If Steve Eisman's name rings a bell, it should. He's well-known in financial circles as the portfolio manager who took a huge bet against the sub-prime mortgage industry and made millions, as chronicled in Michael Lewis's recent book The Big Short.
I recently picked up a copy of The Big Short, and (like Mr. Lewis's other books), it's a compelling read. Suffice it to say that Steve Eisman emerges as one of the few clear-thinking individuals in the book. As an exceedingly blunt Wall Street analyst, Eisman began sounding the alarm about sub-prime loans in the late 1990s and when no one paid attention, he positioned himself to profit from the inevitable collapse.
Now, Mr. Eisman has found a new bubble, err target, the for-profit education industry. In a speech delivered to an investment conference late last month, he blasted the business, comparing it to the bankers, investment firms, government regulators and yes, borrowers, who created the sub-prime mess. His remarks have been widely circulated in recent weeks, in forums ranging from Mother Jones to the New York Post. He sees clear parallels between sub-prime lending and for-profit education, which is dominated by a handful of of "corporate" schools:
Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the subprime mortgage industry. I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task.
The for-profit industry has grown at an extreme and unusual rate, driven by easy access to government sponsored debt in the form of Title IV student loans, where the credit is guaranteed by the government. Thus, the government, the students and the taxpayer bear all the risk, and the for-profit industry reaps all the rewards. This is similar to the subprime mortgage sector in that the subprime originators bore far less risk than the investors in their mortgage paper.
In the past 10 years, the for-profit education industry has grown 5-10 times the historical rate of traditional post secondary education. As of 2009, the industry had almost 10% of enrolled students but claimed nearly 25% of the $89 billion of federal Title IV student loans and grant disbursements. At the current pace of growth, for-profit schools will draw 40% of all Title IV aid in 10 years.
How has this been allowed to happen?
The simple answer is that they’ve hired every lobbyist in Washington, DC. There has been a revolving door between the people who work for this industry and the halls of government. One example is Sally Stroup. In 2001-2002, she was the head lobbyist for the Apollo Group — the company behind the University of Phoenix and the largest for-profit educator. But from 2002-2006 she became assistant secretary of post-secondary education for the Department of Education under President Bush. In other words, she was directly in charge of regulating the industry she had previously lobbied for.
From 1987 through 2000, the amount of total Title IV dollars received by students of for-profit schools fluctuated between $2 billion and $4 billion per annum. But when the Bush administration took over, the DOE gutted many of the rules that governed the conduct of this industry. Once the floodgates were opened, the industry embarked on 10 years of unrestricted massive growth. Federal dollars flowing to the industry exploded to over $21 billion, a 450% increase.
Using hyper-aggressive recruiting and marketing strategies, the for-profits have signed up students by the thousands, encouraging them to use federal student loans (and other forms of government assistance) to pay for their educations. Eisman estimates that more than 50% of these students will never graduate, but they will rack up thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Ultimately, of course, the taxpayer is on the hook for these federally-guaranteed obligations. In the coming years, Mr. Eisman believes that students at the for-profits may default on as much as $275 billion in student loans, creating conditions for the next sub-prime bubble and bailout.
Is Steve Eisman correct? Certainly, his warning should not be ignored, given the continued growth of schools that specialize in adult learners, and recent Congressional action that gives the federal government a near-total monopoly in the student loan business. That legislative act is already being compared to the federal directives in the housing market, programs that mandated mortgage loans for customers who really couldn't afford them. Now, with a college loan available to virtually everyone, more students will incur debt for degrees they never complete and many will default once the note comes due, leaving the taxpayers to clean up the mess.
But in reality, the situation in sub-prime education is more complex that Eisman describes, and it extends beyond the mega-schools that dominate the for-profit market. But first, a bit of disclosure. Your humble correspondent currently works as an executive for a private, non-profit college. My institution competes against for "corporate" schools on a daily basis, across many of the market segments targeted by the for-profits. We've watched (and felt) the impact of the mega-schools, for better and for worse.
And, in fairness, the for-profits deserve some credit for helping students who were previously ignored (or under-served) by traditional, brick-and-mortar institutions. Before the advent of the University of Phoenix, Strayer University and the other corporate universities, few schools (other than community colleges) actively targeted adult learners, military personnel and other students trying to complete their education while holding down a full-time job and juggling family responsibilities.
In the past, when these "non-traditional" students tried to enroll at traditional universities, they often found course schedules that conflicted with their work hours. The few classes offered at night or on weekends were often limited in scope, and many schools offered no academic credit for military education, DATES or CLEP tests, or professional experience. The for-profits moved quickly to fill this gap, offering dozens of degree programs on-line, or at regional locations with accelerated course schedules tailored for adult learners.
Corporate schools also harnessed the power of marketing and advertising. To attract new students, they blitzed television, radio and the internet with ads touting their flexibility and accessibility. The biggest for-profit schools have literally become a "brand," backed by multi-million dollar advertising and marketing campaigns. A colleague told me that University of Phoenix's budget for education fair "give-aways" (pens, key rings, cup holders, etc) dwarfs our entire expenditure for advertising, marketing and promotion.
But the explosive growth of the corporate schools has come at a price. Students can literally call a mega-school and move from "interest" to actual "enrollment" in a single, 30-minute phone call. The result is a lot of students who ill-prepared to continue their education. When problems arise, they're (typically) referred to a call center, and conversations with academic "advisers" or financial aid counselors who know the student as only another "profit center" or number in the system. Other students are turned off by unresponsive instructors, or the outrageous fees charged for simple services (one of the biggest on-line schools charges $45 for a copy of the student's transcript).
Ironically, these practices create openings for other schools, including my employer. Our on-line program grew out of a traditional, brick-and-mortar campus, and we've worked hard to provide superior support and assistance to our students. In fact, we've attracted a number of one-line students who "began" with the mega-schools and grew disaffected. In that sense, we don't want the big boys to change their business model, because they're creating legions of unhappy students who move on to more responsive institutions.
Ordinarily, competition is a good thing and for all their faults, the mega-schools have created more choices and options for students. For example, U.S. military personnel can use tuition assistance or GI Bill benefits to "shop" among literally thousands of institutions, offering degree programs on-campus, on-base or on-line, allowing members of the armed forces to pursue a degree on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, we have the best-educated military in the nation's history, a pool of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that constitute one of our greatest national resources.
Still, the high drop-out rates (and potential loan defaults) among mega-school students bear watching. But so do similar trends at "traditional" schools. The 432% increase in the cost of a higher education (since 1982) is not limited to for-profit institutions. Plenty of public and private colleges now eagerly pursue adult learners, offering on-line and "hybrid" programs, in addition to their on-campus degrees.
And these institutions still attract large numbers of students. At last report, the State University of New York (SUNY) was still the nation's largest university system, with more than 400,000 students. State-supported college systems in places California and Texas aren't far behind. Mr. Eisman might want to keep an eye on those "flagship" universities which churn out thousands of graduates every year with high-priced--but largely worthless--degrees. The New York Times recently profiled a college graduate who took out $70,000 in student loans to finance a degree in religious and women's studies. Now, she can't find a job. Are such programs the best use of federal student loan dollars? Ironically, most of the mega-schools focus on degrees (business, education, computer science) that have some value.
Truth be told, there is much that can be done to clean up the student loan program before it becomes a crisis. For starters, the feds need to give students a financial stake in their own education before the first loan payment comes due. Reduce the amount of tuition and fees covered by a loan to say, 75% of the total cost. The military did this for years with its tuition assistance program for active duty personnel and it was highly successful. With service members financing part of their education, they were (generally) more careful about finding the right course of study and sticking with it.
Similar effects could be achieved with civilian students. Not only will students shop around for the best deal, colleges and universities will determine how much students can afford to pay out-of-pocket, and price accordingly. Some institutions may still charge premium rates (based on prestige and their academic reputations), but the vast majority will be forced to hold the line on tuition costs--or even reduce them--to remain competitive.
Here's another idea: take a portion of the money currently allocated for federal student loans and put it into scholarship programs, pegged to programs and degrees that have a future, or meet specific needs. The Air Force been doing this for years with its ROTC scholarship program. Not only do applicants have to meet academic criteria, they must also agree to major in a subject (engineering or the hard sciences) that fills a projected requirement for the service. Who knows? Perhaps the prospect of a free education might entice some students to think beyond ethnic studies and interpretative dance in selecting a major.
Additionally, Congress should revoke the federal government's recently-implemented monopoly in student loans. Under the new arrangement, education finance programs will begin to resemble Medicare; the government will set reimbursement and paying bills with no regard for cost containment or efficiency. Look at the rampant fraud that permeates Medicare, and you'll get a look at the student loan program, circa 2015. Increasing choice in the student loan program--along with other reforms--will help hold down tuition costs for the next generation of college students.
One reform we oppose is a planned debt-service-to-income ratio proposed by the Department of Education, and scheduled to take effect next summer. Under that system, debt service on an individual's student loans could not exceed eight percent of their income, a rule that will (supposedly) force the schools to charge less, or see their enrollments decline.
But the ratio rule strikes us as arbitrary and impractical. Should Yale and Princeton be forced to charge less so their drama majors-turned-starving actors--pay only 8% towards student loan repayment? Or what about doctors or lawyers who attend top-flight schools and then volunteer for military service, earning far less than their civilian counterparts? In both cases, the effect will be the same: students will be repaying college loans for most of their adult lives. We believe a better reform package can be built around market-based incentives that encourages students (and parents) to borrow less, and seek academic programs that offer greater rewards, before and after graduation.
Mr. Eisman deserves credit for highlighting the looming crisis in federally-backed student loans. But the problems go well beyond the handful of for-profit schools that now dominate certain segments of the education industry. Traditional colleges and universities have been just as responsible for the spiraling cost of a higher education, taking advantage of the financial aid system as it now exists. We need a system that promotes choice and individual responsibility, regardless of where a student pursues their college degree.
***
ADDENDUM: One reform we can support involves changes in the accreditation process. To receive federal Title IV funds (from the student loan program), institutions must be regionally accredited. To meet that requirement, some of the for-profits have acquired small, financially-distressed schools that have a regional accreditation. The mega-schools buy all of the institution's assets, but they're really after the accreditation, which transfers to the new owners. While accreditation bodies are private, they should mandate a new review when a school changes ownership. That would force (some) of the rapidly-growing corporate schools to improve their own academic programs, and end the process of buying schools simply for their accreditation.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Friday, June 04, 2010
The Right Man for the Job?
According to the Washington Post and other media outlets, retired Air Force Lieutenant General James R. Clapper, Jr. will be named the next Director of National Intelligence. Clapper, who currently serves as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, will be introduced at a Rose Garden event tomorrow morning.
While Clapper is largely unknown to most Americans, he has served in the intelligence community for most of his adult life. As a young signals intelligence officer, Clapper flew collection missions over Southeast Asia on a modified EC-47 aircraft. He advanced steadily over the decades that followed, serving as a senior intelligence officer in Korea during the mid-80s, and as the Air Force's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence during the first Gulf War. At the time of his retirement from active duty in 1995, Clapper was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
As a civilian, Clapper spent time at two defense contractors before returning to government service in 2001 as the first civilian director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which processes and analyzes much of the data collected from spy satellites and other sensors. He spent five years at the agency before resigning in 2006, reportedly because of conflicts with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Clapper testified before Congress that DoD's four major intelligence agencies should report to the DNI, a position that angered his boss.
After Rumsfeld left the Pentagon, Clapper was nominated to rejoin the Bush Administration, this time as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that post, he served as chief advisor on intel matters to the new SecDef, Robert Gates, and his deputy, William Lynn. Clappper also functioned as DoD's primary liason to the DNI, led by retired Navy Admiral Mike McConnell (under President Bush), and more recently, under another former Navy flag officer, Dennis Blair.
Admiral Blair was forced out of the DNI post earlier this month, after only 15 months on the job. His tenure was marked by intelligence failures associated with the unsuccessful "underwear bomber" plot to bring down a U.S. jetliner and run-ins with other members of President Obama's national security team, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and John Brennan, the White House's senior counterterrorism advisor.
In terms of background and experience, Jim Clapper is (arguably) the most-qualified man for the job. He's one of the few spooks who has run two major intelligence agencies, and (more importantly), General Clapper knows the nuts-and-bolts of the business. He knows the star performers (and the weak sisters) in the intelligence community, and has definite ideas about making the DNI construct more efficient and effective.
By comparison, Admiral Blair was a career "ship driver" whose only previous intel experience was as a consumer. He never mastered the community's unique culture and was quickly overwhelmed by the vast bureaucracy and its cut-throat attitude towards "outsiders." Blair's "feuds" with politically-wired opponents like Panetta and Brennan only sealed his fate. In the halls of the DNI (and various intel agencies) Admiral Blair was described as a "dead man walking" long before his departure was announced.
But will Clapper fare any better? Managing an intelligence apparatus that consists of 16 different agencies (and thousands of employees) is a daunting (some would say impossible) task. General Clapper certainly understands the terrain--and he knows the key players--but there's no guarantee he can meld them into a more effective team.
Indeed, Clapper will face many of the same challenges that bedeviled his predecessors. The DNI has limited budget authority, curtailing his ability to control agencies and their operations. Intel organizations have, in the past, found it convenient to slow-roll (or even ignore) DNI directives that aren't to their liking.
Clapper may also have problems with his boss in the White House. During the Bush Administration, General Clapper was a strong supporter of enhanced interrogation techniques, though he also fought for more transparency and accountability in intelligence matters. Clapper may well find himself in a major battle the next time a terror suspect is detained at an airport (or in a foreign land) and other administration officials push to treat the individual as a criminal defendant, and not a hostile combatant.
General Clapper also faces opposition in Congress. Both the Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (California's Diane Feinstein) and the ranking Republican (Kit Bond of Missouri) have expressed reservations, noting that Clapper was often reluctant to brief Congress on the Pentagon's intelligence activities. After 45 years in the intel business, Clapper knows that Congress leaks like a seive, but stonewalling the SSCI doesn't win you any favors from people that control your budget.
All in all, Jim Clapper is a definite improvement over Admiral Blair, bringing experience and expertise back to the DNI post. Will it be enough? Time will only tell. But for his second Director of National Intelligence, President Obama finally had the sense to appoint an intel professional to the post. That's a step in the right direction.
