According to former UN Ambassador John Bolton (and other experts), Israel has just three days to strike Iran's nuclear power plant at Bushehr. That timeline is based on Tehran's plans to begin fueling the plant this weekend--with Russian assistance. Once the fuel rods are in the reactor, any strike against Bushehr would result in radioactive fallout across civilian areas--a risk that Israeli political and military officials might be unwilling to take.
Earlier this week, Mr. Bolton suggested that Tel Aviv had an eight-day window for striking Bushehr. But he revised his schedule in an interview with Israeli radio, noting that Iran and Russia would begin fueling of the plant would begin on Friday--earlier than originally planned.
"It has always been optimal that military force is used before the fuel rods are inserted," Bolton explained. "That's what Israel did in Osirak in 1991, and when they attacked the North Korean reactor built in Syria." Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and a Syrian reactor in 2007.
However Bolton didn't see any indication that an Israeli strike was going to happen. "Obviously if Israel were going to do something it wouldn't exactly be advertising it. But time is short."
Bolton said that it would be "a much more dangerous world" if Iran were to gain nuclear capability. "That's why I think it's so critical. It won't stop with Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, perhaps other states as well."
Start-up of the Bushehr plant represents another risk as well. Plutonium can be extracted from the spent fuel rods, giving Tehran another option for developing nuclear weapons. Until now, Iran's research efforts have concentrated on the highly enriched uranium (HEU) option which (typically) yields less powerful bombs.
Still, the onset of fueling operations at Bushehr does not guarantee Tehran a plutonium weapon, at least over the short term. It took North Korea decades to master the recovery process and extract enough plutonium for its small arsenal of weapons. While Iran almost certainly has access to that expertise, it would still take several years for Teharn's scientists and engineers to build their first plutonium-based bomb.
Meanwhile, the Iranians are continuing to enrich uranium, a process that represents the shortest track to a nuclear weapons capability. That's the main reason that potential Israeli (and U.S.) attack plans still focus on facilities at Esfahan and Natanz, which are closely tied to the HEU effort. There is also concern about the heavy water plant at Arak, which will support the plutonium track when it opens in 3-4 years. Many analysts believe the complexes at Esfahan, Natanz and Arak would be the primary targets in any strike scenario, with Bushehr assuming a lower priority. Still, fueling of the reactor would complicate any long-term attack plans, given the radioactivity that would be released if the complex is bombed.
Meanwhile, Tehran is trying to bolster defenses around its nuclear sites. Senior officials have promised a "display" of Iranian military might next week, but their armed forces still rely heavily on aging U.S. equipment, purchased by the Shah. On Tuesday, one of their F-4 Phantoms crashed less than five miles from Bushehr, and the Iranians are demanding the transfer of a small number of F-14s that were never delivered decades ago.
Tehran received 60 Tomcats from the U.S. before the Islamic Revolution, but four decades later, only a handful of those jets are still operational. Obviously, Washington has no plans to deliver the rest of those F-14s and even if we did, the aircraft would be coming from the "boneyard," since the Navy retired its last Tomcats a couple of years ago. Iranian demands for the "rest" of the F-14s suggests that it has had little luck in getting advanced Russian jets at requested prices, so they're looking for anything to fill the gap.
The crash of that F-4 also raises questions about the operation of Iran's air defenses. There is a "no-fly" zone around all of Tehran's nuclear complexes, defended by medium and short-range missile and AAA systems. The proximity of the F-4 to the Bushehr reactor suggests it was inside the no-fly zone (or on the edge) at the time it went down. Was the Phantom knocked down by an Iranian SAM or AAA crew? That possibility has not been confirmed, but the Iranian air defense system has a long history of confusion and poor coordination, problems that could be exploited by potential attackers.
Of course, mouting a strike takes political willpower, something that appears to be in short supply in Washington (what a surprise) and even Tel Aviv. Tehran is counting on that trend to continue, as it sprints towards the nuclear finish line.
***
ADDENDUM: DEBKA (consider the source) is reporting that the Iranian F-4 was shot down by an SA-15 SAM battery defending the Bushehr complex. If that proves accurate, it reaffirms that confusion still permeates Iran's air defense system, and such problems would only intensify during a U.S. or Israeli air strike. The same DEBKA article also claims tha three drones have crashed into the dome of the Bushehr reactor in recent days. One Iranian source said they were launched to test air defenses around the reactor site. Apparently, Iran's SAM crews are much more proficient at shooting down their own, manned fighters than they are at targeting UAVs playing the role of enemy aircraft and cruise missiles.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Today's Reading Assignment
...from a pair of brave Muslims, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah. They penned a recent op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen that deserves wider play here in the States.
Why? Because they recognize the planned "Ground Zero" mosque for what it is: a deliberate provocation aimed at squarely at the west. A few salient paragraphs:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.
The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"
So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?
[snip]
Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.
Incidentally, Mr. Fatah has a new book coming out this fall. It's entitled The Jew is Not My Enemy. We can only imagine the reception that volume will receive. But obviously, he's not afraid to stand up for the truth. If only the mayor of New York had similar courage.
Why? Because they recognize the planned "Ground Zero" mosque for what it is: a deliberate provocation aimed at squarely at the west. A few salient paragraphs:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.
The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"
So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?
[snip]
Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.
Incidentally, Mr. Fatah has a new book coming out this fall. It's entitled The Jew is Not My Enemy. We can only imagine the reception that volume will receive. But obviously, he's not afraid to stand up for the truth. If only the mayor of New York had similar courage.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Another Reminder...
The headline at Fox News says it all:
"Military Voting Rights at Risk"
Less than 80 days before the mid-term elections, many members of the armed forces, serving overseas, are at risk of being disenfranchised--again.
It's a problem we've written about extensively in recent years; our most recent post on the subject appeared less than three weeks ago.
The problem is rather simple. Military personnel stationed in places like Iraq and Afghanistan often don't receive their absentee ballots in time to fill them out and return them before the submission deadline. As a result, many of them are tossed out. By one estimate, at least 17,000 absentee ballots from armed forces personnel (and their dependents) were rejected in 2008. That would make military members and their dependents the most disenfranchised segment of the American electorate. The terrible irony of that statement cannot be over-stated.
In an effort to remedy the problem, Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act last year. It mandates that local officials send out absentee ballots to expatriate voters no later than 45 days before the general election. In theory, that will give military personnel (and other Americans living abroad) more time to complete their ballots and return them within state submission guidelines.
But, as we noted earlier this month, the Obama Justice Department has made little effort to enforce the new law. Indeed, there's some evidence that DOJ officials have encouraged states to file waivers, exempting them from the requirements of the MOVE act:
"...former DOJ attorney J. Christian Anderson--the same man who testified against the the government when it dropped the Black Panthers case--the Justice Department has little interest in enforcing the new military voting law:“
I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
One of Anderson's former DOJ colleagues, Eric Eversole--who now runs the Military Voter Protection Project--also believes that enforcing the law is a low priority:
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole.
"The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws."
"Military Voting Rights at Risk"
Less than 80 days before the mid-term elections, many members of the armed forces, serving overseas, are at risk of being disenfranchised--again.
It's a problem we've written about extensively in recent years; our most recent post on the subject appeared less than three weeks ago.
The problem is rather simple. Military personnel stationed in places like Iraq and Afghanistan often don't receive their absentee ballots in time to fill them out and return them before the submission deadline. As a result, many of them are tossed out. By one estimate, at least 17,000 absentee ballots from armed forces personnel (and their dependents) were rejected in 2008. That would make military members and their dependents the most disenfranchised segment of the American electorate. The terrible irony of that statement cannot be over-stated.
In an effort to remedy the problem, Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act last year. It mandates that local officials send out absentee ballots to expatriate voters no later than 45 days before the general election. In theory, that will give military personnel (and other Americans living abroad) more time to complete their ballots and return them within state submission guidelines.
But, as we noted earlier this month, the Obama Justice Department has made little effort to enforce the new law. Indeed, there's some evidence that DOJ officials have encouraged states to file waivers, exempting them from the requirements of the MOVE act:
"...former DOJ attorney J. Christian Anderson--the same man who testified against the the government when it dropped the Black Panthers case--the Justice Department has little interest in enforcing the new military voting law:“
I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
One of Anderson's former DOJ colleagues, Eric Eversole--who now runs the Military Voter Protection Project--also believes that enforcing the law is a low priority:
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole.
"The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws."
While the Justice Department insists it is committed to upholding the MOVE Act, its actions suggest otherwise. So far, at least a dozen states and territories have filed waivers with the department, claiming they cannot meet the specified deadline. The reaction from DOJ--a bureaucratic yawn, and those telling comment about the "ambiguity" of waiver requirements.
Additionally, the Military Voter Protection Project claims that 16 states have failed to implement at least one of the law's key provisions; 11 have not adopted the 45-day rule for mailing out absentee ballots and five states have not implemented the act's electronic delivery mandate. And not a peep from Eric Holder and the folks at DOJ.
During a Fox News segment Sunday afternoon, Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher (a Democrat) defended election officials' efforts to comply with the law:
"The problem is that because we have a late primary and we have a very careful certification process to make sure the integrity of our elections is good, some of our counties, mostly the smaller counties, have a difficult time complying with the 45-day period," Buescher clarified. "So they may be mailing out the ballots 40 days -- but if you look at the 40 days, and add the 8 days that our state adds on to count ballots after the general election date of November 2, we're actually giving more days for our military than is required by the Move Act."
Eversole remains unimpressed:
"We've got to find a better excuse or reason not to comply with the Move Act than the fact that it takes 15 days to print ballots," Eversole said. "Walk down to Kinkos, put it in the copier, print them, and get them to troops so they have time to vote."
From what we can tell, the Fox segment didn't address the issue of on-line voting, which could solve the problem, once and for all. Arizona implemented an internet-based system for residents living overseas in 2008, using 128-bit encryption, the same level of security used for on-line banking and credit card transactions. The state also allows expatriates to fax in their ballots.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon has been dragging its feet on some sort of universal standard that would allow on-line voting by all military members (and their dependents) living overseas. DoD says it is worried about security, but the Arizona experiment proves that obstacle can be overcome; at least 7,000 state residents voted on-line in 2008, and there were no reported problems with security.
At the state and local level, delays in fully implementing the MOVE Act are more about politics. Most of the states requesting waivers are either Democrat strongholds, or have been leaning that way in recent elections. So, there's a powerful incentive to suppress votes among a segment of the electorate that is solidly Republican.
GOP members of the House and Senate have requested information on DOJ's "enforcement" of the MOVE Act, but the department is in no hurry to provide it. What a surprise. Meantime, there's a good chance that Justice will approve waivers for those states that can't comply with the voting law, meaning that more military voters will find themselves disenfranchised this fall.
And don't think those votes don't matter. Al Franken's margin of victory in his Minnesota Senate race two years ago was 312 votes--just six more than the number of military absentee ballots that were rejected by election officials. Eight years earlier, military absentee votes contributed to George W. Bush's razor-thin 572-vote win the Florida, which gave him the presidential election. You may recall that attorneys for the Democratic Party tried to have those ballots rejected.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Problem With Petty Officer Gurney
Petty Officer First Class Ethan Gurney will retire from the Navy this fall, after 20 years of service. Critics of the military retirement system say that's too soon, creating long-term fiscal problems for the Defense Department (Stars and Stripes photo).
According to a Pentagon advisory board, Navy Petty Officer First Class Ethan Gurney represents what's wrong with the military retirement system.
Petty Officer Gurney joined the Navy out of high school, and has served honorably as an electronics technician for almost two decades. This fall, after reaching 20 years of active duty service, Gurney will retire from the Navy and begin drawing a retirement check--at the ripe old age of 38.
From the board's perspective, that's too soon. With advances in medicine and increasing longevity, Gurney and his fellow military retirees will live for decades after leaving active duty, collecting billions of dollars in pensions, health care and other benefits.
The Defense Business Board, tasked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to find ways to cut Pentagon spending, says the current retirement system is "unsustainable" and must be fixed. Without reforms, payments for military retirees will grow from $47.7 billion this year, to just under $60 billion by 2020.
As Stars and Stripes recently reported:
The 25-member group of civilian business leaders suggests that the Defense Department look at changing the current system, even hinting at raising the number of years troops must serve before being eligible for retirement pay.
The current system “encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years," committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month.
Among the "reforms" being suggested by the advisory panel: delaying payments to retirees, in exchange for earlier "vesting" in the program. One proposal being studied by the board would provide a limited retirement benefit for military members who serve as little as 10 years. Those personnel would receive their pension at age 60 under the reform plan, while those with 20 years of service would begin receiving checks at age 57--almost 20 years after some of them leave active duty.
