Lingering Problems?

It's no secret that the U.S. Air Force's nuclear enterprise went through a rough patch a few years back.

The dark days began with the inadvertent transfer of six, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot AFB, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. That mishap was followed, in relatively short order, by a series of failed inspections among the service's various nuclear-capable units and the mistaken shipment of nuclear components from an Air Force depot in Utah to Taiwan. Ultimately, the blunders led to the dismissal of the USAF Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, followed by a prolonged rebuilding process.

By most accounts, Air Force nuclear operations are now back on track. There have been no more unauthorized shipments or transfers, and units are adapting to a new, no-notice nuclear inspection program. Additionally, the service stood up a new organization, Global Strike Command, to supervise nuclear operations, and Air Force leaders began devoting more resources to the mission, after decades of neglect.

Still, the enterprise is far from trouble-free. According to Tacoma News-Tribune, the service's prime nuclear airlift unit, stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, recently failed its nuclear surety inspection.

In military parlance, the mission is called Prime Nuclear Airlift Force, or PNAF.

The 62nd Airlift Wing has a motto for that mission: "PNAF... Perfect... Always!"

Not anymore.

For the first time, the wing received an overall rating of "unsatisfactory" after a weeklong inspection that concluded Monday.

The rating stems from an isolated incident involving an individual assigned to the mission, said an Air Mobility Command official with knowledge of the inspection's findings. The official declined to provide further details.

Lt. Col. Glen Roberts, an AMC spokesman, said neither nuclear weapons nor related components were used during the inspection and the public was not at risk.

"There was never any danger," he said. "The Air Force policy is we don't get into specifics on the inspections."

Roberts said the wing, which has performed the mission since 1997, can continue to do so even with the "unsatisfactory" rating.

The 62nd will undergo a mandatory re-inspection in 90 days. It was not surprising that AMC allowed the McChord wing to continue the nuclear mission, despite the failing grade. With the 62nd the only airlift wing performing those duties, suspension of the wing's certification would wreak havoc in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise.

According to the News-Tribune, the public affairs office at Lewis-McChord claimed the 62nd passed its previous NSI, but didn't specify when the evaluation occurred. Under current Air Force policy, units involved in the nuclear mission are inspected at least once every 18 months. More frequent inspections are not unheard of, under the new, "no-notice" policy.

Port Call Tartus?

Russian warships are reportedly en route to the Mediterranean and will soon arrive in Syria, as Moscow exhibits its displeasure over possible western intervention in that country.

According to Haaretz, Russian naval vessels will enter Syrian territorial waters shortly, as a show of support for Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, who is mired in a bloody and protracted battle with anti-regime protesters. While thousands of demonstrators have been killed by police and security forces since the late spring, the resistance shows now sign of flagging, while Assad's position continues to weaken.

If the naval operations follows the pattern of past deployments, the vessels may dock at the Syrian port of Tartus, which has hosted Russian naval units since the early 1970s. In February of last year, Moscow announced plans to upgrade and modernize its naval supply and maintenance facility in Tartus, allowing it to accommodate "heavy" warships, including aircraft carriers.

The Tartus complex, once a symbol of the Soviet naval presence in the Middle East, fell into disrepair in the 1990s, as the Russian fleet suffered dramatic cutbacks and sent fewer vessels to sea. Reportedly, only one of the three floating piers at Tartus is now operational. That factor, along with the limited number of vessels in Russia's Black Sea fleet, would limit the scope of its naval deployment to Syria.

Still, the Russians could send a guided missile cruiser like the Pyotr Velikiy to the eastern Mediterranean. The Pyotr Velikiy, the only Kirov-class battlecruiser currently in service with the Russian fleet, paid a visit to Syria last year. Equipped with the naval version of the S-300 surface-to-air missile system (which has a maximum range of 100 NM), the Pyotr Velikiy could protect targets across much of northern Syria, if Moscow decided to press its luck in defending Assad.

But even if Russia remains neutral--as most observers expect--NATO planners would still have to respect the vessel's air defense capabilities in providing air support to Syrian rebels. Operating in coastal waters near Tartus, the Pyotr Velikiy's air defenses could provide coverage of key locations, including the city of Homs, which has been the scene of vicious battles between Assad's security forces and the opposition.

Obviously, the Russian naval deployment is largely symbolic, and there is no indication that Moscow wants to mix it up with NATO. Indeed, even a powerful platform like a Kirov cruiser would be no match for American naval forces and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (and his puppet master, Vladimir Putin) have no desire to lose one of their most important capital ships. But with this deployment, the Russian leaders are signaling their displeasure over a prospective alliance between NATO and Syrian rebels.

From Moscow's perspective, Syria will not become another Libya, where the U.S. and its western partners operated with impunity, rescuing rebel forces and (eventually) sealing the fate of Mommar Qadhafi. Fortunately for Mr. Assad, he has more powerful friends in places like Russia and Iran, and for now, they appear determined to keep him in power.

***

ADDENDUM: We should also note that Russia's naval deployment to Syria might serve another purpose. If Assad's regime crumbles, the ships could be useful in evacuating Russian nationals from Syria. We're guessing that Moscow's contractors and advisers in Syria (symbols of long-time security ties between the two countries) wouldn't be very popular--or safe--in a post-Assad environment.

