Have You No Decency, Mr. Rockefeller?

A two-seat version of the F-105, configured for the SAM suppression (Wild Weasel) mission. Scores of F-105s and other fighters were lost on raids against heavily-defended targets in North Vietnam. In the era before precision-guided weapons, tactical aircraft dropped "dumb bombs" at low and medium altitudes, in the teeth of enemy defenses (Wikipedia photo).

Peace Corps volunteer-turned-U.S. Senator (and military expert) Jay Rockefeller has apologized for his feckless remarks about John McCain. In an interview with his hometown newspaper, the Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette, Rockefeller opined that Mr. McCain, a retired naval aviator, former POW and presumptive GOP presidential nominee, doesn't understand the human consequences of war.

He's a fighter pilot. He flies at 35,000 feet and drops laser-guided bombs, missiles. He was long gone when they hit. What happened down there, he doesn't know.

That's unkind, because that's fighting for your nation and that's honorable. But you sort of have to care what goes on in the lives of people. ... and he never gets into those subjects.

In his "apology" (or what passes for an apology among Democratic politicians), Senator Rockefeller claimed that he used the wrong analogy, saying he meant to suggest that Mr. McCain doesn't care about "real people." The men and women who served with McCain in the military--including his cellmates in the Hanoi Hilton--would beg to disagree. Ditto for the thousands of constituents that McCain has helped through the years, during his tenure as a Congressman and Senator.

But Rockefeller's remarks are more than an attack on John McCain--they're a personal affront to every aircrew member who's gone in harm's way, attempting to put bombs on target. Many of them sacrificed their lives to spare civilians lives and other forms of collateral damage. Until the 1970s, most of our aircraft dropped unguided "dumb" bombs, making the job even more dangerous. Delivering those weapons accurately required a steady hand and unbelievable courage, flying a gauntlet of enemy fighters and ground-based air defenses.

Consider the Paul Doumer Bridge, one of the most important (and heavily-defended) targets in North Vietnam. A major artery for enemy troops and supplies moving into South Vietnam and Laos, the narrow, mile-long bridge was finally added to the target list on 11 July 1967. Three U.S. fighter wings based in Thailand--the 355th, the 8th and the 388th--were ordered to attack the span that afternoon. Leading the mission was Colonel Robert White, a former test pilot and veteran of more than 100 flights in the X-15 rocket plane.

As Air Force magazine recounted in 1988, the first mission against the Doumer bridge was anything but a milk run--and it was hardly conducted at high altitude:

Start-engines was at 1:50 p.m. At 2:18, the strike force started to roll. It was clear skies all the way, target time 3:58. After refueling over Laos, the F-105s, preceded by their Wild Weasel and flak-suppression flights, crossed the Red River and headed southeast along Thud Ridge, toward Hanoi. As they approached the bridge, they were met by MiGs in a head-on attack that failed.

Moments later, White rolled into his bomb run from 13,000 feet. In the seconds before bomb release at 8,000 feet, he and the pilots who followed held the intense concentration demanded for accurate bombing, flying into a highly visible barrage of flak and several SAM launches. But the experience of those veterans paid off as the 3,000-pounders blossomed below.

The leader of the second flight looked back. They had done it! A span of the railroad bridge lay in the water. A few minutes later, the other two wings dropped two spans of the highway bridge. Thanks to the outstanding work of the Weasel and flak-suppression flights, the entire force made it safely home or to friendly bases.

After bomb release, White broke hard to the left, down the Red River, then led the force west, low and fast across a plain to hills 20 miles away, rather than withdrawing along Thud Ridge as mission planners had recommended. His judgment proved correct. No one was hit on the way out. The entire mission had been a text-book demonstration of professionalism.

The next day, at the suggestion of his wing commander, Colonel White personally carried a photograph of the downed bridge to his maintenance troops, to show them how their efforts had paid off.

We should point out that the first, successful mission against the Doumer bridge was conducted with unguided bombs. The span was quickly rebuilt, necessitating more attacks by Air Force and Navy jets. The Doumer span--and other key bridges in North Vietnam--weren't completely destroyed until the Linebacker I campaign of early 1972, and the introduction of TV-guided bombs.

By that time, John McCain had been sitting in a North Vietnamese prison for almost five years. He was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967, attacking a power plant in the city--another target that had previously been off-limits.

The Arizona Republic (and McCain's own books) offer a sobering account of what followed. Describing his survival--and resistance--as heroic would be a gross understatement.

But apparently that means nothing to Senator Rockefeller. To hear him tell it, John McCain--and other combat aircrews--know nothing about the human toll of combat.

Have you no decency, Mr. Rockefeller? The men who went "downtown" to Schweinfurt, Berlin, Tokyo, Hanoi, Baghdad and a thousand other targets would like to know.

The Next Super Outbreak?

An F-5 tornado bears down on Xenia, Ohio on April 3, 1974, part of the "Super Outbreak" that killed over 300 people. Meterologists warn that another large-scale tornado event may occur over the next two days, across portions of the south and Midwest. (USA Today photo via Wikipedia)

For most Americans, April 3rd has no particular significance. But in places like Guin and Tanner, Alabama; Brandenburg, Kentucky and Xenia, Ohio, the date conjures up memories of menacing clouds, howling winds, wailing sirens and death. On April 3, 1974, those four communities were among those hardest hit by the so-called "Super Outbreak" of tornadoes, a catastrophic weather event that remains unequalled in U.S. history.

While forecasting technology of thirty years ago pales in comparison to the advanced computer models and Doppler radars of today, forecasters expected a rash of severe weather in the first week of April in 1974. Local National Weather Service offices in the Mid West were advised to complete scheduled equipment maintenance, in preparation for possible severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

Their prediction began to materialize in the early afternoon hours of April 3rd. Over the next 18 hours, meterologists tracked three heavy squall lines that raked 13 states, stretching from the Deep South to the Great Lakes. Thunderstorms associated with the weather system produced scores of tornadoes. At one point, forecasters reportedly put the entire state of Indiana under a tornado warning because they couldn't keep up with the huge number of reported twisters. The tornadoes killed more than 300 people; another 6,000 were injured. It was the greatest number of twisters ever recorded in a single day.

We wrote at length about the Super Outbreak last year, on the 33rd anniversary of the event. Memories of that terrible day raise an inevitable question--could it happen again? Meterologists say the answer is almost certainly yes, but it's unclear how often such onslaughts occur. In its official assessment of the 1974 outbreak, the weather service postulated that such events may happen only once every 150 years.

But that estimate may be wrong--by about a century.

A developing storm in the Great Plains is already drawing comparisons to the system that produced the Super Outbreak of 34 years ago. Henry Margusity, a senior meterologist and severe weather expert for Accu-Weather, is warning of a tornadic outbreak that could rival the 1974 event. According to Mr. Margusity, the forecast for the next 48 hours is particularly ominous for portions of the southern states, the Mid-South, the middle Mississippi Valley and Ohio Valley, with the prospect for large numbers of tornadoes, including long-track, violent twisters. From his weather blog:

Wednesday into Wednesday night - The next storm moves out of the Rockies into the western High Plains. Severe storms will develop along the dry line in western Texas and Oklahoma, and also along the warm front. This will be first day of the tornadoes as EHI values are very high across central Texas into south-central Oklahoma. A wind and hail threat will stretch along the warm front across parts of southern Kansas into Missouri.

Thursday into Friday - Storms moves up into the Great Lakes. Cold front/dry line combination moves into the Mississippi Valley. Supercell thunderstorms will develop with the potential for large-damaging tornadoes. Severe weather may go from southern Michigan to Arkansas. Severe weather will last through the night into Friday and move into the Appalachians and Northeast. We could see 100 tornadoes during the Thursday into Friday time period.

Margusity describes the current patterns as "almost identical" to the one that preceded the 1974 outbreak. He also notes that the expected storms will impact many of the same areas hit in the 1970s, as well as those affected by the "Super Tuesday" outbreak of two months ago. That series of deadly tornadoes killd more than 50 people in Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama. The National Weather Service reported at least 131 twisters in conjunction with that weather system.

For its part, the Storm Prediction Center isn't quite as far out on the forecasting limb as Mr. Margusity. However, the center is warning of a heightened risk for severe weather over the next 48 hours. The SPC predicts a moderate risk of severe weather today in the Red River Valley of Oklahoma and Texas, with a slight chance of severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, large hail and damaging winds in adjacent sections of those states, as well as portions of Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Louisiana and Mississippi.

