Displeasing the Dear Leader

Now is not a good time to be a member of North Korea's World Cup team.

Kim Jong-il's squad was embarrassed today on the global soccer stage, falling to Portugal 7-0. And did we mention that the match was televised live in the DPRK? So, the few North Koreans who actually have TV sets got to share in their nation's soccer humiliation.

We don't claim to be "futbol" fans, so the vagaries of the World Cup are something of a mystery to us. From our perspective, it's slightly amazing that North Korea actually qualified for the World Cup, and played well in their first match against soccer superpower Brazil, losing by only a 2-1 margin.

Still, you don't want to be an athlete, actor, soldier, movie star (or anyone else) who embarrasses the Kim Dynasty. Several DPRK defectors have suffered violent or mysterious deaths after fleeing the Worker's Paradise, a reminder that you never really "leave" North Korea.

And, consider the case of those DPRK "volunteer" pilots who served in the Vietnam War. For decades, there were rumors that some of North Vietnam's MiGs were actually flown by North Koreans. But details of their participation didn't emerge until almost 30 years later. In March 2001, a Vietnamese government official told South Korea's Yonhap news agency that at least 11 DPRK fighter pilots are buried in his country. All died while fighting the U.S. in the skies over North Vietnam.

While the Vietnamese have praised the North Korean pilots, other accounts paint a different story. At least one intelligence report suggests the DPRK volunteers were killed during a relatively brief period, resulting in their relegation to non-combat assignments.

There is also the matter of their burial location. Some analysts suggest that if the North Korean fighter pilots had performed well, Kim il-Sung would have insisted on the return of their remains, so the "martyrs" could be honored at home. Instead, the dead pilots were interred in North Vietnam, with no official acknowledgement of their participation until July 2001--more than 30 years after they died, and almost three months after the original Yonhap report.

Urban legend says the elder Kim was so disgusted by his pilots "performance" that he essentially washed his hands of the volunteers, leaving it up to North Vietnam to arrange their burial and provide grave markers. Visits to the cemetery by the DPRK embassy staffers suggest that attitudes have mellowed a bit, but Pyongyang's decades of silence suggest the volunteer pilots are not regarded as heroes back home.

It's also worth remembering that NKAF participation in Vietnam was officially a secret, so relatively few North Koreans were even aware of their sacrifice. But, their poor performance was a personal affront to Kim il-Sung, one reason the dead MiG drivers are still resting in North Vietnam and not the DPRK.

Contrast that to the North Korean soccer team which committed its faux pas in public. Remember, this is the same squad that was receiving personal direction from Kim Jong-il (via an "invisible" cell phone), with "hired" fans from the Chinese delegation. Obviously, most North Koreans aren't allowed to travel outside their own country (hence, the "rent-a-cheering section" approach), but that didn't stop Pyongyang from investing considerable time, resources and propaganda on its World Cup effort.

If it's any consolation for the North Korean players, they still have one more match (against Ivory Coast) before they head home. In theory, that gives them a few more days to plan a possible defection. But we're guessing the DPRK team is now under lock down at their hotel--to prevent that scenario--so after playing Ivory Coast, it's back home to the welcoming arms of Kim Jong-il.

We can only speculate about the type of reception the Dear Leader has in store. Suffice it to say, there will be a lot of new faces on the North Korean national team in the near future, and the level of play in the Gulag league will probably rise (temporarily), with an infusion of new talent.

Showdown?

Is military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran just days away?

Judging from recent events, a naval showdown appears to be a growing possibility. Eleven American warships, led by the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, transited the Suez Canal on Friday, en route to the Red Sea. Operating in that area, the Truman battle group would be in position to intercept an Iranian "aid" vessel, heading towards the canal and (eventually) the Israeli blockade line off the Gaza coast.

Regional press accounts indicate the Truman and her escorts passed through the Suez Canal while the waterway was closed to other traffic. At least one Israeli naval vessel has also transited the canal during recent days, though it is operating independently of the American battle group.

The Iranian vessel, renamed Toward Gaza, was supposed to set sail last week. There have been no updated reports on its location, but it's virtually certain that the Pentagon is tracking the ship. With more than 60 aircraft in its embarked air wing--and access to the full resources of the intelligence community--the Truman battle group can monitor traffic across thousands of square miles of ocean and intercept the vessel well before it enters the Red Sea.

But there is actually some doubt the confrontation will actually occur. Originally, Tehran threatened to send military escorts along with the aid ship, but that vow never materialized. Iran's Navy--both the "regular" fleet and the Revolutionary Guards component--are the weakest branches of the nation's military, with no power projection capabilities beyond the Strait of Hormuz. Late last week, an IRGC spokesman said his organization had no plans to accompany the aid ship on its voyage. For now, Toward Gaza appears to be on its own.

And, the Iranian vessel may have more to worry about than the U.S. Navy. A Pentagon spokesman notes that pirates are active along Gaza's projected route, and its a safe bet that no western navy would come to its rescue. On the other hand, many of the pirates who operate in those waters are Muslim, and Iran may have greased regional religious skids to improve prospects for a safe voyage.

Still, there are plenty of ways to detain and harass Toward Gaza. Assuming we let the vessel proceed (a prospect deemed very unlikely), Egyptian officials could delay the ship's passage through the Suez Canal, demanding that the ship's papers be translated from Farsi into Arabic, a process that could take weeks or even months, depending on how much pressure is exerted on the Cairo government.

Indeed, given the obstacles facing the Iranian aid ship, there's a very real possibility that it might be recalled, or conveniently break down at a friendly port along the way. Tehran may want to avoid the humiliation of its vessel being towed to an Egyptian port (by a U.S. naval vessel), where it might languish indefinitely.

On the other hand, Iran does have options for creating an international incident, despite the overwhelming show of American naval might. The Iranians might attempt to scuttle the vessel or blow it up (preferably with our boarding parties on the ship), then blame the event on the U.S. military. Or, Tehran might retaliate with naval provocations or attacks in the Persian Gulf, under the cover of friendly aircraft, anti-ship missiles and potential "swarm" attacks by IRGC suicide units.

The potential confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is a long way from being resolved, and no one can say exactly how it will end. But so far, the Obama Administration is taking the right steps, responding to the aid vessel's voyage with deployment of vastly superior forces. To some, that might seem like overkill; afterall, Mr. Obama's Defense Secretary has recently observed that the U.S. is "over matched" against potential foes, suggesting there might be room for potential cutbacks.

But in a situation like this, overkill is the right answer. Faced with a U.S. carrier battle group in the Red Sea, Tehran is already re-examining its options, and may ultimately decide to fore go a confrontation, at least for now.

Still, a military showdown with Iran is probably inevitable, given Tehran's perceptions of American weakness, and its stated goal to "wipe Israel off the map." The Iranians may be about to blink in the Arabian Sea, but they won't blink forever. If anything, a potential setback on the "aid" mission will send them back to the drawing board, looking for new ways to confront the United States and further test our resolve.

His Finest Hour

This week may go down as something of a watershed in the Obama Presidency. Judging by reactions to his Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill, it looks like Mr. Obama's gift for oratory finally failed him. The speech was roundly criticized as flat, uninspiring--and worse. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy) described it as "a great speech...if you've been on another planet for the past 57 days.

Mr. Obama's failed attempt illustrates a cardinal rule of political speech-making. Without genuine leadership (and a clear vision), rhetorical flourishes--no matter how well they might be delivered--ring hollow and false. Instead of conveying the impression that he was in command of the situation, Mr. Obama was viewed to be in full damage-control mode, offering homilies aimed at shifting attention away from government failures during this crisis.

And, there is a certain, historical irony in the president's flop. It came as many of us remembered one of the great speeches in human history, delivered 70 years ago by Winston Churchill, before the British Parliament, and later to a nationwide radio audience. We refer, of course, to Mr. Churchill's legendary "finest hour" address of June 18, 1940.

Almost anyone with a cursory knowledge of Churchill (or the Second World War) can recite its signature line, delivered at the end of the speech:

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

While the resolve and determination of Churchill's message are crystal clear, it's worth remembering the circumstances that prompted his address. It came just over a month after he became Prime Minister, just as Allied fortunes took a turn towards disaster. The "phony war" in the west had given way to the German blitzkrieg that quickly overran the low countries and France. Much of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had been rescued from the beaches at Dunkirk, but without their tanks, artillery and heavy equipment. With the capitulation of France assured, Great Britain faced the Nazi horde alone.