While Clapper is largely unknown to most Americans, he has served in the intelligence community for most of his adult life. As a young signals intelligence officer, Clapper flew collection missions over Southeast Asia on a modified EC-47 aircraft. He advanced steadily over the decades that followed, serving as a senior intelligence officer in Korea during the mid-80s, and as the Air Force's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence during the first Gulf War. At the time of his retirement from active duty in 1995, Clapper was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
As a civilian, Clapper spent time at two defense contractors before returning to government service in 2001 as the first civilian director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which processes and analyzes much of the data collected from spy satellites and other sensors. He spent five years at the agency before resigning in 2006, reportedly because of conflicts with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Clapper testified before Congress that DoD's four major intelligence agencies should report to the DNI, a position that angered his boss.
After Rumsfeld left the Pentagon, Clapper was nominated to rejoin the Bush Administration, this time as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that post, he served as chief advisor on intel matters to the new SecDef, Robert Gates, and his deputy, William Lynn. Clappper also functioned as DoD's primary liason to the DNI, led by retired Navy Admiral Mike McConnell (under President Bush), and more recently, under another former Navy flag officer, Dennis Blair.
Admiral Blair was forced out of the DNI post earlier this month, after only 15 months on the job. His tenure was marked by intelligence failures associated with the unsuccessful "underwear bomber" plot to bring down a U.S. jetliner and run-ins with other members of President Obama's national security team, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and John Brennan, the White House's senior counterterrorism advisor.
In terms of background and experience, Jim Clapper is (arguably) the most-qualified man for the job. He's one of the few spooks who has run two major intelligence agencies, and (more importantly), General Clapper knows the nuts-and-bolts of the business. He knows the star performers (and the weak sisters) in the intelligence community, and has definite ideas about making the DNI construct more efficient and effective.
By comparison, Admiral Blair was a career "ship driver" whose only previous intel experience was as a consumer. He never mastered the community's unique culture and was quickly overwhelmed by the vast bureaucracy and its cut-throat attitude towards "outsiders." Blair's "feuds" with politically-wired opponents like Panetta and Brennan only sealed his fate. In the halls of the DNI (and various intel agencies) Admiral Blair was described as a "dead man walking" long before his departure was announced.
But will Clapper fare any better? Managing an intelligence apparatus that consists of 16 different agencies (and thousands of employees) is a daunting (some would say impossible) task. General Clapper certainly understands the terrain--and he knows the key players--but there's no guarantee he can meld them into a more effective team.
Indeed, Clapper will face many of the same challenges that bedeviled his predecessors. The DNI has limited budget authority, curtailing his ability to control agencies and their operations. Intel organizations have, in the past, found it convenient to slow-roll (or even ignore) DNI directives that aren't to their liking.
Clapper may also have problems with his boss in the White House. During the Bush Administration, General Clapper was a strong supporter of enhanced interrogation techniques, though he also fought for more transparency and accountability in intelligence matters. Clapper may well find himself in a major battle the next time a terror suspect is detained at an airport (or in a foreign land) and other administration officials push to treat the individual as a criminal defendant, and not a hostile combatant.
General Clapper also faces opposition in Congress. Both the Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (California's Diane Feinstein) and the ranking Republican (Kit Bond of Missouri) have expressed reservations, noting that Clapper was often reluctant to brief Congress on the Pentagon's intelligence activities. After 45 years in the intel business, Clapper knows that Congress leaks like a seive, but stonewalling the SSCI doesn't win you any favors from people that control your budget.
All in all, Jim Clapper is a definite improvement over Admiral Blair, bringing experience and expertise back to the DNI post. Will it be enough? Time will only tell. But for his second Director of National Intelligence, President Obama finally had the sense to appoint an intel professional to the post. That's a step in the right direction.
Today's Reading Assignment
Traditional, "print" journalism (as typlified by your daily newspaper) is dying on the vine. You need a score card to keep track of the papers that have gone belly up over the past 20 years.
And news magazines aren't far behind (pssst...hey buddy, wanna buy Newsweek? No, not a copy--the whole thing). Jon Meacham can't envision a society without his magazine, but apparently the Washington Post Company can. Unfortunately, they haven't found anyone willing to take the money-losing publication off their hands.
Needless to say, members of the MSM--and their friends in the Democratic Party--view the demise of print journalism as a sign of the apocalypse. Barney Frank was among the first on Capitol Hill to float the idea of a newspaper bailout and more recently, the Federal Trade Commission has proposed financial aid for media companies and even government programs to "promote" the hiring of journalists. Mark Tapscott wonders aloud if journalists will awaken in time to save their profession from the FTC.
But we digress. Obviously, free markets are the best way to determine the future media landscape, and quite naturally, that idea is feared by journos and their political cronies alike. Left entirely to the forces of capitalism, the current media model won't exist in 10-15 years, with daily newspapers going the way of the Edsel and AM rock stations. That means thousands of J-school grads will have to find a real job (or actually report the news), and politicians will have to look elsewhere for fawning coverage.
Still, there might be a third way to save journalism, without increased government regulation and subsidies, and without eliminating all the newspapers and magazines. In his latest piece for The Weekly Standard, P.J. O'Rourke proposes a radical solution that might boost readership, without any infusion of taxpayer dollars. He calls it The Pre-Obituary:
The main advantage of the Pre-Obit over the traditional obituary is the knowledge of reader and writer alike that the as-good-as-dead people are still around to have their feelings hurt. It was a travesty of literary justice that we waited until J. D. Salinger finally hit the delete key at 91 before admitting that Catcher in the Rye stinks. The book’s only virtue is that it captures, with annoying accuracy, the maunderings of a twerp. The book’s only pleasure is in slamming the cover shut—simpler than slamming the door shut on a real Holden Caulfield, if less satisfying. The rest of Salinger’s published oeuvre was precious or boring or both. But we felt constrained to delay saying so, perhaps because of an outdated Victorian hope for a death-bed flash of genius.
Let us wait no more. With the Pre-Obituary we can abandon pusillanimous constraint and false hope and say what we think about the lives of public nuisances when their lives are not yet a dead letter. And we won’t be stuck in the treacle of nostalgia and sentiment. We won’t find ourselves saying of some oaf, “His like will not pass this way again.” Or, if we do say it, we can comfortably add, “Thank God!” The precept of Diogenes isn’t “Do not speak ill of the living.”
Think of the opportunities we’ve missed already. Bea Arthur (1922-2009) performed a grievous disservice to popular culture by uniting two equally dreadful but previously discrete American types. In her portrayal of loud, Bolshie Maude, Arthur taught every angry feminist to be a common scold and every termagant housewife to be Emma Goldman. Once Arthur had become respectable by dying no one had the nerve to title her funeral notice “The Taming of the Shrew.”
Paul Newman (1925-2008) was not, in and of himself, a bad person. But he deserved to be damned to his face for lending charm to the smirk of liberalism. And after he’d become an immortal only a heartless writer would have pointed out that for an entire generation of young people, Paul Newman is, mainly, a salad dressing.
[snip]
Jimmy Carter is 85. We must hasten to throw the Camp David Accord in his face before he heads to his eternal camp-out with Anwar el-Sadat. Gore Vidal is 84. There’s no chance he’ll end up in the same place as Bill Buckley. We ought to take up Buckley’s gauntlet and slap Gore’s face here and now. Noam Chomsky is 81. Why should Satan have all the fun? We own pitchforks of fact aplenty with which to prod his living flesh. Norman Lear is 87 and will be married to Maude forever any minute now. (Although Lear may find himself forgiven. He never meant to make Archie Bunker a hero and a role model, but perhaps the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.) Ed Asner is 80. Put him together with Ben Bradlee (88) and Alan J. Pakula, director of All the President’s Men (died in 1998, darn it), and you have the villains in the tragic tale of the American newspaper’s self-congratulatory ossification. Ross Perot also will be 80 soon. We owe him one Bill Clinton-sized philippic. Ralph Nader is 76. High time that someone, metaphorically, flipped him in a Corvair. And Paul Ehrlich is 78. In these days of the graying workforce, baby bust, and demographic decline, surely he needs a population bomb in his underpants.
The pre-obituary. An idea whose time has come. Before theirs does.
And news magazines aren't far behind (pssst...hey buddy, wanna buy Newsweek? No, not a copy--the whole thing). Jon Meacham can't envision a society without his magazine, but apparently the Washington Post Company can. Unfortunately, they haven't found anyone willing to take the money-losing publication off their hands.
Needless to say, members of the MSM--and their friends in the Democratic Party--view the demise of print journalism as a sign of the apocalypse. Barney Frank was among the first on Capitol Hill to float the idea of a newspaper bailout and more recently, the Federal Trade Commission has proposed financial aid for media companies and even government programs to "promote" the hiring of journalists. Mark Tapscott wonders aloud if journalists will awaken in time to save their profession from the FTC.
But we digress. Obviously, free markets are the best way to determine the future media landscape, and quite naturally, that idea is feared by journos and their political cronies alike. Left entirely to the forces of capitalism, the current media model won't exist in 10-15 years, with daily newspapers going the way of the Edsel and AM rock stations. That means thousands of J-school grads will have to find a real job (or actually report the news), and politicians will have to look elsewhere for fawning coverage.
Still, there might be a third way to save journalism, without increased government regulation and subsidies, and without eliminating all the newspapers and magazines. In his latest piece for The Weekly Standard, P.J. O'Rourke proposes a radical solution that might boost readership, without any infusion of taxpayer dollars. He calls it The Pre-Obituary:
The main advantage of the Pre-Obit over the traditional obituary is the knowledge of reader and writer alike that the as-good-as-dead people are still around to have their feelings hurt. It was a travesty of literary justice that we waited until J. D. Salinger finally hit the delete key at 91 before admitting that Catcher in the Rye stinks. The book’s only virtue is that it captures, with annoying accuracy, the maunderings of a twerp. The book’s only pleasure is in slamming the cover shut—simpler than slamming the door shut on a real Holden Caulfield, if less satisfying. The rest of Salinger’s published oeuvre was precious or boring or both. But we felt constrained to delay saying so, perhaps because of an outdated Victorian hope for a death-bed flash of genius.
Let us wait no more. With the Pre-Obituary we can abandon pusillanimous constraint and false hope and say what we think about the lives of public nuisances when their lives are not yet a dead letter. And we won’t be stuck in the treacle of nostalgia and sentiment. We won’t find ourselves saying of some oaf, “His like will not pass this way again.” Or, if we do say it, we can comfortably add, “Thank God!” The precept of Diogenes isn’t “Do not speak ill of the living.”
Think of the opportunities we’ve missed already. Bea Arthur (1922-2009) performed a grievous disservice to popular culture by uniting two equally dreadful but previously discrete American types. In her portrayal of loud, Bolshie Maude, Arthur taught every angry feminist to be a common scold and every termagant housewife to be Emma Goldman. Once Arthur had become respectable by dying no one had the nerve to title her funeral notice “The Taming of the Shrew.”
Paul Newman (1925-2008) was not, in and of himself, a bad person. But he deserved to be damned to his face for lending charm to the smirk of liberalism. And after he’d become an immortal only a heartless writer would have pointed out that for an entire generation of young people, Paul Newman is, mainly, a salad dressing.
[snip]
Jimmy Carter is 85. We must hasten to throw the Camp David Accord in his face before he heads to his eternal camp-out with Anwar el-Sadat. Gore Vidal is 84. There’s no chance he’ll end up in the same place as Bill Buckley. We ought to take up Buckley’s gauntlet and slap Gore’s face here and now. Noam Chomsky is 81. Why should Satan have all the fun? We own pitchforks of fact aplenty with which to prod his living flesh. Norman Lear is 87 and will be married to Maude forever any minute now. (Although Lear may find himself forgiven. He never meant to make Archie Bunker a hero and a role model, but perhaps the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.) Ed Asner is 80. Put him together with Ben Bradlee (88) and Alan J. Pakula, director of All the President’s Men (died in 1998, darn it), and you have the villains in the tragic tale of the American newspaper’s self-congratulatory ossification. Ross Perot also will be 80 soon. We owe him one Bill Clinton-sized philippic. Ralph Nader is 76. High time that someone, metaphorically, flipped him in a Corvair. And Paul Ehrlich is 78. In these days of the graying workforce, baby bust, and demographic decline, surely he needs a population bomb in his underpants.
The pre-obituary. An idea whose time has come. Before theirs does.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Who Lost Turkey?
That's the question currently making the rounds in Washington, D.C. Many observers were stunned by Ankara's support of the "aid mission" to Gaza that ended in a confrontation with Israeli commandos.
So, how does an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) get involved with groups that are sworn enemies of Israel? And, how did we fail to notice Turkey's move away from the west, and towards its new friends like Iran and Syria?
As Robert Pollock explains in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, Ankara's march towards Islamic extremism began almost a decade ago, with the election of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Since then, Turks have been fed a steady diet of anti-Semitic (and anti-U.S. propaganda), inflaming public sentiment against two of the nation's most important allies:
To follow Turkish discourse in recent years has been to follow a national decline into madness. Imagine 80 million or so people sitting at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. They don't speak an Indo-European language and perhaps hundreds of thousands of them have meaningful access to any outside media. What information most of them get is filtered through a secular press that makes Italian communists look right wing by comparison and an increasing number of state (i.e., Islamist) influenced outfits. Topics A and B (or B and A, it doesn't really matter) have been the malign influence on the world of Israel and the United States.
For example, while there was much hand-wringing in our own media about "Who lost Turkey?" when U.S. forces were denied entry to Iraq from the north in 2003, no such introspection was evident in Ankara and Istanbul. Instead, Turks were fed a steady diet of imagined atrocities perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq, often with the implication that they were acting as muscle for the Jews. The newspaper Yeni Safak, Erdogan's daily read, claimed that Americans were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that local mullahs had issued a fatwa ordering residents not to eat the fish. The same paper repeatedly claimed that the U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah. And it reported that Israeli soldiers had been deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and that U.S. forces were harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis for sale on the U.S. "organ market."
It is especially telling that Mr. Erdogan, in a subsequent interview with Robert Pollock, refused to denounce such claims. That is hardly a surprise; such lies clearly serve his political goals. Now, in the wake of the Gaza incident, Erdogan's foreign minister is demanding U.S. "solidarity" with Turkey. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to take the bait. So far.
The question really isn't "who" lost Turkey. Ankara lost its way years ago. The question now is what happens to its relationships with the U.S., Israel and NATO. As we noted previously, Tel Aviv has gone out of its way to preserve its long-standing relationship with the Turkish military, which remains the cornerstone of the modern, secular state. We would hope that our own Defense Department is doing the same thing.
Bottom line: someone needs to take the pulse of the Turkish General Staff (TGS); if Ankara's senior military leaders are firmly behind their Islamist Prime Minister, then it may be impossible to preserve our alliance with Turkey.
So, how does an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) get involved with groups that are sworn enemies of Israel? And, how did we fail to notice Turkey's move away from the west, and towards its new friends like Iran and Syria?
