Last week there were two major events coming out of the Defense Department, the release of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and a recommendation by both the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy be repealed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Looking first at the QDR, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 established the QDR requirement mandating that every four years the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs conduct a review of:

National Defense Strategy

Force Structure and Modernization plans

Infrastructure

Budget

Other elements

There have been three previous QDRs: 1997, 2001, and 2006.  This year’s publication of the QDR also coincides with the defense budget request.  This year’s budget request is $708.3 Billion, a 2.3% increase over last year’s.

The Department of Defense has put out an excellent point paper summarizing the QDR’s key points which are:

-         Prevail in today’s wars

-         Prevent and deter conflict

-         Prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies

-         Preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force

It’s not my intent in this blog to give a blow by blow description of the QDR; but several things did jump out at me.  For as long as I can remember, defense planning centered around being able to fight two major conventional wars at the same time.  This was a relic of the types of crises faced during the Cold War.  In today’s environment adversaries know they would not be able to defeat us on a conventional battle field so they are coming at us through perceived weak spots using techniques such as terrorist attacks and cyber warfare.  I think the reason “prevailing in today’s wars is now the top priority is because if we don’t, potential adversaries will have a blueprint on how to conduct a campaign to defeat us.  They’ll look at what tactics worked and use them against us in the future.

For instance, one of the lessons learned by potential and real enemies from studying the Vietnam conflict was the U.S. public has a low tolerance for casualties to U.S. forces and those of its allies.  Raise the death and injury count and you will also raise the number of anti-war voices within the U.S.  This tactic came close to working in Iraq.  The new QDR recognizes our military must be designed to face threats from a variety of directions. 

When presenting the QDR on February 1, 2010, Defense Secretary Gates stated:  “The department’s leadership now recognizes that we must prepare for a much broader range of security challenges on the horizon.  They range from the use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space, and cyberspace to the threat posed by non-state groups developing more cunning and destructive means to attack and terrorize – scenarios that transcend the familiar contingencies that dominated U.S. planning after the Cold War.”

The QDR still says the military must be able to fight two conflicts but it’s been relegated to the third priority under “be prepared for other challenges”.  The language has also changed, it now says:  “defeat two regional aggressors” as opposed to fight two major conventional wars.  Interestingly, this requirement is not a capability needed for now but “for the mid- to long-term”.  That’s a major shift in the orientation of our defense forces and has ramifications for future defense acquisitions.  I suspect if a proposed new weapon system is not seen to be of use in the current conflicts, the program is in danger of being cut.  In fact the QDR proposes ending several programs such as the Navy’s EP(X) manned intelligence aircraft and ending the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.   

A couple of other things jumped out at me.  Secretary Gates states in order to prevail in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq he wants a 75% increase in the number of combat patrols by UAVs, more helicopters and increase the number of special operations systems and personnel.  I hope when they increase the number of UAVs and UAV patrols they also increase the capacity of the intelligence community to analyze the increased amounts of data.  They’re already swamped as I’ve reported in earlier blogs.

The last thing I’ll mention about the QDR is the document contains the usual statements that the defense acquisition system is broken and needs to be fixed.  I’ll believe this when I see it.  They’ve been saying it for years.  I hope they do change the way they acquire new systems but……

I’ll end with my thoughts on “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  I’m embarrassed to say that for years I was biased against gays and lesbians in the military.  As with most prejudices, my views had their foundation in ignorance.  I didn’t know any gay or lesbian people or so I thought.  There is something about turning 50 that causes many, as Oprah would say, to start being true to their authentic selves.  As friends and relatives started “coming out of the closet” in their older years, I was shocked and realized I did know some gays and lesbians including a few from my military days.  Many were people I had the highest professional respect for.

It caused me to look at the issue of gays in the military in a new way.  After much reflection, I now believe they have every right to serve openly in the military.  I don’t understand people who say if they serve openly it will have a negative impact on the morale of the military forces.  Sounds like the same sorts of things people said when they racially integrated the services after World War II and in the 1970’s when they started allowing women to serve in non traditional jobs. During my 28 years of service not one lesbian ever made a pass at me; that is why I thought I didn’t know any.  I can only conclude one of two things.  Either I’m in competition with the character Jamie Foxx created on the hit TV show In Living Color, Wanda the ugliest woman in the word; or the second more likely possibility was they were in the military for the same reason I was, they felt called to serve the nation.  Many armies around the world have openly gay troops to include Great Britain, Canada, and Israel and have not reported any problems that I’m aware of. As always, my views are my own but for what it’s worth, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is okay with me.         

Over the weekend several newspapers ran articles on U.S. efforts to accelerate deployment of missile defenses in the Persian Gulf region.  According to the New York Times, the U.S. is providing 2 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) batteries each to Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman.  The U.S. is also maintaining a constant presence in the Gulf of an Aegis Cruiser equipped with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3).  The SM-3 is designed to shoot down short to intermediate range ballistic missile threats.

The timing of the release of the information to the public indicates this is a not so subtle warning to Iran that the stakes are being raised and although the U.S. may be having problems getting international agreement on implementing UN sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program; some of Iran’s neighbors by accepting Patriot missiles are saying yes we consider you a threat and are not going to stand by and turn the balance of power in the region over to you.  This is probably also meant to reassure Israel who according to a report in Stratfor stated they regard February “as the decisive month for sanctions”.

Personally I don’t think this will impact Iran’s nuclear program.  Militarily the most significant part of these recent moves is publicly highlighting increasing bilateral agreements aimed at countering Iran between the U.S. and Persian Gulf countries.  In a recent talk at the Institute for the Study of War, the U.S. Central Command Commander, General Petraeus when discussing bilateral relations in the region stated:  “The best recruiting officer for that effort has been Iranian President Ahmadinejad, his rhetoric, his actions, the continued missile program development, the nuclear program…”

The increased military assets are defensive in nature and only aimed at shooting down Iranian missiles not launching an offensive strike.  Of note, the U.S. maintains a robust offensive naval presence in the Gulf that could at any point in time ruin Iran’s day.  This is nothing new.  The U.S. has maintained a near continuous aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf since the first Gulf War and has had a naval base in the region in some form since 1949.  Fifth Fleet Headquarters is located in the island nation of Bahrain.    

