Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review Columns writted by Fred Edwards in 2006

Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review
Archive 2006

Free Subscription! To receive future columns by e-mail click here and sign up.

The content of Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review may be copied or retransmitted for information purposes, but may not be used for any commercial purpose without my written permission. I retain all copyright and proprietary rights. Please include this notice and credit the source as Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards.

Jan 05 2006 Military spouses are managing the marketplace myths -- Being a transient is losing its stigma

Jan 13 2006 How much security is enough? In combat you have to get out of the box

Jan 20 2006 Pentagon targets military retirees. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Jan 26 2006 Great-grandmother praises troops she knew in Iraq: "They know they're there for a reason. They … want to get the job done."

Feb 03 2006 The Woodruff publicity causes resentment -- But it draws attention to the other 9,200

Feb 10 2006 Congress reins in DoD plan to civilianize military medical positions

Feb 17 2006 VA must get its budgeting act together

Feb 24 2006 A kinder, gentler Army -- Maybe it is indeed broken

Mar 03 2006 The limits of loyalty -- What do you owe those who fight your fight?

Mar 10 2006 Military wins 8-0 -- Court says let 'em recruit on campus. Attempted tie to First Amendment is hogwash

Mar 17 2006 Linking military funerals to homosexuals -- How wierd can it get?

Mar 24 2006 Why and how we are winning the war

Mar 31 2006 Another new military compensation plan -- or another old pitch in new language?

Apr 07 2006 The military Survivor Benefit Plan needs two final fixes

Apr 14 2006 The commander is responsible for the troops; -- the casualty assistance officer for their families

Apr 21 2006 Marriage and military BAH can create unlikely bedfellows

Apr 28 2006 The generals' stars are getting tarnished

May 05 2006 Here's the straight scoop from the troops about the war

May 12 2006 We need a new Manhattan Project

May 19 2006 Here's how Rumsfeld is winning

May 24 2006 26.5 million veterans should be enraged over security breach -- but not for the reason you might think

Jun 02 2006 The battle for Belleau Wood

Jun 09 2006 Guam in the Crosshairs

Jun 16 2006 Crosshairs on the Predator UAV

Jun 23 2006 After the bash, it was time for a cup of Joe

Jun 30 2006 Let 'em launch!

Jul 07 2006 Special report about the war -- what the mainstream media won't tell you

Jul 14 2006 Iraq crescendo heads for climax

Jul 21 2006 America's 21st Century revolution

Jul 28 2006 How to win or lose the war against Islamic fascists

Aug 04 2006 Let's stop pitting people against hardware

Aug 11 2006 Hezbollah wins this round -- no matter how the war ends

Aug 18 2006 Into Africa -- beginning with the basics

Aug 25 2006 If they are not fascists -- tell me what they are

Sep 01 2006 A tale of two thugs -- and what our service members did about them

Sep 08 2006 The 5-year 9/11 balance sheet

Sep 15 2006 Loose Taliban and loose gays

Sep 22 2006 Afghanistan round two -- NATO has six months before the bell

Sep 29 2006 Deployment crunch coming big time -- unless somebody realizes there's a war going on

Oct 06 2006 Skimpy military pay rise labeled an 'abysmal failure of leadership'

Oct 13 2006 A regime change in the homeland? November U.S. elections could mark the beginning

Oct 20 2006 NATO takes the reins in Afghanistan

Oct 27 2006 At the crossroads in Iraq -- Resetting the milestones

Nov 03 2006 Marine Corps Birthday takes the Corps back to the future

Nov 10 2006 Robert Gates challenged to historic balancing act

Nov 17 2006 The 1,000-ship navy -- a symmetrical (balanced) defense to asymmetrical warfare

Nov 24 2006 Panel preempts Rep. Rangel with a sole reason for reinstating the draft

Dec 01 2006 Gen. Abizaid trains crosshairs on Central Command's theater of operations

Dec 08 2006 The long war -- There's no silver bullet

Dec 15 2006 We've been fighting the long war for years -- It's about time we started to mobilize

Dec 29 2006 Somalia and the Horn of Africa -- War by proxy on the African Continent

Top | Home

Military spouses are managing the marketplace myths

Being a transient is losing its stigma

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 5, 2006 -- During the early post-World-War-II days, the Marines' take on spouses was, "If the Commandant wanted you to have a wife, he would issue you one." This reflected a long-term attitude in the Armed Forces that military spouses were second class citizens when it came to employment and re-employment and that they were just part of the household goods that followed the sponsor from one duty station to another.

