For anyone who was career military, you can easily list those "guaranteed benefits" that were promised from that first visit to the recruiter's office.
Let's see...on-base healthcare for life, covering the military member and spouse;
A pension after 20 years of honorable service, pegged at 50% of your base pay, (and)
Lifetime access to the commissary, base exchange and other on-base services.
So how are those benefits holding up? Not very well, it would seem. I retired in time to collect my pension, but various advisory boards and think tanks are recommending major changes to compensation for armed forces members, including an end to 20-year retirement. One proposal would still encourage service members to retire from the military at some point between 15 and 30 years, but they wouldn't start collecting their pension until age 62.
Never mind that 20-year retirement has been highly successful, or that the typical service member who leaves at after two decades on active duty is an E-6, who brings home less than $2,000 a month, after taxes and other deductions. The "experts" believe that a civilian-style retirement plan would somehow be attractive, and--more importantly--reduce costs.
On the healthcare front, military retirees were pushed into an HMO-style system called TriCare more than a decade ago. There were problems with access in some locations (many physicians didn't want to comply with the onerous regulations associated with TriCare Prime, the "Cadillac" version of the health plan). And more recently, the Pentagon has announced plans for increased premiums and co-pays, to deal with rising healthcare costs. At one time, TriCare was less attractive than many private-sector plans but with millions losing their coverage due to Obamacare, the military retiree plan is looking like a better deal.
Still, there is cause for concern. It's not inconceiveable that the military could follow the example of corporate America and simply drop retiree coverage, offering instead an annual payment that could be used to buy a policy from a private insurer or (God forbid) on one of the Obamacare exchanges. At the very least, TriCare will become more expensive in the years to come, though the situation of military retirees is still far better than the millions of Americans who are losing coverage, thansk to the "Affordable Care Act."
And sadly, there is one more "guaranteed" benefit that is slowly eroding. The Pentagon is now looking at closing its stateside commissaries, which offer discounted groceries for active-duty personnel and retirees. From the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot:
"...the Defense Commissary Agency has been asked to develop a plan for shutting down 178 commissaries in the United States. About 70 commissaries serving U.S. military personnel overseas would not be affected.
The measure reportedly was discussed during a planning meeting related to the Pentagon's 2015 budget request, which is due in February.
Even if such a plan were included in the defense budget, it would have to get congressional approval. That would be a high hurdle: Lawmakers are often reluctant to trim military benefits.
More than 100,000 Hampton Roads residents and their families are eligible to shop at the region's five commissaries, where active-duty families and military retirees can buy groceries and household goods tax-free.
[snip]
Commissary shoppers are required to pay a 5 percent surcharge on all purchases, which goes toward building construction and maintenance. The salaries of commissary workers are paid through a $1.4 billion annual subsidy from the federal government.
Even with the surcharge, most of the name-brand goods sold at the commissaries go for about 30 percent less than at private grocery stores, according to Department of Defense estimates."
The commissary is an important benefit, not only for retirees, but for junior active-duty personnel with families. If you're an E-4 with a couple of kids--and stationed in a high-cost-of-living area, that 30% savings at the commissary goes a long way towards maintaining the monthly budget. And lest we forget, at least 5,000 military families are currently receiving food stamps, despite Pentagon efforts to provide supplemental subsistence payments to lower-ranking personnel with large families. Commissary sales paid for by that program have more than trippled since 2008, reaching almost $100 million last year. That's a small fraction of the $6 billion in commissary sales in 2012, but it's an important benefit for struggling military families--their food dollars go a lot further at the commissary than at competing civilian stores.
This proposal has been making the rounds for several months. During an appearance at Camp Pendleton in August, President Obama took note of the issue, saying that "closing commissaries is not how a great nation should be treating its military and military families." Yet, the plan to shut down stateside commissaries is still on the table. No wonder that many commissary patrons put the President's remarks in the same category as his famous line about "keeping your healthcare plan." By that standard, commissaries at CONUS bases will go the way of the individual health insurance market in the near future.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
After America (Persian Gulf Edition)
Early in Barack Obama's first term, unnamed members of his senior staff said one of the administration's goals was to "manage America's decline" on the world stage. And on that count, they seem to be succeeding quite well. U.S. gains in Iraq--won with considerable blood and treasure--are dissipating rapidly; the situation in Afghanistan is going from bad to worse, and our adversaries on the world stage (think: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) are resurgent, figuring they have nothing to fear from Mr. Obama and his national security team.
And the news only gets worse. This weekend brought the news of a "deal" between the U.S., its European allies and Iran on Tehran's nuclear program. Word of the agreement was greeted with suspicion and derision; In an interview with Aaron Klein on WABC radio, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon noted that his nation was not part of the negotiations, and that Jerusalem would do "whatever is necessary" to keep Iran from going nuclear.
Mr. Klein is also reporting that Israel is taking additional steps to prepare for a possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. According to Egyptian intelligence sources, Israeli officers have been inspecting bases in Saudi Arabia, which could be used as staging grounds for the attack. Needless to say, Israel's use of bases in an Arab country to hit Iran would be unprecedented and normally, Riyadh would quickly dismiss such claims. But as of Sunday evening, the Saudi government had done nothing to dismiss the report.
Nor is Mr. Klein the only journalist to report a potential, secret alliance between the Saudis and Israelis. One week ago, the U.K. Sunday Times reported that Israel and Saudi Arabia are cooperating on military plans that would allow IAF warplanes to use Saudi airspace for an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.
ONCE they were sworn enemies. Now Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a possible attack on Iran if its nuclear programme is not significantly curbed in a deal that could be signed in Geneva this week.
Both the Israeli and Saudi governments are convinced that the international talks to place limits on Tehran’s military nuclear development amount to appeasement and will do little to slow its development of a nuclear warhead.
As part of the growing co-operation, Riyadh is understood already to have given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran.
There is also renewed speculation that Saudi Arabia will pursue its own nuclear option. The Saudi monarchy has been a silent partner in Pakistan's nuclear program for decades, investing billions of dollars with the understanding that Islamabad would deliver nuclear weapons to Riyadh if the need arose. Pakistani-produced nuclear warheads could be mounted on Saudi intermediate-range missiles in a matter of months, giving the kingdom its own, independent strike capability. Other Gulf states could pursue their own weapons program, setting the stage for a full-scale nuclear arms race in one of the world's most voliatle regions.
If the Obama Administration is worried about that scenario, it wasn't apparent on Sunday. There was the usual blather about the need to verify Iranian compliance and threats of additional sanctions if they don't. But it was also clear the White House and State Department were very pleased with themselves. Never mind that Iran essentially got what it wanted and still retains a "break out capability" to develop nuclear weapons, despite negotiated caps on Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities and slowed development of a heavy-water nuclear reactor, which can be used to produce plutonium.
Some would say that the Iranian nuclear deal lessens the possibility of an Israeli strike, since the agreement has the support of the U.S. and its major allies. But we would make the counter-argument; facing Iran on its own, Israel has little choice but to mount a military operation. And apparently, it has some rather surprising allies who are willing to support that effort. Afterall, the U.S. "negotiated" its way to a nuclear-capable North Korea. Why will Iran be any different? Against that backdrop, Israel has no other option.
And the news only gets worse. This weekend brought the news of a "deal" between the U.S., its European allies and Iran on Tehran's nuclear program. Word of the agreement was greeted with suspicion and derision; In an interview with Aaron Klein on WABC radio, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon noted that his nation was not part of the negotiations, and that Jerusalem would do "whatever is necessary" to keep Iran from going nuclear.
Mr. Klein is also reporting that Israel is taking additional steps to prepare for a possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. According to Egyptian intelligence sources, Israeli officers have been inspecting bases in Saudi Arabia, which could be used as staging grounds for the attack. Needless to say, Israel's use of bases in an Arab country to hit Iran would be unprecedented and normally, Riyadh would quickly dismiss such claims. But as of Sunday evening, the Saudi government had done nothing to dismiss the report.
Nor is Mr. Klein the only journalist to report a potential, secret alliance between the Saudis and Israelis. One week ago, the U.K. Sunday Times reported that Israel and Saudi Arabia are cooperating on military plans that would allow IAF warplanes to use Saudi airspace for an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.
ONCE they were sworn enemies. Now Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a possible attack on Iran if its nuclear programme is not significantly curbed in a deal that could be signed in Geneva this week.
Both the Israeli and Saudi governments are convinced that the international talks to place limits on Tehran’s military nuclear development amount to appeasement and will do little to slow its development of a nuclear warhead.
As part of the growing co-operation, Riyadh is understood already to have given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran.
There is also renewed speculation that Saudi Arabia will pursue its own nuclear option. The Saudi monarchy has been a silent partner in Pakistan's nuclear program for decades, investing billions of dollars with the understanding that Islamabad would deliver nuclear weapons to Riyadh if the need arose. Pakistani-produced nuclear warheads could be mounted on Saudi intermediate-range missiles in a matter of months, giving the kingdom its own, independent strike capability. Other Gulf states could pursue their own weapons program, setting the stage for a full-scale nuclear arms race in one of the world's most voliatle regions.
If the Obama Administration is worried about that scenario, it wasn't apparent on Sunday. There was the usual blather about the need to verify Iranian compliance and threats of additional sanctions if they don't. But it was also clear the White House and State Department were very pleased with themselves. Never mind that Iran essentially got what it wanted and still retains a "break out capability" to develop nuclear weapons, despite negotiated caps on Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities and slowed development of a heavy-water nuclear reactor, which can be used to produce plutonium.
Some would say that the Iranian nuclear deal lessens the possibility of an Israeli strike, since the agreement has the support of the U.S. and its major allies. But we would make the counter-argument; facing Iran on its own, Israel has little choice but to mount a military operation. And apparently, it has some rather surprising allies who are willing to support that effort. Afterall, the U.S. "negotiated" its way to a nuclear-capable North Korea. Why will Iran be any different? Against that backdrop, Israel has no other option.
The Forgotten Anchor
November marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. To a lesser degree, it is also remembered as (perhaps) the finest hour in the history of broadcast television, a moment when the medium reached its full potential, informing and--to some degree--unifying a nation in one of its darkest hours.
Much has been written about that fateful day in Dallas and the men and women who tried to cover the death of a President. Some, such as Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite, were already icons; for others, like Dan Rather, the JFK assassination became a career-changing moment. As one of the CBS correspondents on the scene, Rather played a pivotal role in the non-stop coverage that unfolded over the next four days. Within a few months, he was promoted to the White House beat, followed by other high-profile assignments in London, on "60 Minutes," and eventually, appointment as Cronkite's successor.
The long weekend also cemented the reputation of Frank McGee as one of NBC's most talented anchors. McGee had been recruited a few years earlier from an unlikely location--the network's affilate in Montgomery, Alabama.
Normally, network news executives preferred to hire new reporters from larger markets, or one of their owned-and-operated stations. But Montgomery was at the center of the civil rights story, and a number of NBC correspondents and producers had worked with McGee, who was news director and anchor at WSFA-TV. Impressed with his work, NBC offered him a job in New York, and he quickly became a mainstay on breaking news and political coverage.
When wire service teletypes began chattering with the first bulletins from Dallas, the network news divisions sprang into action. But in those days before cell phones, the internet, and lightweight cameras, getting on the air took a bit of effort. Walter Cronkite read CBS's first report off camera, while technicians moved cameras and lights into the newsroom.
NBC was equally unprepared for breaking news in the middle of the day. The network didn't have live programming during the 1 o'clock hour (eastern time), giving local stations a chance to air their own programs and providing a lunch break for much of the technical staff. The network's flagship station, WNBC-TV, was airing a re-run of the John Forsythe sitcom "Bachelor Father" when a news editor ran to the announcer's booth, where Don Pardon was on-duty for the local station and the network. He informed Pardo that President Kennedy had been shot; the network was interrupting programming and the NBC staff announcer would read a bulletin ripped from the news wires. At 1:45 pm, Pardo delivered the following update:
'PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS SHOT TODAY JUST AS HIS MOTORCADE LEFT DOWNTOWN DALLAS. MRS. KENNEDY JUMPED UP AND GRABBED MR. KENNEDY. SHE CRIED 'OH NO!' THE MOTORCADE SPED ON.
Pardo would deliver one more bulletin while NBC assembled its news talent in a small, paneled studio. Chet Huntley, one-half of the "Huntley-Brinkley" report was joined by Frank McGee and a third journalist, Bill Ryan. In 1963, Mr. Ryan was best-known as co-anchor of the "Ryan-Pressman Report," New York City's first 30-minute local newscast that aired on WNBC. He also anchored afternoon newscasts for NBC Radio; in fact, he was preparing the network's 2 pm radio news update when a staffer informed him of the assassination attempt and told him to join Huntley and McGee in the breaking news TV studio. The anchor trio began reporting the story at 1:53 pm, providing audio coverage over a bumper slide until NBC's cameras were ready, and began transmitting video four minutes later.
Over the next four days, Huntley, McGee and Ryan led much of NBC's coverage. But their work in the first few hours following the assassination set the tone for what followed. Despite enormous pressure and limited technology, they offered clear, concise coverage of the day's terrible events. Watching video of their work, viewers will note the lack of speculation and conjecture that so often clouds today's coverage of breaking news. The NBC anchors stuck to the facts, as did their colleagues at CBS and ABC.
While a number of journalists excelled on that tragic day, few performed better than Bill Ryan. Working with little more than wire service copy and phone reports from reporters in Dallas and Washington, Mr. Ryan was unflappable, delivering the grim news with an authority and context that was sometimes missing amid the chaos and horror of the moment. Interviewed years later about his long broadcasting career (and role in NBC's coverage of the JFK assassination), Don Pardo recalled "a local guy (Ryan)...who was very impressive." Fortunately, the networks recorded their coverage of that terrible day, and it can be viewed on YouTube, among other sites.