As Robert Pollock explains in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, Ankara's march towards Islamic extremism began almost a decade ago, with the election of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Since then, Turks have been fed a steady diet of anti-Semitic (and anti-U.S. propaganda), inflaming public sentiment against two of the nation's most important allies:
To follow Turkish discourse in recent years has been to follow a national decline into madness. Imagine 80 million or so people sitting at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. They don't speak an Indo-European language and perhaps hundreds of thousands of them have meaningful access to any outside media. What information most of them get is filtered through a secular press that makes Italian communists look right wing by comparison and an increasing number of state (i.e., Islamist) influenced outfits. Topics A and B (or B and A, it doesn't really matter) have been the malign influence on the world of Israel and the United States.
For example, while there was much hand-wringing in our own media about "Who lost Turkey?" when U.S. forces were denied entry to Iraq from the north in 2003, no such introspection was evident in Ankara and Istanbul. Instead, Turks were fed a steady diet of imagined atrocities perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq, often with the implication that they were acting as muscle for the Jews. The newspaper Yeni Safak, Erdogan's daily read, claimed that Americans were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that local mullahs had issued a fatwa ordering residents not to eat the fish. The same paper repeatedly claimed that the U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah. And it reported that Israeli soldiers had been deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and that U.S. forces were harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis for sale on the U.S. "organ market."
It is especially telling that Mr. Erdogan, in a subsequent interview with Robert Pollock, refused to denounce such claims. That is hardly a surprise; such lies clearly serve his political goals. Now, in the wake of the Gaza incident, Erdogan's foreign minister is demanding U.S. "solidarity" with Turkey. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to take the bait. So far.
The question really isn't "who" lost Turkey. Ankara lost its way years ago. The question now is what happens to its relationships with the U.S., Israel and NATO. As we noted previously, Tel Aviv has gone out of its way to preserve its long-standing relationship with the Turkish military, which remains the cornerstone of the modern, secular state. We would hope that our own Defense Department is doing the same thing.
Bottom line: someone needs to take the pulse of the Turkish General Staff (TGS); if Ankara's senior military leaders are firmly behind their Islamist Prime Minister, then it may be impossible to preserve our alliance with Turkey.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
What a Surprise
...many of the "peace activists" aboard those Gaza-bound "aid" vessels have ties to terror groups. And it will come as no surprise that many of the same "activists" had no identification papers when they were detained by Israeli commandos who boarded the ships.
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit has details the MSM chooses to ignore:
A majority of the arrested “peace activists” who brutally attacked the Israeli soldiers with pipes, metal rods. chairs and knives are linked to terror groups including Al-Qaeda. Several are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The activists include Turks, Yemenites and Indonesians. And, many of the arrested “peace” fanatics have no identification papers.
More from Israel's YNet News:
The ongoing interrogation of passengers who were aboard the Marmara – the Gaza aid flotilla's flagship – revealed that the majority of those who attacked the Israeli Naval Commandos boarding the ship have direct and indirect Global Jihad ties.
Israel's investigation has revealed some 100 people infiltrated the peace and humanitarian aid activists making their way to Gaza, with the explicit design to attack Israeli soldiers using cold arms.
Some among that group are believed to have ties with World Jihad groups, mainly al-Qaeda.
The majority of suspects are Turks, but some are Yemenites and Indonesian. One Yemenite Islamist was photographed with a dagger in his belt prior to the raid.
The suspects are not cooperating with investigators. Most of them have no identification papers, and Israeli authorities are still trying to ascertain their identity.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority were recruited by the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.
IHH is the Turkish aid group with well-established ties to radical Islamic elements. Israeli interrogators report that some of the activists were recruited specifically to attack Israeli soldiers. Some of the suspects had large sums of cash in their possession, along with knives, metal clubs, slingshots and other weapons.
Meanwhile, Ankara's official outrage over the incident apparently has its limits. While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been highly critical of Israel--suggesting (at one point) that Tel Aviv should be banned from the U.N.--there have been extensive efforts to prevent recent incidents from seriously damaging military ties between the two countries. Turkey and Israel have a long history of security cooperation; IAF squadrons routinely train in Turkish airspace; the two nations share intelligence and Ankara buys millions of dollars in military hardware from Israeli firms ever year.
That's one reason the IDF Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi made an urgent call to his Turkish counterpart last week, after a subordinate made remarks critical of Ankara's past human rights abuses, during an address at an Israeli defense college. From Turkish Weekly:
Last week, in a lecture at the National Defense College in Glilot, [Major General Avi] Mizrahi said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been severely critical of Israel since Operation Cast Lead, should first look in the mirror. Mizrahi mentioned the massacre of the Armenians, the suppression of the Kurds, and the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus.
Officials said that Ashkenazi spoke at length with Gen. Ilker Basbug (Chief of the Turkish General Staff) and assured him that Mizrahi's remarks did not reflect the IDF's official position, and that Israel highly valued the strategic relationship it had forged over the years with the Turkish military.
Both militaries are apparently trying to steer clear of the political fray, and avoid damaging their partnership. There is also the question of how long the Turkish General Staff (TGS) will tolerate PM Erdogan's efforts to erode the nation's secular traditions. While General Basbug and his predecessor have generally followed Erdogan's party line on such issues as EU membership and Turkish sovereignty, many senior members of the TGS are uncomfortable with the PM's Islamist leanings and rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the Gaza incident, the military quickly announced that no Turkish warships would accompany the next "aid" flotilla that sails to the waters off Gaza. That was a clear reminder that the TGS remains the kingmaker in Turkish politics, and their are limits to its patience and cooperation in Mr. Erdogan's various schemes.
***
ADDENDUM: To be sure, there is a current "chill" in military relations between the Turks and the Israelis. Scheduled joint exercises have been cancelled and the IAF probably won't fly from Turkish bases anytime soon. But no one has even remotely suggested that the two countries end their military cooperation, a reminder that the TGS has ultimate veto authority over any changes in government policies.
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit has details the MSM chooses to ignore:
A majority of the arrested “peace activists” who brutally attacked the Israeli soldiers with pipes, metal rods. chairs and knives are linked to terror groups including Al-Qaeda. Several are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The activists include Turks, Yemenites and Indonesians. And, many of the arrested “peace” fanatics have no identification papers.
More from Israel's YNet News:
The ongoing interrogation of passengers who were aboard the Marmara – the Gaza aid flotilla's flagship – revealed that the majority of those who attacked the Israeli Naval Commandos boarding the ship have direct and indirect Global Jihad ties.
Israel's investigation has revealed some 100 people infiltrated the peace and humanitarian aid activists making their way to Gaza, with the explicit design to attack Israeli soldiers using cold arms.
Some among that group are believed to have ties with World Jihad groups, mainly al-Qaeda.
The majority of suspects are Turks, but some are Yemenites and Indonesian. One Yemenite Islamist was photographed with a dagger in his belt prior to the raid.
The suspects are not cooperating with investigators. Most of them have no identification papers, and Israeli authorities are still trying to ascertain their identity.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority were recruited by the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.
IHH is the Turkish aid group with well-established ties to radical Islamic elements. Israeli interrogators report that some of the activists were recruited specifically to attack Israeli soldiers. Some of the suspects had large sums of cash in their possession, along with knives, metal clubs, slingshots and other weapons.
Meanwhile, Ankara's official outrage over the incident apparently has its limits. While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been highly critical of Israel--suggesting (at one point) that Tel Aviv should be banned from the U.N.--there have been extensive efforts to prevent recent incidents from seriously damaging military ties between the two countries. Turkey and Israel have a long history of security cooperation; IAF squadrons routinely train in Turkish airspace; the two nations share intelligence and Ankara buys millions of dollars in military hardware from Israeli firms ever year.
That's one reason the IDF Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi made an urgent call to his Turkish counterpart last week, after a subordinate made remarks critical of Ankara's past human rights abuses, during an address at an Israeli defense college. From Turkish Weekly:
Last week, in a lecture at the National Defense College in Glilot, [Major General Avi] Mizrahi said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been severely critical of Israel since Operation Cast Lead, should first look in the mirror. Mizrahi mentioned the massacre of the Armenians, the suppression of the Kurds, and the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus.
Officials said that Ashkenazi spoke at length with Gen. Ilker Basbug (Chief of the Turkish General Staff) and assured him that Mizrahi's remarks did not reflect the IDF's official position, and that Israel highly valued the strategic relationship it had forged over the years with the Turkish military.
Both militaries are apparently trying to steer clear of the political fray, and avoid damaging their partnership. There is also the question of how long the Turkish General Staff (TGS) will tolerate PM Erdogan's efforts to erode the nation's secular traditions. While General Basbug and his predecessor have generally followed Erdogan's party line on such issues as EU membership and Turkish sovereignty, many senior members of the TGS are uncomfortable with the PM's Islamist leanings and rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the Gaza incident, the military quickly announced that no Turkish warships would accompany the next "aid" flotilla that sails to the waters off Gaza. That was a clear reminder that the TGS remains the kingmaker in Turkish politics, and their are limits to its patience and cooperation in Mr. Erdogan's various schemes.
***
ADDENDUM: To be sure, there is a current "chill" in military relations between the Turks and the Israelis. Scheduled joint exercises have been cancelled and the IAF probably won't fly from Turkish bases anytime soon. But no one has even remotely suggested that the two countries end their military cooperation, a reminder that the TGS has ultimate veto authority over any changes in government policies.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
The Murphy Defense, Redux
The military career of Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant William Gurney moved closer to an ignominious end last week. Gurney, the former top enlisted man at Air Force Material Command, was in a military courtroom, watching as attorneys presented evidence at an Article 32 hearing. The outcome of that hearing will determine if Gurney will face a court-martial on charges ranging from sexual harassment and adultery, to mis-using his official position to further personal relationships.
While a final ruling on the hearing is not expected for several weeks, it is almost certain that Gurney's case will move on to a courts-martial. Evidence presented during the Article 32 proceeding seemed credible enough to warrant a court-martial and (given its recent history in high-profile sexual harassment and misconduct cases), the service can ill-afford the perception that another high-profile defendant is getting off with a slap on the wrist.
That was the impression that resonated after scandals involving Major General Thomas Fiscus, the service's former Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier General Richard Hassan, who managed the Air Force office which handled programs and policies affecting the service's flag officers. Fiscus was accused of inappropriate relationships with a number of associates, while Hassan was charged with sexual harassment of female staffers, revolving around his apparent "foot fetish."
Both general officers were ultimately reduced in grade (to full Colonel) and forced into retirement. But they avoided a court-martial and the more serious sanctions that might have been imposed, including dismissal from service. The disposition of those cases raised new claims that the Air Force--along with other branches of the armed forces--has "different spanks for different ranks," allowing senior officers to avoid more severe punishment that would be levied on lower-ranking personnel.
That's why the Gurney case is attracting a lot of interest--and attention. As a Command Chief, Gurney wielded considerable power among AFMC's enlisted ranks, with the ability to help (or hinder) a career. Military prosecutors allege that Gurney, a 27-year Air Force veteran, abused his post by engaging in extra-marital sex with several female subordinates and making advances toward other women in the command.
But prosecuting Chief Gurney may not be a slam-dunk. During last week's Article 32 hearing, Gurney's defense attorneys did what good lawyers do--they mounted a head-long assault on their client's accusers, raising questions about their motives and veracity.
On the final day of the hearing, Gurney's defense team offered a rebuttal to earlier testimony by a female airman, who accused the former Command Chief of unwanted touching, and sending unwanted text messages to her. But two of the airman's former supervisors told the hearing she had an intermittent history of not being truthful or reliable regarding her whereabouts or military job duties.
And, in another blow to the prosecution, one of Gurney's paramours described herself as a willing participant in sex with the Chief and his wife. According to the Dayton Daily News, Master Sergeant Denise O'Connor testified that she had sex with Gurney on multiple occasions, and sometimes participated in three-way intercourse with Gurney and his wife.
MSgt Denise O’Connor said she exchanged sexually explicit text-messages with Chief Master Sergeant. William C. Gurney and, at his request, sent him nude photographs of herself.
Asked why she sent the photos, O’Connor said: “Because he made me feel sexy, he made me feel attractive.”
[snip]
O’Connor said she participated in three-way sex twice with Gurney and his wife at William Gurney’s invitation.
“The three of us had sexual intercourse,” O’Connor said, responding to questions from government lawyer Capt. Tania Bryant.
“With each other?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor said.
On one occasion, the Gurneys and O’Connor had drinks at a bar before Gurney’s wife provided a key to the couple’s hotel room, O’Connor testified.
“Did you know what that meant?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor replied.
[snip]
Under defense cross-examination, O’Connor said she voluntarily traveled to meet Gurney with the expectation of having sex.
“At no point did you feel Chief Gurney was abusing his rank?” defense lawyer Maj. Gwendolyn Beitz asked. “No,” O’Connor said.
If Major Beitz's name sounds familiar, it should. Last year, she was part of the legal team that crafted a highly successful defense strategy for Colonel Michael Murphy, the former Air Force JAG who was disbarred shortly after he joined the military, but served as a legal officer--withou the required credentials--for more than 25 years before his deceit was uncovered.
In their defense of Murphy, Beitz and her colleagues adopted a rather novel approach. Rather than focusing on Murphy's misdeeds, they argued the Colonel could not receive the "good airman" defense, because details of his service at the White House remain highly classified. A military judge (and an armed forces appellate court) agreed with their argument, ruling that Murphy could not be punished, even if he was found guilty. While the Colonel was eventually convicted, he was not dismissed from service and retired from the Air Force in April as a First Lieutenant--the last grade at which he "honorably" served.
When charges were initially filed against Chief Gurney, we wondered if his defense team would try their own variation of the Murphy defense. After all, Gurney spent most of his career in the intelligence career field; he held a high security clearance and was "read in" to various special programs that cannot be easily declassified to present as part of his defense. Given those realities, the Murphy defense seemed to be a viable option for Gurney's defense lawyers.
And that was before we learned that Major Beitz would represent Chief Gurney. In fact, her assignment to the case seems a bit odd. It is true that AFMC transferred responsibility for the Article 32 to Air Mobility Command, given Gurney's former position within Material Command. Under that arrangement, it's logical that an area defense counsel from AMC would represent Gurney. But there are a number of defense attorneys assigned to the command--and many are closer to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (where the Article 32 was held) than Major Beitz's home station of Charleston AFB, SC.
Put another way, was it mere luck of the draw that put Beitz on the defense team, or is someone in the Air Force chain trying to ensure that Gurney has the best possible representation. At this point, Gurney's acquittal is a long-shot, but there is a very good chance that he will emerge (at a reduced rank), pension and benefits intact.