Shut It Down

It's rare when we agree editorially with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but columnist Jim Souhan got it right about shutting down Penn State's football program. As he writes:

What we know now is that key members of the Penn State football program were serial enablers of child rape and molestation.

Dismissing the university president and athletic director is not enough, not when your campus has been used as a safe haven and hunting ground by a pedophile. Firing Paterno is not enough, not when Paterno neglected to use his immense power to halt the abuse of children.

It is time for the powers that be to use their powers pointedly and appropriately.

Penn State should cancel the rest of the football season.

The NCAA should investigate the football program and consider the death penalty.

Many of the people who rioted on the Penn State campus Wednesday night in protest of Paterno's dismissal probably plan to attend the football game on campus Saturday. They should not be given any forum in which to voice their delusions, and certainly not a 106,572-seat stadium in which to hold an undeserved memorial to Paterno's tainted career.

To be fair, none of the Penn State players who will take the field have any connection to the scandal. But several of their coaches--including interim head coach Tom Bradley--were around, and may have been part of the conspiracy of cowardice and silence that allowed former assistant Jerry Sandusky to prey on young boys. Bradley and the rest of the staff will almost certainly be fired at the end of the season, along with other university officials. What sort of signal does it send to allow Tom Bradley to lead the Nittany Lions on the field against Nebraska?

Here's something else to consider: Penn State is currently 8-1 on the season, with an inside track to the Big Ten championship game and a slot in the Rose Bowl. Is the conference--and the NCAA--comfortable with that possibility? Barring action by the university or the NCAA, the school being labeled as "Pedophile U" could be playing in Pasadena in January. Besides, any championship won by Penn State this year will almost certainly be vacated, once the NCAA completes its investigation and levies sanctions. Why let the team compete for hardware--and victories--that will be surrendered in a matter of months?

As Mr. Souhan reminds us, the NCAA has imposed the "death penalty" on a football program only once in its history, against SMU back in the 1980s. SMU was judged guilty of paying players and had to stop playing football for two seasons. As Souhan observes, "compared with serial pedophilia [at PSU], what happened on the SMU campus is the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk.

All the more reason, he argues, to shut down the Penn State program:

When the NCAA levies its harshest penalties, it cites a school's "lack of institutional control.'' There has never been a clearer case of university lacking institutional control over its football program than Penn State allowing Sandusky to bring children to the team's sidelines and showers.

As this post is written, the Penn State-Nebraska game is already underway, so today's spectacle in Happy Valley is proceeding as scheduled. But allowing the program to continue (until the Sandusky matter has been resolved) would be an absolute travesty, and another, needless insult to the victims of the former coach.

One final note: according to ESPN's Big Ten blog, there was exactly one protester--one--outside Beaver Stadium before today's Penn State game. Jon Matko, a Pittsburgh resident and 2000 Penn State graduate may be the only member of the university family who "gets it."

Matko thought the university should have canceled the game and the rest of the season. He knows the importance of the game to university revenue and how canceling wouldn’t be fair to the players who had nothing to do with the scandal, but felt Saturday was too soon to play.

“It’s the right thing,” he said. “It’s not about Joe. It’s about the kids.”

One of Matko’s signs featured the famous Albert Einstein quote: “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

When he arrived at Beaver Stadium on Saturday morning, Matko was shocked to find himself alone. He didn’t tell his parents where he was going today, but thought he would show up at Beaver Stadium and join other protestors. But he couldn’t find any.

“It’s shocking that I’m the only one here,” he said. “It’s shocking and disturbing.”

Here's something else for the college football community to consider: would fan reaction be any different if this was happening at Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, or any other college football power? Sadly, we think not.

Mystery Blast

At least 15 Iranian military personnel died Saturday in a massive explosion at a facility described as an "arms depot" near Tehran. More from Reuters:

While there was no indication of any attack, the explosion shook Iranians for miles around at a time of mounting tensions with Israel over Iran's nuclear programme.

A spokesman for the Revolutionary Guards -- Iran's elite military force -- said the blast happened as troops were moving munitions at a base in Bidganeh, near the town of Shahriar.

"My dear colleagues in the Revolutionary Guards were moving munitions in one of the arsenals at that base when, due to an incident, an explosion happened," Ramezan Sharif told state TV news channel IRINN.

"Some of the wounded are reported to be in a critical condition," he added. The semi-official Fars news agency said 25 people had been taken to hospital.

Iran quickly denied that that the facility is connected to its nuclear program, but the sudden blast--and "official" actions after the explosion--raised suspicions. The media was kept away from the scene and the head of Iran's Red Crescent organization said only six paramedics had been allowed into the Amir Al-Momenin military base--a number that seemed insufficient for a mass casualty event.

It was the second major explosion at an Iranian arms facility in a little over a year. Last October, a similar blast killed several troops at a base near Khoramabad. Several installations in that area are connected to Iran's ballistic missile program, and there was some speculation that the explosion might have been linked to an accident involving a Shahab-3 unit. The Shahab-3 is a medium-range missile, capable of striking targets as far away as Israel.

Some believe sabotage (by Israel or Iranian opposition groups) was responsible for last year's blast, and similar rumors are making the rounds about today's blast near Tehran. Modern munitions--even those used by countries like Iran--are modular in design, reliable and safe. Generally speaking, they only blow up when they're supposed to, when all components are in place and at the end of the required fusing process.

