President Obama finally offered his first, extended remarks on the VA scandal yesterday. It was the sort of calculated, deceptive performance we've come to expect from the administration; the President expressed outrage at allegations of secret appointment lists and "cooked books" that kept many veterans waiting months for health care. And just for consistency's sake, Mr. Obama said he wants to wait for "all the facts" before taking action and we've been told that the President first learned of the scandal from media reports. Sound familiar? It's the same reaction we've seen to virtually every controversy that has surfaced during Obama's time in office.
Meanwhile, agency whistle-blowers claim at least 40 vets died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA alone, but the actual death toll is much, much higher. The Dayton Daily News--in an investigation that has received far too little attention--discovered the agency has paid out over $36 million in claims to veterans where "delays in care" were cited in lawsuits against the VA. And that's just the tip of the ice berg; the Daily News, working in partnership with other Cox media outlets, estimates that delayed appointments and other problems at VA medical centers may have contributed to the deaths of more than 100 veterans. Over the past decade, the agency has paid out $845 million in malpractice claims, as the result of jury awards, or in out-of-court settlements.
Those types of horror stories demand immediate action, but Mr. Obama and the VA Secretary, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, seem content to let the wheels of bureaucracy keep churning along. Shinseki is waiting for the results of an internal report, which may be ready sometime next month, and Mr. Obama emphasized that process during his remarks on Wednesday. Just hours after the President's comments, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make it easier for VA managers to fire incompetent or criminal employees. But General Shinseki has indicated that he really doesn't want that authority, and unions representing VA workers have claimed the measure would deny "due process."
If this response seems underwhelming, it should. Scores of dead vets; ample evidence that VA indifference and medical mistakes contributed to their deaths, yet our "leaders" are content to wait for another internal investigation before taking action. For those keeping score at home, there have been at least six separate inquiries by the VA, GAO and other organizations detailing these problems at veterans' medical centers, and the incoming Obama team was warned about problems at the agency during the 2008 transition. But there was never any serious attempt to resolve these issues; as Charles Krauthammer noted last night, when it comes to accepting blame in the current administration, the "buck stops nowhere."
Why adopt such a feckless strategy? Because it works. Mr. Obama and his advisers know the best way to address any scandal is to delay the initial response, then profess "outrage" or "shock" at the revelations. After that, order an official investigation--either by the agency in trouble, or their friends at the justice department--and proclaim that all relevant information must be gathered before taking action. And when the "facts" are revealed months later, create the appearance of "toughness" and "action" by disciplining a few underlings, then restoring them to their jobs once the furor dies down. Or, as an alternative strategy, simply push up the retirement date for some scapegoat who is already heading out the door.
The approach works for a couple of reasons. First, Mr. Obama's friends in the mainstream press are willing to play along, and secondly, the public's attention span is even shorter than the stenographers in the media. If you don't believe us, check out the public's reaction on social media to the president's mid-morning remarks on the VA scandal. According to the New York Daily News, there was far greater outrage over interruption of The Price is Right and The View than Mr. Obama's tepid comments, or the maddening bureaucracy that has killed dozens of American veterans.
Secondly, vets are increasingly viewed as a marginal political constituency, particularly in Democratic circles. While the VA is a huge system, it only treats 8 million Americans. The number currently wearing the nation's uniform represents only one percent of our population. Overall, America's veteran population is about 22,000,000--about seven percent of the national population. That number will decline significantly over the next decade, with the passing of the last World War II veterans, and more Vietnam-era vets entering old age. In terms of electoral politics, it's a group that Democrats believe they can ignore, without serious consequences at the ballot box. Put another way: most liberal politicians are more concerned about the people who work at VA facilities--members of public employee unions--than those being treated there.
And the GOP is not without fault in this scandal. The practice of cooking the appointment books was first identified in the Bush Administration, and despite the aforementioned studies and investigations, VA leadership never followed through on an offer by the agency's inspector general to implement required fixes. President Obama campaigned on reforming the VA in 2008, yet the situation has grown worse under his watch.
But any administration can probably weather the storm when the American public is more interested in a game show that the plight of those who fought the nation's battles. In support of that theory, we offer the following Tweet, submitted by a pilot named Ethan Narber during the president's remarks Wednesday morning:
"If Obama takes up one more minutes of my 'Price is Right,' I'm going to throw the remote at my TV."
Bread, circuses, game shows and Twitter. Pretty much all you need to mollify America in the 21st Century.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
Why Shinseki Failed
We rarely agree with Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. But to his credit, Mr. Milbank nails it on the VA scandal and the need for Eric Shinseki to step down. From his latest column:
"Reports have documented the deaths of about 40 veterans in Phoenix who were waiting for VA appointments — the latest evidence of widespread bookkeeping tricks used at the agency to make it appear as though veterans were not waiting as long for care as they really were. The abuses have been documented over several years by whistleblowers and leaked memorandums, and confirmed by a host of government investigators.
That’s bad enough. Worse was Shinseki’s response when he finally appeared before a congressional committee Thursday to answer questions about the scandal. He refused to acknowledge any systemic problem and declined to commit to do much of anything, insisting on waiting for the results of yet another investigation.
“If any allegations are true,” Shinseki told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, “they’re completely unacceptable to me.”
“If any are substantiated by the inspector general,” he said, “we will act.”
If?"
If, indeed. Watching the VA mess unfold--and the secretary's reaction--has been a study in slow-motion buffoonery. At this point, the only people who don't believe there are serious problems at the Veteran's Administration are General Shinseki, and Jon Tester, the imbecilic Senator from Montana who told an MSNBC audience that "vets love the VA," and overall, the agency is "doing a pretty darn good job." Even host Joe Scarborough called him on that one, saying that Tester may be "one of the few people in America" who believes that line of bull.
Of course, Jon Tester isn't running the VA--but Eric Shinseki is. You would assume that a former Army Chief of Staff, West Point grad and two-time recipient of the Purple Heart would understand the gravity of the crisis at his agency and take decisive action. Then again, you'd be wrong.
What we're seeing with General is a toxic blend of incompetence and hubris. First of all, a service academy pedigree and flag rank does not confer superior leadership abilities, regardless of what we're led to believe. The U.S. military has produced its share of senior duds down through the years, and Eric Shinseki may fall in that category. Put another way, I've met several retired Army officers and senior NCOs who were more impressed with his political skills than his generalship.
But there's little doubt that General Shinseki has supreme confidence in his own abilities, and probably believes there isn't a problem he can't solve, or a crisis he can't weather. He was taught a long time ago that the worst reaction to any crisis is to panic, or start lopping off heads "without the facts." In his mind's eye, Shinseki is still gathering information and will make the right decision when he has all the data.
And, as an officer who spent a number of years in the power corridors of D.C., Shinseki also understands the value of playing for time. As long as he has the confidence of the President, the embattled VA Secretary believes he can stretch out the crisis, appoint a blue ribbon panel to recommend fixes, create the illusion of reform, and leave on his own accord.
Unfortunately, that approach doesn't work well with 40 dead veterans and clear evidence of wrong-doing at various VA centers around the country. Perhaps General Shinseki should take a leadership page from General George C. Marshall, who sacked hundreds of senior officers after Pearl Harbor because he knew they couldn't get the job done. Obviously, it's far more difficult to get rid of incompetent bureaucrats than lousy generals, but the point is that Eric Shinseki hasn't even tried. Faced with the latest crisis in the VA's long history--and there have been many--the man at the top is reacting in a manner that is completely wrong.
Which brings us to another example from the annals of World War II. Despite ample warning that an attack on the Philippines would follow the strike on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Commander in the Far East--the legendary Douglas MacArthur--reacted with confusion and disbelief. He refused to let his air commander, Major General Lewis Brereton, launch pre-emptive strikes against Japanese forces on Formosa. And when the enemy invasion came, MacArthur insisted on a "beach defense," instead of quickly withdrawing into more defensible terrain on the Bataan Peninsula.
By the time MacArthur recovered, it was too late. In April 1942, MacArthur was ordered to evacuate to Australia and what was left of his command surrendered to the Japanese. FDR awarded MacArthur the Congressional Medal of Honor for his "conspicious gallantry" in leading his forces against the invaders. During those desperate, early days of World War II, the President decided that America needed heroes, and MacArthur fit the bill. Talk about his indecision after Pearl Harbor (and the tactical blunders that followed) was either ignored or dismissed.
Watching Eric Shinseki before Congress last week, I saw that "deer-in-the-headlights" look that General Brereton and other visitors to MacArthur's penthouse witnessed in 1941. But unlike General MacArthur, there won't be a medal or promotion for Shinseki--just the wreckage of his own career, destroyed by arrogance and indecision.
"Reports have documented the deaths of about 40 veterans in Phoenix who were waiting for VA appointments — the latest evidence of widespread bookkeeping tricks used at the agency to make it appear as though veterans were not waiting as long for care as they really were. The abuses have been documented over several years by whistleblowers and leaked memorandums, and confirmed by a host of government investigators.
That’s bad enough. Worse was Shinseki’s response when he finally appeared before a congressional committee Thursday to answer questions about the scandal. He refused to acknowledge any systemic problem and declined to commit to do much of anything, insisting on waiting for the results of yet another investigation.
“If any allegations are true,” Shinseki told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, “they’re completely unacceptable to me.”
“If any are substantiated by the inspector general,” he said, “we will act.”
If?"
If, indeed. Watching the VA mess unfold--and the secretary's reaction--has been a study in slow-motion buffoonery. At this point, the only people who don't believe there are serious problems at the Veteran's Administration are General Shinseki, and Jon Tester, the imbecilic Senator from Montana who told an MSNBC audience that "vets love the VA," and overall, the agency is "doing a pretty darn good job." Even host Joe Scarborough called him on that one, saying that Tester may be "one of the few people in America" who believes that line of bull.
Of course, Jon Tester isn't running the VA--but Eric Shinseki is. You would assume that a former Army Chief of Staff, West Point grad and two-time recipient of the Purple Heart would understand the gravity of the crisis at his agency and take decisive action. Then again, you'd be wrong.
What we're seeing with General is a toxic blend of incompetence and hubris. First of all, a service academy pedigree and flag rank does not confer superior leadership abilities, regardless of what we're led to believe. The U.S. military has produced its share of senior duds down through the years, and Eric Shinseki may fall in that category. Put another way, I've met several retired Army officers and senior NCOs who were more impressed with his political skills than his generalship.
But there's little doubt that General Shinseki has supreme confidence in his own abilities, and probably believes there isn't a problem he can't solve, or a crisis he can't weather. He was taught a long time ago that the worst reaction to any crisis is to panic, or start lopping off heads "without the facts." In his mind's eye, Shinseki is still gathering information and will make the right decision when he has all the data.
And, as an officer who spent a number of years in the power corridors of D.C., Shinseki also understands the value of playing for time. As long as he has the confidence of the President, the embattled VA Secretary believes he can stretch out the crisis, appoint a blue ribbon panel to recommend fixes, create the illusion of reform, and leave on his own accord.
Unfortunately, that approach doesn't work well with 40 dead veterans and clear evidence of wrong-doing at various VA centers around the country. Perhaps General Shinseki should take a leadership page from General George C. Marshall, who sacked hundreds of senior officers after Pearl Harbor because he knew they couldn't get the job done. Obviously, it's far more difficult to get rid of incompetent bureaucrats than lousy generals, but the point is that Eric Shinseki hasn't even tried. Faced with the latest crisis in the VA's long history--and there have been many--the man at the top is reacting in a manner that is completely wrong.
Which brings us to another example from the annals of World War II. Despite ample warning that an attack on the Philippines would follow the strike on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Commander in the Far East--the legendary Douglas MacArthur--reacted with confusion and disbelief. He refused to let his air commander, Major General Lewis Brereton, launch pre-emptive strikes against Japanese forces on Formosa. And when the enemy invasion came, MacArthur insisted on a "beach defense," instead of quickly withdrawing into more defensible terrain on the Bataan Peninsula.
By the time MacArthur recovered, it was too late. In April 1942, MacArthur was ordered to evacuate to Australia and what was left of his command surrendered to the Japanese. FDR awarded MacArthur the Congressional Medal of Honor for his "conspicious gallantry" in leading his forces against the invaders. During those desperate, early days of World War II, the President decided that America needed heroes, and MacArthur fit the bill. Talk about his indecision after Pearl Harbor (and the tactical blunders that followed) was either ignored or dismissed.