***
ADDENDUM: And there may be life after the courts-martial as well. Military legal scholars might want to research the Knudsen case at Davis-Monthan 20 years ago, and its rather unusual outcome.
While a final ruling on the hearing is not expected for several weeks, it is almost certain that Gurney's case will move on to a courts-martial. Evidence presented during the Article 32 proceeding seemed credible enough to warrant a court-martial and (given its recent history in high-profile sexual harassment and misconduct cases), the service can ill-afford the perception that another high-profile defendant is getting off with a slap on the wrist.
That was the impression that resonated after scandals involving Major General Thomas Fiscus, the service's former Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier General Richard Hassan, who managed the Air Force office which handled programs and policies affecting the service's flag officers. Fiscus was accused of inappropriate relationships with a number of associates, while Hassan was charged with sexual harassment of female staffers, revolving around his apparent "foot fetish."
Both general officers were ultimately reduced in grade (to full Colonel) and forced into retirement. But they avoided a court-martial and the more serious sanctions that might have been imposed, including dismissal from service. The disposition of those cases raised new claims that the Air Force--along with other branches of the armed forces--has "different spanks for different ranks," allowing senior officers to avoid more severe punishment that would be levied on lower-ranking personnel.
That's why the Gurney case is attracting a lot of interest--and attention. As a Command Chief, Gurney wielded considerable power among AFMC's enlisted ranks, with the ability to help (or hinder) a career. Military prosecutors allege that Gurney, a 27-year Air Force veteran, abused his post by engaging in extra-marital sex with several female subordinates and making advances toward other women in the command.
But prosecuting Chief Gurney may not be a slam-dunk. During last week's Article 32 hearing, Gurney's defense attorneys did what good lawyers do--they mounted a head-long assault on their client's accusers, raising questions about their motives and veracity.
On the final day of the hearing, Gurney's defense team offered a rebuttal to earlier testimony by a female airman, who accused the former Command Chief of unwanted touching, and sending unwanted text messages to her. But two of the airman's former supervisors told the hearing she had an intermittent history of not being truthful or reliable regarding her whereabouts or military job duties.
And, in another blow to the prosecution, one of Gurney's paramours described herself as a willing participant in sex with the Chief and his wife. According to the Dayton Daily News, Master Sergeant Denise O'Connor testified that she had sex with Gurney on multiple occasions, and sometimes participated in three-way intercourse with Gurney and his wife.
MSgt Denise O’Connor said she exchanged sexually explicit text-messages with Chief Master Sergeant. William C. Gurney and, at his request, sent him nude photographs of herself.
Asked why she sent the photos, O’Connor said: “Because he made me feel sexy, he made me feel attractive.”
[snip]
O’Connor said she participated in three-way sex twice with Gurney and his wife at William Gurney’s invitation.
“The three of us had sexual intercourse,” O’Connor said, responding to questions from government lawyer Capt. Tania Bryant.
“With each other?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor said.
On one occasion, the Gurneys and O’Connor had drinks at a bar before Gurney’s wife provided a key to the couple’s hotel room, O’Connor testified.
“Did you know what that meant?” Bryant asked. “Yes,” O’Connor replied.
[snip]
Under defense cross-examination, O’Connor said she voluntarily traveled to meet Gurney with the expectation of having sex.
“At no point did you feel Chief Gurney was abusing his rank?” defense lawyer Maj. Gwendolyn Beitz asked. “No,” O’Connor said.
If Major Beitz's name sounds familiar, it should. Last year, she was part of the legal team that crafted a highly successful defense strategy for Colonel Michael Murphy, the former Air Force JAG who was disbarred shortly after he joined the military, but served as a legal officer--withou the required credentials--for more than 25 years before his deceit was uncovered.
In their defense of Murphy, Beitz and her colleagues adopted a rather novel approach. Rather than focusing on Murphy's misdeeds, they argued the Colonel could not receive the "good airman" defense, because details of his service at the White House remain highly classified. A military judge (and an armed forces appellate court) agreed with their argument, ruling that Murphy could not be punished, even if he was found guilty. While the Colonel was eventually convicted, he was not dismissed from service and retired from the Air Force in April as a First Lieutenant--the last grade at which he "honorably" served.
When charges were initially filed against Chief Gurney, we wondered if his defense team would try their own variation of the Murphy defense. After all, Gurney spent most of his career in the intelligence career field; he held a high security clearance and was "read in" to various special programs that cannot be easily declassified to present as part of his defense. Given those realities, the Murphy defense seemed to be a viable option for Gurney's defense lawyers.
And that was before we learned that Major Beitz would represent Chief Gurney. In fact, her assignment to the case seems a bit odd. It is true that AFMC transferred responsibility for the Article 32 to Air Mobility Command, given Gurney's former position within Material Command. Under that arrangement, it's logical that an area defense counsel from AMC would represent Gurney. But there are a number of defense attorneys assigned to the command--and many are closer to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (where the Article 32 was held) than Major Beitz's home station of Charleston AFB, SC.
Put another way, was it mere luck of the draw that put Beitz on the defense team, or is someone in the Air Force chain trying to ensure that Gurney has the best possible representation. At this point, Gurney's acquittal is a long-shot, but there is a very good chance that he will emerge (at a reduced rank), pension and benefits intact.
***
ADDENDUM: And there may be life after the courts-martial as well. Military legal scholars might want to research the Knudsen case at Davis-Monthan 20 years ago, and its rather unusual outcome.
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Arlington Ladies
In 1948, Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenburg and his wife Gladys paid a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. As they stood among the rows of headstones, they noticed a funeral in progress. An airman was being laid to rest among the nation's heroes. But there were no mourners; just the honor guard and the chaplain. It's unclear if the airman had no family, or they simply couldn't afford the trip to his funeral.
General and Mrs. Vandenburg were stunned and saddened by what they witnessed that day. After she returned from the cemetery, Mrs. Vandenburg organized a group of Air Force wives to attend the funerals of all fallen airmen--to ensure that none were buried alone. Army and Navy wives quickly followed suit, and the Arlington ladies were born.
Seven decades later, the ladies still maintain their vigil, attending every funeral held at Arlington. In a remarkably moving account, Helen O'Neill of the Associated Press tells the story of these remarkable volunteers:
Always elegantly dressed, often in hats and gloves. Always standing, hand over heart, a respectful distance from the grave. Always mindful of history.
The ladies know every inch of Arlington's 624 manicured acres, from the stones of freed slaves marked "unknown citizens" to the grave of the first soldier interred here (Private William Christman, a farmer from Pennsylvania who fought in the Civil War) to Section 60, where the men and women who lost their lives in the current wars are buried.
"So many stones, so many stories," says Paula Mckinley, head of the Navy ladies, as she drives through the cemetery one recent spring day, stopping at a section not far from the throngs of tourists at President John F. Kennedy's grave. Baldwin. Curtis. Sanchez. She walks among their headstones reciting their names.
With her booming voice, red hair tucked under a straw hat, and brisk manner, Mckinley, whose husband is a retired Navy officer, is a striking figure. But she is subdued by the graves, reverential. "They all deserve to be remembered, and to be visited," she says.
McKinley, who has been an Arlington lady for 21 years, drives a little further. She stops by a grove of willow oaks, searching for a specific plot.
"Here you are, sweetheart," she says, gently touching the stone of a young woman Navy officer who died in an accident at the age of 25. The officer's mother called from California one day — on her daughter's birthday — and asked if an Arlington lady could put flowers on the grave. Now McKinley visits regularly. She says it's the least she can do.
These days, Arlington is a busy place. World War II-era veterans are leaving us at a rate of 1,000 every week. Our population of Korea and Vietnam vets is aging, and of course, there are the young women and men who give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. On an average day, there are 30 funerals at the cemetery; an Arlington Lady is present for each one.
In an era when many Americans are increasingly disconnected from the military, the service and patriotism of the Arlington ladies is both inspiring and reassuring. On this Memorial Day (and every day), there are those who still remembers the sacrifice of our nation's heroes, and those who are leave behind.
General and Mrs. Vandenburg were stunned and saddened by what they witnessed that day. After she returned from the cemetery, Mrs. Vandenburg organized a group of Air Force wives to attend the funerals of all fallen airmen--to ensure that none were buried alone. Army and Navy wives quickly followed suit, and the Arlington ladies were born.
Seven decades later, the ladies still maintain their vigil, attending every funeral held at Arlington. In a remarkably moving account, Helen O'Neill of the Associated Press tells the story of these remarkable volunteers:
Always elegantly dressed, often in hats and gloves. Always standing, hand over heart, a respectful distance from the grave. Always mindful of history.
The ladies know every inch of Arlington's 624 manicured acres, from the stones of freed slaves marked "unknown citizens" to the grave of the first soldier interred here (Private William Christman, a farmer from Pennsylvania who fought in the Civil War) to Section 60, where the men and women who lost their lives in the current wars are buried.
"So many stones, so many stories," says Paula Mckinley, head of the Navy ladies, as she drives through the cemetery one recent spring day, stopping at a section not far from the throngs of tourists at President John F. Kennedy's grave. Baldwin. Curtis. Sanchez. She walks among their headstones reciting their names.
With her booming voice, red hair tucked under a straw hat, and brisk manner, Mckinley, whose husband is a retired Navy officer, is a striking figure. But she is subdued by the graves, reverential. "They all deserve to be remembered, and to be visited," she says.
McKinley, who has been an Arlington lady for 21 years, drives a little further. She stops by a grove of willow oaks, searching for a specific plot.
"Here you are, sweetheart," she says, gently touching the stone of a young woman Navy officer who died in an accident at the age of 25. The officer's mother called from California one day — on her daughter's birthday — and asked if an Arlington lady could put flowers on the grave. Now McKinley visits regularly. She says it's the least she can do.
These days, Arlington is a busy place. World War II-era veterans are leaving us at a rate of 1,000 every week. Our population of Korea and Vietnam vets is aging, and of course, there are the young women and men who give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. On an average day, there are 30 funerals at the cemetery; an Arlington Lady is present for each one.
In an era when many Americans are increasingly disconnected from the military, the service and patriotism of the Arlington ladies is both inspiring and reassuring. On this Memorial Day (and every day), there are those who still remembers the sacrifice of our nation's heroes, and those who are leave behind.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Miracle of the Little Ships
The auxiliary ketch "Caronia," one of hundreds of little ships that assisted in the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940. Built in 1927, the 39-foot vessel was expected to participated in this year's 70th anniversary return of the little ships to the French port, where they helped rescue over 330,000 allied soldiers (Association of Dunkirk Little Ships photo).
Seventy years ago this weekend, the future of western civilization hinged, quite literally, on a slender sea corridor, stretching from the beaches of northern France, to the channel ports of Great Britain.
On those beaches, the rumble of artillery grew closer with each passing day. Adolf Hitler's blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and France was reaching its zenith. In less than a month, his panzer legions had achieved what many military experts believed impossible, achieving a complete victory on the western front.
Attacking in the north, through The Netherlands and Belgium, Germany's Army Group B pushed Allied units back into France and towards the coast. In response, the Supreme Allied Commander on the western front, French Maurice Gamelin, committed his reserves, believing those forces--and the defenses of the Maginot Line--would stop the Nazi advance.
Four days later, on 14 May, the Germans launched a second assault through the Ardennes Forest, a region considered "impassible" for vehicle and tank traffic. German forces, part of Army Group A, advanced rapidly on Sedan and then turned towards the coast, effectively flanking Allied forces.
By May 22, the defeat had become a rout. Allied counterattacks near Aras failed to halt German mechanized forces, which had already reached the coast, effectively isolating the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) from the main body of French and Belgian troops.
The tactical situation was grim, at best--and many considered it hopeless. Most of the British troops (and the French 1st Army) bottled up in a narrow (20 x 60 mile) corridor, leading to the French port of Dunkirk, on the English Channel. Their only hope was an evacuation by sea.
But that plan was risky; German troops were closing in on Dunkirk; the seaport's piers could not be used because of bomb damage and many of of the vessels in the British evacuation armada--particularly Royal Navy destroyers--could not operate in the shallow waters along the beaches, where British and French troops began to gather, awaiting pick-up.
Planning for the evacuation began shortly after the failed counter-attack at Aras. The BEF Commander, Lord Gort, observed that his position was precarious and the rescue operation might produce only modest results. As he told Anthony Eden, the British Secretary of State for War, "I must not conceal from you that a great part of the BEF and its equipment will inevitably be lost even in the best circumstances."
Under the direction of Royal Navy Vice-Admiral Bertram Ramsey, the evacuation mission at Dunkirk, code-named Operation Dynamo, began on 27 May--only two days after the plan was approved. At the time, Gort believed the British/French defenses around the port might hold for two days, allowing the rescue of up to 45,000 British soldiers, less than 20% of those who remained in France.
And, the rescue effort got off to a poor start. Only 7,000 soldiers were plucked from the beaches on that first day, with another 11,000 rescued on 28 May. Those numbers increased dramatically with the arrival of the "Little Ships of Dunkirk," a collection of more than 700 shallow-draft vessels that could negotiate the waters along the beaches. The flotilla included yachts, ferries, pleasure boats and other craft moored on the River Thames and along the southern and eastern coasts of England.
In the scramble to augment the Royal Navy at Dunkirk, some of the small vessels were formally requisitioned by the British Ministry of Shipping; others were simply taken when the owners couldn't be rescued. In a few cases, civilian skippers were allowed to pilot their vessels to Dunkirk, but most were under the command of naval officers or experienced merchant seamen. Many of the small craft were used to shuttle soldiers from the beaches (and Dunkirk Harbor) to larger ships that carried them back to England. But some were large enough to accommodate large numbers of troops and made multiple, round-trip voyages between evacuation sites and ports in southern England.
The impact of the little ships was immediate--and dramatic. On 29 May, with the Little Ships fully engaged, 33,000 troops were evacuated through the harbor and 13,000 more were plucked from the beaches--a one-day total of 47,310. Over the days that followed, evacuation totals continued to grow; over 53,000 troops were rescued from Dunkirk on the 30th, and 68,000 on the 31st of May. By the time the operation ended on 4 June, 338,000 British, French, Belgian and Polish troops had been evacuated from the continent.
But the "miracle" came at a high price. Virtually all of the BEF's artillery, tanks and heavy equipment had been left behind in France. And, the Germans exacted a heavy toll among the sea armada conducting the evacuation and RAF units that provided air cover. By some estimates, the Royal Air Force lost almost 500 aircraft supporting the Dunkirk mission, and as many as 200 sea craft were sunk during the operation as well.
