place. And that danger is multiplied by an administration which refuses to confront our adversaries.

The War on Military Benefits, Redux

During the current debt limit battle, we've heard several Democratic politicians vow that "any deal" will not come at the expense of the nation's seniors, or working families.

But military members, retirees and their dependents apparently don't fit in those categories, regardless of age or family status. As we noted in a recent post, there's a war on military benefits underway inside the Beltway, and the conflict has only begun.

Last week, we reported on a proposal to end subsidies to military commissaries, where most members of the armed forces buy their groceries. The subsidies (a little over $1 billion a year) allow military personnel and their dependents to buy food and other household staples at prices below civilian grocery stores. The benefit is particularly important for young enlisted members and their families who reside in high cost-of-living areas.

Without reduced prices at the commissary, more military personnel will wind up on food stamps, or other forms of assistance. While the number of troops who qualify for the federal programs remains relatively small, DoD officials reported a 25% jump in food stamp use at military commissaries between 2007 and 2009, an increase that out-paced the general population, even during dire economic times. A more recent survey by the Tulsa World found that food stamp purchases at the four base commissaries in Oklahoma climbed by 187% over the past two years.

Under various proposals now being discussed in Washington, military commissaries would be merged with base exchanges and prices would move closer to those in off-base stores. There has also been talk of providing a $400 yearly payment for military families (to compensate for rising grocery prices). Unfortunately, that subsidy won't come close to replacing the average $4,000 in yearly savings that most shoppers receive at the commissary.

But the eroding benefits don't end there. Earlier this week, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn unveiled a plan for $9 trillion in budget cuts, including $1 trillion from the military. While we've long admired Mr. Coburn's crusade against government waste, some of his proposed reductions make little sense, and will ultimately impact morale, welfare and military readiness. Among his suggestions:

-- Slash Military Tuition Assistance by 90%. Military members currently receive up to $4500 a year to fund their off-duty education, allowing many to earn their college degrees while in uniform. Senator Coburn says the TA program largely duplicates GI Bill benefits. Gutting TA would save almost $5 billion over a 10-year period.

Unfortunately, there are some serious drawbacks to Coburn's education plan. For starters, it would encourage more first and second-term troops to leave the service and enter college, since the GI Bill pays the highest benefits to veterans who have separated from the military.

Secondly, the Senator's assertion that TA is an ineffective recruiting and retention tool is simply wrong. Today's U.S. military is the best-educated in history and the tuition assistance program is one of the primary reasons. For example, over 90% of senior non-commissioned officers in the U.S. Air Force have at least an associate's degree, and the vast majority of those were earned while on active duty, using TA benefits.

And, you can make the case that tuition assistance is cost-effective as well. Since its inception in 2009, the Post-9-11 GI Bill has served more than 50,000 veterans, at a cost of $11.4 billion dollars. During the same period, the Pentagon spent just over $1 billion on TA, a program that benefited six times as many military members, at a fraction of the cost. To be fair, contrasting TA to the GI Bill is something of an apples-and-oranges comparison, but to dismiss the former program as inefficient and ineffective is simply mind-boggling.

Along with tuition assistance, Mr. Coburn also wants to slash these military programs:

-- Close on-base schools at DoD installations in the U.S. This proposal would save an estimated $10 billion over the next decade. At first, this proposal seems like a no-brainer; the 26,000 military dependents now enrolled in those schools would simply transfer to local public schools. But what if the local schools are lousy, and ill-prepared for a sudden influx of hundreds of new students? Are military parents supposed to simply sacrifice their childrens' education? Sadly, we know the answer to that one.

-- Overhaul military health care, and prevent retirees from signing up for TriCare Prime, the health insurance option with the lowest out-of-pocket costs. Coburn's proposal would save a projected $115 billion over 10 years, but retirees would pay an additional $3500 a year in additional medical expenses. That probably sounds like a bargain to many in the private sector, but it's worth remembering that the average military retiree is an E-6 with an average "take home" pension of just over $20,000 a year. Increased out-of-pocket costs will place a significant burden on the largest pool of military retirees.

Clearly, military spending must endure its share of cuts and Senator Coburn's plan is not without merit--just slightly mis-guided. Instead of merging commissary and BX functions, we'd simply shutter the exchanges, except at overseas locations. The BX's price advantage over civilian competitors has been largely erased in recent years, as the stores went upscale in their merchandising. Getting rid of the exchanges in the CONUS would more than cover the cost of subsidizing the commissaries, and providing savings that military members can really use.

In terms of education program, we'd put more emphasis on tuition assistance, encouraging more troops to earn degrees while on active duty. Even in an era of frequent deployments, it's quite possible to start--and finish--your degree in two tours (or less). At an average cost of $250-300 per credit hour, a degree earned using tuition assistance costs the taxpayer $30-40,000. Using the GI Bill (including housing allowance), the "price" for the same degree is $100,000--or more. Under our proposal, the GI Bill would stress degree completion for veterans, with elimination of the "transferability" clause for dependents.

For the Tri-Care issue, we recommend an even more radical solution: fully fund on-base health care. Many have forgotten that Tri-Care was created because Bill Clinton slashed the budget for base health care facilities and was promised illusory savings by sending dependents and retirees to off-base facilities. As a former Air Force Surgeon General later commented, the cost for many procedures in DoD hospitals was nominal, compared to civilian health care centers. He cited a simple appendectomy as a case-in-point. On-base, the tab for the surgery was (at the time) about $300--the cost for a surgical pack. If the military sends the patient downtown, the same appendectomy runs about $7,000. Multiply that by thousands of beneficiaries and procedures, and you can see why military health care costs have skyrocketed.

The Coburn plan is unlikely to pass anytime soon, but unfortunately, some of his proposals may endure. We first heard talk about gutting the TA program more than a year ago, long before the Senator raised that option publicly. It's almost certain that some of his "ideas" will eventually find their way into an eventual DoD down-sizing bill. Mr. Coburn's heart is in the right place, but he needs to adopt a smarter approach in cutting military spending.

*****

ADDENDUM: And for what it's worth, we're still waiting for someone (other than Paul Ryan) to tackle the real budget-busters: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. From our perspective, it looks like military personnel (and retirees) are being asked to shoulder more cuts than the general population. But then again, the military community is a very small voting block. Go after the folks who can't hurt you at the ballot box. What a surprise.

What a Delicious Moment

We don't watch MSNBC very often, so I missed today's on-air exchange between anchor Contessa Brewer and Alabama Republican Congressman Mo Brooks. During a discussion about raising the debt ceiling, Ms. Brewer pointedly asked Congressman Brooks if he has a degree in economics.

Based on the response she, got it's pretty obvious that the MSNBC anchor never reviewed Brooks' biography. His response? "Why yes, I do." If Ms. Brewer had done a little bit of homework, she'd discover that Mo Brooks graduated from Duke in only three years, with a double major in political science and economics, earning highest honors in that latter subject. He later earned his law degree at the University of Alabama.

Here's the actual exchange, via Real Clear Politics. Heh, heh, heh.