Currently the USS Eisenhower Strike Group is in the Persian Gulf having recently relieved the USS Nimitz Strike group.

The U.S. currently has its hands full military with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don’t see the U.S. launching any overt military action against Iran any time soon unless President Ahmadinejad decides to pull a “Galtieri”.  In the early ‘80’s, General Galtieri had been President of Argentina.  Early in his tenure, the economy was bad and his popularity was at an all time low.  In 1982 he invaded the lightly defended British Falkland Islands.  Argentina and Britain had been at odds over the sovereignty of the islands for some time; but, many analysts felt the timing of Argentina’s attack was meant to divert public attention away from domestic issues.

I’ve not seen much recent information on domestic protests of the Iranian election but it wouldn’t be totally beyond the realm of possibility for Ahmadinejad to try to divert public attention from internal issues to foreign ones.  I don’t see it happening …but stranger things have happened.   

Topic:  Just a Typical Week in the World of Defense Issues

Last week was interesting but pretty typical for those involved with monitoring national security issues.  Osama Bin Laden crawled out from under whatever rock he’s been hiding under and claimed responsibility for the failed attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.  While speaking at a seminar, South Korea’s Defense Minister stated if there was a clear indication North Korea was preparing to launch a nuclear strike, South Korea would immediately launch an attack on the North.  The minister had made similar comments in 2008 while chairman of the South’s joint chief of staff.  This policy is referred to by defense analysts as the doctrine of Launch on Tactical Warning (LOTW).  In response North Korea stated:  “Our revolutionary armed forces will regard the scenario for ‘pre-emptive strike, as an open declaration of war”.

In other activity, both Great Britain and India raised their terror alert.  Britain raised its alert level to “severe” the second highest level.  Severe means the government thinks a terrorist attack is considered likely.  The highest level is critical which means the government thinks an attack is imminent.  India placed its airports and national carriers on high security alert and according to a report appearing in Nightwatch is “based on intelligence reports that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LT) has acquired 50 paragliding kits and is plotting to hijack an Indian plane.”  The Nightwatch report goes on to state “Indian Home Ministry sources said they had received ‘credible intelligence’ that LT operatives were receiving training in paragliding allegedly with the help of Pakistani forces.”

As if the week couldn’t get more interesting on January 20^th, Poland announced they were going to place the Patriot Missiles scheduled to arrive in April at Morag, a military base on the Baltic Sea Coast located just 60 miles from the Russian’s Baltic Fleet headquarters at Kaliningrad.  Russia’s response so far has been what I call “subdued”.  Last Thursday they indicated they had no plan to increase the strength of their Baltic Fleet in response and any moves to rearm and modernize Russia’s Navy would take place within the framework of changes already announced.

Looking at the terrorism issues first, I find it interesting that Bin Laden is taking credit for something that failed.  This falls under the Golden BB category; a relatively small tactical incident that has broad strategic implications.  It may have been a failed attempt but gained widespread coverage in the world media and panicked many in the public; exactly what it was designed to do.  The attempt was a tactical failure but a strategic success; albeit a small one. To put this incident in perspective, according to a report in the New York Times, last year there were 14,000 murders in the U.S.  Of those 14,000 only 14 was the result of alleged jihadist attacks; one at a military recruiting office in Arkansas and the 13 killed at Fort Hood.  To my mind it drives home the fact that Bin Laden has been unable to launch a successful mass attack since 9/11.  That’s very little comfort to friends and family of those that have been killed but it does show the U.S. is still winning the war on terrorism.  I’m guessing the raised security alerts in Britain and India are the result of concerns Al Qaida  will attempt to follow up it Christmas day attacks with others, a quite reasonable assumption.

As to the Korea situation, the two nations never signed a peace treaty and as a result have technically remained in a state of war.  I put this incident in the “diplomatic trash talk” category.  Both sides are speaking their truths but don’t plan to actually do anything…at the moment.  Seoul, South Korea’s capital is within range of the North’s artillery so if the North were so inclined they would not have to resort to nuclear weapons to ruin the South’s day.       

As for Poland, that situation bears watching. I agree with Stratfor’s assessment that since Poland “will only receive four to eight missiles – only a fraction of those required for a single Patriot fire unit…- the deployment is not of an operational defensive battery …is likely for training purposes.”  However, I believe this falls in the Golden BB category.  Considering Russia’s ongoing sensitivity to NATO encroachment on the former Soviet Union’s geographic region of interests this could be a crisis flashpoint in the coming months.  I don’t think Russia would launch a full scale attack like they did with the Georgian Republic, but we could see something like the 2007 computer attack on Estonia which paralyzed that governments internet and was largely suspected to have been conducted by Russia.  According to one report at least one cyber attack may have already happened.  In September of last year an unsuccessful attack on Polish government systems appeared to originate in Russia.  Whether it was government sponsored or not is unknown.  In any event, it will be interesting to track this situation.  As always, my views are my own.  

Reflections of a Retired Baby Boomer

Topic:  Haiti:  U.S. Military Contributions

While watching the excellent media coverage of the Haitian earthquake last night, I noticed that many people are beginning to wonder why it was taking so long for U.S. military units and other nations and relief groups involved in the effort to provide help to the areas most affected by the disaster.  The reasoning appeared to go along the lines, if members of the press can roam around the affected areas at will, why can’t the military and relief workers do the same?

