The U.K. Telegraph reports that Russia is conducting its latest round of sabre-rattling in much warmer waters--a location that might be described as NATO's backyard.
According to the paper, Moscow dispatched a pair of TU-160 Blackjack bombers to participate in an on-going Russian naval exercise off the coast of Spain and France. During today's mission, the bombers fired long-range air-to-surface missiles in the Bay of Biscay, providing another demonstration of Russia's resurgent military power. It's Russia's largest show-of-force near NATO territory in more than 25 years.
While often described as Moscow's answer to the U.S. B-1, the Blackjack is actually about 30% larger and has a higher top speed than its American counterpart. Primary armament for the TU-160 consists of the AS-15 Kent (a long-range cruise missile), and the AS-16 Kickback, roughly equivalent to the U.S. Short-Range Attack Missile or SRAM.
While the AS-16 was originally designed to punch through land-based air defenses (with a nuclear warhead), Russia has developed an anti-ship version that was first exhibited more than a decade ago. Moscow hasn't announced the type of missiles that were employed during the exercise, although the AS-16 is the most logical choice. There was no word on what notional targets (if any) were assigned to the bombers and their missiles.
Today's bomber mission is part of a larger Russian air and naval exercise that was announced last month. A total of 11 vessels--including Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov--are participating in the drills, described as the largest near NATO territory since the Cold War.
The on-going exercise serves a number of purposes. First, it allows outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin to flex his military muscles, demonstrating that Russia's military has awakened from a decade of inactivity and under-funding. The air and naval drill is the latest in a series of highly provocative Russian military missions over the past year. During that time, Moscow's long-range bomber force has flown a series of sorties against Norway, Great Britain, Iceland, Canada, Alaska, and U.S. bases in the Far East.
On an operational level, the exercise will allow the Admiral Kuznetsov's air wing to conduct needed training, under better weather conditions than those found in Russian waters during the winter months. While the Kuznetsov remains the pride of the Russian fleet, flight training has been sporadic since the vessel rejoined the fleet in 2006, more than a decade after it was built. During its early years, the carrier was beset with technical problems, including faulty arrester gear used to halt landing jets.
While the current drill pales in comparison to large-scale naval exercises of the Soviet era, it will score domestic political points for Mr. Putin, with elections in the offing. The maneuvers also allow him to forcibly express his displeasure over various western initiatives, ranging from independence for Kosovo, to a proposed missile defense deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin apparently believes that by ratcheting up the military posturing, he can persuade NATO to back down on those proposals.
And, it just might work. The Democrats are united in their opposition to the European missile defense shield, and the Kremlin would prefer to deal with a President Clinton or President Obama in 2009. In the interim, the Russians will keep staging high-profile military exercises near NATO territory, giving liberal elites another excuse to complain about "soured" relations with Moscow, and blaming it all on President Bush.
***
At the risk of sounding redundant, the Russian exercise in the Bay of Biscay makes a Bear run against the U.S. eastern seaboard all-but-inevitable. With TU-95s scheduled to participate in the current exercise, it would be easy to add an extra "cell" of bombers (two aircraft) to the formation. As the Bears approach the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. Gap, most of the bombers would turn south, steering around Britain and heading toward the exercise area. The remaining two-ship element would break west, bound for our east coast. After flying parallel to the coastline, the Bears would land in Cuba or Venezuela, then return by the same route a few days later.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Vet Vote Breaks for McCain
In the run-up to the South Carolina GOP primary, we wondered if John McCain would have problems attracting the support of veterans. True, the Arizona Senator has been a stalwart supporter of the troop surge, but his positions on other issues--amnesty for illegals; opposition to the Bush tax cuts, undercutting judicial nominees as part of the Gang of 14--have hurt his standing with conservative voters, a group that includes many military veterans.
Judging from Saturday's vote, it appears that South Carolina's large bloc of current and former military personnel broke solidly for McCain. As the State newspaper observed:
Though active and retired military make up about 14 percent of the population, they accounted for nearly one-quarter of all voters, with McCain claiming the most.
In other words, out of more than 360,000 votes in the state's Republican primary, military personnel--current and former---cast more than 90,000, with a solid majority going for McCain.
The strength of his support among that key demographic can be seen in a county-by-county breakout of Saturday's results, provided by the Charlotte Observer: Draw a triangle bounded by Myrtle Beach, Beaufort County (in the state's southeastern corner) and the state capital, Columbia. McCain carried most of the counties in that triangle, which includes portions of the Pee Dee and virtually the entire coastal region.
It's the same area that is home to the major military installations that dot the Palmetto State: Shaw and Charleston Air Force Bases; Marine Corps bases at Parris Island and Beaufort; naval facilities in the Charleston area and Fort Jackson, a sprawling Army post in Columbia. Thousands of active duty personnel live and vote in those counties, as do most of the state's military retirees.
Senator McCain's ability to tap into the military vote is a trend that bodes well for the upcoming GOP primary in Florida. The Sunshine State has an even larger military population, concentrated in the Panhandle, around Jacksonville, along the "Space Coast" near Patrick AFB, and in the Tampa Bay region.
Consider this: there are at least 170,000 military retirees in Florida alone, along with a substantial number of active duty personnel and a huge veteran population. If they turn out in numbers similar to those in South Carolina, the military vote in Florida could be decisive in delivering the state for McCain.
Clearly, the Senator's potential problems with the "vet vote" were the imaginary figment of various pundits (including your humble correspondent). Indeed, the McCain campaign deserves a lot of credit for playing to one of the candidate's genuine strengths. This "military strategy" won't work in all states, but it carried South Carolina, and may put Florida in the McCain column as well.
***
We also wonder if the Arizona Senator will send a thank-you note to Fred Thompson. By siphoning off support from Evangelicals, Thompson helped McCain turn back a strong challenge from Mike Huckabee.
Judging from Saturday's vote, it appears that South Carolina's large bloc of current and former military personnel broke solidly for McCain. As the State newspaper observed:
Though active and retired military make up about 14 percent of the population, they accounted for nearly one-quarter of all voters, with McCain claiming the most.
In other words, out of more than 360,000 votes in the state's Republican primary, military personnel--current and former---cast more than 90,000, with a solid majority going for McCain.
The strength of his support among that key demographic can be seen in a county-by-county breakout of Saturday's results, provided by the Charlotte Observer: Draw a triangle bounded by Myrtle Beach, Beaufort County (in the state's southeastern corner) and the state capital, Columbia. McCain carried most of the counties in that triangle, which includes portions of the Pee Dee and virtually the entire coastal region.
It's the same area that is home to the major military installations that dot the Palmetto State: Shaw and Charleston Air Force Bases; Marine Corps bases at Parris Island and Beaufort; naval facilities in the Charleston area and Fort Jackson, a sprawling Army post in Columbia. Thousands of active duty personnel live and vote in those counties, as do most of the state's military retirees.
Senator McCain's ability to tap into the military vote is a trend that bodes well for the upcoming GOP primary in Florida. The Sunshine State has an even larger military population, concentrated in the Panhandle, around Jacksonville, along the "Space Coast" near Patrick AFB, and in the Tampa Bay region.
Consider this: there are at least 170,000 military retirees in Florida alone, along with a substantial number of active duty personnel and a huge veteran population. If they turn out in numbers similar to those in South Carolina, the military vote in Florida could be decisive in delivering the state for McCain.
Clearly, the Senator's potential problems with the "vet vote" were the imaginary figment of various pundits (including your humble correspondent). Indeed, the McCain campaign deserves a lot of credit for playing to one of the candidate's genuine strengths. This "military strategy" won't work in all states, but it carried South Carolina, and may put Florida in the McCain column as well.
***
We also wonder if the Arizona Senator will send a thank-you note to Fred Thompson. By siphoning off support from Evangelicals, Thompson helped McCain turn back a strong challenge from Mike Huckabee.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Changing of the Guard
There was a swap-out at Kunsan AB, Korea this week, as the 8th Fighter Wing exchanged its older Block 30 F-16s, for slightly newer Block 40 jets from Eielson AFB, Alaska. The Block 30s from "The Kun" will now be based at Eielson, where they will form a new Aggressor Squadron, providing adversary air training for units throughout the Pacific.
Before leaving Kunsan, the 20 departing jets received a new "Arctic" paint scheme, which will help "friendly" aircraft differentiate the Aggressors from other F-16s. In their new role, the Block 30s at Eielson will perform the role of "enemy" fighters in Red Flag Alaska and other exercises. While Air Force officials stress that the new paint scheme are not representative of any hostile country, Aggressor pilots typically mimic the tactics of adversary MiG-29s and SU-27s found in the region where they are based.
Arrival of the Block 40s represents a changing of the guard at Kunsan, which was one of the first active duty fighter wings to operate the Block 30. Those jets are unique among the various operational versions of the F-16; they were the first Vipers to use the General Electric F110 engine, which produced about 5,000 more pounds of thrust than the comparable Pratt & Whitney powerplant. The meet the requirements of the GE engine, Block 30s were fitted with a larger air in-take, which earned them the "Big Mouth" nickname.
F-16.net, a superb on-line resource for all matters relating to the Viper, has a detailed discussion of the Block 30, and how it differs from the similar, Block 32 models. Originally, all Block 30s were supposed to accept either the Pratt & Whitney or the GE engines. However, the P&W powerplant couldn't accommodate the additional air needed by the F110, so the Block 32s were fitted with the smaller intake, found on earlier F-16 models.
With the Block 40s, Kunsan will get an F-16 with better avionics, a helmet-mounted cueing system and a modular computer similar to those found on Block 50 models. The jets arriving in Korea will be assigned to the 80th Fighter Squadron (the Juvats). Kusan's other fighter squadron, the 35th, swapped out its aircraft last fall.
Before leaving Kunsan, the 20 departing jets received a new "Arctic" paint scheme, which will help "friendly" aircraft differentiate the Aggressors from other F-16s. In their new role, the Block 30s at Eielson will perform the role of "enemy" fighters in Red Flag Alaska and other exercises. While Air Force officials stress that the new paint scheme are not representative of any hostile country, Aggressor pilots typically mimic the tactics of adversary MiG-29s and SU-27s found in the region where they are based.
Arrival of the Block 40s represents a changing of the guard at Kunsan, which was one of the first active duty fighter wings to operate the Block 30. Those jets are unique among the various operational versions of the F-16; they were the first Vipers to use the General Electric F110 engine, which produced about 5,000 more pounds of thrust than the comparable Pratt & Whitney powerplant. The meet the requirements of the GE engine, Block 30s were fitted with a larger air in-take, which earned them the "Big Mouth" nickname.
F-16.net, a superb on-line resource for all matters relating to the Viper, has a detailed discussion of the Block 30, and how it differs from the similar, Block 32 models. Originally, all Block 30s were supposed to accept either the Pratt & Whitney or the GE engines. However, the P&W powerplant couldn't accommodate the additional air needed by the F110, so the Block 32s were fitted with the smaller intake, found on earlier F-16 models.
With the Block 40s, Kunsan will get an F-16 with better avionics, a helmet-mounted cueing system and a modular computer similar to those found on Block 50 models. The jets arriving in Korea will be assigned to the 80th Fighter Squadron (the Juvats). Kusan's other fighter squadron, the 35th, swapped out its aircraft last fall.
Departure of the last Block 30s means the end of an era at "the Kun." As a unit-level spook, I pulled a tour with the 8th Fighter Wing in the early 1990s. Located less than 200 miles from the DMZ, there was never any doubt about the validity of our mission--or the capabilities of our jets. During my tenure with the wing, we trained for everything from nuclear strike, to the defense of high-value recce assets over the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan.
We averaged one major exercise a month, enough to keep us intimate with our chem gear--and the tip of the "Wolfpack" spear razor sharp. For pilots, Kunsan offered some of the best tactical flying in the world, with few of the airspace restrictions that limited training in portions of the United States and Europe. The rest of us got a chance to hone our skills in a venue where the threat was hardly abstract. North Korean MiGs could reach our base in only 20 minutes; the flight time for a SCUD missile was far less.
Standing on the flightline on a cold winter day, there was nothing more impressive than watching a couple of "Big Mouth" Vipers thunder into the sky. Kunsan was--and is--a remote assignment; being away from family and friends for a year sucked, to be blunt about it. But we knew why we were there, and understood that we had an excellent jet (and superb pilots) to carry out the wing's assignments, backed by an equally outstanding support team.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Israel Fires Back
Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that his country "would consider all options" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And earlier today, the Israeli Defense Forces offered a glimpse at one of those options, test-firing an intermediate range ballistic missile that is capable of reaching targets throughout the Middle East.
Official Israeli comments on the test were predictably cryptic. But most analysts believe the missile was a Jericho III, which entered service in 2005. As Reuters reports:
Amateur photographs posted on Israeli news Web sites showed a white plume in the sky above central Israel -- suggesting a test of a large missile rather than of smaller, anti-missile defensive rockets that Israel is also believed to be developing.
Israel Radio, the public broadcaster, said the missile was capable of carrying an "unconventional payload" -- an apparent reference to the nuclear warheads Israel is assumed to possess, though whose existence it has never publicly confirmed.