Indeed, Mr. Ryan and Frank McGee handled much of the anchor duties for NBC; Chet Huntley, the face of the network's news division, seemed a bit flustered on that fateful afternoon, and left the anchor desk before NBC concluded the day's coverage. He was in better form over the next three days, as NBC tried to gain ground against rival CBS.
At the time, NBC still led the evening news race, but CBS was widely praised for its coverage on the afternoon of JFK's assassination. Not only was Walter Cronkite on the air ahead of his rivals, CBS also benefitted from having more resources on the ground; they had multiple reporters covering the presidential visit to Texas and the network's Dallas affiliate (KRLD-TV) was handling the pool feed for the event.
For whatever reason, NBC elected not to take the feed, while ABC and CBS had access to that coverage. In fact, it was KRLD news director Eddie Barker who first reported that "something terrible" had happened as Kennedy's motorcade passed through Dealy Plaza. His comments were heard by Dan Rather, who immediately relayed that information to New York. By comparison, NBC had only one reporter on the scene--White House correspondent Robert MacNeil--who was working without a camera crew. Adding insult to injury, when Mr. MacNeil was able to contact the network newsroom in New York, an editor put his call on hold.
Despite those glitches, Bill Ryan did yeoman work for NBC on that afternoon in November, and over the days that followed. But oddly enough, he never reached the pinnacle of TV news. After 26 years at NBC, he moved into semi-retirement, working as a newsman at smaller stations along the east coast. On the 25th anniversary of the assassination, columnist Bob Greene found Mr. Ryan at West Virginia Public Television, serving as a senior reporter/producer, and hosting a weekly public affairs program.
In one of his few interviews on the assassination, Ryan remembered thinking that he "absolutely could not say the President was dead until he was 100% sure." He also recalled a lack of "human or emotional reactions" during that first afternoon. Instead, the NBC reporter was more focused on trying to provide coherent coverage from little more than AP and UPI wire copy, ripped from the teletype and handed to him. "Did I say this before? Do I give this information again?"
Mr. Ryan passed away in 1997, at the age of 72. Sadly, even the journalism world has largely forgotten his sterling, on-air performance under the most trying circumstances. But there are lessons to be learned from his steady, professional reporting--lessons largely lost in today's scramble to cover breaking news.
Watch almost any major story that unfolds quickly and you'll see rampant conjecture, almost non-existent sourcing and mistakes aplenty. Not too many months ago, many reporters were speculating (some would say hoping) that the individuals responsible for the Boston Marthon bombing were right-wing extremists. We all know how that turned out.
That's not to say that errors weren't made on November 22, 1963. But on the day when some say television came of age, there was remarkable work by many of the anchors who delivered the devastating news. One of those individuals was Bill Ryan. And he deserves praise for a job exceptionally well done, even if it comes 50 years late.
***
ADDENDUM: One of Mr. Ryan's daughters, Kate, followed him into journalism and works as a reporter for WTOP radio in Washington, D.C. She offered some thoughts on her father's work in a recent post on the station's website.
Much has been written about that fateful day in Dallas and the men and women who tried to cover the death of a President. Some, such as Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite, were already icons; for others, like Dan Rather, the JFK assassination became a career-changing moment. As one of the CBS correspondents on the scene, Rather played a pivotal role in the non-stop coverage that unfolded over the next four days. Within a few months, he was promoted to the White House beat, followed by other high-profile assignments in London, on "60 Minutes," and eventually, appointment as Cronkite's successor.
The long weekend also cemented the reputation of Frank McGee as one of NBC's most talented anchors. McGee had been recruited a few years earlier from an unlikely location--the network's affilate in Montgomery, Alabama.
Normally, network news executives preferred to hire new reporters from larger markets, or one of their owned-and-operated stations. But Montgomery was at the center of the civil rights story, and a number of NBC correspondents and producers had worked with McGee, who was news director and anchor at WSFA-TV. Impressed with his work, NBC offered him a job in New York, and he quickly became a mainstay on breaking news and political coverage.
When wire service teletypes began chattering with the first bulletins from Dallas, the network news divisions sprang into action. But in those days before cell phones, the internet, and lightweight cameras, getting on the air took a bit of effort. Walter Cronkite read CBS's first report off camera, while technicians moved cameras and lights into the newsroom.
NBC was equally unprepared for breaking news in the middle of the day. The network didn't have live programming during the 1 o'clock hour (eastern time), giving local stations a chance to air their own programs and providing a lunch break for much of the technical staff. The network's flagship station, WNBC-TV, was airing a re-run of the John Forsythe sitcom "Bachelor Father" when a news editor ran to the announcer's booth, where Don Pardon was on-duty for the local station and the network. He informed Pardo that President Kennedy had been shot; the network was interrupting programming and the NBC staff announcer would read a bulletin ripped from the news wires. At 1:45 pm, Pardo delivered the following update:
'PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS SHOT TODAY JUST AS HIS MOTORCADE LEFT DOWNTOWN DALLAS. MRS. KENNEDY JUMPED UP AND GRABBED MR. KENNEDY. SHE CRIED 'OH NO!' THE MOTORCADE SPED ON.
Pardo would deliver one more bulletin while NBC assembled its news talent in a small, paneled studio. Chet Huntley, one-half of the "Huntley-Brinkley" report was joined by Frank McGee and a third journalist, Bill Ryan. In 1963, Mr. Ryan was best-known as co-anchor of the "Ryan-Pressman Report," New York City's first 30-minute local newscast that aired on WNBC. He also anchored afternoon newscasts for NBC Radio; in fact, he was preparing the network's 2 pm radio news update when a staffer informed him of the assassination attempt and told him to join Huntley and McGee in the breaking news TV studio. The anchor trio began reporting the story at 1:53 pm, providing audio coverage over a bumper slide until NBC's cameras were ready, and began transmitting video four minutes later.
Over the next four days, Huntley, McGee and Ryan led much of NBC's coverage. But their work in the first few hours following the assassination set the tone for what followed. Despite enormous pressure and limited technology, they offered clear, concise coverage of the day's terrible events. Watching video of their work, viewers will note the lack of speculation and conjecture that so often clouds today's coverage of breaking news. The NBC anchors stuck to the facts, as did their colleagues at CBS and ABC.
While a number of journalists excelled on that tragic day, few performed better than Bill Ryan. Working with little more than wire service copy and phone reports from reporters in Dallas and Washington, Mr. Ryan was unflappable, delivering the grim news with an authority and context that was sometimes missing amid the chaos and horror of the moment. Interviewed years later about his long broadcasting career (and role in NBC's coverage of the JFK assassination), Don Pardo recalled "a local guy (Ryan)...who was very impressive." Fortunately, the networks recorded their coverage of that terrible day, and it can be viewed on YouTube, among other sites.
Indeed, Mr. Ryan and Frank McGee handled much of the anchor duties for NBC; Chet Huntley, the face of the network's news division, seemed a bit flustered on that fateful afternoon, and left the anchor desk before NBC concluded the day's coverage. He was in better form over the next three days, as NBC tried to gain ground against rival CBS.
At the time, NBC still led the evening news race, but CBS was widely praised for its coverage on the afternoon of JFK's assassination. Not only was Walter Cronkite on the air ahead of his rivals, CBS also benefitted from having more resources on the ground; they had multiple reporters covering the presidential visit to Texas and the network's Dallas affiliate (KRLD-TV) was handling the pool feed for the event.
For whatever reason, NBC elected not to take the feed, while ABC and CBS had access to that coverage. In fact, it was KRLD news director Eddie Barker who first reported that "something terrible" had happened as Kennedy's motorcade passed through Dealy Plaza. His comments were heard by Dan Rather, who immediately relayed that information to New York. By comparison, NBC had only one reporter on the scene--White House correspondent Robert MacNeil--who was working without a camera crew. Adding insult to injury, when Mr. MacNeil was able to contact the network newsroom in New York, an editor put his call on hold.
Despite those glitches, Bill Ryan did yeoman work for NBC on that afternoon in November, and over the days that followed. But oddly enough, he never reached the pinnacle of TV news. After 26 years at NBC, he moved into semi-retirement, working as a newsman at smaller stations along the east coast. On the 25th anniversary of the assassination, columnist Bob Greene found Mr. Ryan at West Virginia Public Television, serving as a senior reporter/producer, and hosting a weekly public affairs program.
In one of his few interviews on the assassination, Ryan remembered thinking that he "absolutely could not say the President was dead until he was 100% sure." He also recalled a lack of "human or emotional reactions" during that first afternoon. Instead, the NBC reporter was more focused on trying to provide coherent coverage from little more than AP and UPI wire copy, ripped from the teletype and handed to him. "Did I say this before? Do I give this information again?"
Mr. Ryan passed away in 1997, at the age of 72. Sadly, even the journalism world has largely forgotten his sterling, on-air performance under the most trying circumstances. But there are lessons to be learned from his steady, professional reporting--lessons largely lost in today's scramble to cover breaking news.
Watch almost any major story that unfolds quickly and you'll see rampant conjecture, almost non-existent sourcing and mistakes aplenty. Not too many months ago, many reporters were speculating (some would say hoping) that the individuals responsible for the Boston Marthon bombing were right-wing extremists. We all know how that turned out.
That's not to say that errors weren't made on November 22, 1963. But on the day when some say television came of age, there was remarkable work by many of the anchors who delivered the devastating news. One of those individuals was Bill Ryan. And he deserves praise for a job exceptionally well done, even if it comes 50 years late.
***
ADDENDUM: One of Mr. Ryan's daughters, Kate, followed him into journalism and works as a reporter for WTOP radio in Washington, D.C. She offered some thoughts on her father's work in a recent post on the station's website.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Greatest Day in History, Redux
...from this blog on Veteran's Day 2008: George Smiley's post on the 90th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, the "war to end all wars." As we noted on that occasion, popular history suggests the conflict ended with a whimper rather than a bang, as shell-shocked survivors emerged from the trenches as the guns fell silent on the 11th hour, of the 11th day of the 11th month.
But history is often wrong, and that long has been the case in regard to how World War I came to a close. Fact is, many Allied generals were opposed to the cease fire and ordered more attacks in the closing hours of the conflicts, hoping to regain more territory from the fading central powers. From Joseph Perisco's Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day 1918, which was published in 2005:
With the enemy in retreat, French, U.S. and British generals were anxious to press their advantage, even if an armistice was in the offing. That possibility first surfaced on the evening of 7 November, when a German delegation requested terms from Marshal Foch, the Allied Supreme Commander. "I have no proposals to make," Foch told the Germans, informing them that the war would continue while he obtained the consent of allied governments.
"...the senior American commander, General John J. Pershing, considered an armistice "equally repugnant." There can be "no conclusion until Germany is brought to her knees," he said. Conciliation, he claimed, would only lead to future war. Pershing wanted Germany's unconditional surrender.
So, the fighting dragged on, even when it became clear that the armistice would go into effect. The Germans didn't sign the agreement until the morning of the 11th, but radio traffic between various allied headquarters anticipated the war's end. However, few commanders issued orders aimed at limiting combat during the conflict's final hours.
So, the advance continued, with little regard for the cost. The British, still stung by their retreat from Mons, Belgium in the first year of the year, moved to recapture the city as the armistice approached. The commander of a French regiment issued two orders, for an attack to begin at 9 a.m., and to cease-fire at 11 a.m. Canadian troops also launched new assaults as the cease-fire loomed.
But it was the AEF, still a relative newcomer to the war, that launched some of the heaviest attacks in the final hours of the war. One of Pershing's Corps Commanders, Major General Charles Sumerall, ordered his Marines to cross the Meuse River under heavy fire. Hundreds were killed or wounded.
In another sector, an American division commander pressed his attack because the "unit lacked proper bathing facilities," putting (in Perisco's words) "cleanliness above survival." An artillery battery commander named Harry Truman put down one last barrage in the war's closing hours, giving his men a chance to test the "extended range" shells they had just received. In a letter to his wife, Truman expressed a desire to "scalp" a few Germans.
By various estimates, at least 300 American troops died between midnight and 11 a.m. on 11 November. But those numbers are suspect; they do not include casualties among U.S. units attached to British and French units. The actual total is believed to be much higher. Pershing's own, official report indicates that the last American died in battle at 10:59 a.m., only one minute before the armistice went into effect.
All told, as many as 10,000 soldiers were killed or wounded on the western front during the final, desperate hours before the cease-fire took hold. It was a microcosm of the entire conflict; thousands of lives squandered for no real purpose. In some cases, the gains on that last morning of the war were measuured in a few yards, as they had been for the previous four years. Troops in other sectors advanced several kilometers, but to no avail. The final boundaries would be set at Versailles by the assembled diplomats and politicians, with little regard for territory gained or lost on the morning of November 11, 1918.
To their credit, a few commanders on the western front knew the armistice was coming and ignored orders to advance. But they were a distinct minority on that final morning of the Great War. Too many officers were willing to send their troops--and themselves--into no-man's land for one last time, with no regard for what might be gained (or lost) in a final, futile charge.
But history is often wrong, and that long has been the case in regard to how World War I came to a close. Fact is, many Allied generals were opposed to the cease fire and ordered more attacks in the closing hours of the conflicts, hoping to regain more territory from the fading central powers. From Joseph Perisco's Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day 1918, which was published in 2005:
With the enemy in retreat, French, U.S. and British generals were anxious to press their advantage, even if an armistice was in the offing. That possibility first surfaced on the evening of 7 November, when a German delegation requested terms from Marshal Foch, the Allied Supreme Commander. "I have no proposals to make," Foch told the Germans, informing them that the war would continue while he obtained the consent of allied governments.