According to United States Southern Command (Southcom), they have established Joint Task Force Haiti commanded by Lieutenant General Ken Keen, U.S. Army, to head up the effort.  U.S. forces will be working with the U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), international relief organizations and local first responders. There are currently about 6,000 U.S. military personnel operating both from within Haiti and from U.S. Navy and Coast Guard vessels located off shore.  Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff says by Monday the numbers will be somewhere in between 9,000 to 10,000.  In addition, one of the Navy’s hospital ships, the USNS Comfort is scheduled to arrive on scene Thursday.  According to a Southcom press release, “Comfort’s capabilities include fully-equipped operating rooms, digital radiological services, a medial laboratory, a pharmacy, an optometry lab, a CAT-scan and two oxygen producing plants.  The ships medical crew will be capable of operating 250 hospital beds.”  The aircraft carrier and other ships scheduled to arrive and participate in the operation also have significant medical capabilities.

The Naval units supporting the effort include the formidable the USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group which arrived on scene yesterday.  I think the hope of many was once the aircraft carrier arrived and relief supplies were being flown into the airport things would start to improve immediately.  So what’s the hold up?  Answer:  Infrastructure, coordination, and security.

Infrastructure:  What infrastructure there was collapsed with Tuesday’s earthquake.  Roads are blocked and/or destroyed, communications are spotty, the airport is struggling to keep up with all of the relief aircraft flying in from various locations around the world; and the sea port is badly damaged.  All of this makes it difficult to move supplies in by land or sea.  Aid groups don’t yet have the means to distribute the massive aid that is piling up at the airport, and have no one in place to receive and distribute the supplies or water once they arrive. The military has been reluctant to drop supplies and water from the air without someone in place on the ground for fear of rioting. 

The good news is setting up infrastructures is one of the things the military does best.  As I sit here typing this blog, the military is making efforts to correct the situation.  A Southcom press release states: “With agreement from the government of Haiti, U.S. Air Force personnel are managing air operations into the international airport at port au Prince.  The airfield is currently open for 24 hour operations, with a 90 aircraft per day capability (expected to increase soon).  The military is also flying manned and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft to assist to help identify landing zones for relief helicopters and identifying the hardest hit areas so they can determine where to set supply centers.

In terms of more pressing infrastructure issues like providing medical help, food, water, and shelter, the military is renowned for setting up systems to cover all of those items in short periods of time.  For those suffering in Haiti, I’m sure the help can’t come soon enough. 

Coordination:  Yesterday Rear Admiral Ted Branch, Commander of the Carl Vinson Strike Group indicated coordination problems among military operations and humanitarian agencies “hasn’t come as far as it needs to be.  We need to get that process energized.”  This is a far more complex process than it would appear.  It’s not just the U.S. that’s involved but many other countries as well.  The last number I heard of countries providing aid was 18 and I’m sure it’s gone up.  All of the organizations have to talk to each other and stay on the same page and communication frequencies to set up an efficient system.  That involves setting up central points of contacts for storing and moving the supplies as well as providing security personnel for crowd control and many other issues.  In many international disaster relief efforts the UN is usually in charge of coordination efforts but in this instance many of their workers were killed in the earthquake so the coordination effort is more challenging than normal with operations of this kind.

Security:  Security is actually a multi-layered thing.  It includes protecting the population from people who might take advantage of the situation by looting or stealing food and water from others.  It also involves setting up efficient and orderly distribution systems.  In the larger scheme countries taking part in the effort always have to keep in mind they are guests in a foreign nation and are there on a relief mission.  You don’t want to get into a situation where elements of the local population turn hostile.  Many remember the “Black Hawk Down” situation, where members of the Somalia militia shot down U.S. helicopters; but most forget U.S. troops where there as part of a United Nations international relief effort. 

In 1992, Somalia had been experiencing massive starvation as a result of a many sided civil war.  The U.S. was part of a massive international relief effort.  Relief efforts were hampered when the distribution system broke down.  There were many instances of relief flights being looted when they landed, hijacking of food convoys and ships prevented from docking by artillery attacks.  By December of that year, over 250,000 people had starved to death and the death rate continued to climb by more than 1,000 estimated deaths each day.  In response and under UN Security Council Resolution 794, President Bush sent U.S. troops to participate in order to provide security for the relief convoys and relief organizations.

I don’t believe the security situation in Haiti will be as extreme or violent as that experienced in Somalia in the early ‘90’s but security is one of planning issues that has to be dealt with for the success of the effort.  The U.S. is being careful to emphasize are military units are there for relief efforts only and are working closely with the Haitian government.

I’m as horrified and frustrated as many people are at the sight of people dying because no help was available.  It brings back unpleasant memories of Hurricane Katrina; but I also am comforted by knowing how efficient and capable the U.S. military is during humanitarian assistance operations.  I would have liked to have seen massive international aid available and helping the people of Haiti on the day of the earthquake but the realities of dealing with a disaster of that magnitude did not make it possible.  As always, my thoughts are my own.

.                       

Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer

Topic:  Obama and the Intelligence Community

On Thursday, President Obama and his staff discussed the findings of their internal review of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack.  They concluded there was not a failure to share information such as was seen in the pre 9/11 days; but a failure to “connect and integrate and understand the intelligence we had”.   The President announced he was issuing a directive to the “relevant agencies on the corrective actions he has decided on”.  In a follow on statement, John Brennan, the President’s Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, said the changes would cover four areas:

-         The intelligence community will “immediately begin assigning responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively..”

-         “intelligence reports, especially those involving potential threats to the United States, be distributed more rapidly and more widely.”

-         “Strengthen the analytic process.”

-         “…strengthen the criteria used to add individual to our terrorist watchlists…so that we do a better job keeping dangerous people off airplanes.”

