The Fall Guy

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is being forced out, after less than two years on the job.  The New York Times (which received the initial leak from the White House), gladly served up administration spin that Mr. Hagel, a former Republican Senator from Nebraska, lacked the required skills to deal with emerging threats.

The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.

But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that the defense secretary initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

To be fair, there is an element of truth in the critique of Chuck Hagel's leadership skills.  He was a lousy choice for SecDef at the very moment our military establishment needed an extraordinary leader.  As we observed during Mr. Hagel's tortured confirmation process in 2013, he was the wrong man for the wrong job at the worst possible time: 

It doesn't take a military genius to understand that DoD desperately needs someone with ideas, exceptional managerial acumen and a road map for America's military forces in the 21st Century.  To date, President Obama hasn't offered much, other than winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which would have occurred regardless of who was in the Oval Office); his strategic focus on the Pacific theater and massive cuts in the defense budget.

The next Secretary of Defense faces huge challenges.  Even without sequestration, the Pentagon is looking at roughly $500 billion in cuts over the next decade, along with cuts in personnel and hardware that will create significant operational obstacles.  Good luck taking on a modernized Chinese military with a force that, on its current trajectory, will be completely hollowed out by the end of Mr. Obama's second term.

And we're being told that Chuck Hagel is the right man to lead the Defense Department at this critical moment.  How rich.  We're not sure if Mr. Hagel ever had a marshal's baton in his knapsack (following Napoleon's famous dictum); at this point, we'd just like to know if he actually has a clue.  

To date, Chuck Hagel is the only former enlisted soldier to be appointed as Secretary of Defense.  As an Army infantryman in Vietnam, Hagel served honorably, receiving two Purple Hearts and the Army Commendation Medal.  But his involvement with the military largely ended when he returned from Vietnam and didn't resume until Hagel entered the U.S. Senate in 1996.  As a member of that body, he developed a friendship with Barack Obama, centered on their skepticism about the war in Iraq.  

And there's the rub: searching for a replacement for Leon Panetta, the commander-in-chief's primary concern was finding someone with the requisite anti-war credentials and not the vision and leadership needed to lead DoD in an environment defined by the emergence of ISIS; China's growing military might, a resurgent Russia, continued military operations in Afghanistan and sequestration-imposed budget cuts.

It doesn't take a general to understand that dwindling resources translates--quickly--into decreased military readiness, a problem compounded by the so-called "procurement holiday" of the 1990s and a decade of war in the Middle East.  In an interview with Charlie Rose last week, Mr. Hagel said senior DoD leaders were openly worried about the situation facing our armed forces (H/T: PJ Tattler):

Hagel re-iterated that to Rose, but also left viewers to wonder about the direction that President Obama is taking the military.

“I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, including Pentagon leadership but leaving both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s names out of his list of officials who are worried about the U.S. military’s declining capability. Hagel said that the Congress and the American people need to know what while the U.S. military remains the strongest, best trained and most motivated in the world, its lead is being threatened because of policies being implemented now.

[snip]

In the past couple of years, Hagel has warned that defense budget cuts implemented under President Obama were hurting readiness and capability. The “how smart you are” line may be a veiled shot at President Obama, who basks in a media image that he is a cerebral, professorial president.

Reportedly, the "professor-in-chief" became miffed when Mr. Hagel recently suggested that ineffective policies against ISIS in Syria were actually aiding that country's dictator, Bashir Assad.  The outgoing defense chief has a point, but some would ask if he--and the service chiefs--could have been more forceful in stating their opposition to budget cuts, micro-management of the campaign against ISIS and the President's refusal to acknowledge the threat posed by the terror army until is was almost too late.

And the situation is unlikely to improve under Secretary Hagel's potential successors, Michelle Flournoy, Ashton Carter and Jack Reed.  Ms. Flournoy served in senior defense posts in the Clinton Administration and was Under-Secretary of Defense during Obama's first term; Carter was the Deputy SecDef during the same period and Reed is a longtime Democratic Senator from Rhode Island.  Early speculation suggests Ms. Flournoy has the inside track, which would allow President Obama to appoint the first female Secretary of Defense.  

Of the three, only Senator Reed has served in uniform; after graduating from West Point, he was an active-duty officer from 1971-1979 and remained in the Army Reserve until 1991.  Describing him as a doctrinaire liberal would be an understatement.  

At this point, it probably doesn't matter who serves as SecDef; Mr. Obama shows no inclination to change his national security policies, and the outlook for defense spending is equally grim.  Perhaps the real question is who will be nominated for the job in 2017, as part of the next administration.  That individual--whomever it might be--will face a near-impossible job.            

 
      

       

               

 

Deadline Time

While the media waits for word from the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, a much more important deadline is looming.

We refer to the Monday deadline for reaching an agreement on Iran's nuclear program.  At this point, the Obama Administration appears determined to reach any sort of deal, regardless of how bad it might be.  Writing at National Review, Fred Fleitz warns that any prospective accord may represent little more than a complete capitulation to Tehran:

Many in Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — are coming to the realization that the nuclear talks amount to a dangerous U.S. sellout to Tehran. But few of them realize how far this sellout has gone.

The reported American concessions to Tehran represent a stunning reversal of years of U.S. policy and include implicitly recognizing Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium, allowing Iran to operate 6,000 uranium centrifuges, and dropping longtime Western demands that Iran halt construction of the Arak heavy-water reactor, which will be a source of plutonium when completed. Iran also will not be forced to give up its large stockpile of reactor-grade uranium that currently could be used to make at least eight nuclear weapons if further enriched to weapons-grade.

[snip]

Based on the enormous concessions offered by the United States last fall to get Iran to the negotiating table, further U.S. concessions made during this year’s talks, Iran’s failure to cooperate with the IAEA, and its cheating on the interim agreement, many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle believe that any nuclear agreement struck with Iran will be weak and unverifiable and will do little or nothing to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Fleitz, a veteran intelligence officer, believes the White House's desperation for any sort of nuclear deal reflects bleak assessments on two fronts.  First, there's the realization that Mr. Obama has allowed the world to become a much more dangerous place on his watch, and needs some sort of "accomplishment" to counter-balance a legion of blunders.  A nuclear deal with Iran would (supposedly) represent a rare, foreign policy triumph.  

Secondly, there appears to be a growing consensus among administration officials--and policy wonks who share their world view--that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, and containment represents the best policy.  Those dangerous beliefs, Mr. Fleitz observes, were recently articulated in op-ed pieces by a pair of liberal pundits, Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution and Paul Pillar, a faculty member at Georgetown University.  Both are former CIA officers who argue that the threat from a nuclear Iran has been "over-hyped," and can actually be contained, similar to the strategy used for decades against the former Soviet Union.  

Both Pollack and Pillar believe it is unlikely that Iran would share nuclear technology--or finished weapons--with other rogue states and terrorist groups.  They also claim it would take Iran decades to match Israel's nuclear arsenal, while Jerusalem could easily add to its stockpile and is currently deploying more delivery platforms, including submarines capable of firing cruise missiles.  

There are obvious dangers in this line of thinking (and we use that term advisedly).  It's a given that Tehran has a much different world view than the Soviet leaders who paraded their weapons through Red Square, but thought very carefully about using them.  Iran remains committed to becoming the regional hegemon of the Middle East, and its generally agreed that Tehran would employ nuclear weapons more quickly against such adversaries as Israel--or U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf.  

And, having used terrorist proxies to fight its foes for more than 30 years, why should anyone doubt Iran's willingness to share nuclear technology with them, particularly when the U.S. has a long history of casting a blind eye towards enablers of nuclear ambition (think Pakistan).  Beyond that, Tehran may also believe it has the Obama Administration over a proverbial barrel.  In exchange for its "assistance" with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the mullahs probably expect even more flexibility from Washington on the nuclear issues.