It's hard to imagine conventional weapons simply blowing up accidentally. But if the Amir Al-Momenin base was involved in weapons experiments--perhaps related to Iran's nuclear program--then the chances for an accident are significantly higher. A connection to Tehran's WMD program would also raise the interest of Israeli intelligence, and raise prospects for some sort of covert plot against the facility.

As we noted at the time of the Khoramabad explosion, it takes a great deal of planning and skill to carry out an attack on a supposedly "secure" Iranian facility. In other words, if it was sabatoge, then Israel was the most likely culprit, and the Mossad will be among the suspects in today's blast near Tehran.

But covert missions and cyber attacks cannot deter Iran's nuclear ambitions forever. This week's alarming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency was a reminder that Iran has worked steadily towards building a bomb for years, undeterred by western diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions. In response, the Obama Administration announced plans to work with its allies to step up pressure on Tehran--essentially, the same, failed strategy that has been in place for years.

Meanwhile, there's been more talk about a possible Israeli strike against Iran, and that recent test launch of a Jericho III missile--a not-so-subtle reminder that while Tehran is still seeking a nuclear capability, Israel already has the capability to put nuclear weapons on Iranian targets.

***

ADDENDUM: There were also vague hints that the U.S. may be preparing for a worst-case scenario in the Persian Gulf. This week, the Pentagon announced the potenial sale of advanced bunker-buster munitions to the United Arab Emirates. That's the very sort of weapon that would be useful in attacking certain facilities related to Iran's nuclear program, and we're guessing that the contract comes with a certain clause--allowing the United States access to those weapons in the event of a conflict with Tehran.

The Sins of Joe Paterno

Somewhere in Texas, Jackie Sherrill may be smiling.

During almost 30 years as a head college football coach, with stops at Washington State; Pitt, Texas A&M and Mississippi State, Mr. Sherrill developed a reputation as a cheater--someone who would gladly break NCAA rules to get better athletes and improve his team's won-loss record. In fact, Sherrill left both College Station and Starkville under a cloud, and the football programs at A&M and MSU were placed on probation for his transgressions.

So, it's little wonder that Sherrill became something of a pariah in college football, shunned by some of the game's most revered coaches, including Joe Paterno of Penn State. In a famous interview with Sports Illustrated, Joe Pa said he "couldn't" retire from college football and leave the game in the hands of coaches like "Jackie Sherrill and Barry Switzer." Paterno and Sherrill eventually made amends, but the comment stuck, and only reinforced Jackie's reputation as a cheater.

Almost a decade after he retired, Sherrill is still widely reviled for breaking NCAA rules, but ironically enough, he may wind up with a better legacy that Joe Paterno. The legendary Penn State coach was fired last night, the latest casualty of a sex scandal that has engulfed the Nittany Lions football program. Jerry Sandusky, Paterno's long-time defensive coordinator, has been charged with raping several young men who participated in his charity for at-risk youth.

While Sandusky retired from the PSU staff in 1999, he still had full run of the university's football complex and at least one of the rapes may have occurred in a Penn State athletic facility. When Paterno was told of Sandusky's crimes--in 2002--he reportedly informed the university's athletic director, but took no further action. Meanwhile, Sandusky continued preying on young boys for another eight years, protected by a university cover-up.

To his credit, Coach Paterno was one of the few Penn State officials who did anything. The university's current athletic director and a senior administrator lied to investigators about the matter and are now facing perjury charges. But Paterno is hardly a hero in this sordid mess; he never bothered to follow-up on his initial report, for reasons that remain unexplained. And while the Penn State community has rallied around their coach, it became clear that he could no longer retain his job, as the Sandusky scandal exploded. Federal authorities have joined the probe, along with state officials and the NCAA. Suffice it to say that Penn State faces a flood of lawsuits; more university officials may be indicted, and the football program's once-sterling reputation has been forever tarnished.

Recognizing that, Penn State's board of trustees moved quickly on Wednesday evening, dismissing Paterno and the university president during an emergency meeting. With the institution in full damage control mode, Penn State could no longer allow its legendary coach to play out the string. With revelations of more than a dozen victims--some molested in the university football complex--it was time for JoePa to go.

And that seems appropriate. A man lionized in the college football world for his character and integrity did virtually nothing to prevent the sexual abuse of young boys by a man who was once his top assistant. "I should have done more," Paterno said earlier today. Yes, he should have, but he didn't. Perhaps Coach Paterno didn't really believe the allegations against Sandusky, or trusted administrators to handle the dirty work. Besides, he had a football program to run, and a legend to protect.

Now, Paterno leaves college football as the winningest coach in the history of the game, but with a reputation permanently sullied by his own inaction. Some would say JoePa deserves better, but so did those young men, brutalized by a man who was an integral part of Paterno's football machine for so long.

Given JoePa's stunning fall from football grace, Jackie Sherrill is probably satisfied with being remembered as a mere cheater.

Greatly Exaggerated?

In the aftermath of Mommar Qadhafi's death, various Middle Eastern analysts were placing bets on the imminent demise of Bashir Assad's Syrian regime. After all, anti-regime protests were still going strong after more than six months, despite repeated crack-downs by security forces. And by some accounts, Assad's sponsors in Tehran were writing him off, with Iranian diplomats consulting Saudi Arabia and Turkey on a "way ahead" once the Syrian regime collapsed.