The hypocrisy of the "reformers" is almost laughable. Board chairman Arnold Punaro worries about a system that "encourages [military members] to leave when they're most productive and experienced, then pays them, their family and their dependents for the next 40 years."
But Punaro hasn't declined his military retirement check. Turns out that Mr. Punaro is also a retired Major General in the Marine Corps. According to Forbes, he currently works as an executive Vice President at defense contractor SAIC, where his total compensation in 2009 topped $2.7 million. That's almost three times what Petty Officer Gurney will collect in military retirement pay, even if he lives to age 80. And we didn't include Punaro's USMC pension in that total, either.
Fact is, the typical military retiree is a lot closer to Gurney than General Punaro. When he leaves active duty later this year, Petty Officer Gurney will receive a gross monthly pension of just over $1,800. By the time you deduct federal and state taxes and allotments for such items
as the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), dental insurance and other expenses, Gurney's "rich" pension will be closer to $1,400 a month.
Indeed, the average person retiring from the military at the 20-year point is an E-6, the same rank as Petty Officer Gurney. Most are married, with kids in school, and (if they're lucky) that $1,400 pension will cover their mortgage payment. Compare that to say, the average annuity for a state employee in New York, New Jersey or California, and tell us
who's getting rich in retirement.
Punaro's critique also misses a pair of critical points. There are two primary reasons the military has always embraced an early retirement system. First, it's a powerful recruiting and retention tool, particularly for mid-level officers and NCOs, who form the backbone of our armed forces. Allowing retirement at the 20-year point keeps a lot of mid-level officers and non-commissioned officers in uniform, ensuring an adequate supply of experienced personnel.
By comparison, if the military allows individuals to earn delayed benefits after only 10 years of service, it would only accelerate the exodus of skilled troops. Individuals with highly marketable skills (including intelligence, nuclear power, special forces and contracting, to name a few) would leave at the first opportunity, further eroding experience levels at the most critical ranks.
Additionally, there's the matter of who's best suited for certain military jobs. No offense to General Punaro, but jobs like Marine rifleman, Army ranger, Air Force combat controller and Navy fighter pilot (to name a few) are best handled by the young. True, experience does improve with age, but reflexes, vision, hearing and physical conditioning tend to deteriorate as we get older. And sometimes, experience is no substitute for the strength, speed and stamina found in younger troops.
Another critic of the current system, Nathaniel Fick of the left-leaning Center for a New American Security, has wondered "Why we're paying 38-year-olds" as they embark on their second full career. Fick, a former Marine Corps officer, made the comment in a recent article published at the Foreign Policy website.
We think the best rejoinder to that argument comes from Petty Officer Gurney, a man who is (supposedly) the poster boy for problems in our military pension system. For 20 years of dedicated and faithful service, Gurney simply expects the Navy to meet the promise it made to him. And he observes that (relatively) few people are willing to meet the demands for that 20-year pension:
"No rational person would put up with 20 years of the hardships that you’re forced to endure if it wasn’t for the brass ring at the end of it all called instant retirement,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Gurney.
[snip]
“The continuous deployments, living conditions, remote and hazardous duty stations are unique to the military,” he said. “This isn’t a civilian company, so any civilian model that you use to compare to the military is impertinent. To do so is irresponsible at best.”
Bravo Zulu, Petty Officer Gurney. Couldn't have said it better ourselves. Unfortunately, Secretary Gates now views the military retirement system as Fiscal Problem #1, so some sort of reforms appear inevitable. Never mind that the current system has served the military well, and payments will eventually decline, as retirees from Korea, Vietnam and the Reagan eras pass on.
One more thing: we find the current fixation on military retirement rather curious, for other reasons. The Pentagon has suddenly discovered that its payments for retiree medical coverage are out-of-control, just months after the Obama Administration pushed through national health care coverage. Gee...doesn't DoD have the option of potentially pushing military retirees into the national plan, saving billions of dollars each year--and creating more "urgency" for preserving the new system? Coincidence? You decide.
Likewise, Secretary Gates (and his bosses in the White House) would like to find other ways to save money at the Pentagon. If they can put off pension payments for years after military retirees leave active duty, so much the better. I'm sure that DoD's actuaries have already calculated the number of personnel who will die during that "gap" between their retirement ceremony and the age of 57 or 60, when the first retirement check rolls in. How much would DoD save using that approach, and where will that money goes? So far, Dr. Gates hasn't answered that one.
Equally galling is the growing demand for the reform of military retirement benefits, while the "big" entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) just keep on growing. Even at the inflated totals cited in the Stars and Stripes article, military pensions represent only a fraction of our annual Social Security payments--and that system will go broke long before the armed forces retirement system. But it's (apparently) more important to fix military pensions, with little regard for the long-term impact on retention and experience levels in the ranks.
Go figure.
Petty Officer Gurney joined the Navy out of high school, and has served honorably as an electronics technician for almost two decades. This fall, after reaching 20 years of active duty service, Gurney will retire from the Navy and begin drawing a retirement check--at the ripe old age of 38.
From the board's perspective, that's too soon. With advances in medicine and increasing longevity, Gurney and his fellow military retirees will live for decades after leaving active duty, collecting billions of dollars in pensions, health care and other benefits.
The Defense Business Board, tasked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to find ways to cut Pentagon spending, says the current retirement system is "unsustainable" and must be fixed. Without reforms, payments for military retirees will grow from $47.7 billion this year, to just under $60 billion by 2020.
As Stars and Stripes recently reported:
The 25-member group of civilian business leaders suggests that the Defense Department look at changing the current system, even hinting at raising the number of years troops must serve before being eligible for retirement pay.
The current system “encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years," committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month.
Among the "reforms" being suggested by the advisory panel: delaying payments to retirees, in exchange for earlier "vesting" in the program. One proposal being studied by the board would provide a limited retirement benefit for military members who serve as little as 10 years. Those personnel would receive their pension at age 60 under the reform plan, while those with 20 years of service would begin receiving checks at age 57--almost 20 years after some of them leave active duty.
The hypocrisy of the "reformers" is almost laughable. Board chairman Arnold Punaro worries about a system that "encourages [military members] to leave when they're most productive and experienced, then pays them, their family and their dependents for the next 40 years."
But Punaro hasn't declined his military retirement check. Turns out that Mr. Punaro is also a retired Major General in the Marine Corps. According to Forbes, he currently works as an executive Vice President at defense contractor SAIC, where his total compensation in 2009 topped $2.7 million. That's almost three times what Petty Officer Gurney will collect in military retirement pay, even if he lives to age 80. And we didn't include Punaro's USMC pension in that total, either.
Fact is, the typical military retiree is a lot closer to Gurney than General Punaro. When he leaves active duty later this year, Petty Officer Gurney will receive a gross monthly pension of just over $1,800. By the time you deduct federal and state taxes and allotments for such items
as the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), dental insurance and other expenses, Gurney's "rich" pension will be closer to $1,400 a month.
Indeed, the average person retiring from the military at the 20-year point is an E-6, the same rank as Petty Officer Gurney. Most are married, with kids in school, and (if they're lucky) that $1,400 pension will cover their mortgage payment. Compare that to say, the average annuity for a state employee in New York, New Jersey or California, and tell us
who's getting rich in retirement.
Punaro's critique also misses a pair of critical points. There are two primary reasons the military has always embraced an early retirement system. First, it's a powerful recruiting and retention tool, particularly for mid-level officers and NCOs, who form the backbone of our armed forces. Allowing retirement at the 20-year point keeps a lot of mid-level officers and non-commissioned officers in uniform, ensuring an adequate supply of experienced personnel.
By comparison, if the military allows individuals to earn delayed benefits after only 10 years of service, it would only accelerate the exodus of skilled troops. Individuals with highly marketable skills (including intelligence, nuclear power, special forces and contracting, to name a few) would leave at the first opportunity, further eroding experience levels at the most critical ranks.
Additionally, there's the matter of who's best suited for certain military jobs. No offense to General Punaro, but jobs like Marine rifleman, Army ranger, Air Force combat controller and Navy fighter pilot (to name a few) are best handled by the young. True, experience does improve with age, but reflexes, vision, hearing and physical conditioning tend to deteriorate as we get older. And sometimes, experience is no substitute for the strength, speed and stamina found in younger troops.
Another critic of the current system, Nathaniel Fick of the left-leaning Center for a New American Security, has wondered "Why we're paying 38-year-olds" as they embark on their second full career. Fick, a former Marine Corps officer, made the comment in a recent article published at the Foreign Policy website.
We think the best rejoinder to that argument comes from Petty Officer Gurney, a man who is (supposedly) the poster boy for problems in our military pension system. For 20 years of dedicated and faithful service, Gurney simply expects the Navy to meet the promise it made to him. And he observes that (relatively) few people are willing to meet the demands for that 20-year pension:
"No rational person would put up with 20 years of the hardships that you’re forced to endure if it wasn’t for the brass ring at the end of it all called instant retirement,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Gurney.
[snip]
“The continuous deployments, living conditions, remote and hazardous duty stations are unique to the military,” he said. “This isn’t a civilian company, so any civilian model that you use to compare to the military is impertinent. To do so is irresponsible at best.”
Bravo Zulu, Petty Officer Gurney. Couldn't have said it better ourselves. Unfortunately, Secretary Gates now views the military retirement system as Fiscal Problem #1, so some sort of reforms appear inevitable. Never mind that the current system has served the military well, and payments will eventually decline, as retirees from Korea, Vietnam and the Reagan eras pass on.
One more thing: we find the current fixation on military retirement rather curious, for other reasons. The Pentagon has suddenly discovered that its payments for retiree medical coverage are out-of-control, just months after the Obama Administration pushed through national health care coverage. Gee...doesn't DoD have the option of potentially pushing military retirees into the national plan, saving billions of dollars each year--and creating more "urgency" for preserving the new system? Coincidence? You decide.
Likewise, Secretary Gates (and his bosses in the White House) would like to find other ways to save money at the Pentagon. If they can put off pension payments for years after military retirees leave active duty, so much the better. I'm sure that DoD's actuaries have already calculated the number of personnel who will die during that "gap" between their retirement ceremony and the age of 57 or 60, when the first retirement check rolls in. How much would DoD save using that approach, and where will that money goes? So far, Dr. Gates hasn't answered that one.
Equally galling is the growing demand for the reform of military retirement benefits, while the "big" entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) just keep on growing. Even at the inflated totals cited in the Stars and Stripes article, military pensions represent only a fraction of our annual Social Security payments--and that system will go broke long before the armed forces retirement system. But it's (apparently) more important to fix military pensions, with little regard for the long-term impact on retention and experience levels in the ranks.
Go figure.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Carrier Killer?
Returning from a business trip to Texas last week, I found several queries in my in-box (icspook86@hotmail.com) regarding China's new Dong Feng 21D missile. Unveiled at a military parade last year, the DF-21 is widely-touted as a "carrier killer," able to accurately target a U.S. aircraft carrier at long distances (up to 900 miles) and send it to the bottom, using a conventional warhead.
Defense writers for the Associated Press, citing various "experts" have already described the DF-21D as a "game changer," potentially shifting the naval balance of power in the Pacific. Judging from their coverage, the U.S. would be well advised to move our carriers back to the West Coast, and keep them in port:
ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.
China may soon put an end to that.
U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).
[snip]
The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.
While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.
To be sure, Beijing's long-range strike capabilities have improved dramatically over the past 20 years, thanks to double-digit annual growth in the Chinese defense budget and related research and development activities. And, any weapon with the potential to hit a moving carrier at long range will get the attention of Navy planners, for obvious reasons.
But a little context is in order.
First, as the AP mentions (briefly) in the article, there is the nagging issue of demonstrated accuracy. The DF-21D is still in testing, and so far, it has not proved its ability to strike a carrier-sized target over the horizon. True, the problem could be solved by placing a nuclear warhead on the missile, but that "solution" would invite a massive U.S. response, one reason that China emphasizes the conventional capabilities of the DF-21D.
It's also worth remembering the first rule of precision strike: devastatingly accurate weapons require intelligence of comparable precision. Beijing is working hard to improve its intel, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, but (once again) there is inconclusive evidence regarding the PRC's ability to develop--and deliver--such information for a time-sensitive target like an aircraft carrier at sea.
Carrier battle groups are often depicted as a fat, vulnerable target. But in reality, the Navy does a good job in suppressing the signature and locations of its carriers in the open ocean. And, some of the platforms China would use to track U.S. carriers, including jet bombers and attack submarines, are vulnerable to our counter-measures, ranging from our own subs (which are superior to Beijing's current boats) and F/A-18 Super Hornets, which can intercept intruders up to 400 NM from the carrier.