Watching Eric Shinseki before Congress last week, I saw that "deer-in-the-headlights" look that General Brereton and other visitors to MacArthur's penthouse witnessed in 1941. But unlike General MacArthur, there won't be a medal or promotion for Shinseki--just the wreckage of his own career, destroyed by arrogance and indecision.
The Rebels Strike Back
The past few months have not been kind to Syria's resistance fighters.
Less than two weeks ago, hundreds of rebels were forced to evacuate from the city of Homs, after a year under seige from forces loyal to President Bashir al-Asad. Homs was considered the "cradle" of Syria's civil war, so the exit of opposition fighters gave the government a strategic and political victory, just ahead of the nation's presidential election, which Mr. Asad is expected to win easily.
The retreat from Homs was accompanied by a dire warning from one of the senior leaders of the Syrian opposition. Ahmad al-Jarba, President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, recently told an audience in Washington that rebel forces need "advanced weapons" that can neutralize aerial raids by Asad's forces, and change the balance-of-power on the ground.
"Advanced weapons" is shorthand for state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (MANPAD SAMs), a prospect that opens a veritable Pandora's box for the world community. On one hand, modern MANPADs could lessen Asad's aerial dominance, but giving those weapons to rebel factions--some linked to Al Qaida--raises the spectre of missile transfer to other terror groups, who could employ them against civilian airliners.
Meanwhile, at least two Syrian groups with Al Qaida ties are busy fighting each other, and not the Asad government. According to the Jerusalem Post, elements of Jabhat al-Nusra (the official Al Qaida affiliate in Syria) are battling with a breakaway group (Levant), which is trying to control territory that stretches from Syria's oil region into Iraq.
But just when you think opposition forces are going down for the count, they manage to pull off a major operation that surprises observers, and suggests they're far from defeated.
Media outlets and human rights groups are reporting that the general in charge of the nation's air defenses has died from wounds suffered in a battle in Mleiha, on the outskirts of Damascus. Lieutenant General Hussein Ayoub Ishaq was one of the highest-ranking Syrian officers to die in the country's three-year-old civil war.
There was some confusion as to how Ishaq died; as The New York Times observed, air defense officers typically don't lead formations on the ground. There was some speculation that Ishaq was inside a bunker or command post when he was wounded by insurgents. If that is correct, it would suggest that rebels penetrated several layers of security and managed to detonate a bomb inside Ishaq's command center.
Air defense sites have been frequent targets for opposition forces during the Syrian conflict. Many of the raids have focused on capturing weapons that can be used against Asad's attack helicopters and fighter-bombers. In recent months, those aircraft have been used to deliver "barrel bombs" against rebel targets, including civilian population centers. The weapons are typically packed with enough explosives to level a small building, or spray shrapnel across a broad area, killing or wounding scores of people.
There is a large Syrian air defense base in Mleiha, so it seems likely that General Ishaq died in an existing facility, rather than during a visit to a field-deployed unit. That makes the rebel operation even more impressive, since ranking Syrian officers--particularly those serving in or near contested areas--have extensive security details. Getting to Ishaq was no easy feat, and it would indicate a level of planning and execution that insurgents have demonstrated only rarely in the past.
While Ishaq's death will have little impact on the tactical situation, it is a major embarassment for the Asad regime. Syria's internal security forces will spare no effort to discover how the rebels managed to take out the air defense commander. And it's a safe bet that President Asad and his lieutenants have a few more security officers around them today--just in case.
***
ADDENDUM: While General Ishaq was a relative unknown outside Syria, he became a national hero in the early 1980s, by scoring the Syrian Air Force's only air-to-air kill against Israel during the Bekka Valley campaign. For those keeping score at home, the IAF's final kill ratio against Syria was a stunning 82:1. Given those sobering figures, it's no wonder Ishaq became a celebrity and jumped on the fast-track to flag rank.
Less than two weeks ago, hundreds of rebels were forced to evacuate from the city of Homs, after a year under seige from forces loyal to President Bashir al-Asad. Homs was considered the "cradle" of Syria's civil war, so the exit of opposition fighters gave the government a strategic and political victory, just ahead of the nation's presidential election, which Mr. Asad is expected to win easily.
The retreat from Homs was accompanied by a dire warning from one of the senior leaders of the Syrian opposition. Ahmad al-Jarba, President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, recently told an audience in Washington that rebel forces need "advanced weapons" that can neutralize aerial raids by Asad's forces, and change the balance-of-power on the ground.
"Advanced weapons" is shorthand for state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (MANPAD SAMs), a prospect that opens a veritable Pandora's box for the world community. On one hand, modern MANPADs could lessen Asad's aerial dominance, but giving those weapons to rebel factions--some linked to Al Qaida--raises the spectre of missile transfer to other terror groups, who could employ them against civilian airliners.
Meanwhile, at least two Syrian groups with Al Qaida ties are busy fighting each other, and not the Asad government. According to the Jerusalem Post, elements of Jabhat al-Nusra (the official Al Qaida affiliate in Syria) are battling with a breakaway group (Levant), which is trying to control territory that stretches from Syria's oil region into Iraq.
But just when you think opposition forces are going down for the count, they manage to pull off a major operation that surprises observers, and suggests they're far from defeated.
Media outlets and human rights groups are reporting that the general in charge of the nation's air defenses has died from wounds suffered in a battle in Mleiha, on the outskirts of Damascus. Lieutenant General Hussein Ayoub Ishaq was one of the highest-ranking Syrian officers to die in the country's three-year-old civil war.
There was some confusion as to how Ishaq died; as The New York Times observed, air defense officers typically don't lead formations on the ground. There was some speculation that Ishaq was inside a bunker or command post when he was wounded by insurgents. If that is correct, it would suggest that rebels penetrated several layers of security and managed to detonate a bomb inside Ishaq's command center.
Air defense sites have been frequent targets for opposition forces during the Syrian conflict. Many of the raids have focused on capturing weapons that can be used against Asad's attack helicopters and fighter-bombers. In recent months, those aircraft have been used to deliver "barrel bombs" against rebel targets, including civilian population centers. The weapons are typically packed with enough explosives to level a small building, or spray shrapnel across a broad area, killing or wounding scores of people.
There is a large Syrian air defense base in Mleiha, so it seems likely that General Ishaq died in an existing facility, rather than during a visit to a field-deployed unit. That makes the rebel operation even more impressive, since ranking Syrian officers--particularly those serving in or near contested areas--have extensive security details. Getting to Ishaq was no easy feat, and it would indicate a level of planning and execution that insurgents have demonstrated only rarely in the past.
While Ishaq's death will have little impact on the tactical situation, it is a major embarassment for the Asad regime. Syria's internal security forces will spare no effort to discover how the rebels managed to take out the air defense commander. And it's a safe bet that President Asad and his lieutenants have a few more security officers around them today--just in case.
***
ADDENDUM: While General Ishaq was a relative unknown outside Syria, he became a national hero in the early 1980s, by scoring the Syrian Air Force's only air-to-air kill against Israel during the Bekka Valley campaign. For those keeping score at home, the IAF's final kill ratio against Syria was a stunning 82:1. Given those sobering figures, it's no wonder Ishaq became a celebrity and jumped on the fast-track to flag rank.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Helping "Bradley" Become "Chelsea"
When Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning was convicted last year of passing reams of classified information to Wikileaks, we predicted that the former private wouldn't simply disappear into a cell at Leavenworth:
"Just hours after his conviction, Bradley's defense attorney turned up on the "Today" show and issued a statement, announcing his desire to "live as a woman."
"As I transition into this next phase in my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel and have felt since childhood, I want to start hormone therapy as soon as possible," the statement read.
The statement also asked people to use the feminine pronoun when referring to Manning. It was signed "Chelsea E. Manning" and contained a hand-written signature.
Almost as quickly, the Army released its own statement, noting that the military does not provide sex reassignment treatments or surgery, implying that Manning will serving his sentence as a man.
But don't expect Manning to give up without a fight. By declaring himself a woman, the former intelligence analyst will create headaches for the military, in terms of where Manning will be incarcerated and how we will be housed in the prison population. The military prison at Leavenworth accepts only male prisoners; female military inmates are housed at the Naval Consolidated Brig at Miramar, California.
While the Leavenworth complex has been modernized in recent years, conditions at the Naval brig are considered "better," and Manning probably believes he would be safer in that environment. However, such claims are specious, at best. Security at Leavenworth is extremely tight, and attacks on prisoners are extremely rare. Put another way, Bradley Manning will be far safer in Leavenworth than he would be in the general population at an equivalent civilian facility.
But it doesn't take a defense lawyer (or corrections expert) to see the real motive behind Manning's actions. Faced with a long prison sentence, Manning and his supporters hope to make him the biggest "problem" in the military corrections system, based on unreasonable demands and perpetual legal appeals. Various LGBT groups and the American Civil Liberties Union are lining up behind Manning, claiming the military cannot deny medical treatment to help him become a woman. And somewhere, there is probably a federal judge who might agree, assuming that Manning's lawyers can get his case out of the military system. If that happens--and it is very much a long shot--Manning could wind up at a civilian facility, undergoing gender-reassignment treatments, on your dime."
Now, just nine months later, "Ms." Manning is very close to getting her wish. Earlier this week, it was revealed that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved an Army proposal to "evaluate potential treatment options for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria." Those options might include transfer to a civilian federal prison, where Manning could receive "treatment" ranging from dressing like a woman; harmone therapy or even sex reassignment surgery.
The military has maintained it does not have the capability to treat dysphoria, but Manning's attorney is demanding treatment at an armed forces facility. He claims the former private's safety could not be assured at a civilian prison. The attorney David Combs, accused the military of "transphobia," and criticized service leaders of failing to develop an adequate plan for Manning's care.
Let's get this straight (no pun intended). Bradley Manning joined the Army as a man, never telling recruiters that he was "really" a woman inside. Did someone say fraudulent enlistment, since transgender individuals aren't allowed to enlist. Then, he proceeds to pass thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, causing grave damage to national security. Sentenced to 35 years in prison, Manning and his defense team quickly change to focus to his gender crisis. Not only does the media comply (they now refer to him by his preferred name of Chelsea), so does the Army. Even the service now calls him "Chelsea," and Hagel's directive suggests they are taking his identity issue seriously.
Whatever happened to punishment? Manning's supporters would claim that living in the wrong body is hellish, but they ignore a rather inconvenient point: the only barrier to "Chelsea" completing his transformation, is...Chelsea Manning. Whatever his/her desired gender, Manning has a debt to pay, and there is nothing in the constitution that says the taxpayer must provide reassignment treatment, just so those decades in the slammer are a bit easier.
Indeed, Private Manning hasn't said if he wants to be a man or woman, which leads to another theory: could the gender crisis be little more than a legal ploy, aimed at securing a felon's freedom? Manning's maneuvers clearly have the Army off-balance; just nine months ago, military officials were telling the press they didn't have the capability to treat gender problems, with a not-too-subtle hint that Manning could deal with the issue when he regains his freedom--in the year 2048. Now, Secretary Hagel has the brass scrambling to figure out a way to get the turncoat to a civilian prison.
Given the Army's apparent change-of-heart, it's quite likely that Manning's defense team will keep pushing their case. As the poster "boy" for LGBT prisoners, Manning has become a media figure, and a headache for the Pentagon. At some point, Chelsea's lawyers believe they can browbeat the government into some sort of deal. After all, we're talking about the Obama Administration, a group that is hardly unsympathetic to the LGBT cause.
Against that backdrop, it's easy to envision Manning being transferred to a civilian prison for treatment, while attorneys work on a clemency petition. The request would be granted in the final days of the Obama administration, as a final sop to one of his most important constituencies. That means Chelsea would spend another two years in prison, but it's a lot better than three more decades as Leavenworth.
"Just hours after his conviction, Bradley's defense attorney turned up on the "Today" show and issued a statement, announcing his desire to "live as a woman."
"As I transition into this next phase in my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel and have felt since childhood, I want to start hormone therapy as soon as possible," the statement read.
The statement also asked people to use the feminine pronoun when referring to Manning. It was signed "Chelsea E. Manning" and contained a hand-written signature.
Almost as quickly, the Army released its own statement, noting that the military does not provide sex reassignment treatments or surgery, implying that Manning will serving his sentence as a man.