At this point, it's still unclear if a deal will be reached by the Monday deadline.  But regardless of when an agreement is struck, it will be--almost assuredly--a terrible bargain, one that will likely codify Iranian gains, and put Tehran even closer to getting the bomb.  That, in turn, will trigger an even wider arms race in the Persian Gulf, as erstwhile American allies scramble to defend themselves, believing that Washington is no longer a reliable partner.  

That will be one of the lasting legacies of Barack Obama.  As for Republicans, they certainly talk a good game, but offer little in the way of an alternative.  Readers will note that GOP members of Congress left town this afternoon for their Thanksgiving break, saying almost nothing about Monday's deadline and what Mr. Obma is about to do.                                    


   

Keeping Watch

On this--and every--Veteran's Day, there will parades and speeches and expressions of gratitude for those who served and those who still wear the uniform.

But sometimes, the day' s real meaning is reflected in quiet moments, far removed from the official celebration.  Over at FreeRepublic.com, someone posted a remarkable photo that captures the essence of service, sacrifice and gratitude:

It was taken by three years ago by amateur photographer Frank Glick, at Fort Snelling National Cemetery in Minneapolis.  Running ahead of schedule on his morning commute, Glick took a detour through the cemetery and spotted the bald eagle, sitting atop a veteran's tomb stone.  He grabbed his camera and captured a timeless reminder of those who gave so much in the cause of freedom. 

Since then, the photo has gone viral, and rightfully so.  Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Jon Tevlin wrote a 2011 column about the photographer, and the World War II soldier whose tombstone provided a perch.            

Spies in the Land

It's been a rough week for key members of the terrorist networks in Syria and Iraq.

Last Wednesday, a U.S. airstrike successfully targeted David Drugeon, the French defector who had emerged as one of the leading bomb makers for Khorasan Group, a collection of Al Qaida veterans who are now fighting in Syria.  More from the Long War Journal:

Video surfaced on Facebook late Nov. 5 alleging to show the aftermath of a United States airstrike in Idlib. A number of recent airstrikes, as we now know, were targeting the Khorasan Group, a collection of al Qaeda veterans embedded within the Al Nusrah Front.

US Central Command announced that "US military forces conducted airstrikes last night against five Khorasan Group targets in the vicinity of Sarmada, Syria, using bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft" in a press release yesterday.

"We are still assessing the outcome of the attack, but have initial indications that it resulted in the intended effects by striking terrorists and destroying or severely damaging several Khorasan Group vehicles and buildings assessed to be meeting and staging areas, IED-making facilities and training facilities," the release continued.

Fox News reported that David Drugeon, a French defector to al Qaeda and a master bomb maker, was targeted in the airstrikes. 

"The drone struck a vehicle traveling in Syria's Idlib province that was believed to be carrying Drugeon. The driver of the vehicle is thought to have lost a leg and was expected to die, according to sources with knowledge of the operation. A second person thought to be Drugeon was killed, according to well-placed military sources," Fox News reported.

Drugeon was considered a particularly high-value target due to his advanced skills with explosives.  Intelligence officials claim he had perfected a technique for dipping clothing into explosive material, allowing wearers to pass undetected through airport security checkpoints and other screening measures. 

As the Long War Journal notes, the attack on Drugeon's car was carried out with remarkable precision.  Video from the scene shows the vehicle engulfed in flames, while a building just a few feet away appears untouched.  According to a CENTCOM spokesman, USAF B-1s, F-16s and drones participated in the attack; both the "Bone" and the Viper are capable of dropping the 250-lb Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), which is designed to minimize collateral damage.  A large number of Predator and Reaper UAVs can employ Hellfire missiles, which can also be utilized in urban environments.  So far, the Pentagon hasn't disclosed the weapon used to kill Drugeon.  

Two days later, American airpower targeted a 10-vehicle ISIS convoy in Mosul--carrying an even more important target.  The leader of the terror caliphate, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was among those riding in the convoy, and reportedly wounded in the attack.  A Twitter account belonging to an ISIS spokesman wished al-Baghdadi a "speedy recovery" from his wounds, although that account was difficult to verify.

According to various press accounts and claims by Iraqi officials, the ISIS leader was either seriously wounded in the attack, or not traveling in the convoy.  U.S. officials believe that one of al-Baghdadi's senior aides--who normally travels with him--was killed in the airstrike, increasing the odds that the ISIS kingpin may have been riding in one of the targeted vehicles.
  

The convoy target reflected poor operational security on the part of ISIS leadership, and suggested they weren't particularly concerned about limited American airstrikes, or intelligence collection capabilities.  That thinking will probably change, especially if rumors about al-Baghdadi prove true.  

Convoys of ISIS fighters, usually riding in Toyota pick-up trucks, have been a standard part of the group's operating procedures for many years.  And while that image may be frightening to local villagers or poorly-prepared Iraqi soldiers, they present a both a signature and a target from 20,000 feet.  If al-Baghdadi survives, his future movements will become much more discrete, as will his communications.  

In reality, the Friday air strike in Mosul was more than the product of air supremacy and persistent surveillance by various drone aircraft.  Tracking down--and taking down--terrorist leaders is often the product of months of careful intelligence collection and analysis, used to identify cells, larger networks and the individuals who lead them.  

Shane Harris of The Daily Beast has a new book coming out that details how such techniques were successfully used by the National Security Agency (and its military partners) during the Iraqi surge six years ago.  Here's a brief excerpt that explains the overall concept:

The Iraqi cell phone network was a potential intelligence gold mine. Cell phone contracts were among the first business deals struck in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power. Wireless was cheaper than wired communications, and cell phones were proliferating. The NSA had access to foreign telecommunications networks through agreements struck with the United States—based carriers that operated them. These companies were paid handsomely—each receiving tens of millions of dollars annually, according to one former company executive—to give the spy agencies privileged access to their networks and the data coursing through them. 

After Bush gave his order, daily strikes in Iraq were being carried about by a hybrid military and intelligence unit that brought together soldiers and spies. Their center of operations was a concrete hangar at the Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad, which had once housed Iraqi fighter jets. Most of the planes here now were unmanned drones. Their pilots worked alongside NSA hackers, FBI cyber forensics investigators, and special operations forces—the military’s elite commando squads. They all broke off into clusters, working with a seamless, almost organic precision. The hackers stole information from the enemy’s electronic devices and passed it to the analysts, who drew up target lists for the troops. As they went off on raids, the drone pilots watched overhead, giving eye-in-the-sky warning to the troops on the ground, thanks to sophisticated cameras and other sensors developed by the CIA. Sometimes the drone pilots themselves made the kill with a missile shot.

When an attack was finished, the troops gathered more intelligence from the site or from the fighters they captured—cell phones, laptop computers, thumb drives, address books, scraps of paper called “pocket litter” that might contain nothing more than a name, a phone number, or a physical or e-mail address. The troops brought the information back to the base and gave it to the analysts, who fed it into their databases and used data-mining software to look for connections to other fighters either in custody or at large. They paid close attention to how the fighters were getting money for their operations, including sources outside Iraq—in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

As Mr. Harris details, there was another, important element to this operation: offensive cyber ops.  With detailed knowledge of how the terrorists communicated, NSA hackers sometimes sent fake messages to particular Al Qaida operatives, instructing them to meet at a certain location, or plant a bomb at a particular point.  In many cases, the terrorists complied and were captured by U.S. troops, or on other occasions, dispatched by a Hellfire missile.  U.S. cyber warriors also planted malware in the computers and servers used by enemy fighters, gaining detailed information on everything from operational plans, to expense accounts for individual operatives.   