Additionally, our ship-borne missile defenses have improved dramatically in recent years, with development of the SM-3 missile as part of the Aegis weapons system. The SM-3 has become our most reliable missile interceptor, successfully engaging 16 of 19 test targets since 2002. In early 2008, a modified SM-3 successfully downed a decaying U.S. satellite, re-entering the earth's atmosphere at a speed of 22,000 mph.
While care must be taken in drawing parallels between the satellite intercept and missile defense, the velocity factor is stunning. By most estimates, DF-21D re-entry vehicles would plunge towards the carrier at slower speeds, so it is well within the technical capabilities of the Aegis/SM-3 to handle those targets.
Still, the Chinese missile will pose problems. Coupled with other anti-carrier weapons (including submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles), the DF-21D will force changes in our tactics, including operating locations that are more distant from hostile shores. That, in turn, will impact the carrier's flight operations, reducing the ability of the F/A-18s to hit long-range targets, and placing more demands on in-flight refueling assets.
As one naval officer observed, the Dong Feng 21D would be an excellent harassment weapon, particularly at the end of an operations cycle when the carrier is recovering aircraft. Imagine having 12-18 aircraft, low on fuel, trying to land on the carrier when a barrage of Chinese missiles is detected. Suddenly, the carrier is forced to maneuver, shut down much of its electronics, and assume a more defensive posture. In that scenario, "getting back on the boat" becomes much more difficult.
But the DF-21D does not spell the end of the carrier era. Our favorite Navy blogger, Commander Salamander, framed the debate well with a brief history of other "game-changing" naval weapons over the last 150 years:
--130 years ago it was the torpedo boat. It did not mean the end of large surface ships.
--105 years ago it was the Dreadnought. It did not mean the end of anything but large surface ships with and all gun battery.
--90 years ago it was the aircraft. It did not mean the end of large surface ships.
--70-80 years ago it was the dive bomber. It did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers.
--60 years ago it was the nuclear weapon. If did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers.
--40 years ago it was the anti-ship cruise missile. It did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers....
--And so today we are talking about Anti-ship cruise missiles.There is an evolution and survival of the fittest in warfare. It is only a problem if ignored. It is only a reason to panic if you lack a historical perspective and a lack of confidence in your military to effectively meet a new threat ... at threat that is yet to be fully formed.
One more thought: if the DF-21D represents the end of the carrier as an effective weapons system, why is Beijing working so hard on its own aircraft carriers? By some estimates, China will have as many as two carriers operational by the middle of the decade, equipped with SU-33 Flanker jets. The Chinese are making a pretty sizable investment in a weapons system that is supposedly past its prime.
Defense writers for the Associated Press, citing various "experts" have already described the DF-21D as a "game changer," potentially shifting the naval balance of power in the Pacific. Judging from their coverage, the U.S. would be well advised to move our carriers back to the West Coast, and keep them in port:
ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.
China may soon put an end to that.
U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).
[snip]
The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.
While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.
To be sure, Beijing's long-range strike capabilities have improved dramatically over the past 20 years, thanks to double-digit annual growth in the Chinese defense budget and related research and development activities. And, any weapon with the potential to hit a moving carrier at long range will get the attention of Navy planners, for obvious reasons.
But a little context is in order.
First, as the AP mentions (briefly) in the article, there is the nagging issue of demonstrated accuracy. The DF-21D is still in testing, and so far, it has not proved its ability to strike a carrier-sized target over the horizon. True, the problem could be solved by placing a nuclear warhead on the missile, but that "solution" would invite a massive U.S. response, one reason that China emphasizes the conventional capabilities of the DF-21D.
It's also worth remembering the first rule of precision strike: devastatingly accurate weapons require intelligence of comparable precision. Beijing is working hard to improve its intel, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, but (once again) there is inconclusive evidence regarding the PRC's ability to develop--and deliver--such information for a time-sensitive target like an aircraft carrier at sea.
Carrier battle groups are often depicted as a fat, vulnerable target. But in reality, the Navy does a good job in suppressing the signature and locations of its carriers in the open ocean. And, some of the platforms China would use to track U.S. carriers, including jet bombers and attack submarines, are vulnerable to our counter-measures, ranging from our own subs (which are superior to Beijing's current boats) and F/A-18 Super Hornets, which can intercept intruders up to 400 NM from the carrier.
Additionally, our ship-borne missile defenses have improved dramatically in recent years, with development of the SM-3 missile as part of the Aegis weapons system. The SM-3 has become our most reliable missile interceptor, successfully engaging 16 of 19 test targets since 2002. In early 2008, a modified SM-3 successfully downed a decaying U.S. satellite, re-entering the earth's atmosphere at a speed of 22,000 mph.
While care must be taken in drawing parallels between the satellite intercept and missile defense, the velocity factor is stunning. By most estimates, DF-21D re-entry vehicles would plunge towards the carrier at slower speeds, so it is well within the technical capabilities of the Aegis/SM-3 to handle those targets.
Still, the Chinese missile will pose problems. Coupled with other anti-carrier weapons (including submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles), the DF-21D will force changes in our tactics, including operating locations that are more distant from hostile shores. That, in turn, will impact the carrier's flight operations, reducing the ability of the F/A-18s to hit long-range targets, and placing more demands on in-flight refueling assets.
As one naval officer observed, the Dong Feng 21D would be an excellent harassment weapon, particularly at the end of an operations cycle when the carrier is recovering aircraft. Imagine having 12-18 aircraft, low on fuel, trying to land on the carrier when a barrage of Chinese missiles is detected. Suddenly, the carrier is forced to maneuver, shut down much of its electronics, and assume a more defensive posture. In that scenario, "getting back on the boat" becomes much more difficult.
But the DF-21D does not spell the end of the carrier era. Our favorite Navy blogger, Commander Salamander, framed the debate well with a brief history of other "game-changing" naval weapons over the last 150 years:
--130 years ago it was the torpedo boat. It did not mean the end of large surface ships.
--105 years ago it was the Dreadnought. It did not mean the end of anything but large surface ships with and all gun battery.
--90 years ago it was the aircraft. It did not mean the end of large surface ships.
--70-80 years ago it was the dive bomber. It did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers.
--60 years ago it was the nuclear weapon. If did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers.
--40 years ago it was the anti-ship cruise missile. It did not mean the end of surface ships or aircraft carriers....
--And so today we are talking about Anti-ship cruise missiles.There is an evolution and survival of the fittest in warfare. It is only a problem if ignored. It is only a reason to panic if you lack a historical perspective and a lack of confidence in your military to effectively meet a new threat ... at threat that is yet to be fully formed.
One more thought: if the DF-21D represents the end of the carrier as an effective weapons system, why is Beijing working so hard on its own aircraft carriers? By some estimates, China will have as many as two carriers operational by the middle of the decade, equipped with SU-33 Flanker jets. The Chinese are making a pretty sizable investment in a weapons system that is supposedly past its prime.
Idiot of the Week
The name's Martin...Derek Martin...err...CIA U.S. Special Agent #767. Air Force Senior Airman Derek Martin grins for his mug shot after being arrested on charges of impersonating a CIA officer and openly carrying a firearm (Air Force Times photo).
It's been quite a while since we bestowed one of these prizes, but not due a lack of qualified candidates. Indeed, we could give it to Joe (Gaffe-o-Matic) Biden and retire the award once and for all, but that would deny future generations of worthy recipients.
With that in mind, we are proud to announce our latest choice for Idiot of the Week: Senior Airman Derek Martin of the 6th Security Forces Squadron at MacDill AFB, Florida. Or maybe we should say "Soon-to-be-former Senior Airman," since Martin's days in the Air Force are likely numbered. As Air Force Times explains:
Authorities say a MacDill airman approached a woman, told her he was a CIA officer and said he was looking for a terrorism suspect. But Senior Airman Derek Martin is no James Bond.
Martin, 23, is an installation entry controller with 6th Security Forces Squadron. And he now faces charges of impersonating an officer and openly carrying a firearm.
Police say Martin approached a 55-year-old woman on Sunday night at Clearwater Beach, Fla., and identified himself as a CIA agent. He carried a 9mm handgun in a holster and flashed a badge identifying him as “CIA U.S. Special Agent #767.”
He told the woman he was looking for another woman involved in terrorist activities, police say. (Editor's note: what are the odds that the "other woman" is Martin's former girlfriend, or someone he's currently pursuing?)
As you might have guessed, Martin has no affiliation with the CIA, or any other counter-terrorism or intelligence agency. As an entry controller, Martin's duties usually consisted of checking cars and drivers as they entered MacDill.
Maybe all those hours in the hot Florida sun baked his brain. But, judging by that goofy smile in his mug shot, we're guessing that Martin may be a taco shy of the proverbial combination plate.
Which raises another question. If "CIA U.S. Special Agent #767," a.k.a. Airman Martin is a little imbalanced, why in the world did the Air Force give him a badge? And a gun.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Buh-Bye JFCOM
The Pentagon's budget axe fell hard today, and Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) found its head squarely on the chopping block.
As part of his $100-billion austerity campaign, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced this afternoon that JFCOM will be shuttered in the coming years, eliminating some 5,000 military, civil service and contractor positions. Gates announced that two smaller DoD organizations will also be targeted for closure, but the names of those units were not disclosed.
From the AP account:
Gates said Monday that tough economic times require that he shutter a major command that employs some 5,000 people around Norfolk, Va., and begin to eliminate other jobs throughout the military.
The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years. Gates says that money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight.
Gates and other Pentagon officials would not put a dollar figure on cuts outlined Monday, but the savings is expected to be less than what the individual military services are trying to trim on their own.
Political reaction in the Old Dominion was swift--and predictable. Officials from both sides of the aisle immediately condemned the move, saying it made little military or economic sense.
Republican Representative. J. Randy Forbes called the decision "further evidence of this administration allowing its budget for social change" and the "piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known."
Democrats, including Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, also condemned the move. Warner said he could see "no rational basis" for eliminating a command created to improve the services' ability to work together and find efficiencies.
"In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money," said Warner.
Still, the Virginia Congressional delegation will face an uphill battle in trying to save JFCOM. Listed as one of ten unified combatant commands in the U.S. military , JFCOM doesn't really have a war-fighting mission. Instead, Joint Forces Command has concentrated on the transformation of the U.S. military, and (to a lesser extent) that of its NATO partners. And, through such components as Air Combat Command (USAF) and the Forces Commands of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, JFCOM provides combatant forces to commanders in the field. In reality, that "provider" role was little more than another layer of bureaucracy; ACC and the forces commands had been providing war-fighting assets long before JFCOM arrived on the scene.
In an era of looming defense cuts, DoD simply doesn't need a muti-billion dollar organization to handle transformation and add another layer of command in force provision. Indeed, given the current budget climate, JFCOM's demise was only a matter of time. Now the real question becomes: what happens to the billions saved by eliminating the Norfolk-based command? Dr. Gates has suggested that some of the money might be re-invested in the Navy's ship-building program, a move that would (potentially) return billions to Virginia.
But don't hold your breath. Our fleet is already under-sized (in comparison to the Navy's global responsibilities), and shows no signs of growing larger. In fact, Secretary Gates recently observed that the U.S. military is "over-matched" against potential competitors, suggesting that the number of Navy carrier groups would be downsized as well. Fewer carriers means fewer escort vessels, and less support infrastructure ashore. Put another way: if the Navy of the future will operate with fewer carriers, it will almost certainly have a smaller ship-building budget, and there will be less work for the three major yards (Bath Iron Works; Ingalls, and Newport News) that build most of our military vessels.
In reality, the money "saved" by closing JFCOM will go towards entitlement programs, including that fiscal black hole called national health care. Hmmm...maybe they can convert the command's headquarters building into the nation's largest free clinic.
As part of his $100-billion austerity campaign, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced this afternoon that JFCOM will be shuttered in the coming years, eliminating some 5,000 military, civil service and contractor positions. Gates announced that two smaller DoD organizations will also be targeted for closure, but the names of those units were not disclosed.
From the AP account:
Gates said Monday that tough economic times require that he shutter a major command that employs some 5,000 people around Norfolk, Va., and begin to eliminate other jobs throughout the military.
The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years. Gates says that money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight.
Gates and other Pentagon officials would not put a dollar figure on cuts outlined Monday, but the savings is expected to be less than what the individual military services are trying to trim on their own.