And, there was genuine pessimism regarding Britain's ability to fend off an expected German invasion. Rescued elements of the BEF would need months to reequip. The Royal Air Force had acquitted itself well in France, but had suffered steep losses in pilots and aircraft. Facing the prospect of a prolonged enemy air assault, the RAF was rushing pilots to fighter squadrons with minimal training, while British factories ramped up production of front-line fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire. At sea, the Royal Navy remained dominant, but as the Norway campaign had demonstrated, surface forces could not survive without adequate air cover.

Indeed, Britain's outlook was so bleak that some in Parliament believed privately that Churchill should negotiate some sort of peace settlement with the Nazis. David Lloyd George, the World War I British Prime Minister still serving as a member of Parliament, believed his nation's prospects in the war were dim. "I shall wait until Winston is bust," Lloyd George told his private secretary, indicating that he would push for a negotiated end to the war after Churchill failed. He was not alone in those views.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Churchill labored over his June 18th speech. A new examination of his papers, detailed recently in the UK Telegraph, shows the Prime Minister worked (and re-worked) the address until literally the last minute, fully aware of its necessity--and impact--at that particularly dark moment in British history:

"...while many consider Churchill’s oratorical mastery to have sometimes been improvised or off-the-cuff, a new examination of his papers, held at Cambridge University’s Churchill Archives Centre, reveals the toil that went into early drafts – and the revisions made until the last possible moment before delivery.

They show how the speech went through at least two drafts – the first dictated to his secretaries, then revised in longhand and then put into blank verse form for emphasis and rhythm.

Even this draft he would revise and correct right up to the last minute in red and blue ink – even insert completely new phrases.

The best example of this is on the penultimate page of these final speaking notes.

Just before the phrase "The Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin", he added in his own red pen, at the last moment, "all shall be restored".

The speech, of course, was widely praised, rallying British spirits as the nation's wartime fortunes reached their nadir. There would be more bad news in the months to come, but Churchill's magnificent oratory helped crystallize British determination and resolve. Little wonder that Mr. Churchill labored so long over his June 18th address.

It was, arguably, his finest hour. Yet, not everyone was impressed. Churchill's private secretary, Sir Jock Colville, later noted in his diaries that the Prime Minister "spoke less well" during the radio version of the address. "It was too long and he sounded tired," Colville wrote (while adding), "he ended magnificently."

Indeed he did.

Be on the Lookout

The U.S. military--and various law enforcement agencies--are looking for 17 members of the Afghan armed forces who've gone AWOL from the Defense Language Institute (DLI) at Lackland AFB, Texas.

According to Fox News, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service issued a "Be on the Lookout" bulletin for the Afghan military personnel on Wednesday night. According to the report, the 17 men have DoD ID cards, which allows them access to U.S. military installations.

A spokesman for Lackland's "host" unit, the 37th Training Wing, confirmed the AWOLs from DLI, and said the group includes both officers and enlisted personnel. All of the missing Afghan troops were undergoing English language training at the institute, which provides instruction to thousands of foreign military personnel each year.

But here's the rub: some of the Afghans have been missing for more than a year. The most recent AWOL occurred in January 2010, when 1st Lieutenant Javed Ayran disappeared. Military spokesmen offered no explanation as to why DoD waited until this week to issue the "lookout" bulletin.

Each of the missing Afghans was issued a Department of Defense Common Access Card, an identification card used to gain access to secure military installations, with which they "could attempt to enter DOD installations," according to the bulletin. Base security officers were encouraged to disseminate the bulletin to their personnel.

"The visas issued to these personnel have been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked. Lookouts have been placed in TECS," it reads.

Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), which is shared by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, is a computer-based database used to identify people suspected of violating federal law.

A federal law enforcement official described the issue as more of an "immigration problem" than a security threat, saying there is no information to link the AWOL Afghans to any terrorism or a security threat.

Still, that comment is rather puzzling. Foreign nationals over-stay their tourist or student visas on a recurring basis, contributing to our massive illegal immigration problem. But federal law enforcement doesn't routinely issue bulletins, asking state and local officials to keep an eye out for the illegals. Likewise, there is no indication that the NCIS (or other DoD investigative agency) has issued a lookout alert for other foreigners who've gone missing from DLI or other military training programs.

And, to make matters even more confusing, a senior law enforcement official told Fox that some of the AWOL Afghans have been caught. But he would not say how many are accounted for, or why the names and pictures of all 17 appear in the bulletin. Why waste time and effort on individuals who have already been apprehended?

Put another way: what does the official really mean when he says "a number of these guys have been located or accounted for?" Based on the recently-issued bulletin (and the urgency of the effort), we're guessing that "located" and "accounted for" are synonymous with "we think we know where they are."

It's also worth noting that some of the Afghans were destined for flight school after graduation from DLI. However, none had reached that stage of training, so concerns about another 9-11-style air attack are probably unfounded. Still, vetting Afghan military personnel has been problematic at best; thousands of recruits have walked away from their units and some have joined the Taliban. We're guessing there are legitimate concerns about the allegiances of some of the AWOL Afghans, their present whereabouts in the U.S. and what they might be up to.

Let the Campaign Begin!

It's (almost) enough to make you feel sorry for South Carolina Democrats.

First, the "party establishment" candidate for U.S. Senate was defeated by an unknown who spent no money on his primary bid, and never bothered to campaign. Yet, he received 59% of the vote.

Then it was revealed that the presumptive Democratic nominee, one Alvin Greene, was kicked out of the Army last year. Making matters worse, Mr. Greene is also facing felony charges for displaying obscene materials to a University of South Carolina coed.

At that point, the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, Carol Fowler, asked Greene to drop out of the race. Mr. Greene, who is unemployed, promptly declined and granted a series of interviews with the national media, proving that he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

By then, Mrs. Fowler and her associates were apoplectic. Finding someone to run against popular GOP incumbent Jim DeMint was hard enough; now, the Democrats were saddled with the worst possible candidate--someone who may soon add a felony conviction to his already shady resume.

Still, some Democrats in the Palmetto State held out hopes that Greene's legal difficulties might disqualify him and get the preferred candidate (retired Judge Vic Rawl) on the November ballot.

Well, so much for that idea. Election officials tell the Gannett News Service that Greene could still represent South Carolina in the Senate, even if he's convicted on that felony charge:

The U.S. Constitution's only requirements to seek federal office are age, residency and citizenship, Julia Queen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Elections Commission, said Tuesday.

But under South Carolina law, a felon can't vote — at least not until they've served their sentence and any probationary period and paid any restitution required, said South Carolina Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire.

[snip]

Tuesday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-profit group, asked South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster — who lost a bid in the GOP gubernatorial race last week — to investigate how Greene came up with the $10,440 filing fee required to put his name on the ballot and whether Greene "accepted an inducement" to run.

Greene, an unemployed veteran, has repeatedly said he used money saved from his service in the Army, although he was granted a free attorney in his criminal case as an indigent.

"The people of South Carolina have a right to fair, transparent and fraud-free elections," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director.

Meanwhile, other Democrats are alleging "irregularities" with voting machines that were used in the election. So far, there's no evidence to support that charge, but it does fit the party template that's used almost every time there's a close election.

So, it looks like the South Carolina Democratic Party is stuck with Alvin Greene (and vice versa). And, revelations about the nominee are still surfacing. Gawker had an e-mail exchange with a soldier who served with Greene in Korea, one of his last duty assignments during a 13-year military career that included stints in the Army and the Air Force. Mr. Greene's former colleague requested anonymity because he's still serving on active duty. He confirmed what many of us previously suspected: Green wasn't much of a soldier.

Q: Could you tell me a bit about your time working with Greene?

A: During the first couple of weeks of working with him, myself and most everyone else noticed that he wasn't all there mentally. Whenever he was given a simple task such as filling a temporary hand receipt it would never get done, mainly because he didn't know how to fill one out. And this is the most fundamental part of the job.