[snip]
In its brief statement, the Israeli Defence Ministry said only: "A successful missile launch was carried out within the framework of examining rocket propulsion."
Israel Radio, which like all media in Israel operates under military censorship, quoted foreign reports as saying Israel is developing a long-range missile known as Jericho III.
With an estimated range of 4,800 km, the Jericho III could deliver a nuclear weapon against any location in Iran, although it lacks the accuracy for precision strikes on small, hardened underground targets.
Not that it really matters. Israel understands that Iran's growing force of medium and intermediate range missiles is aimed at area targets and population centers. With the Jericho II (which has a range of 1500 km) and the newer Jericho III, Israel has a force that can eradicate most of the major cities in Iran and kill millions of people.
It's the kind of scenario envisioned in a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) assessment on a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran. According to the CSIS, Israel not only enjoys numerical superiority over Iran, its nuclear weapons have a higher yield, which would generate substantially higher casualties on the Iranian side.
In reaction to the missile test, Iran's nut-job president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacted with his usual bluster. However, the Jericho III launch will be taken far more seriously in Tehran's MOD, which understands that it has no viable defense against the Israeli system. And that's another reason that Iran is looking for an advanced air defense system, like the Russian-built SA-20. While the SA-20 has impressive capabilities against ballistic missiles, the high terminal velocity of a Jericho III reentry vehicle, coupled with possible on-board decoys, would present a severe challenge to the Russian system.
Official Israeli comments on the test were predictably cryptic. But most analysts believe the missile was a Jericho III, which entered service in 2005. As Reuters reports:
Amateur photographs posted on Israeli news Web sites showed a white plume in the sky above central Israel -- suggesting a test of a large missile rather than of smaller, anti-missile defensive rockets that Israel is also believed to be developing.
Israel Radio, the public broadcaster, said the missile was capable of carrying an "unconventional payload" -- an apparent reference to the nuclear warheads Israel is assumed to possess, though whose existence it has never publicly confirmed.
[snip]
In its brief statement, the Israeli Defence Ministry said only: "A successful missile launch was carried out within the framework of examining rocket propulsion."
Israel Radio, which like all media in Israel operates under military censorship, quoted foreign reports as saying Israel is developing a long-range missile known as Jericho III.
With an estimated range of 4,800 km, the Jericho III could deliver a nuclear weapon against any location in Iran, although it lacks the accuracy for precision strikes on small, hardened underground targets.
Not that it really matters. Israel understands that Iran's growing force of medium and intermediate range missiles is aimed at area targets and population centers. With the Jericho II (which has a range of 1500 km) and the newer Jericho III, Israel has a force that can eradicate most of the major cities in Iran and kill millions of people.
It's the kind of scenario envisioned in a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) assessment on a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran. According to the CSIS, Israel not only enjoys numerical superiority over Iran, its nuclear weapons have a higher yield, which would generate substantially higher casualties on the Iranian side.
In reaction to the missile test, Iran's nut-job president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacted with his usual bluster. However, the Jericho III launch will be taken far more seriously in Tehran's MOD, which understands that it has no viable defense against the Israeli system. And that's another reason that Iran is looking for an advanced air defense system, like the Russian-built SA-20. While the SA-20 has impressive capabilities against ballistic missiles, the high terminal velocity of a Jericho III reentry vehicle, coupled with possible on-board decoys, would present a severe challenge to the Russian system.
Does McCain Have a Problem With Veterans?
An Associated Press dispatch from South Carolina cautions that the state's large voting bloc of military veterans may not break for John McCain. There's some truth in that analysis, but not necessarily for the reasons cited by the wire service.
According to the AP's Suzanne Schaefer, vets base their votes on more that just a candidate's military resume. Health care and the economy are also concerns this year, and (surprise, surprise) the AP found veterans who said they vote for a person, not a uniform. And, one of the reddest of the red states, they found a few vets who identified themselves as Democrats.
"..in interviews with some of the 413,000 veterans who live in this state of 4 million, few said they should be considered a bloc that votes in lockstep.
"I always vote for the individual," said Cecil Buchanan, a World War II Army veteran who said he's been a lifelong Democrat but could consider casting a vote for McCain. "I like his ideas."
Buchanan, 79, said he approves of McCain's idea of allowing veterans to visit private physicians instead of only being treated at VA hospitals, and his promises to rein in pork-barrel spending.
South Carolina's split primary dates — Republicans vote a week before the Democratic primary on Jan. 26 — has some veterans trying to decide when to vote. Residents here may cast their ballots in either primary, but not both.
Veterans worried about health care and the economy said they have to consider New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's work on behalf of medical care for National Guard troops, and also are attracted to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for his ads on curbing the high cost of prescription medications.
Judging from Ms. Schaefer's analysis, you'd think that veterans were abandoning the GOP in droves, a suggestion that dove-tails nicely with polls conducted by the Military Times and other media outlets over the past year or so. Never mind that active duty personnel (and military retirees) remain overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. Even at the nadir of the Iraq War, their backing for the conflict--and President Bush's policies--ran far above the national average, despite claims of declining support. And never mind that the Times used a mail-in survey, a questionable polling methodology, at best.
There are similar problems with how the AP arrived at its latest conclusions. First, the wire service tends to lump all veterans in the same category, regardless of how much time they spent in uniform. That's a critical mistake, particularly in a states like South Carolina that are home to a number of military bases, active duty personnel, retirees and dependents. A 2004 study estimated that military retirees along contribute $1.7 billion annually to the state's economy. The overall impact of the state's military bases and population--largely divided between the Midlands area and Charleston--totals more than $7 billion a year.
Simply stated, the political priorities and perspectives of someone currently on active duty (or recent retirees) may be different than those who served during World War II, Korea or Vietnam. For older vets, issues like health care are definitely in play. Among active duty personnel and those who retired over the last decade, winning the War on Terror is a primary concern, along with military benefits and base closures.
That's why it's rather odd (some might say convenient) that Ms. Schaefer built her story around interviews with a World War II veteran, a 78-year-old Army retiree, and a former member of the South Carolina National Guard who is approaching his 60th birthday. Better yet, two of those men identified themselves as registered Democrats--hardly a majority in most military demographics.
To her credit, the AP reporter did talk with a 22-year-old guardsman, but in a state with a huge Army post (Fort Jackson), two Air Force bases (Shaw and Charleston), two major Marine Corps installations (Parris Island and Beaufort MCAS) and a host of Navy facilities in Charleston, it shouldn't be that hard to track down an active duty service member who's registered to vote in South Carolina. Or, for that matter, some of the thousands of younger military retirees who have settled in the state in recent years.
How will McCain's message play among that key audience? That's hard to say. His campaign in South Carolina has emphasized McCain's stalwart support for the War in Iraq, which will certainly endear him to younger military members. The Senator's proposed reform of military health care may also win support among recent retirees and dependents.
But Senator McCain's liabilities--support of amnesty for illegal aliens; opposition to the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill; his endorsement of global warming legislation and criticism of plans to drill for oil in ANWAR--also resonate among military voters. South Carolina's military large population is hardly a monolith (the AP got that much right), and veterans of all ages and demographics can find plenty of reasons to vote for someone else, if they're so inclined.
***
And one of those reasons has been conveniently furnished by Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire (and 1992, third-party presidential candidate) who apparently has a little score to settle with McCain. On the eve of the Republican vote in South Carolina, Perot called Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, complaining about McCain's past infidelity, and refusal refusal to pursue reports that American POWs were left behind after the Vietnam War.
Perot's support for the POWs--and their families--is legendary, as is McCain's reputation as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Consequently, Perot's criticism of McCain on the POW issue might seem a bit strange. But, in his conversation with Alter, Perot left no doubt about his feelings toward the Senator, based on his marital problems after the war, and his subsequent stance on POWs who may have been left behind:
The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.
Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."
Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."
By his own admission, McCain was unfaithful to his wife after returning from Vietnam. As the Executive Officer and later, Commander, of a Navy A-7 unit in Jacksonville, Florida, McCain reportedly arranged frequent, weekend "cross-country" flights that allowed him to engage in extra-marital affairs. He divorced Carol McCain in 1980, shortly before he married Cindy Lou Hensley, the daughter of a wealthy Arizona beer distributor. In public comments, McCain has repeatedly taken responsibility for the failure of his first marriage. The Senator and his ex-wife have remained friendly, and she has even endorsed him politically.
On the other hand, Perot's assertions about McCain trying to "shut down" efforts to recover POWs are more difficult to pin down. Since the end of the Vietnam War, there have been frequent reports about Americans who were left behind, but those claims have not been substantiated. The wife of one Navy pilot, whose remains were finally returned by the North Vietnamese in 1989, has accused McCain of being "the driving force behind closing all the POW files, classifying records in order to keep the truth from the families and the American people." While damming, those accusations have never been verified.
Will the resurrected POW issue find traction in South Carolina, particularly among veterans? So far, none of McCain's rivals have touched that question, and it's rather doubtful that any will. Senator McCain's valor as a POW in North Vietnam makes him difficult to attack on that issue. Besides, why pick up the mantle when Ross Perot is willing to do the work?
At the end of his column, Alter notes that Perot won't be an idle spectator during this election cycle. He's promising to launch a website next month, filled with those charts he made famous during his 1992 bid for the White House. It's a fair bet that many of those graphs will be critical of Senator McCain. Perot's new website may be up and running before the GOP primary in Florida--a state with even more veterans than South Carolina.
Two things are certain: John McCain doesn't have a lock on the military vote in the Palmetto State, and Ross Perot isn't going away. Collectively, they may be enough to damage the Senator's chances in South Carolina--and beyond.
According to the AP's Suzanne Schaefer, vets base their votes on more that just a candidate's military resume. Health care and the economy are also concerns this year, and (surprise, surprise) the AP found veterans who said they vote for a person, not a uniform. And, one of the reddest of the red states, they found a few vets who identified themselves as Democrats.
"..in interviews with some of the 413,000 veterans who live in this state of 4 million, few said they should be considered a bloc that votes in lockstep.
"I always vote for the individual," said Cecil Buchanan, a World War II Army veteran who said he's been a lifelong Democrat but could consider casting a vote for McCain. "I like his ideas."
Buchanan, 79, said he approves of McCain's idea of allowing veterans to visit private physicians instead of only being treated at VA hospitals, and his promises to rein in pork-barrel spending.
South Carolina's split primary dates — Republicans vote a week before the Democratic primary on Jan. 26 — has some veterans trying to decide when to vote. Residents here may cast their ballots in either primary, but not both.
Veterans worried about health care and the economy said they have to consider New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's work on behalf of medical care for National Guard troops, and also are attracted to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for his ads on curbing the high cost of prescription medications.
Judging from Ms. Schaefer's analysis, you'd think that veterans were abandoning the GOP in droves, a suggestion that dove-tails nicely with polls conducted by the Military Times and other media outlets over the past year or so. Never mind that active duty personnel (and military retirees) remain overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. Even at the nadir of the Iraq War, their backing for the conflict--and President Bush's policies--ran far above the national average, despite claims of declining support. And never mind that the Times used a mail-in survey, a questionable polling methodology, at best.
There are similar problems with how the AP arrived at its latest conclusions. First, the wire service tends to lump all veterans in the same category, regardless of how much time they spent in uniform. That's a critical mistake, particularly in a states like South Carolina that are home to a number of military bases, active duty personnel, retirees and dependents. A 2004 study estimated that military retirees along contribute $1.7 billion annually to the state's economy. The overall impact of the state's military bases and population--largely divided between the Midlands area and Charleston--totals more than $7 billion a year.
Simply stated, the political priorities and perspectives of someone currently on active duty (or recent retirees) may be different than those who served during World War II, Korea or Vietnam. For older vets, issues like health care are definitely in play. Among active duty personnel and those who retired over the last decade, winning the War on Terror is a primary concern, along with military benefits and base closures.
That's why it's rather odd (some might say convenient) that Ms. Schaefer built her story around interviews with a World War II veteran, a 78-year-old Army retiree, and a former member of the South Carolina National Guard who is approaching his 60th birthday. Better yet, two of those men identified themselves as registered Democrats--hardly a majority in most military demographics.
To her credit, the AP reporter did talk with a 22-year-old guardsman, but in a state with a huge Army post (Fort Jackson), two Air Force bases (Shaw and Charleston), two major Marine Corps installations (Parris Island and Beaufort MCAS) and a host of Navy facilities in Charleston, it shouldn't be that hard to track down an active duty service member who's registered to vote in South Carolina. Or, for that matter, some of the thousands of younger military retirees who have settled in the state in recent years.
How will McCain's message play among that key audience? That's hard to say. His campaign in South Carolina has emphasized McCain's stalwart support for the War in Iraq, which will certainly endear him to younger military members. The Senator's proposed reform of military health care may also win support among recent retirees and dependents.