The enterprise illuminated scores of terrorist networks and led directly to their elimination.  And, there is little doubt the same techniques are being used against ISIS.  The fight is more difficult this time around.  Al-Baghdadi has reportedly "absorbed" the lessons of the surge and is determined not to repeat the mistakes made back in 2007 and 2008.  But his near-elimination last Friday suggests he still has some lessons to learn, and that ISIS has underestimated its foes.   

From the terrorists' perspective, the good news is that the U.S. doesn't have a massive ground presence to instantly exploit information developed by the spooks.  The bad news is our collection and analytical capabilities have improved since the days of the surge and we can still pinpoint the bad guys amid all the electronic clutter.  Al-Baghdadi will probably adopt a lower profile in the future; that increases the difficulty of targeting him, but it also degrades his ability to run the ISIS empire.  Put another way: that convoy ride in Mosul was probably his last, figuratively if not literally.  

***ADDENDUM***

Along with electronic surveillance, ISIS is also facing a threat from eyes on the ground.  Human intelligence (HUMINT) has never been our strong suit, but we are quite adept at paying money for information.  The Kurds have a decent intel network in northern Iraq, and it's probably being used to spread the intel equivalent of "walking around money," with the promise of a much larger payday for anyone who can lead us to al-Baghdadi and his senior aides.  As he recovers from his wounds, the ISIS leader must be wondering if he was exposed by his cell phone, his computer or even someone inside his organization.     

Late Monday, a Pentagon spokesman said the convoy raid did not target senior-level terrorists, but rather, was aimed at operational commanders.  That suggests we somehow got lucky (assuming al-Baghdadi was present), or the statement was aimed at concealing our ability to identify terror networks and their leaders. 

An Abundance of Caution

**UPDATE//4:05 pm** Medical officials in Charleston now say the C-17 pilot is at "no risk" of having Ebola, based on his lack of contact with "anyone in Liberia."  The Air Force officer has been removed from isolation, though he apparently remains hospitalized with flu-like symptoms.
***   

A point worth repeating: since the beginning of the U.S. military mission to Ebola-ravaged areas of West Africa, we've been told that service members face a very low risk of infection.  Their mission is focused on a variety of support functions, including security, logistics, and the establishment of new treatment centers.  Military personnel are not supposed to come in contact with actual Ebola patients, a line echoed by various officials at the White House and the Pentagon.

And events on the ground seemed to support that claim.  A number of troops (mostly Army and Air Force) have already returned from Liberia, and so far, none have been diagnosed with Ebola.  However, it is worth noting that DoD has mandated a 21-day monitoring period for all personnel returning from West Africa, based on the now-familiar "abundance of caution."

But others--including this blog--have argued that the Ebola mission subjects our service members to unnecessary dangers, given the limited training that most received before deployment--and the inevitability that a solider, sailor, airman or Marine will eventually come in contact with an infected individual, and contract the deadly disease.

That's why today's news out of Charleston, SC, is disturbing.  From WCSC-TV:

A pilot with the 437th Airlift Wing who flew a mission to West Africa on Oct. 23 and began experiencing "flu-like symptoms" this week is being screened for Ebola at the Medical University of South Carolina, according to Joint Base Charleston.

The serviceman, who lives off-base, began experiencing the symptoms on Wednesday, according to Staff Sgt. Anthony Hyatt.

While health officials believe he is an extremely low risk for Ebola, Joint Base Charleston coordinated with the state's Department of Health and Environmental Control to exercise "the appropriate protocols and an abundance of caution," Hyatt said.

The patient recently returned from a three hour stay in Liberia during which time he did not leave the plane, according to Mark Plowden, Communications Director for DHEC. The hospital activated their Ebola protocols after it was contacted Thursday night by DHEC regarding a patient requiring Ebola medical screening.

Other crew members who have traveled in the region are monitored for 21 days, and so far, only the pilot in question has shown any adverse symptoms," Hyatt said.

"The risk of Ebola is extremely low," said Plowden in a statement. "However, MUSC is following protective protocol as a precautionary measure."

At this point, it's quite likely the pilot is suffering from something other than Ebola.  But, given his symptoms (and recent stop-over in Liberia), activation of the protection protocols was required.  

And what if it is Ebola? (God forbid).  That might prompt a re-examination of how the mission is being conducted and supported. 

For starters, the pilot's potential exposure should have been minimal.  Information provided by the Air Force indicates that the pilot never left the flight deck during his three hour-stopover in Liberia on 23 October.  The engines of the C-17 remained running while the aircraft was on the ground and the crew had no contact with Ebola patients.  American personnel who serviced the aircraft and unloaded its cargo self-monitor for Ebola symptoms twice daily, and the airfield where the C-17 transited is under the control of the U.S. military.  

An Air Force spokesman also confirmed that the crew did not consume any food from Liberia while the plane was on the ground, saying there "many layers of separation" to protect the pilot and his fellow crew members.  

Still, we don't know all the details of the C-17 deployment.  Airlift crews typically deploy for more than a week at a time, with multiple sorties along the way.  After leaving Liberia, it's quite likely the C-17 stopped at bases in Europe before flying back to the U.S.  In fact, we don't know how much time elapsed between that stopover in Liberia and the C-17's return to Charleston.  Obviously, a longer gap would mean the pilot was exposed to more people in multiple locations, which could create massive public health headaches--if the pilot was somehow exposed to Ebola. 

There's also the matter of the aircraft.  Most likely, the Globemaster III departed again within a day or two of its landing at Charleston--in the hands of another crew.  So far, the Air Force hasn't disclosed where the jet has been since the air crew returned to the U.S.--or what steps would be taken if a crew member was subsequently diagnosed with Ebola.       

               

             

About Last Night

A couple of observations from last night's GOP blowout:

1)  Everyone--except Ed Gillespie--missed Virginia.  While I'm not a card-carrying member of the political pundit/consultancy class, but I've been to the election rodeo (as a reporter and volunteer) more than a few times.  And like a lot of folks in the Old Dominion, I pronounced Mr. Gillespie's Senate campaign as officially D.O.A. shortly after Labor Day.  At that point, incumbent Democrat Mark Warner and his surrogates had been attacking Gillespie on the airwaves for months, depicting him as an Enron lobbyist (and worse).  He was trailing in the polls by double-digits and his first, sustained wave of TV ads didn't start until September.

So, how did an underfunded--and some would say, lackluster--campaign put Mark Warner into a likely recount?  First, Mr. Gillespie carefully picked his spots.  With less available money than Warner, he entered the Washington, D.C. television market late in the race, but made it count.  When the Redskins appeared on Monday night football, he aired a spot suggesting that the U.S. Senate had better things to do than trying to force a name change on the NFL franchise.  The ad aired only once, but saying it resonated among the throngs of Redskins fans in northern Virginia would be a gross understatement.

Gillespie also ran a largely, upbeat, issues-focused campaign that was designed to appeal to independents.  Exit polling showed the GOP challenger ran only one point behind Warner in that group; in 2008, the Democrat carried that group by 36 points.  Mr. Gillespie, a former RNC chair and Bush Administration official, also benefited from local and national trends.  Obviously, a lot of voters on the fence broke for Republicans in the campaign's final days, and it boosted Gillespie's run in Virginia.  So did a strong performance by Barbara Comstock, who captured the northern Virginia congressional seat held for decades by Frank Wolf, who is retiring.  Democrats still got a lot of votes out of Arlington and Fairfax County--probably giving Warner the narrow lead he now holds. 

But Gillespie far out-performed recent GOP candidates in the D.C. exurbs and Virginia Beach, the largest city in the state.  Early exit data showed Mr. Gillespie with a 10-point advantage in Virginia Beach, which has a huge population of military members and veterans.  Mitt Romney carried the same area by only two points in 2012.   