He also didn't show much interest in being a soldier. For instance, he was asked to do maintenance on the M249. This system is a little more complex than the regular service rifle. When it came to Greene's turn he was able to take the weapon apart but didn't know where to start when it came to put it back together. He showed no interest in learning and would mumble under his breath about not wanting to do it. So after a couple of months of trying and not getting anywhere, people just made sure he was where he was supposed to be and in the correct uniform. He would just basically come to work and stare at the wall till it was time for lunch and then do the same till it was time to go home for the day. The platoon sergeant tried to get him to go see a doctor for help but he would never seek help.

[snip]

Q: There's been a lot of speculation about where he got the $10,400 filing fee necessary to run for Senate. He says he saved up from the Army. Do you think that's possible?

A: I think that was very possible. Greene didn't do anything during his personal time, and ate at the post dining facility religiously. The first time I saw his room all he had was a radio and a couple sets of clothes, which is not unusual for someone that just moved to a new post. But after 5 months all he had was just a radio and a couple sets of clothes still. Considering his lifestyle and coming back from Korea I believe he could have saved over $10,400, and spent it on putting himself on the ballot.

Greene has been very vague as to why he left the army. He says it was an honorable but "involuntary" discharge. Do you know the circumstances behind his discharge?

I really can't say what the circumstances were under which he was discharged, but I think it might have been failure to adapt. [Greene was transferred to a different brigade before being discharged last year.]

The soldier also reported that Greene was only an E-3 (Private First Class) after his stint in Korea. He had apparently been demoted during that tour, in conjunction with disciplinary action reportedly taken against Greene. As you might imagine, the candidate isn't talking about his failed military career. "Things weren't working out" is the only comment Greene has offered (so far).

According to the soldier, Greene was simply lazy and working the system to get by. He told Gawker that he's seen individuals with serious conditions (bi-polar, alcoholism) that put forth more effort. Amazingly, Greene is a college graduate who earned a bachelor's degree from the University of South Carolina. Somehow, we don't think Mr. Greene will wind up on the cover of USC's alumni magazine.

Meanwhile, we can expect more revelations about Greene and his past. Somewhere along the way, he also served as an Air Force intelligence specialist, a job that requires a high ASVAB score and completion of a long technical training course. How does someone who can't fill out a supply receipt make it through the USAF's intel program? Beyond that, did he actually serve a tour as an intelligence specialist, and perform adequately on the job?

That question becomes relevant when you consider his subsequent enlistment in the U.S. Army. Despite recruiting problems in the not-too-distant past, it's hard to believe the Army would take a former "blue suiter" who didn't have a satisfactory record in the USAF. Either Greene was a better airman than he was a soldier (very unlikely), or someone in the Air Force let him slide by. We're guessing that someone at Randolph (home of the service's personnel center) and Goodfellow AFB (the intel training center) are now reviewing their files, preparing for inevitable questions about Alvin Greene.

It's a long time between now and the general election in November. We're guessing that South Carolina Democrats will be very tired of Mr. Greene (and his checkered past), long before voters go to the polls.

Unable to Serve

In recent months, we've chronicled the efforts of an organization called Mission Readiness, which bills itself as "Military leaders for kids." Most of the group's members are former flag officers, who are on a crusade to improve the education, fitness and nutrition of America's youth.

From their perspective, these issues are becoming a national security problem. In its various reports, Mission Readiness has noted that more than 70% of young and women between the ages of 18-25 (the primary age group targeted for military enlistment) no longer meet basic standards for serving in the armed forces.

To be fair, we've had our differences with Mission Readiness. For example, we think the group puts too much emphasis on the problem of childhood obesity, while down-playing the impact of criminal activity, drug use and poor education as disqualifiers for military service. As we observed in a recent post, overweight recruits willing to change their diet and exercise habits can still qualify for a slot in the armed forces.

But it's military can't accept enlistees with a history of drug use, an extensive rap sheet or an education that left them unable to achieve a minimum score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test. And, studies indicate that most recruits are rejected for more than one reason, so it's more than just obesity that makes many young Americans ineligible to serve. Mission Readiness would be well-served (in our opinion) by devoting more time--and attention--to the crime, drug and educational issues that hinder recruitment efforts.

Still, the retired flag officers deserve some credit for at least calling attention to the problem, and putting a local face on it. Mission Readiness has staged a number of events in state capitals and large cities, usually in conjunction with a new report on obesity, fitness or educational trends in that area.

These reports (and accompanying press coverage) are clearly aimed at shaming local officials into action. So far, these awareness events haven't had much of an impact, but they offer another reminder that these problems are not limited geographically. Consider these findings from their latest report, on the state of Pennsylvania:

A nonprofit group says that up to 90 percent of young Philadelphians are ineligible for military service because of criminal records, obesity or lack of education.

Pennsylvania-based Mission: Readiness released its report Monday. It says 1 million Pennsylvanians are ineligible for the same reasons.

[snip]

The report says 145,000 Philadelphians ages 18 to 24 cannot meet the military’s medical, moral and mental standards.

Mission Readiness used the Pennsylvania event to make its usual push for more funding in Pre-K programs. Members of the group claim those programs give children a better foundation for academic and personal success. Again, those priorities may be misplaced. Why are the expectations for these programs so high, when billions of dollars invested in Head Start have been largely a failure, in terms of spurring academic success.

But the retired generals and admirals are correct in their bottom-line assessment. Tomorrow's military cannot be sustained by young people who cannot pass muster. Today, barely one in four Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 can meet entrance requirements for the armed forces. It's an absolute disgrace, and until we address problems affecting that statistic--beyond obesity, nutrition and Pre-K education--our pool of potential recruits will shrink even more.

Problem Solved?

It may be the most vexxing problem facing the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities: how do you get the strike package--and support aircraft--through miles of hostile airspace, and still achieve some degree of tactical surprise?

After the fall of Saddam, it was assumed the Israel would cross through Iraqi airspace, now under the control of the U.S. military. In recent years, various U.S. officials have offered mixed reactions to that possibility, ranging from "hell no," to "we might intercept Israeli jets if they fly through Iraqi skies. Translation? If you're going after Iran, find another routing option.

And, for more than a decade, that "other option" was believed to be Turkey. The two nations had strong defense ties; in fact, IAF squadrons trained in Turkish airspace on a semi-annual basis, and Ankara's F-16s reciprocated, using electronic warfare ranges in Israel.

But with the Turkish government's steady march towards Islamic fundamentalism--and the recent showdown over the Gaza "aid flotilla"--the Turkey option is no longer viable. That development (seemingly) left the Israelis with two marginal options. First, route the entire package, including aerial tankers, around the Arabian Peninsula and up the Persian Gulf. Not only would that increase flight time and distance, it would also decrease the number of aircraft that could be assigned to the mission (based on tanker capabilities), and increase chances for detection before strike formations reach Iranian airspace.

The other alternative goes something like this: use deception tactics to "sneak" tankers and strike aircraft along an air corridor, most likely through southern Turkey. The refueling aircraft would mimic commercial aircraft, while the strike fighters fly in a close "resolution cell" formation behind the KC-707's, hiding in the radar "shadow" of the larger jets. This particular option would give the Israelis a more direct route, but there are risks as well. Something as simple as an aircraft slightly out of formation could give away the entire operation, and force cancellation of the raid.

But the Israelis may have other tricks up their sleeve. We've written previously about a possible "Kurdistan" option, with IAF support aircraft (and commandos) pre-deploying to the semi-autonomous region of northern Iraq, using airfields in that area as staging bases.

And, according to the U.K. Times, Israel may have secured an even better routing option--through Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

If these reports are accurate (and they've been making the rounds for a while), it would represent the second time the Saudis have cast a blind eye towards an Israeli strike. When the IAF bombed Saddam's nuclear complex in June 1981, U.S. AWACS aircraft (then deployed to Saudi Arabia) were operating away from their usual "orbit" over the northern part of the kingdom--with the concurrence of the Royal Saudi Air Force. Urban legend also says the Israeli formation was challenged (in Arabic) by a Saudi ground controller. Prepared for that possibility, one of the Israeli pilots responded in the same language and the mission proceeded.

Three decades later, the Saudi air defense system is a bit more complex, built around F-15s, Patriot missile batteries, 3-D surveillance radars and computerized command-and-control nodes. Given the existing levels of redundancy, taking various sensors "off line" for a bit was probably necessary, to prevent an inadvertent engagement and (more importantly) provide plausible deniability. If the Israelis go after Iran--and fly through Saudi airspace--Riyadh needs a cover story, explaining why its multi-billion dollar defenses failed to detect and engage the IAF package.