On Thursday, the area expecting severe weather will be greatly expanded, as the storm system moves east. The SPC is assessing a large moderate risk area that covers much of the Mid-South and mid-Mississippi Valley, with a slight risk extending from the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes. Meterologists at the SPC also caution that sections of the moderate risk area may be upgraded to high risk, as forecast models become more refined.

Posting on this sort of topic, we always remind readers that we are weather enthusiasts, not forecasters. But, the potential for a major tornado outbreak is clearly at hand. If you live in the southern plains, the middle and lower Mississippi Valley and the Ohio Valley, keep a close eye on the weather over the next two days. Comparisons to the 1974 outbreak are not offered casually, and we may be on the cusp of seeing weather history repeat itself.

The Politics of Privacy

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, various members of Congress screamed long and loud about the federal government's slow and ineffectual response. Now, some of those same politicians are threatening reforms aimed at improving future response efforts, possibly setting the stage for another debacle.

At issue are Congressional efforts to kill the Department of Homeland Security's domestic satellite surveillance system, also known as the National Applications Office. Established after the Katrina disaster in 2005, the applications branch is supposed to give federal, state and local officials wide access to overhead imagery, improving the response to natural calamities and other domestic security operations.

Why is that capability so critical? In the days that followed Katrina, military officials and federal disaster managers found there was no existing mechanism for quickly declassifying satellite imagery, then transmitting it (in a timely manner) to on-site FEMA responders and other relief organizations.

I know--I was there. Working as a contractor for an intelligence production center, I was tasked to contact FEMA headquarters and confirm their receipt of overhead data. I quickly discovered that, in those days, the agency's satellite office consisted of one, harried geospatial specialist, trying to navigate the alphabet of intelligence agencies and military commands on his own. He quickly confirmed that FEMA wasn't receiving any type of overhead information, despite on-going coverage by platforms that ranged from spy satellites, to U-2 spy planes.

Over the days and weeks that followed, scores of military personnel, intelligence specialists and disaster mangers worked to knock down the organizational and classification "stovepipes" that impeded--or, in some cases--prevented the flow of needed information. After the initial crisis passed, there were follow-on meetings and conferences, aimed at institutionalizing the reforms.

Held at locations ranging from Washington, D.C., to Colorado, the various forums had a simple goal--establishing procedures that would guarantee the flow of needed data during future domestic emergencies, and alleviate the logjams that followed Katrina. Meanwhile, FEMA's bureaucratic parent (DHS) took the important step of establishing and funding a satellite office, creating a permanent structure to handle imagery support and related matters.

Now, key members of the U.S. House of Representatives are threatening to shut down the satellite program, claiming that DHS hasn't "created legal safeguards to ensure that the office won't be used for domestic spying."

Leading the charge, The Wall Street Journal Reports, is Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Recent classified briefings on the program “did not allay any of our concerns,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Monday, written with two colleagues, he wrote: “Should you proceed with the [program] without addressing our concerns, we will take appropriate steps to discontinue it.”

[snip]

Rep. Thompson, along with Democratic Reps. Jane Harman of California and Christopher P. Carney of Pennsylvania, wrote to Mr. Chertoff to ask he stop further work until he addresses their concerns. “We are disappointed by [the department’s] continuing pattern of putting the cart before the horse,” they wrote.

Rep. Thompson said he wants to see, in writing, how existing laws will be applied to safeguard civil liberties and privacy. The charter describes at what points in the process lawyers will evaluate the legality of a request for data from the office, but it doesn’t explain how they will make their determinations.

According to Journal reporter Siobhan Gorman, the clash is merely the latest between House Democrats and DHS over the privacy issue.

The plan ran into resistance on Capitol Hill shortly after it was announced in August, as lawmakers asked for a legal framework and details of how the program would operate to ensure Americans’ privacy. Homeland officials promised not to begin the program until they answered lawmakers’ concerns.

For months, the department worked on a document it called the new program’s charter. That document got hung up within the administration last winter because agencies, including the Director of National Intelligence, expressed concerns that it did not untangle legal issues such as how to ensure that state and local privacy guidelines were followed. Plans to provide imagery from the satellite program to state and local law-enforcement officials have been put on hold until legal and privacy issues are resolved.

The charter creates a working group to handle policy and legal issues and lists which privacy-related laws will govern the work of the new spy satellite office. It also clarifies that the satellites won’t be used to intercept communications.

Democratic lawmakers said the charter doesn’t address the requirements they have written into law. Congress said it wouldn’t provide money in 2008 for the program until the department certified that it adhered to privacy laws and the Government Accountability Office reviewed it. Homeland Security hasn’t yet sent GAO a certification for review.

Mr. Thompson's protests aside, the privacy issue is hardly a show-stopper. The satellite program's charter should be finalized and implemented as soon as possible, with minimal interference from Congress. Having seen much of the domestic imagery products generated in the wake of Katrina, I would say that the privacy concerns are somewhat exaggerated.

Put another way, I didn't see a single product--from overhead platforms and other sources--that presented a serious affront to individual privacy. While such concerns must be addressed, nit-picking over privacy will only slow the future flow of information to those who need it most, state and local leaders, and their disaster managers.

The value of such data cannot be overstated. In the aftermath of a major disaster (like a hurricane), overhead sensors may represent one of the few sources of reliable information. During the days that followed Katrina, other sources were largely unavailable--a problem that may be repeated in future calamities. The loss of FAA radars and control towers limited air operations, including sorties by reconnaissance aircraft. Merely tasking those assets, through existing military channels, was also difficult.

Employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was equally limited, thanks to existing FAA restrictions on drone flights within the CONUS. Additionally, the use of helicopters--and other aircraft--for aerial damage surveys had an impact on other, equally vital operations, including search and rescue. Diverting the single Blackhawk meant a delayed rescue for survivors trapped in flooded homes and other locations.

Against that backdrop, overhead platforms proved invaluable. Measures and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT) sensors offered broad area coverage, showing utility companies where power service had been interrupted. That allowed them to direct crews to the hardest-hit areas, improving efforts to restore electrical service.

Similarly, imagery of key infrastructure highlighted the extensive damage to bridges, roads, oil refineries, public buildings and housing areas, providing some of the earliest--and most comprehensive--assessments of the storm's impact. With that information in hand, relief officials could target their operations more efficiently.

Make no mistake. No one would describe the government's response to Hurricane Katrina as a monumental success--far from it. Mistakes were made (at the federal, state and local level) and the overall pace of relief efforts left much to be desired. But without the support of overhead platforms, the much-criticized response would have been far worse.

Three years later, satellite imagery should be a standard element of disaster relief and other domestic security situations. Past examples clearly show that overhead platforms can provide critical information for such operations, without violating the privacy of American citizens.

Indeed, the requirement to deliver such products at the "unclassified" level means that the full capabilities of overhead systems will not be utilized. That virtually eliminates the chances that such platforms will be used for pin-point spying, aimed at individuals, groups or corporate entities. Moreover, Congress is quite aware of past success stories in domestic operations. That leads some to believe that the so-called privacy concerns are a pretext for political grand-standing.

In the meantime, state and local officials remain cutoff from the imagery program, until those Congressional questions can be fully answered. There's no indication as to how long that might take; after all, the fight over the satellite program's charter has been going on for almost a year.

Someone ought to remind Mr. Thompson that the start of hurricane season is only six weeks away. A lot of disaster officials in Mississippi (and other states) could sure use the overhead data that is currently beyond their reach, thanks to their "concerned" Congressmen and women.

This Comes as No Surprise...

..but U.S. commanders in iraq confirm that Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles are saving troops' lives. Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the Multi-National Division Center, recently told USA Today that his troops are facing more attacks using explosive-formed penetrators, but thanks to MRAPs, they're surviving.

"The MRAPs, in addition to increasing the survivability of our soldiers from underbelly attacks, also have improved force protection for EFP attacks as well," Lynch said. "So I've had EFPs hit my MRAPs and the soldiers inside, in general terms, are OK."

Lynch's soldiers received their first MRAPs in November and now have 323, Maj Alayne Conway, a military spokeswoman said in an e-mail. Lynch blamed Shiite extremists for the rise in EFP attacks.

Sitting higher off the ground than HUMVEEs, tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, the MRAP's V-shaped hull is designed to deflect explosions. They're also more resistant to deeply-buried IEDs and more difficult to target with EFPs, which generate a slug of molten metal, capable of penetrating many armored vehicles.