But don't expect Manning to give up without a fight. By declaring himself a woman, the former intelligence analyst will create headaches for the military, in terms of where Manning will be incarcerated and how we will be housed in the prison population. The military prison at Leavenworth accepts only male prisoners; female military inmates are housed at the Naval Consolidated Brig at Miramar, California.
While the Leavenworth complex has been modernized in recent years, conditions at the Naval brig are considered "better," and Manning probably believes he would be safer in that environment. However, such claims are specious, at best. Security at Leavenworth is extremely tight, and attacks on prisoners are extremely rare. Put another way, Bradley Manning will be far safer in Leavenworth than he would be in the general population at an equivalent civilian facility.
But it doesn't take a defense lawyer (or corrections expert) to see the real motive behind Manning's actions. Faced with a long prison sentence, Manning and his supporters hope to make him the biggest "problem" in the military corrections system, based on unreasonable demands and perpetual legal appeals. Various LGBT groups and the American Civil Liberties Union are lining up behind Manning, claiming the military cannot deny medical treatment to help him become a woman. And somewhere, there is probably a federal judge who might agree, assuming that Manning's lawyers can get his case out of the military system. If that happens--and it is very much a long shot--Manning could wind up at a civilian facility, undergoing gender-reassignment treatments, on your dime."
Now, just nine months later, "Ms." Manning is very close to getting her wish. Earlier this week, it was revealed that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved an Army proposal to "evaluate potential treatment options for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria." Those options might include transfer to a civilian federal prison, where Manning could receive "treatment" ranging from dressing like a woman; harmone therapy or even sex reassignment surgery.
The military has maintained it does not have the capability to treat dysphoria, but Manning's attorney is demanding treatment at an armed forces facility. He claims the former private's safety could not be assured at a civilian prison. The attorney David Combs, accused the military of "transphobia," and criticized service leaders of failing to develop an adequate plan for Manning's care.
Let's get this straight (no pun intended). Bradley Manning joined the Army as a man, never telling recruiters that he was "really" a woman inside. Did someone say fraudulent enlistment, since transgender individuals aren't allowed to enlist. Then, he proceeds to pass thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, causing grave damage to national security. Sentenced to 35 years in prison, Manning and his defense team quickly change to focus to his gender crisis. Not only does the media comply (they now refer to him by his preferred name of Chelsea), so does the Army. Even the service now calls him "Chelsea," and Hagel's directive suggests they are taking his identity issue seriously.
Whatever happened to punishment? Manning's supporters would claim that living in the wrong body is hellish, but they ignore a rather inconvenient point: the only barrier to "Chelsea" completing his transformation, is...Chelsea Manning. Whatever his/her desired gender, Manning has a debt to pay, and there is nothing in the constitution that says the taxpayer must provide reassignment treatment, just so those decades in the slammer are a bit easier.
Indeed, Private Manning hasn't said if he wants to be a man or woman, which leads to another theory: could the gender crisis be little more than a legal ploy, aimed at securing a felon's freedom? Manning's maneuvers clearly have the Army off-balance; just nine months ago, military officials were telling the press they didn't have the capability to treat gender problems, with a not-too-subtle hint that Manning could deal with the issue when he regains his freedom--in the year 2048. Now, Secretary Hagel has the brass scrambling to figure out a way to get the turncoat to a civilian prison.
Given the Army's apparent change-of-heart, it's quite likely that Manning's defense team will keep pushing their case. As the poster "boy" for LGBT prisoners, Manning has become a media figure, and a headache for the Pentagon. At some point, Chelsea's lawyers believe they can browbeat the government into some sort of deal. After all, we're talking about the Obama Administration, a group that is hardly unsympathetic to the LGBT cause.
Against that backdrop, it's easy to envision Manning being transferred to a civilian prison for treatment, while attorneys work on a clemency petition. The request would be granted in the final days of the Obama administration, as a final sop to one of his most important constituencies. That means Chelsea would spend another two years in prison, but it's a lot better than three more decades as Leavenworth.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Ultimate Job Security
Quick..name one organization (other than the Mafia) where you can be involved in someone's demise and keep your job?
If you guessed the federal government, give yourself a gold star and move to the head of the class.
And by the way, we're not referring to the U.S. military. It goes without saying that armed forces personnel, in the course of their duties, are sometimes called upon to kill the enemy. No, we're talking about employees outside DoD, the intelligence community or federal law enforcement who contributed to accidental or preventable deaths, and managed to hang onto their civil service positions.
The most current (and egregious) example comes from the Veterans Administration. Congress and government investigators are currently looking into whistle blower allegations that staff and administrators at the Phoenix VA created secret waiting lists for veterans who were seeking care at that facility.
While the deception reduced patient backlogs at the facility--a key performance metric for administrators--it also kept vets waiting for needed care. Two physicians who exposed the practice claim as many as 40 veterans died while on the waiting list; others spent up to a year waiting for an appointment. Three senior administrators (including the hospital director) have been placed on administrative leave as the inquiry continues. Yesterday, the leader of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization, called for the resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, and two senior aides.
Sadly, the VA doesn't have a monopoly on tolerating incompetence. An investigation by WPIX-TV in New York discovered the Federal Aviation Administration has retained "a number" of air traffic controllers whose actions contributed to 15 fatal crashes that claimed 54 lives. The string of deadly incidents cover more than 20 years (beginning in the late 1980s) and include the highly-publicized mid-air collision of a private plane and a sightseeing helicopter over the Hudson River in 2009.
During their probe, federal investigators discovered that controller assigned to monitor that airspace was involved in a personal phone call when the two aircraft collided:
"In its accident report, the National Transportation Safety Board stated that controller Carlyle Turner’s non-pertinent telephone conversation contributed to the crash. While on duty, Turner and an airport colleague had a conversation about a scheduled BBQ and a dead cat found earlier in the day on a runway. At one point in the more than two-minute call, the federally employed Turner even cracks a racial joke.
[snip]
PIX 11 News found Carlyle Turner living a suburban lifestyle in Chesapeake, Virginia. He is now working out of the air traffic control tower at Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, a frequent destination and fly-over zone for high performance aircraft from the military as well as commercial jetliners.
The story of Carlyle Turner resonates with Barry Newman. The Florida aviation attorney had a case from an October 26, 2009 flight where a Texas controller lost his focus, literally. “The controller was required by his FAA medical certificate to wear glasses while controlling traffic and he wasn’t wearing his glasses that day.”
The controller in the case, Mike Farrior, admitted to not having his glasses in a handwritten statement attained by PIX11 News. Additionally, Newman says his vision was not the only issue.
“The controller decided to set his preferences so that he had a bright blue screen which was the same color as the worst of the weather so the two blended together, where on a black background the worst of the weather would have stood out very brightly.”
In a federal lawsuit, attorneys argued that as a result the pilot flew into hazardous weather. The aircraft went down killing all four people on-board."
According to WPIX, the federal government has paid out at least $100 million in settlements or jury verdicts resulting from deaths in these--and other--crashes. Amazingly, Carlyle Turner, Mike Farrior and other controllers remain on the job, despite their actions that contributed to these deadly accidents.
But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. The FAA and unions representing airline pilots and air traffic controllers all declined requests for interviews. Both Mr. Turner and Mr. Farrior served paid suspensions before returning to their duties as controllers. That's a "testament" to the power of organized labor and our civil service system, where it's almost impossible to fire an employee, even if their actions contributed to the deaths of other individuals.
True, Ronald Reagan cleaned house when air traffic controllers went on an illegal strike in 1981. But since the new union has been certified (vowing to never walk off the job), labor issues have largely focused on finding replacements for retiring controllers (most are required to retire by the age of 56) and providing more rest periods for those on duty. Controllers who run into disciplinary problems or encounter more serious problems (like Turner and Farrior) can still fight to keep their jobs, and in many cases, they win.
Most air traffic controllers are extraordinary professionals who excel in one of the worlds most demanding jobs. But it's baffling that their union--and the federal bureaucracy--will go to bat for individuals whose carelessness contributed to past disasters in the sky.
One final thought: the Newport News-Williamsburg Airport is frequently used for touch-and-go training by crews from the 89th Military Airlift Wing, which operates Air Force One and other VIP jets. It's a likely bet that Mr. Turner has been in tower when that distinctive Boeing 747 works the pattern during practice missions, but it would be interesting to know if he's allowed to control Air Force One or Air Force Two when President Obama or Joe Biden is on-board.
If you guessed the federal government, give yourself a gold star and move to the head of the class.
And by the way, we're not referring to the U.S. military. It goes without saying that armed forces personnel, in the course of their duties, are sometimes called upon to kill the enemy. No, we're talking about employees outside DoD, the intelligence community or federal law enforcement who contributed to accidental or preventable deaths, and managed to hang onto their civil service positions.
The most current (and egregious) example comes from the Veterans Administration. Congress and government investigators are currently looking into whistle blower allegations that staff and administrators at the Phoenix VA created secret waiting lists for veterans who were seeking care at that facility.
While the deception reduced patient backlogs at the facility--a key performance metric for administrators--it also kept vets waiting for needed care. Two physicians who exposed the practice claim as many as 40 veterans died while on the waiting list; others spent up to a year waiting for an appointment. Three senior administrators (including the hospital director) have been placed on administrative leave as the inquiry continues. Yesterday, the leader of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization, called for the resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, and two senior aides.
Sadly, the VA doesn't have a monopoly on tolerating incompetence. An investigation by WPIX-TV in New York discovered the Federal Aviation Administration has retained "a number" of air traffic controllers whose actions contributed to 15 fatal crashes that claimed 54 lives. The string of deadly incidents cover more than 20 years (beginning in the late 1980s) and include the highly-publicized mid-air collision of a private plane and a sightseeing helicopter over the Hudson River in 2009.
During their probe, federal investigators discovered that controller assigned to monitor that airspace was involved in a personal phone call when the two aircraft collided:
"In its accident report, the National Transportation Safety Board stated that controller Carlyle Turner’s non-pertinent telephone conversation contributed to the crash. While on duty, Turner and an airport colleague had a conversation about a scheduled BBQ and a dead cat found earlier in the day on a runway. At one point in the more than two-minute call, the federally employed Turner even cracks a racial joke.
[snip]
PIX 11 News found Carlyle Turner living a suburban lifestyle in Chesapeake, Virginia. He is now working out of the air traffic control tower at Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, a frequent destination and fly-over zone for high performance aircraft from the military as well as commercial jetliners.
The story of Carlyle Turner resonates with Barry Newman. The Florida aviation attorney had a case from an October 26, 2009 flight where a Texas controller lost his focus, literally. “The controller was required by his FAA medical certificate to wear glasses while controlling traffic and he wasn’t wearing his glasses that day.”
The controller in the case, Mike Farrior, admitted to not having his glasses in a handwritten statement attained by PIX11 News. Additionally, Newman says his vision was not the only issue.
“The controller decided to set his preferences so that he had a bright blue screen which was the same color as the worst of the weather so the two blended together, where on a black background the worst of the weather would have stood out very brightly.”
In a federal lawsuit, attorneys argued that as a result the pilot flew into hazardous weather. The aircraft went down killing all four people on-board."
According to WPIX, the federal government has paid out at least $100 million in settlements or jury verdicts resulting from deaths in these--and other--crashes. Amazingly, Carlyle Turner, Mike Farrior and other controllers remain on the job, despite their actions that contributed to these deadly accidents.
But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. The FAA and unions representing airline pilots and air traffic controllers all declined requests for interviews. Both Mr. Turner and Mr. Farrior served paid suspensions before returning to their duties as controllers. That's a "testament" to the power of organized labor and our civil service system, where it's almost impossible to fire an employee, even if their actions contributed to the deaths of other individuals.
True, Ronald Reagan cleaned house when air traffic controllers went on an illegal strike in 1981. But since the new union has been certified (vowing to never walk off the job), labor issues have largely focused on finding replacements for retiring controllers (most are required to retire by the age of 56) and providing more rest periods for those on duty. Controllers who run into disciplinary problems or encounter more serious problems (like Turner and Farrior) can still fight to keep their jobs, and in many cases, they win.
Most air traffic controllers are extraordinary professionals who excel in one of the worlds most demanding jobs. But it's baffling that their union--and the federal bureaucracy--will go to bat for individuals whose carelessness contributed to past disasters in the sky.
