A Clear Mis-allocation of Available Resources?

Hmmmm... a Gulf II war story from over on CSW

I had my own run-in with the "keep it under the table" forces of darkness... I was assigned as liaison for the amphibious forces at 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain in the lead-up to the invasion. About a week before the attack there was a huge kerflufle about wanting to get humanitarian relief supplies into southern Iraq as soon as possible after the border was crossed, but in such a way that the MSRs going north out of Kuwait wouldn't be impacted. The obvious solution was to bring them in by sea, but there was concern about the Shatt-al-Arab being mined and the facilities at the port of Basra being damaged (both by Iraqi sabotage and Coalition bombing). A rushed scheme to clear the water way was concocted, but Brown&Root were adamant that it would take them a minimum of four months to restore the port to operational condition. At this point, after consulting with the various commands I was representing, I proposed that we send a large SeaBee detachment from Kuwait (where their mission to offload the USMC pre-positioning ships and construct an elevated causeway to facilitate resupply cargo discharge was complete, so they were basically sitting idle) up to Basra to repair the port. The SeaBees had the expertise, the necessary construction gear and materials, had vehicles to transport themselves to the site, and had the weapons and training to provide their own security -- more importantly, the 0-6 in charge of the battalion was absolutely confident he could have the port open for business within two weeks and fully functional within a month. It sounded like a real win/win scenario to us. But after I floated the idea up the chain, and 5th Fleet gave a provisional green light to the plan, word came back from SecDef (not CENTCOM, not JCS -- SecDef) that the proposal was rejected and we were not to bring it up again. At my Admiral's request I sent an e-mail to the contact back at the five-sided-funny-farm asking what part of our concept they had issue with so we could submit a revised plan. That evening I took a secure phone call from some O-6 staffer with the SecDef's office telling me very coldly and clearly that I was to NEVER bring up the topic again and that if I did I'd be relieved and sent home (with the veiled implication that disiplinary action wouldn't be out of the question). We dutifully dropped the subject.

There's no independent verification of this, so take it for what it's worth, but it's an interesting indictment of how the occupation was run. By: Brant

Some Hard Truths Glossed Over in our Vocabulary

Dave Maxwell has a very thoughtful article about "Unconventional Warfare" and whether or not it's the exclusive purview of the SF guys (hint: he says "no"). But just as interesting is the way he frames UW. Here's the intro:

“US Army Special Forces is the only force in the Department of Defense organized, trained, equipped, educated, and optimized for the conduct of unconventional warfare.”

I have written those words many times in the past thirty plus years of my military service. With those words I have implied that the unconventional warfare mission belongs solely to US Army Special Forces (SF). I was wrong.

I began to realize this in 2009, when I participated in a working group established by the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School to re-examine the definition of unconventional warfare. The revised definition that resulted was a compromise that did not satisfy everyone in the Special Forces (SF) or wider Special Operations Forces (SOF) community. Nonetheless, the definition currently resides in Joint Publication 1-02 the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms and is now the foundation for US military unconventional warfare doctrine: Unconventional warfare consists of “activities to enable a resistance or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow a government or occupying power through and with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area.”

But here's where he goes 90% of the way in tying together the uncomfortable vocabulary that most of us hard core militarists inherently understand, but that the rest of the country is likely loath to admit

Due to the prevailing wisdom that SF owns the UW mission, many senior decision makers, policymakers and strategists both inside the Beltway and at the Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) rarely consider the strategic option of conducting UW. Furthermore, as evidenced by our myopic view of terrorism, we do not fully comprehend that our enemies are, in fact, conducting unconventional warfare. As a result, we do not consider potential strategies to conduct “counter-unconventional warfare,” instead focusing solely on the means and methods of counterterrorism.

(our emphasis)

See, in admitting that AQ is conducting "unconventional warfare" we can easily hit the button on the Patented GrogNews Vocabulary Substitution Machine™ (not sold in stores) and swap out "UW" for "insurgency":

Due to the prevailing wisdom that SF owns the insurgency mission, many senior decision makers, policymakers and strategists both inside the Beltway and at the Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) rarely consider the strategic option of conducting insurgencies. Furthermore, as evidenced by our myopic view of terrorism, we do not fully comprehend that our enemies are, in fact, conducting insurgencies. As a result, we do not consider potential strategies to conduct “counter-insurgency,” instead focusing solely on the means and methods of counterterrorism.