Of course, no one ever accused Contessa Brewer of being the sharpest tool in the media shed. For the record, she has a degree in broadcast journalism from Syracuse, which has one of the better programs in that particular area.

But as a J-school grad myself, I know the curriculum is (ahem) less challenging than engineering, the hard sciences or economics. So, the typical journalism graduate has vast holes in their education that must be filled through additional reading and study.

Unfortunately, most journalism school products believe that courses in "communications theory" and "investigative reporting" leaves them well-prepared to explain such complex topics as the U.S. economy. So, they're quite content to share their ignorance with the masses. That's why Contessa Brewer was trying to "educate" Congressman Brooks just before asking about his education. In her learned opinion, the country will fall into a "depression" if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Gee, Ms. Brewer, a lot of people would say we're already in a depression, and the prospect of adding another few trillion to the national debt won't exactly help our economy.

But such points are clearly lost on TV hosts like Contessa Brewer, whom Don Imus once famously described as a fat a--. Substitute the word "dumb" for "fat" and you've got a much more accurate description.

Today's Reading Assignment

Two scandals, very different outcomes. But in both instances, journalists (with the assistance of government personnel) obtain sensitive information. Printing or broadcasting the material could create serious security risks, both at home and abroad. Without much regard for those consequences, the material finds its way into the press, generating both shock and outrage.

But there any similarities between the two episodes. When The New York Times, The Guardian and other publications printed excerpts from the Wikileaks cables (facilitated by the theft of classified material by a U.S. Army Private), those outlets were hailed as heroes. But when the former British tabloid News of the World hacked into phone voice-mails--with the assistance of police officers--and published details, the public furor resulted in the closing of the 148-year-old paper. The scandal has sent shares of its parent (News Corp) plummeting, and just today, the company's CEO and Deputy CEO (Rupert and James Murdoch) were grilled by a British Parlimentary committee.

Is there more than a touch of hypocrisy at work here? Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal certainly thinks so:

In both cases, secret information, initially obtained by illegal means, was disseminated publicly by news organizations that believed the value of the information superseded the letter of the law, as well as the personal interests of those whom it would most directly affect. In both cases, fundamental questions about the lengths to which a news organization should go in pursuit of a scoop have been raised. In both cases, a dreadful human toll has been exacted: The British parents of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler, led to the false hope that their child might be alive because some of her voice mails were deleted after her abduction; Afghan citizens, fearful of Taliban reprisals after being exposed by WikiLeaks as U.S. informants.

Both, in short, are despicable instances of journalistic malpractice, for which some kind of price ought to be paid. So why is one a scandal, replete with arrests, resignations and parliamentary inquests, while the other is merely a controversy, with Mr. Assange's name mooted in some quarters for a Nobel Peace Prize?

The easy answer is that the news revealed by WikiLeaks was in the public interest, whereas what was disclosed by News of the World was merely of interest to the public. By this reckoning, if it's a great matter of state, and especially if it's a government secret, it's fair game. Not so if it's just so much tittle-tattle about essentially private affairs.

Of course, it also depends on which media outlet(s) are involved in the episode. If it's The New York Times, exposing a previously-classified government surveillance program, why alert the Pulitzer Committee. If it's News Corp, alert the authorities.

One final note: the American press isn't above the illegal intercept of phone calls in pursuit of a good story. We recall that both the Times and the Washington Post ran articles based on information from a Democratic activist, who monitored phone calls between then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and John Boehner. And in the late 80s, a reporter from the Cincinnatti Enquirer hacked into the phone system of Chiquita Brands. Material he gleaned from the calls formed the basis for an 18-part "expose" of the company's activities in Central America.

The Forgotten Man?

With the pending closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, Deborah Joel is worried that her father may be forgotten.

For more than 20 years, the main auditorium at Walter Reed has been named for her father, Lawrence Joel, who received the Medal of Honor for Heroism in Vietnam.

In November 8, 1965 Joel was a combat medic, assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade which was participating in Operation Hump, near Bien Hoa. As they attempted to push the Viet Cong from defensive positions in the area, Joel's unit was ambushed by a larger enemy force. For the next 24 hours--and despite being wounded twice--Joel (then a Specialist 5) risked his life to care for scores of wounded men, saving many of them.

When his medical supplies ran out, Joel improvised a bandage from a plastic bag to cover a serious chest wound on an injured GI, preventing him from bleeding to death. Shot twice in the right leg, Specialist Joel defied orders to stay on the ground and kept going out to help his fellow soldiers. At least a dozen survivors of the battle owe their lives to Lawrence Joel and his heroism.

Specialist Joel received the CMH from President Johnson at the White House in March 1967, becoming the first living African-American recipient of that award since the Spanish-American War. Joel retired from the Army as a Sergeant First Class in 1973, after 27 years of service. He died of complications from diabetes in 1984, and received a hero's burial at Arlington National Cemetary. A few years later, the auditorium at Walter Reed was named in his honor. But there are no plans for a similar honor at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center or the new Army Community Hosptial at Fort Belvoir, which will replace Walter Reed as the primary military health care facilities in the nation's capital region.

Deborah Joel told the Washington Post that she was shocked by the decision, and the lack of an explanation from the Army.

Make no mistake: Lawrence Joel is a hero in the greatest sense of that word; a soldier who put his own life on the line to save wounded GIs. From our perspective, his place in the pantheon of America's heroes is secure, based on his service in two wars, and his intrepid actions on that fateful day in November, 1965.

But it's also worth noting that there is no guarantee that the naming of a base (or particular facility) will continue in perpetuity. There are plenty of military installations that were closed--without the name being transferred to another base or facility. For example, there are no plans to name another Army post "Fort Monroe," after the iconic base in Hampton, VA is shuttered later this fall.

We should also remember that the name of Lawrence Joel will live on long after that auditorium at Walter Reed closes its doors. Not only will Joel be memorialized as one of the the handful of brave Americans to receive the MOH, the Army has done its part to honor his legacy. You see, there's an important element missing from the WaPo account: along with the auditorium in Washington, military clinics at Fort McPherson, GA and Fort Bragg, NC are named for him, as is the street that encircles the Army hospital at Fort Campbell, KY. Additionally, the coliseum in Joel's hometown, Winston-Salem, NC, is named in his honor.

Lawrence Joel has been gone for more than a quarter-century. But as long as this nation honors and reveres its war heroes, he will never be forgotten.

Inside Job

Barely 24 hours after the Pentagon announced a massive security breach earlier this year, the story has all-but-disappeared from the media. True, the "hacker attack" (which resulted in the theft of more than 20,000 pages of classified documents) got some play in morning editions of the Washington Post and The New York Times--and it was the lead story last night on the CBS Evening News--but there has been remarkable little follow-up. After all, reporters, editors and producers must move on to bigger stories, like the J Lo/Marc Anthony split and Casey Anthony's impending release from jail.