Trailing by a fraction of a point, Gillespie should request a recount.  His prospects of winning are probably low, given Democrats' amazing ability to manufacture more votes when results are re-tabulated.  But with last night's stunning performance, Gillespie becomes an early favorite in the 2017 Virginia governor's race.  As for Mark Warner, the list of possible Democrat VP nominees in 2016 has grown shorter.  By one name.

2.  Vote for Us--We're the Reason You're Back Home with Mom and Dad.  After President Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012, Democrats bragged about their ability to target and mobilize key segments of the electorate, including millenials, gays, unmarried women and minorities.  With America's changing demographics, the Obama coalition was thought to be durable and built-to-last, ensuring Democrats of electoral pluralities for years to come.

So, with control of the Senate hanging in the balance, Democratic strategists went back to the well in 2014, going after so-called "basement grads" who had voted for Obama at least once before.  The group consists of young college grads who came of age during the economic recession that began in 2007.  As their name implies, many have been forced to move back in with their parents because of limited job prospects.

Douglas Belkin of The Wall Street Journal recently detailed Democrats' courting of basement grads:
  
Politicians, particularly Democrats, are courting these millennials who came of age during the recession, entered college at a time of soaring tuition and find themselves burdened with record student debt and soft job prospects. All too often their paths include a post-college stint living in their parents’ basements. 

Saul Newton, a 26-year-old Army veteran who left college to join the military, said he was shocked to be billed for his student loans while he was deployed in Afghanistan. “That served as a wake-up call about how unfair the system really is,” he said.

[snip]

At least half a dozen Democratic House candidates are running TV ads devoted to the issue, as are at least two Democratic senators and two GOP House candidates. Outside groups attacking Republicans also are piling in. During the second week of October, Democrats outspent Republicans on TV ads on education by more than four to one, according to the Cook Political Report and Kantar Media.  

As a political strategy, basement grads were a flop.  There was plenty of polling before the election that suggested that millennials weren't interested, and their turnout would be well below the levels of 2008 and 2012.  Looks like the jobless Obama recovery kept a lot of them at home in election day.  

Placing your electoral hopes on groups that have been hurt your party's economic policies isn't exactly a winning hand.      
           

                     

More Medevac from the Hot Zone

An Air Force C-17.  The Pentagon plans to acquire airborne isolation chambers which can be loaded onto the transport and airlift up to a dozen troops or aid workers infected with Ebola, to treatment facilities around the world.  (USAF photo via Army Times) 

***UPDATE//28 October//Fox News has obtained a draft State Department memo outlining plans for bringing non-citizens to the U.S. for Ebola treatment--a document the government has tried to disavow. This revelation raises new questions about the actual purpose for those military isolation pods, and who will be evacuated from affected areas.
***

When the Obama Administration announced plans to send troops to West Africa to battle the Ebola crises, we were told that military personnel would face minimal risks.  They wouldn't be treating actual patients we were assured; instead, the mission would focus on building new treatment centers, training local health care workers and handling related tasks, including logistics and security.

So, if the chances of contracting the deadly disease are low, why is the Pentagon developing its own, portable isolation units that can be loaded into military transports, and remove more infected individuals from the hot zone?

From USA Today, courtesy of Drudge:

As more U.S. troops head to West Africa, the Pentagon is developing portable isolation units that can carry up to 12 Ebola patients for transport on military planes

The Pentagon says it does not expect it will need the units for 3,000 U.S. troops heading to the region to combat the virus because military personnel will not be treating Ebola patients directly. Instead, the troops are focusing on building clinics, training personnel and testing patient blood samples for Ebola.

"We want to be prepared to care for the people we do have there just out of an abundance of caution," Defense Department spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said.

[snip]

The Pentagon's transportation system will allow the Air Force to use C-17 or C-130 transport planes to carry up to eight patients on stretchers or 12 patients who are able to walk, said Charles Bass, a Defense Department chemical engineer working on the project.

Elzea said the cost of the units couldn't be provided as the final contract for the project is still under negotiation.

Bass, a former Army officer, said the units are key to providing peace of mind to U.S. troops in Africa.
"It's important when you're on deployment that you feel that someone has your back," he said. "(It) adds confidence to the people who are deployed."

Recent evacuation flights of western aid workers and journalists with Ebola have been conducted by Phoenix Air, a private firm that has the only medically-approved means of air transport for patients with the deadly disease.  The company charges $200,000 for each flight, and has conducted a dozen Ebola medevac missions since July, flying westerners from Africa to treatment centers in the U.S. and Europe.  

Why not stick with Phoenix Air?  After all, the risk for deployed personnel is said to below, and the Cartersville, Georgia firm has obvious expertise in the dangerous mission--and a long-standing relationship with DoD.  Among other services, Phoenix Air provides range surveillance, electronic attack and radar/communications jamming to the U.S. Navy and other military clients.  The Pentagon can certainly afford the price tag, and the potential evacuation of military personnel is already covered under an existing contract between the aviation firm and the U.S. State Department.  

Apparently, the Defense Department wants the capability to transport more patients on each flight--if necessary.  The isolation chamber on Phoenix Air's specially-equipped business jet can handle only a single individual, under the care of a doctor and two nurses wearing full protective gear.  As reported by USA Today, chambers that will be fitted into a C-130 or C-17 can accommodate up to 12 ambulatory patients, or eight on stretchers.  

This much is certain: the military option won't save the government any money.  At an estimated operating cost of $23,000 per flying hour, a round-trip C-17 flight between the east coast and West Africa will run the taxpayers $414,000--and that doesn't include the cost of the isolation chamber, or the medical crew required for the mission. 

To be fair, creating the Air Force medevac option makes a certain degree of sense.  With the Ebola crises expected to worsen in the most-affected areas, requirements for airlifting western aid workers and military personnel may increase beyond the capabilities of Phoenix Air.  If saving your life requires transport to a hospital in the United States or Europe, the arrival of a specially-equipped Hercules or Globemaster III would be a welcome sight, indeed.  

On the other hand, the Pentagon's crash program to develop this capability raises new questions about the situation in West Africa, and the threat being faced by our military personnel.  DoD would not invest the time and money to build airborne isolation chambers--and train crews for the Ebola medevac mission--if there was no need for the expanded capability.  This may be nothing more than preparing for a worst-case scenario, but (given the government's track record on Ebola so far), developing these mission "assets" is hardly reassuring when it comes to the potential spread of the disease, and our service members becoming infected.
***
ADDENDUM:  While the U.S. government refuses to implement mandatory isolation requirements for travelers coming from West Africa, it's a different story for our military.  CBS News reports that 11 soldiers who just returned from Liberia--including the commander of U.S. Army in Africa--have been placed in isolation for 21 days at Vicenza, Italy.  The Pentagon calls it "enhanced monitoring" and it will apparently be standard policy for all military members returning from the Ebola mission.                                             

     

View from the Turret

A knocked-out Sherman tank, somewhere in France in 1944.  The hole in the front was made by a German 88mm shell that passed through the tank and blew out the back (photo from worldoftanks.com)


Readers of this blog know that your humble correspondent is hardly a cinema maven; I can count my trips to the theater over the last five years on one hand, with at least one finger left over.  Most of those movies were selected by Mrs. Spook, or involved one of the grandkids, so the odds of finding me at the local multiplex--for a movie I actually want to see--are pretty slim.

However, I'll probably make an exception for Fury, the Brad Pitt World War II film that debuted last weekend.  Fury is the story of an American tank crew, in the closing days of that conflict.  Pitt plays Staff Sergeant Don "Wardaddy" Collier, the commander of an M-4 Sherman tank.  Collier and his crew have been together since the North Africa campaign and have never suffered a single casualty.  With Nazi Germany tottering on the brink of defeat, the crew entertains the faint hope they may actually survive the war, and they look to Collier to lead them through.