Hmmmm... we know we're conducting counter-insurgencies, right? We've been talking about it for 10 years now. We know that AQ is formenting insurgencies all over the world. But we have to be very careful about how we frame the UW-COIN vocabulary substitution. If we admit that AQ has been conducting worldwide UW, but then focus on their terror campaigns, what does it say about the US that we have a dedicated UW doctrine, when UW becomes a synonym for "terrorism"?

So we have a doctrine in the US for conducting UW (read: insurgency). We don't particularly want a doctrine for conducting UW (read: terrorism). And I'm OK with that.

What do you think? How would the US public react if it became explicitly clear that we had, and actively developed, trained, and disseminated doctrine about creating insurgencies in places where we don't like the government? Is it better that we obfuscate the capability behind the kabuki dance of shuffled vocabulary words? Or is this something that deserves a serious and sober conversation with the American public* that they might fully understand the broad spectrum of capabilities that we offer our government through the use of the military?


By: Brant



*note that I am fully aware of the general inability of the American public to make mature and thoughtful decisions regarding complex socio-geo-political issues like this

NEWS: Panetta Opens Combat Positions to Women

SecDef Panetta has just opened thousands of combat roles to women.

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.

The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta’s decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta’s move expands the Pentagon’s action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

By: Brant

Chuck Hagel Quotes

Ricks has a nice roundup of Ten Hagel Quotes You Need to Know.

Some are quite thoughtful, like

"The worst thing we can do, the most dangerous thing we can do is continue to isolate nations, is to continue to not engage nations. Great powers engage."

and

"We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power."

But I was most struck by this one, especially the key quote in the exposition: "Win what?"

“We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.”

In 2009, Hagel challenged President Obama and the United States to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq sooner rather than later, arguing that neither war was America’s to win. “Win what?” he asked, explaining that changing minds and the quality of life in places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would require “political accommodation and reconciliation.” That term was far more controversial three years ago, when Hagel inked it in the Washington Post. And, again, Hagel pushed for long-term, multinational coalition building across regions that work with perceived adversaries to find common interests. “Does anyone believe we will get to a responsible resolution on Iran without Russia?” Good question, still.

So I ask, dear readers: "Win what?"

What did we "win" in Iraq?

What do we expect to "win" in Afghanistan?


By: Brant

Defense Cuts in Historical Perspective

What does post-war shrinkage look like? And will post-GWOT shrinkage be any worse than historical post-war shrinkages? The CFR notes...

Last summer, defense spending was slashed by $487 billion over 10 years. Then, right before Thanksgiving, a special committee of Congress failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in alternative cuts, which opened the way to another $500 billion or so in defense cuts. Hundreds of billions more in so-called emergency funding will be gone as we wind down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, the defense budget could shrink by 31% over the next decade, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That compares with cuts of 53% after the Korean War, 26% after the Vietnam War and 34% after the Cold War.

That doesn't sound too far off-line for recent history, but let's go back further...

After the American Revolution, the military plummeted from 35,000 men in 1778 to 10,000 by 1800. As a result, the nascent republic had to scramble to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, fight a quasi-war with France, repress the Barbary pirates and, most spectacularly, defend the new national capital from British attack in the War of 1812. The burning of the White House stands as melancholy testimony to our military unpreparedness.

Yet we made the same mistake after the Civil War. The armed forces fell from more than 1 million men in 1865 to merely 50,000 in 1870. Luckily we did not face a foreign attack in the postwar decades. But we did face the challenge of Reconstruction. Its failure was made inevitable by Washington's inability (or unwillingness) to station enough federal troops in the South to repress the Ku Klux Klan. By 1876, all federal troops were withdrawn and the era of Jim Crow had begun.