But to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, reports of Assad's demise may be exaggerated. From today's edition of The New York Times:

The Syrian government has launched a bloody assault to retake Homs, the country’s third-largest city, facing armed defectors who have prevented the government’s forces from seizing it as they did other restive locales this summer, in what may stand as one of the most violent episodes in an eight-month uprising.

[snip]

The specter of civil war has long hung over Homs, the most tenacious and determined of cities opposed to President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, where the city’s Sunni Muslim majority has closed ranks behind the revolt. This month, parts of the city have become an urban battlefield, with activists saying government forces have killed 111 people in just five days, opposition groups warning of dire shortages forced by the siege and residents complaining of lawlessness by marauding soldiers and paramilitary fighters.

The strife comes as mediation by the Arab League has apparently collapsed in one of the latest efforts to end what is among the most ferocious crackdowns on the revolts sweeping the Arab world this year. The government has increasingly demonstrated it will continue to try to stanch dissent by force, ignoring the relatively muted protests of the international community.

From our perspective, that latter paragraph (by Times' reporter Anthony Shadid) captures the essence of conditions in Syria. Arab League efforts to end the crisis have been half-hearted at best, and for obvious reasons. Many leaders in the Middle East are quite comfortable with Assad's regime; he's an established commodity (and an ally for some).

More importantly, there is genuine fear over what might happen if the current regime collapses --and what sort of government would replace it. As in other instances, "mediation" efforts are little more than a public relations ploy, creating the illusion of diplomatic action while Assad's security forces kill more protesters. The ruling elites in Tehran, Riyadh and elsewhere know that if the Syrian rebellion is successful, it will embolden domestic opposition at home, and there's no guarantee they can keep their respective genies in the bottle. So, while many Middle Eastern governments openly deplore the violence in places like Homs, privately they are cheering on Assad's security forces.

To be sure, the Syrian tyrant is a long way from reestablishing firm control over his country, but he does enjoy certain advantages. First, the western media has been effectively barred from covering the story; Mr. Shadid and his counterparts are filing reports from Beirut and other locations, well away from the fighting. They must rely on snippets of video provided by Syrian opposition groups and anonymous stringers working inside that country. While some of Assad's brutality has been captured on video (and smuggled outside Syria), much of the violence has not been viewed by the outside world, another reason for the muted global response.

Assad also has the benefit of a military and secret police apparatus that is competent and remains generally loyal to the regime. Unlike the Egyptian armed forces (who refused to intervene to save Hosni Mubarak), or the incompetent Libyan Army that couldn't save Qadhafi, the troops suppressing demonstrators in Syria are largely cast their lot with Mr. Assad and are doing his bidding in murderous fashion. While there have been some defections from the Army and intelligence services, they have not yet crippled Assad's ability to fight back, allowing him to continue the crackdown. Meanwhile, the protesters taking on the regime are poorly armed, and they can't call on NATO airstrikes to save the day.

To be sure, the future of Bashir Assad is far from secure. Losing entire cities to the opposition is not an encouraging sign, and the resistance seems as determined as ever, despite mounting civilian casualties. But Assad is a long way from joining the ranks of deposed dictators who are forced to flee, or find themselves lying in a ditch, with a bullet in their head.

Back to the Blog

...It's been an extraordinarily busy time for the past 10 days or so, thanks to the demands of my "day job." Now that things are settling down, I will be a bit more active on the blog. Many pardons for the interruption, and I appreciate your patience.

The Marines Change Course

Marines don't retreat, the old axiom goes, they simply attack in a new direction. Hmm...maybe they'll trot out that explanation (again) to justify last week's dramatic reversal on its tuition assistance (TA) policy for the Corps.

Just days after implementing a major cut in tuition assistance funding, the Marines shifted course last Wednesday, announcing that TA funding would be restored to previous levels. That means Marines will again receive $4500 a year for college tuition, paid at a maximum rate of $750 per course. Under the reduced rates, the yearly cap was cut to $3500 a year, but most Marines would receive only $825, based on data that most program participants took only 5-7 credit hours per year.

Why the sudden change? We're guessing that senior leadership got an earful from unit commanders and senior NCOs, who understand that TA is a very effective retention tool. If the tuition assistance program is gutted (or eliminated entirely, as some in the Pentagon prefer), it will wreak havoc with experience levels, particularly at the platoon and company levels.

The reason, as we've explained in previous posts, is simple. Without access to TA (or limited education funds under that program), Marines will use GI Bill benefits to fund their education. And, the highest payments under that program go to veterans who have left the military and receive their full housing allowance, along with education benefits.

Under proposed defense cuts, the Marine Corps will undergo a 10% reduction by 2015, a move that will eliminate 20,000 personnel. So, the TA reduction was aimed (in part) at convincing more Marines to leave the service, so the Corps can meet its new manning totals. But there was clear concern that a lot of experienced E-4s and E-5s--Marines who should be senior NCOs and officers down the road--will exit the Corps as well. That realization is what prompted the Marines to reverse course on the TA program.

Still, tuition assistance for the military is facing an uncertain future. As the Marines were modifying their position, the Air Force was unveiling changes for its personnel. Beginning in November, airmen can only apply for TA within 30 days of a course start date. Currently, they can apply for financial aid two months in advance, giving them more flexibility in planning their studies.