But Senator McCain's liabilities--support of amnesty for illegal aliens; opposition to the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill; his endorsement of global warming legislation and criticism of plans to drill for oil in ANWAR--also resonate among military voters. South Carolina's military large population is hardly a monolith (the AP got that much right), and veterans of all ages and demographics can find plenty of reasons to vote for someone else, if they're so inclined.
***
And one of those reasons has been conveniently furnished by Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire (and 1992, third-party presidential candidate) who apparently has a little score to settle with McCain. On the eve of the Republican vote in South Carolina, Perot called Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, complaining about McCain's past infidelity, and refusal refusal to pursue reports that American POWs were left behind after the Vietnam War.
Perot's support for the POWs--and their families--is legendary, as is McCain's reputation as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Consequently, Perot's criticism of McCain on the POW issue might seem a bit strange. But, in his conversation with Alter, Perot left no doubt about his feelings toward the Senator, based on his marital problems after the war, and his subsequent stance on POWs who may have been left behind:
The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.
Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."
Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."
By his own admission, McCain was unfaithful to his wife after returning from Vietnam. As the Executive Officer and later, Commander, of a Navy A-7 unit in Jacksonville, Florida, McCain reportedly arranged frequent, weekend "cross-country" flights that allowed him to engage in extra-marital affairs. He divorced Carol McCain in 1980, shortly before he married Cindy Lou Hensley, the daughter of a wealthy Arizona beer distributor. In public comments, McCain has repeatedly taken responsibility for the failure of his first marriage. The Senator and his ex-wife have remained friendly, and she has even endorsed him politically.
On the other hand, Perot's assertions about McCain trying to "shut down" efforts to recover POWs are more difficult to pin down. Since the end of the Vietnam War, there have been frequent reports about Americans who were left behind, but those claims have not been substantiated. The wife of one Navy pilot, whose remains were finally returned by the North Vietnamese in 1989, has accused McCain of being "the driving force behind closing all the POW files, classifying records in order to keep the truth from the families and the American people." While damming, those accusations have never been verified.
Will the resurrected POW issue find traction in South Carolina, particularly among veterans? So far, none of McCain's rivals have touched that question, and it's rather doubtful that any will. Senator McCain's valor as a POW in North Vietnam makes him difficult to attack on that issue. Besides, why pick up the mantle when Ross Perot is willing to do the work?
At the end of his column, Alter notes that Perot won't be an idle spectator during this election cycle. He's promising to launch a website next month, filled with those charts he made famous during his 1992 bid for the White House. It's a fair bet that many of those graphs will be critical of Senator McCain. Perot's new website may be up and running before the GOP primary in Florida--a state with even more veterans than South Carolina.
Two things are certain: John McCain doesn't have a lock on the military vote in the Palmetto State, and Ross Perot isn't going away. Collectively, they may be enough to damage the Senator's chances in South Carolina--and beyond.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Here's a Real Scandal for the Times
Over the past couple of days, The New York Times has been (rightly) hammered for its recent, four-page "expose" which suggested that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are turning troops into murderers upon their return. Researching military and public records, the Times found that military veterans have been responsible for 121 killings in America since our current wars began.
Sounds like a veritable crime wave, right? Unfortunately, the paper forgot to put that number in a relevant context, by comparing the murders committed by Iraq and Afghan veterans, to those among the general population.
Fortunately, New York Post columnist Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer, was up to the task. Doing a little elementary number-crunching with Department of Justice crime figures, Peters found that veterans are actually five times less likely to commit murder than their civilian peers (emphasis ours). As he writes:
In 2005 alone, 8,718 young Americans from the same age group were murdered in this country. That's well over twice as many as the number of troops killed in all our foreign missions since 2001. Maybe military service not only prevents you from committing crimes, but also keeps you alive?
Want more numbers? In the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, the murder rate for the 18-34 group was about 14 times higher than the rate of murders allegedly committed by returning vets.
[snip]
In DC, an 18-34 population half the size of the total number of troops who've served in our wars overseas committed the lion's share of 992 murders between 2003 and 2007 - the years mourned by the Times as proving that our veterans are psychotic killers.
But, as Colonel Peters notes, putting the murder totals in their proper perspective doesn't fit the template desired by the NYT, depicting current and former military members as crazed murderers. And, he predicts, the media duplicity will only continue:
"...all of this is part of the disgraceful left-wing campaign to pretend sympathy with soldiers - the Times column gushes crocodile tears - while portraying our troops as clichéd maniacs from the Oliver Stone fantasies that got lefties so self-righteously excited 20 years ago (See? We were right to dodge the draft . . .).
On the other hand, if the Times is genuinely interested in a military scandal (and we have our doubts), there is one that's worthy of 7,000 words and four pages in a Sunday edition.
It's been going on for years, and involves all branches of the military. In fact, the problem has become so acute that Congress passed a law to punish offenders. According to the FBI, at least 600-700 violations have been identified over the past two years--and those are only the blatant cases. At one point in 2007, the bureau had 17 active investigations, aimed at bringing criminal charges against law-breakers.
The problem is "stolen valor," perpetuated by individuals who falsely claim military service and decorations for personal, financial (and even political) gain. Since the late 1970s, there have been literally thousands of these frauds, foisted on an unsuspecting public, and depriving real veterans of the honor and recognition they so richly deserve.
The scandal never really entered the public lexicon until Vietnam vet R.G. Burkett published his book, Stolen Valor, in the late 1990s. Based on 10 years of research, Burkett and co-author Glenna Whitley exposed scores of "bogus" veterans who never served in the military, or claimed credit for missions and medals they never received.
Burkett's work prompted Congress to pass the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, expanding criminal penalties to include anyone who falsely claimed military service or decorations. Yet, the avalanche of military phonies has continued.
VeriSEAL, which authenticates the service of former Navy special forces members, has investigated thousands of claims since its inception in 1992. The organization reports that 95% of those claiming to be current or former SEALs are frauds. VeriSEALs website lists scores of phonies exposed over the past decade, including a Naval Reserve Captain who served as security director for the port of Long Beach, California, and another man who ran a SEAL/UDT (Underwater Demolition Team) museum in Florida.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Retired Marine Colonel Mitchell Paige, who won the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal, devoted most of his later years to ferreting out impostors who were wearing or selling the decoration. Colonel Paige, who passed away in 2003, estimated that the number of individuals fraudulently claiming the MOH far outnumbered the 120 living recipients of the nation's highest military decoration. One of the phonies exposed by Paige was an Illinois judge claimed to have won two Medals of Honor.
More recently, curators of the Library of Congress' Veterans History Program were embarrassed to learn that only 25 of the 49 MOH they interviewed had actually won the award. It's unclear whether any of the impostors will be punished.
SpecSec, another organization devoted to identifying military phonies, has uncovered scores during its relatively short existence. The POW Network describes "wannabes" as a national epidemic.
And they just keep coming. In recent months we've profiled Richard McClanahan, the former Army Corporal who claimed to have won more decorations that fellow Texan Audie Murphy, the most decorated American soldier of World War II. McClanahan was recently sentenced to up to 31 years in prison for bank fraud and his phony MOH claims. California politician Xavier Alvarez is also facing prosecution under the Stolen Valor law, after telling two different groups that he was a MOH recipient. The Democrat mayor of Atlantic City, New Jersey, Bob Levy, was forced to resign last fall, after it was learned that he was never a Green Beret--as he claimed in political campaigns.
On the other side of the ideological fence, the anti-war movement has produced its share of frauds as well. Jesse MacBeth became a darling of the anti-war movement by claiming that U.S. troops committed atrocities in Iraq--until he was revealed to be a fraud. Turns out that MacBeth never finished basic training. Former Marine Jimmy Massey actually served in Iraq (and made similar claims) until the St. Louis Post-Dispatch debunked his story--by talking to other Marines in the unit and an Associated Press reporter who embedded with them.
Is this a scandal? You decide.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases of fraud and deceit--some by elected officials. Clear violations of the law. On-going criminal investigations. A new federal law to deal with the problem, and nary a peep from The New York Times.
True, stories about people who fabricate or exaggerate military records aren't as sensational as an alleged "killing spree" by returning veterans--especially when those murder totals are presented completely out of context. But, in contrast to the "crisis" detailed in Sunday's NYT, the problem of stolen valor is truly rampant, tarring the accomplishments and heroism of those who wear the uniform.
No wonder the Times won't touch it.
Sounds like a veritable crime wave, right? Unfortunately, the paper forgot to put that number in a relevant context, by comparing the murders committed by Iraq and Afghan veterans, to those among the general population.
Fortunately, New York Post columnist Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer, was up to the task. Doing a little elementary number-crunching with Department of Justice crime figures, Peters found that veterans are actually five times less likely to commit murder than their civilian peers (emphasis ours). As he writes:
In 2005 alone, 8,718 young Americans from the same age group were murdered in this country. That's well over twice as many as the number of troops killed in all our foreign missions since 2001. Maybe military service not only prevents you from committing crimes, but also keeps you alive?
Want more numbers? In the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, the murder rate for the 18-34 group was about 14 times higher than the rate of murders allegedly committed by returning vets.
[snip]
In DC, an 18-34 population half the size of the total number of troops who've served in our wars overseas committed the lion's share of 992 murders between 2003 and 2007 - the years mourned by the Times as proving that our veterans are psychotic killers.
But, as Colonel Peters notes, putting the murder totals in their proper perspective doesn't fit the template desired by the NYT, depicting current and former military members as crazed murderers. And, he predicts, the media duplicity will only continue:
"...all of this is part of the disgraceful left-wing campaign to pretend sympathy with soldiers - the Times column gushes crocodile tears - while portraying our troops as clichéd maniacs from the Oliver Stone fantasies that got lefties so self-righteously excited 20 years ago (See? We were right to dodge the draft . . .).
On the other hand, if the Times is genuinely interested in a military scandal (and we have our doubts), there is one that's worthy of 7,000 words and four pages in a Sunday edition.
It's been going on for years, and involves all branches of the military. In fact, the problem has become so acute that Congress passed a law to punish offenders. According to the FBI, at least 600-700 violations have been identified over the past two years--and those are only the blatant cases. At one point in 2007, the bureau had 17 active investigations, aimed at bringing criminal charges against law-breakers.
The problem is "stolen valor," perpetuated by individuals who falsely claim military service and decorations for personal, financial (and even political) gain. Since the late 1970s, there have been literally thousands of these frauds, foisted on an unsuspecting public, and depriving real veterans of the honor and recognition they so richly deserve.
The scandal never really entered the public lexicon until Vietnam vet R.G. Burkett published his book, Stolen Valor, in the late 1990s. Based on 10 years of research, Burkett and co-author Glenna Whitley exposed scores of "bogus" veterans who never served in the military, or claimed credit for missions and medals they never received.
Burkett's work prompted Congress to pass the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, expanding criminal penalties to include anyone who falsely claimed military service or decorations. Yet, the avalanche of military phonies has continued.
VeriSEAL, which authenticates the service of former Navy special forces members, has investigated thousands of claims since its inception in 1992. The organization reports that 95% of those claiming to be current or former SEALs are frauds. VeriSEALs website lists scores of phonies exposed over the past decade, including a Naval Reserve Captain who served as security director for the port of Long Beach, California, and another man who ran a SEAL/UDT (Underwater Demolition Team) museum in Florida.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Retired Marine Colonel Mitchell Paige, who won the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal, devoted most of his later years to ferreting out impostors who were wearing or selling the decoration. Colonel Paige, who passed away in 2003, estimated that the number of individuals fraudulently claiming the MOH far outnumbered the 120 living recipients of the nation's highest military decoration. One of the phonies exposed by Paige was an Illinois judge claimed to have won two Medals of Honor.
More recently, curators of the Library of Congress' Veterans History Program were embarrassed to learn that only 25 of the 49 MOH they interviewed had actually won the award. It's unclear whether any of the impostors will be punished.
SpecSec, another organization devoted to identifying military phonies, has uncovered scores during its relatively short existence. The POW Network describes "wannabes" as a national epidemic.
And they just keep coming. In recent months we've profiled Richard McClanahan, the former Army Corporal who claimed to have won more decorations that fellow Texan Audie Murphy, the most decorated American soldier of World War II. McClanahan was recently sentenced to up to 31 years in prison for bank fraud and his phony MOH claims. California politician Xavier Alvarez is also facing prosecution under the Stolen Valor law, after telling two different groups that he was a MOH recipient. The Democrat mayor of Atlantic City, New Jersey, Bob Levy, was forced to resign last fall, after it was learned that he was never a Green Beret--as he claimed in political campaigns.
On the other side of the ideological fence, the anti-war movement has produced its share of frauds as well. Jesse MacBeth became a darling of the anti-war movement by claiming that U.S. troops committed atrocities in Iraq--until he was revealed to be a fraud. Turns out that MacBeth never finished basic training. Former Marine Jimmy Massey actually served in Iraq (and made similar claims) until the St. Louis Post-Dispatch debunked his story--by talking to other Marines in the unit and an Associated Press reporter who embedded with them.
Is this a scandal? You decide.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases of fraud and deceit--some by elected officials. Clear violations of the law. On-going criminal investigations. A new federal law to deal with the problem, and nary a peep from The New York Times.