But the Vietnam War framed the onset of a sea change. In the face of harsh rounds of demonstrations against the war and selective service, President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973, thus creating an all-volunteer force. At the time, about 25 percent of the military force was married. That figure has doubled by today to more than 50 percent.

Although the government didn't "issue" spouses, it certainly had to accept them as critical factors for recruiting and retention. Thus, quality of life became a paramount consideration in competing against civilian employers. Here's how it plays out:

* The U.S. should pay the troops as much as their civilian counterparts, and the paymasters owe them extra money for relinquishing bits of their constitutional rights, for being on call 24-hours per day, and for serving in harm's way apart from home and family.

* The government owes them and their families a decent medical system and adequate schooling for their children.

* And their spouses need a chance to hold their own in the work place market.

The latter arguably was the toughest bastion to beat down because the spouses had to break through the marketplace myths. Employers often saw them as unskilled migrant workers who were less qualified and less educated than their civilian peers.

Consequently, according to a Rand Corp. study, the unemployment rate of military wives who wanted jobs was higher than that of their civilian counterparts, and the salaries of those who were hired trailed those of civilians in equivalent jobs by as much as $7,400 a year.

And education? The same study found military wives to be better educated than their civilian sisters.

Of course spouses can't escape the migrant status because about one third of the 694,000 who work are transferred annually, according the National Military Family Association at http://www.nmfa.org. But they now have the support of the Department of Defense (DoD) and numerous other organizations.

For example, DoD's Military Spouse Preference Program (MSPP) sprang from Title 10, United States Code, Section 1784, "Employment Opportunities for Military Spouses." The MSPP applies to spouses of active duty military members of the Armed Forces (including Coast Guard), who relocate to accompany their sponsor on a permanent change of station move. Visit http://www.dod.mil/dfas/careers/nonstatus/ca_ns_deuMilSpouse.htm.

DoD also has partnered with Military.com to produce the Military Spouse Career Center at www.military.com/spouse. The site contains jobs from Monster.com, along with government jobs and listings of employers for military spouses.

In addition, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have partnered with Adecco (www.adecco.com), a human resource and staffing service that employs up to 700,000 people daily in 6,600 offices in 75 countries.

Another prime mover is the non-profit Military Spouse Corporate Career Network (MSCCN), with a home page at http://msccn.org/. MSCCN's mission is not only to provide career opportunities and job portability for military spouses but also to help them find jobs and pursue careers during the years of the military members' service.

Several of the veterans' organizations also have stepped in to help. For example, in a recent policy move, the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) opened its career transition services to spouses of MOAA members. It's TOPS (The Officer Placement System) at http://www.moaa.org/serv/serv_career/index.htm) offers resume critiques as well as individual counseling by phone, e-mail, or in person at the MOAA headquarters in Alexandria, Va. It also maintains a list of more than 2,000 networking contacts, and keeps background information on more than 12 million businesses and companies.

I won't conclude by writing, "You've come a long way, baby!" because more and more military spouses are men. But I certainly will paraphrase my earlier statement about the Marines: "The Commandant won't issue you a spouse, but he and a host of others will help your spouse find employment."

Top | Home

How much security is enough?

In combat you have to get out of the box

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 13, 2006 -- First we hear of a secret Defense Department study for which the Marines paid $107,000. This study found that as many as 80 percent of the Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had worn extra ceramic plates of body armor.

Next we hear that Marines in the field have been demanding more body armor ever since the Iraq war began. And we're told that after they received the study results last summer they ordered almost 29,000 sets of armor by September. Perhaps 10 percent had arrived by year end. The Army also has opted to order additional armor for its 130,000 deployed soldiers.

But not all troops want the armor. For example, some soldiers from the 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans" of the 101st Airborne Division claim that their armor amounts to just too much extra weight and dangerously restricts their movement.

And many veterans of the war in Iraq shuffle off the issue like they would like to shuffle off their armor, because they figure that luck plays a big part in who gets hit and when.