In fact, the raw numbers, as summarized by The Economist, look like this:

Revolutionary war: 71%
Civil war: 95%
First world war: 91%
Second world war: 88%
Korean war: 31%
Vietnam war: 43%
Cold war: 38%

So let's face it, comparatively, 31% might not be the worst thing to happen to US defense...

What do you guys think? Is 31% too much? Too little? How does 31% track with strategic requirements?

By: Brant

Pentagon Announces New Strategy, Follow-Up I

Worried about the intel budget? Don't be.

"We will protect, and in some cases increase our investments in special operations forces, in new technologies like (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), and unmanned systems, in space and particularly in cyberspace capabilities, and also capacity to quickly mobilize," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon.

And the Congressional reactions are starting to pour in. You won't find any surprises.

“The current and emerging global threats to our national security are more complex than at any time that I can recall,” said Republican Sen. John McCain, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Therefore, I will closely, carefully and thoroughly review the defense strategy that the president announced today and examine whether it meets our national security objectives.”

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, did not hesitate to criticize the new strategy.

While the Pentagon press conference was still underway, McKeon tweeted, “New defense strategy is a lead from behind for a left-behind America.”

In a statement issued soon afterward, he said, “The President has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”

By: Brant

Pentagon Announces New Military Strategy

So 2MRC is dead. The question now is, "what's next"? There was an attempt at answering that yesterday, as President Obama and Secretary Panetta announced a new "strategy" yesterday that's focused on Asia and stresses 'cheap' stuff like drones and foreign engagement.

quotes, and more articles, after the jump...

The "Army of Jason Bournes" Claims Another Career

The USAF civilian who oversaw a questionably-legal 'spy ring' in the AfPak theater has resigned.

A man accused of running an illegal contractor spy ring in Afghanistan has resigned from the Air Force, still maintaining his innocence, and still facing possible criminal charges.
Two investigations continue in a case that has tested the definition of what contractors are allowed to do in war zones.
Air Force civilian employee Michael Furlong, together with his boss, Mark Johnson, resigned in July after the Air Force inspector general told the men they'd face official censure for how they ran an information gathering network in Afghanistan.
"After 17 months of DOD investigations and an FBI investigation, it was determined that no criminal laws were broken," Furlong wrote in his August 12 resignation letter, obtained by the Associated Press.
But inquiries continue by the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service, a senior defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters still under legal review.
The CIA alleged in late 2009 that Furlong's private military contractors were running an illegal covert spying network in Afghanistan and Pakistan, managed by legendary ex-spymaster Duane R. Clarridge. The then-CIA station chief complained those contractors were helping target terrorists for capture and kill operations, and getting in the way of agency operations on the ground, according to multiple U.S. officials briefed on the investigation. All officials spoke anonymously to discuss intelligence matters.

Now, what's really funny are the comments on the article, by a bunch of people who have -zero- idea how intel/security work. They think the gov't shut it down b/c it was doing too good of a job competing w/ the CIA. Oy.

You can follow the older coverage here:
GrogNews: Pentagon Investigating AfPak News "Intel" Unit
GrogNews: Covert? Or Rogue? StratCom/OSINT website masking hit squad?
GrogNews: Investigating the Rogue Hit Squad
GrogNews: Investigating A Parallel "Intel Agency" and How It Was Buried In Clever Contracting


By: Brant

Perspective on 9/11

This op-ed originally ran in The State newspaper in Columbia, SC on 9/17/03.