I was encouraged by the press conference but still can’t help but wonder if the President and his staff have gained a better understanding of the complexity of the intelligence community.  Because intelligence plays such a key role in national security, this is no small thing.  As I said in my blog on this topic last week, how can you fix what you don’t understand?  When the politicians and media talk about intelligence the focus is usually on the CIA, which is just one intelligence agency out of 16.  By no means am I attempting to down play that organization’s role or past and current achievements.  They are Super Stars and have done great things, most of which can’t be discussed in detail.  My point is simply they are one organization.  When there’s an intelligence failure and you say you’re going to reform the community, you’d best understand how all of it operates.

Something like 85% of the nation’s intelligence community resides within the Department of Defense; yet I cannot recall one President who has ever visited a military intelligence command.  I did some informal checking and found every President has visited the CIA.  I wonder if any of the three men who have served as Director of National Intelligence have visited military intelligence commands during their tenure.  I know they did earlier in their careers, Admiral McConnell for one, had been a brilliant Naval Intelligence Officer in an earlier life; but did he ever visit a military intelligence command while in the Director job?  I hope so.  

It’s not just the President and his staff but many of the media pundits as well seem uninformed.  I’ve found the print media does a pretty good job reporting on intelligence issues; but the TV media folks continue to talk in sound bites that fail to give the average listener an understanding of the real issues.  I don’t believe the media is deliberately misleading the public; they simply are not as familiar with some, and note I say “some” of the issues as they would have you believe.

Case in point last week Major General Mike Flynn, the Director of Intelligence in Afghanistan, commonly referred to as the J2, published a paper criticizing the intelligence community in an unclassified think tank publication.  He had two co-authors, Paul Batchelor a senior executive assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency and Captain Matt Pottinger an advisor to the General and a recent winner of a Marine Corps Intelligence Officer of the Year award. 

There’s been very little reported on this remarkable event by the media, probably again because they don’t understand the significance.  For any military intelligence officer to publish a criticism of the community in a civilian publication without “formally” first going through the military chain of command while at war is unprecedented in my experience.  The military has court marshaled and jailed many for much less offenses.  He must have at a minimum had permission from the head of United States Central Command, General Petraeus and his boss in Afghanistan, General McChrystal.  Since one of his co-authors works for the Defense Intelligence Agency, they must have at least informally approved of the publication as well. It also tells me he might be having trouble getting the DC crowd to respond to his problems.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who saw the report only after it came out, “has real reservations” about the decision to have it published by a private group.  But, Morell says, Gates a former intelligence official himself, “found the analysis ‘brillant’ and the findings ‘spot on’.”

Major General Flynn doesn’t mince words, in his opening paragraph he states:  “Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy.  Having focused the overwhelming majority of its collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, the vast intelligence apparatus is unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which U.S. allied forces operate and the people they seek to persuade…U.S. intelligence officers and analyst can do little but shrug in response to high level decision-makers seeking the knowledge, analysis, and information they need to wage a successful counterinsurgency.”

Major General Flynn goes on to states the intelligence community “is also culture that is emphatic about secrecy but regrettable less concerned about mission effectiveness.”  He goes on to quote:  “General McChrystal in a recent meeting, “Our Senior leaders – the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, Congress, the President of the United States – are not getting the right information to make decisions with.  We must get this right.  The media is driving the issues.  We need to build a process from the sensor all the way to the political decision makers.”

If these organizations are not able to provide the military decision makers, with the data they need, in the time and format need, that’s a major problem.  I don’t believe Major General Flynn and his co-authors were attacking all of his military intelligence support.    I believe he is standing up for them.  He says the conclusions and recommendations made in the paper were based on discussions with hundreds of people inside and outside the intelligence community.  I suspect members of the military intelligence side of the house have been complaining for some time and probably have not felt they were being heard or understood hence the unconventional approach.

Major General Flynn gives several examples of what’s working and what’s not.  I’ll cover more of what’s in the report and the significance in my next blog.

Why should the President, the media, and the public care about the military intelligence side of the house?  These are the men and woman, many in their late teens and early 20’s who provide the bulk of the support for military operations.  You cannot win a war without good intelligence support.  At its best, intelligence provides the decision maker with information on potential adversaries that allows them to make decisions to avoid a war or crisis.  In a war time environment it provides the decision makers with the knowledge enabling them to craft a winning strategy.  In their excellent book The Admiral’s Advantage, Christopher Ford and David Rosenberg discuss intelligence support to military operations.  The Navy calls this OPINTEL.  Ford and Rosenberg state:

“World War II was the crucible in which modern OPINTEL first began to take shape.  Numerous historical accounts – now available due to the gradual declassification of records shrouded in history for many ears after the war – attest to the vital role that intelligence played in making possible the Allie’s overwhelming victory in 1945.  For example, Gen. Thomas Handy reportedly believed that Allied intelligence triumphs shortened the war in Europe by at least a year, and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower estimated that it saved thousands of British and American lives.  Similarly, Adm. Chester Nimitz, commander in Chief (CINC) of Allied forces in the Pacific theater, believed that the good intelligence he received was worth as much as an entire additional fleet.’

As always, my views are my own.

Note:  I wrote this opinion piece last week but was unable to load on the web site due to problems with my travel computer.

Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer

Topic:  Pregnant Soldiers

When I woke up the day after Christmas and checked the morning news, I was very happy to hear, General Ray Odierno, the General in charge of all the forces in Iraq intended to rescind a policy that could have resulted in court martial of both the soldiers who became pregnant and the men responsible for the pregnancy.  The policy had been put in place by one of his subordinates, Major General Anthony Cucolo the commander of U.S. forces in Northern Iraq.  General Cucolo’s force numbers 22,000 soldiers of which 1,682 were women.  Of that total apparently 4 became pregnant.  In spite of the reversal of policy, I believe this incident highlights women in the military still have hurdles to overcome.

As a Gulf War veteran, I can certainly understand where Major General Cucolo was coming from.  The pregnancy thing was one of a number of items he addressed to emphasize the seriousness of being involved in a war, maintain good order and discipline, and not leave units short handed.  My concern was the pregnancy policy was not well thought out, sent the wrong signal and could have left some women and men open to organizational harrassment by superiors or co-workers who didn’t like them for whatever reason and could use the policy to ruin their career.