One final thought: the Newport News-Williamsburg Airport is frequently used for touch-and-go training by crews from the 89th Military Airlift Wing, which operates Air Force One and other VIP jets. It's a likely bet that Mr. Turner has been in tower when that distinctive Boeing 747 works the pattern during practice missions, but it would be interesting to know if he's allowed to control Air Force One or Air Force Two when President Obama or Joe Biden is on-board.
Preparing for the End?
It's something that has been studied, war-gamed and analyzed in Washington and Seoul for decades: how to handle the inevitable implosion of North Korea.
To be fair, the tyrants in Pyongyang have (so far) defied expectations. While serving as a military intelligence officer in South Korea more than 20 years ago, I reviewed a White Paper prepared by the ROK Ministry of Defense, outlining projected threats in the year 2010. Atop that list were China and Japan. North Korea didn't even make the cut, because the best minds in Seoul (along with their American counterparts) believed the DPRK would go kaput before the first decade of the 21st Century.
Yet, North Korea still shambles along. Not even the deaths of the Great Leader (Kim il-Sung), the "Dear" Leader (Kim Jong-il); mass famine, a failed economy and brutal purges have pushed Pyongyang beyond the brink. Indeed, the third generation of North Korea's hereditary dictatorship has now consolidated power in the person of Kim Jong-un, the youngest son of Kim Jong-il, who is proving to be just as brutal as his father and grandfather. He recently executed his maternal uncle (who provided critical support during Kim Jong-un's ascent to power), along with dozens of other regime officials.
Based on outward appearances, it looks like business-as-usual in Pyongyang, and the newest dictator may remain in power for decades to come. But Kim's allies in Beijing aren't taking any chances--or hedging their bets. According to the U.K. Telegraph, Chinese leaders have been reviewing their own plans for a DPRK collapse:
China has drawn up detailed contingency plans for the collapse of the North Korean government, suggesting that Beijing has little faith in the longevity of Kim Jong-un’s regime.
To be fair, the tyrants in Pyongyang have (so far) defied expectations. While serving as a military intelligence officer in South Korea more than 20 years ago, I reviewed a White Paper prepared by the ROK Ministry of Defense, outlining projected threats in the year 2010. Atop that list were China and Japan. North Korea didn't even make the cut, because the best minds in Seoul (along with their American counterparts) believed the DPRK would go kaput before the first decade of the 21st Century.
Yet, North Korea still shambles along. Not even the deaths of the Great Leader (Kim il-Sung), the "Dear" Leader (Kim Jong-il); mass famine, a failed economy and brutal purges have pushed Pyongyang beyond the brink. Indeed, the third generation of North Korea's hereditary dictatorship has now consolidated power in the person of Kim Jong-un, the youngest son of Kim Jong-il, who is proving to be just as brutal as his father and grandfather. He recently executed his maternal uncle (who provided critical support during Kim Jong-un's ascent to power), along with dozens of other regime officials.
Based on outward appearances, it looks like business-as-usual in Pyongyang, and the newest dictator may remain in power for decades to come. But Kim's allies in Beijing aren't taking any chances--or hedging their bets. According to the U.K. Telegraph, Chinese leaders have been reviewing their own plans for a DPRK collapse:
China has drawn up detailed contingency plans for the collapse of the North Korean government, suggesting that Beijing has little faith in the longevity of Kim Jong-un’s regime.
Documents drawn up by planners from China’s People’s Liberation Army that were leaked to Japanese media include proposals for detaining key North Korean leaders and the creation of refugee camps on the Chinese side of the frontier in the event of an outbreak of civil unrest in the secretive state.
The report calls for stepping up monitoring of China’s 879-mile border with North Korea.
Any senior North Korean military or political leaders who could be the target of either rival factions or another “military power,” thought to be a reference to the United States, should be given protection, the documents state.
The fact that Beijing has such plans on the books is hardly surprising. Living next door to a failed state, China is acutely aware of conditions inside the DPRK, and what might happen if the regime suddenly collapses. Beijing has arrested (and returned) thousands of North Korean refugees who have fled the "workers paradise" over the decades, and understands that relative trickle would become a flood in the event of widespread civil unrest, or the complete failure of Kim Jong-un's regime.
What's unusual is China's decision to leak the information to the Japanese press. In a country where revealing classified information is routinely punished by death, a revelation of this type is clearly a planned event, aimed at sending a signal to all concerned parties.
For North Korea, the message is clear. Beijing has grown tired of the refugee problem and Pyongyang's intransigence on a variety of other issues, including nuclear weapons. With the North reportedly gearing up for another nuclear test, China has already issued a statement condemning the move and reinforced its disapproval by with-holding oil shipments during the first three months of this year. Beijing would also like to see the DPRK embark on some sort of reform program, but it also realizes the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
Beijing may also be signaling Washington and Seoul that it wouldn't be unhappy if North Korea suddenly disappeared, even if military action is required. The plans leaked to the Japanese media are completely defensive in nature, with no mention of intervening to save Pyongyang, as it did in 1950. Of course, the plan that found its way into the press may be nothing more than a border security operation, crafted apart from military contingency preparations. Naturally, China would be resentful of any interference in an area considered its own zone of influence. But as Tom Wilson writes in Commentary magazine, the tone of the planning document envisions--even seems to invite--a region without Pyongyang.
Mr. Wilson is also correct on a second point: if Chinese leaders the U.S. and South Korea are contemplating military action that would collapse the North Korean regime, they are sadly mistaken. Over the past decade, Pyongyang has joined the nuclear club and staged a number of highly provocative acts, including the sinking of a ROK Navy vessel and the shelling of a South Korean-held island in the Yellow Sea. In return, the North has been punished with economic sanctions, which were later eased. Clearly, the DPRK believes it has little to fear from its adversaries in Seoul and Washington. Meanwhile, U.S. and South Korean leaders are content to let North Korea collapse on its own, hoping that the implosion can somehow be "managed."
The leaked planning document contained one other interesting tidbit: as refugees from the DPRK pour over the border, Chinese authorities will take steps to identify former North Korean officials and place them in special camps. That move would (apparently) serve two goals: first, it would keep them beyond the reach of South Korea and the United States, and prevent them from using Chinese territory to launch a civil war on the reunified peninsula. Clearly, there are details of the Pyongyang-Beijing relationship that China wants to remain secret, and rounding up members of the ruling clique is a good way to accomplish that goal.
Does that mean Kim Jong-un will ultimately be a guest of the Chinese government, in some sort of labor camp? North Korea's long-term prospects are dire (at best), but a lot of intel analysts and diplomats have been consistently wrong, betting against the DPRK's near and mid-term survival. If China knows something we don't (in regard to Pyongyang), that should be a matter of grave concern given the millions of South Korea civilians who could be threatened by North Korea's collapse, and the thousands of U.S. military personnel who would be called upon to defend our ally. As we've noted before, Pyongyang might choose to go out with a bang instead of a whimper, and the consequences would be catastrophic for all concerned.
On the other hand, the Chinese plans appear based in an abundance of caution--prudent steps taken by an emerging super-power which knows that North Korea will not last, and is preparing for that eventuality. The real issue is why Beijing decided to leak its plans now, and if their timetable for the DPRK's demise differs significantly from our own.
***
ADDENDUM: As another indicator of worsening conditions in North Korea, ABC News reports that a large number of wildfires are currently burning across the country. Some of the fires were deliberately set, to burn off debris from last year's crop and fertilize fields ahead of this year's planting.
But recent imagery from a NASA satellite detected larger fires in forested areas; wood is a precious commodity in the DPRK, a country that cannot exploit its own coal reserves due to shortages of fuel, equipment and a power grid that is down most of the time. Ironically, some experts believe the forest fires may have been triggered by aging power lines that snapped and fell to the ground, igniting dry brush. Not only is North Korea unable generate enough electricity to meet its demands, the distribution system may be more of a hazard than an asset.
The fact that Beijing has such plans on the books is hardly surprising. Living next door to a failed state, China is acutely aware of conditions inside the DPRK, and what might happen if the regime suddenly collapses. Beijing has arrested (and returned) thousands of North Korean refugees who have fled the "workers paradise" over the decades, and understands that relative trickle would become a flood in the event of widespread civil unrest, or the complete failure of Kim Jong-un's regime.
What's unusual is China's decision to leak the information to the Japanese press. In a country where revealing classified information is routinely punished by death, a revelation of this type is clearly a planned event, aimed at sending a signal to all concerned parties.
For North Korea, the message is clear. Beijing has grown tired of the refugee problem and Pyongyang's intransigence on a variety of other issues, including nuclear weapons. With the North reportedly gearing up for another nuclear test, China has already issued a statement condemning the move and reinforced its disapproval by with-holding oil shipments during the first three months of this year. Beijing would also like to see the DPRK embark on some sort of reform program, but it also realizes the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
Beijing may also be signaling Washington and Seoul that it wouldn't be unhappy if North Korea suddenly disappeared, even if military action is required. The plans leaked to the Japanese media are completely defensive in nature, with no mention of intervening to save Pyongyang, as it did in 1950. Of course, the plan that found its way into the press may be nothing more than a border security operation, crafted apart from military contingency preparations. Naturally, China would be resentful of any interference in an area considered its own zone of influence. But as Tom Wilson writes in Commentary magazine, the tone of the planning document envisions--even seems to invite--a region without Pyongyang.
Mr. Wilson is also correct on a second point: if Chinese leaders the U.S. and South Korea are contemplating military action that would collapse the North Korean regime, they are sadly mistaken. Over the past decade, Pyongyang has joined the nuclear club and staged a number of highly provocative acts, including the sinking of a ROK Navy vessel and the shelling of a South Korean-held island in the Yellow Sea. In return, the North has been punished with economic sanctions, which were later eased. Clearly, the DPRK believes it has little to fear from its adversaries in Seoul and Washington. Meanwhile, U.S. and South Korean leaders are content to let North Korea collapse on its own, hoping that the implosion can somehow be "managed."
The leaked planning document contained one other interesting tidbit: as refugees from the DPRK pour over the border, Chinese authorities will take steps to identify former North Korean officials and place them in special camps. That move would (apparently) serve two goals: first, it would keep them beyond the reach of South Korea and the United States, and prevent them from using Chinese territory to launch a civil war on the reunified peninsula. Clearly, there are details of the Pyongyang-Beijing relationship that China wants to remain secret, and rounding up members of the ruling clique is a good way to accomplish that goal.
Does that mean Kim Jong-un will ultimately be a guest of the Chinese government, in some sort of labor camp? North Korea's long-term prospects are dire (at best), but a lot of intel analysts and diplomats have been consistently wrong, betting against the DPRK's near and mid-term survival. If China knows something we don't (in regard to Pyongyang), that should be a matter of grave concern given the millions of South Korea civilians who could be threatened by North Korea's collapse, and the thousands of U.S. military personnel who would be called upon to defend our ally. As we've noted before, Pyongyang might choose to go out with a bang instead of a whimper, and the consequences would be catastrophic for all concerned.
On the other hand, the Chinese plans appear based in an abundance of caution--prudent steps taken by an emerging super-power which knows that North Korea will not last, and is preparing for that eventuality. The real issue is why Beijing decided to leak its plans now, and if their timetable for the DPRK's demise differs significantly from our own.
***
ADDENDUM: As another indicator of worsening conditions in North Korea, ABC News reports that a large number of wildfires are currently burning across the country. Some of the fires were deliberately set, to burn off debris from last year's crop and fertilize fields ahead of this year's planting.
But recent imagery from a NASA satellite detected larger fires in forested areas; wood is a precious commodity in the DPRK, a country that cannot exploit its own coal reserves due to shortages of fuel, equipment and a power grid that is down most of the time. Ironically, some experts believe the forest fires may have been triggered by aging power lines that snapped and fell to the ground, igniting dry brush. Not only is North Korea unable generate enough electricity to meet its demands, the distribution system may be more of a hazard than an asset.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Connect the Dots (and Follow the Money)
While the NBA takes a bow for adroitly handling the Donald Sterling fiasco, they might want to take a step back and look at the next steaming pile they're about to step in.
When he announced Sterling's "sentence" this afternoon, newly-installed NBA commissioner Adam Silver emphasized that the Clippers owner is being "banned from the league for life," imposing the NBA equivalent of the nuclear option. Silver also vowed to lobby Sterling's fellow owners to force him to sell the Clippers, a team he has controlled for more than 30 years.
And here's where it gets interesting.