"...the senior American commander, General John J. Pershing, considered an armistice "equally repugnant." There can be "no conclusion until Germany is brought to her knees," he said. Conciliation, he claimed, would only lead to future war. Pershing wanted Germany's unconditional surrender.
So, the fighting dragged on, even when it became clear that the armistice would go into effect. The Germans didn't sign the agreement until the morning of the 11th, but radio traffic between various allied headquarters anticipated the war's end. However, few commanders issued orders aimed at limiting combat during the conflict's final hours.
So, the advance continued, with little regard for the cost. The British, still stung by their retreat from Mons, Belgium in the first year of the year, moved to recapture the city as the armistice approached. The commander of a French regiment issued two orders, for an attack to begin at 9 a.m., and to cease-fire at 11 a.m. Canadian troops also launched new assaults as the cease-fire loomed.
But it was the AEF, still a relative newcomer to the war, that launched some of the heaviest attacks in the final hours of the war. One of Pershing's Corps Commanders, Major General Charles Sumerall, ordered his Marines to cross the Meuse River under heavy fire. Hundreds were killed or wounded.
In another sector, an American division commander pressed his attack because the "unit lacked proper bathing facilities," putting (in Perisco's words) "cleanliness above survival." An artillery battery commander named Harry Truman put down one last barrage in the war's closing hours, giving his men a chance to test the "extended range" shells they had just received. In a letter to his wife, Truman expressed a desire to "scalp" a few Germans.
By various estimates, at least 300 American troops died between midnight and 11 a.m. on 11 November. But those numbers are suspect; they do not include casualties among U.S. units attached to British and French units. The actual total is believed to be much higher. Pershing's own, official report indicates that the last American died in battle at 10:59 a.m., only one minute before the armistice went into effect.
All told, as many as 10,000 soldiers were killed or wounded on the western front during the final, desperate hours before the cease-fire took hold. It was a microcosm of the entire conflict; thousands of lives squandered for no real purpose. In some cases, the gains on that last morning of the war were measuured in a few yards, as they had been for the previous four years. Troops in other sectors advanced several kilometers, but to no avail. The final boundaries would be set at Versailles by the assembled diplomats and politicians, with little regard for territory gained or lost on the morning of November 11, 1918.
To their credit, a few commanders on the western front knew the armistice was coming and ignored orders to advance. But they were a distinct minority on that final morning of the Great War. Too many officers were willing to send their troops--and themselves--into no-man's land for one last time, with no regard for what might be gained (or lost) in a final, futile charge.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
The Next Disaster
***
UPDATE/10 Nov/
The terms "backbone" and "France" are rarely mentioned in the same sentence, but today marks an exception to that general rule. According to various media accounts, the proposed nuclear deal between Iran, the United States and the EU powers fell apart when France objected to its generous terms.
Think about that for a moment. The socialist government of France is worried that the U.S. and its allies are going too easy on the mullahs and their nuclear program, while everyone else couldn't wait to sign on the dotted line. Call it a minor miracle. Call it a triumph of common sense.
Vive la France.
Incidentally, the nuclear talks are set to resume later this month, giving Secretary of State John Kerry a little time to "work" on his French counterparts. This "very bad deal" isn't dead yet.
***
It's scary to contemplate, but there may come a moment--in a matter of just weeks or months--when we'll look back on the failed Obamacare roll-out with a tinge of nostalgia.
You see, there is another debacle looming on the horizon, in the foreign policy arena. It's a catastrophe that will make a fatally-flawed health care plan look like a minor policy blunder. Borrowing a phrase from former President George H.W. Bush, what you "don't know about domestic policy" loses elections; what you don't know about foreign policy gets people killed. And a lot of people may die in the Middle East in relatively short order.
The door to disaster is being opened by an apparent deal between Washington and Tehran on the Iranian nuclear program. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Geneva today to join the talks, amid word that an agreement is near. While details have yet to be announced, sources suggest that Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear efforts, while giving up virtually nothing in return. At National Review, Elliott Abrams explains just how bad the proposed deal would be:
Iran gets billions of dollars in financial relief — the amount is unclear but relief from gold-trading sanctions alone is worth billions — and starts the process of reversing the sanctions momentum. Henceforth there will be fewer international sanctions, not more. In exchange, does it pull back from its nuclear-weapons program? From what we know now, it does not. Not one centrifuge is taken apart, as Netanyahu noted: There are 18,000 today, and 18,000 under this deal. Natanz and other sites remain intact. Not one ounce of enriched uranium is shipped overseas. Apparently Iran won’t enrich beyond 3.5 percent under this deal, but can build up limitless stocks of low-enriched uranium.
Abandoned here is the test of whether Iran needs any of this for a genuinely peaceful program; abandoned are the unanimous U.N. Security Council and IAEA Board resolutions that called for zero enrichment; abandoned is the test of whether Iran is truly further from a bomb.
[snip]
The Obama administration entered these negotiations from a position of strength; Iran needs sanctions reflief badly. But it acted as if we were the weak party, desperately seeking a deal, any dea. The wily Iranian negotiators smelled this instantly and struck.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was even more blunt, calling it "a very bad deal." He also noted that Israel is not bound by any agreement between the U.S. and Iran, and remains ready to defend its interests.
In an interview with NBC News, Mr. Obama said the current talks were not aimed at sanctions relief. But Eli Lake at The Daily Beast discovered that the U.S. began easing financial restrictions on Iran several months ago.
Bottom line: Iran's path to the nuclear club just got a lot easier, and the Middle East is quickly plunging into chaos. An Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now inevitable, and could lead to a wider, regional conflict.
There is also the spectre of a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf, involving some of Tehran's neighbors. The BBC reported earlier this week that Saudi Arabia has already "ordered" nuclear weapons from Pakistan and could take delivery shortly after Iran joins the nuclear club. The Saudis have been silent partners in Islamabad's nuclear program for years, with the understanding that the Paks would provide nuclear arms (and expertise) if Riyadh deems it necessary. Other Gulf states--including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar--might embark on similar efforts, to protect their own interests.
What about the U.S. nuclear umbrella? At this point, American credibility in the region is at a low ebb and many leaders have no faith in U.S. promises to defend them. That's why a senior Saudi official paid a highly-publicized visit to Moscow earlier this year and there have been recent overtures from the Egyptian military to their Russian counterparts, five decades after Anwar Sadat severed ties with the Soviet Union. No wonder Vladimir Putin is so anxious to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran; not only does his ally get a clear path to a nuclear capability, his own influence (and that of Russia) will grow significantly, as various Arab states look to Moscow for military hardware and security guarantees.
Why is the U.S. so intent on signing on to a very bad deal? Part of the answer can be found in Barack Obama's almost limitless faith in negotiations; if you can reach a deal (he apparently believes), you can somehow persuade the other side to live up to the agreement, no matter what their track record.
Consider the nuclear accord between the United States and North Korea, reached during the tenure of President George W. Bush. The agreement was supposed to curb Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions; instead, it allowed North Korea to covertly pursue a nuclear weapons capability while receiving energy aid and other forms of assistance for supposedly "complying" with the deal. There is no evidence that Iran will be any more compliant with any agreement it might reach with the U.S. and its allies.
Yet, the White House and the State Department are plunging blindly ahead, in part to satisfy the egos of the commander-in-chief and his secretary of state. Mr. Obama has long viewed himself as a transformational figure on the world stage, an image that was reinforced by his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize early in his first term. Never mind that President Obama had done nothing to actually earn the award; when read your press clippings long enough, you will finally start believing in your "powers." Besides, with the president's popularity in decline (thanks to Obamacare), a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran can certainly change the conversation.
Likewise, Secretary of State John Kerry is also in search of a legacy. Having failed to generate an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Kerry now has his sights on Iran, with no regard for the wider consequences. Perhaps he thinks the inevitable war, the regional nuclear arms race and the other, inevitable reprecussions can be delayed until 2017--or until Mr. Kerry retires to write his memoirs.
Worse yet, you can make a case that President Obama and John Kerry really don't care. Along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they have presided over an administration that has been openly hostile to Israel, to the point of openly complaining about having to deal with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Against that backdrop, is it any wonder that President Obama and our Secretary of State are rushing headlong into the worst diplomatic deal since Munich? One recalls Winston Churchill's famous reaction to that agreement, noting that England and France had a choice between dishonour and war; you "chose dishonour and you shall have war."
Then again, the current administration doesn't have much use for Mr. Churchill, either. As you'll recall, one of Mr. Obama's first "decorating" acts at the White House was to remove the bust of the late Prime Minister, which was unceremoniously returned to the British Embassy in 2009.
Mr. Churchill knew a few things about fixing disasters. We can only hope Mr. Obama's successor has similar skills.
UPDATE/10 Nov/
The terms "backbone" and "France" are rarely mentioned in the same sentence, but today marks an exception to that general rule. According to various media accounts, the proposed nuclear deal between Iran, the United States and the EU powers fell apart when France objected to its generous terms.
Think about that for a moment. The socialist government of France is worried that the U.S. and its allies are going too easy on the mullahs and their nuclear program, while everyone else couldn't wait to sign on the dotted line. Call it a minor miracle. Call it a triumph of common sense.
Vive la France.
Incidentally, the nuclear talks are set to resume later this month, giving Secretary of State John Kerry a little time to "work" on his French counterparts. This "very bad deal" isn't dead yet.
***
It's scary to contemplate, but there may come a moment--in a matter of just weeks or months--when we'll look back on the failed Obamacare roll-out with a tinge of nostalgia.
You see, there is another debacle looming on the horizon, in the foreign policy arena. It's a catastrophe that will make a fatally-flawed health care plan look like a minor policy blunder. Borrowing a phrase from former President George H.W. Bush, what you "don't know about domestic policy" loses elections; what you don't know about foreign policy gets people killed. And a lot of people may die in the Middle East in relatively short order.
The door to disaster is being opened by an apparent deal between Washington and Tehran on the Iranian nuclear program. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Geneva today to join the talks, amid word that an agreement is near. While details have yet to be announced, sources suggest that Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear efforts, while giving up virtually nothing in return. At National Review, Elliott Abrams explains just how bad the proposed deal would be:
Iran gets billions of dollars in financial relief — the amount is unclear but relief from gold-trading sanctions alone is worth billions — and starts the process of reversing the sanctions momentum. Henceforth there will be fewer international sanctions, not more. In exchange, does it pull back from its nuclear-weapons program? From what we know now, it does not. Not one centrifuge is taken apart, as Netanyahu noted: There are 18,000 today, and 18,000 under this deal. Natanz and other sites remain intact. Not one ounce of enriched uranium is shipped overseas. Apparently Iran won’t enrich beyond 3.5 percent under this deal, but can build up limitless stocks of low-enriched uranium.
Abandoned here is the test of whether Iran needs any of this for a genuinely peaceful program; abandoned are the unanimous U.N. Security Council and IAEA Board resolutions that called for zero enrichment; abandoned is the test of whether Iran is truly further from a bomb.
[snip]
The Obama administration entered these negotiations from a position of strength; Iran needs sanctions reflief badly. But it acted as if we were the weak party, desperately seeking a deal, any dea. The wily Iranian negotiators smelled this instantly and struck.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was even more blunt, calling it "a very bad deal." He also noted that Israel is not bound by any agreement between the U.S. and Iran, and remains ready to defend its interests.
In an interview with NBC News, Mr. Obama said the current talks were not aimed at sanctions relief. But Eli Lake at The Daily Beast discovered that the U.S. began easing financial restrictions on Iran several months ago.
Bottom line: Iran's path to the nuclear club just got a lot easier, and the Middle East is quickly plunging into chaos. An Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is now inevitable, and could lead to a wider, regional conflict.
There is also the spectre of a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf, involving some of Tehran's neighbors. The BBC reported earlier this week that Saudi Arabia has already "ordered" nuclear weapons from Pakistan and could take delivery shortly after Iran joins the nuclear club. The Saudis have been silent partners in Islamabad's nuclear program for years, with the understanding that the Paks would provide nuclear arms (and expertise) if Riyadh deems it necessary. Other Gulf states--including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar--might embark on similar efforts, to protect their own interests.
What about the U.S. nuclear umbrella? At this point, American credibility in the region is at a low ebb and many leaders have no faith in U.S. promises to defend them. That's why a senior Saudi official paid a highly-publicized visit to Moscow earlier this year and there have been recent overtures from the Egyptian military to their Russian counterparts, five decades after Anwar Sadat severed ties with the Soviet Union. No wonder Vladimir Putin is so anxious to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran; not only does his ally get a clear path to a nuclear capability, his own influence (and that of Russia) will grow significantly, as various Arab states look to Moscow for military hardware and security guarantees.
Why is the U.S. so intent on signing on to a very bad deal? Part of the answer can be found in Barack Obama's almost limitless faith in negotiations; if you can reach a deal (he apparently believes), you can somehow persuade the other side to live up to the agreement, no matter what their track record.
Consider the nuclear accord between the United States and North Korea, reached during the tenure of President George W. Bush. The agreement was supposed to curb Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions; instead, it allowed North Korea to covertly pursue a nuclear weapons capability while receiving energy aid and other forms of assistance for supposedly "complying" with the deal. There is no evidence that Iran will be any more compliant with any agreement it might reach with the U.S. and its allies.
Yet, the White House and the State Department are plunging blindly ahead, in part to satisfy the egos of the commander-in-chief and his secretary of state. Mr. Obama has long viewed himself as a transformational figure on the world stage, an image that was reinforced by his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize early in his first term. Never mind that President Obama had done nothing to actually earn the award; when read your press clippings long enough, you will finally start believing in your "powers." Besides, with the president's popularity in decline (thanks to Obamacare), a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran can certainly change the conversation.