Political reaction in the Old Dominion was swift--and predictable. Officials from both sides of the aisle immediately condemned the move, saying it made little military or economic sense.
Republican Representative. J. Randy Forbes called the decision "further evidence of this administration allowing its budget for social change" and the "piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known."
Democrats, including Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, also condemned the move. Warner said he could see "no rational basis" for eliminating a command created to improve the services' ability to work together and find efficiencies.
"In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money," said Warner.
Still, the Virginia Congressional delegation will face an uphill battle in trying to save JFCOM. Listed as one of ten unified combatant commands in the U.S. military , JFCOM doesn't really have a war-fighting mission. Instead, Joint Forces Command has concentrated on the transformation of the U.S. military, and (to a lesser extent) that of its NATO partners. And, through such components as Air Combat Command (USAF) and the Forces Commands of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, JFCOM provides combatant forces to commanders in the field. In reality, that "provider" role was little more than another layer of bureaucracy; ACC and the forces commands had been providing war-fighting assets long before JFCOM arrived on the scene.
In an era of looming defense cuts, DoD simply doesn't need a muti-billion dollar organization to handle transformation and add another layer of command in force provision. Indeed, given the current budget climate, JFCOM's demise was only a matter of time. Now the real question becomes: what happens to the billions saved by eliminating the Norfolk-based command? Dr. Gates has suggested that some of the money might be re-invested in the Navy's ship-building program, a move that would (potentially) return billions to Virginia.
But don't hold your breath. Our fleet is already under-sized (in comparison to the Navy's global responsibilities), and shows no signs of growing larger. In fact, Secretary Gates recently observed that the U.S. military is "over-matched" against potential competitors, suggesting that the number of Navy carrier groups would be downsized as well. Fewer carriers means fewer escort vessels, and less support infrastructure ashore. Put another way: if the Navy of the future will operate with fewer carriers, it will almost certainly have a smaller ship-building budget, and there will be less work for the three major yards (Bath Iron Works; Ingalls, and Newport News) that build most of our military vessels.
In reality, the money "saved" by closing JFCOM will go towards entitlement programs, including that fiscal black hole called national health care. Hmmm...maybe they can convert the command's headquarters building into the nation's largest free clinic.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Still "The Man"
Stan Musial on the cover of Baseball Digest in 1948 (Wikipedia photo).
Like most American magazines, Sports Illustrated has suffered something of an identity crisis in recent years. Beset by falling readership and ad revenues, the flagship sports publication has sought to re-invent itself, with decidedly mixed results. Pick up a copy and it's hard to tell if SI wants to be People for the jock crowd; a pale imitation of ESPN The Magazine, an upscale version of Fantasy Sports, or some combination thereof.
Yet, despite the editorial schizophrenia, SI still produces first-class sports journalism on occasion, just as it did when writers like Roy Blount Jr., Robert Creamer and the late Bud Shrake routinely graced its pages. A fine example can be found in the current issue, with St. Louis Cardinals legend Stan Musial on the cover.
Titled "Cardinal Virtue: What Modern Baseball Can Learn From Stan the Man," it's a thoughtful and moving piece, as writer Joe Posnanski explores Musial's lasting impact on baseball and the city he has called home for the past 69 years.
Today, Musial remains the quintessential Cardinal, the name that instantly comes to mind when you compile a list of the team's all-time greats. Not bad for a guy who played his last game seven weeks before the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. And not bad for a player who never produced headline-grabbing stats. As Musial's long-time friend Bob Costas observes:
"Stan Musial didn't hit in 56 straight games. He didn't hit for .400 in a season. He didn't get 4,000 hits. He didn't hit 500 home runs. He didn't hit a home run in his last at bat, just a single. He didn't marry Marilyn Monroe, he married his high school sweetheart. His excellence was a quiet excellence."
"Too quiet," says Posnanski.
"ESPN recently called him the most underrated athlete, ever...a few years back, when Major League Baseball held a fan vote to name its All-Century team, a special committee had to add Musial because the fans did not vote him as one of the 10 best outfielders ever. Ten! Only Aaron had more total bases. Only Tris Speaker and Pete Rose hit more doubles. Using Bill James's famous formula, only Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds created more runs. Still, Musial did not get America's vote.
But "Stan the Man" remains a favorite in St. Louis and by extension, across much of Middle America, where fans of a certain age remember a player of tremendous skill, and a man of exceptional grace. Over 22 big-league seasons, Musial was never ejected from a single game, even when the umpires got it wrong, and he had every right to dispute the call. Posnanski recounts a particularly memorable game against the Cubs that added to Musial's reputation as both a player and a sportsman.
It was April 18, 1954 in Chicago. The Cardinals trailed 3-0 in the seventh and lefty Paul Minner was on the mound. There was a man on first, one out, when Musial smacked a double down the right field line, scoring the runner from first. Musial was standing on second while the St. Louis dugout celebrated until someone noticed that first base umpire Lee Ballanfant had called the ball foul.
The Cardinals bench erupted. Shortstop Solly Hemus went after Ballanfant. The umpire crew chief, Augie Donatelli, realized that Ballanfant had blown the call, but had to back up his guy. Donatelli ejected Hemus from the game, and tossed St. Louis manager Eddie Stanky when he charged onto the field. Donatelli was about to give Peanuts Lowrey the heave-ho when Musial, not sure what the commotion was all about, ambled over from second base.
"What happened, Augie?" Musial asked. "It didn't count, huh?" Donatelli nodded and said the ball had been called foul.
"Well," Musial said, there's nothing you can do about it."
And without saying another word, Musial stepped back into the batter's box and doubled to the same spot in right field. This time it was called fair. The Cardinals rallied and won the game.
Musial was also generous with his fans. The late Phillies Hall of Famer Robin Roberts stated that Musial never turned down an autograph--an extraordinary act, even in an era when players were more willing to sign. Legendary broadcaster Harry Caray (who called Cardinals games for much of Musial's career) remembered watching him sign dozens of autographs after a brutal summer double-header at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis. Musial had played both games of the twin bill and could barely walk to his car. Yet, he still signed dozens of autographs for waiting fans and climbed into his car only after the last fan had departed.
Posnanski also relates another anecdote that speaks volumes about the character of Stan Musial. It occurred in 1952, against the Brooklyn Dodgers. Joe Black, up from the Negro Leagues, was on the mound for the Dodgers. As Musial settled into his batting stance, a voice boomed from the Cardinals' dugout:
"Don't worry, Stan...with that dark background on the mound, you shouldn't have any problem hitting the ball."
Musial said nothing, and flied out a few pitches later. After the game, Black was stunned to see Musial in the Dodgers clubhouse, apologizing for his teammate's racist taunt.
"I'm sorry that happened," Black remembered Musial whispering. "But don't worry about it. You're a great pitcher. You will win a lot of games."
Towards the end of the piece, there is one final Musial story that affirms his place in the history of baseball and the city of St. Louis. At age 90, the Cardinals legend doesn't get out much anymore, but he was on the field before last year's All-Star Game in St. Louis. The festivities included a meeting between Musial and Albert Pujols, arguably the greatest Cardinal player of the last 25 years.
The two men had met before, but this time, their conversation blossomed. Pujols, who prides himself on consistency, was stunned by one of the largely-forgotten stats of Musial's career. The number of hits he accumulated at home (1815) matched his total for road games.
Pujols left the meeting with even more respect for Stan Musial and his place in baseball history. And not long after that, he politely asked people to stop calling him "El Hombre" the Spanish equivalent of "The Man." As Posnanski reports, the current Cardinals slugger understood that his nickname was an homage to Musial. But he still asked people to stop it.
"There's only one Man," he said.
Indeed, there is.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Calling Out Chief Roy
There's a remarkable bit of correspondence over at the Air Force Times website. It's an open letter from a group of noncommissioned officers to the service's senior enlisted man, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (CMSAF) James A. Roy. Fed up with inactivity on issues of critical importance to the service--and the enlisted corps--the NCOs are looking for answers from Roy himself.
According to the paper, the letter began as a discussion on one of their forums. With Roy scheduled to visit Ramstein AB, Germany, a senior master sergeant at that installation asked other forum participants what they would ask the CMSAF, if they were in the crowd.
Over a three-week period, the thread received more than 3,000 views and 90 suggestions. Based on that level of interest, retired Chief Master Sergeant David Butson and the senior master sergeant (who has remained anonymous) fashioned the comments into an open letter, which can be viewed at the AFT website.
As a retired Air Force officer (and former NCO), the document is nothing less than remarkable. What's most surprising isn't the issues addressed in the letter, but rather, the willingness of career NCOs to "call out" Chief Roy over his failure to address hot-button topics for the enlisted force, and the service as a whole.
Below are a few excerpts from the letter, which is organized topically. Based on what I've read so far, I can't disagree with the NCOs on a single point. In Air Force terms, they "shacked the target."
Physical Training (PT)
"...One of the hottest points of contention in the enlisted corps today is that of our Physical Fitness standards. The Air Force has had a program in place of some variety for a very long time now. Still, the program changes ad nausea; what is it that drives the change? Has the service failed to exceed expectations — ever, in history — due to our fitness levels? We understand the need for military members to be physically fit, but the current emphasis serves to assert that physical standards are the most important measure of a “whole person” concept (as evidenced by its’ extraction from the “standards” block as a stand-alone unit of measure in the Enlisted Performance Report). No other personal standard stands alone as a measure of our worth.
Know that we are not questioning the need for physical fitness; rather, we are questioning the intense emphasis over other standards such as job proficiency. We motivate our subordinates to stay fit with positive reinforcement, but that is becoming increasingly difficult with the continued threat of a career-ending result for a failure. We talk to our people about integrity, but then we hire civilians to scrutinize their form.
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs)
The big career impact of fitness is on the EPR. It appears that we would presume to use fitness levels as the discerning trait to identify the good and the great. Obviously, the EPR is not working as designed to provide an honest evaluation. However, when we bring this forward, we’re told that the EPR must be fixed from the “bottom up”. That is a tall order; we know, based on history, that the consequence of rating a subordinate as well above average — but not “truly among the best” — will have an adverse career impact. If our No. 3 of 10 Master Sergeants is rated honestly, and receives a “4” on his EPR, he will never be promoted again. That is a basic truth and our ability to motivate him will be quite limited at that point. It is also basically wrong; as that No. 3 Master Sergeant might easily be our best the next year. Why can we not develop an evaluation that truly captures the attributes of an Airman — with some balance — and get back to evaluating the whole person? And — how can we hold raters accountable for their ratings?
Force Reduction
Why conduct force reduction during increased manning pressure, deployment tempo increases, and war? Coalitions are drawing down; NATO’s future plan cuts the in-place force almost in half over the next 10 years, with the goal to rely on nations to provide manning when an operation is undertaken (such as ISAF). While we comprise 30 percent of this 28-nation organization — how will we be prepared to answer this call when we are already on a 1-to-1 dwell with no relief in sight?
Deployments
On the topic of deployments — We’d like to know; why do some get “deployed” AEF credit for such locations as Stuttgart, Guam, Shaw or Hickam? The same could be said for places like Doha and Abu Dhabi. We understand that this is probably just a funding thing, but to those serving in austere locations and coming under fire every day, seeing others get AEF credit for “soft deployments” seems to be unfair.
Inequality
Recently, we have seen many examples of what appears to be a double standard between the enlisted ranks and the officer corps. We’ve read about Generals getting away with DUIs and JAG officers that breeze through false official statements, while at the same time having to watch enlisted careers end for the same indiscretion. How can we justify this to the junior enlisted that look to us for guidance … and protection?
The open letter also addresses other issues, ranging from the poor quality of Air Force battle uniforms and PT gear, to actual goals for the service's highly-publicized "Year of the Family." And, the NCOs make it very clear: they have been unimpressed with Roy's performance as CMSAF, and they want him to step up.
Chief Roy, it isn’t our intent to criticize — but the truth is, most of us have no idea what you are accomplishing other than touring, glad-handing and giving speeches. We would like to know about your input, and impact on events, policies and programs. We read all the articles published on your activities but, frankly, they don’t tell us much. Would you consider an in-depth, “no fluff,” article that covers you and your efforts and accomplishments in making a difference in what concerns our Airmen? Many of the things you endeavor to do have a diminished effect if people don’t know about them. The enlisted want to see their “Chief” making a difference, as it motivates and inspires them. This letter is our effort to capture and forward the concerns of a large group of Air Force people — specifically, those that care enough to spend their time looking for ways to improve their Air Force.