Sometimes in the Middle East, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" isn't enough of an excuse.

How Times Change

When I first arrived in South Carolina 30 years ago (on my first Air Force assignment), the local Republican Party was virtually non-existent. In fact, the running joke was that the Palmetto State GOP consisted of Strom Thurmond and three other guys. Senator Thurmond was guaranteed re-election for life, but no other candidate running as a Republican could win a race for dog catcher.

The tide began to turn in the 80s, as thousands of disaffected Democrats abandoned their party forever. By the 1990s, the GOP had become dominant in South Carolina, controlling both houses of the state legislature and (more often than not), the governor's mansion as well. Those trends persist today; a couple of Dims hang on in the state's congressional delegation, but they're little more than afterthoughts. And neither of those Congressmen (John Spratt and James Clyburn) entertain any serious aspirations at state-wide office.

To be sure, the Republican ascendancy in South Carolina has its dark side. When outgoing Governor Mark Sanford admitted to martial infidelity last year, the state's Lieutenant Governor, Andre Brauer, tried to run him out of Columbia on a rail. Mr. Brauer claimed that Sanford could no longer govern effectively. Of course, a Sanford resignation would have put Brauer in the governor's chair, giving him a leg up in the 2010 race for that job.

More recently, Mr. Brauer has been touting results of a polygraph test, which (in his words) "prove" that he wasn't the source of adultery rumors about the GOP front-runner, state representative Nikki Haley. Fittingly, Brauer finished dead last in Tuesday's Republican primary, with only 12% of the vote. As for Ms. Haley, she received 49% of the vote, more than double that of her nearest challenger (Congressman Gresham Barrett), her opponent in a June run-off.

But if the South Carolina GOP has its problems, state Democrats have apparently hit rock-bottom. Going into yesterday's primary, it was widely assumed that State Representative Vic Rawl would win the party's nomination for U.S. Senate, and face Republican incumbent Jim Demint in November. Rawl had campaigned widely across the state and raised almost $200,000 in an effort to secure the nomination. His only opposition was 32-year-old Alvin Greene, an unemployed veteran who lives with his parents in Manning, South Carolina. As far as anyone can tell, Mr. Greene spent no money on his race, didn't bother to campaign, and doesn't even own a cell phone or computer.

You probably know what happened Tuesday.

Greene, the "stealth" candidate, beat Rawl handily, 59-41%. But his joy was short-lived; this morning, ABC News reported that the Democratic Senatorial nominee was kicked out the Army last year, and is facing a pending felony charge for attempting to show "obscene pictures from a website" to a student at the University of South Carolina.

There's no word on when Mr. Greene will have his day in court. Meanwhile, he faces tough questions about his military career, and those criminal charges. An ABC producer described Greene as sometimes "rambling" and "incoherent" during their interview.

Just the guy to represent South Carolina Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. I'm sure Senator Demint can't wait to debate Mr. Greene, assuming the challenger actually shows up--or isn't in jail. State Democratic Party officials say they're dumbfounded by Greene's victory. Winthrop University political science professor Scott Huffmon says Mr. Greene's astounding win "says something about the Democratic bench" in the Palmetto State.

No kidding.
***
ADDENDUM: Greene's no-frills (read: no money) campaign reminds us of the late Monroe Schwarzlose, the elderly turkey farmer who challenged Bill Clinton for the 1980 Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Arkansas. Mr. Schwarzlose spent $4,000 on his run for office, mostly for copies of canning recipes that he distributed as campaign literature. Traveling across the state in overalls and knee boots, Schwarzlose received 30% of the vote against the future President. However, we should note that Schwarzlose (unlike Alvin Greene) was an honorably discharged veteran, and he wasn't facing felony charges during his political career.

UPDATE (8:44 pm, EDT): According to WCBD-TV (Charleston) Democratic State Party chair Carol Fowler has officially asked Mr. Greene to drop out of the race. But with no job--and no court date scheduled--why should he? Incidentally, today marked the first time that Ms. Fowler has spoken with her party's presumptive Senate nominee. Quite an introductory conversation, eh?

Today's Reading Assignment

...from Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal. She refers to President Obama as "The Alien in the White House," a man completely disconnected from his fellow Americans, save members of his elite, ideological class. A sample paragraph:

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

Read the whole thing. Simply brillant.

Bringing a Thud Back to Life

An F-105 Thunderchief with full bomb load. The Air Force is opposing efforts of a private foundation to restore--and fly--one of these vintage warbirds (Wikipedia photo).

Aviation enthusiasts looking for a charitable cause should consider The Collings Foundation. For more than 30 years, the organization has supported "living history," allowing Americans to learn about their heritage through direct participation.

Beginning with transportation-related events like antique car rallies and hill climbs, the foundation quickly expanded its focus to include aviation projects, such as air shows, barnstorming and the restoration of classic military aircraft. Since 1985, the organization and its supporters have restored more than 20 vintage warbirds, including a B-17 Flying Fortress and a B-24 Liberator that are are still airworthy.

More recently, the Collings Foundation has introduced a "Vietnam War Heritage Flight" featuring an F-4 Phantom and an A-4 Skyhawk. These aircraft, along with other aircraft in the foundation's collection, routinely appear at airshows across the country, providing a vivid reminder of air wars past. The organization also offers flights on some of its aircraft, to help defray the high cost of maintaining and operating their warbirds (flight expenses for the F-4 run $9,000 an hour, and replacing a single engine on the B-24 costs $60,000).

Relying on contributions from corporate sponsors, private donors and receipts from passenger flights, The Collings Foundation has managed to keep its fleet in the air, without a dime of taxpayer money, or logistical support from the U.S. military.

While thousands thrill to the sights (and sounds) of the organization's warbirds every year, few are aware that the foundation is currently battling expand its collection of Vietnam-era aircraft. To complement the Phantom and the Skyhawk, The Collings Foundation would like to add an F-105 Thunderchief, the legendary aircraft that bore the brunt of our bombing campaigns against North Vietnam.

But so far, the Air Force has been resistant. A few weeks back, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz discussed the matter with the foundation's director, Dr. Bob Collings, and retired Colonel Leo Thorsness, the legendary "Thud" pilot who won the Medal for Honor for his actions over North Vietnam, and spent more than five years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. After the meeting, Colonel Thorsness sent out an e-mail to other Thud veterans, including Ed Rasimus, who frequently comments on this site. We're reprinting most of the e-mail, with Ed's permission.

Dr Collings and I met with the USAF Chief of Staff, General Schwartz, Friday, May 14th. I spoke as the "face" of the Thud, representing officially the Wild Weasels, and for many River Rats, POWs and MOH recipients.

Gen Schwartz was straight forward and said the AF was not in favor of giving a Thud away because of three reasons: Availability, Sustainability and Liability.

I opened our rebuttal citing the emotional side mentioning most or all members of the organizations (above) are in favor of seeing a Thud airborne again. I said that a flying Thud would be a phenomenal memorial to all living and dead Thud aviators, maintainers and want to be "Thuders" - to all Vietnam Veterans. I cited Thud numbers: just over 800 built, just under 400 lost in combat, just over 100 Thud aviators killed in actions and right at 100 POW Thud Aviators.

Next Dr Collings professionally and methodically rebutted the three issues mentioned by General Schwartz:

Availability: there are just over 100 Thuds available - about 23 F & G. Dr Collings had pictures of several sitting on ramps as pigeon poop collectors with panels falling off etc. He also told the Chief that there are Museums who have offered "their" Thud to the Collings Foundation.

Sustainability: Dr Collings said the Collings Foundation would ask for the eight thuds, which will succumb to corrosion, sitting on the ramp at Lackland AFB as "spare parts" and did not feel sustainability would ever be a problem. He noted a Thud flying nowadays would be much easier to maintain than a Wartime Thud. Example: the air ducts would be in permanent sub-sonic position as FAA does not allow the Thud to fly supersonic. Dr Collings did a good job refuting the sustainability issue. Also they have maintained a F-4 & A-4. And have received no support from the USAF. That 2-engine beast requires a lot more attention.