So what gives here?

To begin with, you might create perfect security if you just placed each soldier in a deeply buried concrete box encased with some form of non-poisoning lead, with built in, unbreachable care for all body, medical and health functions. At that point, however, you would need some means to keep the boxed troops from being bored to death.

Of course, those soldiers would be absolutely worthless in combat. So to conduct wars, we have to get them out of the box. Not completely, though, because we want them to take part of the box with them.

The question is, "How much of the box?" The knights of the medieval period began taking more and more of the box with them, until their armor got so heavy and unwieldy that their squires had to hoist them onto their horses. And if they got unhorsed in battle, they fell into the worst of two worlds - locked in a box, and at the mercy of their enemy. So the knights had to decide how much to trade off between protecting themselves and winning battles.

Today's world reflects little change, because commanders must decide how much and what kind of armor is best for their troops. It's a no-win decision because they'll see them injured and killed if they wear either too little or too much armor. Indeed, the enemy will ensure that no perfect suit of armor exists for long, because they'll find a way to maim and kill our service members whenever they're out of the box.

And they can't put their troops in a box just to keep them safe. Every commander must concentrate on accomplishing the mission first, and looking after the welfare of the troops second. They can turn to the second decision only if it doesn't adversely affect the mission.

Meanwhile, because of the lead time in acquiring new armor, I have a hunch some troops won't be wearing it until their next combat tour.

Top | Home

Pentagon targets military retirees

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 20, 2006 -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies are complaining about the cost of medical care for military retirees. The Pentagon contends that retirees, their spouses and survivors are siphoning money needed to fight the war in Iraq. The implication is that every time a retiree orders a pill it is likely to cost a bullet an American soldier needs on the battlefield.

The latest scheme would impose draconian health care costs upon retirees who are not Medicare-eligible. The Defense Department would more than triple annual enrollment fees for officers in TRICARE Prime and double the fees for enlisted retirees by 2008.

Fees for under-65 officer retirees would skyrocket over three years from $240 a year for individual coverage to $750, and from $450 annually for family coverage to $1,500.

Costs for TRICARE Prime for enlisted retirees over the next three years would jump from the current $230 per individual and $460 per family to $300 per individual and $600 per family in 2006, $375 per individual and $750 per family in 2007, and to $450 per individual and $900 per family in 2008.

In addition, the deductible for TRICARE Standard go up, and a first-time-ever annual enrollment fee would be imposed.

Medicare-eligible retirees also would take a hit, with copayments for TRICARE retail generic drugs jumping from $3 to $5 and for brand name drugs from $9 to $15 retail and $10 by mail order.

The department needs help from Congress to pull this off, so here's it's two-prong plan of attack.

First, it enlisted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support the idea. Of course that's a no-brainer because the chairman of the chiefs reports to the Secretary of Defense, and the chiefs are fighting for their budget. Imagine the scenario: the six most senior generals and flag officers in America, with a constellation of 24 stars glittering on their shoulders, sitting in front of the armed services committees, each testifying that medical costs are a critical readiness issue. Since the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan must be cared for, then the money has to come either from Congress or from the military retirees.

Second, the Quadrennial Defense Review report which the chiefs are completing is expected to endorse these steep TRICARE fees for younger retirees. That report is expected to hit the street in February.

Now here's what's wrong with the plan.

The current defense budget of $400 billion, while we're in a war against Islamic Fascists, represents only 3.2 percent of the gross national product. Compare this with the average of 5.7 percent of GNP in the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000. The United States afforded it, while it watched the former Soviet Union go broke trying to best us in warmaking capacity.

Furthermore, only 1 percent of the nation is fighting 100 percent of the war. To quote Sen. Robert Byrd, the nation is not at war; our military is at war.

An official from the Military Officers Association of America stated, "Military retirement benefits are virtually the only offset for extreme service conditions that few Americans are willing to endure for two or three decades."

That same official added, "Politicians who claim that the richest country in the world can't afford to pay for both military health care and essential weapons programs are just flat wrong. And putting the Joint Chiefs in the position of having to choose between the two is even more wrong."

So let's not balance the defense budget on the backs of the military retirees. Since less than 1 percent of the American population is fighting this war, if it's time to cough up more dollars, let's turn to the other 99 percent.