"We've lost 140 soldiers under my command since we've been involved in this operation," Lynch said by phone from Iraq. "Many were the result of being in uparmored HUMVEEs or Bradleys or tanks. Underbelly IEDs, with significant amounts of explosive material, have been devastating. They cause catastrophic kills in those vehicles. Those same kinds of attacks against MRAPs allow my soldiers to survive. I'm convinced of that."

While no one doubts the life-saving value of MRAP vehciles, their introduction on the battlefield has required some trade-offs. Rushing them to units in Iraq and Afghanistan tied up many of the Air Force's C-17 and C-5 transport sorties, and the Pentagon even contracted with commercial airlifters from Russian and Ukraine to fly MRAPs to the war zone.

The size and weight of the vehicles (which weigh an average of 22 tons) leaves little room for other cargo. The Air Force's largest jet transport (the C-5 Galaxy) can carry only two MRAPs at a time, and that aircraft has serious reliability issues. Larger numbers of MRAPs can be transported by ship, but that process is time-consuming. A cargo vessel delivering MRAPs to the Middle East requires 20-30 days to reach its destination.

Given those realities, military planners might face tough decisions in future conflicts, trying to balance MRAP shipments against the movement of other, equally vital cargoes. Making matters worse, some of the commercial airlift options being used in Iraq might not be available during future wars. That's an important consideration, since most MRAPs are being flown to the Middle East on Russian or Ukrainian AN-124s.

There are also concerns about the vehicle's utility in future operations. As The Christian Science Monitor reported last year, some military commanders and defense analysts worry that MRAPs may become "white elephants," with limited used in future conflicts.

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway supports the MRAP and said the program was "the right thing to do." But thinking ahead, the Corps' top general is concerned that his service's traditional missions could be hindered by the costly and heavy truck that is virtually impossible to transport easily. General Conway also believes the truck is contributing to the Corps losing its "expeditionary flavor."

"Can I give a satisfactory answer to what we're going to be doing with those things in five or 10 years? Probably not," he told an audience at the Center for a New American Security, a new think tank in Washington.

But no one disputes the MRAP's impressive record in Iraq. No Marine has been killed or seriously injured while riding in the vehicles and a Marine general told Congress that troops are "five times more likely" to be hurt in an attack on an armored HUMVEE, compared to an MRAP.

With the armored trucks saving lives--literally on a daily basis--the Pentagon will continue its effort to buy up to 15,000 MRAPs, at a cost of $22 billion. As far as getting them to future battlefields--in a timely manner and with minimal disruption of other air shipments--that challenge may prove as daunting as the roadside bombs that MRAPs are designed to defeat.

***

ADDENDUM: USA Today's recent account also contains a quote by a senior Army general, who claims that UAVs have significantly reduced the IED threat. General Richard Cody, the service's Vice Chief of Staff, told Congress that drones have allowed coalition forces to identify and kill "several hundred" IED emplacers.

That's a rather interesting take, considering that the former head of the Air Force's Air Combat Command said last year that UAVs had been of little use in the IED hunt. General Ron Keys (who is now retired) made the comments in a speech to a defense group in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The conflicting observations of General Cody and General Keys reflect--among other things--a continuing battle over UAVS within the military. Ground forces have been screaming for more drone support, while the Air Force claims its UAV units (and their supporting intel systems) are already maxed out.

And the Winner Is...

The Pulitzer Prizes were annouced yesterday. Most of the attention focused on the competition between The New York Times and the Washington Post, the MSM outlets that normally lead the annual awards list. For those keeping score at home, the Post won six Pulitzers this year, compared to only two for the NYT. Looks like Pinch Sulzberger's business and editorial plan for the Gray Lady is really paying off. Not only is the paper losing its journalistic edge; the company's stock is trading at roughly half its price of a few years ago.

But we digress. There was actually some good news in this year's Pulitzer results. The great Michael Ramirez of Investor's Business Daily picked up his second prize for editorial cartooning, producing what the jury described as "provocative" cartoons.

We've been fans of Mr. Ramirez since his days at the Memphis Commercial Appeal, where he won his first Pulitzer back in 1994. He moved to California in 1997, becoming the editorial cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times. Ramirez's conservative cartoons were often in sharp contrast to the paper's liberal editorial positions. He left the paper during a purge of its editorial page in 2006.

At ther risk of stating the obvious, we've long observed that Ramirez is the best editorial cartoonist working today. With yesterday's announcement, Mr. Ramirez becomes part of an elite group--he is one of only 10 editorial cartoonists who've won at least two Pulitzers, dating back to the award's inception almost 90 years ago.

Some recent examples from the Ramirez portfolio, from Daryl Cagle's cartoon page.

Chuck, Yakima and Orson

The passing of Charlton Heston represents the sad end of a film era. He was one of the last leading men produced by Hollywood's studio system and, arguably, one of its most enduring. Heston entered film when producers, directors and audiences placed a premium on chisled features, a resonant voice and a powerful physique. Mr. Heston certainly had those qualities--in spades--but he was also a consummate actor, commanding the screen in roles that ranged from biblical epics and science fiction, to film noir.

For better or worse, Heston's film legacy will be inevitably linked to the historical figures he played; Moses in The 10 Commandments; John the Baptist in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and his turn as the Castillian nobleman and military leader, El Cid. That's an impressive resume for any actor, but it only represents a fraction of Heston's work over a 60-year career in the movies, television and the theater.

As a performer, Mr. Heston produced his share of memorable moments, almost all on the big screen. The chariot race in Ben-Hur (1959) remains one of the most dramatic film sequences in film history, produced in the days before computer animation and digital special effects. It remains the most complex and expensive stunt ever filmed. Planning and rehearsing the race sequence took five months; getting it on film took another five weeks, utilizing an 18-acre set, the largest ever used in a motion picture.

There was no requirement that Heston actually drive one of the chariots, but he and co-star Stephen Boyd (who played Messala) decided to give it a go. Heston spent four weeks learning to handle a four-horse chariot; Boyd, a late addition to the cast, got only two.

Fortunately, both actors were in good hands. To handle the elaborate sequence, director William Wyler hired Yakima Canutt, probably the best stuntman who ever worked in Hollywood. Canutt was a former rodeo star who had been devising stunts, developing safety gear and doubling for screen lengends since the 1920s. Still, at one point in his training, Heston fretted about driving a chariot against seven other teams in the race. As Orlando Sentinel film critic Roger Moore recounts Canutt's response:

"Chuck, you just make sure y'stay in the chariot. I guarantee yuh y'gonna win the damn race."

To his credit, Heston repeated the anecdote often, in his books, during TV interviews, even during a beer commercial. Always generous, Mr. Heston believed in giving credit where it was due, in this case to Canutt and his stunt team, who did most of the actual driving. After the film was complete, Heston gave Mr. Canutt a statue that became one of the stuntman's prized possessions. It was an equine head on a pedestal, with the inscription, "To Yak from Chuck. Thanks for turning a horse's ass into a half-assed horseman."

Heston also had high praise for a director that, in his words, taught him more about acting than any other he worked for." The director was Orson Welles; the film was 1958's "Touch of Evil." By that time, Welles' career in Hollywood was in eclipse; his one-time reputation as a wunderkind had been replaced by that of an artist who clashed with studio bosses and couldn't complete film projects.

There are at least two accounts of how Welles became involved with the project. The more believeable one, offered by Heston (and at least one film historian) suggests that Orson Welles originally signed on as an actor, playing the corrupt American police Captain Hank Quinlan. Heston, already a major film star, expressed interest in the role of "Mike" Vargas, a Mexican police official investigating corruption and murder north of the border. Mr. Heston suggested that he might me more interested if Welles was given a chance to direct, and the studio (Universal) readily agreed to his demand. A second version suggests that the producer challenged Welles to make a great film out of a pile of "lousy" scripts. He selected Badge of Evil, as the project was originally titled.

Touch of Evil is widely considered one the last--and finest examples of film noir, at the end of that genre's golden era. The picture begins with a three-minute tracking shot, one of the most memorable long shots in film. It follows a man planting a bomb inside a car, which then travels across the U.S.-Mexico border. The shot ends with Vargas kissing his new bride (Janet Leigh), followed by the car exploding. Realizing the implications of a Mexican bomb exploding on American soil, Vargas begins digging, despite the risks to himself and his wife.

It's a brillant film, though it was largely ignored at the time of its release; in most movie theaters, it played on the lower half of a twin bill, giving Evil the dubious distinction of being the best "B" movie ever made. Critics in Europe immediately hailed it as an important film, and their American counterparts eventually came around, as well. Roger Ebert ranks it among his "Great Movies," and it also made the American Film Institute's list of the "Top 100 Heart-Pounding American Movies."