During three decades as an Air Force member, DoD civilian and defense contractor, I've never seen anything quite like it. But, I believe the letter honestly captures the concerns shared by many NCOs and their officer counter-parts. Increasingly, they view Air Force leadership as imperial and out-of-touch, with the CMSAF serving as little more than a mouthpiece for the Chief of Staff, and failing to impact issues of great importance to the enlisted force.
Contacted by AFT, Chief Roy declined to comment on the letter. Needless to say, his standing with the NCO corps has slipped a few more notches. Still, his response is anything but surprising; the first rule of Air Force crisis management is to hunker down and hope it all goes away.
But the open letter can't be easily dismissed. Since the post was established more than 40 years ago, no CMSAF has been challenged so openly--or aggressively--as Chief Roy. If the letter-writers are reflective of the service as a whole (and I believe they are), the Air Force is reaching a tipping point. Without wholesale changes--including many of those outlined in the letter--many airmen will begin voting with their feet, even during an economic downturn.
Not that the brass (and their CMSAF mouth-piece) would actually care. The service is currently in the midst of a major draw down, eliminating thousands of personnel billets (most of them enlisted) to save money and free up more funds for acquisition programs. It's been tried before; back in the mid-1990s, the Air Force got rid of 10,000 airmen, NCOs and junior officers to help pay for the F-22 program.
Then, about seven years later, some of the service's senior leaders were complaining about decreased experience levels in certain enlisted career fields. Apparently, they couldn't (or would not) make the connection between the 1995 draw down and the shortage of trained E-5s and E-6s a few years later.
Those concerned NCOs deserve great credit for writing their letter. Unfortunately, their missive will likely fall on deaf ears, unless Congress decides to hold the service accountable. Chief Roy's next appearance before a Congressional committee should be very interesting, indeed.
According to the paper, the letter began as a discussion on one of their forums. With Roy scheduled to visit Ramstein AB, Germany, a senior master sergeant at that installation asked other forum participants what they would ask the CMSAF, if they were in the crowd.
Over a three-week period, the thread received more than 3,000 views and 90 suggestions. Based on that level of interest, retired Chief Master Sergeant David Butson and the senior master sergeant (who has remained anonymous) fashioned the comments into an open letter, which can be viewed at the AFT website.
As a retired Air Force officer (and former NCO), the document is nothing less than remarkable. What's most surprising isn't the issues addressed in the letter, but rather, the willingness of career NCOs to "call out" Chief Roy over his failure to address hot-button topics for the enlisted force, and the service as a whole.
Below are a few excerpts from the letter, which is organized topically. Based on what I've read so far, I can't disagree with the NCOs on a single point. In Air Force terms, they "shacked the target."
Physical Training (PT)
"...One of the hottest points of contention in the enlisted corps today is that of our Physical Fitness standards. The Air Force has had a program in place of some variety for a very long time now. Still, the program changes ad nausea; what is it that drives the change? Has the service failed to exceed expectations — ever, in history — due to our fitness levels? We understand the need for military members to be physically fit, but the current emphasis serves to assert that physical standards are the most important measure of a “whole person” concept (as evidenced by its’ extraction from the “standards” block as a stand-alone unit of measure in the Enlisted Performance Report). No other personal standard stands alone as a measure of our worth.
Know that we are not questioning the need for physical fitness; rather, we are questioning the intense emphasis over other standards such as job proficiency. We motivate our subordinates to stay fit with positive reinforcement, but that is becoming increasingly difficult with the continued threat of a career-ending result for a failure. We talk to our people about integrity, but then we hire civilians to scrutinize their form.
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs)
The big career impact of fitness is on the EPR. It appears that we would presume to use fitness levels as the discerning trait to identify the good and the great. Obviously, the EPR is not working as designed to provide an honest evaluation. However, when we bring this forward, we’re told that the EPR must be fixed from the “bottom up”. That is a tall order; we know, based on history, that the consequence of rating a subordinate as well above average — but not “truly among the best” — will have an adverse career impact. If our No. 3 of 10 Master Sergeants is rated honestly, and receives a “4” on his EPR, he will never be promoted again. That is a basic truth and our ability to motivate him will be quite limited at that point. It is also basically wrong; as that No. 3 Master Sergeant might easily be our best the next year. Why can we not develop an evaluation that truly captures the attributes of an Airman — with some balance — and get back to evaluating the whole person? And — how can we hold raters accountable for their ratings?
Force Reduction
Why conduct force reduction during increased manning pressure, deployment tempo increases, and war? Coalitions are drawing down; NATO’s future plan cuts the in-place force almost in half over the next 10 years, with the goal to rely on nations to provide manning when an operation is undertaken (such as ISAF). While we comprise 30 percent of this 28-nation organization — how will we be prepared to answer this call when we are already on a 1-to-1 dwell with no relief in sight?
Deployments
On the topic of deployments — We’d like to know; why do some get “deployed” AEF credit for such locations as Stuttgart, Guam, Shaw or Hickam? The same could be said for places like Doha and Abu Dhabi. We understand that this is probably just a funding thing, but to those serving in austere locations and coming under fire every day, seeing others get AEF credit for “soft deployments” seems to be unfair.
Inequality
Recently, we have seen many examples of what appears to be a double standard between the enlisted ranks and the officer corps. We’ve read about Generals getting away with DUIs and JAG officers that breeze through false official statements, while at the same time having to watch enlisted careers end for the same indiscretion. How can we justify this to the junior enlisted that look to us for guidance … and protection?
The open letter also addresses other issues, ranging from the poor quality of Air Force battle uniforms and PT gear, to actual goals for the service's highly-publicized "Year of the Family." And, the NCOs make it very clear: they have been unimpressed with Roy's performance as CMSAF, and they want him to step up.
Chief Roy, it isn’t our intent to criticize — but the truth is, most of us have no idea what you are accomplishing other than touring, glad-handing and giving speeches. We would like to know about your input, and impact on events, policies and programs. We read all the articles published on your activities but, frankly, they don’t tell us much. Would you consider an in-depth, “no fluff,” article that covers you and your efforts and accomplishments in making a difference in what concerns our Airmen? Many of the things you endeavor to do have a diminished effect if people don’t know about them. The enlisted want to see their “Chief” making a difference, as it motivates and inspires them. This letter is our effort to capture and forward the concerns of a large group of Air Force people — specifically, those that care enough to spend their time looking for ways to improve their Air Force.
During three decades as an Air Force member, DoD civilian and defense contractor, I've never seen anything quite like it. But, I believe the letter honestly captures the concerns shared by many NCOs and their officer counter-parts. Increasingly, they view Air Force leadership as imperial and out-of-touch, with the CMSAF serving as little more than a mouthpiece for the Chief of Staff, and failing to impact issues of great importance to the enlisted force.
Contacted by AFT, Chief Roy declined to comment on the letter. Needless to say, his standing with the NCO corps has slipped a few more notches. Still, his response is anything but surprising; the first rule of Air Force crisis management is to hunker down and hope it all goes away.
But the open letter can't be easily dismissed. Since the post was established more than 40 years ago, no CMSAF has been challenged so openly--or aggressively--as Chief Roy. If the letter-writers are reflective of the service as a whole (and I believe they are), the Air Force is reaching a tipping point. Without wholesale changes--including many of those outlined in the letter--many airmen will begin voting with their feet, even during an economic downturn.
Not that the brass (and their CMSAF mouth-piece) would actually care. The service is currently in the midst of a major draw down, eliminating thousands of personnel billets (most of them enlisted) to save money and free up more funds for acquisition programs. It's been tried before; back in the mid-1990s, the Air Force got rid of 10,000 airmen, NCOs and junior officers to help pay for the F-22 program.
Then, about seven years later, some of the service's senior leaders were complaining about decreased experience levels in certain enlisted career fields. Apparently, they couldn't (or would not) make the connection between the 1995 draw down and the shortage of trained E-5s and E-6s a few years later.
Those concerned NCOs deserve great credit for writing their letter. Unfortunately, their missive will likely fall on deaf ears, unless Congress decides to hold the service accountable. Chief Roy's next appearance before a Congressional committee should be very interesting, indeed.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
The Unnecessary Apology
It hasn't been confirmed, but there was reportedly a small seismic event in northwest Missouri yesterday. The temblor was centered near the town of Independence, where President Harry S. Truman is buried. Mr. Truman, it seems, can no longer rest in peace, given the U.S. decision to send a representative to this Friday's ceremony in Japan, officially marking the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
More from AFP, via Breitbart:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US President Barack Obama "thought it appropriate" to recognize Japan's atomic bomb anniversary as he wants to rid the world of nuclear arms.
The United States, 65 years after a mushroom cloud rose over Hiroshima, will for the first time send an envoy this Friday to commemorate the bombing that rang in the nuclear age.
"President Obama is very committed to working toward a world without nuclear weapons," even if he sees it as a "long-term goal," Clinton told reporters when asked for comment on the anniversary.
"I think that the Obama administration and President Obama himself believe that it would be appropriate for us to recognize this anniversary and has proceeded to do so," she said.
Why has the U.S. never dispatched a representative to the event in the past? Because its solemnity is something of a fig leaf; the annual ceremony has anti-American, anti-nuclear and anti-military overtones, with no effort to explain the events in the broad sweep of history. Listening to some of the participants, you'd never know that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preceded by almost four years of bloody war that began at Pearl Harbor. That important context is typically missing from the Hiroshima remembrance, but we're still dispatching our ambassador in Tokyo to attend the event.
His presence will be widely interpreted as a de facto apology from the United States. That's hardly surprising; some wags have described President Obama's foreign travels as a global apology tour, and there's genuine speculation that he will offer some sort of mea culpa for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he visits Japan in November--after the mid-term elections.
Of course, this entire episode leaves us wondering: what does the U.S. have to apologize for? Looking for the quickest way to end the war--and reduce casualties on both sides--Mr. Truman made the fateful choice to use atomic weapons. His decision is more remarkable when you consider that Truman had never been briefed on the Manhattan Project as a senator or Vice-President; he didn't learn of the nation's nuclear program until after President Roosevelt died in April 1945, leaving it up to Mr. Truman to give the final okay.
Harry Truman was every inch a realist. He understood the terrible new weapons would inflict horrendous casualties, and Japanese civilians would not be spared. But Mr. Truman also realized that a planned invasion of Japan's home islands would be even more horrific. U.S. commanders expected our troops would suffer a minimum of 250,000 casualties during Operation Olympic the preliminary invasion of Kyushu (the southernmost of Japan's main islands), scheduled for November 1946.
Olympic would be followed by Operation Coronet, the main landings on the island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. Enemy resistance was expected to be determined and fierce; Japan hoped to shatter the invasion forces on land and at sea with massive suicide attacks. Japanese kamikaze pilots sank 32 American vessels during the battle for Okinawa; they hoped to destroy up to 800 U.S. ships supporting the invasion of Japan, using more than 12,000 aircraft still at their disposal.
By comparison, U.S. intelligence believed the Japanese military had only 3,000 planes to defend the home islands, and our estimates were off in other areas as well--mistakes that would have added to the carnage during the planned invasion. Intel officers believed the U.S. would suffer 1,000,000 casualties by the fall of 1946 (less than a year after the first landings on Kyushu), and that estimate was considered conservative in many circles. Casualty totals among enemy military personnel and civilians was expected to be much, much higher, as the Japanese literally fought to the death.
Against that backdrop, President Truman made his decision to unleash atomic weapons. An estimated 64,000 Japanese died at Hiroshima, while 40,000 perished at Nagasaki. While tragic, their deaths were less than 10% of the estimated U.S. casualties in the planned invasion of Japan. When you factor in projected Japanese military and civilian casualties, the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki represents (perhaps) five percent of those who would have been killed, wounded or maimed in a U.S. invasion of Japan.
That is another, vital contextual elements that is missing from the Hiroshima ceremony, but it won't deter the White House or Mrs. Clinton's crew a Foggy Bottom. They view the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities as a wrong that must be corrected, to enhance America's standing in the world. Harry Truman never saw any need for that; he understood that war is a terrible business that sometimes requires leaders to make the most difficult decisions. From what we've read, Mr. Truman had no regrets over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and felt no need to apologize for ending a war that Japan started.
As Sarah Palin would say, the man from Independence had "cajones." That used to be a requirement for the presidency.
More from AFP, via Breitbart:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US President Barack Obama "thought it appropriate" to recognize Japan's atomic bomb anniversary as he wants to rid the world of nuclear arms.
The United States, 65 years after a mushroom cloud rose over Hiroshima, will for the first time send an envoy this Friday to commemorate the bombing that rang in the nuclear age.
"President Obama is very committed to working toward a world without nuclear weapons," even if he sees it as a "long-term goal," Clinton told reporters when asked for comment on the anniversary.