But of course, duty calls.  Their tank, nicknamed Fury, is part of a Sherman platoon sent to hold a vital intersection behind enemy lines.  The unit encounters a German Tiger tank, which destroys the other Shermans while Fury is disabled by a land mine.  Despite the fact that 300 enemy infantrymen are approaching their position, Collier refuses to abandon the mission, and sets about plotting an ambush, leading to the film's climactic scenes.

Borrowing a narrative device from countless other war films, director David Ayer inserts a "new" soldier into Collier's tight-knit crew, creating the usual friction between the veterans and the rookie.  Fury's newcomer is Private Norman Ellison (played by Logan Lerman).  Ellison is a former clerk, pressed into service as an assistant driver when his predecessor is killed in battle.  As his first duty, Ellison must remove the dead man's body from the tank. 

From what I've heard, Ayer's film is both bloody and raw, and that's a fairly apt description of tank warfare in World War II.  As we've noted in previous posts, Allied tank losses during the drive from Normandy to Germany were horrendous. 

My father's old outfit, the 3rd Armored Division, came ashore less than two weeks after D-Day, with a complement of 232 tanks, virtually all of them Shermans.  By the time the Nazis surrendered 11 months later, the division had lost more than 700 M-4, a cumulative loss rate of more than 600%.  Losses among tank crews were equally high; at the start of the Battle of the Bulge (December 1944), U.S. armored units were so short of tank crews that infantry replacements were pressed into service as tankers.  Some were sent into battle against experienced German units with only eight hours of training, and most had never been inside a tank before their one-day orientation session.  So, there is clearly a precedent for soldiers from other branches being trained for armored duty and sent into battle with virtually no preparation. 

In some respects, Fury is probably overdue, since it's the only World War II film of recent memory that takes audiences inside the tank.  I've read that the replica used for interior shots was only slightly larger than that of an actual Sherman, so viewers may gain an appreciation of the claustrophobic conditions that tankers operated under.

They should also get a sense of the daunting odds faced by Sherman crews on the battlefield.  At the time of its introduction in 1942, the M-4 could easily match German tanks on the battlefields of North Africa.  Two years later, the Sherman was at a distinct disadvantage against the larger Panther IV and Tiger I/II tanks operated by enemy Panzer units.  Equipped with a deadly 88mm main gun, the Tiger totally outclassed earlier model Shermans (which carried a 75mm gun) and it was superior to later M-4 variants, which featured a 76mm main gun.  Ironically, most Panthers also carried a 75mm main gun, but with a longer barrel and more powerful powder charge, the German gun had a much higher muzzle velocity, enabling it to easily penetrate the Sherman's rather thin armor.  

How did we win the war with an inferior tank?  It was combination of factors, including Allied dominance in the air; our remarkable ability to produce--and repair--tanks, and of course, the courage and determination of the men who crewed those Shermans.

By the time U.S., British and Canadian armored columns broke out of Normandy and began their charge across western Europe, the Luftwaffe had virtually disappeared from the skies of France, Belgium and the Netherlands.  Most of Germany's remaining fighters were reserved for defending the homeland against huge raids by American and British bombers.  Meanwhile, U.S. P-47s, P-38s, P-51s and RAF Typhoons roamed over the countryside, decimating Nazi armored formations.

The Allies also benefited from the genius of American war production.  While Germany's Panther IV and Tiger tanks were technical marvels, they were also difficult to produce.  The Third Reich built only 8,000 of both, and the total Tiger output was less than 2,000.  Meanwhile, the U.S. built almost 50,000 Shermans, more than enough to equip our own forces and other Allied nations as well.

For all of its faults, the M-4 was also much more reliable and easier to fix.  Shermans that suffered moderate damage were usually towed to a maintenance unit, quickly repaired and returned to service.  My father was the NCO in charge of a platoon of tank retrievers in the 3rd Armored Division.  During their time in combat, they pulled a lot of damaged tanks to the repair point, and if a crew wasn't available, they were trained to drive them back to the armored unit that needed a replacement.

My father, who turns 99 in a few days, has never been shy about sharing his experiences in the Army, from his days as a peacetime draftee at Camp Polk, to his time in Germany after the war ended.  But he rarely speaks about the process of repairing knocked-out tanks; that's because maintenance personnel had the unenviable task of cleaning out the inside and removing any remains that might have escaped the medics or the casualty collection teams.  Once the clean-up was completed, one of the first orders of business was to repaint the tank's interior; the odor from fresh paint tended to obscure the smell of burned equipment and flesh that sometimes lingered inside.

Dad always speaks of the tankers with a great deal of respect, even recounting an incident when a Sherman crew picked a fight with some of his men.  He understood the odds they faced--and the fact that many never made it home.  That's why I believe Fury is worth a look; as World War II fades further into the mists of history, the film gives us another glimpse of the men who fought and died for each other, and saved the world in the process.
***
ADDENDUM:  Some less-than-flattering reviews from a U.S. Army officer and the eminent British military historian Max Hastings.                                                     

Slightly Off Target

 A Rhode Island ANG C-130J performs an airdrop demo during an airshow (Matt Hintsa photo at Flickriver.com.


The Air Force is taking a bit of heat, for a (slightly) errant airdrop to Kurdish forces defending the Syrian town of Kobani.  In recent days, the Kurds have been on the advance against ISIS, taking back more of the city, which is located along the Turkish border.  But, with friendly forces running short on arms, ammunition and medicine supplies, the USAF dispatched three C-130 transports, which dropped 27 bundles of supplies.

Unfortunately, one of the bundles drifted away from the drop zone and wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists.  From the Daily Beast:

"An ISIS-associated YouTube account posted a new video online Tuesday entitled, “Weapons and munitions dropped by American planes and landed in the areas controlled by the Islamic State in Kobani.” The video was also posted on the Twitter account of “a3maq news,” which acts as an unofficial media arm of ISIS. The outfit has previously posted videos of ISIS fighters firing American made Howitzer cannons and seizing marijuana fields in Syria."

The two-minute video begins with footage of the bundle, still attached to its parachute, lying in an open area in ISIS-controlled territory near Kobani.  The rest of the video shows ISIS fighters opening boxes from the bundle, showing what appears to be hand grenades and RPG rounds.  

While the off-target supply bundle gave ISIS a minor propaganda coup, it also highlighted a grim reality for the terrorists.  When the U.S. musters the willpower, we have the ability to drop tons of supplies to the Kurds, and successfully deliver 95% of that aid to friendly forces, even in a semi-urban environment.  And there is virtually nothing ISIS can do to stop it, aside from praying that more bundles to blow off-course, and the Obama Administration will continue its lackadaisical prosecution of the Syria campaign.  A sudden flurry of airstrikes late last week put the terrorists on the defensive and allowed the Kurds to re-take lost territory; the supply effort gave them another boost.  Unfortunately, there is no assurance the U.S. will sustain that level of effort.  

From a tactical perspective, there may be some debate as to how the bundles were delivered.  Obviously, the C-130 is ideally suited for the mission; Herks have been conducting airdrops in all types of environments for more than 50 years, and their crews are well-practiced in the art.  The Air Force will only say that the mission took about three hours to complete, and only a handful of aircraft wre involved. 

Interestingly, the Air Force has not revealed the C-130 model that conducted the mission over Kobani.  In recent years, the service has been purchasing the advanced "J" model which offers a number of upgrades over previous variants, including more powerful Rolls-Royce turboprop engines, distinctive, six-blade Dowty propellers, all-digital avionics, and reduced crew requirements.  