Liability also was well refuted. The Collings folks have been flying the F-4 for 11 years, and about five years flying the A-4. There are several legal "hold harmless" precedents that have held the government harmless after a USAF / Army Air Corp aircraft has had incidents. The Liability issues were well handled, like the Sustainability and Availability issues.

I closed the meeting mentioning that we Thud aviators did our best for the Air Force and United States - often knowing the odds for Weasels were greater than 50 percent of being shot down at the beginning of the war. I appealed saying that I hope the Air Force would go to bat for us as we Thud drivers did the Air Force in Vietnam. Also I mentioned that there are over 200 Vietnam era Soviet bloc country jets flying in the United State - we should be allow at least one Thud in the air.

To his credit, General Schwartz said they would "Double back" on the issues/concerns. After that, he will ask us to another meeting for their final decision to support or oppose the Collings Foundation getting a F-105F/G.

Sorry for the long report. But as long as we spent in Hanoi, I felt this report deserved more than one summary paragraph.

The battle is not won, but nor have we lost. The battle is ongoing to get a Thud airborne. Whatever support you are willing to give is appreciated gents. Congressional support is paramount and any calls that can be made are very helpful. We are still waiting to hear if Ike Skelton, Chairman House Armed Services Committee will support this. No response yet!

Best regards, tailwinds

Leo Thorsness

While Dr. Collings and Colonel Thorsness presented a compelling case, getting a Thud back in the skies, both the foundation and the project's supporters face an uphill battle. Recently, the Air Force released a letter, through the Vice Chief of Staff, opposing any effort to transfer an F-105 to the Collings Foundation. And, there's no mean irony in the example cited by Colonel Thorsness; virtually any wealthy aviator with the money (and inclination) can buy a vintage MiG and punch holes in the America sky. But efforts to restore--and fly--the legendary fighter that fought those MiGs over North Vietnam are being stonewalled by the same service that sent the Thuds (and their pilots) "downtown," more than 40 years ago.

If you can spare a few bucks in these challenging economic times, consider a donation to The Collings Foundation and its educational mission. And if you've got a moment, send an e-mail or make a call to Congressman Skelton's office, and ask for his support in bringing an F-105 back to life.

***

ADDENDUM: If you're looking for a great read this summer, grab a copy of Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds, co-written by Ed Rasimus and Olds' daughter, Christina. We also recommend Ed's own memoirs of Vietnam, When Thunder Rolled and Palace Cobra: A Fighter Pilot in the Vietnam Air War. Both have been compared to the best of Saint-Exupéry and Ernest K. Gann. And rightfully so.

The Next Bubble?

If Steve Eisman's name rings a bell, it should. He's well-known in financial circles as the portfolio manager who took a huge bet against the sub-prime mortgage industry and made millions, as chronicled in Michael Lewis's recent book The Big Short.

I recently picked up a copy of The Big Short, and (like Mr. Lewis's other books), it's a compelling read. Suffice it to say that Steve Eisman emerges as one of the few clear-thinking individuals in the book. As an exceedingly blunt Wall Street analyst, Eisman began sounding the alarm about sub-prime loans in the late 1990s and when no one paid attention, he positioned himself to profit from the inevitable collapse.

Now, Mr. Eisman has found a new bubble, err target, the for-profit education industry. In a speech delivered to an investment conference late last month, he blasted the business, comparing it to the bankers, investment firms, government regulators and yes, borrowers, who created the sub-prime mess. His remarks have been widely circulated in recent weeks, in forums ranging from Mother Jones to the New York Post. He sees clear parallels between sub-prime lending and for-profit education, which is dominated by a handful of of "corporate" schools:

Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the subprime mortgage industry. I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task.

The for-profit industry has grown at an extreme and unusual rate, driven by easy access to government sponsored debt in the form of Title IV student loans, where the credit is guaranteed by the government. Thus, the government, the students and the taxpayer bear all the risk, and the for-profit industry reaps all the rewards. This is similar to the subprime mortgage sector in that the subprime originators bore far less risk than the investors in their mortgage paper.

In the past 10 years, the for-profit education industry has grown 5-10 times the historical rate of traditional post secondary education. As of 2009, the industry had almost 10% of enrolled students but claimed nearly 25% of the $89 billion of federal Title IV student loans and grant disbursements. At the current pace of growth, for-profit schools will draw 40% of all Title IV aid in 10 years.

How has this been allowed to happen?

The simple answer is that they’ve hired every lobbyist in Washington, DC. There has been a revolving door between the people who work for this industry and the halls of government. One example is Sally Stroup. In 2001-2002, she was the head lobbyist for the Apollo Group — the company behind the University of Phoenix and the largest for-profit educator. But from 2002-2006 she became assistant secretary of post-secondary education for the Department of Education under President Bush. In other words, she was directly in charge of regulating the industry she had previously lobbied for.

From 1987 through 2000, the amount of total Title IV dollars received by students of for-profit schools fluctuated between $2 billion and $4 billion per annum. But when the Bush administration took over, the DOE gutted many of the rules that governed the conduct of this industry. Once the floodgates were opened, the industry embarked on 10 years of unrestricted massive growth. Federal dollars flowing to the industry exploded to over $21 billion, a 450% increase.

Using hyper-aggressive recruiting and marketing strategies, the for-profits have signed up students by the thousands, encouraging them to use federal student loans (and other forms of government assistance) to pay for their educations. Eisman estimates that more than 50% of these students will never graduate, but they will rack up thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Ultimately, of course, the taxpayer is on the hook for these federally-guaranteed obligations. In the coming years, Mr. Eisman believes that students at the for-profits may default on as much as $275 billion in student loans, creating conditions for the next sub-prime bubble and bailout.

Is Steve Eisman correct? Certainly, his warning should not be ignored, given the continued growth of schools that specialize in adult learners, and recent Congressional action that gives the federal government a near-total monopoly in the student loan business. That legislative act is already being compared to the federal directives in the housing market, programs that mandated mortgage loans for customers who really couldn't afford them. Now, with a college loan available to virtually everyone, more students will incur debt for degrees they never complete and many will default once the note comes due, leaving the taxpayers to clean up the mess.

But in reality, the situation in sub-prime education is more complex that Eisman describes, and it extends beyond the mega-schools that dominate the for-profit market. But first, a bit of disclosure. Your humble correspondent currently works as an executive for a private, non-profit college. My institution competes against for "corporate" schools on a daily basis, across many of the market segments targeted by the for-profits. We've watched (and felt) the impact of the mega-schools, for better and for worse.

And, in fairness, the for-profits deserve some credit for helping students who were previously ignored (or under-served) by traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions. Before the advent of the University of Phoenix, Strayer University and the other corporate universities, few schools (other than community colleges) actively targeted adult learners, military personnel and other students trying to complete their education while holding down a full-time job and juggling family responsibilities.

In the past, when these "non-traditional" students tried to enroll at traditional universities, they often found course schedules that conflicted with their work hours. The few classes offered at night or on weekends were often limited in scope, and many schools offered no academic credit for military education, DATES or CLEP tests, or professional experience. The for-profits moved quickly to fill this gap, offering dozens of degree programs on-line, or at regional locations with accelerated course schedules tailored for adult learners.

Corporate schools also harnessed the power of marketing and advertising. To attract new students, they blitzed television, radio and the internet with ads touting their flexibility and accessibility. The biggest for-profit schools have literally become a "brand," backed by multi-million dollar advertising and marketing campaigns. A colleague told me that University of Phoenix's budget for education fair "give-aways" (pens, key rings, cup holders, etc) dwarfs our entire expenditure for advertising, marketing and promotion.

But the explosive growth of the corporate schools has come at a price. Students can literally call a mega-school and move from "interest" to actual "enrollment" in a single, 30-minute phone call. The result is a lot of students who ill-prepared to continue their education. When problems arise, they're (typically) referred to a call center, and conversations with academic "advisers" or financial aid counselors who know the student as only another "profit center" or number in the system. Other students are turned off by unresponsive instructors, or the outrageous fees charged for simple services (one of the biggest on-line schools charges $45 for a copy of the student's transcript).

Ironically, these practices create openings for other schools, including my employer. Our on-line program grew out of a traditional, brick-and-mortar campus, and we've worked hard to provide superior support and assistance to our students. In fact, we've attracted a number of one-line students who "began" with the mega-schools and grew disaffected. In that sense, we don't want the big boys to change their business model, because they're creating legions of unhappy students who move on to more responsive institutions.