Likewise, Secretary of State John Kerry is also in search of a legacy. Having failed to generate an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Mr. Kerry now has his sights on Iran, with no regard for the wider consequences. Perhaps he thinks the inevitable war, the regional nuclear arms race and the other, inevitable reprecussions can be delayed until 2017--or until Mr. Kerry retires to write his memoirs.
Worse yet, you can make a case that President Obama and John Kerry really don't care. Along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they have presided over an administration that has been openly hostile to Israel, to the point of openly complaining about having to deal with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Against that backdrop, is it any wonder that President Obama and our Secretary of State are rushing headlong into the worst diplomatic deal since Munich? One recalls Winston Churchill's famous reaction to that agreement, noting that England and France had a choice between dishonour and war; you "chose dishonour and you shall have war."
Then again, the current administration doesn't have much use for Mr. Churchill, either. As you'll recall, one of Mr. Obama's first "decorating" acts at the White House was to remove the bust of the late Prime Minister, which was unceremoniously returned to the British Embassy in 2009.
Mr. Churchill knew a few things about fixing disasters. We can only hope Mr. Obama's successor has similar skills.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Missing Man
When CBS presents its special on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, one key figure will be conspiciously absent.
And we're not referring to Walter Cronkite (or any of the journalists) who have moved on to that big newsroom in the sky. Instead, we refer to Dan Rather, the disgraced former anchor of the CBS Evening News who played a key role in the network's coverage of that fateful day. You won't see Mr. Rather on CBS on November 22nd; instead he will participate in NBC's coverage, led by Tom Brokaw.
On November 22, 1963, Rather was still a relative newcomer at CBS. He was the network's correspondent based in New Orleans, covering the southern United States, along with central and South America. Rather was posted there after a six-month initiation in New York (where his work was undistinguished, at best), and a brief stint in the Dallas bureau. He was one of several correspondents assigned to Kennedy's visit to Dallas, along with the late Lew Wood and Robert Pierpoint.
When shots rang out in Dealy Plaza, Rather hustled to Parkland Hospital, where the President and Texas Governor John Conolly were taken for treatment. As doctors battled to save Kennedy's life, Rather tried to gather updates from hospital staffers.
At one point, Rather was speaking simultaneously with producers at CBS Radio News in New York and a Catholic priest at the hospital. The cleric informed Rather that the president had died, a snippet that was overheard by producers on the phone. Asked if Kennedy was dead, Rather answered affirmatively, not realizing what would happen next. Moments later, veteran CBS radio anchor Alan Jackson intoned "The President of the United States is dead," and began reporting details of Kennedy's demise, citing Rather as a source. The CBS radio bulletin aired almost 15 minutes before Walter Cronkite and the TV team confirmed Kennedy's death. In his autobiography, Rather described that interval as the longest of his life.
It proved to be a career-making turn. He was promoted to the White House beat (for the first time) in 1964; reporting stints in London and Vietnam followed, putting Rather on the trajectory that eventually led to "60 Minutes" and eventually replacing Cronkite on the Evening News.
Of course, Rather's 44-year career at CBS ended in ignomy, amid the scandal of "Docugate." After being forced out at the network, Rather sued CBS for breach of contract, a case that was eventually tossed out. Giving your employer a colossal black eye--then taking them to court--won't win you many friends in the executive suite. So that's why "The Dan" (to use Bernie Goldberg's favored term) will appear in NBC's assassination coverage, and not on CBS.
But the snub of Dan Rather goes deeper than his scandalous departure from CBS and his subsequent legal action against the network. In his recent Cronkite biography, historian Douglas Brinkley reports that the legendary anchorman made a point to visit CBS Chairman Les Moonves on the morning after Rather's departure was announced. Cronkite assured Moonves that he "did the right thing," and Brinkley's book reveals a long-simmering feud between Rather and his predecessor.
Not only did "Uncle Walter" have issues with some of Dan's on-air antics (remember the "courage" sign-off?), it's also clear that he was a bit peeved at being forced from the anchor chair back in 1981. At the time, CBS had a "mandatory" retirement age of 65, but the rule was not always enforced, and eventually scrapped altogether (Mike Wallace remained a correspondent for "60 Minutes" well into his 80s). The real reason CBS pushed Cronkite into retirement was to retain the services of one Dan Rather. With their rising "star" threatening to bolt to ABC or NBC, the so-called Tiffany Network felt it had no other option than "retiring" Cronkite and giving his job to Rather.
As Goldberg (and others) have documented, Rather ran the CBS news division with a degree of cunning and ruthlessness that would have made Cardinal Richelieu turn green with envy. Rather relentlessly played favorites, and exiled correspondents and producers who crossed him. Ed Rabel left the network for NBC after running afoul of the anchor, and Bernie Goldberg was similarly shunned after his famous 1996 critique of network news, in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
So when Rather's career hit the rocks, virtually no one at CBS rushed to his rescue. And his circle of supporters shrank again when he filed that ill-fated lawsuit. Put another way, Dan Rather didn't burn his bridges at CBS, he absolutely nuked them. That's why he will spend November 22 in the company of Tom Brokaw, and not with his former network.
And we're not referring to Walter Cronkite (or any of the journalists) who have moved on to that big newsroom in the sky. Instead, we refer to Dan Rather, the disgraced former anchor of the CBS Evening News who played a key role in the network's coverage of that fateful day. You won't see Mr. Rather on CBS on November 22nd; instead he will participate in NBC's coverage, led by Tom Brokaw.
On November 22, 1963, Rather was still a relative newcomer at CBS. He was the network's correspondent based in New Orleans, covering the southern United States, along with central and South America. Rather was posted there after a six-month initiation in New York (where his work was undistinguished, at best), and a brief stint in the Dallas bureau. He was one of several correspondents assigned to Kennedy's visit to Dallas, along with the late Lew Wood and Robert Pierpoint.
When shots rang out in Dealy Plaza, Rather hustled to Parkland Hospital, where the President and Texas Governor John Conolly were taken for treatment. As doctors battled to save Kennedy's life, Rather tried to gather updates from hospital staffers.
At one point, Rather was speaking simultaneously with producers at CBS Radio News in New York and a Catholic priest at the hospital. The cleric informed Rather that the president had died, a snippet that was overheard by producers on the phone. Asked if Kennedy was dead, Rather answered affirmatively, not realizing what would happen next. Moments later, veteran CBS radio anchor Alan Jackson intoned "The President of the United States is dead," and began reporting details of Kennedy's demise, citing Rather as a source. The CBS radio bulletin aired almost 15 minutes before Walter Cronkite and the TV team confirmed Kennedy's death. In his autobiography, Rather described that interval as the longest of his life.
It proved to be a career-making turn. He was promoted to the White House beat (for the first time) in 1964; reporting stints in London and Vietnam followed, putting Rather on the trajectory that eventually led to "60 Minutes" and eventually replacing Cronkite on the Evening News.
Of course, Rather's 44-year career at CBS ended in ignomy, amid the scandal of "Docugate." After being forced out at the network, Rather sued CBS for breach of contract, a case that was eventually tossed out. Giving your employer a colossal black eye--then taking them to court--won't win you many friends in the executive suite. So that's why "The Dan" (to use Bernie Goldberg's favored term) will appear in NBC's assassination coverage, and not on CBS.
But the snub of Dan Rather goes deeper than his scandalous departure from CBS and his subsequent legal action against the network. In his recent Cronkite biography, historian Douglas Brinkley reports that the legendary anchorman made a point to visit CBS Chairman Les Moonves on the morning after Rather's departure was announced. Cronkite assured Moonves that he "did the right thing," and Brinkley's book reveals a long-simmering feud between Rather and his predecessor.
Not only did "Uncle Walter" have issues with some of Dan's on-air antics (remember the "courage" sign-off?), it's also clear that he was a bit peeved at being forced from the anchor chair back in 1981. At the time, CBS had a "mandatory" retirement age of 65, but the rule was not always enforced, and eventually scrapped altogether (Mike Wallace remained a correspondent for "60 Minutes" well into his 80s). The real reason CBS pushed Cronkite into retirement was to retain the services of one Dan Rather. With their rising "star" threatening to bolt to ABC or NBC, the so-called Tiffany Network felt it had no other option than "retiring" Cronkite and giving his job to Rather.
As Goldberg (and others) have documented, Rather ran the CBS news division with a degree of cunning and ruthlessness that would have made Cardinal Richelieu turn green with envy. Rather relentlessly played favorites, and exiled correspondents and producers who crossed him. Ed Rabel left the network for NBC after running afoul of the anchor, and Bernie Goldberg was similarly shunned after his famous 1996 critique of network news, in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
So when Rather's career hit the rocks, virtually no one at CBS rushed to his rescue. And his circle of supporters shrank again when he filed that ill-fated lawsuit. Put another way, Dan Rather didn't burn his bridges at CBS, he absolutely nuked them. That's why he will spend November 22 in the company of Tom Brokaw, and not with his former network.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
What Obama Knew
Call it the "Sergeant Schultz defense." In response to almost any controversy, we are told that President Obama "knew nothing," recalling the famous line from Master Sergeant Hans Georg Schultz, the inept POW camp guard in the 60s TV sitcom, Hogan's Heroes.
Of course, the actor who played Schultz (John Banner) had a reason for feigning ignorance; he was potraying a character who was supposed to be bumbling. Mr. Banner preferred it that way; he was a Jewish refugee who fled the Nazis in the late 1930s, a path followed by co-stars Werner Klemperer and Leon Askin. All three lost family members in the Holocaust, and they found it ironic that many of their on-screen roles were Nazis or German soldiers.
So what is Mr. Obama's excuse? Pick any scandal, from Benghazi to the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and the President was out of the loop. Never mind that he participated in a White House meeting on the security of our diplomatic facilities the day before the attack in Libya (emphasis ours), or that the IRS commissioner visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on numerous occasions, while the agency was systematically denying tax-exempt status to various Tea Party organizations. Borrowing a line from another famous know-nothing (Vichy police Captain Louis Renault in Cascablanca), Mr. Obama must have been "shocked....shocked to learn such things were going on during his administration.
Ordinarily, such sophistry wouldn't get past the mainstream media, but with most of the press corps carrying water for the administration, they've been willing to take Mr. Obama at his word, however dubious it may be. So whenever the President runs into trouble, he simply borrows a page from the guard at Stalag 13, and feigns ignorance. Of course, it certainly helps that the mainstream media has helped sustain this charade; whenever the President claims he learned about the latest scandal in the morning paper, the stenographers in the White House press corps go to dramatic lengths to figure why he was uniformed.
Consider the latest revelations from the NSA global surveillance scandal. In recent weeks, we've learned that the agency has spied on virtually everyone, including the Pope; leaders in Brazil and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. News that NSA intercepted Ms. Merkel's cell phone conversations prompted an angry call from the German leader to President Obama. In response, we assume that he gave the same, lame explanation that he's been offering the American public. That's right, the American President had no idea that the NSA was monitoring the communications of his foreign counterparts.
Naturally, that excuse has more holes than a block of Swiss. First, isolating the phone traffic of the German Chancellor--out of billons of cell calls made daily--was a rather impressive feat of spycraft. Secondly, the contents of such conversations aren't part of the daily haul, disseminated to all consumers with access to TS/SCI information, via JWICS. If we had to guess, we'd say the Merkel conversations were part of a SAP/SAR initiative (Special Access Program/Special Access Required). That means that only a handful of individuals in the U.S. government were briefed on the material, and participants had to sign a special non-disclosure agreement for that specific program.
It's also likely that such high-value intelligence found its way into the Presidential Daily Brief on a recurring basis. So, if the reporting didn't identify Ms. Merkel by name, her identity was probably no secret, based on how the "source" was described. If one of the participants in a phone call is identified as "a foreign leader," and the conversation relates to German government business, then it's fairly easy to deduce that we were eavesdropping on Ms. Merkel, even if you're as uncurious as Barack Obama.
And if that's no enough, there are enough senior intelligence officials involved with the PDB to answer any questions about sources and methods that might arise. So far, no one in the press corps has bothered to ask if Mr Obama ever inquired about how we were getting such good information on the personal thoughts and positions of the German Chancellor.
To be fair, plausible denial is a standard tactic in the intelligence business. When the Russians shot down that U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers in 1960, Washington first claimed that the aircraft (and its CIA pilot) were on a weather reconnaissance mission. Needless to say, that excuse didn't last very long, despite Washington's best efforts to distance the Eisenhower administration from a major intelligence embarassment. The U-2 incident reminds us that even plausible cover stories are sometime overcome by the truth, and there's a certain moment when you have to come clean. It will be curious to see how long Mr. Obama and his handlers cling to the "no nothing" defense.
Indeed, Mr. Obama's denials may be undercut by his own spooks. Intel vets basically quickly dismissed at the President's claims, according to Shane Harris and Noah Shachtman at Foreign Policy:
A former White House official, who served in a prior administration, said it was essentially impossible that the president wouldn't know foreign leaders were being monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, and principally the NSA, as part of regular operations aimed at keeping him informed about diplomatic relations and negotiations. Information on foreign leaders that is based on recorded calls or other signals intelligence is "unique," the former official said, and its nature is obvious to anyone reading or hearing an intelligence report or receiving a briefing.
"If you saw it, you'd know that it came out of somebody's mouth," the former official said. "I cannot believe that [Obama's national security staff] didn't brief the president on foreign leaders when he was going in to visit with them." Much of that information would have comes from signals intelligence. And the failure to inform the president that a piece of information came from spying on a leader could be a fireable offense, the former White House official said. "It's almost a dereliction not to tell him."
To date, no one has been dismissed from the White House staff--or the NSA--because Mr. Obama "wasn't informed" about surveillance activities directed against dozens of world leaders.