Too bad, because this has all the makings of a major scandal. This much we know: earlier this year, hackers (read: foreign intelligence operatives) penetrated the secure computer network at a defense contractor and made off with some of the nation's most sensitive information. Among the material pilfered: war plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, and detailed technical information for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

When the breach was announced yesterday by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, he confirmed that the operation was almost certainly the work of a U.S. adversary, most likely China or Russia. That's hardly a surprise; Mr. Lynn suggested the "hackers" got their information in a limited probe, suggesting they knew exactly how to enter the network, and were looking for specific information.

But what's missing from the "official" account (and media reports) is another, equally disturbing element: the theft was, most likely, an inside job, carried out by individuals with access to the classified networks that links the Defense community, SIPRNET (which handles SECRET-level traffic), and JWICS, which carries TS/SCI data.

That assessment is based on a rather simple fact. SPIRNET and JWICS are separate from the internet. The Pentagon has spent billions wiring the world for transmitting classified information, avoiding the use of commercial networks that could be more easily targeted. DoD also invested heavily in encryption systems and security protocols that provided added layers of protection.

So, what's the easiest way to penetrate that type of system? Put a spy on the inside, with the a security clearance and ability to look for information and download it. We're hoping that arrests will be announced in a few days. But there's also the chance that the cyber-raid represented the capstone assignment for a Chinese or Russian operative. Once the data was stolen, the spy may have simply hopped onto an overseas flight and disappeared, long before we realized what happened.

In fairness, it is more difficult for spies to download information from secure computer networks--but not impossible, as illustrated by the Wikileaks scandal. All it takes is a disaffected American, or someone planted in the defense establishment, with access to machines that allow users to copy classified data to portable storage devices. Lest we forget, Bradley Manning was a mere Army private when he copied hundreds of thousands of pages of collateral-level information and sent it to Wikileaks.

From what little we know about the latest security breach, it's hard to say if the penetration occurred on SIPRNET or JWICS. War plans for on-going conflicts are often classified at the collateral level, as are some technical details for allied weapons systems. But given the sensitive technology contained in the F-35, it is possible that the penetration occurred on a Top Secret system or (God forbid), a network reserved for special access programs.

Kiss the Commissary Goodbye?

Who says you can't have entitlement reform? Certainly not Congress and the Obama Administration. True, they won't talk much about fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but when it comes to military entitlements--we prefer the term benefits, since they were actually earned--everything is apparently fair game.

Consider these recent developments:

-- In one of his final speeches before leaving the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the need for military pension reform. Mr. Gates doesn't like the current system, which allows members of the armed forces to retire after 20 years of service and begin collecting their pension immediately.

Never mind that the typical military retiree is an E-6 who receives a little over $1600 a month, after taxes--far less than the pension check of your typical state or municipal employee, or retired CIA Director. And it's almost inevitable that Mr. Gates's successor, Leon Panetta, will take up the cause, creating some sort of "corporate" system that would grant a nominal pension after only 10 years of service--but beneficiaries wouldn't start collecting until the age of 60.

Hmmm... has anyone considered the negative impact from the loss of a tremendous recruiting tool and the loss of experienced personnel from the middle ranks? Put another way, how many military members with marketable skills will hang around for another 10 or 20 years when they can bolt for the contractor world or certain federal agencies. And, with a projected decline in recruiting (due to force reductions), it will be more difficult to fill their shoes.

-- If the retirement system overhaul isn't bad enough, the cost of military healthcare is also going up. Tri-Care co-pays are scheduled to increase under the 2012 DoD funding bill. True, the fees have remained unchanged for the past 16 years, but (as the Democrats are fond of saying), the higher co-pays will affect the most vulnerable in the military community, retirees and dependents living on fixed income.

-- Want more? How about higher costs for troops trying to earn their college degree. Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman has asked the SecDef to look at cutting the tuition assistance rate for eligible personnel, from 100% to 75%. Coffman, a retired Army reservist, believes the rate reduction would give military members more "ownership" of their higher education, forcing them to do more research in selecting schools and degree programs. Representative Coffman earned one of his college degrees using TA (as did your humble correspondent), but his proposal ignores an important fact: college tuition rates have exploded over the past 20 years, so a 25% cut in TA would force many junior enlisted members out of the education market--the very group that benefits most from the program.

-- How about higher grocery bills? The Senate Veterans Affair Committee recently passed a bill that would end subsidies for base commissaries, which currently total about $2 billion a year. And for good measure, the legislation calls on DoD to eventually merge commissaries with base exchanges, creating an on-base version of your local Wal-Mart.

Unfortunately, the commissary proposal has a number of flaws. Being able to buy groceries on post (at reduced prices) helps many military families make ends meet, particularly in high-cost-of-living areas. Without the subsidies, prices will inevitably rise, creating hardship for junior enlisted members and their dependents. According to various studies, each dollar in subsidies translates into three dollars in benefits for patrons (and the benefits are even higher for service members below the grade of E-6). Indeed, the commissary program is one of the most effective managed by DoD.

Additionally, the idea of merging commissary and BX/PX functions makes even less sense. The commissaries and exchanges have completely different business models, and merging supply chains and personnel systems (while eliminating waste) would be very, very expensive and it would take years to recoup the savings.

Besides, the proposed commissary/BX changes are nothing more than a money shuffle. Money that now subsidizes base commissaries would be shifted to a program that treats former Marines and dependents from Camp Lejeune, NC, who were exposed to hazardous drinking water for more than 30 years. As MOAA observes, victims of the water problem at Lejeune deserve treatment, but raiding the commissaries isn't the way to pay for it.

Virtually everyone who wears (or has worn) the uniform is willing to make sacrifices to get the nation's fiscal house in order. But it's dismaying to see Congress erode key military benefits, while ignoring the larger programs that threaten our fiscal solvency. But then again, the number of active duty military, dependents and retirees is relatively small, in comparison to the population as a whole. Better to go after the military crowd instead of enraging the membership base of AARP. After all, we know that members of the armed forces community don't vote, or more accurately, many of them can't vote (see next article).

Disenfranchised Over There (2010 Edition)

For years. we've been chronicling the systematic disenfranchisement of U.S. military members (and their families), attempting to vote by absentee ballot. By various estimates, armed forces personnel and their dependents are more likely than any other group to have their votes negated by absentee ballots that arrive too late or can't be returned in time to meet state election laws.

So, why should 2010 be any different? It wasn't, according to Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing at NationalReview.com:

Members of the U.S. military and their families who were stationed overseas during the 2010 elections were disfranchised at an alarmingly high rate, according to a new report released today by the Military Voter Protection Project.

MVPP surveyed 24 states. Of the 2 million military voters covered by the report, 15.8 percent requested absentee ballots, but only 4.6 percent cast absentee ballots that were counted. This is at least partly due to the difficulty and uncertainty of the process. Both numbers were below the 2006 midterm election figures, when 5.5 percent of military and overseas voters cast absentee ballots that were counted.

MVPP also found that local election officials in 14 states and the District of Columbia failed to comply with the federal requirement that all absentee ballots must be mailed at least 45 days prior to the election. That requirement, imposed by the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act), was intended to ensure that voters had enough time to receive and mail back a ballot, given the long transit times for overseas mail, particularly in war zones. These failures affected more than 65,000 voters.