The entire scenario of socking it to the retirees smacks of another take to Rudyard Kipling's lines. Let's just name the military retiree "Tommy."

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Top | Home

Great-grandmother praises troops she knew in Iraq

"They know they're there for a reason. They … want to get the job done."

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 26, 2006 -- "My proudest time was seeing the soldiers smile when they saw somebody from home," said 73-year-old Lena Haddix, who recently returned from a 12-month volunteer tour with American and coalition troops in the Middle East. "And some of them recognized me from home," she added.

Mrs. Haddix, who has five children, eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren, served the first six months of her deployment in Kuwait. She followed that with six months at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, where she was a supervisor in the 30,000-square-foot Post Exchange.

Before leaving the States, she already had worked within the exchange service for more than 30 years. She was a military wife from 1950 until 1979, and started work at the Fort Sill, Okla., PX in 1977. Since then, she has filled every position. When the troops she called her "boys" began deploying to Iraq, she decided she had to go with them because she wanted to do something for her country.

They told her they doubted she could swing it, and - not surprisingly -- she encountered resistance from several quarters. Some people simply tried to talk her out of her decision. She didn't even tell her family until two weeks before departure, because she was certain they'd try to stop her.

In spite of the difficulties, she'd made up her mind and never wavered. She passed all the roadblocks, passed a physical, went to El Paso for training and shots, and was on her way.

The soldiers at Camp Liberty knew her as "Mom," and each time they returned to the base, they would stop by the exchange to let her know they were OK.

Then one day her bunker was attacked. "I asked myself, 'Lena, what are you doing over here?' But she looked around at the faces of the service members, and she knew why. "You're there for them, not for yourself," she decided.

Upon her return to the States, Haddix received special recognition for her service from Brig. Gen. James Lewis Kennon, deputy commander of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. She then went back to the PX at Fort Sill, where she currently works as a greeter.

When asked what she thought of the troops over there, she said: "They're doing their job. Their morale is good. They know they're there for a reason. They're willing, and want to get the job done."

She added, "They never complain. They don't (even) have bathrooms, but they don't complain. We complain over here."

How does she feel about her odyssey? "It's good to be home," she said, "but I miss the soldiers over there." She thought for a moment and added, "Although I see a lot of them who have come back to Fort Sill." She said they make a point to tell her they're going over or they've just come back.

Asked about her plans for the future, she said: "I haven't decided whether to go back. I might. But if I don't, I'll work at the exchange as long as my health holds." Without hesitation, she added, "And my health is real good."

Lena Haddix, I salute you.

Top | Home

The Woodruff publicity causes resentment

But it draws attention to the other 9,200

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 3, 2006 -- With 1 percent of Americans fighting 100 percent of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's no surprise that the media have given scant notice to the human side of military casualties. That changed on Sunday Jan. 29 when ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt, were seriously wounded in Iraq by an improvised explosive device (IED).

Nobody would reject concern and sympathy for the team, and I wish them every chance of recovery and rehabilitation. But service members and their families are asking why the daily casualties of the warriors get precious little notice except when the media plays the numbers game to support the cut-and-run crowd.

For the moment, it seems the press has discovered the human side of the war. The media still seldom report the successes our military forces have made in Iraq, but at least they've gained an idea of what happens after an IED detonates.

The casualties incurred by the ABC team are part of a long series of media casualties in Iraq. More than 60 members of the press have either died or been wounded from hostile action since March 2003, Compare this with 66 journalists who were killed during the entire Vietnam War, from 1955 to 1975. So we owe the ABC team a great deal of respect for seeking the mission it did.

On the Monday after the IED explosion, ABC News ran national coverage of the hospital at Balad Air Base, where Woodruff and Vogt were treated. Hundreds of the 9,200 service members who have been severely wounded have been stabilized at Balad before being evacuated to a technical trauma center at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. From there, they went either to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington or the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md. After intensive care in one of those service hospitals, the catastrophically wounded then were transferred to one of four designated VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers: Palo Alto, Calif.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Richmond, Va.; or Tampa, Fla.