Much of the film's acclaim stems from its virtuoso camera work, conceived by Welles and cinematographer Russell Metty. Their fluid, innovative camera movement, coupled with expert use of light and shadow, are as stunning today as it was 50 years ago. Some have even likened the achievement to Welles' work (with Gregg Toland) on Citizen Kane. Others hailed Orson Welles performance as the sleazy Quinlan, who literally oozes corruption.

But to work, Touch of Evil needed to have a moral core, and Heston provided that, magnificently. As Manolha Dargis of The New York Times recently wrote, in an appreciation of the actor's work:

In long shot and choking close up, Welles directs Mr. Heston brilliantly, making particularly memorable use of the actor's physicality, his big, rangy body and the hard, clean right angles of his face. The ramrod straight, straight as an arrow Vargas with his impossibly long and loping stride, couldn ot look or register more different from Quinlan, an amorphous blob who all but rolls across the screen. Welles exploits Heston's regidity as a performer (and his American movie-star presence) for character, using what in other films sometimes seemed like a limitation of craft and technique to the great advantage of the story's texture and meaning. He turns Mr. Heston's jutting jaw into the wagging finger of righteousness, deepening the film's complex morality.

Sadly, Touch of Evil will not be included in Turner Classic Movies' salute to Heston, scheduled for this Friday. However, a restored version of the film is available on DVD. Like many of Welles' later projects, he lost creative control of Evil. After screening his rough cut, Universal re-edited the picture, including additional scenes that Welles never authorized. The restored film better captures the mood and ambiguity that the director desired. It's a lasting testament to both the film maker and his star. Charlton Heston, unforgettable as Moses and Ben-Hur, was also at his best in Touch of Evil, under the gifted tutelage of Orson Welles.

When future generations of fans and critics watch the film, they should not only remember the director's genius, they should also celebrate the generous (and gifted) actor who gladly shared the spotlight with his collaborators, and gave Orson Welles his last major directing job in Hollywood. That's another achievement worth celebrating in Heston's long and storied career.

A Marine's Right to Privacy

The headline in Sunday's New York Times says it all: "Vocal on War, McCain is Silent on Son's Service." With that, reporter Jodi Kantor plunges into another strange examination of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, detailing something that Mr. McCain never mentions on the campaign trail--that his son, Jimmy, is a member of the Marine Corps, and recently completed a combat tour in Iraq.

According to the Times, the Senator, his wife Cindy and Lance Corporal McCain declined to be interviewed for the piece. And the McCain campaign asked the paper not to run the article, citing Jimmy McCain's right-to-privacy. Not surprisingly, the NYT declined, decided that its readers need to know about Lance Corporal McCain, a combat vet who has accompanied his father on campaign swings (in civilian clothes), but is never mentioned by the candidate.

Readers of this blog know that we've had--and still have--serious disagreements with the Arizona Senator on policy issues. But in the matter of Jimmy McCain's service to his country (and his right to privacy), we'd say the Senator and his family got it right. Reading the Times account, readers discover that Jimmy McCain has a bit of his old man's maverick streak. He enlisted in the Marine Corps at the age of 17, and never asked for special favors--only a chance to prove himself. But that ignores the salient question: doesn't the younger McCain still have a right to privacy?

And, by all accounts he has. The Times interviewed one of Lance Corporal McCain's commanding officers, and a number of his fellow Marines. To a man, they describe him as hard-working and humble, eager to do his duty. During his deployment to Anbar Provinence, McCain's unit performed "soft knock" operations, visits to Iraqi homes designed to provide surveillance and reassurance. They also searched for weapons caches and IEDs. While the security situation had dramatically improved by the time McCain's unit arrive, three Marines from his battalion were killed in action during his deployment.

From a news standpoint, what does this have to do with John McCain's bid for the White House? Absolutely nothing--the same point his campaign tried to make with the Times in an effort to quash the story. Like any other soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, Lance Corporal McCain deserves the right to serve outside the media spotlight. As the scion of a legendary Navy family, McCain already carries an extra burden. There was simply no need for the Times to pile on with Sunday's story about Jimmy McCain and his military career.

But, when it comes to Senator McCain and his presidential bid, nothing is apparently off limits for the NYT. Just a few weeks ago, the paper ran with that infamous "expose" detailing Mr. McCain's supposedly relationship with a female lobbyist. Never mind that both the Senator and the lobbyist denied the accusation. And never mind that the Times' own editor didn't think his reporters had the story nailed down. The "story's" salacious allegations were enough for the paper to launch its opening salvo against McCain.

Sunday's article on Jimmy McCain doesn't fall in the same category, but it's timing is curious, to say the least. With Sunday's splash, McCain is now the most famous Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps--a title he clearly loathes. And, it raises concerns for the Corps. Jimmy McCain's fellow Marines joked with him about "patrolling with the Secret Service," if his father wins the fall election.

That's obviously a stretch, but the Corps would have to go to added lengths to protect future deployments by the younger McCain and his unit. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the Marine Corps might impose similar rules to those that accompanied Prince Harry's recent deployment to Afghanistan--a tour that was cut short after the Drudge Report (and other media outlets) broke the media embargo.

Clearly, that's not the way that Lance Corporal McCain wants to serve out his enlistment. He has the same right (he would use the word "obligation") to face the same hazards as other Marines, without regard for his family's history, or his father's bid for the White House. Like the rest of his family, Jimmy McCain understands that you don't join the military for personal glory or for political expediency. The desire to serve is rooted in a thousand different motivations--love of country, a desire to improve one's self, an opportunity to make your own way in life--concepts clearly beyond the grasp of The New York Times.

We wish Lance Corporal McCain all the best during the rest of his tour. According to the paper, the younger McCain has aspirations of eventually earning his commission and becoming a naval aviator, like his father. We hope he has the opportunity to pursue that dream with the privacy that all service members deserve.

***

ADDENDUM: While the Times finds it a bit strange that Senator McCain doesn't mention his Marine son on the campaign trail, the paper had no problem with a Democratic politician using his son as a campaign prop. During his successful run for the Senate in 2006, Virginia's Jim Webb made a point of wearing his son's boots on the campaign trail, to emphasize his opposition to the Iraq War. Shortly before taking office, the Senator-elect used his son to score more political points, chastising President Bush when he asked about the younger Webb's tour in Iraq. Apparently, the NYT saw nothing wrong with Webb's behavior, though many in the military shuddered at his feckless--and opportunistic--display.

Today's Reading Assignment

"The Press Botches Basra," by Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Counterrorism Blog; posted at The Weekly Standard.

Paging Walter Cronkite. The "Tet-ification" of Basra continues.

Bears in the Air

An F-15 escorts a Russian TU-95 Bear H bomber, during an intercept off the Alaskan coast in September 2006 (USAF photo via Air Force Times)

Over the past two years, we've noted the dramatic jump in Russian bomber flights near U.S. and NATO airspace. Recently, the commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) quantified the threat, reporting there have been 16 flights against Alaska alone since July of last year.

General Howie Chandler provided the statistics during an Anchorage press conference. He noted the number of TU-95 Bear missions against Alaska have increased geometrically over the past three years. As the Anchorage Daily News reports.

"We had one intercept of Russian bombers in my last year here," said, who ran the military's Alaskan command from 2003-2005. "That was the first intercept that had occurred in over 10 years at that point."

The most recent incident occurred on March 25th, when two F-15 fighters from Elmendorf AFB scrambled to intercept a pair of Bear bombers as they neared U.S. territory. Russian aircraft have never penetrated American airspace, which extends 12 miles from the coastline. However, they did enter the Air Defense Intercept Zone (ADIZ), which extends well beyond the territorial limit.

While no one believes the surge in bomber flights represents a return to the Cold War, they do reflect a resurgent Russian military under outgoing President Vladimir Putin. General Chandler said the Bear missions also reflect Moscow's ambitions in the Arctic region.

"It's about presence in the Arctic," he said. "It does become a presence issue when you open the Northwest Passage with the ability to transit on the surface. People are going to want to know who's transiting."

[snip]

[Chandler said] the warming of the Arctic, with the likelihood of an eventual year-round open sea lane, has the northern nations scrambling to increase their presence in the high latitudes.

The growing number of Bear flights against Alaska also raises another question, which we've posed before. When will Russia again stage the most provocative of its bomber missions, a long-range sortie against the U.S. eastern seaboard. The last flight of that type occurred more than a decade ago, but the increase in bomber activity, coupled with chillier relations between Washington and Moscow, make the an east coast Bear flight more likely.