Most of the states did a good job counting the ballots they actually got back — the overall acceptance rate was more than 94 percent. However, there was one glaring and shameful exception: The state of New York rejected nearly one-third of all absentee ballots from military voters. Based on a combined estimate of military members who voted in person in the U.S. as well as overseas voters, MVPP concluded that the overall turnout rate of military voters was 11.6 percent. Since the turnout rate of all voters was 41.6 percent in the 2010 election, this means that military voters were 3.5 times less likely to vote than other voting-age citizens.

This is simply shameful. The very Americans who ensure our right to vote are the very ones most likely to be disenfranchised. And while some military members are apolitical, others have grown tired of the tricks and simply given up on the idea of absentee voting. It's also worth noting that many of the problems occurred in the blue states with close elections (Illinois comes to mind) a few red states--including Alaska--asked for waivers as well.

As detailed in the MVPP report, the Obama Justice Department only added to the confusion, ignoring requests for guidance on the waivers from DoD, while telling the state of Maryland that it could avoid a waiver by simply mailing out a ballot for federal races. A federal judge eventually overruled the Maryland opinion, but it was still a scramble to get a complete ballot to military personnel from the state who were serving overseas.

Assessing data from last year's election, MVPP analysts believe 2010 represented a step backward for military voters--and it's hard to disagree:

On the individual state level, as set forth in Appendix A, the percentage of military voters

whose absentee ballots were counted ranged from 1.3 percent in North Carolina, where

only 8,323 of 111,550 eligible military voters had an absentee ballot that counted, to 15.7

percent in Washington. In total, 18 of the 24 states had military absentee voting participation

rates that fell below 5 percent. Nine states had a participation rate below 3 percent.

While the 2010 survey data does not include military members who voted in person (with

two exceptions discussed below), that percentage has been relatively small in the past. In 2006 for example, only 7 percent of military members voted in person. If a similar percentage voted in person in 2010, the total military voter participation rate for 2010 would have been 11.6 percent.

The Heritage Foundation will hold a conference on this matter July 19th in Washington. In attendance will be Admiral Edmund Giambastiani, Jr., a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His comments should prove illuminating, though he never said much about the issue while serving in the Pentagon. Indeed, DoD has never paid more than lip service to the issue, afraid of running afoul of Democrats in Congress and the White House.

Indeed, the military voting problem is referred to as "disenfranchisment" and not something more descriptive like "suppression." Yet, as the MVPP research team notes, how would we describe a system that produced similar voting totals among members of a minority group. Rest assured, it wouldn't be referred to as "disenfranchisement," and DOJ lawyers would already be in court, standing up for the victims.

Slithering Out the Door

Colonel Jeff Smiley has resigned as Commander of the Alabama National Guard's 187th Fighter Wing, but questions still remain about his status and past conduct.

According to Air Force Times and WSFA-TV in Montgomery, Smiley submitted his resignation on 21 June for "strictly personal reasons." His departure came three months after an investigation by the Alabama Guard revealed that Smiley had used his unit's F-16 aircraft for personal trips and received more than $96,000 in extra pay for unauthorized compensatory time.

National Guard Bureau officials would not say June 23 whether Smiley had been reassigned or would retire. Smiley has been in the Air Force for 31 years.

Smiley was investigated during the third year of his command after an anonymous complaint was filed with the Air Force Inspector General’s Office. After multiple investigations, four of eight allegations were deemed to have merit.

The investigation concluded Smiley accumulated excessive comp time and converted it into flight training time, for which he received nearly $96,000. The IG also found that he used government property — an F-16 — to visit family several times in 2006; neglected to conduct a semiannual climate survey of the unit for three years while he was installation commander; and improperly coerced his officers to join the National Guard Association of the United States.

A few years ago, we remember an Air Force Technical Sergeant (E-6) being court-martialled for claiming an extra $75 on a do-it-yourself move. So will Smiley face any charges for fraud or theft? Don't bet on it.

After investigators from the Alabama Army Guard found merit in four of the eight charges, Colonel Smiley received a mild letter of counseling--even by senior officer standards--from Brigadier General Paul D. Brown, Jr., commander of the state air guard.

Brown conducted the initial investigation of the allegations and found none to be substantiated. He referred to his own interpretation of the allegations in his letter to Smiley.

“By a ‘preponderance of the evidence standard,’ a recent Alabama Army National Guard Inspector General investigation has substantiated four allegations of apparent misconduct on your part,” Brown wrote. “While my own review of the allegations and available evidence lead me to conclude that the substantiated allegations are primarily of a technical nature, devoid of any malicious or fraudulent intent, I want to emphasize to you, a senior officer under my command, conditions can develop and/or exist which cast doubt on your overall judgment and create an appearance of impropriety.”

Brown went on to write that he considered “the totality of the circumstances leading up to this counseling” and concluded that he was confident that Smiley was capable of accomplishing his duties as wing commander.

But as Smiley began to feel the heat from the media and the public, he decided to step down. A graduate of Texas A&M, Smiley is said to be living in the Houston area and preparing for retirement, after a career that spans 31 years of active duty and guard service.

Back in February, Air Force Times demanded that Smiley's record be made public, wondering how he retained his job when other wing commanders have been fired for lesser offenses. Obviously, the guard does things a little differently, but it's stunning that Smiley is (apparently) walking away with an extra $96,000 in his pocket, and his pension and benefits intact.

We'll go the Times one better. Smiley should not be allowed to retire until the entire matter has been investigated by the Air Force or DoD Inspector General, with subsequent referrals for criminal prosecution, as required. As a guard officer, Colonel Smiley can be recalled to active duty, even if he is currently on terminal leave, or actually retired. One hundred thousand dollars in undeserved compensation and the misuse of government aircraft are serious offenses, serious enough to warrant a wider probe. Since the Alabama Guard is unwilling to do the job, it's time to move the matter up the chain of command.

Sadly, the Smiley case appears to be the latest example of the "different spanks" rule that is painfully evident in all Air Force components, active duty, Guard and Reserve. Too many senior officers have been allowed to skate on serious charges over the last 20 years, and that only encourages the next generation. Such behavior will continue until someone finally court-martials an Air Force general and sends them to Leavenworth. That's the kind of shock required to restore ethical standards in the USAF.

***

ADDENDUM: While we don't know Colonel Smiley, we've followed his career. He is one of the best pilots in the F-16 community. As a First Lieutenant at Shaw AFB, SC back in the early 80s, (not long out of RTU) he won the wing's "Top Gun" competition, bettering dozens of far more experienced Viper pilots. Later, he took top honors in two categories at the Air Force's worldwide Gunsmoke competition. Smiley is also a graduate of the USAF Weapons School and is one of only 10 pilots with more than 4,000 hours in the F-16. Regrettably, Smiley's misuse of government aircraft--and his undeserved compensation--have stained what should have been an exemplary career.

The Size Myth

It's been a hallmark of education reform plans since the 1950s. Reduce class size in public schools, the argument goes, and student achievement will improve dramatically.