True, stories about people who fabricate or exaggerate military records aren't as sensational as an alleged "killing spree" by returning veterans--especially when those murder totals are presented completely out of context. But, in contrast to the "crisis" detailed in Sunday's NYT, the problem of stolen valor is truly rampant, tarring the accomplishments and heroism of those who wear the uniform.
No wonder the Times won't touch it.
The Right to Lie (and Lie Again)
Xavier Alvarez, the Pomona (CA) water board member who is facing additional charges for claims he won the Congressional Medal of Honor and served in the Marine Corps. Alvarez never served a day in the military. Alvarez made the claim at a water board meeting and in remarks to a local police group (photo courtesy of M-M-M-My Pomona).
Yesterday, we introduced you to Xavier Alvarez, the Pomona, California water board member who ran afoul of the law, by claiming that he was a retired Marine who won the Medal of Honor in 1987.
Apparently, Mr. Alavarez didn't know--or didn't care--that the 2005 Stolen Valor Act criminalizes false claims about military service and decorations. Turns out that Alvarez never spent a day in the military and never received the Medal of Honor, except in his over-active imagination.
Still, that didn't keep Mr. Alvarez from boasting about a "25-year career" as a member of the Marine Corps and a Medal of Honor recipient. He made the boast at a meeting of a local water board last summer. Someone caught the claim on tape. Alvarez eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge under the 2005 law.
Unwilling to let the matter rest, Alvarez and his court-appointed attorney recently filed a motion, asking that the charge against him be dropped. As we noted yesterday, Mr. Alvarez's lawyer hit on a rather novel excuse for throwing out his conviction. According to his counsel, Alvarez had the right to lie, claiming that falsehoods are not outside the First Amendment, and "restrictions on false statements must be supported by a strong government interest and must be directly related to that interest." The motion also claims that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.
The U.S. attorney prosecuting the case disagrees, noting that the government has an "undeniable interest in protecting from dilution the significance of the nation's highest military distinction and the magnitude of the accomplishment of those who actually earned it."
A hearing on the matter was scheduled for Tuesday, but it has been delayed. According Whittier Daily News staff writer Will Bingham (who appears to be the only MSM reporter actively following the story), federal prosecutors now plan to file more charges against Alvarez, after discovering a second recording of him making the Medal of Honor claim.
Alvarez made the newly discovered medal claim while he was a candidate for mayor in Pomona's January 2006 special election, said Craig H. Missakian, assistant U.S. attorney.
Alvarez's claim was recorded during a meeting with the Pomona Police Officers Association, where he was seeking the organization's endorsement, Missakian said.
The additional medal charge would double Alvarez's maximum sentence to two years in prison and $200,000 in fines, Missakian said.
The hearing on Alvarez's motion to dismiss has been postponed until January 22nd. His trial date has been pushed back as well.
***
For more on Mr. Alvarez and his gift for fabrication, check out this October 27, 2007 post from the Claremont Insider, a blog which keeps an eye on local government in California's Inland Valley region. The Insider reports that Alvarez has a history of making false claims, and one of those lies resulted in a censure from his fellow water board members.
Alvarez was censured yesterday in a special meeting by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, where he is Pomona's representative. As readers will recall, Alvarez is already facing a federal misdemeanor charge for falsely claiming that he is a Medal of Honor winner.
Alvarez has also made false claims that he served in the military in Vietnam and other exotic locales (he has admitted he was never in the military), that he is married to a starlet (he is not married), and that he graduated as an engineer from Cal Poly Pomona (there is no record of him having attended Cal Poly).
Bigham's article noted that Alvarez also obtained health benefits for his ex-wife, Juanita Diana Ruiz. The two have been divorced since 2002, but after he was elected in November, 2006, Alvarez listed Ruiz as his wife and Three Valleys paid $4,873.76 in benefits for Ruiz. The health benefits were what led to the board censuring Alvarez.Bigham reported that Alvarez has promised to repay the benefit money.
However, since the amount is over $500, Alvarez could be charged with a felony for misuse of public funds, according to Three Valley's president Bob Kuhn.It struck us that there might also be fraud and grand theft charges in there, and Three Valley's board member Dan Horan said as much, accusing Alvarez of fraud.
The Insider also notes that Alvarez won his water board seat with the help of Pomona's Democratic mayor, Norma Torres. The mayor happens to be a high-profile supporter of Barack Obama, and was dispatched to campaign for him in Iowa earlier this month. When Alvarez's MOH scandal broke last year, she described it as "unfortunate." (H/T to Publis at the Foothill Cities Blog).
Publis also found a lame explanation for the MOH claim, which Alvarez offered to the Los Angeles Times last fall:
He didn’t deny claiming to have received the Medal of Honor. People routinely say things at board meetings “just to entertain the public,” he said.
The federal charges are the work of his political opponents, Alvarez contends. When asked to specifically address the charges, his response was disjointed.
“There’s people who go up there and say, ‘Oh, I’m homosexual. And I belong to the homosexual community.’ I don’t say anything about that. . . . I’m a rookie at this. You get nervous.”
If the thought of "entertaining" people at the water board meeting makes Alvarez nervous, wait till he meets his new "audience" at The Big House.
***
ADDENDUM: A poster on the open thread at Balloon Juice (tongue firmly in cheek), accuses us of "Swift-Boating" Mr. Alvarez. Heh..heh...heh.
Also, the Modesto Bee has uncovered two more whoppers from Alvarez, which he shared with a fellow board member:
Fellow board member Dan Horan said Xavier Alvarez told him he saved a U.S. ambassador -- and the American flag -- while wounded by gunfire during a daring rooftop helicopter rescue in Lebanon.
Horan said he was puzzled when Alvarez, a board member elected in 2006, later changed his story to say it happened in Iran. And he was skeptical when his colleague also bragged of rescuing Marines pinned down by Viet Cong gunfire in Vietnam.
Mr. Horan had good reason to be skeptical. Alvarez is 49. At the time of that supposed rescue in Vietnam, he would have been a 17-year-old helicopter pilot. By comparison, former President George H.W. Bush is a piker; he didn't win his Navy pilot's wings until he was 19.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Toward a Nuclear-Free World?
There's a rather substantive op-ed in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, signed by two former Secretaries of State (George Shultz and Henry Kissinger); a former Secretary of Defense (William J. Perry) and a retired Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn. So, it's hardly your typical opinion piece.
Moreover, the ideas expressed in the piece have been endorsed--to varying degrees--by a veritable Who's-Who of the U.S. national security establishment over the past 30 years. That list includes (by our count) five past secretaries of state; four former SecDefs and five retired national security advisers. Apparently, the only people who haven't signed off on the piece are either dead, or currently serving in the defense or diplomatic communities.
With the support of that many big thinkers and heavy hitters, you'd expect that the op-ed is devoted to a weighty topic, and it doesn't disappoint (at least, in that regard). Entitled "Toward a Nuclear-Free World," it's actually a follow-up to an earlier commentary, also published in the WSJ. The original piece called for called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. But, the authors argue that more must be done, to pull back from the nuclear precipice:
The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.
And, some of the recommendations offered in the op-ed actually make sense. They include:
-Extend key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991
-Take steps to increase the warning and decision times for the launch of all nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, thereby reducing risks of accidental or unauthorized attacks.
-Undertake negotiations toward developing cooperative multilateral ballistic-missile defense and early warning systems
-Dramatically accelerate work to provide the highest possible standards of security for nuclear weapons, as well as for nuclear materials everywhere in the world, to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
-Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a counter to the global spread of advanced technologies.
Still, the op-ed is disappointing in many respects--some would even say naive. First, the national security heavyweights seem to be locked in a 1970s time warp, when there were only five declared nuclear powers: the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France. In that era, negotiations and treaties between "rational" state actors made a great deal of sense, although many of those agreements gave the Soviet Union an edge in many strategic categories.
Obviously, the nature of the nuclear threat has shifted dramatically over the past three decades--a fact the authors readily acknowledge. In addition to a possible nuclear attack by terrorists, there is the growing danger posed by new members to the nuclear club. How do you persuade nations like India, Pakistan and even Israel to give up their nuclear option--weapons viewed in those countries as a critical deterrent, even necessary for national survival. Building "an international consensus" on nuclear priorities is fine, but getting countries to sign on and comply is going to be difficult.
China offers a case in point. Over the past decade, Beijing has expanded its strategic forces and assembled powerful, theater-level nuclear assets opposite Taiwan. Today, more than 700 short and medium-range missiles (virtually all nuclear-capable) are available for operations in the Strait of Taiwan or the Sea of Japan. Beijing's goals are simple: build a force that is capable of pounding Taiwan into submission, and defeat U.S. forces that would come to the rescue of that nation.
Additionally, China is quite serious about fielding advanced sea and land-based systems that hold the U.S. homeland at risk. A decade ago, a PLA general famously asked his American counterpart if we were "willing to trade Los Angeles for Taipei." He wasn't kidding, and his comment drives home an essential point: How do you dissuade Beijing from becoming a nuclear peer competitor of the United States? On that critical issue, the op-ed authors are a little vague, beyond the usual talk of global consensus, increased monitoring and stronger anti-proliferation regimes.
There's also the grim realization that the Shultz/Kissinger/Perry/Nunn et.al approach doesn't work particularly well with rogue states. Almost a year after the Six Party nuclear agreement with North Korea, Kim Jong-il has yet to provide a full disclosure of his nation's nuclear stockpile. More disturbing, there is evidence that nuclear "material" from Pyongyang made its way to a covert facility in Syria, which was struck by Israeli jets last September. Anti-proliferation measures based on diplomacy and accords are only as good as the word of the signatories. Why should anyone believe that North Korea will be more forthcoming and transparent in the future, given its long history of cheating?
Then, there's the little matter of Iran. Not only is the issue of Tehran's nuclear program far from resolved, their efforts are being aided by Russia--one of the nation's that is supposed to lead a revitalized non-proliferation effort. Mikhail Gorbachev may support the ideas outlined in the WSJ op-ed, but the current Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, apparently isn't a subscriber.
Not only is Mr. Putin providing equipment, fuel and expertise that could aid in Iran's effort to obtain nuclear weapons, he is also upgrading his own strategic arsenal, with deployment of a new generation of ICBMs. Putin has also expressed strong support for weapons like the hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), designed specifically to defeat defensive systems like long-range detection radars and ballistic missile defenses. As long as Russia works at conflicting goals in the nuclear arena, efforts at non-proliferation will be hollow, at best.
The ideas outlined in today's op-ed also make little mention of what happens when diplomacy and treaties fail. In reality, the threat from Saddam's nuclear program didn't officially end until coalition troops rolled into Iraq in the spring of 2003. As long as the Baathist regime remained in power, Saddam retained the option of reviving his nuclear program, despite years of IAEA inspections.
It's also worth remembering that the same military might that toppled Saddam Hussein also convinced Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. We subsequently learned that the Libyan effort was much more advanced than previously thought. Touring Libya's facilities, U.S. and British intelligence specialists found a very "robust" program, complete with assembled centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and thousands of centrifuge parts.
Had the U.S. and its partners not invaded Iraq, we can only wonder how quickly Gadhafi would have obtained nuclear weapons. Our discoveries in Libya was hardly an endorsement of "traditional" non-proliferation efforts and it raises the salient question: at what point is the world community prepared to intervene militarily, in order to deny nuclear weapons to a rogue state. On that count, the authors of the WSJ op-ed fail to provide a satisfactory answer.
Finally, the former national security leaders ignore other indisputable facts about nuclear weapons: they provide a real deterrent value, and they're cheaper than conventional forces. Nukes helped keep the peace during the Cold War and they still have a limiting effect on potential adversaries. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but there are those in Tehran who understand that a nuclear attack on Israel (or U.S. forces in the Middle East) would result in swift retaliation and the destruction of Iran.
Will that realization ultimately check Iran's drive for nuclear weapons? Only time will tell. Perhaps the question ought to be re-phrased and re-directed at our own side, toward those former officials striving for the ultimate elimination of nukes. At what point, we should ask, are they willing to give up the deterrent value offered by such weapons? And, are they willing to make the corresponding increase in conventional weapons that will be required by getting rid of our nuclear inventory?
Lest we forget, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are currently embarked on a program that will provide a modest increase in our ground forces. Reaching that goal will take at least five years and billions of dollars. The cost of fielding additional air, ground and naval units that would only partially replace our nuclear arsenal would be even more expensive. Any savings derived from eliminating nuclear weapons would be more than offset by staggering increases in expenditures in conventional weapons.
There is no doubt that nuclear non-proliferation is an important challenge. And the men and women who wrote today's op-ed (or endorsed it) are sober and serious in their views. Based on their experience as senior national security officials, they understand that the goal of a "nuclear-free world" is like viewing a distant mountain. They write:
"From the vantage point of our troubled world today, we can't even see the top of the mountain, and it is tempting and easy to say we can't get there from here. But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore. We must chart a course to higher ground where the mountaintop becomes more visible."
But, in pursuit of a safer world, we must ensure that their far-off mountain is indeed a realistic goal--and not merely a mirage.