Many of these wounded would have died in earlier wars, but were saved by body armor, helmets, modern battlefield medicine and timely evacuation. Such patients normally reach Landstuhl within 24 hours of being wounded, and go to the States within 48 to 72 hours. Compare that to the Vietnam War, when it took the average patient 45 days to reach a U.S. hospital.

Because of today's system, seven to eight service members survive for every one who dies. This compares with two per death in World War II.

And that brings us to a grim page two to this front page story

Polytrauma is a benign word for a witch's brew of broken skulls, impacted brains, blown out eyes, burst eardrums, destroyed nerves and severed spinal cords, often suffered by one person. Mix in fractures, wounds and drug-resistant bacteria from the battlefield. And add one or more amputations to 345 of the wounded as of Jan. 3. This is why the average patient stays at a polytrauma center for 45 days, and some may remain for months, or years. All may be attended by as many as 10 specialists.

Americans who want to help these troops and their families might start by contacting one of the polytrauma centers. At the Tampa center, for example, a local chapter of the Military Officers of America found that family members were coming from all over the southeast to be near their loved ones. Some had to quit their jobs. Most found themselves paying dual living expenses. They needed everything -- cash, food, cell phones, phone cards, gasoline, rental cars, and housing. The chapter formed "Operation Helping Hand" late in 2004, and has been successfully collecting donations and in-kind items for the families ever since.

The polytrauma centers concentrate on rehabilitation. Patients must learn how to swallow, talk, walk, run. They may start by learning to move a finger or a toe, or to answer yes-no questions by blinking. They must learn to use prosthetic limbs, and if they've lost the muscular ability to operate advanced prosthetics, they have to learn how to make do with simpler ones. Blind patients with memory impairments must learn new methods to avoid obstacles and reach goals. The key to every successful milestone comes from a positive attitude by the patients, their providers and their families.

Most of the polytrauma warriors are learning to live their new lives, an eyelid blink at a time. Some will never make it. But all 9,200 of them - and those that follow - deserve the same press coverage as the Woodruff team. For them to succeed, they must know we care.

Top | Home

Congress reins in DoD plan to civilianize military medical positions

It won't let it happen willy-nilly

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 10, 2006 -- Chief Smith goes to sick bay with a high fever, and the corpsman refers him to a doctor wearing a short yellow skirt, black pumps and nylons under her lab coat. That same day, Gunnery Sergeant Jones' wife, Mary, arrives at the base dental lab for an appointment with a dentist wearing a red, white and blue bow tie at the collar of his candy-striped shirt.

What gives? Civilianization. A plan supported by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would civilianize thousands of military medical positions throughout the armed services. It hasn't happened yet, but it's right around the corner. The services are working on it -- and so is Congress.

Tucked away in the fiscal 2006 National Defense Authorization act is a two-part provision that has put the brakes -- or at least placed oversight -- on civilianization, to be sure that some bothersome questions are answered.

The first question is how the services will handle deployments if their medical staff includes battalions of civilians. Since civilians would remain in place, would the deployment tempo of the uniformed providers skyrocket? At a recent briefing, officials working on the Navy's part of the plan simply answered, "No." Why? Two reasons.

First, some military medical providers already are undeployable, either due to health or family reasons or because they have recently returned from a deployment. Those individuals might as well be wearing civilian clothes, say the planners.

Second a cadre of providers is normally earmarked to remain at some stations to care for families of deployed troops. That's the theory, and may even be the policy. But in the real world the scope of such earmarking can suffer because of deployment requirements. For example, a recent report by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) charged that overcrowding is occurring right now within the Defense Department's some 70 emergency rooms. The culprit? High deployment tempo has thinned the ranks of the emergency physicians and nurses.

Another question is cost. Won't civilian doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians be paid more than their uniformed counterparts?

Not always, said the briefers, because military providers can create more indirect additional costs than civilians. The uniformed members are transferred as they move up the ranks and as they go through advanced schooling. Not only do transfers cost money, but also, replacements go through inefficient retraining cycles, according to the briefers. Civilian providers, on the other hand, theoretically would remain in place.

Again, however, the ACEP report revealed that the high turnover among medical staff due to deployments means physicians and nurses on duty in emergency rooms may lack experience.

And of course the numbers won't work easily in smaller stations or special locations, said the briefers.