The airlift version of the C-130J has only a three-person crew (pilot, co-pilot and loadmaster), compared to the five-member flight crew found on earlier transport variants.  Thanks to improvements in navigation gear and systems control, the J-model eliminates the navigator and flight engineer positions found on E/H models, though some special mission platforms still maintain the navigator, now referred to as a "combat systems officer."  

Navigators played a critical role in airdrops conducted by older C-130s; they were responsible for keeping the aircraft on its desired track and on-time, ensuring that supply bundles or paratroopers were "dropped" at exactly the right moment.  The nav's presence allowed the pilots to concentrate on flying the aircraft, while the engineer kept an eye on the Herk's systems (and maintained visual look-out).  In the cargo bay, loadmasters performed the tricky ballet of getting the supply pallets (or airborne troops) safely out of the aircraft.

With elimination of the nav/CSO position on J-model airlifters, the navigation, timing and look-out duties fall on the pilots, while a single loadmaster is responsible for cargo in the back.  On most airdrop missions, a second loadmaster is assigned, but it's still quite a change from the larger crews on H-model airlifters, and more than a few in the Herk community view the nav..err, CSO, as a necessity for airdrop missions.  

While the Air Force has been buying J models for more than a decade, it still operates a number of older E/H models, particularly among guard and reserve units that are integrated into the total force.  So, it's quite possible that the airdrop was conducted by an earlier-model C-130s, with a full crews.  It's also worth noting that airdrops are also subject to factors that are beyond the crew's control, such as a sudden shift in the winds, or a parachute failure.   

Getting 26 of 27 bundles into relatively small drop zones is pretty darn good, so the mission was definitely a success.  Our real problem is persistence; the Kurds can always use more close air support, along with weapons and ammunition for their troops on the ground.  We have the means to get it to them.  The only thing lacking is the political will.     




     

                         

When You Hit Rock Bottom (and Keep On Digging)

In most failed political campaigns, there comes that moment of desperation when the candidate and their handlers decide to unleash their version of the nuclear option--a television ad that is vile and repulsive, but will somehow turn things around.

Texas Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis, a.k.a. "Abortion Barbie," reached that point of no return last week, unveiling the now-infamous "wheel chair" ad against Republican Greg Abbott.  For members of the low-information crowd, Mr. Abbott has been confined to a wheel chair for more than 20 years, after a tree fell on him.  He sued the property owner and won a huge settlement; Davis accused Abbott of hypocrisy, claiming he has made it more difficult for other victims to sue and win in Texas courts.


And how did that work out for Ms. Davis?  Jim Geraghty of National Review has the results of a new poll by KHOU-TV in Houston: 

"Wendy Davis, defending her infamous “wheelchair” ad, a week ago: “The important thing about this ad is that voters now see Greg Abbott for who he is and of course in an election that’s entirely the point.”

She was right! A new poll out this morning:

As early voters head to the polls for a landmark election in Texas, a new survey conducted for KHOU-TV and Houston Public Media shows Republican Greg Abbott with a commanding lead over Democrat Wendy Davis in the race for governor.
Abbott’s supported by 47 percent of likely voters surveyed for the poll, compared to Davis’ 32 percent. Another 15 percent were undecided.

The 32 percent in that poll is tied for her lowest total in a poll in 2014. Good work, ma’am.

Hard to believe, but just a few months ago, Ms. Davis was hailed as a rising star among Democrats.  Lots of rich, liberal donors poured millions of dollars into her campaign, which was supposed to be the first step in turning Texas blue.

But Davis's campaign has been one of the biggest train wrecks of 2014.  But rock-bottom wasn't good enough for the Democratic candidate; determined to keep on digging, she is out with a new claim that Greg Abbott might try to ban interracial marriage.  Just one problem with that line of attack.  Mr. Abbott's wife, Cecilia, is Hispanic.

So, the disabled guy who hates the handicapped also hates his own marriage?  Can the ad linking him to Hitler and the KKK be far behind?  

And it gets worse for Ms. Davis.  Trailing badly in the polls for months, there had been some speculation that she might be in line for some sort of federal appointment, as some sort of consolation prize for being a sacrificial lamb (and running the worst campaign in recent memory).  But with Republicans now poised to take control of the Senate, it's hard to imagine the Obama Administration nominating her for anything.

Perhaps her alma mater, Harvard Law, is looking for a guest lecturer for the spring term.  Looks like she will be available.    

  

       
       

His Brillant, Abbreviated Career

Joe Biden has always liked to brag about his son, Beau, who has been a JAG in the Delaware National Guard since 2003.  The younger Biden, who also serves as the state's attorney general, deployed to Iraq for a year in 2008-2009, and remains active in the guard, despite suffering a mild stroke in 2010, and undergoing treatment for a brain tumor last year.

By all accounts, Beau Biden has served honorably, and military service figures prominently in his political resume.  A run for governor is reportedly in the works, and Beau Biden may have ambitions at the national level as well.

Against that backdrop, Vice-President's youngest son, Hunter, embarked on his own military career a couple of years ago.  It was announced in 2012 that Hunter Biden would receive a direct commission in the Naval Reserve as a public affairs officer at the age of 44.

As anyone who has served in the armed forces will tell you, direct commissions are exceedingly rare, typically granted to individuals with needed skills (such as physicians), or those with the right connections.  Readers can decide which category Mr. Biden fell into; as a lawyer with a background as a lobbyist and businessman, he certainly did not have the media background typically sought in public affairs billets.  But the Navy also saw certain advantages in having the Vice-President's son in his ranks, so Hunter Biden was commissioned as an Ensign in the Naval Reserve in May 2013.  Because he was over 40 at the time, Mr. Biden required an age waiver, but with his family ties, that was not a problem.

Then, almost as soon as it began, Hunter Biden's Navy career came to a screeching halt.  And thanks to The Wall Street Journal, we know why: in June of last year, reporting to his reserve unit for the first time, Mr. Biden flunked the "whizz quiz:"

Vice President Joe Biden ’s son Hunter was discharged from the Navy Reserve this year after testing positive for cocaine, according to people familiar with the matter.

Hunter Biden, a lawyer by training who is now a managing partner at an investment company, had been commissioned as an ensign in the Navy Reserve, a part-time position. But after failing a drug test last year, his brief military career ended.

[snip]

Mr. Biden was commissioned as an ensign on May 7, 2013, and assigned to Navy Public Affairs Support Element East in Norfolk, Va., a reserve unit, according to the Navy. In June 2013, after reporting to his unit in Norfolk, he was given a drug test, which turned up positive for cocaine, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Biden was discharged in February, the Navy said.

Mr. Biden said in a statement that it was “the honor of my life to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I deeply regret and am embarrassed that my actions led to my administrative discharge. I respect the Navy’s decision. With the love and support of my family, I’m moving forward.”

The Navy won't say what type of discharge Hunter Biden received (citing privacy regulations), but as the WSJ notes, military members who fail drug tests often receive an "other than honorable" or "general" discharge.   Many are also subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but since Biden was newly-commissioned--and reporting to this first drill session--the Navy opted to discharge him in February of this year.  

The service has not disclosed what Biden did between the failed drug test and his discharge date, or if he received pay as a reservist during that period.  Typically, military members receive full compensation until the point they are convicted or discharged from the service.  Pay for reservists is based on attending prescribed, weekend drills and a two-week duty period sometime during the year.  With administrative action pending, it is unclear if Hunter Biden participated in any reserve activities after the failed drug test.  