And we've been on a crusade to achieve that goal for six decades. As Larry Sand notes at City Journal, the number of public education employees has increased more than 300% since the mid-1950s, while the student population has grown by only 60%.

True, not all of the additional staffers work in the classroom. Much of the growth in our public schools has been at the administrator level, with increases in other areas as well. But even when you factor in all those additional bureaucrats, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, secretaries and security personnel, the number of teachers has also increased dramatically, producing a corresponding decrease in the average class size:

"..according to the National Center for Education Statistics, teacher-pupil ratios across the nation have diminished steadily since 1955, when the ratio of public school teachers to students was 26.9 to one. By 1970, the ratio was 22.3 to one. And by 2007, the last year for which federal government statistics are available, the ratio came down to 15.5 to one. In California, going back to 1999, the student-teacher ratio across all elementary and secondary schools was 20.9 pupils. Today, it’s 21.3—a paltry 1.9 percent increase."

But does a smaller class mean greater student achievement? According to Mr. Sand, a retired California teacher, the most famous study that advanced the "smaller-is-better" argument was conducted in Tennessee more than 20 years ago, and its methodology has been question. More recent research openly challenges that assertion:

In a 1998 study, for example, Stanford’s Caroline Hoxby found that “reductions in class size from a base of 15 to 30 students have no effect on student achievement.” In 1998, Hoover Institution senior fellow and economist Eric Hanushek released the results of his impressive review of class-size studies. Examining 277 separate studies on the effect of teacher-pupil ratios and class-size averages on student achievement, he found that 15 percent of the studies found an improvement in achievement, while 72 percent found no effect at all—and 13 percent found that reducing class size had a negative effect on achievement. While Hanushek admits that in some cases, children might benefit from a small-class environment, there is no way “to describe a priori situations where reduced class size will be beneficial.”

Mr. Sand believes the real solution may lie with slightly larger classes, taught by better teachers:

If we accept Hanushek’s numbers and dismiss the lowest-performing 5 percent of teachers without hiring replacements, a class of 20 would then increase by just one student. Ask any parent if he’d rather have his child in a class of 21 kids with a high-performing educator or in a class of 20 with a mediocre one. With only a finite amount of money available for education, fewer working teachers would free up funds for increased salaries, books, computers, or whatever the individual school district chooses. And, as a bonus, retaining fewer teachers would also mean fewer central-office bureaucrats and a smaller pension-fund burden on cash-strapped states.

Unfortunately, no politician is going to take up the rallying cry of "bigger classes for our schools." Already locked in a death battle with public employee unions, governors are afraid of handing their adversaries a weapon that might impede (or even reverse) current reform efforts. Indeed, most governors believe the problem will somehow take care of itself; with districts forced to lay off teachers because of funding problems, class size will almost certainly increase.

But not without a fight. As teacher layoffs begin to take effect, expect even more stories about harried teachers trying to manage unwieldy classes, and ensure that all students are actually learning. It's a sure bet that coverage won't talk about how much class rolls have shrunk over the last 30 years, and expected increases are modest, at best. Instead, reporters will go for the heart-strings, claiming that indifferent politicians (read: Republicans) are sacrificing our schools to help their wealthy friends.

It's a baseless charge; without reform of public education and employee pension plans, many school districts are facing bankruptcy in the coming years. What's more heartless: teaching kids in slightly larger classes, or shuttering the entire district?

Still, the argument advanced by the teacher's union and their Democratic allies does have some traction. At a Navy event, I recently met a Petty Officer Second Class, stationed in New Jersey. She has four school-age children; a civilian husband who's looking for work, and an unsold home at their last duty station. In her current financial situation, the Petty Officer qualified for food stamps. While acknowledging that Governor Chris Christie's reforms are needed, she worried about the loss of art and music programs at her children's schools. I'm sure she would be sympathetic to New Jersey teachers and their arguments about increased class size.

Research affirms that our schools can survive with slightly larger classes. Fact is, we have no other choice.

***

Meanwhile, there's the matter of getting rid of teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom. In today's edition of the New York Post, there's the story of Yvonne Chalom, a teacher in the city school system who was recently dismissed for leaving threatening messages on the voicemail of three administrators at Murry Bergtraum High School where she taught Spanish. Getting rid of Ms. Chalom, 49, took eight years and more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars.

Today's Reading Assignment

...From Elise Jordan, a National Security Council staffer writing at National Review on-line. Her column is devoted to something we've written about extensively in recent months: the Obama Administration's absolute refusal to confront Iran, on issues ranging from human rights abuses, to its nuclear weapons program. A few excerpts:

Iran is feeling pretty confident these days. The Americans are leaving Afghanistan and leaving Iraq, while showing just how far they’re not willing to go in Libya. A handful of former enemies in the Sunni Arab world — regimes that for decades acted as a pro-U.S. counterweight to Iran’s regional ambitions — have fallen in the wake of the Middle East’s democratic uprising. Others Gulf states with significant Shiite populations, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, seem a little shaky. Tehran, meanwhile, rockets ahead.

Literally. Last week, the U.K. foreign minister announced that Iran had tested missiles and rockets that can “deliver a nuclear payload.” The recipients of that delivery, by the way, would be Israel and Europe. It was a not-so-subtle message to the ever-feckless international community: We’re going to get a nuclear weapon. Your sanctions have not worked. There’s nothing you can — or will — do about it.

[snip]

The White House’s response to the tests? Silence.

Sound (or no sound, as it were) familiar? Flashback to 2009: The Green Revolution sweeps the streets of Tehran. Ahmadinejad and his thugs brutally crack down on protesters of Ahmadinejad’s contested electoral victory. The White House decides to keep quiet. The same pattern unfolded following the democratic revolutions of this past season.

It’s not just “leading from behind,” as one of Obama’s advisers memorably described his leadership style, but speaking from the rear. The result? Tehran survived its brush with democracy, further emboldening the regime. Now they see the Arab Spring as another great opportunity. “[Iran] didn’t create the Arab Spring or start it, but they are clearly trying to exploit it wherever they can,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has observed.

To be fair, Mr. Obama and his team aren't the first administration to kick the Iranian can down the road. Pre-occupied with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush White House was more than happy to let diplomacy "run its course," a process that resulted in wasted years--and Iranian progress towards a nuclear weapon--while European negotiators labored in vain to dissuade Tehran.

Now, we're literally at the point of no return. Iranian efforts to join the nuclear club will soon hit pay dirt, and its campaign to prop up it allies in Syria and Lebanon appears to be working as well. The mullahs and Ahmadinejad are on the march; our remaining allies in the region are getting very nervous and its time for a new approach to Iran. And the response from the White House?

[crickets]

Justice Denied

If you need proof that our justice system is broken, look no further than the verdict just rendered in the Casey Anthony trial.