Additionally, conclusion of the last summit meeting between Putin and President Bush may also raise the prospects for such a mission. With the leaders' final meeting out of the way, Russian military officials may decide that there would be less diplomatic risk from sending TU-95s along the eastern seaboard. The mission would also allow Moscow to show support for its key allies in the Western Hemisphere, Cuba and Venezuela.

During the Cold War, Bears bombers on an east coast run typically landed in Cuba, then returned to Russia, along the same route, a few days later. With in-flight refueling (or staging from northern bases), TU-95s are capable of a longer flight to Venezuela, which has become an important customer for Russian military hardware, including advanced Flanker fighters.

The Real Obstacle to Missile Defense in Europe

It's no secret that the Democratic Party is openly opposed to missile defense. So, when NATO leaders endorsed a defensive shield for Europe earlier this week, it put the party (and its presidential candidates) in a difficult position.

Wary of criticizing alliance leaders--who would be their partners if they win the fall election--both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have adopted a slightly different tack in criticizing NATO's missile defense stance. While welcoming progress on the issue, Obama and Clinton fretted about the deployment of "unproven" technology, and its potential impact on the alliance. According to Bloomberg's Janine Zacharia:

Their criticisms came a day after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization endorsed the Bush administration's plan to build a radar station in the Czech Republic to track ballistic missiles that might be launched from Iran. The system also would include 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland.

"Senator Obama welcomes the progress on missile defense out of the NATO summit, and notes with appreciation the shared commitment among our allies to address this challenge,'' Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail. ``Now we must ensure we do not rush to deploy technology that is not proven.''

[snip]

Clinton questioned whether such a system could protect U.S. allies in Europe against a missile threat and if the deal was worth the strains it put on the transatlantic alliance.

"Senator Clinton welcomes the fact that NATO has developed a unified position to help deter and prepare for threats to its security,'' Clinton campaign national security director Lee Feinstein said in an e-mail.

Unfortunately, the agreement on missile defense reached at the Bucharest summit has come at significant -- and unnecessary -- cost to the harmony of the alliance, and has given Russia an opportunity to divide NATO.''

Let's be charitable and say both arguments are overstated, to say the least.

As for the status of missile defense technology, we'd advise Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton to review the recent testimony of Lt Gen Trey Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency. General Obering appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, outlining the status of the missile defense program and its budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

Obviously, Lt Gen Obering is a tireless advocate for ballistic missile defense; that's part of his job description. But Obering also has a reputation as something of a straight shooter, unwilling to make unrealistic performance guarantees. Obering has held senior positions in the Pentagon's missile defense organization for the past seven years, offering some indication of his reputation inside the Beltway--and his ability to get along with politicians of all stripes.

In his latest testimony, General Obering outlined missile defense programs that are maturing rapidly--and already providing limited protection for the U.S. and its allies:

In 2007 we conducted many system ground and flight tests. Our flight test program for Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, Aegis BMD, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense confirmed technological progress for short-, medium-, and long-range defensive capabilities. Last year we executed successfully a long-range ground-based intercept, six SM-3 intercepts of separating and unitary targets, and three THAAD intercepts of unitary targets. As of today, we have demonstrated hit-to-kill in 34 of 42 attempts since 2001. Last year alone we successfully intercepted the targets in 10 of 10 attempts.

Obering also noted the flexibility of BMD systems that successfully engaged a defunct spy satellite in late February:

This was a very successful joint mission involving the Navy, U.S. Strategic Command, the Missile Defense Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Reconnaissance Office, and other national security offices. Missile Defense Agency engineers worked closely with the Navy to modify the interceptor and the Aegis weapon system for this one-time engagement. This was a case where the missile defense system was unexpectedly pushed into service and performed exceptionally well.

General Obering also offered compelling reasons for continuing missile defense research--and deployments:

"...there were over 120 foreign ballistic missile launches in 2007, significantly exceeding what we observed in previous years. This comes on the heels of a very active 2006, during which time both North Korea and Iran demonstrated an ability to orchestrate campaigns involving multiple and simultaneous launches using missiles of different ranges.

Currently, North Korea has hundreds of deployable short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and is developing a new intermediate-range ballistic missile and a new short-range, solid-propellant ballistic missile, which it test-launched in June 2007. Iran has the largest force of ballistic missiles in the Middle East (several hundred short- and medium-range ballistic missiles), and its highly publicized missile exercise training has enabled Iranian ballistic missile forces to hone wartime skills and new tactics.

North Korea’s ballistic missile development and export activities remain especially troubling. Pyongyang continues to press forward with the development of a nuclear-capable ICBM. While the firing of the Taepo Dong 2 in July 2006, launched together with six shorter-range ballistic missiles, failed shortly after launch, North Korean engineers probably learned enough to make modifications, not only to its long-range ballistic missiles, but also to its shorter-range systems. North Korea’s advances in missile system development, particularly its development of new, solid fuel intermediate range and short-range ballistic missiles, could allow it to deploy a more accurate, mobile, and responsive force.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons program makes these advances even more troubling to our allies and the commanders of our forces in that region. In addition to its uranium enrichment activity, Iran continues to pursue newer and longer-range missile systems and advanced warhead designs. Iran is developing an extended-range version of the Shahab-3 that could strike our allies and friends in the Middle East and Europe as well as our deployed forces. It is developing a new Ashura medium-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in Eastern Europe.

Iranian public statements also indicate that its solid-propellant technology is maturing; with its significantly faster launch sequence, this new missile is an improvement over the liquid-fuel Shahab-3.3 Iran has reportedly bought a new intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) under development by North Korea;4 this underscores the urgent need to work with our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to field and integrate long-range missile defenses in Europe.

In other words, U.S. missile defense efforts are maturing in response to a very real threat--one that (in the case of Iran) may lead to an ICBM, capable of striking the CONUS, by 2015. Mr. Obama might want to rethink his contention that BMD technology is unproven, or that other Democratic chestnut, the idea that the ballistic threat is overstated.

As for Mrs. Clinton, she should note that the NATO communique from Bucharest was a remarkable show of alliance unity in the face of near-constant Russian pressure (emphasis ours). Since the U.S. unveiled its plans to base missile interceptors and tracking radars in eastern Europe, Moscow has used a variety of tricks to create divisions within the alliance. The missile defense statement suggests those efforts have failed, at least for now.

Indeed, one might argue that one of the biggest obstacles facing missile defense in Europe is not pressure from Russia, or potential hesitation within NATO's ranks. Instead, it's Washington's potential to go "wobbly" on the deployment under a Democratic administration.

NATO took an important, even courageous step, in supporting missile defense at this week's summit. The alliance needs continued strong leadership to press ahead with the planned missile shield. But, with their feckless posturing on the Bucharest communique, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have demonstrated that they're incapable of providing that leadership.

Congratulations....

...to the men and women of the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota. The unit has been recertified to handle nuclear weapons, after passing an Initial Nuclear Surety Inspection (INSI) last week.

As you'll recall, the bomb wing lost its nuclear mission certification last August, after Minot crews mistakenly mounted six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52 bomber. The missiles were then flown to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, triggering the nation's worst nuclear weapons mishap in almost 30 years. Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were notified of the accidental transfer, which was classified as a "Bent Spear" incident.

In the aftermath of the accident, the 5th Bomb Wing Commander, Colonel Bruce Emig was fired, along with his maintenance group commander and the commander of Minot's munitions maintenance squadron. The leader of the 2nd Operations Group at Barksdale was also dismissed because the aircraft that carried the weapons--and its crew--fell under his command. Five senior non-commissioned officers in the Minot maintenance complex were also fired or demoted, and more than 60 personnel lost their certification to work with nuclear weapons.

Since then, Minot personnel have worked long hours to restore their unit's mission capabilities. However, their first INSI, conducted last December, was less-than-successful. In From the Cold was the first media outlet to report that the 5th Wing earned a "Not Ready" rating on their preliminary inspection, revealing more problems in personnel training and certification functions.

This time, the unit earned a passing score on its INSI, prompting its parent organization (Air Combat Command) to restore its nuclear handling certification. That decision was made by the ACC Commander, General John Corley, after reviewing results of the Minot inspection.

With the preliminary evaluation out of the way, the 5th Bomb Wing now faces a more demanding Nuclear Surety Inspection (NSI) in May. As Air Force Times describes it:

Wings traditionally have an initial NSI a month before the more stringent NSI so inspectors can gauge whether the wing is ready and recommend ways the wing might improve.

Units handling nuclear weapons must pass NSIs every 18 months.