Equally curious is Mr. Biden's discharge date.  According to the WSJ, he was finally mustered out in February of this year, roughly nine months after his commissioning.  True, it takes a while to get rid of any service member who flunks a urinalysis test, but process seems to have dragged on for Beau Biden--a bit odd, considering his previous lack of military service.  Someone might ask his former unit about the average discharge time for other sailors who test positive for drugs. 

The good news is that Biden's short and undistinguished military career does not qualify him (as far as we can tell) for any veteran's benefits.  Not that we'd expect to see Beau Biden in line at the local veteran's administration clinic, or applying for a VA home loan.  It seems rather obvious that his late entry into the military was a political calculation.  Realizing that Beau Biden's stint in the National Guard has been a resume-enhancer, his brother decided to fill the "military service" square, with an eye towards a future campaign. 

Unfortunately, he didn't pay attention during his in-processing, when the Navy reminded new sailors that a random drug test could come at any time.  And, Mr. Biden was apparently unaware that traces of cocaine leave your system within 72 hours after use--though THC in marijuana can be detected for up to 30 days.  That means Hunter Biden was snorting up only a day or so before his first drill weekend in Norfolk and that speaks volumes about his character (or lack thereof).  

Looks like the Navy's drug testing program did everyone a public service, identifying a dilettante reservist who was unworthy of the commission he held.  Maybe that unit in Norfolk can find someone with a media or public relations background who takes the notion of military service seriously, and doesn't believe the rules apply to everyone else.  We'd be willing to be there's a mid-level petty officer or Chief with those credentials who might have been passed over in favor of Hunter Biden.  Hopefully, more deserving applicants will now get a shot.       

       

                    

Preparing for the Inevitable?

A lot of Marines live by a maxim that is sometimes referred to as The Five P's, which fully stated are:  "Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance."

That holds true for most things in life, whether you're trying to hit the target on the rifle range, or preparing for a possible pandemic in the local community.

Drudge unearthed this interesting item from the Jacksonville (NC) Daily News, which covers Camp Lejeune and the surrounding region:

"Drill focuses on pandemic preparation."

According to staff writer Adelina Colbert, personnel at Marine Corps Air Station New River (which is only 12 miles from Lejeune) held its first-ever pandemic drill yesterday.  As she reports:

"Marine Corps Air Station New River on Wednesday held a full-scale pandemic outbreak drill where health officials and Marines responded to a smallpox outbreak that “occurred” aboard the installation.

According to Lt. Joseph Kotora, the public health emergency officer for Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, the Exercise Vigilant Response drill was the first of its kind at a military installation in North Carolina.

“The drills are usually conducted annually or semi-annually,” said Kotora. “A drill this size has never been conducted, so this is the largest pandemic exercise to my knowledge.”

Officials decided to incorporate administering inoculations during the exercise so that it would more accurately portray an outbreak situation where medical personnel would be required to screen and administer vaccinations."

[snip]

“This is a simulated exercise designed to test our capabilities and respond to a pandemic or biological threat,” he said. “ … We’re trying to identify some areas where we can improve and we’re also trying to foster some confidence in the population that we serve … that we can respond effectively to a mass terror or a weapon of mass destruction incident.”

Lt Col Aaron Adams, the executive officer for MCAS New River quickly pointed out that the exercise had been in the planning stages for nine months, and was not staged in response to the current Ebola outbreak.  Marines participating in the drill received flu shots, and base officials noted that influenza is a problem faced by military personnel wherever they deploy. 

We'll take Lt Col Adams at his word, but the timing of the exercise was rather curious, to say the least.  Equally interesting was Lt Kotora's observation about a "mass terror or weapon of mass destruction incident."  As someone who scripted a "bio-threat" exercise 15 years ago, I can tell you that it's generally a bad idea to invite the media, and publicly link it to a mass casualty event, real or imagined. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lieutenant got a little "counseling" today from his superiors, for simply speaking the truth.

Fact is, Ebola is very much on the military's radar, and not simply because of the misguided deployment of 4,000 troops to West Africa.  While commanders are acutely aware that personnel deploying to the hot zone could be exposed to the deadly disease, return to home station and transmit it to others, they also understand that terrorists could send infected individuals into the local military community, triggering a pandemic.

There's also the possibility of a mass migration across our southern border, in response to an Ebola outbreak in Central America, a scenario outlined earlier this week by Marine General John Kelly, who leads U.S. Southern Command.   

And, if you want to take things to the extreme, imagine the breakdown of U.S. society under the stress of a full-scale pandemic.  Food would disappear from store shelves in a matter of days--with few new deliveries.  Public services would begin to erode; what if no one shows up to run the local water or sewage plant, or keep the turbines humming at the power station that supplies your electricity.  Imagine cops patrolling in HAZMAT suits (if they're available for duty), and a health system stretched to the breaking point by the sick and dying.

While officials insist the nightmare scenario is unlikely (at least, that's what they tell us), the Marines, along with the rest of our military, must be prepared for such contingencies.  Preparations for the  drill at MCAS New River may have begun months in advance, but it's evident that current events moved it from the planning to the execution stage.                          
   

Already Here

***UPDATE//3:53 pm/8 October***

Judicial Watch claims that four of the suspected ISIS operatives caught along our southern border have been detained in the last 36 hours.  Sources tell the organization that the four suspects were arrested in the McAllen-Pharr area, in Hidalgo, County, just miles from the Mexican border. 

***  

During his recent interview with "60 Minutes," FBI Director James Comey fielded several questions on the threat posed by ISIS.  Here's one exchange with correspondent Scott Pelley:

Pelley: How many Americans are fighting in Syria on the side of the terrorists?

James Comey: In the area of a dozen or so.

Pelley: Do you know who they are?

James Comey: Yes.

Pelley: Each and every one of them?

James Comey: I think of that, dozen or so, I do. I hesitate only because I don't know what I don't know.

Pelley: With American passports, how do you keep them from coming home and attacking the homeland? 

Comey: Ultimately, an American citizen, unless their passport's revoked, is entitled to come back. So someone who's fought with ISIL, with American passport wants to come back, we will track them very carefully.

That's meant to sound reassuring to an American public that is increasingly on-edge about transnational threats ranging from terrorism to Ebola.  But what if--as many fear--the terrorists are already here?  Just last month, various Texas law enforcement officials said they had received advisories from the feds, warning of potential border-crossing activity by ISIS terrorists.  And, in a story that received virtually no attention outside El Paso, the new commanding general at Fort Bliss quickly upgraded security measures at the base, amid reports of ISIS operatives less than 10 miles away in Juarez, Mexico.

The Islamic State--like every other terror group--is well aware of our porous southern border, and views it as a pipeline into the American homeland, useful for smuggling fighters, weapons and God-knows-what-else onto our soil.  

While everyone agrees that ISIS is "interested" in the border region, members of the Obama Administration have tried to downplay the threat.  But there are new indications that the terror Army is actually infiltrating across our border with Mexico.  In an interview with Fox News, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California said that 10 ISIS fighters have been apprehended along our southern border in Texas.  From the Daily Caller:

“ISIS is coming across the southern border,” Hunter told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.

“You say that they’re coming in the southern border which changes all the dynamics. Do you have any information or any evidence that they are actually coming in the southern border now?” asked the host.

“Yes,” said Hunter.

“Tell me what you know,” said Van Susteren.

“I know that at least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas,” said Hunter, who received the information from a confidential border patrol source.

Mr. Hunter is not the only lawmaker to make such claims.  Last month, Utah Congressman Jason Chafetz asked Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about information that four men (with terrorist ties) were apprehended along our southern border on 10 September.  Secretary Johnson said he had "heard" those reports, but did not elaborate.