"I think that the Obama administration and President Obama himself believe that it would be appropriate for us to recognize this anniversary and has proceeded to do so," she said.
Why has the U.S. never dispatched a representative to the event in the past? Because its solemnity is something of a fig leaf; the annual ceremony has anti-American, anti-nuclear and anti-military overtones, with no effort to explain the events in the broad sweep of history. Listening to some of the participants, you'd never know that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preceded by almost four years of bloody war that began at Pearl Harbor. That important context is typically missing from the Hiroshima remembrance, but we're still dispatching our ambassador in Tokyo to attend the event.
His presence will be widely interpreted as a de facto apology from the United States. That's hardly surprising; some wags have described President Obama's foreign travels as a global apology tour, and there's genuine speculation that he will offer some sort of mea culpa for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he visits Japan in November--after the mid-term elections.
Of course, this entire episode leaves us wondering: what does the U.S. have to apologize for? Looking for the quickest way to end the war--and reduce casualties on both sides--Mr. Truman made the fateful choice to use atomic weapons. His decision is more remarkable when you consider that Truman had never been briefed on the Manhattan Project as a senator or Vice-President; he didn't learn of the nation's nuclear program until after President Roosevelt died in April 1945, leaving it up to Mr. Truman to give the final okay.
Harry Truman was every inch a realist. He understood the terrible new weapons would inflict horrendous casualties, and Japanese civilians would not be spared. But Mr. Truman also realized that a planned invasion of Japan's home islands would be even more horrific. U.S. commanders expected our troops would suffer a minimum of 250,000 casualties during Operation Olympic the preliminary invasion of Kyushu (the southernmost of Japan's main islands), scheduled for November 1946.
Olympic would be followed by Operation Coronet, the main landings on the island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. Enemy resistance was expected to be determined and fierce; Japan hoped to shatter the invasion forces on land and at sea with massive suicide attacks. Japanese kamikaze pilots sank 32 American vessels during the battle for Okinawa; they hoped to destroy up to 800 U.S. ships supporting the invasion of Japan, using more than 12,000 aircraft still at their disposal.
By comparison, U.S. intelligence believed the Japanese military had only 3,000 planes to defend the home islands, and our estimates were off in other areas as well--mistakes that would have added to the carnage during the planned invasion. Intel officers believed the U.S. would suffer 1,000,000 casualties by the fall of 1946 (less than a year after the first landings on Kyushu), and that estimate was considered conservative in many circles. Casualty totals among enemy military personnel and civilians was expected to be much, much higher, as the Japanese literally fought to the death.
Against that backdrop, President Truman made his decision to unleash atomic weapons. An estimated 64,000 Japanese died at Hiroshima, while 40,000 perished at Nagasaki. While tragic, their deaths were less than 10% of the estimated U.S. casualties in the planned invasion of Japan. When you factor in projected Japanese military and civilian casualties, the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki represents (perhaps) five percent of those who would have been killed, wounded or maimed in a U.S. invasion of Japan.
That is another, vital contextual elements that is missing from the Hiroshima ceremony, but it won't deter the White House or Mrs. Clinton's crew a Foggy Bottom. They view the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities as a wrong that must be corrected, to enhance America's standing in the world. Harry Truman never saw any need for that; he understood that war is a terrible business that sometimes requires leaders to make the most difficult decisions. From what we've read, Mr. Truman had no regrets over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and felt no need to apologize for ending a war that Japan started.
As Sarah Palin would say, the man from Independence had "cajones." That used to be a requirement for the presidency.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Groundhog Day (Air Force Tanker Edition)
The Air Force's effort to field its next-generation air tanker has come full circle, in a sense.
Once again, the service has received bids for a new air refueling platform, which will replace aging KC-135s that have been in service since the Eisenhower Administration. The effort to buy new tankers has been going on for more than a decade.
And, once again, the tanker competition will pit the same aerospace giants. On one side is Boeing, which has built most of the USAF tanker fleet since the early 1950s. On the other side is European defense giant EADS, which is "going solo," after its original American partner, Northrop-Grumman dropped out.
Now, the Air Force will review their respective proposals and if all goes well, a winner will be announced sometime early next year. And, assuming there are no further "complications," the first new jets will begin arriving at USAF tanker units in 2014 or 2015, more than 10 years behind the original timeline.
Readers of this blog are familiar with the problems that have plagued the tanker program. The original proposal to lease KC-767s from Boeing was scuttled, after it was revealed that the Air Force's senior civilian procurement official, Darlene Druyan, had arranged jobs for herself (and two other family members) with the defense contractor. Ms. Druyan eventually went to prison, and the tanker effort was delayed by more than five years.
When the procurement process resumed, the Air Force received two bids, one from Boeing and the other from the EADS/Northrop-Grumman team. In February 2008, USAF officials studded the aerospace industry by announcing that Northrop-Grumman and its European partner had won the competition. Boeing quickly filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, which was subsequently upheld. That sent the service--and the contractors--back to the drawing board.
And not surprisingly, there were a few more wrinkles in the convoluted process. Not only did Northrop-Grumman drop out of the race, a third team actually entered the competition. U.S. Aerospace, a small California firm, offered three potential tanker platforms, all based on Russian-built Antonov airframes. The surprise submission immediately raised questions about the company and its ability to actually compete for the contract. Financial records showed U.S. Aerospace had only 30 employees, substantial debt on its balance sheet, and inadequate facilities for handling and storing classified information.
Still, U.S. Aerospace vowed to soldier on, claiming its price would be the lowest--if the bidding process was "fair." Well, the deadline for bids arrived on 9 July, and the California company came up short--because its proposal wasn't received by the 2 p.m. EDT deadline. As Aviation Week reports:
If you thought the latest KC-X competition couldn't get weirder once the obscure U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid surfaced last month, you were wrong.
Despite crowing by the U.S. Aerospace advisor, Chuck Arnold, about a KC-X bid, it seems the company didn't dot its i's and cross its t's -- at least not in time.
Bids to compete for the program -- 179 KC-135 replacements estimated to be worth $35 billion -- were due at 2 p.m. EST at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Apparently, the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid didn't make it in time.
Pentagon spokesmen wouldn't say if the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov proposal was merely late, or not submitted at all. By comparison, the required paperwork from EADS and Boeing were received ahead of schedule, allowing their bids to move forward in the competition.
But don't expect the American-Russian team to simply fade away. Taking a cue from Boeing (in the last round of bidding), U.S. Aerospace/Antonov consortium has filed a protest with the GAO, claiming it was treated unfairly by the Air Force. According to U.S. Aerospace, its messenger was initially denied entry to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (where the bids would be formally submitted). He was then given "bad" directions to the required delivery point, then told to "wait" for Air Force personnel to escort him. U.S. Aerospace also claims that its bid was in the service's possession before the required deadline, but the firms documents were stamped "received" at 2:05 p.m.--five minutes late.
Under defense contracting rules, U.S. Aerospace will receive a hearing from the GAO. And, if the accountability office sides with the firm, then the tanker program will grind to a halt once more. Many analysts don't believe that will happen, given the firm's past problems and questions about whether the bid was actually submitted. But if decades of frustration and false starts in the KC-X program have taught us anything, it's this: with billions of defense dollars at stake, contractors will go to any length to gain an advantage--and deny it to their competitors.
Judging by this latest development, the Air Force is still a long, long way from getting the new tanker it so desperately needs.
Once again, the service has received bids for a new air refueling platform, which will replace aging KC-135s that have been in service since the Eisenhower Administration. The effort to buy new tankers has been going on for more than a decade.
And, once again, the tanker competition will pit the same aerospace giants. On one side is Boeing, which has built most of the USAF tanker fleet since the early 1950s. On the other side is European defense giant EADS, which is "going solo," after its original American partner, Northrop-Grumman dropped out.
Now, the Air Force will review their respective proposals and if all goes well, a winner will be announced sometime early next year. And, assuming there are no further "complications," the first new jets will begin arriving at USAF tanker units in 2014 or 2015, more than 10 years behind the original timeline.
Readers of this blog are familiar with the problems that have plagued the tanker program. The original proposal to lease KC-767s from Boeing was scuttled, after it was revealed that the Air Force's senior civilian procurement official, Darlene Druyan, had arranged jobs for herself (and two other family members) with the defense contractor. Ms. Druyan eventually went to prison, and the tanker effort was delayed by more than five years.
When the procurement process resumed, the Air Force received two bids, one from Boeing and the other from the EADS/Northrop-Grumman team. In February 2008, USAF officials studded the aerospace industry by announcing that Northrop-Grumman and its European partner had won the competition. Boeing quickly filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, which was subsequently upheld. That sent the service--and the contractors--back to the drawing board.
And not surprisingly, there were a few more wrinkles in the convoluted process. Not only did Northrop-Grumman drop out of the race, a third team actually entered the competition. U.S. Aerospace, a small California firm, offered three potential tanker platforms, all based on Russian-built Antonov airframes. The surprise submission immediately raised questions about the company and its ability to actually compete for the contract. Financial records showed U.S. Aerospace had only 30 employees, substantial debt on its balance sheet, and inadequate facilities for handling and storing classified information.
Still, U.S. Aerospace vowed to soldier on, claiming its price would be the lowest--if the bidding process was "fair." Well, the deadline for bids arrived on 9 July, and the California company came up short--because its proposal wasn't received by the 2 p.m. EDT deadline. As Aviation Week reports:
If you thought the latest KC-X competition couldn't get weirder once the obscure U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid surfaced last month, you were wrong.
Despite crowing by the U.S. Aerospace advisor, Chuck Arnold, about a KC-X bid, it seems the company didn't dot its i's and cross its t's -- at least not in time.
Bids to compete for the program -- 179 KC-135 replacements estimated to be worth $35 billion -- were due at 2 p.m. EST at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Apparently, the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid didn't make it in time.
Pentagon spokesmen wouldn't say if the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov proposal was merely late, or not submitted at all. By comparison, the required paperwork from EADS and Boeing were received ahead of schedule, allowing their bids to move forward in the competition.
But don't expect the American-Russian team to simply fade away. Taking a cue from Boeing (in the last round of bidding), U.S. Aerospace/Antonov consortium has filed a protest with the GAO, claiming it was treated unfairly by the Air Force. According to U.S. Aerospace, its messenger was initially denied entry to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (where the bids would be formally submitted). He was then given "bad" directions to the required delivery point, then told to "wait" for Air Force personnel to escort him. U.S. Aerospace also claims that its bid was in the service's possession before the required deadline, but the firms documents were stamped "received" at 2:05 p.m.--five minutes late.
Under defense contracting rules, U.S. Aerospace will receive a hearing from the GAO. And, if the accountability office sides with the firm, then the tanker program will grind to a halt once more. Many analysts don't believe that will happen, given the firm's past problems and questions about whether the bid was actually submitted. But if decades of frustration and false starts in the KC-X program have taught us anything, it's this: with billions of defense dollars at stake, contractors will go to any length to gain an advantage--and deny it to their competitors.
Judging by this latest development, the Air Force is still a long, long way from getting the new tanker it so desperately needs.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Chuck Signs Off
Over the past five years, we've taken our share of shots at the media. From our (slightly) biased perspective, most of them were well-deserved.
But the mainstream press--and its members--are worthy of praise on rare occasions. One of those moments occurred last week, when Chuck Roberts, one of the original anchors on CNN's Headline News, signed off after 28 years at the network.
Mr. Roberts was never a star at the network; when Headline News debuted in 1982, he anchored the very first newscast. Nearly 30 years later, Roberts was still the afternoon host for the network, handling routine newscasts and breaking news with equal aplomb.
But there was one thing Chuck Roberts never did at CNN that made him unique. In an era when anchors feel compelled to raise an eyebrow, or add a little voice inflection to slant a story, Mr. Roberts never did. He always played it straight, letting the audience form their own opinions. It was once a cardinal rule of broadcast journalism; by the time Roberts retired, he was one of the few practitioners at the network level.
In that respect, Chuck Roberts was a throwback to another era. His approach was reminiscent of the late Frank Blair, the original newscaster on NBC's "Today" and a vastly underrated journalist. Mr. Blair delivered the morning news headlines for 23 years, becoming one of the best-known TV personalities of his era. Yet, his style was so balanced that both his NBC colleagues and competitors said they could never deduce Blair's political leanings.
With public trust in the media at (or near) all-time lows, you'd think there would be room for the next Frank Blair or the next Chuck Roberts. But sadly, you'd be wrong.
***
Incidentally, Mr. Robert's on-air farewell at CNN was about what you'd expect; low-key and professional, with the anchor focusing primarily on his colleagues, and not himself. The last of a breed.