Moreover, the ideas expressed in the piece have been endorsed--to varying degrees--by a veritable Who's-Who of the U.S. national security establishment over the past 30 years. That list includes (by our count) five past secretaries of state; four former SecDefs and five retired national security advisers. Apparently, the only people who haven't signed off on the piece are either dead, or currently serving in the defense or diplomatic communities.
With the support of that many big thinkers and heavy hitters, you'd expect that the op-ed is devoted to a weighty topic, and it doesn't disappoint (at least, in that regard). Entitled "Toward a Nuclear-Free World," it's actually a follow-up to an earlier commentary, also published in the WSJ. The original piece called for called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. But, the authors argue that more must be done, to pull back from the nuclear precipice:
The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.
And, some of the recommendations offered in the op-ed actually make sense. They include:
-Extend key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991
-Take steps to increase the warning and decision times for the launch of all nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, thereby reducing risks of accidental or unauthorized attacks.
-Undertake negotiations toward developing cooperative multilateral ballistic-missile defense and early warning systems
-Dramatically accelerate work to provide the highest possible standards of security for nuclear weapons, as well as for nuclear materials everywhere in the world, to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
-Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a counter to the global spread of advanced technologies.
Still, the op-ed is disappointing in many respects--some would even say naive. First, the national security heavyweights seem to be locked in a 1970s time warp, when there were only five declared nuclear powers: the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France. In that era, negotiations and treaties between "rational" state actors made a great deal of sense, although many of those agreements gave the Soviet Union an edge in many strategic categories.
Obviously, the nature of the nuclear threat has shifted dramatically over the past three decades--a fact the authors readily acknowledge. In addition to a possible nuclear attack by terrorists, there is the growing danger posed by new members to the nuclear club. How do you persuade nations like India, Pakistan and even Israel to give up their nuclear option--weapons viewed in those countries as a critical deterrent, even necessary for national survival. Building "an international consensus" on nuclear priorities is fine, but getting countries to sign on and comply is going to be difficult.
China offers a case in point. Over the past decade, Beijing has expanded its strategic forces and assembled powerful, theater-level nuclear assets opposite Taiwan. Today, more than 700 short and medium-range missiles (virtually all nuclear-capable) are available for operations in the Strait of Taiwan or the Sea of Japan. Beijing's goals are simple: build a force that is capable of pounding Taiwan into submission, and defeat U.S. forces that would come to the rescue of that nation.
Additionally, China is quite serious about fielding advanced sea and land-based systems that hold the U.S. homeland at risk. A decade ago, a PLA general famously asked his American counterpart if we were "willing to trade Los Angeles for Taipei." He wasn't kidding, and his comment drives home an essential point: How do you dissuade Beijing from becoming a nuclear peer competitor of the United States? On that critical issue, the op-ed authors are a little vague, beyond the usual talk of global consensus, increased monitoring and stronger anti-proliferation regimes.
There's also the grim realization that the Shultz/Kissinger/Perry/Nunn et.al approach doesn't work particularly well with rogue states. Almost a year after the Six Party nuclear agreement with North Korea, Kim Jong-il has yet to provide a full disclosure of his nation's nuclear stockpile. More disturbing, there is evidence that nuclear "material" from Pyongyang made its way to a covert facility in Syria, which was struck by Israeli jets last September. Anti-proliferation measures based on diplomacy and accords are only as good as the word of the signatories. Why should anyone believe that North Korea will be more forthcoming and transparent in the future, given its long history of cheating?
Then, there's the little matter of Iran. Not only is the issue of Tehran's nuclear program far from resolved, their efforts are being aided by Russia--one of the nation's that is supposed to lead a revitalized non-proliferation effort. Mikhail Gorbachev may support the ideas outlined in the WSJ op-ed, but the current Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, apparently isn't a subscriber.
Not only is Mr. Putin providing equipment, fuel and expertise that could aid in Iran's effort to obtain nuclear weapons, he is also upgrading his own strategic arsenal, with deployment of a new generation of ICBMs. Putin has also expressed strong support for weapons like the hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), designed specifically to defeat defensive systems like long-range detection radars and ballistic missile defenses. As long as Russia works at conflicting goals in the nuclear arena, efforts at non-proliferation will be hollow, at best.
The ideas outlined in today's op-ed also make little mention of what happens when diplomacy and treaties fail. In reality, the threat from Saddam's nuclear program didn't officially end until coalition troops rolled into Iraq in the spring of 2003. As long as the Baathist regime remained in power, Saddam retained the option of reviving his nuclear program, despite years of IAEA inspections.
It's also worth remembering that the same military might that toppled Saddam Hussein also convinced Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. We subsequently learned that the Libyan effort was much more advanced than previously thought. Touring Libya's facilities, U.S. and British intelligence specialists found a very "robust" program, complete with assembled centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and thousands of centrifuge parts.
Had the U.S. and its partners not invaded Iraq, we can only wonder how quickly Gadhafi would have obtained nuclear weapons. Our discoveries in Libya was hardly an endorsement of "traditional" non-proliferation efforts and it raises the salient question: at what point is the world community prepared to intervene militarily, in order to deny nuclear weapons to a rogue state. On that count, the authors of the WSJ op-ed fail to provide a satisfactory answer.
Finally, the former national security leaders ignore other indisputable facts about nuclear weapons: they provide a real deterrent value, and they're cheaper than conventional forces. Nukes helped keep the peace during the Cold War and they still have a limiting effect on potential adversaries. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but there are those in Tehran who understand that a nuclear attack on Israel (or U.S. forces in the Middle East) would result in swift retaliation and the destruction of Iran.
Will that realization ultimately check Iran's drive for nuclear weapons? Only time will tell. Perhaps the question ought to be re-phrased and re-directed at our own side, toward those former officials striving for the ultimate elimination of nukes. At what point, we should ask, are they willing to give up the deterrent value offered by such weapons? And, are they willing to make the corresponding increase in conventional weapons that will be required by getting rid of our nuclear inventory?
Lest we forget, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are currently embarked on a program that will provide a modest increase in our ground forces. Reaching that goal will take at least five years and billions of dollars. The cost of fielding additional air, ground and naval units that would only partially replace our nuclear arsenal would be even more expensive. Any savings derived from eliminating nuclear weapons would be more than offset by staggering increases in expenditures in conventional weapons.
There is no doubt that nuclear non-proliferation is an important challenge. And the men and women who wrote today's op-ed (or endorsed it) are sober and serious in their views. Based on their experience as senior national security officials, they understand that the goal of a "nuclear-free world" is like viewing a distant mountain. They write:
"From the vantage point of our troubled world today, we can't even see the top of the mountain, and it is tempting and easy to say we can't get there from here. But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore. We must chart a course to higher ground where the mountaintop becomes more visible."
But, in pursuit of a safer world, we must ensure that their far-off mountain is indeed a realistic goal--and not merely a mirage.
The Right to Lie
The Whittier (California) Daily News nailed it with this headline:
"Elected official claims right to lie"
The elected official, in this case, is one Xavier Alvarez, who serves the south Pomona area on a local water board. Mr. Alvarez got into a bit of hot water (pun intended), over a claim he made last summer. During a July meeting of the Walnut Valley Water District Board, Alvarez was caught on tape, identifying himself as a retired Marine and a Medal of Honor recipient.
"I'm a retired Marine of 25 years," Alvarez said. "I just retired in 2001. Back in 1987 I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times, at the same time. I'm still around."
That may have impressed the folks at the water board, but someone (apparently) found the claim a bit fishy. An investigation revealed that Alvarez never won the Medal of Honor or even served in the military.
Unfortunately for phony hero, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 criminalizes false claims about military service and awards. Alvarez was prosecuted by the local U.S. attorney, and pleaded guilty last November to a misdemeanor charge.
Now, Alvarez is asking a federal judge to dismiss the case. In a motion filed last month, Alvarez's court-appointed attorney stated that his false claim is protected under the First Amendment.
"Falsehoods are not outside the realm of First Amendment protection, and therefore restrictions on false statements must be supported by a strong government interest and must be directly related to that interest," says the motion.
"The Court's scrutiny of the law should be especially demanding here, where the statement was made by an elected official, during a public meeting, on an issue of public concern: his qualifications for office
"The Government's stated interest in this law, protecting the reputation of military decorations, is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny."
In the government's opposition to the motion, submitted late last month, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian argues that deliberate falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment:
"It is only in the realm of ideas - unlike the case here which involves a readily verifiable misstatement of fact - that falsehoods garner any free speech protection," Missakian wrote.
"Moreover, even if the Court were to conclude that defendant's lie deserves a modicum of protection, the government's undeniable interest in protecting from dilution the significance of the nation's highest military distinction and the magnitude of the accomplishment of those who actually earned it clearly outweighs that interest."
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for today, before Federal District Judge Edward Rafeedie. Missakian expects the judge to rule on the motion during the hearing. And, there's a good chance that Alvarez's motion will be dismissed.
Turns out that Judge Rafeedie is a Reagan appointee with a reputation as a no-nonsense jurist. Four years ago, Rafeedie threw out a string of lawsuits filed by a disabled man and his attorney, who used the Americans With Disabilities Act to sue a total of 400 restaurants, bowling alleys and other public places.
The suits usually claimed that the establishments infringed on the man's right to use their facilities, because the bathroom was poorly designed, or the location of the grab bars made it difficult for him to seat himself on the toilet. And, before Rafeedie's ruling, the man and his attorney had won most of their suits, collecting thousands of dollars in "damages" from various establishments.
Not only did Judge Rafeedie dismiss the suit--he did something most judges wouldn't dream of. He the named the plantiff, one Jarek Molski, a vexatious litigant," who was trying to "harass and intimidate business owners." With that ruling, he barred Molski from filing more suits under the Disabilities Act, unless he received permission from a judge.
Additionally, Judge Rafeedie ordered Molski's San Francisco lawyer to appear before him, and explain why the attorney (and his firm) should not be sanctioned for "abusive litigation practices." Needless to say, Rafeedie's ruling got the attention of ambulance-chasing lawyers in California, who vowed to seek relief from 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
What does this mean for Mr. Alvarez and his motion? Based on Judge Rafeedie's past rulings, we'd say that Alvarez's luck has run out. We expect the judge will make quick work of Alvarez's assertion that he has a right to lie, outside the realm of ideas. Alvarez's bogus assertion that he served in the Marine Corps and won the Medal of Honor are not protected speech, and the government clearly has an interest in protecting the significance of that award--and the legacy of those who earned it. Better luck with the 9th Circuit, Mr. Alvarez.
***
ADDENDUM: The Whittier Daily News reports that Alvarez is the first person to be prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Ac, but that may not be accurate. As we reported last August, former Army Corporal Richard McClanahan pleaded guilty in Texas to federal charges of bank fraud and claiming that he had won the Medal of Honor--a violation of the Stolen Valor law. McClanahan is currently serving time in federal prison.
Based on that, it would appear that Alvarez is the first person in California to be prosecuted under the 2005 law. A dubious distinction, to be sure, but in some parts of that state, Alvarez's guilty plea (and efforts to get it thrown out) may be viewed as a badge of honor. Maybe he should run for the water board in San Francisco--he'd be a shoo-in.
"Elected official claims right to lie"
The elected official, in this case, is one Xavier Alvarez, who serves the south Pomona area on a local water board. Mr. Alvarez got into a bit of hot water (pun intended), over a claim he made last summer. During a July meeting of the Walnut Valley Water District Board, Alvarez was caught on tape, identifying himself as a retired Marine and a Medal of Honor recipient.
"I'm a retired Marine of 25 years," Alvarez said. "I just retired in 2001. Back in 1987 I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times, at the same time. I'm still around."
That may have impressed the folks at the water board, but someone (apparently) found the claim a bit fishy. An investigation revealed that Alvarez never won the Medal of Honor or even served in the military.
Unfortunately for phony hero, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 criminalizes false claims about military service and awards. Alvarez was prosecuted by the local U.S. attorney, and pleaded guilty last November to a misdemeanor charge.
Now, Alvarez is asking a federal judge to dismiss the case. In a motion filed last month, Alvarez's court-appointed attorney stated that his false claim is protected under the First Amendment.
"Falsehoods are not outside the realm of First Amendment protection, and therefore restrictions on false statements must be supported by a strong government interest and must be directly related to that interest," says the motion.
"The Court's scrutiny of the law should be especially demanding here, where the statement was made by an elected official, during a public meeting, on an issue of public concern: his qualifications for office
"The Government's stated interest in this law, protecting the reputation of military decorations, is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny."
In the government's opposition to the motion, submitted late last month, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian argues that deliberate falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment:
"It is only in the realm of ideas - unlike the case here which involves a readily verifiable misstatement of fact - that falsehoods garner any free speech protection," Missakian wrote.
"Moreover, even if the Court were to conclude that defendant's lie deserves a modicum of protection, the government's undeniable interest in protecting from dilution the significance of the nation's highest military distinction and the magnitude of the accomplishment of those who actually earned it clearly outweighs that interest."