Draw your own conclusions.
Of course, the actor who played Schultz (John Banner) had a reason for feigning ignorance; he was potraying a character who was supposed to be bumbling. Mr. Banner preferred it that way; he was a Jewish refugee who fled the Nazis in the late 1930s, a path followed by co-stars Werner Klemperer and Leon Askin. All three lost family members in the Holocaust, and they found it ironic that many of their on-screen roles were Nazis or German soldiers.
So what is Mr. Obama's excuse? Pick any scandal, from Benghazi to the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and the President was out of the loop. Never mind that he participated in a White House meeting on the security of our diplomatic facilities the day before the attack in Libya (emphasis ours), or that the IRS commissioner visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on numerous occasions, while the agency was systematically denying tax-exempt status to various Tea Party organizations. Borrowing a line from another famous know-nothing (Vichy police Captain Louis Renault in Cascablanca), Mr. Obama must have been "shocked....shocked to learn such things were going on during his administration.
Ordinarily, such sophistry wouldn't get past the mainstream media, but with most of the press corps carrying water for the administration, they've been willing to take Mr. Obama at his word, however dubious it may be. So whenever the President runs into trouble, he simply borrows a page from the guard at Stalag 13, and feigns ignorance. Of course, it certainly helps that the mainstream media has helped sustain this charade; whenever the President claims he learned about the latest scandal in the morning paper, the stenographers in the White House press corps go to dramatic lengths to figure why he was uniformed.
Consider the latest revelations from the NSA global surveillance scandal. In recent weeks, we've learned that the agency has spied on virtually everyone, including the Pope; leaders in Brazil and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. News that NSA intercepted Ms. Merkel's cell phone conversations prompted an angry call from the German leader to President Obama. In response, we assume that he gave the same, lame explanation that he's been offering the American public. That's right, the American President had no idea that the NSA was monitoring the communications of his foreign counterparts.
Naturally, that excuse has more holes than a block of Swiss. First, isolating the phone traffic of the German Chancellor--out of billons of cell calls made daily--was a rather impressive feat of spycraft. Secondly, the contents of such conversations aren't part of the daily haul, disseminated to all consumers with access to TS/SCI information, via JWICS. If we had to guess, we'd say the Merkel conversations were part of a SAP/SAR initiative (Special Access Program/Special Access Required). That means that only a handful of individuals in the U.S. government were briefed on the material, and participants had to sign a special non-disclosure agreement for that specific program.
It's also likely that such high-value intelligence found its way into the Presidential Daily Brief on a recurring basis. So, if the reporting didn't identify Ms. Merkel by name, her identity was probably no secret, based on how the "source" was described. If one of the participants in a phone call is identified as "a foreign leader," and the conversation relates to German government business, then it's fairly easy to deduce that we were eavesdropping on Ms. Merkel, even if you're as uncurious as Barack Obama.
And if that's no enough, there are enough senior intelligence officials involved with the PDB to answer any questions about sources and methods that might arise. So far, no one in the press corps has bothered to ask if Mr Obama ever inquired about how we were getting such good information on the personal thoughts and positions of the German Chancellor.
To be fair, plausible denial is a standard tactic in the intelligence business. When the Russians shot down that U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers in 1960, Washington first claimed that the aircraft (and its CIA pilot) were on a weather reconnaissance mission. Needless to say, that excuse didn't last very long, despite Washington's best efforts to distance the Eisenhower administration from a major intelligence embarassment. The U-2 incident reminds us that even plausible cover stories are sometime overcome by the truth, and there's a certain moment when you have to come clean. It will be curious to see how long Mr. Obama and his handlers cling to the "no nothing" defense.
Indeed, Mr. Obama's denials may be undercut by his own spooks. Intel vets basically quickly dismissed at the President's claims, according to Shane Harris and Noah Shachtman at Foreign Policy:
A former White House official, who served in a prior administration, said it was essentially impossible that the president wouldn't know foreign leaders were being monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, and principally the NSA, as part of regular operations aimed at keeping him informed about diplomatic relations and negotiations. Information on foreign leaders that is based on recorded calls or other signals intelligence is "unique," the former official said, and its nature is obvious to anyone reading or hearing an intelligence report or receiving a briefing.
"If you saw it, you'd know that it came out of somebody's mouth," the former official said. "I cannot believe that [Obama's national security staff] didn't brief the president on foreign leaders when he was going in to visit with them." Much of that information would have comes from signals intelligence. And the failure to inform the president that a piece of information came from spying on a leader could be a fireable offense, the former White House official said. "It's almost a dereliction not to tell him."
To date, no one has been dismissed from the White House staff--or the NSA--because Mr. Obama "wasn't informed" about surveillance activities directed against dozens of world leaders.
Draw your own conclusions.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Nuclear Blues
The Air Force's troubled nuclear enterprise is in hot water--again.
According to the Associated Press, at least two missile launch crews have been caught napping this year with the blast door open on their underground command post. Regulations stipulate that the massive door--designed to keep terrorists and other threats from gaining access to the launch center and its nuclear codes--can remain open if both crew members are awake, but must be shut if one is asleep.
Sources tell the AP that numerous violations of the rule have occured, but so far, only two crews have been punished. One of the crews was assigned to the 91st Missile Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota, while the other is part of the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana. Both of those units (along with the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming) is responsible for 150 nuclear-armed Minuteman III ICBMs, dispersed in silos up to 100 miles from each installation. Individual launch crews are responsible for 10 missiles and train for the unthinkable--unleashing nuclear armageddon, if directed by the national command authority.
The blast door violation is merely the latest black eye for USAF nuclear units. Earlier this year, 17 missile launch officers at Minot were temporarily decertified for nuclear duty after an inspection revealed problems with their performance. A separate evaluation led to a failing grade for the 341st Wing at Malmstrom, after discrepancies were discovered in a security forces group assigned to protect the missile fields. The commander of that unit, Colonel David Lynch, was subsequently fired.
And earlier this month, the Air Force relieved Major General Michael Carey, commander of 20th Air Force, the "parent" organization for the three missile wings. An Air Force spokesman said Carey's dismissal was related to "personal misconduct" during a temporary duty assignment and was not sexual in nature, or related to U.S. nuclear operations.
Sadly, this latest round of dismissals, failed inspections and disciplinary actions is hardly new. We've been documenting problems in Air Force nuclear units for more than six years, dating back to an infamous 2007 incident where nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were mistakenly transferred from Minot to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Warheads on the missiles (which were being retired from active service) were supposed to be removed before being flown to Barksdale, but various Air Force personnel, ranging from munitions specialists to the crew of the ferry aircraft, failed to notice that the weapons were still armed.
Since then, the service has suffered through more busted evaluations, more dismissals and more disciplinary actions, yet the problems persist. In the interim, the Air Force has spent millions on additional training and the creation of a new organization (Global Strike Command), measures that were supposed to fix the problems and provide a new level of direction and leadership for strategic nuclear units.
But if the recent rash of problems is any indication, GSC has a way to go. And that invites some rather obvious questions, beginning with the issue of accountability. How much blame (if any) should be assigned to senior leadership, beginning with Lieutenant General James Kowalski, the current commander. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, General Kowalski blamed missile blast door problem on a breakdown in discipline among a handful of crews. That's certainly a factor, but given the recent string of failures, it would seem that GSC's problems go beyond a few missileers who don't follow checklists. Apparently, the AP didn't ask General Kowalski how much of the blame for the Air Force's nuclear woes fall on his shoulders, and those of his leadership team.
Indeed, when the 91st Missile Wing experienced its latest failures, senior leadership at Minot expressed concern about "rot" within the crew force. That's a rather damning indictment, given the gravity of the mission assigned to missile crews, most of whom are in their early 20s and serving their first or second operational assignment. And, when you factor in the issues that have affected Air Force bomb wings in recent years, there should be genuine concern about problems facing the service's nuclear units and why they persist to this day.
In fairness, it should be noted that the nuclear mission is extraordinarily demanding, with no room for error. Failure in a single area during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI) means the wing flunks the entire evaluation, as evidenced by the security problems at Malmstrom earlier this year. Additionally, inspections are now conducted on a no-notice basis, which means nuclear units must train and prepare constantly, never knowing when the evaluators will show up at the gate.
But that doesn't excuse the epidemic of failures, either. The Air Force isn't the only service entrusted with the strategic mission. Much of the nation's nuclear deterrent resides with the Navy's fleet of ballistic missile submarines, and there have been virtually no reports of inspection failures among those units. Similarly, there have been few failures among tactical nuclear units in all the branches of the military. Those organizations must also meet exacting standards for nuclear security, maintenance and operations, yet their evaluation record has been much better in recent years. Has anyone bothered to ask why the tactical nuke community has fared better, and what lessons (if any) might be adopted by Air Force strategic units?
And that brings us back to that nagging issue of accountability. Back in the glory days of Strategic Air Command (SAC), the nation's bomber and missile forces remained razor-sharp, a legacy of General Curtis LeMay and his insistence on the highest standards for units under his command. But with the end of SAC more than 20 years ago (and the end of the Soviet threat), focus on the nuclear mission became blurred and standards eroded. Nuclear duty, particularly in places like North Dakota and Wyoming, became something to be avoided, if at all possible. With the advent of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear specialists were sometimes deployed for jobs far beyond their expertise, serving as interrogators and prison guards. Predictably, training and readiness continued to suffer, culminating in the Barksdale debacle and subsequent failures. Along the way, a few Colonels and scores of lower-ranking personnel lost their jobs, but flag officers generally escaped blame.
Case-in-point? Colonel Michael Fortney presided over two failed inspections as commander of the missile wing at Malmstrom between 2008-2010. Yet, he was still promoted to Brigader General and today serves as Director of Operations at Global Strike Command. Some of the O-6s who lost their jobs over similar failures must be scratching their heads, along with those missileers who got hammered for various infractions in recent months.
As for General Kowalski, he has been confirmed as the next Vice Commander of US Strategic Command, which directs all of the nation's nuclear bomber, ballistic missile submarine and land-based ICBM forces. His predecessor, Navy Vice Admiral Timothy Giardina, was recently fired amid allegations that he used counterfeit chips while gambling at a casino in Iowa. Giardina has been reassigned to the Navy staff in Washington (and reverts to two-star rank), but there seems little doubt that he will be allowed to retire as a flag officer. As for Generals Fortney and Kowalski, their careers are still moving along, and some have speculated that Kowalski's new job is a stepping stone to command of STRATCOM.
There is plenty of blame to go around for continuing problems in the Air Force nuclear community. And those failures will likely continue, as along as accountability remains selective in nature.
According to the Associated Press, at least two missile launch crews have been caught napping this year with the blast door open on their underground command post. Regulations stipulate that the massive door--designed to keep terrorists and other threats from gaining access to the launch center and its nuclear codes--can remain open if both crew members are awake, but must be shut if one is asleep.
Sources tell the AP that numerous violations of the rule have occured, but so far, only two crews have been punished. One of the crews was assigned to the 91st Missile Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota, while the other is part of the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana. Both of those units (along with the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming) is responsible for 150 nuclear-armed Minuteman III ICBMs, dispersed in silos up to 100 miles from each installation. Individual launch crews are responsible for 10 missiles and train for the unthinkable--unleashing nuclear armageddon, if directed by the national command authority.
The blast door violation is merely the latest black eye for USAF nuclear units. Earlier this year, 17 missile launch officers at Minot were temporarily decertified for nuclear duty after an inspection revealed problems with their performance. A separate evaluation led to a failing grade for the 341st Wing at Malmstrom, after discrepancies were discovered in a security forces group assigned to protect the missile fields. The commander of that unit, Colonel David Lynch, was subsequently fired.
And earlier this month, the Air Force relieved Major General Michael Carey, commander of 20th Air Force, the "parent" organization for the three missile wings. An Air Force spokesman said Carey's dismissal was related to "personal misconduct" during a temporary duty assignment and was not sexual in nature, or related to U.S. nuclear operations.
Sadly, this latest round of dismissals, failed inspections and disciplinary actions is hardly new. We've been documenting problems in Air Force nuclear units for more than six years, dating back to an infamous 2007 incident where nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were mistakenly transferred from Minot to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Warheads on the missiles (which were being retired from active service) were supposed to be removed before being flown to Barksdale, but various Air Force personnel, ranging from munitions specialists to the crew of the ferry aircraft, failed to notice that the weapons were still armed.
Since then, the service has suffered through more busted evaluations, more dismissals and more disciplinary actions, yet the problems persist. In the interim, the Air Force has spent millions on additional training and the creation of a new organization (Global Strike Command), measures that were supposed to fix the problems and provide a new level of direction and leadership for strategic nuclear units.
But if the recent rash of problems is any indication, GSC has a way to go. And that invites some rather obvious questions, beginning with the issue of accountability. How much blame (if any) should be assigned to senior leadership, beginning with Lieutenant General James Kowalski, the current commander. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, General Kowalski blamed missile blast door problem on a breakdown in discipline among a handful of crews. That's certainly a factor, but given the recent string of failures, it would seem that GSC's problems go beyond a few missileers who don't follow checklists. Apparently, the AP didn't ask General Kowalski how much of the blame for the Air Force's nuclear woes fall on his shoulders, and those of his leadership team.
Indeed, when the 91st Missile Wing experienced its latest failures, senior leadership at Minot expressed concern about "rot" within the crew force. That's a rather damning indictment, given the gravity of the mission assigned to missile crews, most of whom are in their early 20s and serving their first or second operational assignment. And, when you factor in the issues that have affected Air Force bomb wings in recent years, there should be genuine concern about problems facing the service's nuclear units and why they persist to this day.