The 5th Bomb Wing needed to regain its certification in order to hold the NSI, said Maj. Elizabeth Ortiz, a Minot spokeswoman.

Col. Joel Westa, 5th Bomb Wing commander, predicted the NSI in May will be the “most scrutinized inspection in the history of time,” during an earlier interview.

The next NSI, conducted by inspectors from ACC, Air Force Space Command and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), will be a joint evaluation, testing both the bomb unit and 91st Space Wing, which is also based at Minot. The 91st passed its INSI in January, although it did earn failing marks from the DTRA. However, the wing maintained its nuclear certification, because inspectors from Space Command disagreed with the threat agency's findings.

While the 5th BW worked to regain its nuclear certification, technicians from Barksdale AFB have played a key role in maintaining weapons at Minot and performing other functions. That support will apparently continue, despite the fact that the 5th BW passed its INSI and has recertified (or replaced) key maintenance personnel. Colonel Joel Westa, the Minot bomb wing commander, said support from Barksdale will aid in the training of his personnel and other preparations for the May inspection.

Kudos to the Warbirds. And good luck next month, when the NSI rolls into town.

A Minor Victory

Boeing has scored a minor victory in its on-going battle to challenge the Air Force tanker contract, recently awarded to rival Northrop-Grumman and its European partner, EADS.

On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied dismissal motions filed by the Air Force and Northrop-Grumman, after Boeing submitted additional materials to support its protest.

In a press release, Northrop-Grumman claimed that Boeing had "streamlined" its objections, eliminating many of the elements that "were central to the Air Force and Northrop-Grumman motions." However, a Boeing spokesman told Reuters that the Northrop-Grumman claim was "pure spin," noting that his company added material to its original filing, instead of eliminating key objections.

The GAO's decision eliminates any hopes for a quick resolution of the protest. "This means we're going to go through the entire process," a senior Air Force official observed. The GAO is expected to rule on Boeing's protest by late June, although that deadline could be pushed back, if required.

In their motions to dismiss the protest, both the Air Force and Northrop-Grumman claimed that some of Boeing's objections should have been raised before the company submitted its final bid.

Boeing said it was encouraged by the GAO's decision.

Given the political tempest surrounding this contract, it's no surprise that the GAO refused to dismiss Boeing's protest. And while they won't admit it, neither the Air Force nor Northrop-Grumman was taken aback by yesterday's decision. Their efforts to dismiss the protest were almost a formality. With billions of dollars--and thousands of jobs--on the table, no one expected the GAO to summarily reject the Boeing protest, and give a green light to the Northrop-Grumman contract.

We'll also go out on a (short) limb and predict that the GAO's final decision may not be announced until the late summer or early fall. There's simply too much riding on this contract, giving the GAO more reason to fully scrutinize Boeing's protest.

Missile Defense, Yes; Eastward Expansion? Not Right Now

NATO leaders, meeting in Bucharest, Romania, are prepared to endorse the American plan for building a missile defense shield in eastern Europe, according to a senior U.S. official:

The final summit statement would "recognize the substantive contribution to the protection of the allies" from the missile defense system to be deployed in the Czech Republic and Poland, the official told reporters.

According to the AP's Matthew Lee, the alliance plans to issue a communique acknowledging the danger Europe faces from missile attack by rogue states, and the protection offered by the U.S.-built system:

[The communique] will state that "ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations." It will also recognize the protective contribution of the U.S.-led system, according to senior American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, ahead of the communique's release.

The statement calls on all NATO members to explore ways in which the planned U.S. project can be linked to future missile defense shields elsewhere. It says leaders should come up with recommendations to be considered at their neet meeting in 2009, the officials said.

Significantly, the document also calls on Russia to drop its objections to the system and accept U.S. and NATO offers to cooperate on building it., the officials reported.


Today's statement represents a significant victory for President Bush and the United States, who have pushed hard for European acceptance of the missile defense system, despite strong protests from Russia. Moscow has used a variety of tactics--including threats of a "new arms race"--to dissuade NATO from moving forward with the deployment.

The defensive system received a further boost on the sidelines of the summit, when Czech officials announced they have concluded negotiations with the U.S. on the basing of a missile tracking radar, which will be located in their country. A formal agreement on that element of the defensive shield will reportedly be signed in May. American officials are still negotiating with Poland, which will host the system's interceptor missiles.

While winning critical support for missile defense, Mr. Bush suffered a setback on the key issue of enlarging NATO. Alliance leaders rejected a U.S. plan to expand their organization, by putting Ukraine and Georgia on the path to membership. They also declined to offer full membership to Macedonia.

Russia is also against NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, viewing it as an encroachment into its traditional sphere on influence. But. U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the President will not drop plans for expanding the alliance, and will offer a new proposal before he leaves office next year. Mr. Bush affirmed those plans in remarks made earlier in the day:

"NATO's door must remain open to other nations in Europe that share our love for liberty and demonstrate a commitment to reform and seek to strengthen their ties with the trans-Atlantic community," Bush said during an alliance meeting. "We must give other nations seeking membership a fair hearing."

Alliance support for missile defense represents one of the most significant military (and security) victories of Mr. Bush's second term. Moscow pulled out all the stops in trying to block the deployment, making many European countries nervous. But the U.S. was able to allay those fears, gaining a critical endorsement from its most important allies.

With today's communique from Bucharest--and the apparent conclusion of the Czech radar basing agreement--the focus now shifts to Poland and talks on those interceptor missiles. Russia will almost certainly turn up the heat on Warsaw, offering a combination of carrots and sticks to reject the missile deployment plan. Those efforts will almost certainly fail; earlier this month, the U.S. promised to modernize Poland's military, providing an important (and timely) incentive for Warsaw to accept the interceptor missiles.

Secretary of State Condolezza Rice described today's missile communique as a "breakthrough agreement" for NATO. Still, we've got to wonder about the level of European calculation in today's endorsement. With Mr. Bush leaving office in nine months, European leaders are quite aware that the missile shield may be scrapped by an incoming Democratic administration. Against that backdrop, some NATO leaders may believe there was little risk in supporting the BMD statement, believing the project may not survive Bush's tenure in office.

On the other hand, the President's coup in Bucharest will make it more difficult for a Clinton or Obama administration to scuttle the proposal. NATO's endorsement provides a powerful rationale for seeing the project through, and it's clear that Mr. Bush wants to the missile shield on the path to deployment before he leaves the White House.

By comparison, efforts to advance the alliance's eastward expansion may prove more difficult. Today's rejection of membership for Ukraine and Georgia suggest there are limits on how far some NATO members are willing to push Russia. Unfortunately, that hesitation is likely to embolden Russia, which will continue its campaign of threats and economic sanctions against both countries.

Unfinished Business

Today's reading assignment actually appeared in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal. But the column (from Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary magazine) remains particularly timely and relevant. He reminds us that the intelligence reform efforts that began after 9-11 remain unfinished. Indeed, as Mr. Schoenfeld writes, President Bush may leave the nation's intelligence community mired in the same sort of bureaucratic mediocrity that was evident before the events of eight years ago.


As a case in point, he cites last year's infamous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program--a document that was flawed and misleading, at best. That should come as no surprise, since the report was supervised by two men--Thomas Fingar and his recently-appointed "analytic integrity deputy" Richard Immerman--with a long history of opposition to the Bush Administration.

Make no mistake; intelligence analysts can--and sometimes should--respectfully disagree with policy-makers and their decisions. But Mr. Immerman, a former Temple University professor, has done more than merely disagree. While at Temple, he took part in "teach-ins" against the Iraq War and in an essay published after assuming his new intelligence post, Immerman accused the Bush Administration of "making every effort to cook the books." Remember: this is the same intelligence official now charged with upholding "analytical standards."

But lingering problems in the intel community go well beyond Messrs Fingar and Immerman. As Schoenfeld points out, a recently-retired intelligence official recently listed her "proudest" accomplishment in an essay in Washington Quarterly. The official, Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, says she used her post to "galvanize change" among intelligence analysts:

"Under her tutelage, they would henceforth be required to "properly source evidence, avoid politicization, acknowledge uncertainty and assumptions, use alternative analysis, explain consistency or deviation, and strive for accuracy."

The imposition of such basic standards, Schoenfeld writes, speaks volumes about the status of our intelligence community. We also wonders about the training of thousands of new employees, who have joined intel organizations over the past seven years. More than half of the nation's intelligence analysts have signed on since 9-11, and according to Ms. Tucker, many have become entrenched in the "take-no-risks" mindset that has long dominated our intelligence agencies.