Ordinarily, competition is a good thing and for all their faults, the mega-schools have created more choices and options for students. For example, U.S. military personnel can use tuition assistance or GI Bill benefits to "shop" among literally thousands of institutions, offering degree programs on-campus, on-base or on-line, allowing members of the armed forces to pursue a degree on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, we have the best-educated military in the nation's history, a pool of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that constitute one of our greatest national resources.

Still, the high drop-out rates (and potential loan defaults) among mega-school students bear watching. But so do similar trends at "traditional" schools. The 432% increase in the cost of a higher education (since 1982) is not limited to for-profit institutions. Plenty of public and private colleges now eagerly pursue adult learners, offering on-line and "hybrid" programs, in addition to their on-campus degrees.

And these institutions still attract large numbers of students. At last report, the State University of New York (SUNY) was still the nation's largest university system, with more than 400,000 students. State-supported college systems in places California and Texas aren't far behind. Mr. Eisman might want to keep an eye on those "flagship" universities which churn out thousands of graduates every year with high-priced--but largely worthless--degrees. The New York Times recently profiled a college graduate who took out $70,000 in student loans to finance a degree in religious and women's studies. Now, she can't find a job. Are such programs the best use of federal student loan dollars? Ironically, most of the mega-schools focus on degrees (business, education, computer science) that have some value.

Truth be told, there is much that can be done to clean up the student loan program before it becomes a crisis. For starters, the feds need to give students a financial stake in their own education before the first loan payment comes due. Reduce the amount of tuition and fees covered by a loan to say, 75% of the total cost. The military did this for years with its tuition assistance program for active duty personnel and it was highly successful. With service members financing part of their education, they were (generally) more careful about finding the right course of study and sticking with it.

Similar effects could be achieved with civilian students. Not only will students shop around for the best deal, colleges and universities will determine how much students can afford to pay out-of-pocket, and price accordingly. Some institutions may still charge premium rates (based on prestige and their academic reputations), but the vast majority will be forced to hold the line on tuition costs--or even reduce them--to remain competitive.

Here's another idea: take a portion of the money currently allocated for federal student loans and put it into scholarship programs, pegged to programs and degrees that have a future, or meet specific needs. The Air Force been doing this for years with its ROTC scholarship program. Not only do applicants have to meet academic criteria, they must also agree to major in a subject (engineering or the hard sciences) that fills a projected requirement for the service. Who knows? Perhaps the prospect of a free education might entice some students to think beyond ethnic studies and interpretative dance in selecting a major.

Additionally, Congress should revoke the federal government's recently-implemented monopoly in student loans. Under the new arrangement, education finance programs will begin to resemble Medicare; the government will set reimbursement and paying bills with no regard for cost containment or efficiency. Look at the rampant fraud that permeates Medicare, and you'll get a look at the student loan program, circa 2015. Increasing choice in the student loan program--along with other reforms--will help hold down tuition costs for the next generation of college students.

One reform we oppose is a planned debt-service-to-income ratio proposed by the Department of Education, and scheduled to take effect next summer. Under that system, debt service on an individual's student loans could not exceed eight percent of their income, a rule that will (supposedly) force the schools to charge less, or see their enrollments decline.

But the ratio rule strikes us as arbitrary and impractical. Should Yale and Princeton be forced to charge less so their drama majors-turned-starving actors--pay only 8% towards student loan repayment? Or what about doctors or lawyers who attend top-flight schools and then volunteer for military service, earning far less than their civilian counterparts? In both cases, the effect will be the same: students will be repaying college loans for most of their adult lives. We believe a better reform package can be built around market-based incentives that encourages students (and parents) to borrow less, and seek academic programs that offer greater rewards, before and after graduation.

Mr. Eisman deserves credit for highlighting the looming crisis in federally-backed student loans. But the problems go well beyond the handful of for-profit schools that now dominate certain segments of the education industry. Traditional colleges and universities have been just as responsible for the spiraling cost of a higher education, taking advantage of the financial aid system as it now exists. We need a system that promotes choice and individual responsibility, regardless of where a student pursues their college degree.
***
ADDENDUM: One reform we can support involves changes in the accreditation process. To receive federal Title IV funds (from the student loan program), institutions must be regionally accredited. To meet that requirement, some of the for-profits have acquired small, financially-distressed schools that have a regional accreditation. The mega-schools buy all of the institution's assets, but they're really after the accreditation, which transfers to the new owners. While accreditation bodies are private, they should mandate a new review when a school changes ownership. That would force (some) of the rapidly-growing corporate schools to improve their own academic programs, and end the process of buying schools simply for their accreditation.

The Right Man for the Job?

According to the Washington Post and other media outlets, retired Air Force Lieutenant General James R. Clapper, Jr. will be named the next Director of National Intelligence. Clapper, who currently serves as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, will be introduced at a Rose Garden event tomorrow morning.

While Clapper is largely unknown to most Americans, he has served in the intelligence community for most of his adult life. As a young signals intelligence officer, Clapper flew collection missions over Southeast Asia on a modified EC-47 aircraft. He advanced steadily over the decades that followed, serving as a senior intelligence officer in Korea during the mid-80s, and as the Air Force's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence during the first Gulf War. At the time of his retirement from active duty in 1995, Clapper was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

As a civilian, Clapper spent time at two defense contractors before returning to government service in 2001 as the first civilian director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which processes and analyzes much of the data collected from spy satellites and other sensors. He spent five years at the agency before resigning in 2006, reportedly because of conflicts with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Clapper testified before Congress that DoD's four major intelligence agencies should report to the DNI, a position that angered his boss.

After Rumsfeld left the Pentagon, Clapper was nominated to rejoin the Bush Administration, this time as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that post, he served as chief advisor on intel matters to the new SecDef, Robert Gates, and his deputy, William Lynn. Clappper also functioned as DoD's primary liason to the DNI, led by retired Navy Admiral Mike McConnell (under President Bush), and more recently, under another former Navy flag officer, Dennis Blair.

Admiral Blair was forced out of the DNI post earlier this month, after only 15 months on the job. His tenure was marked by intelligence failures associated with the unsuccessful "underwear bomber" plot to bring down a U.S. jetliner and run-ins with other members of President Obama's national security team, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and John Brennan, the White House's senior counterterrorism advisor.

In terms of background and experience, Jim Clapper is (arguably) the most-qualified man for the job. He's one of the few spooks who has run two major intelligence agencies, and (more importantly), General Clapper knows the nuts-and-bolts of the business. He knows the star performers (and the weak sisters) in the intelligence community, and has definite ideas about making the DNI construct more efficient and effective.

By comparison, Admiral Blair was a career "ship driver" whose only previous intel experience was as a consumer. He never mastered the community's unique culture and was quickly overwhelmed by the vast bureaucracy and its cut-throat attitude towards "outsiders." Blair's "feuds" with politically-wired opponents like Panetta and Brennan only sealed his fate. In the halls of the DNI (and various intel agencies) Admiral Blair was described as a "dead man walking" long before his departure was announced.

But will Clapper fare any better? Managing an intelligence apparatus that consists of 16 different agencies (and thousands of employees) is a daunting (some would say impossible) task. General Clapper certainly understands the terrain--and he knows the key players--but there's no guarantee he can meld them into a more effective team.

Indeed, Clapper will face many of the same challenges that bedeviled his predecessors. The DNI has limited budget authority, curtailing his ability to control agencies and their operations. Intel organizations have, in the past, found it convenient to slow-roll (or even ignore) DNI directives that aren't to their liking.

Clapper may also have problems with his boss in the White House. During the Bush Administration, General Clapper was a strong supporter of enhanced interrogation techniques, though he also fought for more transparency and accountability in intelligence matters. Clapper may well find himself in a major battle the next time a terror suspect is detained at an airport (or in a foreign land) and other administration officials push to treat the individual as a criminal defendant, and not a hostile combatant.

General Clapper also faces opposition in Congress. Both the Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (California's Diane Feinstein) and the ranking Republican (Kit Bond of Missouri) have expressed reservations, noting that Clapper was often reluctant to brief Congress on the Pentagon's intelligence activities. After 45 years in the intel business, Clapper knows that Congress leaks like a seive, but stonewalling the SSCI doesn't win you any favors from people that control your budget.