With a shorter timeline for signing up, the Air Force believes it can achieve savings in its TA program, since some airmen won't have enough time to complete the process. The USAF spends more than $200 million a year on TA; at the DoD level, the total bill for tuition assistance is about $600 million annually.

As we've noted in previous posts, the TA program has been under fire in recent months--and targeted for major reductions. According to various critics, tuition assistance isn't very cost effective, and does little to keep troops in uniform.

But the facts tell a different story. Thousands of military members earn their associate's, bachelor's or master's through the TA program each year. Payment caps within the program encourage participating schools to keep costs low, and the armed forces recoup money from service members who fail a course.

By comparison, the new Post 9-11 GI Bill is shaping up as a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Two years into the program, costs are running three times higher than projected ($15 billion a year), and vets attending school under the program have an 88% dropout rate and only 3% remain in school long enough to earn their degree. But so far, no one is talking about "reforming" the latest version of the GI Bill.

Today's Reading Assignment

Max Boot, in Commentary magazine, on President Obama's decision to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year:

Far from being cause for celebration, Obama’s announcement that we will keep only 150 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year–down from nearly 50,000 today–represents a shameful failure of American foreign policy that risks undoing all the gains that so many Americans, Iraqis, and other allies have sacrificed so much to achieve. The risks of a catastrophic failure in Iraq now rise appreciably. The Iranian Quds Force must be licking its chops because we are now leaving Iraq essentially defenseless against its machinations. Conversely the broad majority of Iraqis who fear Iranian influence and who want their country to become a democracy will come to rue this day, however big a victory it might appear in the short term for the cause of Iraqi nationalism.

Ostensibly this pull-out was dictated by the unwillingness of Iraqi lawmakers to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution. But Iraqi leaders of all parties, save the Sadrists, also clearly signaled their desire to have a sizable American troop contingent post-2011. The issue of immunity could have been finessed if administration lawyers from the Departments of State and Defense had not insisted that Iraq’s parliament would have to vote to grant our troops protections from Iraqi laws. Surely some face-saving formula that would not have needed parliamentary approval could have been negotiated that would have assuaged Iraqi sovereignty concerns while making it unlikely in the extreme that any U.S. soldier would ever go before an Iraqi court for actions taken in the line of duty.

Clearly, we can't stay in Iraq forever, but the Obama plan runs counter to the security interests of both the United States and our Iraqi allies. As Mr. Boot notes, both the U.S. military and much of the Iraqi government favored a continuing American presence, for counter-terrorism operations; as a deterrent against Iranian meddling, and to ensure adequate training for Iraqi security forces.

Boot argues that the U.S. should re-open negotiations on our military presence as soon as the current withdrawal is complete. He believes we need at least 10, 000 troops in Iraq to handle the security and training mission--about half the number recommended by senior American military commanders earlier this year.

Unfortunately, prospects for a short-term U.S. return are virtually nil. Mr. Obama saw an opportunity to appease his base and fulfill a campaign promise, with little regard for the long-term security consequences. That raises another issue: will President Obama (or a Republican successor) be willing to send even larger numbers of U.S. troops back to Iraq in two or three years, when the security situation becomes untenable? Or will the Commander-in-Chief sit idly by and allow Iraq to become a puppet of Tehran?

It's a question worth posing at the next White House press conference (fat chance of that happening), and at the next GOP presidential candidates' debate.

***

ADDENDUM: Similar warnings from Professor Frederick Kagan (the intellectual father of the Iraq surge strategy) at the Weekly Standard.

The Death of Tuition Assistance

The end of the U.S. military's tuition assistance program may be at hand. Yesterday, the Marine Corps announced that annual benefits will be cut, from a maximum of $4500 a year, to $3500.

Additionally, the Corps is reducing payments per credit hour to $175 for undergraduate courses and $225 for graduate programs. However, the "real" TA cap for the majority of Marines will be only $875 per year, based on "analysis" that shows most participants take only 5-6 credit hours annually.

Changes in the Marine Corps TA program were made retroactive to 1 October. While the other services have not announced similar cuts, all are watching the USMC experiment and may unveil their own reductions in the coming months.

Currently, the Pentagon spends over $600 million a year on tuition assistance, which provides money for active-duty military members (along with guardsmen and reservists) to attend off-duty college classes. The program's price tag has more than doubled over the past decade, after the military raised the payment rate from 75% for each class, to 100%, with a cap of $750 per course.

There are signs that more cuts may be in the offing. Earlier this year, the Pentagon's chief of voluntary education, Carolyn Baker, said the current TA program is "unsustainable." Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has described TA as a "poor recruiting and retention tool," advocating a 90% reduction in the program. More recently, a Colorado Congressman asked DoD to consider a return to the 75% payment rate, which was in effect for decades. There is growing consensus in Congress (and the Pentagon) that TA must be cut, as the military faces hundreds of billions in budget cuts.

But the rush to gut TA may be premature--and short-sighted. Reducing (or eliminating) tuition assistance will force most military members to rely on their other education benefits program, notably the Post 9-11 GI Bill. That program is aimed at veterans who have left the service, paying full rates for tuition and a housing allowance, among other benefits.

Still, any shift to the GI Bill won't be cheap or cost-effective. Consider these numbers, announced at last week's meeting of the Colorado Advisory Council on Military Education:

- When it was signed into law three years ago, the Post 9-11 GI Bill was budgeted at $5 billion a year. But so many vets have entered the program, it is currently costing taxpayers $15 billion a year, and that tab is growing.