And that's the dirty little secret of all intelligence reform efforts. Attempts to fix intel problems typically begin with a full head of steam, thanks to some sort of analytical debacle, followed by investigations, recommendations and corresponding budget increases. But, with the passage of time, no one bothers to see if the reform process is actually working.

Small wonder. No self-serving member of Congress wants to admit that his (or her) attempt at intelligence reform has failed--particularly if they have larger political ambitions. The same holds true for the career managers who form the backbone of our intel bureaucracy. As for the generals and senior officials who lead the agencies, their tenure is often too brief to produce meaningful results.

Meanwhile, the intelligence apparatus lurches along, beset by the same problems that have challenged it for years--even decades. That shortage of human intelligence (HUMINT) officers? It's been an issue for more than 30 years.

Quality of analysis? American history is littered with examples of blown intelligence calls, ranging from Pearl Harbor and China's intervention in the Korean War, to the Tet Offensive and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Clearly, poor analysis is not a new problem for the intelligence community.

An inexperienced work force? When I entered the military intelligence business more than 20 years ago, our career field was 300% manned at the lieutenant (O-1/O-2 level), with corresponding shortages of experienced officers in the senior grades. When I retired, the career field was still "bottom heavy," despite various attempts to balance manning and experience levels.

As I've noted in the past, the process of fixing intelligence is more than hiring the right people, getting rid of the political hacks, and throwing more money at the problem. Real intelligence reform means holding leaders accountable, beyond the latest news or election cycle.

That's one area where Mr. Bush and his leadership team have been woefully deficient, joining a long list of administrations that initiated serious intelligence reforms, but never bothered to follow through. And that's one reason the next president may inherit an intel bureaucracy that is as politicized (and mediocre) as the one left for President Bush.

Another Military Phony in the Magnolia State

Until recently, Frank Thayer was known as a war hero on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. He even appeared on a local TV station in 2006 to discuss his wartime experiences, which earned him a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, among other decorations.

Thayer also sported other trappings of military service: an Army ring, command pilot’s wings, official documentation from his military career and clothing bearing the Purple Heart. According to the Biloxi Sun-Herald, he even produced a motivational DVD celebrating his service—which he sold to local civic organizations.

As you’ve probably guessed by now, it was all a big lie.

On Tuesday, Frank Thayer became the latest military phony to be exposed in the Magnolia State. He was arrested at his Gulfport home, on charges stemming from the 2005 Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to claim military honors or decorations that were never earned.

Turns out that Thayer, who claimed to be a Vietnam veteran, never earned any medals. Heck, he never spent a single day in the military. He bought the decorations at a military surplus store.

His deception extended to friends and family members; when a former girlfriend questioned his lack of discharge papers, Thayer claimed the documents were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

"He was tricking everybody. It's just an insult to true military veterans. It's an assault on them," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Ruth Morgan, the Gulfport-based prosecutor of the case.

Thayer was released on $25,000 unsecured bond. He faces multiple charges, and could receive up to 6 months in prison and fines of $5,000 per violation, said Morgan

Mr. Thayer is the third Mississippian to be arrested on Stolen Valor charges in the past week. Last Tuesday, retired Air Force Master Sergeant Chris Billeaud of Gulfport and John Wayne Lebo were charged with making false claims about military service and the medals they received.

The Sun-Herald reports that agents from the FBI and the Veterans Administration were involved in all three cases. However, officials have not said if there is any relationship between the suspects, or if the arrests are part of a crackdown on military phonies.

We’d say that sort of effort is long overdue. Over the past year, we’ve documented a number of cases involving veterans who boasted of medals they never earned, or civilians masquerading as war heroes. As prosecutor Ruth Morgan noted, such claims are an affront to all who served, particularly those who suffered life-altering wounds, or made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Thayer, Billeaud and Lebo all deserve their day in court. But when that day comes, we also trust that a Mississippi jury will do the right thing, and give those phonies the punishment they deserve.

Northrop Fights Back

Jen Dimascio at the Politico details the latest skirmish in the tanker war between Boeing and its rival, Northrop-Grumman. When the Air Force recently awarded a contract for new refueling planes to a team led by Northrop-Grumman and European defense consortium EADS, Boeing cried foul. It has filed a formal protest over the decision, and enlisted its allies in Congress to challenge the contract, worth an estimated $40 billion.

Now, Northrop-Grumman is fighting back, with a public relations offensive aimed at members of Congress and other influential officials across the country. Northrop took out a full-page ad in Monday’s Washington Post, and according to Ms. Dimascio, the defense contractor is planning “an outreach effort to all 535 members of Congress,” and will publish op-ed pieces in papers in Alabama and West Virginia. The media blitz is aimed at countering claims that the contract is a boon for Northrop’s European partner, EADS.

While key aircraft components would be built in Europe, Northrop is planning to assemble the tankers at a new plant near Mobile, Alabama. Refueling equipment for the aircraft will be built at a new factory in West Virginia, home of Senator Robert Byrd, the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Northrop claims that 60% of the new refueling plane will be American-made, noting that suppliers in 49 states will have a stake in the project.

As the Politico observes, Northrop’s p.r. campaign also creates some difficult lobbying choices for Boeing. While Congressional supporters of the aircraft giant have been touting the Northrop contract as a “foreign giveaway,” that positions creates problems for Boeing, which sells its products around the world—and sources thousands of components from foreign suppliers.

Not surprisingly, Boeing’s opposition to the tanker decision has been based on how the contract was awarded, rather than the "European connection" of the winning team. Boeing says it believed the Air Force wanted a “medium-sized” tanker, and offered a design based on its 767 jetliner. But Boeing claims that the service gave Northrop “extra credit” for offering a larger refueling platform, utilizing an Airbus A330.

That charge surfaced again Monday, at a House Armed Service sub-committee hearing on the tanker deal. Missouri Congressman Todd Arkin asked Sue Payton, the Air Force Undersecretary for Acquisition if the service “extra benefit to people who exceeded what was required?”

As reported by John Doyle of Aerospace Daily, Ms. Payton's response left little doubt that the "extra credit" provision was well-understood by all competitors:

“Now, it was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold,” Payton said. She explained that while the RFP made it “clear that we had no requirement for size — large or medium,” nonetheless, “we did have requirements to meet capabilities, and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold. And on three occasions we did debrief each of the offerors… exactly what they were getting credit for,” she said.

The tanker battle will likely intensify during the run-up to a Government Accountability Office ruling on Boeing’s protest. If the GAO upholds the Northrop contract (as some expect), then lawmakers aligned with Boeing may attempt to insert “Buy American” provisions into tanker funding bills, in an effort to dent or defeat the deal.

But, even those proposals face an uphill fight. While there is support for such measures in the House, they would encounter strong opposition in the Senate. In addition to Mr. Byrd (whose state would gain hundreds of jobs from the contract), Virginia Senator John Warner has also expressed support for Northrop-Grumman and its entry. Mr. Warner has accused Boeing supporters of “trying to put up a virtual fence around free trade.”

Did we mention that the largest private employer in John Warner’s home state is the giant shipyard in Newport News, owned by--you guessed it--Northrop-Grumman.

***

ADDENDUM: In yet another twist of the tanker battle, a number of retired Air Force generals have signed a letter, urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "stand up and defend" the tanker award to the Northrop-Grumman/EADS team. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, the 22 retired generals share something in common, other than their service affiliation. All are employees of Northrop-Grumman or EADS, or serve as consultants for those firms.

Among the signatories of the letter are General Michael Ryan, a former Air Force Chief of Staff, and General Chuck Horner, who led the air campaign during Operation Desert Storm.

H/T to Sean Meade at Aviation Week for the link on Northrop's strong letter of support--from its own executives and consultants.

Who Won the Battle of Basra?

...Well, that depends on who you ask—or which pundit you believe. According to Robert Dreyfus of The Nation the big winners in the recent fighting were radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, his Mahdi Army and their allies in Tehran:

As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, at the heart of Iraq's oil region, it's apparent that the big winner of the Six-Day War in Basra are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army faced down the Iraqi armed forces not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well as in Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya, capitals of four key southern provinces. That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser and nationalist who demands an end to the US occupation of Iraq, and who has grown increasingly close to Iran of late, in a far stronger position that he was a week ago. In Basra, he's the boss. An Iraqi reporter for the New York Times, who managed to get into Basra during the fighting, concluded that the thousands of Mahdi Army militiamen that control most of the city remained in charge. "There was nowhere the Mahdi either did not control or could not strike at will," he wrote.