Additionally, the success at Dunkirk proved a badly needed boost for British morale, at a time when the nation's fortunes were at low ebb. Before the evacuation, Prime Minister Winston Churchill privately worried about losing the war. After all, if most of the BEF had been left behind in France, there would be no Army to defend Britain against the expected German invasion. But with much of the BEF returned to British soil, Churchill and his military leaders had at least the foundation for a new Army.
To be fair, the British "victory" at Dunkirk encompassed much more than the small boats. The heroic sacrifice of French and British troops, fighting desperate rear-guard actions, kept the Nazis out of the city for more than a week, allowing thousands of their comrades to escape. And, as he did so often during the war, Adolf Hitler managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, halting his panzers for three days outside Dunkirk. That pause gave the allies time to reorganize defensive lines and finalize evacuation plans.
Additionally, the unseen hand of fate (read: Providence) seemed to favor the allies. Weather in the English Channel in the late spring is often bad. But the last week of May, 1940 saw calm seas and gentle winds--ideal conditions for conducting the evacuation. At one point, an area of low pressure appeared to be making a beeline for the Channel and threatened to interrupt the evacuation. But the storm veered north towards Ireland and Scotland, giving the rescue fleet a few more days of good weather to finish the job.
This weekend, more than 50 Little Ships were expected to make the crossing from Dover to Dunkirk, commemorating the defining moment that saved an Army and the civilization it represented.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Lt John Finn, RIP
Navy Chief Aviation Ordnanceman John Finn after being awarded the Medal of Honor in 1942. Finn received the nation's highest award for valor for his actions on December 7, 1941, when he manned a machinegun position for more than two hours, defending his base against Japanese attacks (Wikipedia photo).
Sadly, most Americans had never heard of retired Navy Lieutenant John Finn until his death was announced earlier today.
But Finn was a remarkable man who deserves remembrance and recognition on his passing. Not only was he the nation's oldest Medal of Honor recipient at the time of his death, Finn could also be described as the nation's first hero of World War II.
On the morning of December 7, 1941, Finn was a Navy Chief Aviation Ordnanceman, assigned to the Naval Air Station at Kaneohe Bay, on the island of Oahu. Chief Finn and his wife lived in military housing nearby; on that fateful Sunday, he was awakened--and puzzled--by the sound of gunfire.
"They need you down at the squadron," a neighbor told him. Finn jumped into his car and sped toward the air station. When he arrived, Chief Finn found the base under attack by Japanese aircraft. Kaneohe Bay, on the north end of Oahu, was actually bombed before Pearl Harbor; Finn and his men were among the first Americans to enter combat during the Second World War.
As Chief Petty Officer in the ordnance section of a PBY patrol squadron, Finn knew how to operate the machine guns mounted on those lumbering aircraft. Some of the sailors in Finn's department had managed to salvage one of those weapons from a damaged PBY, and the squadron's painter was trying to engage enemy aircraft.
As he later told an interviewer: "I said, 'Alex, let me take that gun'...knew that I had more experience firing a machine gun than a painter."
Finn then found a movable platform used for gunnery training, attached the .50 caliber machine gun, and pushed the platform into an open area, from which he had a clear view of the attacking aircraft. He fired on the Japanese planes for the next two hours, even after being seriously wounded, until the attack had ended. In total, he received 21 distinct wounds, including a bullet through the foot and an injury which caused him to lose feeling in his left arm.
"I got that gun and I started shooting at Jap planes," Finn said. "I was out there shooting the Jap planes and just every so often I was a target for some," he said, "in some cases, I could see [the Japanese pilots'] faces."
After the enemy departed, Finn accepted only rudimentary aid for his wounds, then returned to duty, helping his men prepare for more Japanese attacks. Later, he was ordered to receive additional treatment for his multiple injuries; he would remain in the hospital for more than two weeks.
In September 1942, Finn was formally presented the Medal of Honor by Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. By that time, Finn had been commissioned as a Navy Ensign and remained on active duty until 1947. He remained in the reserves until 1956, retiring as a Lieutenant.
Like other MOH recipients, Finn was modest about his achievements, saying he was only doing his job. “I read about other guys with the medal who lost their lives or really suffered in wars and I think about myself. I was just an uneducated man who got mad as hell one day,” he said in 1984.
A grateful nation would disagree.
But Finn was a remarkable man who deserves remembrance and recognition on his passing. Not only was he the nation's oldest Medal of Honor recipient at the time of his death, Finn could also be described as the nation's first hero of World War II.
On the morning of December 7, 1941, Finn was a Navy Chief Aviation Ordnanceman, assigned to the Naval Air Station at Kaneohe Bay, on the island of Oahu. Chief Finn and his wife lived in military housing nearby; on that fateful Sunday, he was awakened--and puzzled--by the sound of gunfire.
"They need you down at the squadron," a neighbor told him. Finn jumped into his car and sped toward the air station. When he arrived, Chief Finn found the base under attack by Japanese aircraft. Kaneohe Bay, on the north end of Oahu, was actually bombed before Pearl Harbor; Finn and his men were among the first Americans to enter combat during the Second World War.
As Chief Petty Officer in the ordnance section of a PBY patrol squadron, Finn knew how to operate the machine guns mounted on those lumbering aircraft. Some of the sailors in Finn's department had managed to salvage one of those weapons from a damaged PBY, and the squadron's painter was trying to engage enemy aircraft.
As he later told an interviewer: "I said, 'Alex, let me take that gun'...knew that I had more experience firing a machine gun than a painter."
Finn then found a movable platform used for gunnery training, attached the .50 caliber machine gun, and pushed the platform into an open area, from which he had a clear view of the attacking aircraft. He fired on the Japanese planes for the next two hours, even after being seriously wounded, until the attack had ended. In total, he received 21 distinct wounds, including a bullet through the foot and an injury which caused him to lose feeling in his left arm.
"I got that gun and I started shooting at Jap planes," Finn said. "I was out there shooting the Jap planes and just every so often I was a target for some," he said, "in some cases, I could see [the Japanese pilots'] faces."
After the enemy departed, Finn accepted only rudimentary aid for his wounds, then returned to duty, helping his men prepare for more Japanese attacks. Later, he was ordered to receive additional treatment for his multiple injuries; he would remain in the hospital for more than two weeks.
In September 1942, Finn was formally presented the Medal of Honor by Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. By that time, Finn had been commissioned as a Navy Ensign and remained on active duty until 1947. He remained in the reserves until 1956, retiring as a Lieutenant.
Like other MOH recipients, Finn was modest about his achievements, saying he was only doing his job. “I read about other guys with the medal who lost their lives or really suffered in wars and I think about myself. I was just an uneducated man who got mad as hell one day,” he said in 1984.
A grateful nation would disagree.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A New Dawn for "Reveille" at Ellsworth
With a single decision, Colonel Jeffrey Taliaferro created quite a tempest at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.
Earlier this month, Taliaferro, Commander of the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth, ended the playing of "Reveille" each morning, saying there's "no compelling reason to keep it." Colonel Taliaferro said he eliminated the bugle call because of noise complaints.
And, to a some degree, Taliaferro had a point. At virtually all military installations (except for basic training facilities), the start of the duty day is no longer tied to that early-morning bugle call. Lots of airmen Ellsworth personnel were on the job before reveille played at 0630, local time. Other military personnel began their duty day at 0730, while most civilian workers arrived at 0800.
"There's nothing that said we had to play it," Taliaferro told the Rapid City Journal. "We weren't taking any actions based upon it. It didn't honor any specific segment and didn't honor the flag. It was the start of the duty day." The Colonel also thought base residents would appreciate the pre-dawn silence, no longer interrupted by reveille.
But Taliaferro was sadly mistaken. Some members of the Ellsworth community still take military traditions seriously, even if their wing commander doesn't like reveille.
In an effort to preserve the centuries-old custom, two military spouses (Janelle Rice and Holly Sweeney) launched a Facebook group, "I Want Reveille Back at Ellsworth AFB." The forum quickly attracted almost a thousand supporters--far more than the base's "official" Facebook page, which has less than 400 members.
Others found Taliaferro's "quest for quiet" to be a little bit silly. After all, the 28th Bomb Wing is equipped with the B-1 Lancer, considered by many to be the loudest aircraft in the Air Force inventory. With the bombers operating at various times of the day (and night) "there are no quiet hours at the base" a former Ellsworth airman told the Journal.
Colonel Taliaferro said he was stunned by reaction to the "no reveille" decision and quickly reversed course. Last Saturday, on his own Facebook page, the wing commander announced that the morning bugle call would return to Ellsworth, beginning this week. Reveille will now sound at 0730 at the South Dakota base, instead of 630.
To be sure, many Americans wouldn't understand a controversy over an early morning bugle call. But if you've never served (or been a military dependent), it's almost impossible to explain. It's part of our tradition and culture, and--thankfully--there are those who still appreciate that. Even a certain O-6 who needed a little refresher course.
Earlier this month, Taliaferro, Commander of the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth, ended the playing of "Reveille" each morning, saying there's "no compelling reason to keep it." Colonel Taliaferro said he eliminated the bugle call because of noise complaints.
And, to a some degree, Taliaferro had a point. At virtually all military installations (except for basic training facilities), the start of the duty day is no longer tied to that early-morning bugle call. Lots of airmen Ellsworth personnel were on the job before reveille played at 0630, local time. Other military personnel began their duty day at 0730, while most civilian workers arrived at 0800.
"There's nothing that said we had to play it," Taliaferro told the Rapid City Journal. "We weren't taking any actions based upon it. It didn't honor any specific segment and didn't honor the flag. It was the start of the duty day." The Colonel also thought base residents would appreciate the pre-dawn silence, no longer interrupted by reveille.
But Taliaferro was sadly mistaken. Some members of the Ellsworth community still take military traditions seriously, even if their wing commander doesn't like reveille.
In an effort to preserve the centuries-old custom, two military spouses (Janelle Rice and Holly Sweeney) launched a Facebook group, "I Want Reveille Back at Ellsworth AFB." The forum quickly attracted almost a thousand supporters--far more than the base's "official" Facebook page, which has less than 400 members.
Others found Taliaferro's "quest for quiet" to be a little bit silly. After all, the 28th Bomb Wing is equipped with the B-1 Lancer, considered by many to be the loudest aircraft in the Air Force inventory. With the bombers operating at various times of the day (and night) "there are no quiet hours at the base" a former Ellsworth airman told the Journal.
Colonel Taliaferro said he was stunned by reaction to the "no reveille" decision and quickly reversed course. Last Saturday, on his own Facebook page, the wing commander announced that the morning bugle call would return to Ellsworth, beginning this week. Reveille will now sound at 0730 at the South Dakota base, instead of 630.
To be sure, many Americans wouldn't understand a controversy over an early morning bugle call. But if you've never served (or been a military dependent), it's almost impossible to explain. It's part of our tradition and culture, and--thankfully--there are those who still appreciate that. Even a certain O-6 who needed a little refresher course.
Monday, May 24, 2010
More of the Same
"Ready for War" screams the blood-red headline at the Drudge Report, accompanied by a photo of a South Korean soldier, staring down the sight of his M-16. At the link, readers find an Associated Press story, via MSNBC, reminding us that these are dangerous times on the Korean peninsula.
According to the AP account, Washington has offered its support for Seoul's plan to slash trade with North Korea and haul its communist rival before the UN Security Council, in response to last month's torpedo attack that sank a ROK Navy vessel, killing 46 sailors.
[South Korean] President Lee Myung-bak laid out the economic and diplomatic measures aimed at striking back at the impoverished North, including halting some trade and taking the regime before the Security Council.
International investigators concluded last week that a torpedo from a North Korean submarine tore apart the warship Cheonan on March 26 in the Yellow Sea off the west coast in one of South Korea's worst military disasters since the 1950-53 Korean War.
Lee said it was another example of "incessant" provocation by North Korea, including a 1983 attack in Myanmar on a South Korean presidential delegation that killed 21 people, and the bombing of an airliner in 1987 that claimed 115 lives.
"We have always tolerated North Korea's brutality, time and again. We did so because we have always had a genuine longing for peace on the Korean peninsula," Lee said in a solemn speech at the War Memorial.
"But now things are different. North Korea will pay a price corresponding to its provocative acts," he said, calling it a "critical turning point" on the tense Korean peninsula, still technically in a state of war because the fighting ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.
For its part, Pyongyang has denied any involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean corvette. Late last week, a government spokesman said any attempt to punish Pyongyang would result in "all-out war."
It's the kind of threat that North Korea has made on countless occasions in the past. And, come to think of it, if this incident (and the international reaction) seem vaguely familiar, it should. Once again, the DPRK is playing a game of brinkmanship, testing the reactions of South Korea, the United States and the international community.
Indeed, the AP story reminds us that Pyongyang has played this game before. Twenty-three years ago, on the personal orders of Kim Jong-il, North Korean agents placed a bomb on a ROK jetliner during a stopover in Abu Dhabi. The plane blew up over the Adaman Sea, enroute to South Korea; 115 passengers and crew members aboard the aircraft were killed.
The airliner attack came only four years after other DPRK operatives tried to decapitate key members of South Korean government, during a state visit to Burma. Twenty-one people--including several cabinet officials--died when when a series of explosions ripped through the country's martyr's memorial, a planned stop for the South Korean delegation. Then-ROK President Chun Doo-hwan escaped injury only because he was running behind schedule, and wasn't present when the bombs went off. Once again, the attack was again linked to Kim Jong-il, then the #2 leader in the North Korean regime.
Yet, those deadly incidents represent only a fraction of Pyongyang's strikes against South Korea and the United States. An AP chronology lists at least nine major attacks by North Korea since 1967. During that same period, the DPRK has also lashed out at the U.S., capturing the intelligence collection ship, the USS Pueblo, in January 1968. A U.S. sailor died and the rest of the crew was held in brutal captivity for almost a year, before being released.
Fourteen months later, DPRK fighter jets shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121 "Warning Star" aircraft over the Sea of Japan, killing the entire 31-man crew. And, in August 1976, a group of North Korean soldiers attacked a tree-clearing party in the Joint Security Area in the DMZ. Two U.S. Army officers were murdered.
Collectively, these incidents have claimed the lives of hundreds of South Koreans and U.S. military personnel. But the response to the murderous provocations have been remarkably similar. While the Pueblo capture prompted an American military build-up on the peninsula (and there was a show-of-force after the tree-chopping episode), recent reactions have been more muted, limited to diplomatic protests and attempts at expanded sanctions.
Obviously, this sort of "punishment" doesn't strike fear in the heart of Kim Jong-il and his senior generals. So, North Korea has continued its series of violent confrontations, culminating in the March torpedo attack on the Cheonan. From Pyongyang's perspective, it's a convenient way to refocus world attention on its "concerns" (read: more aid and concessions from Washingon and Seoul), and that tactic succeeds more often than not.