- Some participants see the program as little more than a benefit check. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, one in five departing service members become full-time students under the GI Bill. But only 3% of those students stick around long enough to earn their degree. Grad rates for GI Bill participants are ten times lower than their civilian counter-parts.

- VA statistics show that 88% of GI Bill students drop out of school within their first year.

Based on those figures, the GI Bill is shaping up as a $15 billion a year boondoggle. Indeed, the program actually pays for "Fs." Students can flunk classes and still receive full benefits, although schools are now required to more closely monitor--and report--student performance.

As for that supposedly "inefficient" TA program::

- Thousands of military members receive their degree each year, using TA benefits.

- A typical bachelor's degree earned with TA benefits costs taxpayers about $40,000; the same four-year diploma, funded with the GI Bill, runs $100,000 (or more).

- Students using TA who fail a class must reimburse the military--a powerful incentive for military members to do well in class.

- TA participants remain on active-duty, providing valuable contributions to national defense. By comparison, most GI bill students have left active service, and the military will receive no direct benefit of their advanced education.

To be fair, both programs have their problems; you'll find fraud and waste in each. But it's rather interesting that TA is being cut, in favor of a "new" GI Bill that is shaping up as an educational and fiscal disaster. In light of skyrocketing costs and low graduation rates, the public and lawmakers should ask: just how much bang are we getting for that $15 billion a year?

***

Disclosure: Your humble correspondent is employed by a private, non-profit university that participates in both the tuition assistance and GI Bill programs. :

Thanks, John

According to the Military Advantage Blog at Military.com, Senator John McCain of Arizona has indicated support for a proposal to cut military benefits:

The AP reports that McCain sup­ports Pres­i­dent Obama’s pro­posal to start charg­ing older mil­i­tary retirees a $200 annual enroll­ment fee for TRICARE for Life. In addi­tion, McCain urged the super­com­mit­tee to con­sider restrict­ing working-age mil­i­tary retirees and their depen­dents from enrolling in TRICARE Prime. McCain pointed out that the Con­gres­sional Bud­get Office has esti­mated that such a move would save $111 bil­lion over 10 years.

McCain also said he sup­ports the administration’s pro­posal for a com­mis­sion to review pos­si­ble changes to the 20 year mil­i­tary retire­ment sys­tem and the cur­rent mil­i­tary pay and com­pen­sa­tion model.

Not that we're surprised; look up "Rino" in the dictionary, and you'll find McCain's picture in the margin. But it's also worth remembering that Mr. McCain is also a retired Naval officer who spent more than two decades on active duty, including five-and-a-half years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton.

Given his background, you'd think McCain would appreciate the sacrifice made by military members and their families. You'd also think that Senator McCain would understand that most military retirees get by on a pension of $1600 a month (after taxes) and increases in Tricare fees (and other expenses) put a big dent in their budget.

But then again, John McCain lost touch with the military rank-and-file a long time ago. He became intoxicated with power during his tour as a Navy legislative liasion on Capitol Hill and quickly segued into the ruling class after retiring--and marrying the richest woman in Arizona. Between his Senate health care plan and family fortune, Mr. McCain isn't too worried about changes to the military retirement system, or higher medical expenses for military retirees.

If you ask Senator McCain to explain his position, he'd probably say he's putting "Country First," to help resolve the nation's fiscal crisis. Gee...whatever happened to the mantra of "Leave No Man (or Woman) Behind," something McCain learned from his earliest days at Annapolis. By endorsing the Obama "reform" plan, Mr. McCain is leaving a lot of military members behind.

Thanks again, John.

Curious, but Sloppy

We're still scratching our heads over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States. Not that the scheme isn't credible; Tehran has a long list of scores to settle with Riyadh, ranging from the kingdom's backing of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, to its more recent support of Bahrain, during that nation's crackdown against anti-regime protesters, who were aided by elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Eliminating the Saudi ambassador in Washington promised other rewards as well. A successful assassination would create a greater divide between the United States and one of its most important allies in the Arab world. Additionally, the assassination would be viewed as a direct warning to the Saudi monarchy, since the kingdom's current Ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, is a key advisor to the king on national security matters. So, Iran has no shortage of reasons for wanting to kill the senior Saudi diplomat in America.

But if that was the case, why was the "plot" conceived is such ham-handed fashion? According to court papers (and the comments of various U.S. officials), the key figure in the operation was Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old Iranian-American used car salesman from Texas. Arbabsiar reportedly attempted to enlist assistance from Mexico's infamous Zetas drug cartel in acquiring explosives and carrying out the attack. The plan reportedly involved detonating a bomb inside one of the ambassador's favorite D.C. restaurants while he ate.

Arbabsiar is now in custody; a second man named in the indictment, Gholam Shakuri, is said to be in Iran. Sources indicate the assassination plot involved high-level officials in the Qods force, the clandestine arm of the IRGC. Turk al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. told reporters this afternoon that "the burden of proof and amount of evidence in the case is overwhelming, and clearly shows official Iranian responsibility for this...someone in Iran will have to pay the price." In response, Iran described the terror plot as a "fabrication" and a "diversion," aimed at shifting domestic attention away from U.S. economic problems."