To clarify, I have an older brother who is retired Army.  He told me during the first Gulf War one of the soldiers working for him deliberately dropped a bowling ball on his foot just before they were scheduled to deploy to avoid having to go to the war zone.  The question I would ask, because of that incident, are you going to automatically discipline every soldier serving in the war zone who suffers an injury not related to combat?  When I was serving in the military it was pretty common for men who worked for me to get injured playing sports during their down time and have to miss time at work.  I would submit that not every non combat related injury is deliberate and neither is every pregnancy. No form of birth control provides 100% protection. Many women in the military are married to military members. I could easily foresee a situation under Major General Cucolo’s policy where a husband and wife where disciplined because the wife became pregnant.

During the first Gulf War, I was assigned to one of the Navy’s largest operational aviation squadrons.  It was also one of the first Navy units to have a large number of women assigned as flight crew members.  I happened to be the senior female assigned and was often consulted by the Commanding Officer on women specific issues.  There were a couple of incidents that might help clarify where I’m going with this.  Early in my assignment, one of the women pilots became pregnant.  The men in the squadron didn’t seem to have a problem with it but the other women flight crew members did.  They felt she was unprofessional and was setting a negative role model for women in the military.  They felt she should have waited until her next assignment to get pregnant.  Navy assignments rotate between sea duty and shore assignments.  Sea duty involves being assigned to units that could go into combat and shore duty assignments are usually units that are more administrative and unlikely to go into combat should a conflict occur.  Many navy personnel who want to enlarge their families will typically plan to have children during the shore assignments.  My married friends told me the reason for this was because if possible they wanted both parents to be around for both the pregnancy and birth.

I chose not to confront the young woman about the timing of her pregnancy but one day she invited me to lunch.  Sensing she probably needed someone to talk to I accepted.  I’m glad I did.  She explained that she had gone to visit her husband who was stationed in a different geographic region.  They had practiced birth control but it failed and she found herself pregnant.  She didn’t believe in abortion so chose to keep her child.  She was sorry the other women were mad at her but felt she had made the right choice.  I agreed with her. A number of years before that, the same thing happened to a good friend and her boss made her professional life a living Hell.  He seemed to feel that she deliberately got pregnant just to avoid work.  Nowadays they call it a hostile work environment. He was never taken to task for his treatment of her and nearly ruined her career.

There is one more incident worth mentioning.  Just before my unit deployed to the war zone, I presided over a meeting with the women in my unit.  They asked me to look into one problem for them.  A number of fellow female sailors stationed at other units on the base found themselves pregnant even though they were on birth control pills.  The pills were supposedly something like 98% or more effective in preventing pregnancy.  The woman thought the number of women getting pregnant was too high.  They also said the military doctors were handing out expired birth control pills and they believed that was the problem. I checked with base medical personnel.  They confirmed they were handing out expired pills but said they should still work okay.  I didn’t investigate further and reported my findings to the women.  They still thought the expired pills were the problem but let it go.  A year or two after the war ended I saw an article in a military paper stating a military study concluded that the higher than normal numbers of military women having unplanned pregnancies during the war was the result of being given expired birth control pills.

In my 28 years in the military, there were numerous studies looking at the impact of having women in the military.  Every study result I saw said units lost more time from men getting sick or being thrown in the brig because of bad behaviour than from women who became pregnant.  During the first Gulf War, I had a number of single moms working for me.  Our hours were long and often involved rotating shifts.  They also frequently were required to leave our home location in Spain and deploy to the war zone. There was not one instance where the women were unable to deploy, lost time at work or asked for a day off to take care of sick children. I asked the women how were they able to handle the responsibilities of parenting along with the demands of a tough job that even when home in Spain, frequently required them to work through the night.  The Department of Defense is the world’s largest day care provider but typically they shut down in the evening and even during the day if a child is sick a parent had to come get them.  They replied; “Ma’am, we women stick together.  We find women who are off when we’re working and if needed, they baby sit our kids and when they’re working we take care of theirs. When we leave home and go to the war front, same thing.”

Years ago there was a commercial with the line:  “You’ve come a long way Baby”.  Indeed women in the military have come a long way.  When I joined in the early ’70’s, women could not have children, not even step children.  It took a Supreme Court Decision to change that policy.  I’m very glad it did not take a Supreme Court decision to reverse this most recent pregnancy policy.  231,000 women have deployed to the war zone since 2001, reports from the field indicate they have carried themselves with honor and distinction.  Have there been any who have not lived up to standards and failed in their duty?  I’m sure there have been just as there have probably been a small number of men who have not.  Let’s not let those small numbers color perceptions of the great job the overwhelming majority of our men and women are doing.       

Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer

Topic:  Flight 253, Intelligence Failure?

In the aftermath of the recent failed Christmas day terrorist attack by a young Nigerian man, the airwaves and print media are once again filled with cries of “intelligence failure”.  As I watched the talking heads give their “expert” analysis of the situation, I felt my frustration level rising; primarily because most really did not seem to have an understanding of how the intelligence community operates and how complex the problem of intelligence analysis is.  They talked in sound bites and screamed at each other as they competed for air time.  I kept hearing both politicians and the media saying the intelligence community failed to connect the dots, the intelligence agencies still were not collaborating and very little had improved in the way the intelligence community conducted business since 9/11.  They seemed to be under the impression that the “dots” were obvious and should not have been missed.

Was the incident an intelligence failure?  Yes, but not in the way most of the reports have portrayed it.  My concern is if you don’t understand how a system works, how can you make the best recommendations to fix it?  The critics also failed to acknowledge how well intelligence has worked in recent years.  In the aftermath of 9/11, I was frequently asked by concerned citizens, how could they be reassured the problems had been fixed.  I replied because there had not been another major attack on U.S. soil.  Because of the way the intelligence community conducts business, you rarely hear about the successes.  You don’t always want to acknowledge your success because you want to give the “bad guy” as little information as possible on how you’re doing business.