All in all, Jim Clapper is a definite improvement over Admiral Blair, bringing experience and expertise back to the DNI post. Will it be enough? Time will only tell. But for his second Director of National Intelligence, President Obama finally had the sense to appoint an intel professional to the post. That's a step in the right direction.

Today's Reading Assignment

Traditional, "print" journalism (as typlified by your daily newspaper) is dying on the vine. You need a score card to keep track of the papers that have gone belly up over the past 20 years.

And news magazines aren't far behind (pssst...hey buddy, wanna buy Newsweek? No, not a copy--the whole thing). Jon Meacham can't envision a society without his magazine, but apparently the Washington Post Company can. Unfortunately, they haven't found anyone willing to take the money-losing publication off their hands.

Needless to say, members of the MSM--and their friends in the Democratic Party--view the demise of print journalism as a sign of the apocalypse. Barney Frank was among the first on Capitol Hill to float the idea of a newspaper bailout and more recently, the Federal Trade Commission has proposed financial aid for media companies and even government programs to "promote" the hiring of journalists. Mark Tapscott wonders aloud if journalists will awaken in time to save their profession from the FTC.

But we digress. Obviously, free markets are the best way to determine the future media landscape, and quite naturally, that idea is feared by journos and their political cronies alike. Left entirely to the forces of capitalism, the current media model won't exist in 10-15 years, with daily newspapers going the way of the Edsel and AM rock stations. That means thousands of J-school grads will have to find a real job (or actually report the news), and politicians will have to look elsewhere for fawning coverage.

Still, there might be a third way to save journalism, without increased government regulation and subsidies, and without eliminating all the newspapers and magazines. In his latest piece for The Weekly Standard, P.J. O'Rourke proposes a radical solution that might boost readership, without any infusion of taxpayer dollars. He calls it The Pre-Obituary:

The main advantage of the Pre-Obit over the traditional obituary is the knowledge of reader and writer alike that the as-good-as-dead people are still around to have their feelings hurt. It was a travesty of literary justice that we waited until J. D. Salinger finally hit the delete key at 91 before admitting that Catcher in the Rye stinks. The book’s only virtue is that it captures, with annoying accuracy, the maunderings of a twerp. The book’s only pleasure is in slamming the cover shut—simpler than slamming the door shut on a real Holden Caulfield, if less satisfying. The rest of Salinger’s published oeuvre was precious or boring or both. But we felt constrained to delay saying so, perhaps because of an outdated Victorian hope for a death-bed flash of genius.

Let us wait no more. With the Pre-Obituary we can abandon pusillanimous constraint and false hope and say what we think about the lives of public nuisances when their lives are not yet a dead letter. And we won’t be stuck in the treacle of nostalgia and sentiment. We won’t find ourselves saying of some oaf, “His like will not pass this way again.” Or, if we do say it, we can comfortably add, “Thank God!” The precept of Diogenes isn’t “Do not speak ill of the living.”

Think of the opportunities we’ve missed already. Bea Arthur (1922-2009) performed a grievous disservice to popular culture by uniting two equally dreadful but previously discrete American types. In her portrayal of loud, Bolshie Maude, Arthur taught every angry feminist to be a common scold and every termagant housewife to be Emma Goldman. Once Arthur had become respectable by dying no one had the nerve to title her funeral notice “The Taming of the Shrew.”

Paul Newman (1925-2008) was not, in and of himself, a bad person. But he deserved to be damned to his face for lending charm to the smirk of liberalism. And after he’d become an immortal only a heartless writer would have pointed out that for an entire generation of young people, Paul Newman is, mainly, a salad dressing.

[snip]

Jimmy Carter is 85. We must hasten to throw the Camp David Accord in his face before he heads to his eternal camp-out with Anwar el-Sadat. Gore Vidal is 84. There’s no chance he’ll end up in the same place as Bill Buckley. We ought to take up Buckley’s gauntlet and slap Gore’s face here and now. Noam Chomsky is 81. Why should Satan have all the fun? We own pitchforks of fact aplenty with which to prod his living flesh. Norman Lear is 87 and will be married to Maude forever any minute now. (Although Lear may find himself forgiven. He never meant to make Archie Bunker a hero and a role model, but perhaps the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.) Ed Asner is 80. Put him together with Ben Bradlee (88) and Alan J. Pakula, director of All the President’s Men (died in 1998, darn it), and you have the villains in the tragic tale of the American newspaper’s self-congratulatory ossification. Ross Perot also will be 80 soon. We owe him one Bill Clinton-sized philippic. Ralph Nader is 76. High time that someone, metaphorically, flipped him in a Corvair. And Paul Ehrlich is 78. In these days of the graying workforce, baby bust, and demographic decline, surely he needs a population bomb in his underpants.

The pre-obituary. An idea whose time has come. Before theirs does.

Who Lost Turkey?

That's the question currently making the rounds in Washington, D.C. Many observers were stunned by Ankara's support of the "aid mission" to Gaza that ended in a confrontation with Israeli commandos.

So, how does an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) get involved with groups that are sworn enemies of Israel? And, how did we fail to notice Turkey's move away from the west, and towards its new friends like Iran and Syria?

As Robert Pollock explains in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, Ankara's march towards Islamic extremism began almost a decade ago, with the election of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Since then, Turks have been fed a steady diet of anti-Semitic (and anti-U.S. propaganda), inflaming public sentiment against two of the nation's most important allies:

To follow Turkish discourse in recent years has been to follow a national decline into madness. Imagine 80 million or so people sitting at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. They don't speak an Indo-European language and perhaps hundreds of thousands of them have meaningful access to any outside media. What information most of them get is filtered through a secular press that makes Italian communists look right wing by comparison and an increasing number of state (i.e., Islamist) influenced outfits. Topics A and B (or B and A, it doesn't really matter) have been the malign influence on the world of Israel and the United States.

For example, while there was much hand-wringing in our own media about "Who lost Turkey?" when U.S. forces were denied entry to Iraq from the north in 2003, no such introspection was evident in Ankara and Istanbul. Instead, Turks were fed a steady diet of imagined atrocities perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq, often with the implication that they were acting as muscle for the Jews. The newspaper Yeni Safak, Erdogan's daily read, claimed that Americans were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that local mullahs had issued a fatwa ordering residents not to eat the fish. The same paper repeatedly claimed that the U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah. And it reported that Israeli soldiers had been deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and that U.S. forces were harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis for sale on the U.S. "organ market."

It is especially telling that Mr. Erdogan, in a subsequent interview with Robert Pollock, refused to denounce such claims. That is hardly a surprise; such lies clearly serve his political goals. Now, in the wake of the Gaza incident, Erdogan's foreign minister is demanding U.S. "solidarity" with Turkey. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to take the bait. So far.

The question really isn't "who" lost Turkey. Ankara lost its way years ago. The question now is what happens to its relationships with the U.S., Israel and NATO. As we noted previously, Tel Aviv has gone out of its way to preserve its long-standing relationship with the Turkish military, which remains the cornerstone of the modern, secular state. We would hope that our own Defense Department is doing the same thing.

Bottom line: someone needs to take the pulse of the Turkish General Staff (TGS); if Ankara's senior military leaders are firmly behind their Islamist Prime Minister, then it may be impossible to preserve our alliance with Turkey.

What a Surprise

...many of the "peace activists" aboard those Gaza-bound "aid" vessels have ties to terror groups. And it will come as no surprise that many of the same "activists" had no identification papers when they were detained by Israeli commandos who boarded the ships.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit has details the MSM chooses to ignore:

A majority of the arrested “peace activists” who brutally attacked the Israeli soldiers with pipes, metal rods. chairs and knives are linked to terror groups including Al-Qaeda. Several are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The activists include Turks, Yemenites and Indonesians. And, many of the arrested “peace” fanatics have no identification papers.

More from Israel's YNet News:

The ongoing interrogation of passengers who were aboard the Marmara – the Gaza aid flotilla's flagship – revealed that the majority of those who attacked the Israeli Naval Commandos boarding the ship have direct and indirect Global Jihad ties.

Israel's investigation has revealed some 100 people infiltrated the peace and humanitarian aid activists making their way to Gaza, with the explicit design to attack Israeli soldiers using cold arms.

Some among that group are believed to have ties with World Jihad groups, mainly al-Qaeda.