Watching and listening to the media coverage of September 11th is pretty painful for me, but probably not for the reason you're thinking. It's a reminder of a world-changing event that causes the nation to pause and reflect on our burdens and sacrifices. As for myself? I just get mad, and I'll tell you why.
A random sampling of what was on the morning TV shows on the 11th. NBC and ABC remembering their own broadcasts of the footage as events unfolded in New York, interspersed with shots of the children at Ground Zero. CNN covering the same Ground Zero, with less discussion of what they were doing that day. MSNBC had Imus talking about 9-11 with Tom Brokaw, and Fox News had their talking heads going over the sacrifices of New York and the heroism of Todd Beamer. Local news radio observed the moment of silence at 8:46, when the plane hit the first tower; they also observed a moment for the second plane.
What didn't you hear? What didn't you see? What was never mentioned?
That's right. The Pentagon. No discussion of the sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines who lost their lives at the Pentagon. None, zip, zero, zilch.
I should expect this, though. It's been going on since September 11. Every mention of terrorism in the media today starts with Oklahoma City, and might mention the USS Cole and the embassies in Africa, on their way to talking about "Ground Zero" and the "World Trade Center Attacks." Even the vocabulary with which we discuss 9-11 is colored by our genuflections toward New York. Todd Beamer's name is nationally known because he led the charge to the cockpit on the fourth plane. What do we call the attack on the Pentagon? Who were the heroes of Washington, DC?
America has turned a blind eye toward the victims of terrorism not associated with New York City and Oklahoma City. Is there an annual memorial for the marines who died in Beirut? What about the Achillie Lauro hijacking? The TWA flight where a Navy SEAL's body was unceremoniously dumped on the tarmac in the Middle East? The Rome and Vienna Christmas airport massacres? The Berlin nightclub bombing? The bombing of the military exchange in Frankfurt? Lockerbie, Scotland?
We don't discuss the tragic American victims of terror that didn't happen on our own soil. It's almost as if they aren't worthy of recognition, or memorialization because their deaths happened over there. The worst ones are the military victims, especially the victims of the Pentagon on 9-11. The attitude seems to be "they are the military, that's their job." As if they signed up to walk around with targets on their backs.
When baseball resumed play in 2001, John Franco led the New York Mets onto the field with an "FDNY" cap on; the entire team wore either "FDNY" or "NYPD" caps. Who took the field wearing military headgear? Who made a public, televised statement of support for the families of the dead at the Pentagon?
September 11 is frustrating and tragic for everyone. But it is especially frustrating and tragic when 25% of the attack is dismissed by the coverage, the memorials, the general discourse, for reasons unknown, but seemingly related to the career choices of the victim.

By: Brant

Pentagon Memorial Access on 9/11

The DoD has announced there will be limited public Access to the Pentagon Memorial.

Public access to the Pentagon Memorial will be limited this weekend due to formal ceremonies commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack and private visitation of the site by survivors and surviving family members. The memorial will be closed to the public on Sept. 11 until 6 p.m., and intermittently on Sept. 9 and 10.

While the memorial is normally open to the general public, visitors are asked to plan around these scheduled closures.

As previously announced, Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta will host a remembrance ceremony the morning of Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011, at the Pentagon Memorial, to honor the memory of those killed here in the 2001 terrorist attack. This is a private remembrance for the family members of those lost in the terrorist attack and is not open to the general public. Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are scheduled to make remarks.

Opened on Sept. 11, 2008, the Pentagon Memorial is the first dedicated national commemorative to honor those killed during the 2001 terrorist attacks. The Pentagon Memorial consists of 184 individual memorial units honoring the 59 passengers and crewmembers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and the 125 men and women in the Pentagon, all of whom gave their lives on Sept. 11, 2001. For more information on the Pentagon Memorial, please visit http://pentagonmemorial.org/ .

By: Brant

Army Cutting BCTs?

I get it, it's easier to cut BCTs and whack line units to get end-strength numbers down.

The U.S. Army may cut 10 of its 45 active-duty brigade combat teams (BCTs) as it works to meet President Obama's order to slice defense spending, said an Army official familiar with the budget deliberations.

Service leaders are still discussing how many Stryker, heavy or infantry BCTs might get cut and when.

The discussions are part of the budget drills each U.S. military service is undertaking before the Defense Department delivers a plan in October to cut its budget by at least $400 billion.

The Army has already announced plans to reduce its end strength by 27,000 starting in 2015 and has set lower recruiting goals to prepare for those cuts. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff, has said the service plans to cut out the temporary 22,000-solider increase that started in 2009 for the Afghanistan surge by 2012.

Subtracting 10 BCTs would fall in line with this plan, said the official, who asked to remain anonymous since discussions are ongoing.