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for today, before Federal District Judge Edward Rafeedie. Missakian expects the judge to rule on the motion during the hearing. And, there's a good chance that Alvarez's motion will be dismissed.
Turns out that Judge Rafeedie is a Reagan appointee with a reputation as a no-nonsense jurist. Four years ago, Rafeedie threw out a string of lawsuits filed by a disabled man and his attorney, who used the Americans With Disabilities Act to sue a total of 400 restaurants, bowling alleys and other public places.
The suits usually claimed that the establishments infringed on the man's right to use their facilities, because the bathroom was poorly designed, or the location of the grab bars made it difficult for him to seat himself on the toilet. And, before Rafeedie's ruling, the man and his attorney had won most of their suits, collecting thousands of dollars in "damages" from various establishments.
Not only did Judge Rafeedie dismiss the suit--he did something most judges wouldn't dream of. He the named the plantiff, one Jarek Molski, a vexatious litigant," who was trying to "harass and intimidate business owners." With that ruling, he barred Molski from filing more suits under the Disabilities Act, unless he received permission from a judge.
Additionally, Judge Rafeedie ordered Molski's San Francisco lawyer to appear before him, and explain why the attorney (and his firm) should not be sanctioned for "abusive litigation practices." Needless to say, Rafeedie's ruling got the attention of ambulance-chasing lawyers in California, who vowed to seek relief from 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
What does this mean for Mr. Alvarez and his motion? Based on Judge Rafeedie's past rulings, we'd say that Alvarez's luck has run out. We expect the judge will make quick work of Alvarez's assertion that he has a right to lie, outside the realm of ideas. Alvarez's bogus assertion that he served in the Marine Corps and won the Medal of Honor are not protected speech, and the government clearly has an interest in protecting the significance of that award--and the legacy of those who earned it. Better luck with the 9th Circuit, Mr. Alvarez.
***
ADDENDUM: The Whittier Daily News reports that Alvarez is the first person to be prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Ac, but that may not be accurate. As we reported last August, former Army Corporal Richard McClanahan pleaded guilty in Texas to federal charges of bank fraud and claiming that he had won the Medal of Honor--a violation of the Stolen Valor law. McClanahan is currently serving time in federal prison.
Based on that, it would appear that Alvarez is the first person in California to be prosecuted under the 2005 law. A dubious distinction, to be sure, but in some parts of that state, Alvarez's guilty plea (and efforts to get it thrown out) may be viewed as a badge of honor. Maybe he should run for the water board in San Francisco--he'd be a shoo-in.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The View from the CIC
A week after our confrontation with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, ABC News secured an interview with the commanders of two U.S. Navy ships involved in the incident. Captain David Adler of the cruiser USS Port Royal and Commander Jeffrey James of the destroyer USS Hopper spoke with ABC and provided a tour of their vessels. Their comments on the episode are certainly illuminating; they're convinced that the threatening radio call came from Iranian navy elements, not a heckler. As Captain Adler and Commander James described the incident:
"... the incident on Jan. 6 started out routinely, as the three ships entered the strait, but when five Iranian boats began acting provocatively Adler ordered his sailors to man their weapons as he tracked the Iranian speed boats.
"We progressed on, we saw these ... small boats coming in at us," Adler said. "So instead of going by us, which we would have [expected] with smugglers, they were now going down the sides of the ships. So that indicates, you know, some more proactive maneuvering."
As the Iranian boats surrounded the U.S. ships, the Americans received a radio transmission in heavily accented English.
"I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes," the voice on the transmission said, and with the small Iranian boats surrounding their ships, the U.S. commanders had to take the apparent threat seriously.
"When I heard it, it just raised my awareness level. That the threat level seemed to perhaps increase when you combine it with the maneuvering of the vessels and the fact they would not respond to our warnings and interrogations," James told ABC News.
[snip]
But Adler and James, who heard the transmission in the heat of the confrontation, said they disagreed.
"I think it's too coincidental that it wasn't from one of the ships, or the boats near by us," Adler said.
"... the incident on Jan. 6 started out routinely, as the three ships entered the strait, but when five Iranian boats began acting provocatively Adler ordered his sailors to man their weapons as he tracked the Iranian speed boats.
"We progressed on, we saw these ... small boats coming in at us," Adler said. "So instead of going by us, which we would have [expected] with smugglers, they were now going down the sides of the ships. So that indicates, you know, some more proactive maneuvering."
As the Iranian boats surrounded the U.S. ships, the Americans received a radio transmission in heavily accented English.
"I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes," the voice on the transmission said, and with the small Iranian boats surrounding their ships, the U.S. commanders had to take the apparent threat seriously.
"When I heard it, it just raised my awareness level. That the threat level seemed to perhaps increase when you combine it with the maneuvering of the vessels and the fact they would not respond to our warnings and interrogations," James told ABC News.
[snip]
But Adler and James, who heard the transmission in the heat of the confrontation, said they disagreed.
"I think it's too coincidental that it wasn't from one of the ships, or the boats near by us," Adler said.
We expressed similar thoughts a couple of days ago:
The timing of that call suggests someone who was doing more than simply monitoring radio traffic on Channel 16. Under existing rules of engagement (ROE), American warships initiate radio contact well before approaching ships enter their inner defensive perimeter. Based solely on bridge-to-bridge communications, the intruder would have only a general idea of the vessels' location. His threatening call, at the height of the incident, seems hardly coincidental, and appears to have been based on more than VHF radio traffic.
By comparison, an IRGC command element, located on a nearby, Iranain-controlled island (or another naval vessel) would have detailed knowledge of the operational plan, and--with access to other communications channels, ELINT data and radar plots--an excellent idea of how the encounter was unfolding. With that information, it would be easy to make the radio call, at exactly the right moment.
It would also be relatively simple for Iranian linguists to mimic the well-known "monkey," creating plausible denial for their involvement. Tehran has used deceptive radio broadcasts in the past, to great effect. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian SIGINT units operated dummy radio networks, which passed bogus information that was intercepted by the Iraqis, causing them to deploy troops in the wrong areas. Given Iran's past proficiency in electronic deception, finding someone to imitate the heckler would be a piece of cake.
From their position on the bridge (or in their ship's Combat Information Center), Captain Adler and Commander James clearly perceived the Iranian boats as a threat, and the mysterious radio call was a part of the on-going IRGC operation. It the heat of the moment, it was a logical (read: the only) conclusion to make.
It's also worth remembering that the two commanding officers didn't based their tactical assessment solely on the VHF transmission--they had information from other sources--sources they aren't going to discuss with ABC News. Based on that information (and years of professional experience), they took action deemed appropriate for a serious situation. And, by all accounts, they made the right call.
H/T: InformationDissemination.
The Vindication of General Schwalier
Air Force Brigadier General Terry Schwalier was the on-site Air Force wing commander during the Khobar Towers terrorist bombing in 1996. A flawed investigation held him partly responsible for the attack, and ruined his career. Almost 12 years later, a corrections board has ruled that it was unfair to blame him for the attack by denying him a second star (USAF photo via Air Force Times)
It remains one of the defining moments in the long run-up to 9-11; a reminder that Islamic terrorists long had Americans in their sights, even if we were slow to acknowledge that fact, let alone respond.
"It" was the bombing of the U.S. Air Force housing complex at Khobar Towers on 25 June 1996. Nineteen airmen died when a massive truck bomb was detonated just outside their dormitory, on the edge of the sprawling Khobar complex. The toll would have been much higher except for the quick actions of Air Force security policemen. Spotting the truck as it moved into position, they began evacuating personnel from the building, saving scores of lives in the process.
Subsequent investigations--there would, ultimately, be a total of four--focused (rightly) on force protection issues, and whether more could have been done to protect personnel living at Khobar Towers. The best-known inquiry was the first, led by retired Army General Wayne Downing, whose last active-duty assignment was as commander of U.S. Special Forces Command.
Downing, who died last year at age 68, enjoyed a legendary reputation as a special forces operator and leader, with little tolerance for internecine bickering or political correctness. Yet, the Downing inquiry quickly became a political football. Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, Defense Secretary William Perry ordered the general to complete his probe in 60 days--a deadline that did not provide enough time to fully investigate the blast, or determine potential culpability within the chain of command.
And, as the Weekly Standard's Matt Labash later discovered, Downing--and his bosses in the Pentagon--did nothing to insulate the probe from partisan politics. Mr. Perry relayed Congressional "concerns" to General Downing, and the focus of his probe began changing in early July, less than a month after the bombing.
As early as July 10, a days after the first Khobar hearings, Perry instructed Downing that, "as a result of high Congressional interest, we must expedite portions of your assessment process. Downing should include in his report, Perry said, "what U.S. official(s) were responsible for actions to improve or upgrade the [perimeter] fence.
The Defense Secretary also told South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond that Downing was empowered to explore accountability, and that the retired General "fully understands what is expected of this assessment."
In its rushed assessment, the Downing Commission placed most of the blame for the Khobar debacle on Brigadier General Terry Schwalier, the Air Force wing commander on the scene. That determination stunned senior officers; sources told Labash that both the CENTCOM Commander (General A.B. Peay) and the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Ron Fogelman, had been assured that no one would be found culpable, including Schwalier. General Downing disputed that claim, although General Peay confirmed that he had received such assurances.
While three subsequent inquiries would exonerate him, Schwalier's career was ruined by the Downing investigation. He was denied a second star and retired from active duty in 1997, stung by the harsh judgment of the flawed report, which contained at least 37 incorrect statements, 61 misleading implications and 23 contradictions. General Fogelman became an indirect casualty of the probe; angered by its politics (and its conclusions), the Chief of Staff retired early in protest.
Over the decade that followed, General Schwalier fought a long battle to clear his name. His efforts were largely unsuccessful until he came across an Air Force Academy classmate, Michael Rose, at a conference in 2005. Schwalier told Rose, an attorney practicing in South Carolina, that he had just received another rejection from the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records, denying a request for reinstatement of his promotion to Major General. Three months before the bombing, Schwalier had been confirmed for his second star by the Senate, but then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen removed his name from the promotion list after release of the Downing report.
Rose agreed to represent Schwalier for free and submitted a new request for correction last September. While preparing that appeal, Rose made some rather startling discoveries. In 2004, he learned, the corrections board ruled that Schwalier, had (in fact) been promoted to Major General on 1 January 1997, although he never pinned on that rank. However, the same official who approved the correction later reversed his decision. According to Mr. Rose, that marked the first time that a civilian Air Force attorney had interfered with a board decision, an action he described as a clear abuse of authority.
In the updated request to have his client's records corrected, Rose argued that Pentagon officials had no authority to overrule the board, and claimed that holding Schwalier responsible for the attack was an injustice.
Last month, more than eleven years after the bombing at Khobar Towers, the Air Force Corrections Board finally ruled in Schwalier's favor, deciding that holding him responsible for the attack (by denying him a second star) was unfair. The board also reinstated his promotion and retroactively changed Schwalier's retirement date from 1997 to February 1, 2000. That will mean a "substantial" amount of back pay and retirement pay, based on his higher rank.
But, as Air Force Times reports, Schwalier views his redemption efforts as more than a chance to regain a lost promotion or the pay. The real issue, he says, is the standard to which commanders ought to be held, and the precedent set by making him the scapegoat for the attack.
“When the government tells a commander to take troops into harm’s way, there’s a risk that precious lives are going to be lost,” Schwalier said. “To me the standard [should be] how can the commander be reasonably expected to perform with the information he has at hand.”
The board also affirmed what General Schwalier had argued for more than a decade: he did everything within his power to protect his troops. That's the same conclusion reached by the three other panels who investigated the Khobar bombing. Sadly, their findings were almost completely ignored, in favor of the Downing report.
Based on we've subsequently learned about the Khobar Towers attack--and the fatal flaws of the Downing inquiry--General Schwalier deserves his personal vindication, and the financial windfall that comes with it. We only wonder why it took so long.
We also wonder why General Schwalier has never received a formal apology from the political and military leaders who were so quick to throw him under the bus. Someone ought to ask Mr. Perry, Mr. Cohen (and their former boss, Bill Clinton) when they will publicly apologize to Terry Schwalier.
Don't hold your breath.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Monkey Did It?
Last Sunday's naval encounter between U.S. and Iranian naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz has taken another strange turn. Reports in The New York Times, Navy Times and other publications suggest that a heckler may have been responsible for a threatening radio call, heard by American vessels as Iranian fast boats approached.
Pentagon officials tell Navy Times that the comments may have come from the "Filipino Monkey" a name given to mysterious--and profane--hecklers who often broadcast on VHF Channel 16, used for bridge-to-bridge communications in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.
In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of “Filipino Monkey,” likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets.
Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment.
Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video.
[snip]
Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s.
“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”
And the Monkey has stamina.
“He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.”
Captain Hoffman also noted that an atmospheric phenomenon in the region--known as ducting--allows signals to skip over great distances. In some instances, VHF radio calls from Bahrain could be heard in the southern gulf, hundreds of miles away.