When looking at this whole picture, it becomes obvious that DoD should not levy a compliance quota on the services. It should not get into a numbers game. It should do exactly the opposite, and have each service tell the department which slots they can civilianize, which ones they can't, and why.

So the concern of Congress -- and right so -- is to keep the Pentagon from imposing civilian quotas upon the services that would deteriorate medical care for their members and their families. Thus the legislators placed oversight into the fiscal '06 authorization act.

First, the act prohibits DoD from converting any military medical or dental positions before June 1. This gives the services a breathing spell.

Second, after June 1, the Defense Department can not dictate a conversion unless it certifies that the conversion will not decrease the quality of medical care or increase taxpayer costs.

The certification must be more than a piece of paper. DoD first must conduct a market survey to ensure that the conversion would not reduce the quality of medical care or raise its costs for members and their families in the area.

Some might complain that this is a bureaucracy trying to control another bureaucracy, thus compounding bureaucratic inefficiency. Of course they're right about the first part, but when considering a watershed change to military medical care, I submit that the oversight is absolutely necessary.

Will the oversight create more inefficiency? Perhaps, but warfare itself is inherently inefficient. The side with the least inefficiency has the odds of winning in its favor.

Top | Home

VA must get its budgeting act together

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 17, 2006 -- The Government Accountability Office reported Feb. 1, 2006, to the ranking members of the Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs, Democrats Daniel K. Akaka, Ala., and Lane Evans, Ill., respectively, that it had received "limited support" from the Department of Veterans Affairs in its quest to pin down health care management efficiency savings that VA had reported.

Let's translate "limited support." GAO essentially declared that VA could not justify its budget requests for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. GAO found that "management efficiency savings" of $1.3 billion claimed by VA were actually "savings goals." These savings goals were cutbacks from legitimate cost projections designed to budget no more than the president was willing to request. The report explained that - unlike true management efficiency savings -- cost cutting measures do not guarantee the same or higher quality and quantity of service. I see it as putting the budgeting cart before the horse.

An exacerbating issue was VA's $30.2-billion budget for 5 million veterans in fiscal 2005 that went bust when 7 million veterans came knocking on the doors of the VA medical centers and clinics.

In short, GAO audited VA's past medical budgeting process and gave it a grade of "F."

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman Steve Buyer, R-Ind., perhaps was less harsh. He said that funding shortfalls in fiscal 2005 and 2006 sprang from "unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimates, insufficient data, and an unresponsive budget model."

He explained that VA officials initially sought to overcome the shortages by using funds intended for carryover from 2005 into 2006, and by deferring certain expenses. But Congress provided VA $1.5 billion in supplemental funding for 2005, and VA rolled more than a billion dollars of it over into 2006.

Rep. Evans saw the matter as a direct slap at veterans: "While calling for the establishment of user fees and increased copayments for veterans seeking health care, and altogether barring at least 260,000 veterans from the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, the administration falsely claimed billions of dollars in unsubstantiated 'management efficiencies' and used its phantom claims to offset VA budget requests for health care."

Sen. Akaka said, "It is distressing that VA's health care budget over the past three years has been built like a house of cards. Budgets must be built on solid facts …"

Evans and Akaka noted that if the savings claims in the VA budget had been replaced, there would have been no need for the supplemental request in 2005 or to implement the pharmacy co-payment increases imposed by the administration, thus the 260,000 veterans previously denied access could have entered VA's health care system.

American Legion National Commander Thomas L. Bock declared that his organization was not surprised. "The American Legion, along with President Bush's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans, other veterans organizations, members of Congress, and individual veterans throughout the nation have for nearly five years publicly expressed outrage over VA's smoke-and-mirrors health-care funding process."

Bock's solution? A system called "assured funding." He asserts that VA must be funded on a dollars-per-veteran basis, indexed annually for inflation, with the ability to collect payments from Medicare or any other third-party insurance provider.

The Legion's solution has a lot of merit and certainly could eliminate the smoke and mirrors - figure the average cost of medical care per veteran per year and multiply that by the number of veterans who will need care. But would the VA be prepared for another fiscal 2005 when an unbudgeted 2 million veterans would need treatment, due in part that time to Afghanistan and Iraq? So even with assured funding, VA must create a sophisticated budgeting model.