The other big winner in the latest round of Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war is Iran. For the past five years, Iran has built up enormous political, economic and military clout in Iraq, right under the noses of 170,000 surge-inflated US occupying forces. (For details, see my March 10 Nation article, "Is Iran Winning the Iraq War?") Iran has strong ties to Iraq's ruling Shiite alliance, which is dominated by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, whose militia, the Badr Corps, was armed, trained, financed and commanded by Iranians during two decades in exile in Iran. Since then, hedging its bets, Iran built a close relationship to Sadr's Mahdi Army as well, and Sadr himself has spent most of the time since the start of the US surge last January in Iran.

[snip]

That Sadr emerged victorious, and that Iran succeeded in brokering the deal that ended the fighting, is a double defeat for the United States. It is also a catastrophe for Maliki, and there is already speculation that his government could collapse. An ill-timed offensive, poorly prepared and poorly executed, resulted in an embarrassing defeat for Maliki.

But contrast Dreyfus’ account to that of Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal. Mr. Roggio, a veteran of multiple embed tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, paints a starkly different picture of the fighting and its results:

Six days after the Iraqi government launched Operation Knights’ Charge in Basrah against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia terror groups, Muqtada al Sadr, the Leader of the Mahdi Army, has called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi security forces. Sadr’s call for an end to the fighting comes as his Mahdi Army has taken serious losses since the operation began.

[snip]

Sadr’s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday, 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

So, which pundit got it right? We’ll go with Bill Roggio, for a couple of reasons. First of all, let’s assume that the latest Mahdi uprising was aimed at embarrassing (and weakening) the Iraqi government. If the offensive was going so well, why did Sadr—or more correctly, his patrons in Iran—decide to pull the plug? Assuming they still controlled large sections of Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, the Mahdi fighters had little reason to lay down their arms.

Instead, it was Sadr who ordered his factions to cooperate with Iraqi security forces. And the reason for that is highlighted in Mr. Roggio’s dispatch. During six days of intense fighting, the Mahdi Army took a beating, literally and figuratively. Even an insurgent force can’t afford to lose over 200 fighters a day, including those killed and wounded.

We doubt that Sadr was concerned about the number of fighters he lost. What he couldn’t tolerate was the image of Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. troops and airpower, routing his forces in Basra and Baghdad. That sort of black eye doesn’t help Sadr, who still views himself as a major political force in Iraq.

Additionally, the Mahdi Army’s latest ill-fated adventure hardly builds confidence in Iran, which has invested millions in supporting Muqtadr al-Sadr and his fighters. Mr. Dreyfus notes that Iraqi lawmakers flew to Tehran during the recent uprising, asking for Iran’s help in ending the fighting. Elements of the Iranian government (most notably the military’s Qods Force) agreed, and Sadr issued his cooperation edict within hours. According to the Nation’s analyst, Iran’s eagerness to help is another example weakness in the Maliki government.

But that narrative seems to contradict the facts. If things were going swimmingly in Basra (and elsewhere), Iran had no incentive to lean on Sadr. On the other hand, if the Mahdi Army was taking unsustainable losses, Iran had ample reason to call a truce. We should also point out that the cease-fire (so far) is one-sided affair. According to Mr. Roggio, the Iraqi government has not called for an cessation of hostilities, and military operations continue.

Given its political leanings, The Nation’s take on the Basra situation is hardly surprising. The danger, of course, is that such distortions will be repeated and amplified in the MSM. Forty years ago, the Tet offensive was a military debacle for North Vietnam—until the U.S. media began reporting the story. Never underestimate their ability to turn an enemy defeat into victory.

***

Incidentally, Mr. Roggio and his blog are profiled in the most recent edition of the Columbia Journalism Review as an example of authoritative, non-partisan war reporting. One more reason to get your war news from the Long War Journal.

Your Tax Dollars Take Flight

An Air Force C-40B/C, the military version of a Boeing 737-700 business jet. It's one of many aircraft used for VIP airlift, including those infamous Congressional junkets (USAF photo)

Today’s edition of the Politico details the latest “air war” between the Pentagon and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Apparently, Ms. Pelosi had to intervene when the military balked at transporting the domestic partner of Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin during a recent “fact-finding” trip to Europe.

According to the Politico’s Patrick Rogers and David O’Connor, Speaker Pelosi appealed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told the Air Force to include Baldwin’s partner on the junket. But the issue is far from resolved:

The Pentagon appears to be self-conscious about transporting gay domestic partners at a time when it continues to enforce a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in its own ranks. The speaker is sensitive to the gay rights issue but doesn’t want to be drawn into a situation where it appears she is dictating policy for the use of military planes.

Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is “necessary for protocol purposes.” Although Baldwin, the only openly gay woman elected to Congress, exchanged wedding vows with Lauren Azar in 1998, her home state of Wisconsin does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, and military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a “spouse” within the meaning of the House guidelines.

In appealing to Gates, Pelosi aides said their boss was simply asking the defense secretary to follow a precedent established by her predecessor, former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Pelosi told Gates that Hastert had allowed Baldwin to take Azar on a previous trip abroad.

Gates, who was apparently unaware of any earlier trips, told the speaker that she was responsible for the House travel rules and had the authority to make an exception, according to officials on and off the Hill. His only requirement was that Pelosi send him a letter authorizing the trip. Pelosi sent such a letter moments after the phone call ended, and Azar was allowed on the plane.

Secretary Gates is reportedly working on new rules for Congressional use of military airplanes and if would be refreshing if he would take a harder line on lawmaker travel. Fact is, the Pentagon wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on VIP travel every year, ferrying various cabinet officials and Congressional delegations to such exotic locales as Hawaii, Europe and the Bahamas, to name a few.

Sadly, the chances of a crackdown on Congressional travel are approximately…zero. The Pentagon understands who controls its budget, and if it takes junkets and private jets to keep Congressmen and Senators happy, so be it. It’s no accident that VIP airlift is run by the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, a four-star general. When it comes to our jet-setting pols, the brass takes a personal interest, all in the name of keeping Congress happy.

We’re guessing that Ms. Azar won’t have any problems getting a seat on future Congressional junkets. But that begs an obvious question: why should the U.S. taxpayer fund travel by spouses, domestic partners, mistresses, or any other “significant other” that a Congressman drags along on a junket? It’s supposed to be a business trip, though (sadly) little gets done on most of these excursions. The Politico doesn’t provide the purpose of this latest trip, but it sounds like nothing more than an Easter vacation for those hard-working legislators.

Call us old-fashioned, but we don’t think that family members or romantic interests have any place on a Congressional trip. Getting rid of those “distractions” would be a good way to reduce the number of junkets, and curb our leader’s appetite for VIP travel.

Weaning Congress off military jets would be a difficult process, though it could be done. For starters, how about down-sizing the 89th Military Airlift Wing at Andrews AFB to a group, and getting rid of some of the smaller jets operated by that organization, including Nancy Pelosi’s favorite 737. Keep Air Force One, the VIP 757 and a few business jets. Along with the scaled-back wing at Andrews, the Pentagon could also trim its relatively large inventory of C-21s (the military version of a Lear Jet). The Air Force has no less than 74 C-21s, which also support VIP travel. If officials don’t rate a seat in the "smaller" executive fleet, let them fly commercial.

For traveling abroad, members of Congress could fly on the “rotators” that transport troops between CONUS and overseas locations. Ms. Baldwin and her fellow representatives might not enjoy sitting next to Private Snuffy for 14 hours, but it would give them a chance to see “how the other half lives.” They would discover that rotator flights aren’t as posh as a C-37, but they are more comfortable than the transport planes that often haul military passengers.

If you’ve been there, you know what we’re talking about. There’s nothing quite like a troop seat in the back end of a C-130. The temperature is always too hot or too cold, and there’s little room to stand up or stretch out, thanks to the pallets or equipment that fill the cargo bay. For in-flight service (if you’re lucky), there’s an MRE or a box nasty, handed out by a grumpy loadmaster.

It’s a reminder that military airlift is a multi-faceted mission that involves far more than transporting VIPs in comfort and style. It’s a lesson that needs to be learned by members of Congress, their families, and their various romantic partners.

***

The Politico also reports that other Representatives (Democrats and Republicans) were vocal in their support of Ms. Baldwin and her partner. That probably means that virtually every Congressman had a spouse or significant other along for the trip. Under generous House travel rules, a member may bring an adult child along (if their spouses don’t make the trip), and in some cases, take their spouse and an adult child. However, Congressmen are required to reimburse the government for the “child’s” travel expenses when both a spouse and a child make the trip.