Clearly, the NBA is in full damage-control mode. From Mr. Silver's perspective, the best scenario is a quick sale of the club and a formal end to any ties between the NBA and Donald Sterling. Sensing an opportunity, there will be plenty of individuals--and groups--vying to buy the Clippers. Despite their long history of losing, the franchise now has legitimate stars in players like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin and they play in the nation's second-largest media market. Forbes puts the value of the Clippers at $500-700 million, quite a return on the $12 million Sterling originally paid for the team.
Who's on the list of potential buyers? Keep an eye on Guggenheim Partners, the equity firm that provided much of the capital behind the 2012 acquisition of the Los Angeles Dodgers by a group led by NBA icon Magic Johnson. The former Lakers star put up $50 million of his own money, but much of the $2 billion purchase price was financed by Guggenheim and its principal partners.
According to Fortune, Guggenheim (which was founded in 1999 with $5 billion in seed money) now manages a total of $170 billion for investors. Rather spectacular growth during one of the worst economic recessions in our history, so the the folks at Guggenheim clearly know something about investing. Nothing illegal about that, but involvement in the Dodgers deal has attracted the interest of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Why? The Los Angeles Times (and other media outlets) report that disgraced junk bond trader--and convicted felon--Michael Milken has upwards of $800 million invested with the firm.
Mr. Milken, who served two years in federal prison for securities and tax fraud in the early 1990s, already has a lifetime ban--from dealing in securities. He can still manage his own assets, but there have been allegations that Milken may have advised Guggenheim on various deals. The SEC launched a probe of the Milken-Guggenheim relationship last year. So far, no evidence of wrong-doing has emerged, but the investigation is apparently continuing.
Despite that, the sale of the Dodgers to the Johnson/Guggenheim group was quickly approved by Major League Baseball. And given the dynamics of the Clippers situation, the same ownership team could easily--and speedily--acquire the Clippers. After ridding itself of a vile racist, the NBA may get to do business with a guy who has a real rap sheet.
The fire sale of the Clippers could get very, very interesting.
H/T: isteve.
***
ADDENDUM: Media reports this afternoon (Wednesday) suggest that Oprah Winfrey has an interest in buying the team, along with media mogul David Geffen and Oracle founder Larry Ellison. Both Geffen and Ellison have greater wealth than the former queen of daytime talk, but as a female, minority owner, Ms. Winfrey would be a prohibitive favorite to buy the club.
Still, that doesn't preclude participation by Guggenheim, or another investment firm. As exhibited in the launch of her cable network, Oprah doesn't enter a new venture without deep-pocketed partners; most of the start-up costs for OWN were fronted by Discovery Networks, leaving the daytime talk host with relatively less financial exposure. According to Business Week, Discovery may have lost as much as $300 million on the network (which is now turning a modest profit), while Winfrey's personal losses were put at roughly half that total.
When he announced Sterling's "sentence" this afternoon, newly-installed NBA commissioner Adam Silver emphasized that the Clippers owner is being "banned from the league for life," imposing the NBA equivalent of the nuclear option. Silver also vowed to lobby Sterling's fellow owners to force him to sell the Clippers, a team he has controlled for more than 30 years.
And here's where it gets interesting.
Clearly, the NBA is in full damage-control mode. From Mr. Silver's perspective, the best scenario is a quick sale of the club and a formal end to any ties between the NBA and Donald Sterling. Sensing an opportunity, there will be plenty of individuals--and groups--vying to buy the Clippers. Despite their long history of losing, the franchise now has legitimate stars in players like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin and they play in the nation's second-largest media market. Forbes puts the value of the Clippers at $500-700 million, quite a return on the $12 million Sterling originally paid for the team.
Who's on the list of potential buyers? Keep an eye on Guggenheim Partners, the equity firm that provided much of the capital behind the 2012 acquisition of the Los Angeles Dodgers by a group led by NBA icon Magic Johnson. The former Lakers star put up $50 million of his own money, but much of the $2 billion purchase price was financed by Guggenheim and its principal partners.
According to Fortune, Guggenheim (which was founded in 1999 with $5 billion in seed money) now manages a total of $170 billion for investors. Rather spectacular growth during one of the worst economic recessions in our history, so the the folks at Guggenheim clearly know something about investing. Nothing illegal about that, but involvement in the Dodgers deal has attracted the interest of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Why? The Los Angeles Times (and other media outlets) report that disgraced junk bond trader--and convicted felon--Michael Milken has upwards of $800 million invested with the firm.
Mr. Milken, who served two years in federal prison for securities and tax fraud in the early 1990s, already has a lifetime ban--from dealing in securities. He can still manage his own assets, but there have been allegations that Milken may have advised Guggenheim on various deals. The SEC launched a probe of the Milken-Guggenheim relationship last year. So far, no evidence of wrong-doing has emerged, but the investigation is apparently continuing.
Despite that, the sale of the Dodgers to the Johnson/Guggenheim group was quickly approved by Major League Baseball. And given the dynamics of the Clippers situation, the same ownership team could easily--and speedily--acquire the Clippers. After ridding itself of a vile racist, the NBA may get to do business with a guy who has a real rap sheet.
The fire sale of the Clippers could get very, very interesting.
H/T: isteve.
***
ADDENDUM: Media reports this afternoon (Wednesday) suggest that Oprah Winfrey has an interest in buying the team, along with media mogul David Geffen and Oracle founder Larry Ellison. Both Geffen and Ellison have greater wealth than the former queen of daytime talk, but as a female, minority owner, Ms. Winfrey would be a prohibitive favorite to buy the club.
Still, that doesn't preclude participation by Guggenheim, or another investment firm. As exhibited in the launch of her cable network, Oprah doesn't enter a new venture without deep-pocketed partners; most of the start-up costs for OWN were fronted by Discovery Networks, leaving the daytime talk host with relatively less financial exposure. According to Business Week, Discovery may have lost as much as $300 million on the network (which is now turning a modest profit), while Winfrey's personal losses were put at roughly half that total.
The Latest Retirement
Someone else in L.A. is out of a job--and we're not talking about Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who has been "banned for life" from the NBA after making racist comments to his 20-something girlfriend who conveniently leaked them to the media.
Instead, we refer to Craig Ferguson, the host of CBS's Late, Late Show since 2005. During the taping of Monday's show, Mr. Ferguson announced that he will leave the program at the end of this year.
Ferguson's departure comes only a few weeks after David Letterman unveiled similar plans, announcing his retirement after 30+ years as a late night host for NBC and CBS.
Instead, we refer to Craig Ferguson, the host of CBS's Late, Late Show since 2005. During the taping of Monday's show, Mr. Ferguson announced that he will leave the program at the end of this year.
Ferguson's departure comes only a few weeks after David Letterman unveiled similar plans, announcing his retirement after 30+ years as a late night host for NBC and CBS.
"CBS and I are not getting divorced, we are consciously uncoupling," Ferguson said. "But we will still spend holidays together and share custody of the fake horse and robot skeleton, both of whom we love very much."
He told the audience it was his decision to leave, adding, "CBS has been fine with me."
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You
While President Obama keeps taking victory laps over the latest sign-up totals for his health care program, realists are taking a longer view. Beyond the questions of how many individuals actually have a policy (and are paying for it), there's the over-arching issue of what happens when the system is fully implemented.
If you want a glimpse of the future, look no further than the Veteran's Administration health care program.
CNN has been doing some terrific reporting on the subject in recent months, and what they've found is stunning to say the least. In some cases, veterans have waited months for an appointment, or to receive routine proceedures like a colonoscopy. All too often, the results have been fatal; delays in care have led to the deaths of dozens of veterans across the country, including more than 40 at the Phoenix VA hospital.
"..At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system, many of whom were placed on a secret waiting list.
If you want a glimpse of the future, look no further than the Veteran's Administration health care program.
CNN has been doing some terrific reporting on the subject in recent months, and what they've found is stunning to say the least. In some cases, veterans have waited months for an appointment, or to receive routine proceedures like a colonoscopy. All too often, the results have been fatal; delays in care have led to the deaths of dozens of veterans across the country, including more than 40 at the Phoenix VA hospital.
"..At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system, many of whom were placed on a secret waiting list.
The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by Veterans Affairs managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor, according to a recently retired top VA doctor and several high-level sources."
[snip]
"Internal e-mails obtained by CNN show that top management at the VA hospital in Arizona knew about the practice and even defended it.
Dr. Sam Foote just retired after spending 24 years with the VA system in Phoenix. The veteran doctor told CNN in an exclusive interview that the Phoenix VA works off two lists for patient appointments:
There's an "official" list that's shared with officials in Washington and shows the VA has been providing timely appointments, which Foote calls a sham list. And then there's the real list that's hidden from outsiders, where wait times can last more than a year."
VA rules require that vets receive "timely" care, normally within 14-30 days. But faced with a giant backlog, the Phoenix VA created a secret appointment list that led veterans to believe they would soon see a doctor. Instead, many languished on the secret list for up to a year, and when confronted with the scam, officials shredded the evidence, according to Dr. Foote:
"Officials at the VA, Foote says, instructed their staff to not actually make doctor's appointments for veterans within the computer system.
Instead, Foote says, when a veteran comes in seeking an appointment, "they enter information into the computer and do a screen capture hard copy printout. They then do not save what was put into the computer so there's no record that you were ever here," he said." Dr. Foote estimates that 1,400-1,600 veterans are still on the secret list.
Earlier this year, CNN reporters Scott Bronstein and Drew Griffin found similar problems at VA medical centers in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas. One of the horror stories they uncovered involved an Army veteran whose experiences with the VA left him battling for his life:
"Barry Coates is one of the veterans who has suffered from a delay in care. Coates was having excruciating pain and rectal bleeding in 2011. For a year the Army veteran went to several VA clinics and hospitals in South Carolina, trying to get help. But the VA's diagnosis was hemorrhoids, and aside from simple pain medication he was told he might need a colonoscopy.
"The problem was getting worse and I was having more pain," Coates said, talking about one specific VA doctor who he saw every few months. "She again examined me and gave me some prescriptions for other things as far as pain and stuff like that and I noticed again she made another comment -- 'may need colonoscopy.'
[snip]
"Finally about a year after first complaining to his doctors of the pain, Coates got a colonoscopy and doctors discovered a cancerous tumor the size of a baseball.
The now 44-year-old veteran is undergoing chemotherapy in an effort to save his life."
According to CNN, at least 82 veterans across the country have died due to delays in receiving healthcare from the VA.
Think about that for a moment, then ask yourself: why does Eric Shinseki still have a job? The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (and former Army Chief of Staff) has been praised for reducing the backlog of claims that have clogged the VA system. Perhaps he should pay a little more attention to another fundamental issue--ensuring that veterans have access to the health care benefits they've earned. Not surprisingly, Secretary Shinseki has refused to discuss the "secret waiting lists" and other health care delays with CNN.
Yet, criticism of Shinseki has been muted. As The New York Times noted last year, the VA Secretary still enjoys support from many veterans groups and key members of Congress. Will that support now fade, amid these shocking revelations about a failed system that (quite literally) killed more than 80 veterans, or will the secretary remain above the fray? It's worth noting that the retired general became something of a hero on the left a decade ago, through his criticism of the war in Iraq. Put another way: would a VA secretary in a Republican administration--without Shinseki's anti-war credentials--survive the recent revelations that have rocked the VA and its leadership.
But the problem goes beyond General Shinseki. At last report, the director of the Phoenix hospital was still on the job, along with staff members who maintained that "secret" waiting list. The Washington Free Beacon reports the hospital administrator, Sharon Helman, received a $9,000 bonus for her work last year, in addition to a base salary of $169,000. In all, senior leadership at the
Phoenix VA medical center received over $700,000 in pay and bonuses last year.
Perhaps that's not so surprising when you consider that the VA recently "re-hired" a senior administrator who was forced to resign from a post after a DUI crash. An investigation by WRC-TV in Washington revealed that Jed Fillingim, a VA financial manager, resigned his post in Mississippi in November 2010, five months after a wreck that killed one of his colleagues. Police reports indicate that Fillingim drank heavily in the hours before the crash, but didn't submit to a blood alcohol test until five hours after the wreck. No charges were filed in connection with the accident, after police determined that the victim, Amy Wheat, departed the moving vehicle "on her own."
But in early 2011, Fillingim rejoined the VA in a similar capacity at a facility in Georgia. So far, the agency hasn't explained why he was re-hired.