This time around, the South Korean government is promising to take a tougher stance. After the results of the Cheonan inquiry were announced, various ROK officials stated their country would now exercise its inherent right to self-defense. The U.S. quickly lined up behind its ally, promising expanded "consultations" between senior American generals and their South Korean counterparts.
According to the AP account, Washington has offered its support for Seoul's plan to slash trade with North Korea and haul its communist rival before the UN Security Council, in response to last month's torpedo attack that sank a ROK Navy vessel, killing 46 sailors.
[South Korean] President Lee Myung-bak laid out the economic and diplomatic measures aimed at striking back at the impoverished North, including halting some trade and taking the regime before the Security Council.
International investigators concluded last week that a torpedo from a North Korean submarine tore apart the warship Cheonan on March 26 in the Yellow Sea off the west coast in one of South Korea's worst military disasters since the 1950-53 Korean War.
Lee said it was another example of "incessant" provocation by North Korea, including a 1983 attack in Myanmar on a South Korean presidential delegation that killed 21 people, and the bombing of an airliner in 1987 that claimed 115 lives.
"We have always tolerated North Korea's brutality, time and again. We did so because we have always had a genuine longing for peace on the Korean peninsula," Lee said in a solemn speech at the War Memorial.
"But now things are different. North Korea will pay a price corresponding to its provocative acts," he said, calling it a "critical turning point" on the tense Korean peninsula, still technically in a state of war because the fighting ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.
For its part, Pyongyang has denied any involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean corvette. Late last week, a government spokesman said any attempt to punish Pyongyang would result in "all-out war."
It's the kind of threat that North Korea has made on countless occasions in the past. And, come to think of it, if this incident (and the international reaction) seem vaguely familiar, it should. Once again, the DPRK is playing a game of brinkmanship, testing the reactions of South Korea, the United States and the international community.
Indeed, the AP story reminds us that Pyongyang has played this game before. Twenty-three years ago, on the personal orders of Kim Jong-il, North Korean agents placed a bomb on a ROK jetliner during a stopover in Abu Dhabi. The plane blew up over the Adaman Sea, enroute to South Korea; 115 passengers and crew members aboard the aircraft were killed.
The airliner attack came only four years after other DPRK operatives tried to decapitate key members of South Korean government, during a state visit to Burma. Twenty-one people--including several cabinet officials--died when when a series of explosions ripped through the country's martyr's memorial, a planned stop for the South Korean delegation. Then-ROK President Chun Doo-hwan escaped injury only because he was running behind schedule, and wasn't present when the bombs went off. Once again, the attack was again linked to Kim Jong-il, then the #2 leader in the North Korean regime.
Yet, those deadly incidents represent only a fraction of Pyongyang's strikes against South Korea and the United States. An AP chronology lists at least nine major attacks by North Korea since 1967. During that same period, the DPRK has also lashed out at the U.S., capturing the intelligence collection ship, the USS Pueblo, in January 1968. A U.S. sailor died and the rest of the crew was held in brutal captivity for almost a year, before being released.
Fourteen months later, DPRK fighter jets shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121 "Warning Star" aircraft over the Sea of Japan, killing the entire 31-man crew. And, in August 1976, a group of North Korean soldiers attacked a tree-clearing party in the Joint Security Area in the DMZ. Two U.S. Army officers were murdered.
Collectively, these incidents have claimed the lives of hundreds of South Koreans and U.S. military personnel. But the response to the murderous provocations have been remarkably similar. While the Pueblo capture prompted an American military build-up on the peninsula (and there was a show-of-force after the tree-chopping episode), recent reactions have been more muted, limited to diplomatic protests and attempts at expanded sanctions.
Obviously, this sort of "punishment" doesn't strike fear in the heart of Kim Jong-il and his senior generals. So, North Korea has continued its series of violent confrontations, culminating in the March torpedo attack on the Cheonan. From Pyongyang's perspective, it's a convenient way to refocus world attention on its "concerns" (read: more aid and concessions from Washingon and Seoul), and that tactic succeeds more often than not.
This time around, the South Korean government is promising to take a tougher stance. After the results of the Cheonan inquiry were announced, various ROK officials stated their country would now exercise its inherent right to self-defense. The U.S. quickly lined up behind its ally, promising expanded "consultations" between senior American generals and their South Korean counterparts.
But that hardly represents a change in policy. South Korea military forces have often responded to DPRK military provocations by returning fire. Indeed, last month's North Korean torpedo attack was a response--at least in part--to a series of naval battles along the Northern Limit Line, the maritime extension of the DMZ. ROK navy units got the better of those engagements, which date back more than a decade. Anxious for revenge, Kim Jong-il ordered the attack on the Cheonan.
The question now is: will Seoul expand its self-defense options, to include attacks on bases and other facilities that support North Korea attacks. Under that scenario, a DPRK-initiated firefight along the DMZ could not only bring return fire in that sector, but possible air and missile strikes on support elements for North Korean units that launched the attack. The danger, of course, is that Pyongyang could respond in kind, causing the incident to spiral out of control.
As for that "close" coordination between U.S. and South Korean military leaders, that also represents a continuation of long-standing policies. For more than 50 years, the four-star American general who leads U.S. forces in South Korea has also been designated as the wartime commander of ROK forces. While that arrangement is slated to change by 2012, the level of coordination between U.S. and South Korean military leaders will not. Senior officers work side-by-side and interact on a daily basis. Aside from "special planning" for a specific contingency operation, it's hard to see how U.S.-ROK military coordination could significantly increase over present levels.
Put another way, Washington and Seoul are going through the usual motions that follow a major North Korean provocation. There will be talk of closer military coordination; vows of a less restrictive "self-defense" policy and even consultations with China. But in the end, little will change. Over the coming months, military alert levels will be relaxed and we may see a resumption of nuclear talks--provided the U.S. and South Korea deliver more aid. At that point, relations on the peninsula will return to "normal" and we'll keep muddling along--until North Korea stages the next crisis.
***
ADDENDUM: As is normally the case, the current stand-off in Korea has raised speculation about the possible resumption of hostilities (remember: the Korean War ended with an armistice, not a formal surrender). While anything is possible in the Land of the Morning Calm--particularly with Kim Jong-il calling the shots in Pyongyang--the prospects for war are decidedly low, for a rather obvious reason: North Korean military readiness is at its lowest point in the summer months, when troops are normally dispatched to work in the fields. Many units actually stop training in the summer time and those still on the job (including the North Korean Air Force) operate at greatly reduced levels.
As a result, most analysts believe that a major DPRK attack would likely occur in the February or March, towards the end of the annual Winter Training Cycle (WTC), when readiness levels are at their peak. Still, Pyongyang retains sufficient combat power to threaten its enemies in the south, through artillery sites along the DMZ (that can actually target much of Seoul); missile attacks and operations by special forces personnel. Earlier today, Kim Jong-il reportedly told his military to "prepare for war." That's probably a bluff, but in Korea, one never knows.
And, lest we forget, the Korean War began in the summer--60 years ago next month.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Bye-Bye Blair
In hindsight, the resignation of Admiral Dennis Blair as Director of National Intelligence was hardly surprising; indeed, it was only a matter of time.
Admiral Blair, who headed U.S. Pacific Command before retiring and assuming the DNI post, had been on the outs with other members of the Obama Administration. His tumultuous, 16-month tenure was marked by a series of comments that proved embarrassing to the White House and turf battles with other members of the national security team, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan.
Blair's resignation, which is effective next Friday, was announced only two days after a Senate report criticized the DNI's office (and other intelligence organizations) for failures that allowed the "underwear bomber" to board a U.S.-bound jetliner on Christmas Day. The suspect in that case, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was already known to American intelligence--thanks to a warning from the man's father, a prominent Nigerian government official--but the National Counterterrorism Center, which fell under Blair's supervision, failed to connect the dots. As aa result, Abdulmutallab came perilously close to detonating his bomb, and destroying an airliner with almost 300 people on board.
Mr. Blair's problems were compounded by the incident's aftermath. The DNI stated publicly that the would-be bomber was an ideal candidate for questioning by specialists from the High Value Interrogation Group, and not the law enforcement officials who handled Abdulmutallab's interrogation. But there was only one problem: the interrogation group wasn't ready for operations at the time, making Blair appear ill-informed, even foolish.
If that wasn't bad enough, Admiral Blair also disclosed that the suspect was cooperating with interrogators. That incensed officials at the FBI's counter-terrorism unit (and the CIA) who were trying to locate Abdulmutallab's accomplices before they could go underground. He also made enemies with Leon Panetta by attempting to place a DNI representative at U.S. embassies overseas, by-passing the network of CIA station chiefs who are normally responsible for our intel operations within that country.
But in fairness, Blair isn't the only member of the Obama national security team to make ill-advised remarks, or commit serious blunders (hellooo, Janet Napolitano). But, unlike Ms. Napolitano or Leon Panetta, Admiral Blair is not a career Democratic politician. And, unlike Mr. Brennan, Blair generally favored a more aggressive approach towards terrorism and intelligence-gathering, a position that didn't sit well with the White House.
Besides, the administration needed a sacrificial lamb for its recent intelligence failures. Between the Fort Hood shootings; the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day and the recent, failed car bombing attempt in Times Square, the Obama team has amassed a rather troubling record in records. By forcing Blair's resignation, the President creates the impression of change and accountability within the intelligence community. But that impression is illusory, at best.
That's because key security positions are still filled by incompetents (like that former governor of Arizona masquerading as DHS Secretary) and professional bureaucrats (read: John Brennan) who seque from administration to administration, with little positive impact on the nation's security.
With his departure, Admiral Blair is being hailed as one of the few rational voices on the Obama security team. But truth be told, Blair was a poor choice for DNI; before he became the nation's top intelligence officer, the career navy officer's only experience was as a consumer of intelligence. Consequently, he lacked the background to meld 16 different intel agencies and organizations into an effective team. It's a fault he shares (to some degree) with his predecessors, who enjoyed only middling success in trying to build a unified intelligence apparatus.
As for who comes next, it's any one's guess. Various Washington sources suggest that Mr. Obama has already interviewed two potential candidates, and those individuals have either been rejected, or turned down the job. If the President had his druthers, he'd probably nominate John Brennan, but his past comments make him all-but-unconfirmable.
Remember: Brennan is the same guy who described Hizballah as an "interesting" organization, suggesting that we should try to "build up" moderate elements within that terrorist group. He also refers to Jerusalem as "Al-Quds," the same name bestowed upon that holy city by Islamic radicals, and once said a 30% recidivist rate for released terrorists "wasn't bad."
With Brennan a non-starter, the name of James Clapper has surfaced. Clapper, a retired Air Force Lieutenant General, who was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when he left active duty in 1995. During the administration of George W. Bush, he served as Director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which processes and analyzes data collected by our spy satellites and other sensors. Under Mr. Obama, Clapper has held the post of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. Obviously, General Clapper would bring an exceptionally strong intel background to the DNI post--something that is desperately needed.
But if Jim Clapper becomes the next DNI, his success (or failure) won't be based on his professional or technical expertise. Instead, he will be measured by his ability to win bureaucratic battles, forge key alliances and focusing our intelligence assets on prevailing threats, without the filter of political correctness. General Clapper certainly has the right background for the job, but given the demands of the DNI post, many wonder if anyone can actually get the job done.
Hopefully, we'll learn the answer to that question very soon. Director of National Intelligence is too important to leave vacant for an extended period, like the head job at TSA. If General Clapper declines the post, we hope Mr. Obama has a Plan B, C, and D, to get someone qualified in the DNI slot, and sooner, rather than later.
Admiral Blair, who headed U.S. Pacific Command before retiring and assuming the DNI post, had been on the outs with other members of the Obama Administration. His tumultuous, 16-month tenure was marked by a series of comments that proved embarrassing to the White House and turf battles with other members of the national security team, including CIA Director Leon Panetta and Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan.
Blair's resignation, which is effective next Friday, was announced only two days after a Senate report criticized the DNI's office (and other intelligence organizations) for failures that allowed the "underwear bomber" to board a U.S.-bound jetliner on Christmas Day. The suspect in that case, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was already known to American intelligence--thanks to a warning from the man's father, a prominent Nigerian government official--but the National Counterterrorism Center, which fell under Blair's supervision, failed to connect the dots. As aa result, Abdulmutallab came perilously close to detonating his bomb, and destroying an airliner with almost 300 people on board.
Mr. Blair's problems were compounded by the incident's aftermath. The DNI stated publicly that the would-be bomber was an ideal candidate for questioning by specialists from the High Value Interrogation Group, and not the law enforcement officials who handled Abdulmutallab's interrogation. But there was only one problem: the interrogation group wasn't ready for operations at the time, making Blair appear ill-informed, even foolish.
If that wasn't bad enough, Admiral Blair also disclosed that the suspect was cooperating with interrogators. That incensed officials at the FBI's counter-terrorism unit (and the CIA) who were trying to locate Abdulmutallab's accomplices before they could go underground. He also made enemies with Leon Panetta by attempting to place a DNI representative at U.S. embassies overseas, by-passing the network of CIA station chiefs who are normally responsible for our intel operations within that country.
But in fairness, Blair isn't the only member of the Obama national security team to make ill-advised remarks, or commit serious blunders (hellooo, Janet Napolitano). But, unlike Ms. Napolitano or Leon Panetta, Admiral Blair is not a career Democratic politician. And, unlike Mr. Brennan, Blair generally favored a more aggressive approach towards terrorism and intelligence-gathering, a position that didn't sit well with the White House.
Besides, the administration needed a sacrificial lamb for its recent intelligence failures. Between the Fort Hood shootings; the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day and the recent, failed car bombing attempt in Times Square, the Obama team has amassed a rather troubling record in records. By forcing Blair's resignation, the President creates the impression of change and accountability within the intelligence community. But that impression is illusory, at best.
That's because key security positions are still filled by incompetents (like that former governor of Arizona masquerading as DHS Secretary) and professional bureaucrats (read: John Brennan) who seque from administration to administration, with little positive impact on the nation's security.
With his departure, Admiral Blair is being hailed as one of the few rational voices on the Obama security team. But truth be told, Blair was a poor choice for DNI; before he became the nation's top intelligence officer, the career navy officer's only experience was as a consumer of intelligence. Consequently, he lacked the background to meld 16 different intel agencies and organizations into an effective team. It's a fault he shares (to some degree) with his predecessors, who enjoyed only middling success in trying to build a unified intelligence apparatus.
As for who comes next, it's any one's guess. Various Washington sources suggest that Mr. Obama has already interviewed two potential candidates, and those individuals have either been rejected, or turned down the job. If the President had his druthers, he'd probably nominate John Brennan, but his past comments make him all-but-unconfirmable.