According to the U.K. Guardian, some western diplomats have expressed skepticism about the plot, saying it was highly unlikely that senior Iranian officials would sign off on such a plan. And they have a point; if Tehran wanted to kill Ambassador al-Jubeir, why entrust the enterprise to someone who hardly fits the profile of a professional Qods force operative.

The U.S. military has spent years battling Qods force agents in Iraq and Afghanistan; intelligence officers will tell you they represent the most capable elements in the IRGC. Put another way, there are plenty of Qods force operatives who could easily enter the United States, carry out the plot and make a clean get-away. Why involve a used car salesman and drug cartels?

Several possibilities come to mind. First, the assassination plot may have been a deliberate ruse, aimed at shifting intelligence and law enforcement resources away from other teams preparing to carry out separate attacks. You'd better believe the folks at FBI Headquarters, Langley and Fort Meade are double-checking their information, looking for clues that might lead to other (and perhaps more menacing) Iranian plots while Arbabsiar spins his tale for investigators.

There's also a chance the assassination scheme was launched by rogue elements within the IRGC and Iranian political circles (yes, we realize that is an oxymoron). Angered by the lack of progress in "getting even" with Riyadh, members of the Qods Force, in concert with political elements, might have decided to do a little free-lancing and hatched a plan to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

However, you can't rule out the option that senior Iranian officials endorsed (and participated in) the hare-brained scheme. Intelligence and covert ops organizations have a long history of launching plots that are breathtakingly dumb. Readers will recall that the CIA engaged in a series of operations aimed at killing Fidel Castro, involving such diverse elements as an exploding cigar and the U.S. mafia. None of those plots came close to succeeding, but the boys at Langley kept trying, anyway. The men running the Qods Force are not immune to bad ideas, either.

Perhaps the most fascinating element of this story is how quickly talk of military action entered the picture. Mr. al-Faisal's remarks will be interpreted (in some circles) as a green light for U.S. attacks against Iranian targets. And late this afternoon, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry said military action against Tehran "could not be ruled out." There are also unconfirmed reports that the Obama Administration will provide a briefing this evening on the plot to key members of the Senate Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.

Predictably, such talk has raised a "wag the dog" scenario, with the Obama Administration using the Iranian plot to divert attention away from a host of domestic woes. We're not prepared to go down that road, but stoking sentiment against Iran could serve another purpose. As we've noted in previous posts this year, Tehran is on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons--a development which could occur before the end of the year. If public (and political) sentiment is already aligned against Iran, it would make it that much easier to launch military strikes against Iran. By launching a clumsy effort to kill a senior Saudi official, Iran may have given the U.S. an opportunity to rally international opposition against the Tehran regime.

***

ADDENDUM: Thomas Joscelyn at The Long War Journal reminds us that some of the Iranians implicated in the assassination plot are quite capable of carrying out deadly operations. Abdul Reza Shahlai, identified as "coordinator" of the planned attack, was the mastermind of a 2007 strike against U.S. troops in Karbala. Shahlai, who was previously identified as a Deputy Commander of the IRGC-QF, is the cousin of Manssor Arbabsiar; Gholam Shakuri, who served as an intermediary, is Shahlai's deputy. Family ties between Shahlai and Arbabsiar made the Iranian-American a convenient tool for the operation, but it still doesn't explain why the IRGC-QF was interested in farming out the enterprise to less-skilled personnel.

Infected

Noah Shachtman at the Danger Room has this disturbing exclusive: the U.S. Air Force drone fleet has been hit by a computer virus.

The virus, first detected nearly two weeks ago by the military’s Host-Based Security System, has not prevented pilots at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada from flying their missions overseas. Nor have there been any confirmed incidents of classified information being lost or sent to an outside source. But the virus has resisted multiple efforts to remove it from Creech’s computers, network security specialists say. And the infection underscores the ongoing security risks in what has become the U.S. military’s most important weapons system.

“We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”

Military network security specialists aren’t sure whether the virus and its so-called “keylogger” payload were introduced intentionally or by accident; it may be a common piece of malware that just happened to make its way into these sensitive networks. The specialists don’t know exactly how far the virus has spread. But they’re sure that the infection has hit both classified and unclassified machines at Creech. That raises the possibility, at least, that secret data may have been captured by the keylogger, and then transmitted over the public internet to someone outside the military chain of command.

It's no secret that UAVs have become a weapon-of-choice in the War on Terror; our expanding fleet of drones (most of them operated and maintained by the USAF) allow intelligence specialists to monitor large stretches of territory for and strike high-value targets. Just last week, a CIA-operated UAV took out Al Qaida bigwig Anwar Awlaki; all told, American UAVs have killed more than 2,000 suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan since President Obama took office, according to the Washington Post.

So far, the infection appears limited to Creech, while pilots and sensor operators control dozens of UAVs operating around the world. There is no evidence the virus has spread to the Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS) facilities which analyze intelligence collected by the drones. While drone operations have received lots of media attention, many Americans are unaware of the huge intel network required to support UAV operations. At places like Langley AFB, VA; Hickam AFB, Hawaii, Beale AFB, California (and others), hundreds of intel specialists monitor, record and decipher data from the drone's on-board sensor suite.