But the mainstream press--and its members--are worthy of praise on rare occasions. One of those moments occurred last week, when Chuck Roberts, one of the original anchors on CNN's Headline News, signed off after 28 years at the network.
Mr. Roberts was never a star at the network; when Headline News debuted in 1982, he anchored the very first newscast. Nearly 30 years later, Roberts was still the afternoon host for the network, handling routine newscasts and breaking news with equal aplomb.
But there was one thing Chuck Roberts never did at CNN that made him unique. In an era when anchors feel compelled to raise an eyebrow, or add a little voice inflection to slant a story, Mr. Roberts never did. He always played it straight, letting the audience form their own opinions. It was once a cardinal rule of broadcast journalism; by the time Roberts retired, he was one of the few practitioners at the network level.
In that respect, Chuck Roberts was a throwback to another era. His approach was reminiscent of the late Frank Blair, the original newscaster on NBC's "Today" and a vastly underrated journalist. Mr. Blair delivered the morning news headlines for 23 years, becoming one of the best-known TV personalities of his era. Yet, his style was so balanced that both his NBC colleagues and competitors said they could never deduce Blair's political leanings.
With public trust in the media at (or near) all-time lows, you'd think there would be room for the next Frank Blair or the next Chuck Roberts. But sadly, you'd be wrong.
***
Incidentally, Mr. Robert's on-air farewell at CNN was about what you'd expect; low-key and professional, with the anchor focusing primarily on his colleagues, and not himself. The last of a breed.
Aiming High (Again)?
What's in a slogan? Plenty, as the Air Force has discovered.
For years, the service used "Aim High" as its catch-phrase, neatly summarizing the USAF's dominance in air and space operations, and the dedication of its personnel in maintaining that standard.
But somewhere along the way, the brass decided that "Aim High" had lost its cachet. It was replaced, in no particular order, by "Cross into the Blue;" "Above and Beyond," and most recently, "Above All."
None of those filled the bill, either, and the Air Force has been looking for yet (another) slogan since earlier this year. In fact, the service has been soliciting ideas from the ranks and commercial marketing firms, which have been conducting focus-group research.
According to Air Force Times, some of the ideas could be unveiled next month, at the semi-annual "Corona" meeting of the service's senior leaders. So far, the USAF hasn't revealed how much is being spent on the search for a new slogan, but having dealt with marketing experts for a number of years, they don't work cheap.
Of course, that begs another question, namely, why is so much time and effort being devoted to development of a new catch-phrase? Apparently, it's all about "branding," even for the world's preeminent air and space force. Service leaders believe they need a slogan that effectively captures the capabilities and spirit of the USAF, preferably in seven words or less.
For years, the service used "Aim High" as its catch-phrase, neatly summarizing the USAF's dominance in air and space operations, and the dedication of its personnel in maintaining that standard.
But somewhere along the way, the brass decided that "Aim High" had lost its cachet. It was replaced, in no particular order, by "Cross into the Blue;" "Above and Beyond," and most recently, "Above All."
None of those filled the bill, either, and the Air Force has been looking for yet (another) slogan since earlier this year. In fact, the service has been soliciting ideas from the ranks and commercial marketing firms, which have been conducting focus-group research.
According to Air Force Times, some of the ideas could be unveiled next month, at the semi-annual "Corona" meeting of the service's senior leaders. So far, the USAF hasn't revealed how much is being spent on the search for a new slogan, but having dealt with marketing experts for a number of years, they don't work cheap.
Of course, that begs another question, namely, why is so much time and effort being devoted to development of a new catch-phrase? Apparently, it's all about "branding," even for the world's preeminent air and space force. Service leaders believe they need a slogan that effectively captures the capabilities and spirit of the USAF, preferably in seven words or less.
And it's not a matter of recruiting, either. For years, Air Force recruiters have easily met their quotas, referring individuals who don't meet service standards to other branches of the military. In fact, when AFT asked about the slogan's potential impact on recruiting, a public affairs officer said "We don't want people coming in thinking about tag lines."
Which brings us back to our original query: why does the service need a new slogan right now?
The answer is actually rooted in the Pentagon budget wars and the scramble for a shrinking defense pie. Almost a decade into the War on Terror (or whatever the Obama Adminstration is calling it these days), there is a public perception--completely inaccurate--that the Air Force is largely a bystander in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaida. Meanwhile, the Army and the Marine Corps are actively engaged, putting them in line for more resources--at the expense of the Air Force.
In other words, the USAF really wants a slogan to show its relevance to the current fight. That's why many of those surveyed (both by the Air Force and AFT) favor something along the lines of "Fly, Fight and Win." That's a pretty succinct summation of the Air Force mission. However, more than a few airmen favor a return to "Aim High," which suggests an organization that sets--and achieves--the ultimate performance standards in air, space and cyber-space.
But there's only one problem with this process. Truly successful and memorable slogans are often rooted in the culture and values of the organization, and the quality of the goods and services that are delivered.
From our perspective, the Air Force is only half-way there. Obviously, the USAF is the preeminent air and space force in the world, and its contributions to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan often go unnoticed. Air Force security forces, EOD technicians and transporters are among the many airmen who are outside the wire every day, performing dangerous missions that are vital to the war effort.
Likewise, the public (and the pundit class) often forget the Air Force's pioneering efforts in fielding and networking unmanned aerial vehicles. Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk operations in the AOR represent more than a pilot and sensor operator, controlling the craft from thousands of miles away. Every mission they fly is supported by at least one USAF Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS), the intel architecture that allows analysts to monitor events in real-time and provide threat warning to troops on the ground. The other services are now scrambling to duplicate DCGS capabilities that have existed in the Air Force for years. Clearly, the service needs to do a better job of telling its story, a process that has been aided by its recent foray into social media.
Unfortunately, the problem isn't limited to story-telling skills, or needed improvements in the USAF's public affairs organization. Much of the service's heroic and pioneering combat efforts have been overshadowed by scandals and snafus that have haunted the service for almost a decade. Do names like Darlene Druyun, Thomas Fiscus, Jill Metzger and Michael Murphy ring a bell? Or how about the Minot nuclear incident, the KC-X controversy or failed attempts to field a new rescue helicopter?
And the list of shame doesn't end there. What about Thunder Vision, or the simultaneous firing of the Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff for repeated failures in the service's nuclear enterprise? Or, more recently, the courts-martial of a Command Chief Master Sergeant who (allegedly) engaged in orgies with women in his organization and his wife.
We could go on, but you get the idea. Whatever new slogan the service comes up with may be tainted by years of scandal and misconduct. Admittedly, the number of convicts and screw-ups in the ranks is overwhelmingly small, but their misconduct has resonated across the USAF and throughout the U.S. military. Small wonder that many Americans know that Mike Murphy served as a JAG for 20 years (without a law license), but most have never heard of TSgt John Chapman, or SrA Jason Cunningham. That imbalance speaks volumes about the current climate inside the USAF.
If the Air Force wants a new slogan that resonates with the American public (and inside The Beltway), then a little house-cleaning is in order. Stop letting the snakes slither out the door, pensions and benefits intact, and get serious about discipline and core values, once and for all.
Put another way: it's hard to "Aim High" when some senior leaders are setting the bar so low.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Endorsing the "New" START
The recently-signed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and Russia has picked up an important endorsement. In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, fourteen former commanders of Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command expressed their support for the pact:
As former commanders of Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command, we collectively spent many years providing oversight, direction and maintenance of U.S. strategic nuclear forces and advising presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush on strategic nuclear policy. We are writing to express our support for ratification of the New START Treaty. The treaty will enhance American national security in several important ways.
First, while it was not possible at this time to address the important issues of non-strategic weapons and total strategic nuclear stockpiles, the New START Treaty sustains limits on deployed Russian strategic nuclear weapons that will allow the United States to continue to reduce its own deployed strategic nuclear weapons. Given the end of the Cold War, there is little concern today about the probability of a Russian nuclear attack. But continuing the formal strategic arms reduction process will contribute to a more productive and safer relationship with Russia.
Second, the New START Treaty contains verification and transparency measures—such as data exchanges, periodic data updates, notifications, unique identifiers on strategic systems, some access to telemetry and on-site inspections—that will give us important insights into Russian strategic nuclear forces and how they operate those forces. We will understand Russian strategic forces much better with the treaty than would be the case without it. For example, the treaty permits on-site inspections that will allow us to observe and confirm the number of warheads on individual Russian missiles; we cannot do that with just national technical means of verification. That kind of transparency will contribute to a more stable relationship between our two countries. It will also give us greater predictability about Russian strategic forces, so that we can make better-informed decisions about how we shape and operate our own forces.
To their credit, the retired generals and admirals acknowledge that treaty limits will force the U.S. to make deeper cuts than Russia. But despite these reductions, they believe the United States will still retain a "robust, survivable and effective nuclear deterrent," built (largely) on the capabilties of our ballistic missile submarine force. By comparison, our nuclear bomber force is both shrinking and aging, while our land-based ICBMs are located in fixed silos that can be easily targeted.
But is the new START accord really the "good deal" outlined by the former flag officers? Count us among the skeptics. A number of observers, including Henry Sokolski (Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) and former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have voiced serious misgivings about the treaty, and its language concerning missile defense, among other topics.
For example, the preamble of the new treaty appears to link strategic offensive weapons and missile defenses, which could limit future deployments of systems designed to protect us against ballistic missile attacks. Supporters of START claim the preamble is largely meaningless, but Russian officials have a different view. From their perspective, future U.S. BMD deployments would put us in violation of the treaty, giving them a pretext for abandoning it.
Having invested so much time and effort in negotiating the agreement, it's likely the Obama Administration would avoid antagonizing Moscow at virtually any cost. That doesn't bode well for the next generation of missile defenses.
And, as Mitt Romney observes, the new treaty contains some "fuzzy math" that seems to benefit Moscow as well. For example, the START accord treats each nuclear bomber as a single "weapon," no matter how many missiles or bombs it can carry. Did we mention that Russia is currently developing a new strategic bomber to supplement its (relatively) small number of TU-160 Blackjacks (roughly equivalent to a B-1 Lancer), and TU-95 Bears? Meanwhile, the U.S. has all-but-abandoned plans for a new long-range bomber, opting (instead) for a family of aircraft that will perform various elements of the mission.
But the flaws in the new START agreement don't end there. In an op-ed for the Washington Post (published last month) Governor Romney noted that the proposed treaty actually encourges Russia to place multiple re-entry vehicles on a single missile, since it removes the restrictions on MIRVs found in the old agreement. Indeed, the Russian press has reported that Moscow plans to retain as many warheads as possible, taking advantage of various loopholes and ambiguities in the new treaty.
So why are the retired generals and admirals ignoring these rather inconvenient facts? It all depends on your perspective. More than a few former flag officers, having spent decades in the nuclear business, develop a deep sense that arms reduction treaties are the only viable option for preventing a nuclear conflict. Others have their own agendas, believing that supporting the treaty might land them an appointment to a presidential commission, or perhaps an ambassadorship. Some of the former nuclear commanders may be hoping for another sort of quid pro quo, trying to persuade the administration to begin modernizing what's left of our nuclear arsenal, in exchange for their timely support for the accord.
Sadly, the prospects for that latter scenario are exactly...zero. The President and his national security team are quite willing to sustain the degradation of our strategic forces. Nuclear-capable B-52s are expected to remain on the job until 2030, at which time the newest "Buffs" will be almost 80 years old. Likewise, our Minuteman III ICBMs are also projected to remain on alert for another two decades, long past their original retirement date. Additionally, there are no plans to design or build more modern nuclear warheads, or update the technical and intellectual infrastructure required to produce those weapons.
In other words, those retired generals and admirals have endorsed a bad deal for the United States, both now and in the future. Whatever we gain under the new START treaty is more than surpassed by what we give up, both in terms of present and future capabilities, including missile defense.
Too bad some of the legendary CINCSACs (like Curt LeMay) are no longer with us. That whirring noise you hear is General LeMay, rolling in his grave. If copies of the treaty are available in the Great Beyond, the man who built SAC into a global strike force must be shaking his head--at what we're willing to give up, and at the men who have put their reputations and credibility behind that so-called agreement.
As former commanders of Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command, we collectively spent many years providing oversight, direction and maintenance of U.S. strategic nuclear forces and advising presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush on strategic nuclear policy. We are writing to express our support for ratification of the New START Treaty. The treaty will enhance American national security in several important ways.