However, the heckler theory only goes so far. If was an intruder that made those calls, he apparently had detailed knowledge of the tactical situation. The heckler's transmission--"I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes”--came at a critical moment in the encounter, as Iranian speedboats maneuvered dangerously close to U.S. warships.
The timing of that call suggests someone who was doing more than simply monitoring radio traffic on Channel 16. Under existing rules of engagement (ROE), American warships initiate radio contact well before approaching ships enter their inner defensive perimeter. Based solely on bridge-to-bridge communications, the intruder would have only a general idea of the vessels' location. His threatening call, at the height of the incident, seems hardly coincidental, and appears to have been based on more than VHF radio traffic.
By comparison, an IRGC command element, located on a nearby, Iranain-controlled island (or another naval vessel) would have detailed knowledge of the operational plan, and--with access to other communications channels, ELINT data and radar plots--an excellent idea of how the encounter was unfolding. With that information, it would be easy to make the radio call, at exactly the right moment.
It would also be relatively simple for Iranian linguists to mimic the well-known "monkey," creating plausible denial for their involvement. Tehran has used deceptive radio broadcasts in the past, to great effect. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian SIGINT units operated dummy radio networks, which passed bogus information that was intercepted by the Iraqis, causing them to deploy troops in the wrong areas. Given Iran's past proficiency in electronic deception, finding someone to imitate the heckler would be a piece of cake.
We may never know where that radio transmission came from. But put yourself in the shoes of those three U.S. warship commanders, transiting the Strait of Hormuz last Sunday. Iranian fast boats are closing fast and suddenly, you receive a radio call, threatening the destruction of your vessel. In the heat of that moment, you don't have time to debate the origin of a particular radio transmission--particularly in other Iranian radio nets are also active. You make the appropriate decision for your command, based on your training, experience, and assessment of the situation.
And by all accounts, the captains of those three vessels did just that.
Pentagon officials tell Navy Times that the comments may have come from the "Filipino Monkey" a name given to mysterious--and profane--hecklers who often broadcast on VHF Channel 16, used for bridge-to-bridge communications in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.
In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of “Filipino Monkey,” likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets.
Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment.
Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video.
[snip]
Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s.
“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”
And the Monkey has stamina.
“He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.”
Captain Hoffman also noted that an atmospheric phenomenon in the region--known as ducting--allows signals to skip over great distances. In some instances, VHF radio calls from Bahrain could be heard in the southern gulf, hundreds of miles away.
However, the heckler theory only goes so far. If was an intruder that made those calls, he apparently had detailed knowledge of the tactical situation. The heckler's transmission--"I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes”--came at a critical moment in the encounter, as Iranian speedboats maneuvered dangerously close to U.S. warships.
The timing of that call suggests someone who was doing more than simply monitoring radio traffic on Channel 16. Under existing rules of engagement (ROE), American warships initiate radio contact well before approaching ships enter their inner defensive perimeter. Based solely on bridge-to-bridge communications, the intruder would have only a general idea of the vessels' location. His threatening call, at the height of the incident, seems hardly coincidental, and appears to have been based on more than VHF radio traffic.
By comparison, an IRGC command element, located on a nearby, Iranain-controlled island (or another naval vessel) would have detailed knowledge of the operational plan, and--with access to other communications channels, ELINT data and radar plots--an excellent idea of how the encounter was unfolding. With that information, it would be easy to make the radio call, at exactly the right moment.
It would also be relatively simple for Iranian linguists to mimic the well-known "monkey," creating plausible denial for their involvement. Tehran has used deceptive radio broadcasts in the past, to great effect. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian SIGINT units operated dummy radio networks, which passed bogus information that was intercepted by the Iraqis, causing them to deploy troops in the wrong areas. Given Iran's past proficiency in electronic deception, finding someone to imitate the heckler would be a piece of cake.
We may never know where that radio transmission came from. But put yourself in the shoes of those three U.S. warship commanders, transiting the Strait of Hormuz last Sunday. Iranian fast boats are closing fast and suddenly, you receive a radio call, threatening the destruction of your vessel. In the heat of that moment, you don't have time to debate the origin of a particular radio transmission--particularly in other Iranian radio nets are also active. You make the appropriate decision for your command, based on your training, experience, and assessment of the situation.
And by all accounts, the captains of those three vessels did just that.
Friday, January 11, 2008
What Happened in the Strait of Hormuz, Revisited
If you want to see the latest example of Bush Derangement Syndrome (DRS), look at the comments on today's Washington Post article that offers more details last weekend's naval encounter between U.S. and Iranian forces.
According to the Post, the Pentagon now says that the apparent radio threat to bomb American warships "may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets."
The WaPo account is based on statements from a Navy spokesman on the nature of the radio call, and comments from Farsi speakers that the heavily-accented voice (which announces "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes)" does not sound Iranian.
For the left-wing kook fringe, those comments are proof positive that Sunday's episode was an attempt by than the Bush Administration to create a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and provide a justification for attacking Iran. Some sample thoughts from Post readers:
We have come to a place where we must view every single pronouncement from this government as a lie. But that won't stop Bush from starting another war based on lies. We are in big big trouble in this country, and I blame Pelosi and all the other craven Democrats who agree that "Impeachment is off the table" for all of
[snip]
The news that the threats may not have come from Iranian sources is no surprise to most citizens who have endured the BS proffered by Bush/Cheney and Co.Most citizens reading the original story posted their response to the effect that this was another phony "Tonkin Gulf" scenario. Meanwhile, our leader, our DECIDER, had decided that it was a "provocative act". Let's be bellicose without a thorough examination of the facts is Bush's motto.The average citizen be he or she a cab driver, bartender, firefighter or child has more insight than the current incumbent, the current congress and the current crop of presidential candidates.
[snip]
This was front page headline on every newspaper, why don’t I see them posting the real truth now??? Washington Post - change the title of this article from “Iranian Boats May Not Have Made Radio Threat, Pentagon Says” to “Iranian Boats Did Not Make Radio Threat” We cannot have this administration just run around like monkeys and do as they desire. We have lost respect in the world and we cannot send our brave men and women to fight another useless war. I cant wait till these morons are out of office!
[snip]
Where's Chief Sociopath Cheney? What role did he have in this?
According to the Post, the Pentagon now says that the apparent radio threat to bomb American warships "may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets."
The WaPo account is based on statements from a Navy spokesman on the nature of the radio call, and comments from Farsi speakers that the heavily-accented voice (which announces "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes)" does not sound Iranian.
For the left-wing kook fringe, those comments are proof positive that Sunday's episode was an attempt by than the Bush Administration to create a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and provide a justification for attacking Iran. Some sample thoughts from Post readers:
We have come to a place where we must view every single pronouncement from this government as a lie. But that won't stop Bush from starting another war based on lies. We are in big big trouble in this country, and I blame Pelosi and all the other craven Democrats who agree that "Impeachment is off the table" for all of
[snip]
The news that the threats may not have come from Iranian sources is no surprise to most citizens who have endured the BS proffered by Bush/Cheney and Co.Most citizens reading the original story posted their response to the effect that this was another phony "Tonkin Gulf" scenario. Meanwhile, our leader, our DECIDER, had decided that it was a "provocative act". Let's be bellicose without a thorough examination of the facts is Bush's motto.The average citizen be he or she a cab driver, bartender, firefighter or child has more insight than the current incumbent, the current congress and the current crop of presidential candidates.
[snip]
This was front page headline on every newspaper, why don’t I see them posting the real truth now??? Washington Post - change the title of this article from “Iranian Boats May Not Have Made Radio Threat, Pentagon Says” to “Iranian Boats Did Not Make Radio Threat” We cannot have this administration just run around like monkeys and do as they desire. We have lost respect in the world and we cannot send our brave men and women to fight another useless war. I cant wait till these morons are out of office!
[snip]
Where's Chief Sociopath Cheney? What role did he have in this?
Still, a closer examination of the article doesn't exactly disprove a threat to the U.S. vessels. True, the Iranian radio call came on a frequency used by commercial and military ships operating in the region. And, without extensive direction-finding (DF) and SIGINT analysis, the traffic can't be conclusively linked to the speed boats, operated by Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
But that doesn't mean the radio threat didn't come from an IRGC naval unit. Those Iranian speedboats weren't out on a joyride; they were dispatched by a higher headquarters--perhaps the IRGC command element in Bandar Abbas--and it's a safe bet that those authorities were in radio contact with the small craft.
Additionally, if you assume that the Iranians were trying to provoke the U.S. (and their aggressive maneuvering certainly suggests that scenario), then it is quite possible that multiple military elements, including coastal surveillance radars, other naval vessels, anti-ship missile batteries, aircraft, SIGINT asset and command headquarters were involved, to varying degrees. As part of a larger, pre-planned operation, it would be quite easy for another Iranian unit to make a threatening radio call, as the fast boats moved into position.
Tehran also knows that it's difficult for the U.S. to refute claims of a benign event, because a more detailed discussion would mean reveal intelligence sources and methods. Iran would certainly like to know more about our SIGINT capabilities in the Persian Gulf region, and their account of the incident is an (indirect) attempt to prod us into greater disclosures about Sunday's incident.
By releasing a vastly different version of events, Tehran can depict the U.S. Navy as a potential aggressor, challenging the administration to release more details on radio and emitter traffic during the event. Learning what we collected--and when we collected it--would be an intelligence windfall for Iran. So far, the U.S. has (rightly) refused to take the bait.
As we noted in a previous post, the decision of U.S. commanders to hold their fire was based on a variety of factors, including intelligence data. Information available in the ship's combat information centers (CICs) may have provided key insights into the Iranians' intentions, giving commanders the data they needed to make the right decision.
Put another way: the commanders of our vessels knew what Iranian assets were active, and had some idea of what they were saying to each other. Based on that knowledge, they (apparently) viewed the small boats as a localized threat, assessing that other Iranian naval, air and missile units were not prepared to join the fray. Under those conditions--and with that level of intel detail--it would be easier to hold fire, and avoid triggering a much more serious incident.
Obviously, no intelligence system is perfect and even a modern CIC will have information gaps. But the fidelity of detail available on Sunday morning was sufficient for our naval commanders to correctly judge the situation and make the right tactical decision. And, you'll have to forgive the Navy (and the intel community) if they don't want to discuss the sources and methods that provided that data.
***
ADDENDUM: The Post's claims about the radio voice's "lack" of an Iranian accent are laughable, quite frankly. Like every other country, Iran has military personnel and civilian linguists who can speak without a native accent, or mimic the dialect and speech patterns of another language, such as Arabic. In fact, Iran is a multi-lingual country where a variety of tongues, including Farsi, Kurdish or Lori (Arian), Azeri, Turkemen, Qashqai’, or Afshari (Altai) or Arabic, Hebrew or Assyrian (Semitic) are spoken. Readers will note that Post reporter Robin Wright forgot to ask if the accent matches any of the other languages spoken in Iran.
Finally, the use of a non-Farsi speaker--or, at least someone without that accent--suggests a very sophisticated operation, most likely the work of the IRGC, which was clearly in command of those speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. Readers will also note that the Iranian vessels were very real and very close to our ships, as evidenced by videotape of the incident. That's quite a contrast to the Gulf of Tonkin where declassified information proves that no attack occurred, and the North Vietnamese gunboats--if they existed--were never closer than 10,000 yards from the U.S. vessels.
Today's Reading Assignment
..from former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton in The Wall Street Journal. With North Korea refusing to provide a full disclosure of its nuclear activities--as promised in the Six Party Accord--the U.S. now has an opportunity to extricate itself from a deal that Mr. Bolton describes as "unwise" and "dangerous."
Moreover, Washington would find ready support for a tougher line against Pyongyang. South Korea's new president, Lee Myung-bak (who takes office next month), is the first "realist" to occupy the Blue House in a decade. Japan's prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is continuing Tokyo's tough-minded approach toward North Korea. In turn, unity among the U.S., South Korea and Japan would allow Washington to put more pressure on North Korea, through new economic sanctions and other measures.
Sadly, Bolton's advice will fall on deaf ears. The Foggy Bottom crowd is now firmly in charge of U.S. security policies, and the career diplomats--along with the White House--have staked their reputations and legacies on the Six Party deal. Never mind that Kim Jong-il is up to his usual tricks.
Moreover, Washington would find ready support for a tougher line against Pyongyang. South Korea's new president, Lee Myung-bak (who takes office next month), is the first "realist" to occupy the Blue House in a decade. Japan's prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is continuing Tokyo's tough-minded approach toward North Korea. In turn, unity among the U.S., South Korea and Japan would allow Washington to put more pressure on North Korea, through new economic sanctions and other measures.
Sadly, Bolton's advice will fall on deaf ears. The Foggy Bottom crowd is now firmly in charge of U.S. security policies, and the career diplomats--along with the White House--have staked their reputations and legacies on the Six Party deal. Never mind that Kim Jong-il is up to his usual tricks.
With Friends Like These...
Perhaps Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler and Carl Cameron don't spend much time on-line. Or maybe, they thought questions about the economy and the recent naval showdown with Iran were more appropriate.