Here's a thought... let's instead take out maneuver support brigades, corps-artillery units, and aviation brigades, rather than cutting foxhole strength.
"But wait! What happens if you need fires and there's no corps artillery to shoot for you?"
Lemme ask you this: if you cut line brigades instead of artillery brigades, who are you firing in support of?

That said, if you're cutting brigades, start with the 82nd/101st. Do we really need as many airborne brigades as they're bringing to the table?

By: Brant

Cartwright's Legs Not Cut Out From Under Him For "Dissent"

According to Secretary Gates, Cartwright was not passed over for CJCS for "dissent". Maybe it was for "disagreement" or "sedition" or "personality differences" instead.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates denied on Thursday that a US general was passed over for the military's top job due to his dissent over Afghan war strategy.
When asked why General James Cartwright was not named as the next chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gates praised the Marine as a talented officer and said media reports were off the mark about why he was not nominated.
"Some of the negative things that have been reported as influencing the decision, for example the Afghan piece, are completely wrong -- had nothing to do with it whatsoever," Gates told reporters aboard his plane to Singapore.
The defense secretary was referring to widespread speculation that Cartwright -- once touted as the leading candidate to become the US military's top-ranking officer -- had been ruled out for the job due to friction with fellow officers over his role in a White House debate on Afghanistan.
Cartwright broke ranks with military brass and Gates during deliberations on a proposed 2009 troop surge and drafted an alternative plan calling for fewer reinforcements, according to an account in Bob Woodward's book, "Obama's War."

By: Brant

Official Statements on Leadership Changes

Here's the official statement from Secretary Gates on the changes in US military leadership.

"I enthusiastically support President Obama's choices to fill these key military leadership positions.

"General Dempsey, Admiral Winnefeld, and General Odierno have all excelled in key command and staff roles within their services and in the joint arena. They possess the right mix of intellectual heft, moral courage, and strategic vision required to provide sound and candid advice to the President and his national security team. Above all, they are proven leaders of men and women in combat operations over the past decade, and are uniquely qualified to guide and shape our military institutions through the challenging times ahead.

"On a personal note, I have enjoyed working with Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright and benefited greatly from their wise counsel. All Americans owe these two fine officers and their families a debt of gratitude, and I look forward to paying fuller tribute to their accomplishments at the appropriate time."

And here's the statement by ADM Mike Mullen.

"I fully support the President's decision to nominate Gen. Marty Dempsey and Adm. Sandy Winnefeld for the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Both men are extraordinary leaders, who will provide the Secretary of Defense and the President not only their best military advice, but also the great benefit of their decades of military experience and their command in combat operations.

"I know, too, that they will represent faithfully and stridently the 2.2 million men and women in uniform, as well as their families.

"In that same vein, I applaud the selection of Gen. Ray Odierno to succeed Gen. Dempsey as Army Chief of Staff. Like Marty, Ray is a combat-proven officer who made a real difference in Iraq, and who will lead the Army with strength and with passion as we complete our mission there and begin to transition in Afghanistan."

By: Brant

US Military Leadership Roulette

Once the wheels stop spinning, this is where Ricks expects everyone to land.

I'm hearing the announcements will start as soon as the Memorial Day weekend is over, probably coming Tuesday. In addition to Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Odierno as chief of staff of the Army, the vice chief of the Army, I am told, likely will be Lloyd Austin. Apparently the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs will be Adm. James Winnefeld.

This means that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of the Army, and the chief of the CIA all will be people who commanded Army divisions in Iraq during that horrible first year, 2003-2004, which I found harder than subsequent years because I never expected the leadership of the United States military and government to screw it up so badly. (Dempsey had 1st Armored Division, Odierno had 4th Infantry Division, and Petraeus had 101st Airborne Division. Makes me want to dig out my notes for Fiasco of the logs of commanders' meetings from that year.)

By: Brant

DoD 2012 Budget Announcement

The DoD has released a press release, with linked documents, for much of the 2012 Defense Budget. Anyone feel like digging into it for some comments?

President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $671 billion for fiscal 2012. The request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $553 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $118 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The fiscal 2012 budget continues the DoD reform agenda, seeking additional efficiencies across the entire defense enterprise, while also strengthening our national security capability.