At this point, a bit of vague math may be helpful.  Most of the individuals who illegally enter our country from Mexico are never caught.  The percentage who are detained is rather small--as low as 10%, particularly along remote border areas in Texas which lack double fences and other entry barriers.  If those estimates are accurate, then a significant number of ISIS operatives crossed the border undetected and may be at safe houses or holding points inside the U.S., awaiting orders for future operations, or gathering information on future targets.

It's a very scary scenario and it may get a lot worse.  Speaking yesterday at the National Defense University, Marine Corps General John Kelly, the leader of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) predicted an Ebola outbreak in Latin America would trigger a mass migration that would make "the 68,000 undocumented minors" look like a small problem.  He also predicted that smuggling and terror networks could "introduce infected individuals" into the U.S., hastening the spread of the disease.  General Kelly also noted that nations like Haiti (and those in central America) have "virtually no capability" to deal with the disease.    





       

      

And it Begins...

Barely two months ago, we were told that the odds of Ebola spreading to the U.S. were rather slim.  Remember this little "it won"t happen here" moment from late July, courtesy of the CDC?

The deadly outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa is unlikely to spread outside of that region and into the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday (July 28).

“No Ebola cases have been reported in the United States and the likelihood of this outbreak spreading outside of West Africa is very low," CDC spokesperson Stephan Monroe, Ph.D., the deputy director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said in a teleconference. "I want to underscore that Ebola poses little risk to the U.S. general population."

Barely seven weeks later, Patient Zero, a Liberian named Thomas Eric Duncan arrived at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport from his homeland, completing a 28-hour journey that took him through Brussels and Dulles Airport outside Washington, before the final leg of his flight to Texas.  

By some accounts, Mr. Duncan (who lived in Liberia for the past two years) decided to travel to the U.S. because he had been exposed to the deadly illness and was seeking better medical care.  Before leaving Liberia, Duncan had been in close contact with a pregnant woman who died from the disease.  

Four days after arriving in the United States, Duncan was at a Dallas hospital emergency room, complaining of symptoms consistent with Ebola.  Despite reporting his travel from Africa to at least one hospital staffer, Duncan was sent home with antibiotics.  Two days later, he returned in an ambulance, was diagnosed with the deadly disease and placed in isolation.  

At this point, medical investigators haven't released a full accounting of Duncan's activities during his travels from Liberia and after his arrival in Texas.  According to The New York Times, state health officials estimate that at least 100 people in the Dallas area may have come in contact with Duncan--directly or indirectly--since he came to Dallas on 20 September.  Among those potentially exposed are students at four elementary schools near the apartment complex where Duncan was staying with family members.  So far, only a handful of the individuals being monitored by health officials have been placed in isolation, including three emergency medical technicians who took Duncan back to the hospital on 28 September.  As of this writing, none of those individuals are displaying symptoms of ebola. 

Readers will note that the narrative surrounding Mr. Duncan has grown more complex, almost by the hour.  Early reporting seemed to suggest he flew non-stop from Monrovia to Dallas, with no mention of his stops in Belgium and at Dulles.  Of course, anyone on the internet can quickly discover there are no direct flights from Liberia to Dallas; why was the "connecting" information omitted from preliminary media accounts?  Was it sloppy journalism, or were government officials trying to figure out what Duncan did in Brussels and Virginia while waiting for his next flight.  

There's also the timing of his travels.  Various press accounts indicate that Mr. Duncan worked as a driver for the local FedEx agent in Monrovia; his residence was a rented room in a local home--owned by the father of the young woman who died from Ebola, the same woman that Duncan helped transport to a local hospital and back home, after the staff told them they had no more room for patients suffering from the disease.  Duncan's contact with the woman came on 15 September, just four days before he left for the United States.

But that assumes he had no contact with his landlord's daughter prior to that date.  That would mean the young woman--who was well along in her pregnancy--almost never visited her parents' home, or dropped by only when Mr. Duncan was out of the house.  Potentially, he might have been exposed to the disease earlier than the reported date.  Claims that he wasn't showing symptoms are based on Duncan's visits to the Dallas hospital, and whatever he has told U.S. officials.  So far, no one in the media has managed (read: bothered) to track down people that sat near Duncan on the plane, or encountered him at the airports in Brussels and the U.S.

Some are also wondering how Mr. Duncan paid for a one-way ticket (that cost at least $3400) on his meager pay, just three days before departing.  His former employer hasn't disclosed how much Duncan earned, but the average annual income in Liberia is only $436.  In other words, Mr. Duncan paid almost ten times what a typical Liberian earns in a year for his ticket to America.  He must be a very thrifty person, or has friends who were willing to shell out some serious bucks--by Liberian standards--on very short notice.   And no one has divulged when Duncan obtained his visa to enter the United States.  

Meanwhile, the government of Liberia has announced plans to prosecute Mr. Duncan, assuming he survives Ebola and they can somehow secure his extradition.  Before flying to the U.S., Duncan was required to fill out a questionnaire, which asks departing passengers if they had cared for an Ebola patient, or touched the body of someone who died in an area where the disease has been confirmed.  Duncan answered "no" to all of the questions on the form.

Of course, all of this could have been prevented if the Obama Administration had acted prudently, and suspended air travel between the U.S. and Liberia.  Supporters of the president argue that such steps are ineffective, since passengers can fly out on carriers still serving affected nations, and connect with an American or European carrier, and travel on to the U.S.  But the supposed futility of that measure hasn't stopped several European airlines (including British Airways and Air France) from halting flights to and from Monrovia.  

It's also worth noting that Mr. Obama quietly scrapped new reporting and quarantine regulations proposed by the Bush Administration in 2005.  Those measures required airlines to keep track of sick passengers and report that information to the CDC.  The expanded regulations also allowed the Centers for Disease Control to detain passengers suspected of carrying certain infectious diseases, including Ebola.  Under pressure from the airline industry and the ACLU, Team Obama decided not to implement the new rules.       

Just four years later, Ebola has arrived on our shores, the same week that the former hospital at Ellis Island was reopened to the public.  Immigration activists often point to the iconic immigration depot as a symbol of America's willingness to take in people from around the world, and give them the opportunity for a better life.  

But they often ignore the rules imposed at Ellis Island; everyone coming into America was given a rigorous health screening and those who tested positive for an infectious illnesses were placed in quarantine and some were sent back home.  In fact, many of the sick immigrants never made it to Ellis Island; New York state health inspectors met arriving ships in the outer harbor and passengers with contagious diseases were transferred to quarantine facilities in Richmond County.  One researcher estimates that over 400 immigrants died in quarantine between 1909 and 1911.  

Once upon a time, the U.S. demanded "good health and moral character" of those entering the country.  More than a century later, the rules are vastly different and we are paying the price for our mistakes.  And the price will likely be tallied in human lives.    
***
ADDENDUM:  FlightAware.com (and other sites) have also traced the travels of the United jets that Duncan flew on during portions of his trip.  From Brussels to Dulles, Duncan traveled on a Boeing 777 (registration number: N771UA), and an Airbus A320 (registration number: N482UA) for the final leg of his journey from Washington, D.C., to Texas.  

Over the six-day period following Duncan's arrival in Dallas, both aircraft were constantly in the skies, as you might expect.  The six day period represents the length of time that Ebola can live on a surface, such as an arm rest, seatback table, or lavatory fixture.  United has announced that no special cleaning measures have been used on either aircraft, even after they determined that Duncan had traveled on two of their jets.  

Between 20-26 September, the 777 flew to three different countries (England, Germany and Brazil); during that same period, the A320 served a number of domestic locations, including Denver, Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Orlando, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Newark, Las Vegas, Seattle and Orange County, California.  Admittedly, the odds of contracting Ebola from an expose surface are decidedly low, but there are literally scores of passengers who shared the areas where Duncan sat, and used the same facilities.  

H/T:  Gotnews.com