In fairness, it should be noted that the nuclear mission is extraordinarily demanding, with no room for error. Failure in a single area during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI) means the wing flunks the entire evaluation, as evidenced by the security problems at Malmstrom earlier this year. Additionally, inspections are now conducted on a no-notice basis, which means nuclear units must train and prepare constantly, never knowing when the evaluators will show up at the gate.
But that doesn't excuse the epidemic of failures, either. The Air Force isn't the only service entrusted with the strategic mission. Much of the nation's nuclear deterrent resides with the Navy's fleet of ballistic missile submarines, and there have been virtually no reports of inspection failures among those units. Similarly, there have been few failures among tactical nuclear units in all the branches of the military. Those organizations must also meet exacting standards for nuclear security, maintenance and operations, yet their evaluation record has been much better in recent years. Has anyone bothered to ask why the tactical nuke community has fared better, and what lessons (if any) might be adopted by Air Force strategic units?
And that brings us back to that nagging issue of accountability. Back in the glory days of Strategic Air Command (SAC), the nation's bomber and missile forces remained razor-sharp, a legacy of General Curtis LeMay and his insistence on the highest standards for units under his command. But with the end of SAC more than 20 years ago (and the end of the Soviet threat), focus on the nuclear mission became blurred and standards eroded. Nuclear duty, particularly in places like North Dakota and Wyoming, became something to be avoided, if at all possible. With the advent of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear specialists were sometimes deployed for jobs far beyond their expertise, serving as interrogators and prison guards. Predictably, training and readiness continued to suffer, culminating in the Barksdale debacle and subsequent failures. Along the way, a few Colonels and scores of lower-ranking personnel lost their jobs, but flag officers generally escaped blame.
Case-in-point? Colonel Michael Fortney presided over two failed inspections as commander of the missile wing at Malmstrom between 2008-2010. Yet, he was still promoted to Brigader General and today serves as Director of Operations at Global Strike Command. Some of the O-6s who lost their jobs over similar failures must be scratching their heads, along with those missileers who got hammered for various infractions in recent months.
As for General Kowalski, he has been confirmed as the next Vice Commander of US Strategic Command, which directs all of the nation's nuclear bomber, ballistic missile submarine and land-based ICBM forces. His predecessor, Navy Vice Admiral Timothy Giardina, was recently fired amid allegations that he used counterfeit chips while gambling at a casino in Iowa. Giardina has been reassigned to the Navy staff in Washington (and reverts to two-star rank), but there seems little doubt that he will be allowed to retire as a flag officer. As for Generals Fortney and Kowalski, their careers are still moving along, and some have speculated that Kowalski's new job is a stepping stone to command of STRATCOM.
There is plenty of blame to go around for continuing problems in the Air Force nuclear community. And those failures will likely continue, as along as accountability remains selective in nature.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Your Tax Dollars Take Flight
If you're near Andrews AFB in the Washington, DC area (or MacDill AFB in Tampa) later this week, look up and watch. You'll see hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars fly by, in close formation.
The money is being spent to fly Congress to Florida for the funeral of long-time representative C.W. "Bill" Young, who died last week at the age of 82. Mr. Young spent 43 years in the House of Representatives, and served as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 1999-2005. During his long career in Congress, Young was known as a tireless champion of the U.S. military and veterans' causes. He was the longest-serving Republican in the House at the time of his death.
By all accounts, Congressman Young was an able public servant, and deserving of an appropriate send-off from friends and colleagues. So, it's not surprising that Congressional leaders decided to suspend the current session for a couple of days, so members could attend Mr. Young's funeral. Nothing wrong with that.
But there's something disconcerting about plans for getting Congressmen and Senators to Florida for the memorial service. It was announced today that the Air Force will fly the Congressional contingent to the Sunshine State, so they can pay last respects to their late colleague. That certainly simplifies transportation arrangements for the trip, but it also incurs a rather large tab for the taxpayer.
Let's say 150 members of the House and Senate decide to attend Mr. Young's funeral; given his decades of service, that sort of turn-out wouldn't be unprecedented. So, you've got to fly scores of members from both chambers to Florida, along with a smaller number of staffers. For argument's sake, we'll put the total contingent at 200. By mobilizing most of its C-32 fleet (five of six aircraft), the Air Force can get the group from Andrews to Tampa (and back again) for "only" $847,920.
Figure it this way: each C-32 (the military version of a Boeing 757) seats 45 people very comfortably. So, you need five C-32s to haul the Congressional delegation to Florida. It costs $42,396 to operate a single C-32 for one hour of flying time; round-trip between Andrews and MacDill is just over four hours. So, it will cost the taxpayers at least $169,584 for each C-32 flight, and a whopping $847,920 for five aircraft. That assumes, of course, that the Air Force can muster five C-32s, since those aircraft are sometimes out of service for maintenance, or assigned to other missions.
Other options for the trip include the VC-25, the Boeing 747 that has the callsign of Air Force One when the President is on-board. The VC-25 has room for 75 passengers, but it's operating cost is pegged at $181,000 a hour. So, the cost of flying that jet to Tampa is somewhere around $750,000. The Air Force also has a fleet of business jets, including Gulfstream IIIs and G550s, which can carry up to 19 passengers--at a cost of $32,000 per flying hour. Obviously, you'd need quite a few business jets to ferry the Congressional delegation to Florida, but hey, when you've just raised the debt limit (again), who's going to quibble over a paltry million or so?
Are there cheaper options? If it was up to us, we'd cram the legislative group into the cargo bay of a C-17 transport, in troop seats, with a grumpy loadmaster passing out box lunches. A single C-17 can carry up to 134 passengers in that configuration, so you'd only need a couple of Globemaster IIIs to carry the Congressmen (and women) to Tampa. And at $23,000 per flying hour, it's a relative bargain. Of course, our legislative betters wouldn't stand for those spartan accomodations, so don't expect the Capitol Hill crowd to travel in C-17s.
We should also mention that any member of Congress can purchase a round-trip ticket from Reagan National to Tampa International for for an average of $468, on USAir or Jet Blue, with plenty of convenient departure and return flight options. Total cost for flying 200 Congressmen and staffers to Florida? Only $93,600, roughly the cost of 30 minutes flying time on a VC-25. If the delegation is smaller, the savings to the taxpayer would be even greater. But then again, this is the same "group" that voted a $174,000 death benefit to the widow of a recently-deceased U.S. Senator who left an estate valued at $50 million. They will provide a similar gratuity to Congressman Young's wife in the coming weeks. Saving money isn't exactly at the top of their agenda.
Bill Young deserves to be remembered as a dedicated and honorable public servant who did much for the men and women who wear the nation's uniform. But it's also a shame that the public observation of his life brings out the worst in Congress, which is happy to stick taxpayers with a huge bill for military airlift, instead of traveling like The Rest of Us.
***
ADDENDUM: Reader Vigilis reminds us that Congress adopted new austerity measures earlier this year, aimed at reducing their use of military aircraft. Naturally, those restrictions went out the window when large delegations flew to Hawaii for the funeral of Senator Daniel Inouye, and to New Jersey for services honoring the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. So, when a ranking Republican member died, the GOP was happy to follow protocol, and requested VIP airlift from the USAF.
One more note: while the aircraft used to ferry Congressmen around the world belong to Air Mobility Command (AMC), the actual flights are coordinated through the office of the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Larry Spencer. Nothing unusual about that; the vice chief has been the point man for VIP flights for decades. Can't leave those missions up to some low-ranking staff officer; after all, the Air Force is keenly aware of who approves its budget, so when Congress needs a jet for a funeral or junket, the service is only happy to comply.
The money is being spent to fly Congress to Florida for the funeral of long-time representative C.W. "Bill" Young, who died last week at the age of 82. Mr. Young spent 43 years in the House of Representatives, and served as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 1999-2005. During his long career in Congress, Young was known as a tireless champion of the U.S. military and veterans' causes. He was the longest-serving Republican in the House at the time of his death.
By all accounts, Congressman Young was an able public servant, and deserving of an appropriate send-off from friends and colleagues. So, it's not surprising that Congressional leaders decided to suspend the current session for a couple of days, so members could attend Mr. Young's funeral. Nothing wrong with that.
But there's something disconcerting about plans for getting Congressmen and Senators to Florida for the memorial service. It was announced today that the Air Force will fly the Congressional contingent to the Sunshine State, so they can pay last respects to their late colleague. That certainly simplifies transportation arrangements for the trip, but it also incurs a rather large tab for the taxpayer.
Let's say 150 members of the House and Senate decide to attend Mr. Young's funeral; given his decades of service, that sort of turn-out wouldn't be unprecedented. So, you've got to fly scores of members from both chambers to Florida, along with a smaller number of staffers. For argument's sake, we'll put the total contingent at 200. By mobilizing most of its C-32 fleet (five of six aircraft), the Air Force can get the group from Andrews to Tampa (and back again) for "only" $847,920.
Figure it this way: each C-32 (the military version of a Boeing 757) seats 45 people very comfortably. So, you need five C-32s to haul the Congressional delegation to Florida. It costs $42,396 to operate a single C-32 for one hour of flying time; round-trip between Andrews and MacDill is just over four hours. So, it will cost the taxpayers at least $169,584 for each C-32 flight, and a whopping $847,920 for five aircraft. That assumes, of course, that the Air Force can muster five C-32s, since those aircraft are sometimes out of service for maintenance, or assigned to other missions.
Other options for the trip include the VC-25, the Boeing 747 that has the callsign of Air Force One when the President is on-board. The VC-25 has room for 75 passengers, but it's operating cost is pegged at $181,000 a hour. So, the cost of flying that jet to Tampa is somewhere around $750,000. The Air Force also has a fleet of business jets, including Gulfstream IIIs and G550s, which can carry up to 19 passengers--at a cost of $32,000 per flying hour. Obviously, you'd need quite a few business jets to ferry the Congressional delegation to Florida, but hey, when you've just raised the debt limit (again), who's going to quibble over a paltry million or so?
Are there cheaper options? If it was up to us, we'd cram the legislative group into the cargo bay of a C-17 transport, in troop seats, with a grumpy loadmaster passing out box lunches. A single C-17 can carry up to 134 passengers in that configuration, so you'd only need a couple of Globemaster IIIs to carry the Congressmen (and women) to Tampa. And at $23,000 per flying hour, it's a relative bargain. Of course, our legislative betters wouldn't stand for those spartan accomodations, so don't expect the Capitol Hill crowd to travel in C-17s.
We should also mention that any member of Congress can purchase a round-trip ticket from Reagan National to Tampa International for for an average of $468, on USAir or Jet Blue, with plenty of convenient departure and return flight options. Total cost for flying 200 Congressmen and staffers to Florida? Only $93,600, roughly the cost of 30 minutes flying time on a VC-25. If the delegation is smaller, the savings to the taxpayer would be even greater. But then again, this is the same "group" that voted a $174,000 death benefit to the widow of a recently-deceased U.S. Senator who left an estate valued at $50 million. They will provide a similar gratuity to Congressman Young's wife in the coming weeks. Saving money isn't exactly at the top of their agenda.
Bill Young deserves to be remembered as a dedicated and honorable public servant who did much for the men and women who wear the nation's uniform. But it's also a shame that the public observation of his life brings out the worst in Congress, which is happy to stick taxpayers with a huge bill for military airlift, instead of traveling like The Rest of Us.
***
ADDENDUM: Reader Vigilis reminds us that Congress adopted new austerity measures earlier this year, aimed at reducing their use of military aircraft. Naturally, those restrictions went out the window when large delegations flew to Hawaii for the funeral of Senator Daniel Inouye, and to New Jersey for services honoring the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. So, when a ranking Republican member died, the GOP was happy to follow protocol, and requested VIP airlift from the USAF.
One more note: while the aircraft used to ferry Congressmen around the world belong to Air Mobility Command (AMC), the actual flights are coordinated through the office of the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Larry Spencer. Nothing unusual about that; the vice chief has been the point man for VIP flights for decades. Can't leave those missions up to some low-ranking staff officer; after all, the Air Force is keenly aware of who approves its budget, so when Congress needs a jet for a funeral or junket, the service is only happy to comply.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
The Gathering Storm (Long-Range Training Edition)
Like other modern militaries, the Israeli Air Force routinely conducts long-range training missions, sharpening navigation and air refueling skills that would be needed for a strike against a distant target like Iran.
However, the IAF doesn't always publicize such efforts. For starters, such missions occur on a regular basis, and the Israelis don't see a need to publicize routine training. There's also the matter of operational security; no reason to give your enemies any "free" information.
That's why it was a bit surprising that the Israelis announced a recent long-range training mission in Greece. According to Haaretz, IAF "fighter squadrons" took part in an exercise with Hellenic air and ground units earlier this week. The Israeli Air Force even posted pictures of the event on its website, though the location was not disclosed. Still, it didn't take much effort for the Israeli and Greek media to discover where the IAF was training, and what the drill was aimed at replicating--a mission against Iran:
"Israeli Air Force fighter squadrons have carried out exercises testing their capability to conduct missions at long ranges from base, the Israeli military said Thursday. The drills included air-to-air refueling and dogfights against foreign combat planes.
A report on New Greek TV last Friday, citing the Hellenic Air Force, said the Greek air force took part in the exercises "under a joint military cooperation program."
The drill, with the participation of Israeli F-15s and F-16s and Greek aircraft and naval units, will be carried out in the western Peloponnese and the Myrtoon Pelagos on October 8-9, the report said.
Obviously, the drill sent a not-so-subtle signal to Iran, which recently reaffirmed its "right" to enrich uranium. During his recent speech at the U.N., Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the "softer" rhetoric of Iran's new leader, Hasan Rouhani is nothing more than a trick, aimed at persuading the west to remove sanctions against Tehran.