“This budget represents a reasonable, responsible and sustainable level of funding, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the security challenges we are facing around the globe,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The $553 billion for the base budget provides funding to take care of our people, which is our highest priority, and also provides substantial funding to build capability for possible future conflicts. The OCO portion totals $117.8 billion, $41.5 billion below the fiscal 2011 request of $159.3 billion. The proposal reflects the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and a modest decline in funding for Afghanistan operations.

While this budget request seeks continued efficiencies in 2012 and beyond, the absence of an appropriation for fiscal 2011 threatens to cause serious inefficiencies and problems this year. The current continuing resolution, if it remains in effect for the rest of the year, will lead to delays and inefficient, start-and-stop management. It will rob the DoD of the flexibility needed to manage effectively, especially in time of war, and it will not provide the Department with enough resources to maintain training and support while also paying bills for military pay, benefits, and inflation. In short the continuing resolution represents a crisis at our doorstep, and the DoD strongly urges the Congress to pass a defense appropriation bill as part of the overall legislation to fund government activities in fiscal 2011.

Highlights of the proposed DoD budget are outlined in the attached summary and charts. For more information and to view the entire fiscal 2012 budget proposal, please visit http://www.budget.mil and download the “FY 2012 Budget Request Overview Book.” Budget-related transcripts can also be viewed at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts.

By: Brant

US Military Faces $78B Spending Cut

The US military is facing a $78B reduction in its budget over the next 5 years.

The Pentagon on Thursday announced a series of sharp cuts in defense spending over the next five years that senior leaders say will improve efficiencies but leave reduced numbers of Marines, soldiers and key defense systems.

The cuts will pare the Army and Marine Corps by as many as 47,000 people, reversing a trend since the Sept. 11 attacks of increased budgets and more recruitment. The new cuts also will eliminate defense systems such as the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an armored boat designed to move Marines ashore rapidly.

The new series of spending cuts will reduce the Pentagon's budget by $78 billion over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in announcing the reductions at the Pentagon. He also proposed raising the health insurance premiums of military retirees who still receive military health insurance. The premiums have not been raised since 1995.

"This plan represents, in my view, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the complex and unpredictable array of security challenges the United States faces around the globe — global terrorist networks, rising military powers, nuclear-armed rogue states and much, much more," Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates said some money saved through more efficient spending will be reinvested into programs that reflect the military's new emphasis on counterinsurgency instead of preparing for war between nation-states.

The defense secretary also said the cuts he is proposing are part of a review of unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon programs launched last year. The review followed an earlier round of cuts that capped procurement of the F-22 fighter program at 187 jets.

"It is imperative for this department to eliminate wasteful, excessive and unneeded spending, to do everything we can to make every defense dollar count," Mr. Gates said.

By: Shelldrake

SecDef on WikiLeaks and Diplomatic Cables

From last week's briefing where he talks about the way the US government leaks like a sieve...

One of the common themes that I heard from the time I was a senior agency official in the early 1980s in every military engagement we were in was the complaint of the lack of adequate intelligence support. That began to change with the Gulf War in 1991, but it really has changed dramatically after 9/11.

And clearly the finding that the lack of sharing of information had prevented people from, quote, unquote, “connecting the dots” led to much wider sharing of information, and I would say especially wider sharing of information at the front, so that no one at the front was denied – in one of the theaters, Afghanistan or Iraq – was denied any information that might possibly be helpful to them.

Now, obviously, that aperture went too wide. There’s no reason for a young officer at a forward operating post in Afghanistan to get cables having to do with the START negotiations. And so we’ve taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. I directed a number of these things to be undertaken in August.

First, the – an automated capability to monitor workstations for security purposes. We’ve got about 60 percent of this done, mostly in – mostly stateside. And I’ve directed that we accelerate the completion of it.

Second, as I think you know, we’ve taken steps in CENTCOM in September and now everywhere to direct that all CD and DVD write capability off the network be disabled. We have – we have done some other things in terms of two-man policies – wherever you can move information from a classified system to an unclassified system, to have a two-person policy there.