In case you missed it, a Florida jury found Ms. Anthony not guilty of murdering her two-year-old child in 2008. Not guilty on manslaughter charges. Not guilty on various counts of aggravated child abuse. In fact, she was only found guilty on charges of lying to a police officer. While she may receive a short sentence for that crime, it's worth remembering that "Tot Mom" (as Nancy Grace calls her) has already spent three years in jail. With credit for time already served, she may walk out of the courtroom on Thursday morning, a free woman.

But even if she spends a few more months in the slammer, Casey Anthony will emerge from jail a rich woman. Book and movie offers will be pouring in (in fact, they already are) and forget about those laws that prevent the accused from profiting from a crime. There are plenty of ways to structure a deal to avoid the statutes, and besides, she beat the rap on the most important counts.

Say what you will about the lack of DNA and fingerprints. At the end of the day, there is--as prosecutors argued--only one person who benefited from the death of that beautiful little girl. The same woman who partied while her daughter was missing, without an apparent care in the world. The same woman who created an elaborate web of lies to conceal the child's disappearance. She is the same woman who will now profit from the death of her daughter.

Only in America.

The Support Mission

Since NATO took control of the Libya operation in late March, the Obama Administration has insisted has U.S. forces are playing a supporting role, focused on such capabilities as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and aerial refueling. Comments from the White House suggested that American pilots were no longer flying strike missions against the Qaddafi regime.

But apparently, that description of our support mission wasn't quite accurate (what a surprise). Turns out that U.S. fighters have flown hundreds of missions over Libya since the hand-off to NATO. Many of those sorties have been conducted by Navy EA-18 "Growlers" and F-16CJs, which provide suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD).

As anyone with a cursory knowledge of air ops will tell you, SEAD involves much more than stand-off jamming; assets like the Growler and the F-16CJ are embedded into most strike packages operating in hostile airspace, and those platforms employ ordnance (usually anti-radiation missiles) against ground-based air defenses.

More from Air Force Times:

Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.

Obviously, that doesn't exactly square with the administration's carefully crafted images of a support role. The comments of the President (and senior officials) suggested that our air mission was largely limited to the in-flight refueling of other NATO aircraft, along with intel support from platforms like the RC-135 Rivet Joint and Predator drones.

Lumping SEAD support in the same category is bit more difficult. True, aircraft like the EA-18 and the F-16CJ can perform some of their duties in a stand-off role, but they typically operate as part of a strike package, often leading the charge into hostile airspace and firing anti-radiation missiles to suppress or destroy enemy air defenses. Sounds like a combat mission to us.

And, the administration's narrative took another hit before the disclosure about our SEAD aircraft. Earlier this month, both the Washington Post and The New York Times reported that military members were receiving imminent danger pay for duties performed in Libyan airspace, or the waters off that nation's coastline. Perhaps someone should ask if the Growler and CJ pilots are receiving hostile fire pay for their flights over Libya, since their targets sometimes shoot back.

Presidents and their military commanders are entitled to a certain degree of discretion in conducting operations, but the taxpayers (and Congress) also deserve a fair measure of transparency. That quality has been notably absent in Mr. Obama's explanation of our objectives in Libya, and how our armed forces are carrying out their mission. All the more reason for Congress to demand answers--and for the administration to come clean, once and for all.

***

ADDENDUM: It's worth noting that our combat missions in Libya may go beyond SEAD. Air Force Times reports that F-15E Strike Eagle crews at this year's Paris Air Show refused to discuss their activities in Libya, saying they couldn't talk about current operations. You don't need to be an air power expert to know that the Strike Eagle isn't a true SEAD platform. But it's very useful in dropping precision weapons--like those employed against Qadaffi's compound. We're not saying that American warplanes have been flying missions that targeted the Libyan leader. But don't discount that possibility, either.

Through the Roof

Iran's latest missile drill began today, with a literal bang. From Reuters, via Haaretz:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards tested 14 missiles on Tuesday, the second day of war games intended a show of strength to the Islamic Republic's enemies in Israel and Washington.

The Iranian-made surface-to-surface missiles, with a maximum range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles), were fired simultaneously at a single target, the offical IRNA news agency reported.

The head of the Revolutionary Guards' aerospace division emphasized Iran's preparedness to strike Israel and U.S. interests in the event of any attack on Iran.

"The range of our missiles has been designed based on American bases in the region as well as the Zionist regime," Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh told the semi-official Fars news agency.

The missile launches were anything but unexpected. Iran often conducts war games in the early summer and had previously announced plans for military exercises this week. Participation by the IRGC and its ballistic missile forces were a virtual certainty.

Still, the current drill (or at least video from the exercise) appears to confirm a long-suspected capability with Iran's missile forces. Take a look at footage that accompanies the Reuters article (you can also see it on YouTube). Most of it appears to be a VIP tour of an underground missile silo, along with video of actual missile launches.

And, as is sometimes the case, the Iranians forget a few important details. If you watch the video closely, you'll see cables running from the missile, through the open silo access door. Some of the cabling appears to be attached to the missile itself. In that configuration, neither the silo nor the missile is operational. However, Iran clearly has built underground silos for its medium-range missiles and it is believed that some of today's launches were conducted from underground complexes.

From our perspective, the most intriguing element of the video begins at about the 2:41 mark. You'll see a very brief snippet of a missile launching from an underground facility. But the complex appears to be larger than a typical missile silo and the roof appears a bit irregular. That suggests the launch came not from a silo, but a larger subterranean bunker.

The intelligence community has been following Iran's underground missile facilities program for many years. Imagery of at least two complexes (one near the central Persian Gulf coast, the other outside Khorramabad) revealed a rather interesting feature: large portals in the "roof" of each facility. Analysis suggested those openings were too large for such normal functions as ventilation. Given their size (and location), experts concluded the portals were intended for another use--the underground launch of a missile.

For years, there has been some speculation as to whether Iran had ever launched a missile through one of those portals. There were some indications of a possible launch more than five years ago, at the facility near the Persian Gulf. That complex is believed to be associated with Iran's Scud force; if the footage was taken at that facility, it was almost certainly a Scud-type airframe.

But the missile UGF at Khorramabad supports a Shahab-3 unit. That medium-range missile is capable of striking Israel (and U.S. targets throughout the Gulf region), so Khorramabad has always been a high-value target. Interestingly, that complex (part of the Iman Ali Missile Base) was heavily damaged by a series of underground explosions last year. Tehran never officially confirmed the blast, but it occurred not long after computers at several Iranian nuclear facilities were hit with the Stuxnet virus. Those events raised suspicions about possible Israeli sabotage, aimed at crippling Iran's long-range strike and nuclear capabilities.

If the launch in that video was from the current exercise (and recorded at Khorramabad), it would suggest the launch chamber was unaffected by the blast, or has since been repaired. On the other hand, it's difficult to determine the type of missile in that snippet; if it is a Scud derivative, it could have come from the other complex, which was unaffected by the blasts that struck Khorramabad. We should also note that while it's impossible to tell when the video was recorded, there have been no previous confirmations of launches from the larger launch chambers, so the footage may have been recorded during this week's exercise.