The majority of suspects are Turks, but some are Yemenites and Indonesian. One Yemenite Islamist was photographed with a dagger in his belt prior to the raid.

The suspects are not cooperating with investigators. Most of them have no identification papers, and Israeli authorities are still trying to ascertain their identity.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority were recruited by the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.

IHH is the Turkish aid group with well-established ties to radical Islamic elements. Israeli interrogators report that some of the activists were recruited specifically to attack Israeli soldiers. Some of the suspects had large sums of cash in their possession, along with knives, metal clubs, slingshots and other weapons.

Meanwhile, Ankara's official outrage over the incident apparently has its limits. While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been highly critical of Israel--suggesting (at one point) that Tel Aviv should be banned from the U.N.--there have been extensive efforts to prevent recent incidents from seriously damaging military ties between the two countries. Turkey and Israel have a long history of security cooperation; IAF squadrons routinely train in Turkish airspace; the two nations share intelligence and Ankara buys millions of dollars in military hardware from Israeli firms ever year.

That's one reason the IDF Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi made an urgent call to his Turkish counterpart last week, after a subordinate made remarks critical of Ankara's past human rights abuses, during an address at an Israeli defense college. From Turkish Weekly:

Last week, in a lecture at the National Defense College in Glilot, [Major General Avi] Mizrahi said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been severely critical of Israel since Operation Cast Lead, should first look in the mirror. Mizrahi mentioned the massacre of the Armenians, the suppression of the Kurds, and the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus.

Officials said that Ashkenazi spoke at length with Gen. Ilker Basbug (Chief of the Turkish General Staff) and assured him that Mizrahi's remarks did not reflect the IDF's official position, and that Israel highly valued the strategic relationship it had forged over the years with the Turkish military.

Both militaries are apparently trying to steer clear of the political fray, and avoid damaging their partnership. There is also the question of how long the Turkish General Staff (TGS) will tolerate PM Erdogan's efforts to erode the nation's secular traditions. While General Basbug and his predecessor have generally followed Erdogan's party line on such issues as EU membership and Turkish sovereignty, many senior members of the TGS are uncomfortable with the PM's Islamist leanings and rhetoric.

In the aftermath of the Gaza incident, the military quickly announced that no Turkish warships would accompany the next "aid" flotilla that sails to the waters off Gaza. That was a clear reminder that the TGS remains the kingmaker in Turkish politics, and their are limits to its patience and cooperation in Mr. Erdogan's various schemes.
***
ADDENDUM: To be sure, there is a current "chill" in military relations between the Turks and the Israelis. Scheduled joint exercises have been cancelled and the IAF probably won't fly from Turkish bases anytime soon. But no one has even remotely suggested that the two countries end their military cooperation, a reminder that the TGS has ultimate veto authority over any changes in government policies.

The Murphy Defense, Redux

The military career of Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant William Gurney moved closer to an ignominious end last week. Gurney, the former top enlisted man at Air Force Material Command, was in a military courtroom, watching as attorneys presented evidence at an Article 32 hearing. The outcome of that hearing will determine if Gurney will face a court-martial on charges ranging from sexual harassment and adultery, to mis-using his official position to further personal relationships.

While a final ruling on the hearing is not expected for several weeks, it is almost certain that Gurney's case will move on to a courts-martial. Evidence presented during the Article 32 proceeding seemed credible enough to warrant a court-martial and (given its recent history in high-profile sexual harassment and misconduct cases), the service can ill-afford the perception that another high-profile defendant is getting off with a slap on the wrist.

That was the impression that resonated after scandals involving Major General Thomas Fiscus, the service's former Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier General Richard Hassan, who managed the Air Force office which handled programs and policies affecting the service's flag officers. Fiscus was accused of inappropriate relationships with a number of associates, while Hassan was charged with sexual harassment of female staffers, revolving around his apparent "foot fetish."

Both general officers were ultimately reduced in grade (to full Colonel) and forced into retirement. But they avoided a court-martial and the more serious sanctions that might have been imposed, including dismissal from service. The disposition of those cases raised new claims that the Air Force--along with other branches of the armed forces--has "different spanks for different ranks," allowing senior officers to avoid more severe punishment that would be levied on lower-ranking personnel.

That's why the Gurney case is attracting a lot of interest--and attention. As a Command Chief, Gurney wielded considerable power among AFMC's enlisted ranks, with the ability to help (or hinder) a career. Military prosecutors allege that Gurney, a 27-year Air Force veteran, abused his post by engaging in extra-marital sex with several female subordinates and making advances toward other women in the command.

But prosecuting Chief Gurney may not be a slam-dunk. During last week's Article 32 hearing, Gurney's defense attorneys did what good lawyers do--they mounted a head-long assault on their client's accusers, raising questions about their motives and veracity.

On the final day of the hearing, Gurney's defense team offered a rebuttal to earlier testimony by a female airman, who accused the former Command Chief of unwanted touching, and sending unwanted text messages to her. But two of the airman's former supervisors told the hearing she had an intermittent history of not being truthful or reliable regarding her whereabouts or military job duties.

And, in another blow to the prosecution, one of Gurney's paramours described herself as a willing participant in sex with the Chief and his wife. According to the Dayton Daily News, Master Sergeant Denise O'Connor testified that she had sex with Gurney on multiple occasions, and sometimes participated in three-way intercourse with Gurney and his wife.

MSgt Denise O’Connor said she exchanged sexually explicit text-messages with Chief Master Sergeant. William C. Gurney and, at his request, sent him nude photographs of herself.

Asked why she sent the photos, O’Connor said: “Because he made me feel sexy, he made me feel attractive.”

[snip]

O’Connor said she participated in three-way sex twice with Gurney and his wife at William Gurney’s invitation.

“The three of us had sexual intercourse,” O’Connor said, responding to questions from government lawyer Capt. Tania Bryant.

“With each other?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor said.

On one occasion, the Gurneys and O’Connor had drinks at a bar before Gurney’s wife provided a key to the couple’s hotel room, O’Connor testified.

“Did you know what that meant?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor replied.

[snip]

Under defense cross-examination, O’Connor said she voluntarily traveled to meet Gurney with the expectation of having sex.

“At no point did you feel Chief Gurney was abusing his rank?” defense lawyer Maj. Gwendolyn Beitz asked. “No,” O’Connor said.

If Major Beitz's name sounds familiar, it should. Last year, she was part of the legal team that crafted a highly successful defense strategy for Colonel Michael Murphy, the former Air Force JAG who was disbarred shortly after he joined the military, but served as a legal officer--withou the required credentials--for more than 25 years before his deceit was uncovered.

In their defense of Murphy, Beitz and her colleagues adopted a rather novel approach. Rather than focusing on Murphy's misdeeds, they argued the Colonel could not receive the "good airman" defense, because details of his service at the White House remain highly classified. A military judge (and an armed forces appellate court) agreed with their argument, ruling that Murphy could not be punished, even if he was found guilty. While the Colonel was eventually convicted, he was not dismissed from service and retired from the Air Force in April as a First Lieutenant--the last grade at which he "honorably" served.

When charges were initially filed against Chief Gurney, we wondered if his defense team would try their own variation of the Murphy defense. After all, Gurney spent most of his career in the intelligence career field; he held a high security clearance and was "read in" to various special programs that cannot be easily declassified to present as part of his defense. Given those realities, the Murphy defense seemed to be a viable option for Gurney's defense lawyers.

And that was before we learned that Major Beitz would represent Chief Gurney. In fact, her assignment to the case seems a bit odd. It is true that AFMC transferred responsibility for the Article 32 to Air Mobility Command, given Gurney's former position within Material Command. Under that arrangement, it's logical that an area defense counsel from AMC would represent Gurney. But there are a number of defense attorneys assigned to the command--and many are closer to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (where the Article 32 was held) than Major Beitz's home station of Charleston AFB, SC.

Put another way, was it mere luck of the draw that put Beitz on the defense team, or is someone in the Air Force chain trying to ensure that Gurney has the best possible representation. At this point, Gurney's acquittal is a long-shot, but there is a very good chance that he will emerge (at a reduced rank), pension and benefits intact.
***
ADDENDUM: And there may be life after the courts-martial as well. Military legal scholars might want to research the Knudsen case at Davis-Monthan 20 years ago, and its rather unusual outcome.