And then we have some longer-term efforts under way in which we can – and, first of all, in which we can identify anomalies, sort of like credit card companies do in the use of computer; and then finally, efforts to actually tailor access depending on roles. But let me say – let me address the latter part of your question. This is obviously a massive dump of information.

First of all, I would say unlike the Pentagon Papers, one of the things that is important, I think, in all of these releases, whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq or the releases this week, is the lack of any significant difference between what the U.S. government says publicly and what these things show privately, whereas the Pentagon Papers showed that many in the government were not only lying to the American people, they were lying to themselves.

But let me – let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.”

When we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid-’70s, there was a broad view that no other foreign intelligence service would ever share information with us again if we were going to share it all with the Congress. Those fears all proved unfounded.

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think – I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments – some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

By: Brant

GrogNews Late Daily Headlines

WikiLeaks keeps dripping... They've been forced to change domain servers due to DNA attacks. They're under legislative attack by Senator Lieberman, and ASSange is still wanted on a warrant his lawyer says isn't valid. Wired says that the leak hasn't "broken" U.S. Intelligence... yet.
Today's leak 'revelations'? Karzai is "paranoid". Oh, and gravity holds people to the planet. There was a 'spat' between the US and UK over spy flights from Cyprus.

South Korea is raising the rhetoric and promising air strikes if the Norks attack again.

Puntland is standing up a private military that has the US concerned.

The Ivorian military has sealed the borders after the government declared the winner in the recent election.

More uniformed grumbling over the end of DADT.

And we need to stop panicking over incompetent terrorists, says Ackerman. Hell, Kung Fu Monkey has been telling you to "sack up" for years.

By: Brant

Pentagon Spending Targeted

The US is the latest country to contemplate substantial cuts to military spending.

The deficit commission's interim proposal to cut $100 billion in military spending, if adopted, would take a toll on weapons programs, health-care benefits and overseas bases.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already launched a drive to eliminate $100 billion in what he calls "unnecessary costs" in the next five years. Those savings were designed to be plowed back into weapons procurement and other accounts. The panel is floating a proposal to apply the savings to deficit reduction instead.

"This is a pretty heavy hit to the defense industry," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute think tank and a defense industry consultant. "Applying the savings Gates has promised to deficit reduction would take money away from the department that Gates was planning to use for modernization—meaning weapons purchases, for the most part."

As part of the $100 billion reduction, the panel suggested possible cuts to specific weapons programs, including the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle and one version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Those cancellations could contribute to an across-the-board, 15% procurement cut by 2015.

[snip...]

The proposals also have the potential to dramatically reshape the U.S. military footprint around the globe. The U.S. currently has around 150,000 military personnel stationed at bases in Europe and Asia; the panel's draft recommends cutting that number by a third.

By: Shelldrake

DADT - Even the Pentagon Can't Agree

Secretary Gates is hoping Congress will end it and get on with life.

Asked about the prospects for repeal during the so-called lame duck session, Gates said: "I would like to see the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are. And we'll just have to see."
Gates made the comments to reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft shortly before landing in Australia for annual bilateral talks.
For the past 17 years, homosexuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. military as long as they hide their sexual orientation. They are expelled if it becomes known.
Polls have said most Americans support lifting the ban. The House has voted to change the law but unless the Senate takes it up in the final weeks of the "lame-duck" legislative session, it will effectively die.
Obama is under pressure to act after a series of court decisions created confusion for the Pentagon.

The Marines are opposed to ending it.

The new commandant of the U.S. Marines Corps said Saturday that now is the wrong time to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military, as U.S. troops remain in the thick of war in Afghanistan.
"There's risk involved; I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," Gen. James Amos said. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."
Last month, the Pentagon was forced to lift its ban on openly serving gays for eight days after a federal judge in California ordered the military to do so. The Justice Department has appealed, and a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of the injunction.
Amos said the policy's repeal may have unique consequences for the Marines, which is exempt from a Defense Department rule for troops to have private living quarters except at basic training or officer candidate schools. The Marines puts two people in each room to promote a sense of unity.

It's remarkable that the Commandant is so openly contradicting the Secretary's view on this.

By: Brant