While the VA has been the source of many horror stories through the years, some still insist that its health care system could be a "model" for the rest of us. Barely two years ago, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) praised the VA for its "patient-centered" approach to health care. Wonder if JAMA would consider a follow-up piece and ask the families of those deceased veterans about the "patient-centered care" their loved ones received.
It's bad enough that our veterans are suffering under this failed system, but the VA's many woes have implications for the rest of us. Wait until Obamacare is fully implemented. Fewer doctors and rationed care--almost inevitable under the new system--will produce conditions similar to the VA network, where patients often wait weeks (or even months) to see a doctor.
And remember: the VA health care network sees just over 8 million patients a year, at 1700 facilities across the country. Imagine the VA problems in a system that will treat hundreds of millions of Americans every year.
The "future" of government-run health care is on display at your local VA medical center. And it might just kill you.
***
ADDENDUM: Sadly, it looks like the VA scandal is revealing even more horror stories about veterans who weren't treated--or received poor care--and the bureaucrats covered it up. Fox News is reporting that Phoenix VA Director Sharon Helman was linked to another cover-up, in her previous job as head of the VA center in Spokane, Washington.
During a one-year period, from July 2007 to July 2008, at least 22 veterans committed suicide in the area served by the Spokane center, but officials reported only nine suicides at 34 attempts. The discrepancy between those totals was never fully explained and Helman left the Spokane facility in 2010 to run the VA hospital in Hines, Illinois, the largest in that state. After her departure, Ms. Helman was praised by Washington state politicians--and the local newspaper--for her "superb leadership." We couldn't find a single mention of the suicide epidemic, and the glaring disconnect between the VA's totals and the number of veterans who actually took their lives.
Now, Ms. Helman is facing an even bigger scandal in Phoenix, one that can't be easily "explained away." It seems rather obvious that Helman's days with the VA are numbered, but it raises more questions about the agency at its promotion practices. Why was she hustled off to Vines after the suicide reporting scandal in Spokane, then promoted again to run the VA complex in Phoenix?
It's time for some bureaucratic spring-cleaning at the VA, beginning with Eric Shinseki in D.C.
***
ADDENDUM: Sadly, it looks like the VA scandal is revealing even more horror stories about veterans who weren't treated--or received poor care--and the bureaucrats covered it up. Fox News is reporting that Phoenix VA Director Sharon Helman was linked to another cover-up, in her previous job as head of the VA center in Spokane, Washington.
During a one-year period, from July 2007 to July 2008, at least 22 veterans committed suicide in the area served by the Spokane center, but officials reported only nine suicides at 34 attempts. The discrepancy between those totals was never fully explained and Helman left the Spokane facility in 2010 to run the VA hospital in Hines, Illinois, the largest in that state. After her departure, Ms. Helman was praised by Washington state politicians--and the local newspaper--for her "superb leadership." We couldn't find a single mention of the suicide epidemic, and the glaring disconnect between the VA's totals and the number of veterans who actually took their lives.
Now, Ms. Helman is facing an even bigger scandal in Phoenix, one that can't be easily "explained away." It seems rather obvious that Helman's days with the VA are numbered, but it raises more questions about the agency at its promotion practices. Why was she hustled off to Vines after the suicide reporting scandal in Spokane, then promoted again to run the VA complex in Phoenix?
It's time for some bureaucratic spring-cleaning at the VA, beginning with Eric Shinseki in D.C.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Your Monday Morning Briefing
Ran across this recent PowerPoint from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which paints a grim picture of Air Force combat capabilities against more technically-advanced foes. The study, authored by (Ret) Lieutenant General Dave Deptula and the center's Mark Gunzinger, offers a sobering assessment of where we stand, capability-wise, after the "procurement holiday" of the 1990s and more than a decade of COIN-focused air operations. A few take-aways:
To be sure, the CSBA presentation was created with two goals in mind: first, reinforce the case for the LRS-B, and secondly, illustrate the precipitious decline in USAF procurement budgets and the erosion in capabilities that has occurred over the last 10 years. In that sense, the briefing easily achieves its objectives.
But, as an advocacy pitch, the CSBA brief also ignores (or down-plays) some essential elements. The first of these is cyber. There isn't a campaign plan on the books--or in development--that doesn't integrate cyber-warfare to some degree, and that "tool" would play a prominent role in any conflict against an advanced adversary. How much damage could a dedicated cyber campaign inflict on China's air defense network, or the power grid in Iran? Will it be sufficient to allow less-stealthy platforms to attack targets inside the SAM belt, or even neutralize entire defensive systems and networks. What impact will those capabilities have on LRS-B procurement?
Likewise, do we need the new long-range strike and bomber platform if UAVs can be made stealthy and carry larger payloads? In fairness, the Air Force is looking at manned (and unmanned) options for the LRS-B but there's a significant element in the service that's actively rooting for a man in the cockpit. But continued advances in UAV technology will make those platforms more survivable and with lower training costs for an unmanned platform, the USAF may be compelled to field LRS-B as a UAV. That decision will also reduce unit costs, offering the potential for a larger buy, at least in theory.
To their credit, Deptula and Gunzinger observe that re-vitalizing the CAF is more than an Air Force problem. The Navy has been steadily buying new F/A-18s for decades, giving its fighter and attack squadrons a more advanced airframe and enhanced mission performance. But the various Hornet models are not stealth platforms, so much of Navy air would face the serious challenges against modern air defenses, much like the "legacy fighters" still in service with the USAF. That's one reason the Navy's UCAS program is so vital; against a technically-advanced Asian foe (think: China), penetrating platforms from carriers and bases east of Japan and south of Singapore would have the ability to strike at great distances, from locations less vulnerable to enemy attack.
Review the whole presentation; it's well worth your time. And while you're flipping through the slides, note the aircraft that is conspiciously absent from the entire discussion. We refer, of course, to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the program that is blowing a hole in DoD's procurement process.
Obviously, the JSF isn't designed for the types of missions described in the PowerPoint, but it is relevant in this regard. With the F-35 program in trouble, will there be enough money to field a smaller number of JSF airframes for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps (plus foreign customers) while, at the same time, fund develop the LRS-B? Cost overruns in the F-35 have made many procurement officials leery of another "big" aircraft program, despite the fact that the LRS-B "buy" will represent only a small fraction of the JSF purchase. Consequently, the biggest threat facing our next generation strike and bomber aircraft may not be a new version of the SA-20, but all that money being funneled into the F-35 program.
- Our fighter and bomber fleets are dwindling and aging rapidly; the "typical" fighter aircraft in the USAF inventory was built--or budgeted for--during the Reagan Administration, and has been in service for 24 years
- Our average bomber is 38 years old, reflecting continued reliance on the Eisenhower-era B-52, which still forms the backbone of our bomber fleet
- The number of aircraft capable of penetrating an advanced air defense network is small, and essentially consists of a handful of B-2s and the 187 F-22 Raptors that were produced before production of that stealth platform was halted a couple of years ago. Other combat platforms, such as the F-16, F-15C and F-15E, would be unable to operate in a "dense" air defense environment, protected by modern SAMs like the Russian-built SA-20, along with advanced surveillance radars and modern command-and-control systems.
- While the USAF has more than 11,000 unmanned airframes, most are built for surveillance and virtually none can survive against advanced air defense systems.
- Air Force aircraft procurement budgets have hit an historic low, with no signs of reversing that trend over the near term; the service is currently buying about 100 each year, while the Navy is adding 350 new airframes a year and is actually spending more money on aircraft procurement than shipbuilding.
- The USAF will need at least 174 of the long-range strike/bomber, LRS-B platforms now under development to provide needed penetration/strike capabilities needed through the middle of this century. Unfortunately, the first LRS-B won't be operational until the middle of the next decade--at the earliest.
To be sure, the CSBA presentation was created with two goals in mind: first, reinforce the case for the LRS-B, and secondly, illustrate the precipitious decline in USAF procurement budgets and the erosion in capabilities that has occurred over the last 10 years. In that sense, the briefing easily achieves its objectives.
But, as an advocacy pitch, the CSBA brief also ignores (or down-plays) some essential elements. The first of these is cyber. There isn't a campaign plan on the books--or in development--that doesn't integrate cyber-warfare to some degree, and that "tool" would play a prominent role in any conflict against an advanced adversary. How much damage could a dedicated cyber campaign inflict on China's air defense network, or the power grid in Iran? Will it be sufficient to allow less-stealthy platforms to attack targets inside the SAM belt, or even neutralize entire defensive systems and networks. What impact will those capabilities have on LRS-B procurement?
Likewise, do we need the new long-range strike and bomber platform if UAVs can be made stealthy and carry larger payloads? In fairness, the Air Force is looking at manned (and unmanned) options for the LRS-B but there's a significant element in the service that's actively rooting for a man in the cockpit. But continued advances in UAV technology will make those platforms more survivable and with lower training costs for an unmanned platform, the USAF may be compelled to field LRS-B as a UAV. That decision will also reduce unit costs, offering the potential for a larger buy, at least in theory.
To their credit, Deptula and Gunzinger observe that re-vitalizing the CAF is more than an Air Force problem. The Navy has been steadily buying new F/A-18s for decades, giving its fighter and attack squadrons a more advanced airframe and enhanced mission performance. But the various Hornet models are not stealth platforms, so much of Navy air would face the serious challenges against modern air defenses, much like the "legacy fighters" still in service with the USAF. That's one reason the Navy's UCAS program is so vital; against a technically-advanced Asian foe (think: China), penetrating platforms from carriers and bases east of Japan and south of Singapore would have the ability to strike at great distances, from locations less vulnerable to enemy attack.
Review the whole presentation; it's well worth your time. And while you're flipping through the slides, note the aircraft that is conspiciously absent from the entire discussion. We refer, of course, to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the program that is blowing a hole in DoD's procurement process.
Obviously, the JSF isn't designed for the types of missions described in the PowerPoint, but it is relevant in this regard. With the F-35 program in trouble, will there be enough money to field a smaller number of JSF airframes for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps (plus foreign customers) while, at the same time, fund develop the LRS-B? Cost overruns in the F-35 have made many procurement officials leery of another "big" aircraft program, despite the fact that the LRS-B "buy" will represent only a small fraction of the JSF purchase. Consequently, the biggest threat facing our next generation strike and bomber aircraft may not be a new version of the SA-20, but all that money being funneled into the F-35 program.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Scariest Video of the Day
...comes from CNN. And no, we're not referring to a re-run of Piers Morgan's failed talk show.
The new video, which first appeared on jihadist websites, features a meeting led by Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Al Qaida's number two leader, and the head of its affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula. In the video, recorded somewhere in Yemen, al-Wuhayshi addresses more than 100 subordinates in the open, seemingly unconcerned about the threat of a U.S. drone strike.
The new video, which first appeared on jihadist websites, features a meeting led by Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Al Qaida's number two leader, and the head of its affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula. In the video, recorded somewhere in Yemen, al-Wuhayshi addresses more than 100 subordinates in the open, seemingly unconcerned about the threat of a U.S. drone strike.
U.S. officials believe the highly produced video is recent. With some fighters faces blurred, there is worry it signals a new round of plotting.
"The U.S. intelligence community should be surprised that such a large group of al Qaeda assembled together, including the leadership, and somehow they didn't notice," said Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst.
There is good reason to worry.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP, is considered the most dangerous al Qaeda affiliate. The CIA and the Pentagon have repeatedly killed AQAP leaders with drone strikes. But the group is now emboldened.
In the video, al-Wuhayshi tells his followers that "we must eliminate the cross, and the bearer of that cross is America." AQAP has long sought to carry out attacks against CONUS targets and the group is believed responsible for several attempts, including the failed "underwear bomb" plot on a Delta airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.
As Mr. Bergen notes, AQAP employs one of the most skilled bomb makers in the world of terrorism, Ibrahim al-Asiri. He was the reported architect of the underwear bomb and other devices which have escaped detection by security officials. Al-Asiri does not appear in the video, but remains a key asset for AQAP.
The fact that AQAP remains interested in attacking the U.S. is hardly news. The more disturbing aspect is that al-Wuhayshi was able to convene such a large gathering, with little fear of an American drone attack. In recent years, the U.S. military and the CIA have carried out dozens of drone strikes against AQAP figures in Yemen with notable successes, including the 2011 elimination of the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
How was AQAP able to avoid detection? The answer may lie with Edward Snowden and his revelations about NSA surveillance programs. Those disclosures, which helped the Washington Post and the UK Guardian win a recent Pulitzer Prize, provided a treasure trove of tradecraft information to our adversaries around the globe, including Al Qaida. The more you know about our collection techniques and capabilities, the easier it becomes to avoid detection.