Remember: Brennan is the same guy who described Hizballah as an "interesting" organization, suggesting that we should try to "build up" moderate elements within that terrorist group. He also refers to Jerusalem as "Al-Quds," the same name bestowed upon that holy city by Islamic radicals, and once said a 30% recidivist rate for released terrorists "wasn't bad."
With Brennan a non-starter, the name of James Clapper has surfaced. Clapper, a retired Air Force Lieutenant General, who was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when he left active duty in 1995. During the administration of George W. Bush, he served as Director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which processes and analyzes data collected by our spy satellites and other sensors. Under Mr. Obama, Clapper has held the post of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. Obviously, General Clapper would bring an exceptionally strong intel background to the DNI post--something that is desperately needed.
But if Jim Clapper becomes the next DNI, his success (or failure) won't be based on his professional or technical expertise. Instead, he will be measured by his ability to win bureaucratic battles, forge key alliances and focusing our intelligence assets on prevailing threats, without the filter of political correctness. General Clapper certainly has the right background for the job, but given the demands of the DNI post, many wonder if anyone can actually get the job done.
Hopefully, we'll learn the answer to that question very soon. Director of National Intelligence is too important to leave vacant for an extended period, like the head job at TSA. If General Clapper declines the post, we hope Mr. Obama has a Plan B, C, and D, to get someone qualified in the DNI slot, and sooner, rather than later.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Sign Says it All
The Dale Mabry gate at MacDill AFB, Florida. The entrance was closed earlier this evening after a man attempted to crash through the gate and was shot dead by security personnel (WTSP-TV photo)
**UPDATE/9:48 pm EDT//Base officials tell the Associated Press that the incident began as an altercation at an on-base camp site. The man fled on a motorcycle and security personnel tried to stop him. The suspect evaded security forces and went to the Mabry gate, where he was engaged and shot by security personnel. Officials have not released the man's name. Use of the camping facility is normally restricted to personnel with access to the base.
***
When driving by an Air Force base or other secure, federal facility you probably saw a sign on the perimeter fence. It informs the reader that the use of deadly force is authorized in defending the installation. An Air Force Instruction (131-207) outlines criteria for using deadly force, including the inherent right to self defense; defense of others, the protection of assets vital to national security and the potential for serious offenses against persons, among others.
Those criteria were apparently satisfied outside MacDill AFB, Florida this evening. According to WTVT in Tampa (and other media outlets) a man armed with a knife tried to crash his vehicle through the base's main gate on Dale Mabry Avenue and was shot by security officers. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Base security officials and Tampa police are investigating the incident. Vehicles entering and leaving the base are being re-routed through another gate.
There is no word on the man's identity, or his possible motive for driving through the gate.
MacDill is home to the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and an Air Force tanker wing, among other organizations.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Birds of a Feather
If you believe Connecticut Attorney General (and U.S. Senate candidate) Richard Blumenthal, then you believe he simply "misspoke" in claiming--on multiple occasions--that he served as a Marine in Vietnam.
But, thanks to The New York Times, we know Blumenthal's assertion simply wasn't true; in other words, he lied to voters on multiple occasions, depicting himself as a Marine Corps combat veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam."
The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.
At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.
Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.
He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.
Today, Blumenthal tried to publicly defuse the scandal, dismissing the matter as a "few misplaced words." From the AP account of his press conference:
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal, a trim, square-jawed figure with the bearing of a military man. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
Others--including real Vietnam veterans--might disagree with that characterization. He would never admit it, but with today's mea culpa, Mr. Blumenthal moved to the front ranks of America's military frauds. It's a sad and sorry formation, population by those who never served and those who did wear the uniform, but sought to embellish their military resume.
While the Connecticut attorney general clearly falls into that latter category, it doesn't excuse or lessen his fraud. In fact, there was a certain amount of calculation in his deceit; Mr. Blumenthal clearly believed that a sycophantic press would accept his claims without question, and he carefully constructed his lies (intentionally or unintentionally), to remain outside the confines of the federal Stolen Valor act, which makes it a crime to claim military awards, promotions and honors that were never received. Unlike other phonies, Blumenthal never claimed awards for heroism or battlefield promotions. As far as we can tell, it isn't against the law to claim you served in Vietnam when, in reality, your military career was confined to the CONUS.
Still, the good people of Connecticut deserve better, and if Blumenthal was a man of honor, he'd drop out of the race and resign as attorney general. After all, why should voters put their trust in a man who lied (repeatedly) about his military service for years. And, if he's willing to fib about a relatively brief portion of his career, what else would he be willing to fabricate?
But the Nutmeg State is reliably Democratic, and insiders say Blumenthal will likely capture his party's nomination and remain the front-runner for that Senate seat. That's a rather sad commentary on the electorate in Connecticut, and Richard Blumenthal's serial deceit. But it wouldn't be the first time a state has elected a Senator who has willingly distorted his military record.
We refer, of course, to Tom Harkin of Iowa. Through the years, Mr. Harkin made a number of misleading statements about his service as a Navy pilot in the Vietnam era. At one point, Harkin claimed to have flown "reconnaissance" and "combat patrol" missions over South Vietnam, but later conceded that he was actually a ferry pilot, returning repaired aircraft from a maintenance depot in Japan, to other bases in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps Mr. Harkin could stump for Richard Blumenthal. After all, the would-be Senator doesn't mind the company of men who fudge their military resumes. At yesterday's press conference, he was joined by a number of veterans and other supporters. Among that group was one Elliot Storm, a.k.a. William Joseph Trumpower, a veterans organizer for the Blumenthal campaign.
Unlike the candidate, Mr. Trumpower is a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam. But the "organizer" has also embellished his own military resume over the years, claiming multiple purple hearts (he only received one) and two Bronze Stars with the "V" device. Trumpower also wears the gold bars of a Second Lieutenant, claiming he received a commission through the Marine Corps.
But according to the POW Network, a group that helps expose military frauds, Trumpower was never an officer, and he never received the Bronze Star. Based on FOIA information, here is a listing of Trumpower's actual decorations:
ACTUAL - National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, Purple Heart w/1*. Served 11 Oct 1968 to 30 Jan 1970 as a USMC rifleman (MOS 0311). Has enlisted service number (not officer's)
Yet, there stood Trumpower at yesterday's press conference, invited to stand with Blumenthal. It's unclear if the campaign was aware of Mr. Trumpower's phony military claims, but he exposed within minutes by several posters on Free Republic.com, familiar with the database maintained by the POW Network.
At this point, Blumenthal's race has moved from a slam dunk to a toss-up. And, with friends like Elliot Storm/Trumpower hanging around, the military issue will continue to haunt his campaign.
Perhaps Blumenthal could reach out to a Democratic politician who actually served in Vietnam and is proud of his achievements. You know, someone like John Kerry.
But, thanks to The New York Times, we know Blumenthal's assertion simply wasn't true; in other words, he lied to voters on multiple occasions, depicting himself as a Marine Corps combat veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam."
The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home.
At a veterans event in Shelton, Conn., for example, he said, "When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered," according to a 2008 Connecticut Post story.
Blumenthal, 64, joined the Marine Reserve in 1970 and served six years, none of it overseas. He put in much of his time in Washington, where he took part in such projects as fixing a campground and working on a Toys for Tots drive, according to the Times.
He received at least five military deferments that enabled him to stay out of the war between 1965 and 1970, during which time he went to Harvard, studied in England and landed a job in the Nixon White House. Once he secured a spot in the Marine Reserve, he had almost no chance of being sent to Vietnam, the newspaper reported.
Today, Blumenthal tried to publicly defuse the scandal, dismissing the matter as a "few misplaced words." From the AP account of his press conference:
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility," said Blumenthal, a trim, square-jawed figure with the bearing of a military man. "But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
Others--including real Vietnam veterans--might disagree with that characterization. He would never admit it, but with today's mea culpa, Mr. Blumenthal moved to the front ranks of America's military frauds. It's a sad and sorry formation, population by those who never served and those who did wear the uniform, but sought to embellish their military resume.
While the Connecticut attorney general clearly falls into that latter category, it doesn't excuse or lessen his fraud. In fact, there was a certain amount of calculation in his deceit; Mr. Blumenthal clearly believed that a sycophantic press would accept his claims without question, and he carefully constructed his lies (intentionally or unintentionally), to remain outside the confines of the federal Stolen Valor act, which makes it a crime to claim military awards, promotions and honors that were never received. Unlike other phonies, Blumenthal never claimed awards for heroism or battlefield promotions. As far as we can tell, it isn't against the law to claim you served in Vietnam when, in reality, your military career was confined to the CONUS.
Still, the good people of Connecticut deserve better, and if Blumenthal was a man of honor, he'd drop out of the race and resign as attorney general. After all, why should voters put their trust in a man who lied (repeatedly) about his military service for years. And, if he's willing to fib about a relatively brief portion of his career, what else would he be willing to fabricate?
But the Nutmeg State is reliably Democratic, and insiders say Blumenthal will likely capture his party's nomination and remain the front-runner for that Senate seat. That's a rather sad commentary on the electorate in Connecticut, and Richard Blumenthal's serial deceit. But it wouldn't be the first time a state has elected a Senator who has willingly distorted his military record.
We refer, of course, to Tom Harkin of Iowa. Through the years, Mr. Harkin made a number of misleading statements about his service as a Navy pilot in the Vietnam era. At one point, Harkin claimed to have flown "reconnaissance" and "combat patrol" missions over South Vietnam, but later conceded that he was actually a ferry pilot, returning repaired aircraft from a maintenance depot in Japan, to other bases in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps Mr. Harkin could stump for Richard Blumenthal. After all, the would-be Senator doesn't mind the company of men who fudge their military resumes. At yesterday's press conference, he was joined by a number of veterans and other supporters. Among that group was one Elliot Storm, a.k.a. William Joseph Trumpower, a veterans organizer for the Blumenthal campaign.
Unlike the candidate, Mr. Trumpower is a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam. But the "organizer" has also embellished his own military resume over the years, claiming multiple purple hearts (he only received one) and two Bronze Stars with the "V" device. Trumpower also wears the gold bars of a Second Lieutenant, claiming he received a commission through the Marine Corps.
But according to the POW Network, a group that helps expose military frauds, Trumpower was never an officer, and he never received the Bronze Star. Based on FOIA information, here is a listing of Trumpower's actual decorations:
ACTUAL - National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, Purple Heart w/1*. Served 11 Oct 1968 to 30 Jan 1970 as a USMC rifleman (MOS 0311). Has enlisted service number (not officer's)
Yet, there stood Trumpower at yesterday's press conference, invited to stand with Blumenthal. It's unclear if the campaign was aware of Mr. Trumpower's phony military claims, but he exposed within minutes by several posters on Free Republic.com, familiar with the database maintained by the POW Network.
At this point, Blumenthal's race has moved from a slam dunk to a toss-up. And, with friends like Elliot Storm/Trumpower hanging around, the military issue will continue to haunt his campaign.
Perhaps Blumenthal could reach out to a Democratic politician who actually served in Vietnam and is proud of his achievements. You know, someone like John Kerry.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
An Early Return
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il apparently returned home empty-handed after his recent, high-profile trip to China.
According to South Korea's JoongAn Ilbo, Kim cut short his visit after PRC officials denied his request for "extraordinary" economic assistance.
China told North Korean leader Kim Jong-il during his recent visit that it will respect international sanctions imposed on Pyongyang and refused to provide extraordinary economic assistance, an informed source here told the paper.
According to the source, the Chinese government’s position prompted Kim to cut short his stay in China. “At the luncheon between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Kim on May 6, the Chinese government informed the North that China will not provide aid outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council sanctions against Pyongyang,” the source said.
“After Beijing’s position was explained, Kim shortened his schedule in China.”
While Kim's visit to China was scheduled to last until 7 May, he rushed home a day early, after PRC officials rejected his request for additional economic help.
As with previous trips to the PRC, Kim met with PRC officials amid a near-total news blackout. Chinese government spokesmen refused to confirm the North Korean leader was in their country, although footage of Kim's visit appeared on Japanese and South Korean TV.
Those clips indicate that Kim Jong-il has not fully recovered from a near-fatal stroke in 2008. Snippets that aired in Tokyo and Seoul showed a thinner and balding Kim--possible side effects of dialysis treatment. Kim also appeared to drag his left foot as he walked and his left arm hung almost motionless.
Despite his frail condition, western analysts viewed Kim's China trip as critical for the future of his regime. UN sanctions have further squeezed the DPRK's virtually bankrupt economy, and Pyongyang needs additional Chinese aid to remain afloat, allowing Kim to fund military projects and purchase consumer goods for key supporters. Under current UN sanctions, foreign donors can only provide humanitarian aid.
The trip was also viewed as an introduction (of sorts) for Kim's youngest son--and designated successor--Kim Jong un. With his health declining, Kim Jong-il clearly wants to cement the succession process, and hoped the Chinese would offer tacit support for his plan. But he was rebuffed on both counts, prompting Kim to hop on his armored train and head for home.
Pyongyang has long boasted of its "special relationship" with Beijing, and China remains its most important ally. But from the PRC's perspective, those ties are producing diminishing returns. While North Korea creates problems for China's economic rivals in Seoul and Tokyo (forcing them--along with the U.S.--to spend billions countering the DPRK military threat), Pyongyang has also become a headache for its patrons in Beijing.
Consider the run-up to Kim Jong-il's most recent trip. It came barely a month after a ROK naval vessel blew up and sank in contested waters near the North Korean coast. While the DPRK has denied involvement, South Korean and U.S. investigators believe the ship was sunk by a torpedo, launched from a North Korean sub. While Kim's visit had been in the works for months, the Chinese were clearly miffed at hosting him in the wake of that torpedo attack.
But Beijing isn't quite ready to give up on North Korea. If China was so inclined, it could pull the plug on all aid to the DPRK, and push the hermit kingdom to the brink of collapse. But that would create even more unrest on the Korean peninsula, so the PRC voiced its displeasure by denying Kim more substantial aid, while still providing humanitarian assistance. Other reports suggest Beijing okayed a new line of credit for Pyongyang last fall, but there is no evidence of that assistance has been delivered.
Unfortunately, the fallout from Kim Jong-il's failed visit will be felt far beyond North Korea. When the North Korean leader doesn't get his way, he usually responds by ramping up tensions on the peninsula, followed by an offer to de-escalate and return to the long-stalled, Six Party nuclear talks. ROK warships fired on intruding DPRK vessels a few days ago, and (with the crab fishing season underway), another major naval clash is within the realm of possibilities. So are additional missile launches and a third nuclear test.