Not too many years ago, Israel conducted this type of training in Turkey. But with the rise of Islamists in Ankara, the IAF has found a new partner in Greece. Flying north across the Mediterranean not only gives the Israelis a chance to rehearse long-range missions, they can also train against a NATO air force, operating fourth generation fighters.
But training in Greece offers one more attraction. The Greeks operate the advanced, Russian-made S-300 SAM system, acquired from their Cypriot brethren. And while Moscow has never made good on expected S-300 sales to Iran and Syria, the system will likely show up sooner or later in one--or both--countries. As part of their drills, it's a fair bet that IAF pilots flew against the S-300, allowing them to further refine tactics that would be used when they face those missiles in Syria, or Iran.
However, the IAF doesn't always publicize such efforts. For starters, such missions occur on a regular basis, and the Israelis don't see a need to publicize routine training. There's also the matter of operational security; no reason to give your enemies any "free" information.
That's why it was a bit surprising that the Israelis announced a recent long-range training mission in Greece. According to Haaretz, IAF "fighter squadrons" took part in an exercise with Hellenic air and ground units earlier this week. The Israeli Air Force even posted pictures of the event on its website, though the location was not disclosed. Still, it didn't take much effort for the Israeli and Greek media to discover where the IAF was training, and what the drill was aimed at replicating--a mission against Iran:
"Israeli Air Force fighter squadrons have carried out exercises testing their capability to conduct missions at long ranges from base, the Israeli military said Thursday. The drills included air-to-air refueling and dogfights against foreign combat planes.
A report on New Greek TV last Friday, citing the Hellenic Air Force, said the Greek air force took part in the exercises "under a joint military cooperation program."
The drill, with the participation of Israeli F-15s and F-16s and Greek aircraft and naval units, will be carried out in the western Peloponnese and the Myrtoon Pelagos on October 8-9, the report said.
Obviously, the drill sent a not-so-subtle signal to Iran, which recently reaffirmed its "right" to enrich uranium. During his recent speech at the U.N., Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the "softer" rhetoric of Iran's new leader, Hasan Rouhani is nothing more than a trick, aimed at persuading the west to remove sanctions against Tehran.
Not too many years ago, Israel conducted this type of training in Turkey. But with the rise of Islamists in Ankara, the IAF has found a new partner in Greece. Flying north across the Mediterranean not only gives the Israelis a chance to rehearse long-range missions, they can also train against a NATO air force, operating fourth generation fighters.
But training in Greece offers one more attraction. The Greeks operate the advanced, Russian-made S-300 SAM system, acquired from their Cypriot brethren. And while Moscow has never made good on expected S-300 sales to Iran and Syria, the system will likely show up sooner or later in one--or both--countries. As part of their drills, it's a fair bet that IAF pilots flew against the S-300, allowing them to further refine tactics that would be used when they face those missiles in Syria, or Iran.
Told Ya So...
We predicted more than two years ago that Katie Couric wasn't exactly a good fit for daytime TV. But that didn't deter the suits at Disney/ABC, who green-lighted her afternoon talk show, in Oprah Winfrey's old time slot.
It was supposed to be a sure thing; after all, Ms. Couric ruled the roost as co-host of the once-dominant "Today" show. Of course, her stint in the anchor chair at the "CBS Evening News" was something of a debacle; the evening newscast remained mired in third place throughout her five years on the job and ratings actually declined with her at the helm--no mean feat, considering the hole dug by her predecessor, Dan Rather.
Still, the smart boys at girls at Disney were undeterred. The Couric talk fest was given an annual budget of $50 million, roughly twice that of competing shows. The host's salary accounted for roughly 40% of total, meaning that Couric actually got a pay raise from the $15 million a year she was making at CBS. It was supposed to be a smart investment; plenty of TV executives saw "Katie" as a sure thing.
Now, that "sure thing" appears headed for cancellation. From The Hollywood Reporter:
"One of the TV's priciest daytime experiments soon could be coming to an end. Stations throughout the U.S. are contracted to carry Katie Couric's syndicated talk show through summer 2014, but the decision on whether Katiewill score a third season likely will be made this month -- and renewal seems a long shot.
[snip]
Disney/ABC projected the reteaming of Couric with her Todayexecutive producer Jeff Zucker would average a 2.5 household rating, which would have made Katie one of the biggest syndicated launches. Instead, it averaged a 1.7 during its first season and a 1.8 so far this season. (A Couric spokesman insists she never approved the 2.5 projection.)
[snip]
Katie insiders say the problem is that Couric has refused to shape shows with softer features to appeal to daytime's key 25-to-54-year-old female demo, insisting instead on the kind of harder-edged interviews she enjoyed on Today and her stint as anchor of CBS Evening News.
Couric's show has also been plagued by a constant turnover of key personnel. Still, the biggest problem may be the host herself. In a previous article, The Hollywood Reporter cited results of recent "likeability" surveys on various daytime TV hosts; Couric finished near the bottom, viewed favorably by only 10% of the audience and unfavorably by 21%. By comparison, Ellen DeGeneres has favorable and unfavorable "Q" scores of 29 and 10% respectively.
It's worth noting that the survey was conducted among female viewers, the key demo for any daytime talk show. If women aren't watching Katie now, there's little reason to believe they will tune in next year. Incidentally, the likeability data was almost certainly leaked by Disney execs (to signal an impending cancellation), or by rival production firms, who would like to put their own shows on stations now carrying Katie.
Meanwhile, Couric's smaller-than-expected audience is driving down ratings for the late afternoon/early evening news shows on many local stations. Among that group are the eight TV stations owned by Disney/ABC; most dominate the local news ratings in their markets, but with a poor lead-in from the Couric show, their audience may also shrink, driving down revenues from an all-important profit center.
There are also reports that Disney is working on a vehicle for "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts, though both the host and the network deny those claims. Still, there is no doubt that Ms. Roberts is far more popular than Couric; since assuming the lead role on GMA, that program has become the dominant morning program on network TV, ending "Today's" long run in the top slot.
While I never reached the executive suite during my days in the broadcasting salt mines, Katie Couric's failure as a talk show host is anything but a surprise. Many viewers consider her shrill, strident, and biased, qualities that don't wear well on an afternoon talk show.
But don't shed any tears for The Perky One. by various accounts, she is already in talks with Yahoo and CNN about possible deals when her current contract with ABC expires next summer. Other speculation centers on a possible return to "Today," although her long-time co-host Matt Laurer is expected to depart next year, and it's doubtful NBC would give her the type of contract she wants. On the other hand, Couric's former executive producer Jeff Zucker is now running CNN, which remains ratings-challenged. Given their long association, it's not hard to envision Couric getting a fat contract with that network, giving her the opportunity to "fail up" once more.
A final note for the program development folks at Disney/ABC. If you need a consultant to help you find a replacement for Katie, give us a call. We'll give better advice (and at a lower price) that you received two years ago, when Couric in the afternoons seemed like such a good idea.
It was supposed to be a sure thing; after all, Ms. Couric ruled the roost as co-host of the once-dominant "Today" show. Of course, her stint in the anchor chair at the "CBS Evening News" was something of a debacle; the evening newscast remained mired in third place throughout her five years on the job and ratings actually declined with her at the helm--no mean feat, considering the hole dug by her predecessor, Dan Rather.
Still, the smart boys at girls at Disney were undeterred. The Couric talk fest was given an annual budget of $50 million, roughly twice that of competing shows. The host's salary accounted for roughly 40% of total, meaning that Couric actually got a pay raise from the $15 million a year she was making at CBS. It was supposed to be a smart investment; plenty of TV executives saw "Katie" as a sure thing.
Now, that "sure thing" appears headed for cancellation. From The Hollywood Reporter:
"One of the TV's priciest daytime experiments soon could be coming to an end. Stations throughout the U.S. are contracted to carry Katie Couric's syndicated talk show through summer 2014, but the decision on whether Katiewill score a third season likely will be made this month -- and renewal seems a long shot.
[snip]
Disney/ABC projected the reteaming of Couric with her Todayexecutive producer Jeff Zucker would average a 2.5 household rating, which would have made Katie one of the biggest syndicated launches. Instead, it averaged a 1.7 during its first season and a 1.8 so far this season. (A Couric spokesman insists she never approved the 2.5 projection.)
[snip]
Katie insiders say the problem is that Couric has refused to shape shows with softer features to appeal to daytime's key 25-to-54-year-old female demo, insisting instead on the kind of harder-edged interviews she enjoyed on Today and her stint as anchor of CBS Evening News.
Couric's show has also been plagued by a constant turnover of key personnel. Still, the biggest problem may be the host herself. In a previous article, The Hollywood Reporter cited results of recent "likeability" surveys on various daytime TV hosts; Couric finished near the bottom, viewed favorably by only 10% of the audience and unfavorably by 21%. By comparison, Ellen DeGeneres has favorable and unfavorable "Q" scores of 29 and 10% respectively.
It's worth noting that the survey was conducted among female viewers, the key demo for any daytime talk show. If women aren't watching Katie now, there's little reason to believe they will tune in next year. Incidentally, the likeability data was almost certainly leaked by Disney execs (to signal an impending cancellation), or by rival production firms, who would like to put their own shows on stations now carrying Katie.
Meanwhile, Couric's smaller-than-expected audience is driving down ratings for the late afternoon/early evening news shows on many local stations. Among that group are the eight TV stations owned by Disney/ABC; most dominate the local news ratings in their markets, but with a poor lead-in from the Couric show, their audience may also shrink, driving down revenues from an all-important profit center.
There are also reports that Disney is working on a vehicle for "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts, though both the host and the network deny those claims. Still, there is no doubt that Ms. Roberts is far more popular than Couric; since assuming the lead role on GMA, that program has become the dominant morning program on network TV, ending "Today's" long run in the top slot.
While I never reached the executive suite during my days in the broadcasting salt mines, Katie Couric's failure as a talk show host is anything but a surprise. Many viewers consider her shrill, strident, and biased, qualities that don't wear well on an afternoon talk show.
But don't shed any tears for The Perky One. by various accounts, she is already in talks with Yahoo and CNN about possible deals when her current contract with ABC expires next summer. Other speculation centers on a possible return to "Today," although her long-time co-host Matt Laurer is expected to depart next year, and it's doubtful NBC would give her the type of contract she wants. On the other hand, Couric's former executive producer Jeff Zucker is now running CNN, which remains ratings-challenged. Given their long association, it's not hard to envision Couric getting a fat contract with that network, giving her the opportunity to "fail up" once more.
A final note for the program development folks at Disney/ABC. If you need a consultant to help you find a replacement for Katie, give us a call. We'll give better advice (and at a lower price) that you received two years ago, when Couric in the afternoons seemed like such a good idea.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Simply Shameful
If you're looking to make a charitable donation in the near future, please consider the Fisher House Foundation. Not only does that wonderful organization provide temporary lodging for military families visiting their wounded warriors--at no cost--they also stepped up when the Pentagon failed the familes of armed forces personnel recently killed in Afghanistan.
As you might have heard, the military stopped paying the $100,000 death benefit to the survivors of military members who died in the line of duty. That meant the families of four soldiers and one Marine who were killed recently not only had lost the death gratuity; they also had to pay their way to Dover AFB, Delaware to meet the remains of their loved ones. From Dan Riehl at Breitbart.com:
""Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time," said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. "However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones serving in the Department of Defense."
That must be reassuring for spouses, parents, siblings and other relatives who must deal with the loss of a loved one and a military that can't pay promised benefits. So, the Fisher House stepped in and agreed to pay the gratuity (and travel expenses for family members) until the government can get its act together. Supposedly, the feds will reimburse the charity at some point down the road. Realizing it had a p.r. disaster on its hands, the Obama Administration tried to blame Congressional Republicans and dispatched both Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Secretary John McHugh to Dover, as the remains of four soliders returned to American soil. It was Mr. Hagel's first visit to Dover after more than seven months in his post. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner claimed there was no reason for the interruption in payments. Mr. Boehner said a bill passed by Congress last week--and signed by President Obama--gave the Pentagon wide latitude to pay all kinds of bills, including the death benefit. And he may have a point. Republican staffers on the Hill began hearing rumblings about the suspension of death benefits--after the funding bill was approved. But if you believe the administration's version of events, lawyers and accountants at the Pentagon analyzed the measure and decided it didn't cover death benefits. As a retired officer, I can assure you there are plenty of insensitive and stupid people in the DoD bureaucracy. Still, it's absolutely stunning that senior officials could interpret an omnibus military funding bill and decide it didn't cover the death gratuity and related benefits. Then again, these "leaders" are part of the same cabal that determined the government shutdown required the closing of open-air monuments. Such "decisions" suggest a deliberate effort to inflict pain--and score political points. That's not to say the GOP is not without blame. If there was any doubt about the continuation of death benefits, Republicans should have passed a separate measure to cover those accounts. The Pentagon Comptroller warned that death benefits might be suspended back on 27 September, giving lawmakers--and the White House--plenty of time to ensure that funding continued. Ed Henry of Fox News also discovered that Obama aides knew about the situation "a few days ago," but did nothing. Asked about the scandal at the White House, Press Secretary Jay Carney couldn't say when the president became aware of the situation, only that he expected Congress to "fix" the problem. What leadership. Here's a dirty little secret. Even during shutdowns, DoD has large sums of money squirreled away in accounts and programs that are little more cutouts. Some of the funds are used to pay for covert operations and other sensitive programs. It takes a little fiscal maeuvering to move that money to other accounts, but it can be done. A friend of mine, a retired Air Force budget officer, once related the story of how the U.S. paid a European ally for "special" basing rights for U-2 flights over Libya during the 1980s. The money was transferred through an account that belonged to another federal agency, under the aegis of an insect eradication program. Are today's Pentagon comptrollers any less creative than their counterparts from 30 years ago? And if that's not bad enough, here's the final insult. While the Fisher House is temporarily paying death benefits for fall service members, Secretary Hagel's executive dining room at the Pentagon remains open for business, according to military analyst Ralph Peters. After all, the SecDef can't go without his gourmet fare, especially after those short-notice trips to Dover.