During an interview with CNN today John Brennan, Assistant to the President on Homeland Security and a former member of the CIA, stated the intelligence community working with the FBI has stopped a lot of terrorist plots long before they’re executed.  He didn’t provide any details, probably because of security concerns.  I think the public and the media are highly suspicious of the intelligence world.  This is partly because of the secrecy that shrouds the way the intelligence community operates and partly because of past abuses.  Consequently, when Brennan doesn’t provide details of what terrorist activities have been prevented, some probably think he’s either not being truthful or being defensive or both.  The public and media understand why military leaders are not more forthcoming about their plans as they prepare for military action and less familiar with the reasons the intelligence community doesn’t like to publicize the details of successful operations.  Of note, since 9/11 the intelligence community has been pretty open about how they’re organized, problems they’re facing and what they’re working on to solve them.  Check out their web sites if you have the time or interest; that should be a requirement before you can be a “talking head”.  

I believe the failure to connect the “dots” was because they were a handful among billions of pieces of data.  In a 2007 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs Magazine, then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell stated:  “The U.S. intelligence community collects more than one billion pieces of information every day.” (www.foreignaffairs.com)  In that same year Dr. Michael Wertheimer, Assistant Deputy Director of Intelligence for Analytic Transformation and Chief Technology Officer, stated: Of the data we’re collecting, that is genuinely intel, not fluff – it’s already been filtered and selected – we’re only analyzing about one ten-millionth of the data we’re collected today; one ten-millionth.”  http://www.dni.gov/speeches/20070905_spe…) 

Of that data there are many real and/or potential threats and many that are not.  When you look at the data, you can’t just focus on information you’re looking at today you have to somehow figure out if it’s connected to something you saw yesterday, last week, last month or even years ago.  The intelligence community also has to ensure the analysts looking at the information have the right background and training to understand the significance of what he or she is looking at.  Just because you receive some information does not mean it’s accurate.  It could be misinformation.  It could be some terrorist wannabes.  They talk trash and make threats but don’t have the capability to carry anything out.

Analysts of today not only have to be experts in their areas of specialty but also have to be digitally smart.  Analysis doesn’t do any good if it just sits in your computer.  You have to know how to get it to the people who need it in a format they can use.  I remember one of the governments talking “heads” said the head of one of the intelligence agencies should have personally delivered the information to the heads of the other agencies.  He obviously didn’t understand how collaboration works.  Personal contact and briefings are just one form.  In today’s environment it’s usually too slow.  While an intelligence person if giving someone a one on one update, additional information is coming in that may make his presentation out of date. Technology is used to pass the bulk of the information from agency to agency and to the decision makers.  The challenge is the ever increasing amount of data requires continuous upgrades in the communications architecture in order to keep the information flowing to the individuals who need it in the time and format they require.  The upgrades not only need to focus on the flow of the information but also on the analysis and screening of data.  You can’t sort through one billion pieces of data a day without help from computers.  You need to invent systems than can help out.

The January 2010 issue of National Defense Magazine has an excellent article, “Military ‘Swimming in Sensors and Drowning in Data’”, that illustrates this point.  The article states: “Unpiloted aircraft in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan collect full-motion video.  Satellites…take images from space.  Signals Intelligence experts eavesdrop on the chatter of insurgents who maybe planning to bomb civilian targets. Also in the mix is low tech human intelligence – information gleaned by spies from informants or during interrogations…Synthesizing all these collection disciplines and disseminating them quickly is the challenge facing the military.”

Quoting Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Air Force chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, the article goes on to say:  “Today, there is one video feed for every unpiloted aircraft combat air patrol, also known as an ‘orbit’.  An orbit is defined as one 24-hour continuous mission.  Currently, the Air Forces flies 39 orbits over Afghanistan and Iraq every day.  The goal is to reach 50 orbits by 2011.  Within a couple of years, unpiloted Mq-9 Reapers carrying the new wide area airborne surveillance sensors will be able to track up to 12 different targets simultaneously…The iteration after that will jump to 30 and there are plans to eventually reach 65.  That’s an increase from 39 possible feeds to more than 3,000”.

The article is just talking about some of the intelligence issues faced while working Iraq and Afghanistan.  Imagine factoring in all the data collected on all of the other national security problems and issues the intelligence community is looking at.          

When you put the problem in context I think the intelligence community is doing a remarkable job.  Is it perfect?  No.  Can improvements be made?  Yes.  There are many hard working people both in industry and government working every day to solve these problems.  The reality is because of the nature of the problem intelligence failures are inevitable.  In a war, and that’s what we’re involved in, there will always be loss of life; however, there is no doubt in my mind that there are countless people within the intelligence community striving to do their best to help us win this war on terror.  My hope is that the policy makers in Washington make sure any changes or recommendations in how the intelligence community operates are based on a thorough understanding of how it functions and not just faulty perceptions.

I recommend that President Obama and key members of his staff take a tour of the intelligence communities.  I don’t mean the VIP thing.  I would like to see them spend just one day sitting by the side of an intelligence analyst and going over all of the information this young person sees on a daily basis.  Only then will they gain a true understanding of the issues at hand.  About 4 years ago, I was invited to observe a war game.  I spent about a week and had free rein to roam wherever I wanted.  I parked myself by the side of the young analysts.  On their computer screens they were not only screening intelligence traffic while also simultaneously had about 25 different chat rooms open monitoring intelligence collection being done by multiple platforms and individuals.  That’s just one example of how collaboration works in today’s environment.  This is a constantly evolving process and I’m sure they’re monitoring even more things today. I was pretty good in my day but don’t know if I could survive in today’s environment.  The question the media and politicians need to be asking is how we can improve the collaboration process not repeating the mantra “you’re still not collaborating and nothing has changed since 9 /11”.