With construction of actual missile silos, the larger, underground launch chambers may be viewed as something of an anachronism, but they still figure in Iran's strategic planning. The larger UGFs allow for the sheltering of larger numbers of missiles, and the full range of support functions can be carried out below ground as well. And in some respects, it's more difficult for us to monitor the bigger complexes, which have multiple entrances and provide concealment for missiles, support equipment and personnel. Additionally, the convergence of those elements give Tehran another "bolt from the blue capability," allowing them to launch a surprise attack on Israel (or U.S. interests in the region) with minimal warning.

Obviously, a missile silo gives Iran a similar capability. But in some respects, a silo is more easily monitored. Missile loading, unloading and certain maintenance functions can be detected by overhead platforms, with the appearance of support equipment and personnel providing an immediate tip-off. We never really know what's beneath those portals at Khorramabad and the Scud facility along the coast. It may be an empty chamber--or a missile loaded and ready to be fired against the enemies of the Islamic Republic.

Flubbed

When President Obama spoke at Fort Drum, New York yesterday, he committed a rather glaring faux pas, involving a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. From the blog of Dana Ritter, White House producer for CBN News:

"Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

But as Ms. Ritter reminds us, Jared Monti died in combat and his family received the medal posthumously--from President Obama--less than two years ago.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed the flub. He said that Mr. Obama was speaking without notes, and had previously honored Monti in remarks made in Afghanistan last year.

An honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. No wonder some of those soldiers at Fort Drum looked uncomfortable during Mr. Obama's remarks. In fairness, the President did present the Medal of Honor to SSGT Salvatore Giunta at the White House last year; Gunta received the nation's highest award for valor for his actions in Afghanistan back in 2007, while assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, not the 10th Mountain Division.

Where's that Teleprompter when you need it?

***

ADDENDUM: As far as we can tell, the only press outlets who've covered the gaffe are CBN and Military Times. Wonder what the media reaction would have been if George W. Bush had made a similar mistake?

UPDATE: ABC's Jake Tapper has picked up the story as well.

No Surprise

Call this the non-surprise of the year: as Bashir Assad continues to slaughter anti-regime protesters, the Syrian dictator is getting a little help from his friends:

A senior Israeli source says Iran is involved in the suppressing of the anti-regime demonstrations in Syria. Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the Al-Quds force, commanded by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, are operating throughout the country, the source says.

The source told Haaretz there is clear information on Iran's involvement in the crushing of the protests, as well as the participation of Hezbollah. Their role is not limited to shootings; Iran has also supplied equipment to the Syrian army, including sniper rifles and communications systems for disrupting the Internet in the country, the source said.

Syrian residents and media reports say men in military uniforms have been heard speaking poor Arabic or Farsi among themselves.

"In the Syrian army there is a ban on beards, so when we see military people with beards we can assume they're not part of the regular Syrian army," the source said.

Iran's involvement reached a new zenith, the source said, when the Revolutionary Guard organized the demonstrations against Israel on the Golan Heights as part of the events on Nakba Day on May 15 and Naksa Day on June 5.

As we noted more than two months ago, Tehran has compelling reasons to help Assad. Syria is Iran's most important ally in the region, and plays a key role in helping the mullahs advance their interests. Given its geographic location, Syria represents Israel's most immediate military threat, forcing Tel Aviv to devote a significant portion of its military resources to the menace from Damascus.

While Syria's conventional forces are no match for Israel (in a one-on-one fight), the scenario changes when you factor in the possibility of multiple, simultaneous conflicts with Syria, Hizballah, Iran and even Hamas. Damascus also has hundreds of short and medium-range missiles (along with demonstrated capabilities in chemical and biological weapons), further complicating Israel's missile defense challenges.

Syria also provides a convenient conduit for resupplying Iran's terrorist proxy, Hizballah (and the government it dominates in Lebanon). Without the assistance of Assad and his thugs, Tehran would find it much more difficult to control Lebanese affairs and might even risk another "Cedar Revolution," which ended Syria's decades-long military occupation and briefly brought democracy to that troubled country. And without Hizballah and Syria, Iran would lose its ability to put pressure on Israel, by creating problems on its borders.

Little wonder that Tehran is pulling out all the stops to keep Assad in power. The Iranians understand that the battle for the future of the Middle East is being fought in the streets of Damascus (and other Syrian cities), not Tunis, Cairo, or Aden. Iran's leaders know that an overthrow of the Assad dynasty would not only change the region politically, it would also re-energize pro-democracy forces at home. With a stagnant economy, high unemployment (especially among the young) and a fossilized, repressive regime that has been in power for more than 30 years, Iran is ripe for revolt--and the ruling class knows it.

That's why the ruling class in Tehran will do whatever it takes to prevent a successful revolution in Syria. They understand that Iran and Syria are vastly different--culturally, politically and n spiritually--but they also know that domestic discontent is rising in both countries, and a growing number of ordinary citizens are willing to risk their lives for the cause of freedom.

As goes Syria, so goes Iran. If Tehran succeeds in helping Bashir Assad crush the current revolt, it will not only secure a vital alliance, it will also send a powerful message to regime opponents at home. Since the late 1990s, Iran has become proficient at putting down internal dissent and it is gladly sharing that expertise with Damascus.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration remains largely silent on the matter. The same government that voiced outrage over the deaths of regime opponents in Libya--and used it to justify NATO military action--has said little about the death toll in Syria. At last report, Assad's goons (with likely support from their Iranian allies) were rounding up civilians who were attempting to flee into neighboring Turkey.

Once again, the silence from Washington is deafening. Sadly, that too, is no surprise.

Life Imitates Art

...or going from "Jackass" to "Six Feet Under" in the blink of an eye.

Reality TV star Ryan Dunn, who appeared on the MTV series for several years, died early today in a car crash near West Chester, Pennsylvania. Details from WPVI-TV in Philly:

According to police, Dunn lost control of his 2007 Porsche 911 GT3, veered into a wooded area next to the road and collided with a tree. The impact resulted in the vehicle bursting into flames.

Both Dunn and a passenger were killed. Investigators say both bodies were burned badly and that they are still trying to determine the identity of the passenger.

The preliminary investigation revealed that speed may have been a contributing factor in the crash.

Alcohol may have also played a role. A few hours before the fatal crash, Dunn posted a photo of himself, drinking with friends, on his Tumblr account.

Given his proclivity for dangerous behavior, it's no surprise that Mr. Dunn departed this mortal coil in such gruesome fashion. Investigators say they identified the reality TV star by bits of his facial hair and tattoos on his remains.

And sadly, Dunn will (at least for now) become an even bigger celebrity in death--a hero to the slacker crowd, willing to do almost anything for the fame and money that put Dunn behind the wheel of a Porsche 911 on a winding road in southeastern Pennsylvania. From what we can tell, Mr. Dunn had no real training as an actor or stunt performer--just a willingness to risk life and limb in various hare-brained activities, while the cameras rolled.

Among his various contributions to the culture, Dunn may be best remembered for a skit from Jackass: The Movie where he inserted a toy car into his rectum, then visited a doctor complaining of pain in his tailbone. Hilarity ensured, or so we're told.