As you might have heard, the military stopped paying the $100,000 death benefit to the survivors of military members who died in the line of duty. That meant the families of four soldiers and one Marine who were killed recently not only had lost the death gratuity; they also had to pay their way to Dover AFB, Delaware to meet the remains of their loved ones. From Dan Riehl at Breitbart.com:
""Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time," said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. "However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones serving in the Department of Defense."
That must be reassuring for spouses, parents, siblings and other relatives who must deal with the loss of a loved one and a military that can't pay promised benefits. So, the Fisher House stepped in and agreed to pay the gratuity (and travel expenses for family members) until the government can get its act together. Supposedly, the feds will reimburse the charity at some point down the road. Realizing it had a p.r. disaster on its hands, the Obama Administration tried to blame Congressional Republicans and dispatched both Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Secretary John McHugh to Dover, as the remains of four soliders returned to American soil. It was Mr. Hagel's first visit to Dover after more than seven months in his post. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner claimed there was no reason for the interruption in payments. Mr. Boehner said a bill passed by Congress last week--and signed by President Obama--gave the Pentagon wide latitude to pay all kinds of bills, including the death benefit. And he may have a point. Republican staffers on the Hill began hearing rumblings about the suspension of death benefits--after the funding bill was approved. But if you believe the administration's version of events, lawyers and accountants at the Pentagon analyzed the measure and decided it didn't cover death benefits. As a retired officer, I can assure you there are plenty of insensitive and stupid people in the DoD bureaucracy. Still, it's absolutely stunning that senior officials could interpret an omnibus military funding bill and decide it didn't cover the death gratuity and related benefits. Then again, these "leaders" are part of the same cabal that determined the government shutdown required the closing of open-air monuments. Such "decisions" suggest a deliberate effort to inflict pain--and score political points. That's not to say the GOP is not without blame. If there was any doubt about the continuation of death benefits, Republicans should have passed a separate measure to cover those accounts. The Pentagon Comptroller warned that death benefits might be suspended back on 27 September, giving lawmakers--and the White House--plenty of time to ensure that funding continued. Ed Henry of Fox News also discovered that Obama aides knew about the situation "a few days ago," but did nothing. Asked about the scandal at the White House, Press Secretary Jay Carney couldn't say when the president became aware of the situation, only that he expected Congress to "fix" the problem. What leadership. Here's a dirty little secret. Even during shutdowns, DoD has large sums of money squirreled away in accounts and programs that are little more cutouts. Some of the funds are used to pay for covert operations and other sensitive programs. It takes a little fiscal maeuvering to move that money to other accounts, but it can be done. A friend of mine, a retired Air Force budget officer, once related the story of how the U.S. paid a European ally for "special" basing rights for U-2 flights over Libya during the 1980s. The money was transferred through an account that belonged to another federal agency, under the aegis of an insect eradication program. Are today's Pentagon comptrollers any less creative than their counterparts from 30 years ago? And if that's not bad enough, here's the final insult. While the Fisher House is temporarily paying death benefits for fall service members, Secretary Hagel's executive dining room at the Pentagon remains open for business, according to military analyst Ralph Peters. After all, the SecDef can't go without his gourmet fare, especially after those short-notice trips to Dover.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Silver Lining (Government Shutdown Edition)
Contrary to what you hear from Harry Reid and the mainstream media, there is (at least) one silver lining to the current government shutdown. For at least a few days, the slackers, activists and criminals who inhabit the federal workforce won't be on the job.
Case in point? Meet John Beale, the former EPA official who bilked the government out of at least $1 million dollars by (among other things), running a bogus research project that allowed him to visit family members in California, and faking a back injury that required him to fly first class on government business trips. A single jaunt to London cost taxpayers at least $14,000, when a coach seat was available on the same flight for only $1,000.
But Beale was just getting started. His masterpiece was wrangling a four-day workweek at EPA (with full pay) by claiming that he had a one-day-a-week gig at the CIA. More on the environmental "secret agent man" from Fox News:
A high-ranking federal Environmental Protection Agency official who admitted to cheating the government out of nearly $1 million by pretending to be a secret agent, smugly refused to answer questions from lawmakers Tuesday, invoking the Fifth Amendment – even though he’s already pleaded guilty.
John Beale, who got himself a cushy four-day workweek for years by telling his bosses he had a one-day-per-week gig at the CIA, refused to answer even the most basic questions from Rep. Darryl Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Although Issa said his committee hauled Beale, 64, in not to “ridicule” him, but to ensure that the fraud he committed wasn’t being duplicated by other government employees, Beale calmly refused.
“I will be asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege this morning,” Beale, who also lied to superiors about serving in Vietnam, told a visibly frustrated Issa.
Beale’s trickery, which began more than a decade ago, cost taxpayers an estimated $886,000, much of it in the form of unearned pay over some 13 years. Under his plea agreement, he must pay that money back, as well as an additional $507,000, and serve 30-37 months in prison. His lawyer told the panel that his plea agreement did not require him to cooperate with lawmakers, though Issa said he would seek to make it a condition of acceptance of the plea and sentencing by U.S. District Judge Ellen Segel Huvelle.
Mr. Beale began his deception in 2000, when he claimed to be part of an inter-agency task force that was based at CIA Headquarters. So, every Friday for more than seven years, his EPA calendar indicated he was working at Langley. But until recently, no one bothered to confirm his "association" with the spy agency. In fact, Beale took six months off from his EPA duties in 2008, while supposedly serving with the CIA in Pakistan. Cell phone records from period indicate that Beale was actually at his vacation home in Massachusetts.
The charade finally came to an end when EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy questioned some of the expenses claimed by Beale. An investigation by the agency's assistant inspector general quickly uncovered the long-running fraud. In other words, someone finally picked up the phone and called the CIA, which confirmed that Beale had never worked for them.
During its probe, IG personnel interviewed more than 40 EPA staffers. Only one suspected that Beale's claims of being a secret agent were false. Apparently, there are a lot of stupid people employed at the agency, or they didn't want to rock the boat by making accusations against a high-ranking official.
Beale was called before Congressman Issa's committee in an effort to determine the scope of the problem. But don't expect answers from the soon-to-be-federal-inmate, or his former colleagues at EPA. Investigators found an "absence of even basic controls" at the agency, suggesting that employees can work outside their office or travel for official-sounding reasons, and no one bothers to validate their claims.
If your taxpayer blood isn't boiling by now, here are two more facts that should provoke immediate outrage. Under federal rules, IG personnel cannot compel former federal employees to talk. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there was a mini-exodus from EPA about the time the brown matter hit the fan. So far, we don't know how many of the 40 personnel contacted by the IG were "retired" by the time the investigation began.
Leading that parade was none other than John Beale. He submitted his retirement papers just before the IG began its work. That means Mr. Beale is already collecting a federal pension and will continue to receive a check during his stay in the federal pokey. Who says crime doesn't pay?
****ADDENDUM***
And just because some of those EPA employees may be retired, it doesn't mean they still aren't latched onto the government teat. It's almost certain that some who left under the cloud created by Beale are back in the building as consultants or contractors. It's the federal way.
A few years back, there was a wave of dismissals at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) office in Dayton, OH, after it was discovered that a military staffer had stolen almost $1 million by creating phony invoices from non-existent vendors. Because all of the invoices were for less than $100,000 ("budget dust," in the federal lexicon), no one caught onto the crime until he had pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the wake of this rampant fraud, a number of personnel, military and civilian, were fired. Investigators believed that some of the staffers may have engaged in similar activity, or ignored what was going on. Predictably, most of the civilians who lost their jobs were eventually rehired after arbitration, or they were brought back as contractors, because of their essential "expertise."
As for the military member (Air Force) who actually went to jail, he never cooperated with investigators and served a five-year sentence at Levenworth. After being released, he returned to Ohio and reportedly bought a house. Pretty remarkable, considering that federal prisoners only earn $25 a month.
With much of the federal bureaucracy now idle, taxpayers can take comfort in knowing that the crooks and deadbeats are at home for a few days, and not getting paid. Then again, fraudsters in the John Beale mode were either already at home (with pay), or had themselves classified as "essential personnel."
In fairness, there are federal employees who earn every dime of their paycheck--and then some. But in my own experience as a civil servant, I found those hard-working federal staffers were far out-numbered by the goldbricks, malcontents, office politicians, incompetents and yes, criminals, who dominate Uncle Sam's workforce. For them, the government shut-down should be considered a reward for a job badly done--assuming, of course, they actually attempt to work.
Case in point? Meet John Beale, the former EPA official who bilked the government out of at least $1 million dollars by (among other things), running a bogus research project that allowed him to visit family members in California, and faking a back injury that required him to fly first class on government business trips. A single jaunt to London cost taxpayers at least $14,000, when a coach seat was available on the same flight for only $1,000.
But Beale was just getting started. His masterpiece was wrangling a four-day workweek at EPA (with full pay) by claiming that he had a one-day-a-week gig at the CIA. More on the environmental "secret agent man" from Fox News:
A high-ranking federal Environmental Protection Agency official who admitted to cheating the government out of nearly $1 million by pretending to be a secret agent, smugly refused to answer questions from lawmakers Tuesday, invoking the Fifth Amendment – even though he’s already pleaded guilty.
John Beale, who got himself a cushy four-day workweek for years by telling his bosses he had a one-day-per-week gig at the CIA, refused to answer even the most basic questions from Rep. Darryl Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Although Issa said his committee hauled Beale, 64, in not to “ridicule” him, but to ensure that the fraud he committed wasn’t being duplicated by other government employees, Beale calmly refused.
“I will be asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege this morning,” Beale, who also lied to superiors about serving in Vietnam, told a visibly frustrated Issa.
Beale’s trickery, which began more than a decade ago, cost taxpayers an estimated $886,000, much of it in the form of unearned pay over some 13 years. Under his plea agreement, he must pay that money back, as well as an additional $507,000, and serve 30-37 months in prison. His lawyer told the panel that his plea agreement did not require him to cooperate with lawmakers, though Issa said he would seek to make it a condition of acceptance of the plea and sentencing by U.S. District Judge Ellen Segel Huvelle.
Mr. Beale began his deception in 2000, when he claimed to be part of an inter-agency task force that was based at CIA Headquarters. So, every Friday for more than seven years, his EPA calendar indicated he was working at Langley. But until recently, no one bothered to confirm his "association" with the spy agency. In fact, Beale took six months off from his EPA duties in 2008, while supposedly serving with the CIA in Pakistan. Cell phone records from period indicate that Beale was actually at his vacation home in Massachusetts.
The charade finally came to an end when EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy questioned some of the expenses claimed by Beale. An investigation by the agency's assistant inspector general quickly uncovered the long-running fraud. In other words, someone finally picked up the phone and called the CIA, which confirmed that Beale had never worked for them.
During its probe, IG personnel interviewed more than 40 EPA staffers. Only one suspected that Beale's claims of being a secret agent were false. Apparently, there are a lot of stupid people employed at the agency, or they didn't want to rock the boat by making accusations against a high-ranking official.
Beale was called before Congressman Issa's committee in an effort to determine the scope of the problem. But don't expect answers from the soon-to-be-federal-inmate, or his former colleagues at EPA. Investigators found an "absence of even basic controls" at the agency, suggesting that employees can work outside their office or travel for official-sounding reasons, and no one bothers to validate their claims.
If your taxpayer blood isn't boiling by now, here are two more facts that should provoke immediate outrage. Under federal rules, IG personnel cannot compel former federal employees to talk. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there was a mini-exodus from EPA about the time the brown matter hit the fan. So far, we don't know how many of the 40 personnel contacted by the IG were "retired" by the time the investigation began.
Leading that parade was none other than John Beale. He submitted his retirement papers just before the IG began its work. That means Mr. Beale is already collecting a federal pension and will continue to receive a check during his stay in the federal pokey. Who says crime doesn't pay?
****ADDENDUM***
And just because some of those EPA employees may be retired, it doesn't mean they still aren't latched onto the government teat. It's almost certain that some who left under the cloud created by Beale are back in the building as consultants or contractors. It's the federal way.
A few years back, there was a wave of dismissals at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) office in Dayton, OH, after it was discovered that a military staffer had stolen almost $1 million by creating phony invoices from non-existent vendors. Because all of the invoices were for less than $100,000 ("budget dust," in the federal lexicon), no one caught onto the crime until he had pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the wake of this rampant fraud, a number of personnel, military and civilian, were fired. Investigators believed that some of the staffers may have engaged in similar activity, or ignored what was going on. Predictably, most of the civilians who lost their jobs were eventually rehired after arbitration, or they were brought back as contractors, because of their essential "expertise."
As for the military member (Air Force) who actually went to jail, he never cooperated with investigators and served a five-year sentence at Levenworth. After being released, he returned to Ohio and reportedly bought a house. Pretty remarkable, considering that federal prisoners only earn $25 a month.
With much of the federal bureaucracy now idle, taxpayers can take comfort in knowing that the crooks and deadbeats are at home for a few days, and not getting paid. Then again, fraudsters in the John Beale mode were either already at home (with pay), or had themselves classified as "essential personnel."
In fairness, there are federal employees who earn every dime of their paycheck--and then some. But in my own experience as a civil servant, I found those hard-working federal staffers were far out-numbered by the goldbricks, malcontents, office politicians, incompetents and yes, criminals, who dominate Uncle Sam's workforce. For them, the government shut-down should be considered a reward for a job badly done--assuming, of course, they actually attempt to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)