The President and his team need to see this personally.  Not some VIP tour which typically gives the visitor a 50,000 foot view of how an organization operates.  It’s not enough for the decision maker to read intelligence reports.  In today’s environment they need to have a good understanding of what’s involved in the collection and analysis of that information.  If President Obama and his staff they can find time to hit the golf course and basketball court and attend sporting events they can find time to first hand witness true intelligence analysis and not the brief overview they get from a VIP tour.  Hey, I’m just saying….   

Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer

Topic:  Year in Review

Overview:

Overall defense issues played out pretty much as expected in 2009.  In a January 27, 2009 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates identified Afghanistan as the greatest military challenge and stated “we have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous areas – a vacuum that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban. That is why the U.S. is considering an increase in our military presence, in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the size of the Afghan security forces.”  Back in January, Gates also said because of the “porous border” between Pakistan and Afghanistan it was “impossible” to separate the problems.

President Obama’s decision to add an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to my mind validates Gate’s analysis of the threat as well as his proposed solution to reverse the negative trends of the ongoing conflict.  Considering the large number of critics saying the greatly reduced Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan no longer required a large U.S. military presence and calling for a refocus of our efforts or either a total withdrawal or downsizing of forces, this was no small thing.

Time will tell if this new strategy will work but it is worth noting that there was also much criticism at the start of the Iraqi surge strategy.  The challenge of trying to analyze ongoing military strategies by the public and those media not well connected or embedded with the troops is we don’t have the complete picture.  The reality of how wars are fought requires the military to keep the details of exactly how the strategy will be executed secret.  How can you execute a strategy successfully if you give all the details away?

During the testimony, Gates also identified what he referred to as the “toxic mix of rogue nations, terrorist groups, and nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons”.  North Korea and Iran were at the top of his list in this regard.  There’s not been much progress with either country in talks on their nuclear programs.  Both remain defiant and in a show of old fashioned saber rattling; conducted missile tests during the year.  North Korea fired two ballistic missiles on the July 2 and 7more on July 4^th.   On December 16, Iran test fired, the Sajjil-2, the latest variant in their ongoing missile development program.

One can debate how effective these missiles are versus current U.S. and allied anti- missile defense; but, the threat they pose cannot be ignored.  Let’s not forget how effective Iraq’s Scud weapons were during the first Gulf War in creating hate, discontent and fear in the region.  I once heard an expression called “the golden BB”.   For you younger readers, according to the Wikipedia definition, BB guns are a type of air gun designed to shoot projectiles which are named BBs after the birdshot pellet of approximately the same size.” The guns were introduced in 1938 and are apparently still being produced today.  The concept of the Golden BB is that in today’s media saturated world, you’re not just fighting on the battle fields for military objectives but also fighting on a public stage to win public opinion.  The definition of a successful military engagement in the public can differ from that of a military strategist typically focused on winning an entire war and not just one military engagement.  In today’s environment, it doesn’t take overwhelming military force to win a battle in the eyes of world opinion.  Shoot down a U.S. Aircraft or drone, blow up a hotel, successfully launch a missile and you can declare a military success.  An opponent can’t say they’ve won the war but they can say stuff like they will succeed eventually. 

Other areas of concern mentioned by Gate’s in his January testimony were a resurgent Russian military, China, and Cyber warfare.  He reminded the senators that the “Russian invasion of Georgia last year was a reminder that the Russian military is a force to be reckoned with in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.”  There were no major incidents between the U.S. and Russian military during the year but there were a few incidents that reminded us the Russian military may not be up to the standards and capabilities of the Cold War days but can still show a little flash now and then.

In August, the Russian defense ministry confirmed that two Akula Class attack submarines were patrolling off the U.S. East Coast.  According to a report in Stratfor this was the first time in over a decade this type of activity has been seen.  In March, CNN.com reported two Russian IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft over flew the aircraft carrier USS Stennis in the Sea of Japan and the next day two TU-95 Russian long range Bombers over flew the USS Blue Ridge which was also operating in the Sea of Japan.  In both instances the Russian aircraft were intercepted by U.S. fighters but it was significant in that this was the first time in over a year Russian aircraft had over flown a U.S. Navy ship.  The report also indicated “Russian long-range flights skirting U.S. or other nation’s boundaries have also been common over the last year”.

I don’t believe this is a major issue, simply Russia reminding the U.S. and its NATO allies their military still has some strong teeth and can bite us if they want to.  In 2007, then President Vladimir Putin announced he was resuming the Soviet era practice of long range military aircraft flights.  According to a BBC report, Putin stated “In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas.  Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone…Flights by other countries’ strategic aircraft continue and this creates problems for ensuring the security of the Russian federation”.

There were no major military conflicts with China but as expected they continued modernization of all of their armed forces to include growing capabilities in cyberspace.  In his January testimony Gates warned the committee that “potential adversaries operating in cyberspace can inflict serious damage to DoD’s vast information grid”.    Just this past week, there were reports that militants in Iraq had been able to hack into the video feeds from the Predator UAV using easily available cheap technology. In the first 6 months of 2009 there were 43,785 malicious attacks against DoD networks.  Projecting out to the end of the year we’re looking at a 60 percent increase compared to 2008.

Person of the Year:

The men and woman assigned to United States Central Command who continued to give their all in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The politicians pontificated, the media talked in sound bites but these men and woman soldiered on.

Most Unexpected Event:

Fort Hood Massacre.  Since 9/11 we have lived with the knowledge that another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil is possible.  The investigation into the motive of the shooter is ongoing; but early reports suggest his actions might have been motivated by sympathy with Al Qaeda.  If this is found to be the case, it’s particularly painful to realize that a member of the military family can commit such atrocities against his fellow comrades.