Years ago, one of my broadcasting professors confidently predicted that TV would one day air a "live" execution. The man wasn't a snob or cynic; in fact, he had spent most of adult life working in the industry and loved the TV business. But he understood the nature of the beast, and its inevitable slide towards the most base elements of our culture.

My former professor died almost 20 years ago, so he never saw Jackass and its various TV, film and DVD spawn. But he wouldn't be shocked by what passes for "reality" programming these days. And, thanks to the "work" of Ryan Dunn, we've inched a little bit closer to that "ultimate" television show.

False Alarms

Call it the emergency management question of the year: why, in this era of Doppler Radars, advanced forecasting tools, cells phones and the internet, why have more than 500 Americans died in tornadoes since January?

We've heard several theories on the subject. First, the global warming crowd chimed in, claiming that the rise in the earth's temperature is fueling more thunderstorms, which (in turn) means more tornadoes. Unfortunately for Brother Gore and his camp followers, spikes in severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are often associated with a cooler, La Nina pattern, like the one we're experiencing now.

In fact, some long-range forecasters (notably Joe Bastardi) believes we're returning to a pattern similar to what we saw in the early 1950s, which was marked by a series of deadly tornadoes in places like Flint, Michigan; Waco, Texas and Worcester, Massachusetts. Of course, tornado forecasting was in its infancy back then. The weather bureau (as it was known in those days) was reluctant to use the word "tornado" in its forecasts, fearing it would incite mass panic.

Obviously, the weather service has overcome its early hesitancy, and now issues hundreds of tornado watches and warnings each year. And maybe that's part of the problem. Broadcast meteorologist James Spann of ABC 33/40 in Birmingham has a lengthy post at his weather blog, criticizing the NWS for the high number of "false alarm" tornado warnings. A few salient paragraphs:

*I firmly believe apathy and complacency due to a high false alarm ratio over the years led to inaction in many cases that could have cost lives.

The FAR (false alarm ratio) for many NWS offices when it comes to tornado warnings is in the 80-90 percent category. I say this is simply not acceptable. Sure, the POD is excellent (probability of detection), but if most of the warnings are bad, then what good is a high POD?

I ask the NWS to consider stopping the use of tornado warnings when trying to catch small spin-ups within a squall line (or QLCS). These tornadoes rarely last more than a few minutes, and are next to impossible to detect in advance. And, in most cases, the greatest damage from a QLCS is from widespread damaging straight line winds, not tornadoes.

These kind of warnings force us to go on the air for 40-45 minutes, often after tornado signature has vanished from the radar. Sirens sound, the NOAA Weather Alarm goes off, severe weather apps on smart phones alert users. Getting these kind of warnings over and over and over again totally create an ocean of people that won’t be paying attention when a real tornado emergency is in progress.

I heard it over and over as people described their April 27 experience. “I hear those sirens all the time, and nothing ever happens”. The cry wolf syndrome is very real, and very dangerous.

*Too many people believe they should hear a siren before a tornado strikes."

I'm not a meteorologist, but as someone who's lived much of his life in Tornado Alley/Dixie Alley (and chased countless storms as a journalist), Mr. Spann raises very good points. Sirens are grossly inefficient as a warning system (as he notes in his blog); often, they sound across an entire county, when the storm is only threatening a fairly small geographic area. Many of us have heard the sirens sound on a sunny day, in conjunction with a tornado that's 30 miles distant, and moving away away from our neighborhood.

There's also the problem with power supplies; on several occasions, sirens failed to sound because the tornado knocked down electrical lines and the neighborhood was in the dark before the storm arrived. Residents waiting on the siren to take cover were surprised, and some paid for that delay with their lives. Spann believes that sirens should removed, and its hard to disagree with his reasoning. Without them, residents will be forced to rely on more accurate warning systems and (the theory goes) seek shelter sooner.

While NOAA weather radio is more reliable, it has similar problems, as Spann observes. The system needs a GPS upgrade so the NWS can deliver warnings to threatened areas, and not neighborhoods that are in the same county, but face no threat from the storm. Spann advocates greater reliance on social media and technology like Ustream (which words on any smart phone), or the iMap weather radio app, which delivers warnings to individuals inside the warning "polygon."

But there is a drawback to all of this. If you live in tornado country, you have more options than every for severe weather coverage and warnings. And collectively, we've reached the saturation point. For whatever reason, residents switch to cable channels that aren't carrying weather bulletins, surf away from weather-related websites, and push warning calls to their voice mail. The federal government wastes plenty of money on junk studies; how about investing in research that's actually worth the cost--Send teams to places like Oklahoma, Alabama and even Massachusetts to determines how many people in a warned area actually receive notice that a tornado is coming, and take necessary precautions. Compare that to the number who ignore the warnings and decide to press their luck.

That type of research--perhaps more than anything else--may determine why some people make the fatal mistake of ignoring tornado warnings, or delaying action until the last possible moment. Bottom line: there's a certain amount of individual responsibility that (partially) determines who will survive the storm. You can deploy every bit of warning technology known to man and some people won't act until they hear the sound of an approaching tornado. By then, it's often too late.

***

ADDENDUM: James Spann is one of the best at his craft; we watched some of ABC 33/40's coverage on April 27th; it was masterful, and worthy of a local Emmy or even a Peabody Award. But broadcast mets must also ask if their wall-to-wall coverage adds to the overkill. Spann is correct when he notes that some of the non-stop coverage is unnecessary. But it's hard to find a news director in Tornado Alley who's willing to forego that level of coverage, realizing that ratings jump an average of 10% during a severe weather event with wall-to-wall coverage. And, if you're lucky enough to have a James Spann in front of the camera, the audience figures go even higher. We haven't seen the ratings from Birmingham on April 27th, but it's a sure bet that ABC 33/40 led the pack--and by a large margin.

That's the secret of TV tornado coverage. You throw out hours of programming (and commercials) to keep the public informed, but stations also create a "brand" that will bring viewers back, over and over again. Ask a TV news consultant about the value of a Gary England (KWTV, Oklahoma City), a Dave Brown (WMC-TV in Memphis) or James Spann in Birmingham. There's a reason for those non-stop "weather orgasms" on local TV and it's rooted (in part) in attracting viewers to a particular weatherman on a certain station.

***

While many of Mr. Spann's suggestions have merit, some are non-starters, for legal reasons. The NWS is deathly afraid of "missing" any tornado that might kill someone, or inflict serious property damage. The weather service office in Peachtree City, GA (Atlanta) made that mistake on March 20, 1998, failing to detect an F-2/F-3 storm that struck portions of Hall and White County around 6:30 am, local time. Warnings were finally issued, but only after the storm was already on the ground.

This wasn't the first time the weather service has made such a mistake, and it won't be the last--weather forecasting remains an inexact science. And while the courts have generally ruled that the NWS is immune from lawsuits triggered by its errors, it only takes one judge and jury to open the floodgates. That's one reason the wether service errs on the side of caution and issues many tornado warnings based strictly on Doppler radar indications, without confirmation of a funnel on the ground.