Whatever the reason, the Fox news political team missed a golden opportunity to address a genuine scandal during last night's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina. The controversy centers on racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic comments that have appeared in political and investment newsletters published by one of the debate participants, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A lengthy article on Paul's publications--and the remarks they contained--was published earlier this week by The New Republic.
We didn't watch last night's debate, but (as judging from press accounts) Brit Hume never asked Dr. Paul about those newsletters and their disparaging comments about blacks, the nation of Israel and homosexuals, among other issues. In other words, Paul got another pass, continuing the curious, kid-glove treatment he's received from the MSM and even some conservative outlets.
For what it's worth, Congressman Paul has denied any role in writing those comments, which appeared in various newsletters bearing his name, beginning in the late 1970s. In a brief conversation with David Wiegel of Reason magazine on Wednesday, Dr. Paul described the publications as "ancient history" and claimed that he no longer has copies of the newsletters. According to TNR, the newsletters were published under four different titles, but each bore Paul's name.
Still, this scandal has legs, and the Congressman's denials simply don't wash. Sultan Knish has examined some of the most inflammatory editions, and finds evidence that Paul must have been the author. As he notes:
Now let's look at the extracts from the newsletters that have been released, specifically let's look at December 1990.
The newsletter calls Martin Luther King a Communist pedophile, Ron Paul has countered that he has a great deal of respect for MLK. And then we scroll down the newsletter to discover the mysterious author of this newsletter at the very bottom as he writes;
My wife Carol and our children and grandchildren join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big government types making America freer, and thus truer to her own heritage in 1991.
Now either the "mysterious stranger" writing this had a wife named Carol and lots of grandchildren, or Ron Paul is a liar and is the actual author of the newsletters. The medical reference under the teenage girls sex piece also suggests Ron Paul is the author. There is no break between this section and any of the others. It contains the same sort of loony ranting about conspiracy theories that the rest, disproving Andrew Sullivan's claims that "it just doesn't feel like Ron Paul".
Other references also suggest that the Congressman was an active contributor to his newsletters:
The January 1991 newsletter features the author mentioning another congressman as "my successor" and talking about his experience as "a flight surgeon in the air force" and then afterward launching into another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul's record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul
[snip]
In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.
[snip]
In Feb of 1991 the author writes that he voted against "an expensive federal holiday for this man" referring to King. Of course Ron Paul famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday.
In response to The New Republic article, Paul has claimed that the newsletter was actually the work of several writers, and that he played no role in editing the product. If that's true, then Dr. Paul must be the laziest and most irresponsible editor in the history of publishing. Scores of bigoted comments appeared in newsletters that carried his name, but (according to his statement on the matter) Paul was too busy with his medical practice to read his own publications. If you buy that, then you might also be interested in purchasing an oceanfront lot near Phoenix, or a certain bridge in Brooklyn.
Ironically, the newsletter controversy has prompted some on the racist fringe to leap to Paul's defense. Perfunction found some crisis management advice for the Congressman, from a man who once earned a glowing mention in a Paul newsletter. That man is David Duke, the former KKK leader, who has encouraged his followers to support the Texas Congressman.
With friends like that....well, you get the idea.
Whatever the reason, the Fox news political team missed a golden opportunity to address a genuine scandal during last night's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina. The controversy centers on racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic comments that have appeared in political and investment newsletters published by one of the debate participants, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A lengthy article on Paul's publications--and the remarks they contained--was published earlier this week by The New Republic.
We didn't watch last night's debate, but (as judging from press accounts) Brit Hume never asked Dr. Paul about those newsletters and their disparaging comments about blacks, the nation of Israel and homosexuals, among other issues. In other words, Paul got another pass, continuing the curious, kid-glove treatment he's received from the MSM and even some conservative outlets.
For what it's worth, Congressman Paul has denied any role in writing those comments, which appeared in various newsletters bearing his name, beginning in the late 1970s. In a brief conversation with David Wiegel of Reason magazine on Wednesday, Dr. Paul described the publications as "ancient history" and claimed that he no longer has copies of the newsletters. According to TNR, the newsletters were published under four different titles, but each bore Paul's name.
Still, this scandal has legs, and the Congressman's denials simply don't wash. Sultan Knish has examined some of the most inflammatory editions, and finds evidence that Paul must have been the author. As he notes:
Now let's look at the extracts from the newsletters that have been released, specifically let's look at December 1990.
The newsletter calls Martin Luther King a Communist pedophile, Ron Paul has countered that he has a great deal of respect for MLK. And then we scroll down the newsletter to discover the mysterious author of this newsletter at the very bottom as he writes;
My wife Carol and our children and grandchildren join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big government types making America freer, and thus truer to her own heritage in 1991.
Now either the "mysterious stranger" writing this had a wife named Carol and lots of grandchildren, or Ron Paul is a liar and is the actual author of the newsletters. The medical reference under the teenage girls sex piece also suggests Ron Paul is the author. There is no break between this section and any of the others. It contains the same sort of loony ranting about conspiracy theories that the rest, disproving Andrew Sullivan's claims that "it just doesn't feel like Ron Paul".
Other references also suggest that the Congressman was an active contributor to his newsletters:
The January 1991 newsletter features the author mentioning another congressman as "my successor" and talking about his experience as "a flight surgeon in the air force" and then afterward launching into another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul's record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul
[snip]
In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.
[snip]
In Feb of 1991 the author writes that he voted against "an expensive federal holiday for this man" referring to King. Of course Ron Paul famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday.
In response to The New Republic article, Paul has claimed that the newsletter was actually the work of several writers, and that he played no role in editing the product. If that's true, then Dr. Paul must be the laziest and most irresponsible editor in the history of publishing. Scores of bigoted comments appeared in newsletters that carried his name, but (according to his statement on the matter) Paul was too busy with his medical practice to read his own publications. If you buy that, then you might also be interested in purchasing an oceanfront lot near Phoenix, or a certain bridge in Brooklyn.
Ironically, the newsletter controversy has prompted some on the racist fringe to leap to Paul's defense. Perfunction found some crisis management advice for the Congressman, from a man who once earned a glowing mention in a Paul newsletter. That man is David Duke, the former KKK leader, who has encouraged his followers to support the Texas Congressman.
With friends like that....well, you get the idea.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Unpaid Bills
Remember the initial furor over the government's warrantless surveillance program? Or, subsequent uproar about the nation's phone companies sharing calling records with law enforcement and intelligence agencies? It was an unprecedented invasion of privacy, civil libertarians warned. Just another sign that the Bush Administration was undermining our constitutional rights.
Turns out that suspected terrorists, the ACLU and other concerned parties may have less reason to worry. A Justice Department Inspector General audit reveals that the big telecom firms routinely cut off covert surveillance lines established by the FBI, because the bureau's field offices failed to pay their phone bills (emphasis mine).
Details of the audit can be found in the Thursday edition of USA Today. Some of the report's findings are absolutely mind-boggling. A few extracts from the summary:
As part of our audit, we analyzed 990 telecommunication surveillance payments made by 5 field divisions and found that over half of these payments were not made on time. We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was halted due to untimely payment.
According to FBI field division officials, the various types of telecommunication charges, coupled with the number of invoices resulting from each surveillance order, make it difficult to identify and track incoming surveillance bills. The FBI also lacks proper guidance and consistent procedures necessary to track telecommunication surveillance bills accurately. Lacking such headquarters-issued procedures, FBI field divisions have instituted separate, ad hoc tracking mechanisms, which had mixed results in paying bills on time. For example, a primary carrier sent a list to one of the field divisions we tested detailing $66,000 in unpaid telecommunication costs resulting from surveillance activity.
[snip]
According to the OIG investigators who conducted the criminal investigation described at the beginning of this summary report, the lack of formal procedures used by field divisions to handle telecommunication refunds provided opportunities for the FBI employee to steal refunded money. Moreover, our audit found that many FBI employees did not know how to handle refunds of confidential case fund money. One technical agent told us that he sends refunds back to the carrier attached to other telecommunication surveillance bills and requests that they be applied to the remitted bill. Another official told us that he does not know why he receives refunds and has a difficult time matching them to the proper case. In some cases, special agents told us they returned refund checks to the third party draft office simply because they did not know what else to do. Our report recommends that the FBI ensure that employees understand how to properly process refunds of confidential case payments.
The problem apparently stems (in part) from an antiquated financial management system, in use for more than 20 years. Reading the IG summary, it sounds like the FBI software is light-years behind QuickBooks, and other commercial programs. Auditors found that the current system does not allow users to enter details for confidential case payments, including vendor names and invoice numbers. As a result, it's often difficult to determine what phone bills have been paid, and where refunds should be applied.
Inspectors also discovered that the system is ripe for fraud:
As part of our review of the FBI’s oversight of confidential case funds, we also examined the personnel and security files of 35 field division employees who had daily access to confidential case funds. This examination revealed that nearly half of the sampled employees had indications of personal financial problems, such as late loan payments and bankruptcies. As demonstrated by our review of FBI files, the 5-year background investigation program may be helpful in identifying employees who have financial hardships or concerns. Beyond identification, however, the FBI has not developed or implemented procedures that ensure employees with financial concerns are not placed in situations where they are responsible for approving and handling confidential case funds without enhanced supervision. We believe that the FBI needs to develop and implement procedures that ensure employees with serious financial concerns do not regularly handle confidential case funds without additional oversight or safeguards.
In one case, an agent stole thousands of dollars that was supposed to pay for wiretap-related phone bills.
The FBI's latest mess would be comical if the consequences weren't so serious. Since the Justice Department audit only covered a portion of the FBI's telecom payments, we can only wonder how many other wiretap lines--including those authorized by the FISA court--were cut off, simply because the bureau couldn't pay its phone bills on time.
Somewhere, Osama and his minions are smiling.
Turns out that suspected terrorists, the ACLU and other concerned parties may have less reason to worry. A Justice Department Inspector General audit reveals that the big telecom firms routinely cut off covert surveillance lines established by the FBI, because the bureau's field offices failed to pay their phone bills (emphasis mine).
Details of the audit can be found in the Thursday edition of USA Today. Some of the report's findings are absolutely mind-boggling. A few extracts from the summary:
As part of our audit, we analyzed 990 telecommunication surveillance payments made by 5 field divisions and found that over half of these payments were not made on time. We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was halted due to untimely payment.
According to FBI field division officials, the various types of telecommunication charges, coupled with the number of invoices resulting from each surveillance order, make it difficult to identify and track incoming surveillance bills. The FBI also lacks proper guidance and consistent procedures necessary to track telecommunication surveillance bills accurately. Lacking such headquarters-issued procedures, FBI field divisions have instituted separate, ad hoc tracking mechanisms, which had mixed results in paying bills on time. For example, a primary carrier sent a list to one of the field divisions we tested detailing $66,000 in unpaid telecommunication costs resulting from surveillance activity.
[snip]
According to the OIG investigators who conducted the criminal investigation described at the beginning of this summary report, the lack of formal procedures used by field divisions to handle telecommunication refunds provided opportunities for the FBI employee to steal refunded money. Moreover, our audit found that many FBI employees did not know how to handle refunds of confidential case fund money. One technical agent told us that he sends refunds back to the carrier attached to other telecommunication surveillance bills and requests that they be applied to the remitted bill. Another official told us that he does not know why he receives refunds and has a difficult time matching them to the proper case. In some cases, special agents told us they returned refund checks to the third party draft office simply because they did not know what else to do. Our report recommends that the FBI ensure that employees understand how to properly process refunds of confidential case payments.
The problem apparently stems (in part) from an antiquated financial management system, in use for more than 20 years. Reading the IG summary, it sounds like the FBI software is light-years behind QuickBooks, and other commercial programs. Auditors found that the current system does not allow users to enter details for confidential case payments, including vendor names and invoice numbers. As a result, it's often difficult to determine what phone bills have been paid, and where refunds should be applied.
Inspectors also discovered that the system is ripe for fraud:
As part of our review of the FBI’s oversight of confidential case funds, we also examined the personnel and security files of 35 field division employees who had daily access to confidential case funds. This examination revealed that nearly half of the sampled employees had indications of personal financial problems, such as late loan payments and bankruptcies. As demonstrated by our review of FBI files, the 5-year background investigation program may be helpful in identifying employees who have financial hardships or concerns. Beyond identification, however, the FBI has not developed or implemented procedures that ensure employees with financial concerns are not placed in situations where they are responsible for approving and handling confidential case funds without enhanced supervision. We believe that the FBI needs to develop and implement procedures that ensure employees with serious financial concerns do not regularly handle confidential case funds without additional oversight or safeguards.
In one case, an agent stole thousands of dollars that was supposed to pay for wiretap-related phone bills.
The FBI's latest mess would be comical if the consequences weren't so serious. Since the Justice Department audit only covered a portion of the FBI's telecom payments, we can only wonder how many other wiretap lines--including those authorized by the FISA court--were cut off, simply because the bureau couldn't pay its phone bills on time.
Somewhere, Osama and his minions are smiling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)