In recent testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, a Rand Corporation official noted that one third of homegrown terrorists plots discovered since 9/11 happened in 2009.  Danny Coulson, a Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, said a majority of the suspects in these cases had no direct link to terrorist organizations.  The implication being that makes them harder to detect.

What to Watch For in 2010

Whether Afghanistan “surge” is successful.  How do we measure that success?

Pakistan and how it deals with Al Qaeda, Taliban and other insurgent groups operating in their border region.

Al Qaeda

“Homegrown” Terrorists

Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs.

Iraq and whether positive trends keep going or start to reverse.

WMD proliferation.

Cyberspace challenges

Russian military developments

Chinese military activities

Golden BB

GailForce

Reflections of a retired Baby Boomer

     On December 16, two days before scheduled UN talks on its nuclear program, and in a not so subtle warning to the U.S. and its allies, Iran test fired, the Sajjil-2, the latest variant of their ongoing missile development program.  The missile is powered by solid fuel which makes it more accurate, has a 1200 mile range and according to their Defense Minister, General Ahmad Vahidi, flies faster and can be fired more quickly than earlier versions.  Also of concern is apparently the missiles can be fueled in advance and have a mobile capability making them harder to find and target.  The missile’s range allows it to reach U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf, Israel and locations in south Eastern Europe.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out the missile range also “includes U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, all of them Sunni Arab dominated countries that are rivals of Shiite Iran”.  The launch is part of an ongoing war game conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and according to a report in Bloomberg.com is one of 9 missile launches thus far. 

     This event causes several thoughts to swirl through my mind.  First off it reminds me that our national security threats are not just about Iraq, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.  There are many ways a potential enemy can come at us.  Today Iran once again reminded us it’s not going gently into the night.  North Korea pops up every now and then to make a similar point and let’s not even get into the undeclared cyber war going on against U.S. networks every day.  According to a 2009 report to Congress of the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, in the first 6 months of 2009 there were 43,785 reported incidents of malicious cyber activity against the Department of Defense, a 60 percent increase over attacks reported in 2008 30, 2009.

     During the Cold War, there was a security within the in security.  You had a pretty good idea of who the bad guys were and what they could or could not do to you.  We had watched each other so long; each side had a pretty good idea of when the other was just rattling their swords and talking trash or was genuinely upset about one thing or the other.  Consequently it was easier to identify threats to national security and develop the weapons and programs and military to counter it.

      Ever since the end of the Cold War it seems to me there has been no overarching coherent national security policy designed to address all potential threats.  We’ve been in the reactive mode primarily focusing our efforts on the terrorism issue in the aftermath of 9/11 and aligning our military forces, budgets,  and strategies on various threats as they pop up.  This is understandable but it seems to me we need to also focus on coming up with an overall defense plan and that reflects all possible threats to national security.  Once you’ve thought that out then you can better decide issues such as what should be the size of our defense forces, what new programs to fund, what old programs to keep and what to cut.

     I’m reminded of a philosophy course I took in college.  We’d sit around and discuss stuff like how do you know you exist?  We’d usually end by quoting the old French Philosopher Rene Descartes who finally ended the argument, at least in his mind, by saying, “I think therefore I exist.”  As I thought about this blog, I asked myself at what point did I become aware of a philosophy or view point concerning national security policy.  Answer, at the age of 11 during the 1960 Presidential election when I first heard JFK talk about Flexible Response, having multiple options against various threats that would allow the president to apply the appropriate amount of force at the right place.  That concept made sense to me then and resonates with me today.

     In today’s environment, I believe that means we first need to identify threats, and then figure out what it would take to counter them.  We’d also have to look at issues such as  size of forces needed to carry out strategies i.e. would we need to be able to fight one war plus two major crises at any given point in time or two wars and one major crisis?

     Have no doubt about it there are threats other than terrorism that can cause major problems.  Looking simply at Iran, they can create a lot of hate and discontent.  For example, it would not be inconceivable for them to retaliate if Israel decided to take out their nuclear facilities.  One fifth of the world’s oil supply travels through the Strait of Hormuz, if the Iranians decided to mine the waters around and in the strait, it could get very ugly very quickly.  If they chose not to admit they were responsible for the mining, diplomatically it could get dicey attacking them without proof.  They could also be overt and launch missiles against U.S. and allied targets.  The worse nightmare of course would be if they did have the capability to put a nuclear war head on those missiles.  Most estimates say they are a few years away from that capability but what if the estimates are wrong?  I’m reminded of pre-Desert Storm estimates on Iraq’s nuclear weapon capability.  He was thought to be years away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.  Shortly after the first Gulf War when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAA) and the UN Inspectors had time to sniff around the country they were surprised at how much more advanced Iraq’s program was over pre-war estimates. A 1996 IEAA report said if not for the Gulf War interruption, Iraq could have had a nuclear device by as early as 1992.

     I know that the Defense Department is hard at work on the Quadrennial Defense Review where they look at strategic objectives and potential threats.  I have no doubts that a group of talented hard working people are putting there best effort to this very important task.  They’re due to give the report to Congress in 2010.  I look forward to reading the reports.

     My thoughts are my own, I’m just a retired Baby Boomer living happily ever after in the Rocky Mountains.  Think I’ll go for a walk in the snow.

Gail Harris  

Authorization Bill Kills Big US Defense Programs
This year congress has vetoed a half dozen weapons programs and plans to specifically target missile defense, reports the Armed Forces Journal.

General Dynamics Wins $16M US Defense Contract
General Dynamics’ Information Technology arm has won a five-year $15.6m contract from the Department of Defense’s Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to support the DAU learning asset program.

New Submarine on Sea Trials
The New Mexico (SSN 779), the sixth submarine of the U.S. Navy’s Virginia class, has successfully completed the first two rounds of builder’s sea trials and, if an upcoming sea trial by the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey passes muster, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding expects to deliver the sub to the Navy before the end of the year.