First, while it was not possible at this time to address the important issues of non-strategic weapons and total strategic nuclear stockpiles, the New START Treaty sustains limits on deployed Russian strategic nuclear weapons that will allow the United States to continue to reduce its own deployed strategic nuclear weapons. Given the end of the Cold War, there is little concern today about the probability of a Russian nuclear attack. But continuing the formal strategic arms reduction process will contribute to a more productive and safer relationship with Russia.
Second, the New START Treaty contains verification and transparency measures—such as data exchanges, periodic data updates, notifications, unique identifiers on strategic systems, some access to telemetry and on-site inspections—that will give us important insights into Russian strategic nuclear forces and how they operate those forces. We will understand Russian strategic forces much better with the treaty than would be the case without it. For example, the treaty permits on-site inspections that will allow us to observe and confirm the number of warheads on individual Russian missiles; we cannot do that with just national technical means of verification. That kind of transparency will contribute to a more stable relationship between our two countries. It will also give us greater predictability about Russian strategic forces, so that we can make better-informed decisions about how we shape and operate our own forces.
To their credit, the retired generals and admirals acknowledge that treaty limits will force the U.S. to make deeper cuts than Russia. But despite these reductions, they believe the United States will still retain a "robust, survivable and effective nuclear deterrent," built (largely) on the capabilties of our ballistic missile submarine force. By comparison, our nuclear bomber force is both shrinking and aging, while our land-based ICBMs are located in fixed silos that can be easily targeted.
But is the new START accord really the "good deal" outlined by the former flag officers? Count us among the skeptics. A number of observers, including Henry Sokolski (Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) and former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have voiced serious misgivings about the treaty, and its language concerning missile defense, among other topics.
For example, the preamble of the new treaty appears to link strategic offensive weapons and missile defenses, which could limit future deployments of systems designed to protect us against ballistic missile attacks. Supporters of START claim the preamble is largely meaningless, but Russian officials have a different view. From their perspective, future U.S. BMD deployments would put us in violation of the treaty, giving them a pretext for abandoning it.
Having invested so much time and effort in negotiating the agreement, it's likely the Obama Administration would avoid antagonizing Moscow at virtually any cost. That doesn't bode well for the next generation of missile defenses.
And, as Mitt Romney observes, the new treaty contains some "fuzzy math" that seems to benefit Moscow as well. For example, the START accord treats each nuclear bomber as a single "weapon," no matter how many missiles or bombs it can carry. Did we mention that Russia is currently developing a new strategic bomber to supplement its (relatively) small number of TU-160 Blackjacks (roughly equivalent to a B-1 Lancer), and TU-95 Bears? Meanwhile, the U.S. has all-but-abandoned plans for a new long-range bomber, opting (instead) for a family of aircraft that will perform various elements of the mission.
But the flaws in the new START agreement don't end there. In an op-ed for the Washington Post (published last month) Governor Romney noted that the proposed treaty actually encourges Russia to place multiple re-entry vehicles on a single missile, since it removes the restrictions on MIRVs found in the old agreement. Indeed, the Russian press has reported that Moscow plans to retain as many warheads as possible, taking advantage of various loopholes and ambiguities in the new treaty.
So why are the retired generals and admirals ignoring these rather inconvenient facts? It all depends on your perspective. More than a few former flag officers, having spent decades in the nuclear business, develop a deep sense that arms reduction treaties are the only viable option for preventing a nuclear conflict. Others have their own agendas, believing that supporting the treaty might land them an appointment to a presidential commission, or perhaps an ambassadorship. Some of the former nuclear commanders may be hoping for another sort of quid pro quo, trying to persuade the administration to begin modernizing what's left of our nuclear arsenal, in exchange for their timely support for the accord.
Sadly, the prospects for that latter scenario are exactly...zero. The President and his national security team are quite willing to sustain the degradation of our strategic forces. Nuclear-capable B-52s are expected to remain on the job until 2030, at which time the newest "Buffs" will be almost 80 years old. Likewise, our Minuteman III ICBMs are also projected to remain on alert for another two decades, long past their original retirement date. Additionally, there are no plans to design or build more modern nuclear warheads, or update the technical and intellectual infrastructure required to produce those weapons.
In other words, those retired generals and admirals have endorsed a bad deal for the United States, both now and in the future. Whatever we gain under the new START treaty is more than surpassed by what we give up, both in terms of present and future capabilities, including missile defense.
Too bad some of the legendary CINCSACs (like Curt LeMay) are no longer with us. That whirring noise you hear is General LeMay, rolling in his grave. If copies of the treaty are available in the Great Beyond, the man who built SAC into a global strike force must be shaking his head--at what we're willing to give up, and at the men who have put their reputations and credibility behind that so-called agreement.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Disenfranchised Over There, Redux
Unless you watch Fox News, or read various conservative blogs, you probably missed the most under-reported story of the past week. Thanks to those outlets--and Justice Department whistle-blowers--we know that the Obama Administration's lax enforcement of voting laws isn't limited to the "New Black Panthers" case in Philadelphia. Turns out that Eric Holder and his crew have also taken a pass on upholding the voting rights of military members.
We refer to the Military Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE), passed by Congress last fall. It's designed to give members of the armed forces more time to submit their absentee ballots from overseas locations. But, according to former DOJ attorney J. Christian Anderson--the same man who testified against the the government when it dropped the Black Panthers case--the Justice Department has little interest in enforcing the new military voting law:
“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.
“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted," Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.
[snip]
In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ's voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting's minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Anderson's contentions are supported by another former DOJ attorney, Eric Eversole, who now runs the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole. "The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws."
Adams described DOJ's handling of the MOVE Act as "Keystone Cops enforcement."
So far, the Justice Department has not formally responded to Senator Cornyn's letter. But the department's non-existent enforcement policies should come as no surprise. We've written at length about the problems associated with military absentee ballots; putting in bluntly, many (if not most) are never counted because they arrive after the submission deadline.
And the problem doesn't lie with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who send in their ballots from distant corners of the globe. The problem can be blamed squarely on state and local election officials who mail out ballots at the last possible moment, realizing they can never be returned in time. How many military personnel are disenfranchised by these delays? Estimates vary, but in a May 2008 article published by The Weekly Standard, Hans Von Spakovsky and Roman Buehler estimated that only one-third of the 1,000,000 absentee ballots submitted by military personnel (and other U.S. residents abroad) were actually counted during the 2004 Presidential election.
Anecdotal evidence from 2008 suggests the number of disenfranchised troops was lower; in an editorial published last week, The Washington Times reported the votes of 17,000 military members were rejected two years ago. However, the paper does not report how it arrived at that figure, and given the sacrifices of our armed forces, you can argue that even one disenfranchised solider is one too many. Additionally, other analysts believe the number of rejected military absentee ballots in 2008 was much, much higher than the Times' total, and may have been closer to estimates from 2004.
More disturbing is the Justice Department's curious take on enforcing the MOVE Act. By pointing out ambiguities in the existing statutes, the DOJ appears to be encouraging states and territories to apply for waivers from the military voting law. That would allow the continued, late mailing of absentee ballots to members of the armed forces, virtually guaranteeing the continued disenfranchisement of thousands of military members and dependents.
So far, several states (New York, Delaware, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland and Alaska) have applied for waivers, or plan to do so. You may notice that most of those requesting waivers are blue states, and several have key races that are expected to go down to the wire. Could the ballots of military absentee voters make a difference in those contests? Apparently, officials in those states--with the encouragement of the DOJ--don't want to find out. After all, military members tend to vote Republican, so Democrats have an incentive to suppress a key source of GOP absentee votes. That means that literally thousands of military personnel will be denied the right to vote this fall, just as they were in 2008, 2006, and ever other preceding election cycle.
If you don't believe DOJ is reluctant to enforce the military voting law, consider this: until last week, the department's website still encouraged local election officials to mail out absentee ballots at least 30 days before an election. Never mind that the MOVE Act mandates the mailing of absentee ballots to military voters no later than 45 days before the election. Incidentally, the DOJ didn't bother to update the military section of its website until late last week, after Mr. Anderson and Mr. Eversole went public with their charges. Meanwhile, the DOJ site devotes a large section (over 2,000 words) advising convicted felons on how they can regain their voting rights.
There is, of course, a rather obvious solution to this problem. Before the 2008 election, the state of Arizona implemented on-line voting for residents serving in the military, or living abroad. Using technology similar to that for on-line purchases and banking transactions, the Arizona system allowed thousands of expatriates to cast their vote without absentee ballots. The Pentagon was working on a similar system in the run-up to the last presidential election but it was scrapped due to "security" concerns that have never been fully explained.
While Senator Cornyn is demanding answers, there is no reason to believe the technical issues (or enforcement problems) will be corrected by November, or before the next presidential election in 2012. As a result, the very men and women who are charged with defending our democracy remained the most disenfranchised group in the American electorate. The bitter irony of that fact cannot be overstated.
We refer to the Military Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE), passed by Congress last fall. It's designed to give members of the armed forces more time to submit their absentee ballots from overseas locations. But, according to former DOJ attorney J. Christian Anderson--the same man who testified against the the government when it dropped the Black Panthers case--the Justice Department has little interest in enforcing the new military voting law:
“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.
“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted," Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.
[snip]
In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ's voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting's minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Anderson's contentions are supported by another former DOJ attorney, Eric Eversole, who now runs the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole. "The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws."
Adams described DOJ's handling of the MOVE Act as "Keystone Cops enforcement."
So far, the Justice Department has not formally responded to Senator Cornyn's letter. But the department's non-existent enforcement policies should come as no surprise. We've written at length about the problems associated with military absentee ballots; putting in bluntly, many (if not most) are never counted because they arrive after the submission deadline.
And the problem doesn't lie with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who send in their ballots from distant corners of the globe. The problem can be blamed squarely on state and local election officials who mail out ballots at the last possible moment, realizing they can never be returned in time. How many military personnel are disenfranchised by these delays? Estimates vary, but in a May 2008 article published by The Weekly Standard, Hans Von Spakovsky and Roman Buehler estimated that only one-third of the 1,000,000 absentee ballots submitted by military personnel (and other U.S. residents abroad) were actually counted during the 2004 Presidential election.
Anecdotal evidence from 2008 suggests the number of disenfranchised troops was lower; in an editorial published last week, The Washington Times reported the votes of 17,000 military members were rejected two years ago. However, the paper does not report how it arrived at that figure, and given the sacrifices of our armed forces, you can argue that even one disenfranchised solider is one too many. Additionally, other analysts believe the number of rejected military absentee ballots in 2008 was much, much higher than the Times' total, and may have been closer to estimates from 2004.
More disturbing is the Justice Department's curious take on enforcing the MOVE Act. By pointing out ambiguities in the existing statutes, the DOJ appears to be encouraging states and territories to apply for waivers from the military voting law. That would allow the continued, late mailing of absentee ballots to members of the armed forces, virtually guaranteeing the continued disenfranchisement of thousands of military members and dependents.
So far, several states (New York, Delaware, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland and Alaska) have applied for waivers, or plan to do so. You may notice that most of those requesting waivers are blue states, and several have key races that are expected to go down to the wire. Could the ballots of military absentee voters make a difference in those contests? Apparently, officials in those states--with the encouragement of the DOJ--don't want to find out. After all, military members tend to vote Republican, so Democrats have an incentive to suppress a key source of GOP absentee votes. That means that literally thousands of military personnel will be denied the right to vote this fall, just as they were in 2008, 2006, and ever other preceding election cycle.
If you don't believe DOJ is reluctant to enforce the military voting law, consider this: until last week, the department's website still encouraged local election officials to mail out absentee ballots at least 30 days before an election. Never mind that the MOVE Act mandates the mailing of absentee ballots to military voters no later than 45 days before the election. Incidentally, the DOJ didn't bother to update the military section of its website until late last week, after Mr. Anderson and Mr. Eversole went public with their charges. Meanwhile, the DOJ site devotes a large section (over 2,000 words) advising convicted felons on how they can regain their voting rights.
There is, of course, a rather obvious solution to this problem. Before the 2008 election, the state of Arizona implemented on-line voting for residents serving in the military, or living abroad. Using technology similar to that for on-line purchases and banking transactions, the Arizona system allowed thousands of expatriates to cast their vote without absentee ballots. The Pentagon was working on a similar system in the run-up to the last presidential election but it was scrapped due to "security" concerns that have never been fully explained.
While Senator Cornyn is demanding answers, there is no reason to believe the technical issues (or enforcement problems) will be corrected by November, or before the next presidential election in 2012. As a result, the very men and women who are charged with defending our democracy remained the most disenfranchised group in the American electorate. The bitter irony of that fact cannot be overstated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)