In an interview with CNN, Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that recent leaks have affected our intel collection, but couldn't say if we had advance knowledge of the meeting in Yemen.
The answer to that question is a rather obvious "no." If we knew that al-Wuhayshi was holding such a large gathering, you'd hope that we could send a couple of Reapers and launch a little "Hellfire" party for that group. After all, the USAF sustains more than two dozen UAV orbits a day; many of those are in places like Afghanistan and Yemen, and our intel "haul" helps drive their positioning. Al-Wuhayshi appears very confident--some would say emboldened--in the video. Believing you've found a way to beat the drone threat would certainly do that.
We hope the folks at the Post and the Guardian enjoy their Pulitzer--with the understanding that such revelations come at a price.
No Chutes
Debris from a USAF KC-135 that crashed in Kyrgyzstan last May. The accident destroyed the aircraft, based at McConnell AFB, Kansas and claimed the lives of three airmen from Fairchild AFB, Washington (AP photo via Fox News)
Eleven months ago, an Air Force KC-135 tanker crashed shortly after takeoff from Manas, Kyrgyzstan, killing the three crew members onboard. The accident was blamed on a faulty flight control system and limited pilot experience. Investigators determined that control system problems caused the Stratotanker to continuously "Dutch roll," pitching back and forth as increased yaw creates more lift on one wing than the other. The roll continues until increased drag pulls the wing back to a neutral position, then is repeated on the other.
In most cases, this type of problem can be corrected by shutting down the flight control system and using the jet's ailerons to regain stable flight. Instead, the crew of the doomed tanker, callsign Shell 77, kept using their rudder--and inputs on the flight control system. That made the rolling even worse; finally, the prolonged rolling caused the KC-135's tail to snap off, sending the tanker into steep dive towards the earth. The Air Force accident investigation board also concluded that the aircraft--with 175,000 pounds of fuel on board--exploded before it hit the ground.
There was one more factor that sealed the crew's fate. As detailed in the current issue of Time, reports, there were no parachutes aboard the tanker. They were removed from the KC-135 fleet in 2008 as a cost-saving measure. Defense reporter Mark Thompson included a quote from the Air Force news article that announced their elimination:
"By design, parachutes slow things down. Crew members forced to evacuate in-flight aircraft with parachutes, for example, have much gentler impacts with the ground than those without chutes. But the only thing being slowed by parachutes aboard KC-135 Stratotankers, Air Force leaders recently decided, was the mission. So they got rid of them. Removing parachutes from military aircraft may sound peculiar, but KC-135s are not like other aircraft. They seldom have mishaps, and the likelihood a KC-135 crew member would ever need to use a parachute is extremely low."
That may sound heartless, but there is a certain amount of logic behind that decision. The KC-135 has an excellent safety record, and the number of controlled bail-outs from that platform is infinitely small. To his credit, Mr. Thompson managed to track down a former navigator, Joseph Heywood, who parachuted from his tanker--45 years ago. In that instance, the KC-135 was running out of fuel and the instructor pilot at the controls ordered the other crew members to prepare for bail out. With the engines out and the jet (apparently) moments from a crash, Heywood and three other crew members hit the silk. The IP managed to land the jet at K.I. Sawyer AFB on Michigan's upper peninsula.
"I'd rather have a small chance than no chance at all," Mr. Heywood told Time.
But that raises a salient question: how much of a chance did the crew of Shell 77 really have? The aircraft commander, Captain Mark Voss and his co-pilot, Captain Victoria Pickney, were fighting to control the KC-135. Their boom operator, Technical Sergeant Herman Mackey III, played no role in flying the aircraft, but he was probably busy trying to secure any loose equipment in the cockpit or cargo compartment. In other words, the crew was very much engaged in trying to save the aircraft and likely continued those efforts until they lost consciousness. Even if parachutes had been available, it's hard to say if the crew would have decided to jump--or had enough time to escape from the aircraft.
That's because the process of leaving the aircraft involves more than just strapping on a chute, opening the crew door and jumping out. The last bit of flight data information from Shell 77 indicated the tanker was at 20,000 feet. At that altitude, you'll need oxygen. There's a bottle in your parachute pack, but you need to connect it to your helmet's oxygen tube and face mask before bailout.
And, did we mention that KC-135 crews stow their helmets during the mission, since they're typically not required in a pressurized aircraft that doesn't perform acrobatic or violent maneuvers? Under those circumstances, crew members would need a few moments to don their helmets and chute packs and connect the oxygen supply before dumping cabin pressure and opening the crew door. That process would have been even more difficult on an aircraft that was in a continuous Dutch roll.
It's also worth noting that the crew's window for action was extremely limited. The entire flight lasted 11 minutes; as the rolling increased, so did pressure on the tanker's tail section. When it separated from the rest of the airframe--putting the jet into a steep dive--bail-out would have been impossible, even for crew members who were wearing parachutes.
The real culprits in the Kyrgyzstan crash (as described in the Time article) were crew training and experience. At the time of the crash, Captain Voss had been an aircraft commander for less than two months; the co-pilot, Captain Pickney, had recently returned to flying duty after the birth of her first child. TSgt Mackey had over 3,000 hours in the KC-135, but had spent four years in a non-flying job before re qualifying as a boom operator. Why was such a relatively inexperienced crew flying together? Was it a matter of scheduling, or is there a lack of experience among KC-135 crews? So far, the Air Force hasn't answered those questions, at least publicly.
Making matters worse, KC-135 crews receive no training in dealing with potential dutch roll problems. Prior to the Kyrgyzstan disaster, KC-135 simulators were not programmed to give pilots that type of scenario, and practicing that maneuver in actual flight was forbidden. The accident investigation board also determined that procedural information in the tanker's flight manuals was poorly organized, compounding the difficulty in diagnosing--and correcting--the flight control problem.
As Mr. Thompson reports, the Air Force has made changes in the wake of last year's crash, but there are no plans to put parachutes back on KC-135s. And that's probably the right choice. The crew of Shell 77 were the first to lose their lives since the chutes were removed in 2008. During that period, the 50-year-old Stratotanker fleet has flown thousand of sorties, transferred millions of pounds of fuel to receiver aircraft around the world, and there was no need for parachutes, until that brief, terrible moment over Kyrgyzstan last spring. And given the circumstances that led to the crash, there is no clear evidence that the crew would been able to bail out, even if parachutes had been aboard.
In an era when a single aircraft often costs more than $100 million, safety devices--like parachutes--seem like a very cheap investment. But life support items must be continuously inspected and repaired, a process that requires significant manpower. Would you rather have more life support technicians checking and fixing parachutes on KC-135s (that almost certainly will not be used), or working on platforms where ejection or bailing out is much more likely?
That's the reality that drives the hard choices like the one made back in 2008. There wasn't a single military leader involved in that decision who didn't understand that someday--under various flight scenarios--a tanker crew might face a bail-out situation. It was a decision driven by the numbers, ranging from life support personnel costs to the odds of a KC-135 crew having to use their parachutes. The resulting calculus determined that taking the chutes off the tankers was an acceptable risk.
Obviously, it was an imperfect decision, but facing the same set of numbers, it's a choice the Air Force would likely make again. That doesn't mitigate the loss of three brave airmen, and the suffering their families still endure. It's the harsh reality of military aviation in the days of aging aircraft and limited resources.
***
ADDENDUM: As a former aircrew member, this issue is personal. My crew experience was aboard an Air Force platform that had parachutes, but as we used to joke, they were there to provide some sort of psychological assurance, rather than save our lives. Our mission crew worked in a computerized capsule in the back of a specially-modified C-130. With a full crew (including Army liaisons) you could have up to 15 people in a relatively small space. Bailing out was a veritable kabuki dance that involved (a) Getting out of your seat; (b) Donning your chutes and helmets, and connecting your oxygen supply; (c) lining up in the narrow aisle between the consoles; (d) de-pressurizing the aircraft; (e) opening the capsule door, (f) opening the paratroop door, and (g) bailing out. By the time that process was complete, we reasoned, the plane would either crash, or we could make an emergency landing.
Additionally, jumping out of a Herk is a lot easier than a KC-135/707 airframe. If you depart through the tanker's crew door (near the cockpit), there's a chance you'll hit the wing, get sucked into one of the inboard engines, or bounce along the bottom of the aircraft at better than 300 kts. A better choice would be the over-wing hatches or the hatch just forward of the boom compartment (on the right side of the aircraft). But getting to those locations means leaving the cockpit which may be difficult in an emergency.
Finally, Mr. Thompson didn't provide the full details of that 1969 tanker bail-out over Michigan. On a message board for the 46th Air Refueling Squadron, Joe Heywood, the navigator involved in that episode, provides a much better account of what prompted four members of the crew to leave the aircraft. Call it gross buffoonery by an instructor pilot, and read the rest for yourself. Apparently, the bail out removed just enough human weight for the KC-135 to land just short of the runway, with surprisingly little damage. Mr. Heywood's jump took place at very low altitude, and the crew was directed to prepare for bailout. So they were in position and ready to go--very different circumstances from those over Kyrgyzstan last May. In case you're wondering, Heywood and his comrades represent four of only six people who have successfully bailed out of a KC-135.
At last report, the famous "gliding pig" of the tanker fleet, tail number 61-0313, was still in service, with the 916th Air Refueling Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
One More Thing
Of this much we're certain: avowed (and former KKK leader) F. Glenn Miller will be convicted on murder charges in connection with Sunday's shooting rampage in Overland Park, Kansas. And, unless he cops a plea deal, Miller will almost certainly receive the death penalty. So, assuming that God doesn't intervene, Miller will receive final justice in about 10-12 years, sometime around his 86th birthday.
We can only hope. Given his vile existence (and the barbarity of his crimes), Miller deserves a long stretch on death row before his date with the "hot shot," even if they have to wheel him to the death chamber. Miller deserves nothing less for opening fire at a rest home and community center, killing three people. A vicious anti-Semite, Miller thought he was targeting Jews at the two facilities. As it turned out, all of Miller's victims were Christians; a 69-year-old family care physician and his 14-year-old grandson (who were attending a singing competition), and a 53-year-old woman who had gone to visit her mother at the Village Shalom retirement center. All innocent victims of an evil man.
Clearly, capital punishment was tailor-made for someone like Miller. But there's one more sanction that officials should pursue: once convicted, strip Miller of his military pension.
Sad to report, but F. Glenn Miller retired from the U.S. Army as a Master Sergeant (E-8) back in 1979. Various reports indicate that Miller spent 20 years on active duty, most of them as a Green Beret. However, we've found no confirmation that Miller was ever a member of special forces and the Army has released no information on his military service. The Southern Poverty Law Center claims that Miller was forced to put in his retirement papers because of racist activities while in uniform.
But the SPLC has long claimed that the armed forces are infested with white supremacists, klan members and other hate-mongers (while ignoring the activities of Islamists and gang-bangers in the ranks). So, it's not surprising that the group was quick to highlight Miller's military ties.
On the other hand, it is disturbing to think that a convicted felon like Glenn Miller may be collecting a federal retirement check. Miller was found guilty on criminal contempt charges in North Carolina during the 1980s, but was granted bond while the conviction was appealed. Miller subsequently disappeared and was later re-arrested on weapons charges. He served three years in federal prison, receiving a reduced sentence for agreeing to testify against 14 other white supremacists. Miller later worked as a truck driver and his activities in recent years have largely consisted of penning and disseminating racist literature.
Ordinarily, that federal conviction 20 years ago should have been enough to strip Miller of his military pension. But the justice system is notoriously reluctant to take that step. Consider the case of former Congressman (and retired Navy officer) Randy "Duke" Cunningham. No one would describe him as a racist, but he did go to prison on corruption charges, convicted of taking millions of dollars in bribes and illegal gifts. Cunningham received both his Congressional and military pensions while behind bars. At one point in 2007, CNN reported that 20 former members of Congress (and senior government officials) were collecting federal pension checks while incarcerated.