The Air Force hasn't said how the virus found its way into the Ground Control Stations that direct UAV missions. But the most likely culprit is an external drive or some other type of external device that was plugged into A GCS computer, providing an entry point into the network. If information captured by the keylogger program was transmitted to individuals outside DoD, it could provide valuable insights regarding drone operations and the command-and-control network that control them.

As you might expect, this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen. Computers that direct UAV flights (and the intel systems that support them) are part of intranets, separate from the internet. But they remain vulnerable to external viruses and other hazards, through something as simple as a flash drive.

Was it a deliberate attack? The jury's still out on that one, but recent trends are not encouraging. Adversaries are quite aware of U.S. reliance on UAVs, and they're looking for ways to cripple our capabilities in that area. There have been several "infections" of secure networks in recent years, raising concerns about our susceptibility to outside attacks. Coincidence? You decide.

Today's Reading Assignment

...from Jim Lacey, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Marine Corps War College, writing at National Review on-line. Professor Lacey shares our outrage at a recent article in The New York Times, which described the armed forces retirement program as "another big social welfare system." Recounting the long list of military operations over the past two decades, Lacey reminds us that a soldier who enlisted in 1990 had more than "earned" his pension by the time he retired last year. A few evocative paragraphs:

"..Fresh out of boot camp, our typical infantry soldier was sent to the 24th Infantry Division, and was soon on his way to the Middle East as part of the force sent to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Living under the most primitive conditions for months, our young private spends most of his time training. What free time he has is for writing home, repeatedly telling his folks to ignore the numerous predictions that at least 10,000 Americans will die if fighting erupts. Later, while lying under the stars and trying to ward off the desert chill, he wonders if he will be one of the 10,000, for he really has no reason to doubt the predictions. Finally, the assault begins, and our young private finds himself in one of the spearhead formations living through the fear and thrill of shredding several of Saddam’s much-vaunted Republican Guard divisions.

[snip]

At the end of his first hitch, he reenlists and is promoted to sergeant, and is sent to Germany to join the 1st Armored Division. Our infantryman knows he is going to have to work and train hard. But, as the Cold War is over, he is also expecting a bit of downtime and a chance to see some of Europe. What he did not expect was to be ordered into the Balkans.

In late December 1995, the 1st Armored is sent to Bosnia to bring the long-running Yugoslavian violence to an end. For the troops to get to their destination, a pontoon bridge had to be thrown across the Sava River, which was experiencing its worst flooding in 70 years. Weather conditions were terrible all through the days of the bridge’s construction, and no better when the 1st Armored Division began its crossing. As our young sergeant led his armored vehicles across the makeshift bridge, a journalist asked a bystander, “What does this mean to you?” The reply: “It means peace. It is as simple as that.”

[snip]

The second half of our typical infantryman’s career saw him promoted to Sergeant First Class, where he cared for and trained a few dozen soldiers, and eventually to First Sergeant, where he was responsible for an entire company of close to 150 soldiers. Still with the 3rd Infantry Division, he spent most of 2002 in Kuwait preparing for the invasion of Iraq. And then, early the following year, he again was part of a spearhead unit, the one that conducted the 21-day blitz from Kuwait that culminated in the thunder runs into the center of Baghdad.

Unfortunately, capturing Baghdad was not the end of our soldier’s involvement in Iraq. Over the remaining seven years of his Army career he would spend half of that time in Iraq, while many of his brothers had alternate tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Throughout this period he never much concerned himself with the politics of our involvement. His focus was always much more narrow and visceral: What do I have to do today to help destroy a violent extremist insurgency and to take as many of my men as possible home safely?

[snip]

This nation asks a lot of its military, and they have given in full measure. One soldier captured it all when he said to me after finishing 20 years of service: “I have given the Army, my country, and my brothers everything I had. If there is anything left in me it is going to go to my family.” When he departed the service he took with him a retirement paycheck of less than $25,000 a year. It was promised to him. He earned it.

As Jim Lacey observes, this story of this solider isn't remarkable. In fact, it captures the shared experiences of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have served during these tumultuous times. Not all served in front-line combat, but all endured the rigors and sacrifices that come with a career in uniform. And all of them were volunteers.

Social welfare, indeed.

***

ADDENDUM: Lacey's column is yet another reminder of the escalating battle over military benefits. Last week, Army Times (a Gannett publication that can hardly be described as an organ of the vast, right-wing conspiracy) ran a cover story entitled "Obama's War on Your Benefits." While the article isn't available on the paper's website, it does capture the growing frustration of many military members, who believe promises made to them are being broken while entitlement programs for the great unwashed go untouched.

Meanwhile, that deafening silence you hear is from the Republican presidential field. When President Obama chided them for not "standing up" for a gay soldier who booed (by about four people) during a recent GOP debate, not one of the Republican contenders provided the obvious rejoinder: why is the Commander-in-Chief so concerned about the plight of one soldier, while benefits promised to thousands of military members are eroding under his watch?

The most obvious reasons? First, only two of the Republican candidates have actually served in the military. Secondly, it appears that none of the GOP hopefuls want to paint themselves in a box on the issue, giving them the flexibility to make further cuts (as required) if they are elected president.

Sounds like a "lose-lose" for hundreds of thousands of career military members (and retirees) who gave so much for that $25,000 a year pension. We should also note that Professor Lacey's prototypical retiree was something of a fast burner. The average non-commissioned officer who leaves active duty after 20 years is an E-6, with an average annual pension of less than $20,000 a year.