Meanwhile, their are renewed concerns about a potential collapse of Kim's regime. Writing in The Diplomat last week, Professor Minxin Pei of Claremont McKenna College warned that North Korea's neighbors (and the U.S.) must be prepared for a rapid collapse of the DPRK. He believes the country's economic death spiral, coupled with the "inexperience of the putative successor" and the "unknown reliability of security forces in the event of Kim Jong-il's death" have set the stage for Pyongyang's short-term implosion. Pei believes it's time for the regional powers in northeast Asia to develop joint plans for handling that contingency. Good luck with that one.
To be fair, rumors of North Korea's collapse have been making the rounds for years. And somehow, Pyongyang has defied the odds, even if it meant mass starvation among its peasant population and other deprivations. But this time, it may be different. Scattered opposition to Kim's regime has actually emerged in North Korea--something unthinkable just a decade ago. Additionally, Pyongyang's dire economic straits will make it more difficult for Kim Jong un to hold the reins of power--and he will enter the post with far less experience (and support) than his father.
The coming months on the Korean peninsula will prove interesting--and potentially perilous.
According to South Korea's JoongAn Ilbo, Kim cut short his visit after PRC officials denied his request for "extraordinary" economic assistance.
China told North Korean leader Kim Jong-il during his recent visit that it will respect international sanctions imposed on Pyongyang and refused to provide extraordinary economic assistance, an informed source here told the paper.
According to the source, the Chinese government’s position prompted Kim to cut short his stay in China. “At the luncheon between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Kim on May 6, the Chinese government informed the North that China will not provide aid outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council sanctions against Pyongyang,” the source said.
“After Beijing’s position was explained, Kim shortened his schedule in China.”
While Kim's visit to China was scheduled to last until 7 May, he rushed home a day early, after PRC officials rejected his request for additional economic help.
As with previous trips to the PRC, Kim met with PRC officials amid a near-total news blackout. Chinese government spokesmen refused to confirm the North Korean leader was in their country, although footage of Kim's visit appeared on Japanese and South Korean TV.
Those clips indicate that Kim Jong-il has not fully recovered from a near-fatal stroke in 2008. Snippets that aired in Tokyo and Seoul showed a thinner and balding Kim--possible side effects of dialysis treatment. Kim also appeared to drag his left foot as he walked and his left arm hung almost motionless.
Despite his frail condition, western analysts viewed Kim's China trip as critical for the future of his regime. UN sanctions have further squeezed the DPRK's virtually bankrupt economy, and Pyongyang needs additional Chinese aid to remain afloat, allowing Kim to fund military projects and purchase consumer goods for key supporters. Under current UN sanctions, foreign donors can only provide humanitarian aid.
The trip was also viewed as an introduction (of sorts) for Kim's youngest son--and designated successor--Kim Jong un. With his health declining, Kim Jong-il clearly wants to cement the succession process, and hoped the Chinese would offer tacit support for his plan. But he was rebuffed on both counts, prompting Kim to hop on his armored train and head for home.
Pyongyang has long boasted of its "special relationship" with Beijing, and China remains its most important ally. But from the PRC's perspective, those ties are producing diminishing returns. While North Korea creates problems for China's economic rivals in Seoul and Tokyo (forcing them--along with the U.S.--to spend billions countering the DPRK military threat), Pyongyang has also become a headache for its patrons in Beijing.
Consider the run-up to Kim Jong-il's most recent trip. It came barely a month after a ROK naval vessel blew up and sank in contested waters near the North Korean coast. While the DPRK has denied involvement, South Korean and U.S. investigators believe the ship was sunk by a torpedo, launched from a North Korean sub. While Kim's visit had been in the works for months, the Chinese were clearly miffed at hosting him in the wake of that torpedo attack.
But Beijing isn't quite ready to give up on North Korea. If China was so inclined, it could pull the plug on all aid to the DPRK, and push the hermit kingdom to the brink of collapse. But that would create even more unrest on the Korean peninsula, so the PRC voiced its displeasure by denying Kim more substantial aid, while still providing humanitarian assistance. Other reports suggest Beijing okayed a new line of credit for Pyongyang last fall, but there is no evidence of that assistance has been delivered.
Unfortunately, the fallout from Kim Jong-il's failed visit will be felt far beyond North Korea. When the North Korean leader doesn't get his way, he usually responds by ramping up tensions on the peninsula, followed by an offer to de-escalate and return to the long-stalled, Six Party nuclear talks. ROK warships fired on intruding DPRK vessels a few days ago, and (with the crab fishing season underway), another major naval clash is within the realm of possibilities. So are additional missile launches and a third nuclear test.
Meanwhile, their are renewed concerns about a potential collapse of Kim's regime. Writing in The Diplomat last week, Professor Minxin Pei of Claremont McKenna College warned that North Korea's neighbors (and the U.S.) must be prepared for a rapid collapse of the DPRK. He believes the country's economic death spiral, coupled with the "inexperience of the putative successor" and the "unknown reliability of security forces in the event of Kim Jong-il's death" have set the stage for Pyongyang's short-term implosion. Pei believes it's time for the regional powers in northeast Asia to develop joint plans for handling that contingency. Good luck with that one.
To be fair, rumors of North Korea's collapse have been making the rounds for years. And somehow, Pyongyang has defied the odds, even if it meant mass starvation among its peasant population and other deprivations. But this time, it may be different. Scattered opposition to Kim's regime has actually emerged in North Korea--something unthinkable just a decade ago. Additionally, Pyongyang's dire economic straits will make it more difficult for Kim Jong un to hold the reins of power--and he will enter the post with far less experience (and support) than his father.
The coming months on the Korean peninsula will prove interesting--and potentially perilous.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Still Serving
Vietnam (and Air Force) veterans of a certain age remember Lieutenant Colonel Joe Jackson and what he did at Kham Duc, South Vietnam on May 12, 1968. Jackson, a veteran of three wars, was a C-123 pilot who volunteered for an exceptionally dangerous mission--attempting the rescue of a three-man Air Force combat control team from Kham Duc, which had been overrun by enemy forces.
Against long odds, Jackson and his crew managed to retrieve the combat controllers. For his heroism, Colonel Jackson received the Congressional Medal of Honor. From the medal citation:
Hostile forces had overrun the forward outpost and established gun positions on the airstrip. They were raking the camp with small arms, mortars, light and heavy automatic weapons, and recoilless rifle fire. The camp was engulfed in flames and ammunition dumps were continuously exploding and littering the runway with debris. In addition, eight aircraft had been destroyed by the intense enemy fire and one aircraft remained on the runway reducing its usable length to only 2,200 feet. To further complicate the landing, the weather was deteriorating rapidly, thereby permitting only one air strike prior to his landing. Although fully aware of the extreme danger and likely failure of such an attempt. Lt. Col. Jackson elected to land his aircraft and attempt to rescue. Displaying superb airmanship and extraordinary heroism, he landed his aircraft near the point where the combat control team was reported to be hiding. While on the ground, his aircraft was the target of intense hostile fire. A rocket landed in front of the nose of the aircraft but failed to explode. Once the combat control team was aboard, Lt. Col. Jackson succeeded in getting airborne despite the hostile fire directed across the runway in front of his aircraft. Lt. Col. Jackson's profound concern for his fellow men, at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself, and the Armed Forces of his country.
But the Medal of Honor was just the capstone of an extraordinary aviation career. He was a B-24 Liberator pilot during World War II; in Korea, he logged 107 combat missions flying F-84 jet fighters. Later, he was one of the first military pilots to fly the U-2, and Jackson planned and directed aerial reconnaissance missions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He is also credited with developing techniques for navigating and landing jet aircraft in poor weather, and tactics for mass, transoceanic ferrying flights.
Given his accomplishments, it should come as no surprise that Colonel Jackson is still serving today, at the age of 87. He was featured on Friday's edition of NBC Nightly News for his volunteer work in Kent, Washington, where Jackson lives in retirement. Correspondent Christina Brown describes Jackson's current efforts as "an act of service, born of routine:"
At 87 years old, Joe Jackson hasn't let age, the slow decay of his sight nor the typical aches and pains that accompany the senior years slow him down. Every Monday for the past 18 years--and I do mean EVERY Monday--you can find Jackson at the Covington Safeway grocery store in Kent, Washington, a suburb outside Seattle, picking up donated groceries with his friends. Then the group travels to Kent Lutheran Church and delivers the food so volunteers can prepare meals for the church's Monday supper.
The diners on Monday evening typically aren't the same people who attend Sunday morning service. They're the community's homeless and working poor--or, in Shelly Gaub's case, who's on Social Security and says she doesn't make a lot of money, they come because, "It's nice to get away, to be able to talk." When I asked her if she knew from where her next meal might come, she simply replied, "God is always there to provide."
Jackson and Gaub have never met, and perhaps never will, but they're part of one another's weekly routine. To Gaub, Jackson is a faceless, nameless angel, just part of God's plan to help bring food to her table.
And until last night, most of the people served by the church's food ministry were unaware that the man who collects the food for their meal is a military hero, recipient of the nation's highest award for combat valor.
In a brief interview with the reporter, Colonel Jackson was quiet and unassuming--about what you'd expect. Over the years, I've had the great honor and good fortune to meet several CMOH recipients; to a man, their persona matches that of Joe Jackson: modest, unpretentious individuals who discuss their combat experiences reluctantly, and down-play their own valor.
Kudos to NBC for featuring Colonel Jackson and his decades of selfless service. Next week, Nightly News will focus on "celebrities who are making a difference." You know, the same Hollywood types that are sometimes paid to appear at charity events, or place unreasonable demands on event organizers.
Memo to Brian Williams and the crew at NBC: Give us more stories like the one on Colonel Jackson, and skip the celebrity phonies. I'm guessing that we've already heard about some of their charitable achievements--they've been crowing about them for years on Entertainment Tonight and in the pages of People magazine.
***
ADDENDUM: Colonel Jackson is also unique in the fact that he was one of two men from Newnan, Georgia to earn the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. Jackson and the other Newnan native, Marine Corps Major Steven Pless, received the award from President Lyndon Johnson during the same White House ceremony and they earned the CMOH for the same type of mission--daring rescues under intense enemy fire. The similarities between Jackson and Pless led President Johnson to observe "there must be something in the water" down in Newnan. Sadly, Pless was killed in a motorcycle accident barely six months after the White House ceremony.
Against long odds, Jackson and his crew managed to retrieve the combat controllers. For his heroism, Colonel Jackson received the Congressional Medal of Honor. From the medal citation:
Hostile forces had overrun the forward outpost and established gun positions on the airstrip. They were raking the camp with small arms, mortars, light and heavy automatic weapons, and recoilless rifle fire. The camp was engulfed in flames and ammunition dumps were continuously exploding and littering the runway with debris. In addition, eight aircraft had been destroyed by the intense enemy fire and one aircraft remained on the runway reducing its usable length to only 2,200 feet. To further complicate the landing, the weather was deteriorating rapidly, thereby permitting only one air strike prior to his landing. Although fully aware of the extreme danger and likely failure of such an attempt. Lt. Col. Jackson elected to land his aircraft and attempt to rescue. Displaying superb airmanship and extraordinary heroism, he landed his aircraft near the point where the combat control team was reported to be hiding. While on the ground, his aircraft was the target of intense hostile fire. A rocket landed in front of the nose of the aircraft but failed to explode. Once the combat control team was aboard, Lt. Col. Jackson succeeded in getting airborne despite the hostile fire directed across the runway in front of his aircraft. Lt. Col. Jackson's profound concern for his fellow men, at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself, and the Armed Forces of his country.
But the Medal of Honor was just the capstone of an extraordinary aviation career. He was a B-24 Liberator pilot during World War II; in Korea, he logged 107 combat missions flying F-84 jet fighters. Later, he was one of the first military pilots to fly the U-2, and Jackson planned and directed aerial reconnaissance missions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He is also credited with developing techniques for navigating and landing jet aircraft in poor weather, and tactics for mass, transoceanic ferrying flights.
Given his accomplishments, it should come as no surprise that Colonel Jackson is still serving today, at the age of 87. He was featured on Friday's edition of NBC Nightly News for his volunteer work in Kent, Washington, where Jackson lives in retirement. Correspondent Christina Brown describes Jackson's current efforts as "an act of service, born of routine:"
At 87 years old, Joe Jackson hasn't let age, the slow decay of his sight nor the typical aches and pains that accompany the senior years slow him down. Every Monday for the past 18 years--and I do mean EVERY Monday--you can find Jackson at the Covington Safeway grocery store in Kent, Washington, a suburb outside Seattle, picking up donated groceries with his friends. Then the group travels to Kent Lutheran Church and delivers the food so volunteers can prepare meals for the church's Monday supper.
The diners on Monday evening typically aren't the same people who attend Sunday morning service. They're the community's homeless and working poor--or, in Shelly Gaub's case, who's on Social Security and says she doesn't make a lot of money, they come because, "It's nice to get away, to be able to talk." When I asked her if she knew from where her next meal might come, she simply replied, "God is always there to provide."
Jackson and Gaub have never met, and perhaps never will, but they're part of one another's weekly routine. To Gaub, Jackson is a faceless, nameless angel, just part of God's plan to help bring food to her table.
And until last night, most of the people served by the church's food ministry were unaware that the man who collects the food for their meal is a military hero, recipient of the nation's highest award for combat valor.
In a brief interview with the reporter, Colonel Jackson was quiet and unassuming--about what you'd expect. Over the years, I've had the great honor and good fortune to meet several CMOH recipients; to a man, their persona matches that of Joe Jackson: modest, unpretentious individuals who discuss their combat experiences reluctantly, and down-play their own valor.
Kudos to NBC for featuring Colonel Jackson and his decades of selfless service. Next week, Nightly News will focus on "celebrities who are making a difference." You know, the same Hollywood types that are sometimes paid to appear at charity events, or place unreasonable demands on event organizers.
Memo to Brian Williams and the crew at NBC: Give us more stories like the one on Colonel Jackson, and skip the celebrity phonies. I'm guessing that we've already heard about some of their charitable achievements--they've been crowing about them for years on Entertainment Tonight and in the pages of People magazine.
***
ADDENDUM: Colonel Jackson is also unique in the fact that he was one of two men from Newnan, Georgia to earn the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. Jackson and the other Newnan native, Marine Corps Major Steven Pless, received the award from President Lyndon Johnson during the same White House ceremony and they earned the CMOH for the same type of mission--daring rescues under intense enemy fire. The similarities between Jackson and Pless led President Johnson to observe "there must be something in the water" down in Newnan. Sadly, Pless was killed in a motorcycle accident barely six months after the White House ceremony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)