In fact, it's almost impossible to strip a convicted military retiree or government bureaucrat of their pension, unless they're convicted of treason or other charges relating to national security. And even then, the lines sometimes blur. When FBI turncoat Robert Hanssen was sentenced to life in prison for espionage in 2002, his wife was allowed to keep the "survivor's portion" of his FBI pension. For lesser criminals, federal laws mandate even mandate the restoration of full disability benefits after their release.
So, it's a pretty good bet that F. Glenn Miller kept collecting his check during his previous stay in the big house, and he'll keep getting paid while he awaits trial for murder. His crimes are horrific; the fact that he will collect a military pension while in prison are an insult to Miller's victims and taxpayers.
The Social Security Administration, never known for being a model of efficiency, suspends benefits for anyone who is incarcerated more than 30 days. Their system is far from perfect, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sound, and it should be extended to other federal payment programs. Once convicted, there is no reason that someone like F. Glenn Miller should continue to receive a monthly check from the U.S. government. Return it to the treasury, or give it to the families of his victims. The current system, which all-but-guarantees payment until he draws his last breath, is simply outrageous.
We can only hope. Given his vile existence (and the barbarity of his crimes), Miller deserves a long stretch on death row before his date with the "hot shot," even if they have to wheel him to the death chamber. Miller deserves nothing less for opening fire at a rest home and community center, killing three people. A vicious anti-Semite, Miller thought he was targeting Jews at the two facilities. As it turned out, all of Miller's victims were Christians; a 69-year-old family care physician and his 14-year-old grandson (who were attending a singing competition), and a 53-year-old woman who had gone to visit her mother at the Village Shalom retirement center. All innocent victims of an evil man.
Clearly, capital punishment was tailor-made for someone like Miller. But there's one more sanction that officials should pursue: once convicted, strip Miller of his military pension.
Sad to report, but F. Glenn Miller retired from the U.S. Army as a Master Sergeant (E-8) back in 1979. Various reports indicate that Miller spent 20 years on active duty, most of them as a Green Beret. However, we've found no confirmation that Miller was ever a member of special forces and the Army has released no information on his military service. The Southern Poverty Law Center claims that Miller was forced to put in his retirement papers because of racist activities while in uniform.
But the SPLC has long claimed that the armed forces are infested with white supremacists, klan members and other hate-mongers (while ignoring the activities of Islamists and gang-bangers in the ranks). So, it's not surprising that the group was quick to highlight Miller's military ties.
On the other hand, it is disturbing to think that a convicted felon like Glenn Miller may be collecting a federal retirement check. Miller was found guilty on criminal contempt charges in North Carolina during the 1980s, but was granted bond while the conviction was appealed. Miller subsequently disappeared and was later re-arrested on weapons charges. He served three years in federal prison, receiving a reduced sentence for agreeing to testify against 14 other white supremacists. Miller later worked as a truck driver and his activities in recent years have largely consisted of penning and disseminating racist literature.
Ordinarily, that federal conviction 20 years ago should have been enough to strip Miller of his military pension. But the justice system is notoriously reluctant to take that step. Consider the case of former Congressman (and retired Navy officer) Randy "Duke" Cunningham. No one would describe him as a racist, but he did go to prison on corruption charges, convicted of taking millions of dollars in bribes and illegal gifts. Cunningham received both his Congressional and military pensions while behind bars. At one point in 2007, CNN reported that 20 former members of Congress (and senior government officials) were collecting federal pension checks while incarcerated.
In fact, it's almost impossible to strip a convicted military retiree or government bureaucrat of their pension, unless they're convicted of treason or other charges relating to national security. And even then, the lines sometimes blur. When FBI turncoat Robert Hanssen was sentenced to life in prison for espionage in 2002, his wife was allowed to keep the "survivor's portion" of his FBI pension. For lesser criminals, federal laws mandate even mandate the restoration of full disability benefits after their release.
So, it's a pretty good bet that F. Glenn Miller kept collecting his check during his previous stay in the big house, and he'll keep getting paid while he awaits trial for murder. His crimes are horrific; the fact that he will collect a military pension while in prison are an insult to Miller's victims and taxpayers.
The Social Security Administration, never known for being a model of efficiency, suspends benefits for anyone who is incarcerated more than 30 days. Their system is far from perfect, but the reasoning behind it is perfectly sound, and it should be extended to other federal payment programs. Once convicted, there is no reason that someone like F. Glenn Miller should continue to receive a monthly check from the U.S. government. Return it to the treasury, or give it to the families of his victims. The current system, which all-but-guarantees payment until he draws his last breath, is simply outrageous.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Still Unexplained
Call us skeptical, but we're having a hard time buying the Army's "explanation" of last week's deadly shooting at Fort Hood.
According to Fox News, service officials have concluded that Specialist Ivan Lopez "snapped" after his leave request was denied, and not because of some on-going mental problem.
The Army announced its findings a short time ago, after agents from its Criminal Investigation Division concluded interviews with more than 1,000 people connected to Lopez or affected by the shooting rampage, which left four people dead and 16 wounded.
A final report on the tragedy is still weeks away, and it will hopefully shed more light on the terrible tragedy at Fort Hood, the second mass shooting at the post in less than five years. More information would be welcome because (to date), the military has not provided sufficient details on key elements of the case, including:
- The gunman's mental health. In the hours after the shooting, various media outlets--citing Army and law enforcement sources--reported that Lopez was undergoing treatment for various psychological issues, and was taking medications for his condition. The commanding general of Fort Hood, Lieutenant General Mark Milley, said Lopez was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress at the time of the shooting, but a final diagnosis had not been made. Clearly, the shooter's mental state (and his medication regimen) would have a major influence on his actions.
- His Status in the Warrior Transition Brigade. Specialist Lopez was assigned to a unit that provides "provide personalized support to wounded, ill and injured Soldiers who require at least six months of rehabilitative care and complex medical management." Yet, no one has outlined his duties within the unit; Lopez was a former infantryman who had recently cross-trained as a truck driver. Was he a staff member in the WTB, or a patient in the transition program? And if Lopez was in that latter category, what type of medical or rehabilitative care was he receiving--and for what conditions? General Milley has stated that Lopez was not transitioning out of the military, but if he was being treated through the transition brigade, his condition was serious enough for long-term care.
- Those Requests for Leave. Various sources indicate that Lopez was upset after the death of his mother, when the Army (initially) denied him leave to attend the funeral. His commander subsequently gave Lopez a 24-hour pass, and he finally arrived in Puerto Rico five days after his mother's death. Other accounts indicate that that Lopez made another leave request in the hours just before the shooting and it was denied, sending him over the edge.
As we suggested in our previous post, something about this version of events doesn't pass the Aggie test. DoD Instruction 1327.06 mandates that commanders must allow emergency leave, even if military members don't have enough days accrued to cover the planned absence. Assuming Lopez had a "zero" balance in his leave account at the time his mother passed, his commanding officer could have granted up to 30 days away from duty. The fact that Specialist Lopez received only a 24-hour pass suggests he might have been restricted to base for some sort of disciplinary infraction, or doctors did not consider him well enough to travel. That ruling would have almost certainly been based on psychological issues, since there are no reports of Lopez being hospitalized or treated for physical conditions during that period. Simply stated, the Army still hasn't explained why Lopez didn't receive his leave requests, and the circumstances surrounding that final rejection that may have triggered his rampage.
- His Transfer to Foot Hood. Specialist Lopez arrived at Fort Hood in February of this year, after spending almost four years at Fort Bliss near El Paso. Retired Army Major General James "Spider" Marks told CNN last week that we has surprised that Lopez was allowed to move to Fort Hood, suggesting he should have remained at his old post for "continuity of care." To date, the Army hasn't explained how Lopez's initial diagnosis, medication and treatment meshed with his training for a new job. In most cases, treatment for a serious physical illness or psychological condition would be enough for the deferment or cancellation of the training slot.
With any situation of this type, there is a demand for immediate answers and the inevitable rush to judgment. The Army clearly believes that Ivan Lopez was a soldier who suddenly went off the deep end, motivated (in part) by disagreements over recent leave requests. That allows them to tidy up the investigation process and get on with the business of helping the victims and resuming the mission at Fort Hood.
And the explanation may be just that simple. But the factors listed above represent unanswered questions about the case and until those are addressed publicly, we may never know what really led to last Wednesday's mass shooting. Would continuity of care at Fort Bliss have made a difference? Why were commanders reluctant to grant leave to Lopez, even at a time of great personal loss? Were there discipline or medical issues that limited his ability to get leave? Without answers to these questions (and others), we're left with an "official" explanation that seems a bit hurried and a little too pat.
According to Fox News, service officials have concluded that Specialist Ivan Lopez "snapped" after his leave request was denied, and not because of some on-going mental problem.
The Army announced its findings a short time ago, after agents from its Criminal Investigation Division concluded interviews with more than 1,000 people connected to Lopez or affected by the shooting rampage, which left four people dead and 16 wounded.
A final report on the tragedy is still weeks away, and it will hopefully shed more light on the terrible tragedy at Fort Hood, the second mass shooting at the post in less than five years. More information would be welcome because (to date), the military has not provided sufficient details on key elements of the case, including:
- The gunman's mental health. In the hours after the shooting, various media outlets--citing Army and law enforcement sources--reported that Lopez was undergoing treatment for various psychological issues, and was taking medications for his condition. The commanding general of Fort Hood, Lieutenant General Mark Milley, said Lopez was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress at the time of the shooting, but a final diagnosis had not been made. Clearly, the shooter's mental state (and his medication regimen) would have a major influence on his actions.
- His Status in the Warrior Transition Brigade. Specialist Lopez was assigned to a unit that provides "provide personalized support to wounded, ill and injured Soldiers who require at least six months of rehabilitative care and complex medical management." Yet, no one has outlined his duties within the unit; Lopez was a former infantryman who had recently cross-trained as a truck driver. Was he a staff member in the WTB, or a patient in the transition program? And if Lopez was in that latter category, what type of medical or rehabilitative care was he receiving--and for what conditions? General Milley has stated that Lopez was not transitioning out of the military, but if he was being treated through the transition brigade, his condition was serious enough for long-term care.
- Those Requests for Leave. Various sources indicate that Lopez was upset after the death of his mother, when the Army (initially) denied him leave to attend the funeral. His commander subsequently gave Lopez a 24-hour pass, and he finally arrived in Puerto Rico five days after his mother's death. Other accounts indicate that that Lopez made another leave request in the hours just before the shooting and it was denied, sending him over the edge.
As we suggested in our previous post, something about this version of events doesn't pass the Aggie test. DoD Instruction 1327.06 mandates that commanders must allow emergency leave, even if military members don't have enough days accrued to cover the planned absence. Assuming Lopez had a "zero" balance in his leave account at the time his mother passed, his commanding officer could have granted up to 30 days away from duty. The fact that Specialist Lopez received only a 24-hour pass suggests he might have been restricted to base for some sort of disciplinary infraction, or doctors did not consider him well enough to travel. That ruling would have almost certainly been based on psychological issues, since there are no reports of Lopez being hospitalized or treated for physical conditions during that period. Simply stated, the Army still hasn't explained why Lopez didn't receive his leave requests, and the circumstances surrounding that final rejection that may have triggered his rampage.
- His Transfer to Foot Hood. Specialist Lopez arrived at Fort Hood in February of this year, after spending almost four years at Fort Bliss near El Paso. Retired Army Major General James "Spider" Marks told CNN last week that we has surprised that Lopez was allowed to move to Fort Hood, suggesting he should have remained at his old post for "continuity of care." To date, the Army hasn't explained how Lopez's initial diagnosis, medication and treatment meshed with his training for a new job. In most cases, treatment for a serious physical illness or psychological condition would be enough for the deferment or cancellation of the training slot.
With any situation of this type, there is a demand for immediate answers and the inevitable rush to judgment. The Army clearly believes that Ivan Lopez was a soldier who suddenly went off the deep end, motivated (in part) by disagreements over recent leave requests. That allows them to tidy up the investigation process and get on with the business of helping the victims and resuming the mission at Fort Hood.
And the explanation may be just that simple. But the factors listed above represent unanswered questions about the case and until those are addressed publicly, we may never know what really led to last Wednesday's mass shooting. Would continuity of care at Fort Bliss have made a difference? Why were commanders reluctant to grant leave to Lopez, even at a time of great personal loss? Were there discipline or medical issues that limited his ability to get leave? Without answers to these questions (and others), we're left with an "official" explanation that seems a bit hurried and a little too pat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)