And there's more to assured funding than fixing the budgeting process. The American Legion (and other large veterans organizations) insists that all 24 million veterans should have access to the system. If $30.2 billion was needed in fiscal 2005 to care for 5 million veterans, that cost equaled $6,040 per vet. Ignoring factors such as participation rate, health of the aggregated population, and economy of size, basic arithmetic brings the cost of assured funding to $145 billion. As they say in Washington, that begins to look like real money!

Let's first fix VA's broken budget system.

Top | Home

A kinder, gentler Army

Maybe it indeed is broken

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 24, 2006 -- Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report in January that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces."

The report recommends expanding the Army's active-duty force by 30,000, although, considering the Army's failure to meet recruiting goals by nearly 7,000 soldiers last year, the report recognizes that such an increase will take time.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld flatly rejected warnings that the Iraq war deployment tempo risks "breaking" the Army. And he insisted that recent discussions of lowering U.S. troop levels in Iraq did not spring from a need to relieve the strain on American ground forces.

Then, at a Jan. 26 press conference, the president said, "Retention's high. They're meeting recruiting goals. They're transforming. Commanders will have the troops necessary to do what has to be done. There's no question we'll have enough troops to keep the peace in the Middle East. We're doing transformation in Korea to meet 21st century requirements."

But look at how it's happening.

Under a new Army policy designed to push -- or perhaps pull -- more and more recruits through training and into the pipeline for Iraq, the recruits no longer are being met by screaming drill sergeants. They are encountering mentors, and might receive a welcome like that given by Col. Edward Daly, commander of a basic-training brigade at Fort Leonard Wood: "We sincerely appreciate the fact that you swore an oath and got on a bus and did it in a time of war."

New recruits at Fort Leonard Wood are getting more sleep and personal time than former recruits ever dreamed of. And get this! Graduating recruits are surveyed about their basic training camp experience, and one of the questions -- even for the overweight ones -- is whether they were "allowed to eat everything on the menu, including dessert," and whether seconds were available.

Under the new policy, more recruits are graduating. In January, only 23 recruits failed to graduate from the basic-training brigade at Fort Leonard Wood, compared with 183 in January 2004.

The Army not only is replacing psychological stress with what one female drill sergeant calls "mother-son conversations," it also is softening physical stress. For example it has slashed the amount of jogging troops do in basic training by more than 60% in the past three years. In another example, during dismount and counterattack drills, recruits may find themselves waiting for somebody to bring a ladder instead of jumping off their truck. Can't have somebody missing graduation because of a wrenched ankle.

The list goes on: asthmatic privates carrying inhalers; prescription drugs for recruits with a history of depression; and according to one report, a recruit with a disagreement over her drill sergeant's informal disciplinary actions was offered a chance to start over in a new platoon.

The mission is simply to graduate the largest possible percentage of recruits.

Granted, a great deal of the Iraqi battlespace is devoted to vehicle patrols and foot patrols requiring relatively little superhuman effort. But let's flash back almost 26 years.

On Sunday, June 25, 1950, after a long, intensive barrage of artillery and mortar fire, 90,000 Soviet-trained and Soviet-armed North Korean troops invaded South Korea. In short order, they were pushing the South Korean forces to the sea. General Douglas MacArthur ordered American troops from occupation duty in Japan to fill the breach.

Let's put this into focus. At the close of World War II, the Army embarked on a recruiting effort with an eerie likeness to today's. For example, it reduced the size of the enlisted stripes, which might have been done for efficiency or cost-cutting. But there's no doubt, the smaller chevrons of the sergeants didn't obtrude nearly so much into the consciousness of their subordinates. Meanwhile, the soft occupation duty in Japan attracted many a soldier to enlist.
That soft duty turned many would-be warriors into softies. When they were thrown against the battle-hardened North Korean troops, a new term was coined within the American Army in Korea: "Bug out."

American soldiers had to learn the bloody way that winning battles against trained troops requires top-notch physical condition and absolute discipline, which in turn means instant obedience to orders that might send them into hell.

Such discipline can not be instilled easily or quickly on the battlefield. It's a lot more cost effective in lives, time, and winning, if we build it and instill it during training.

But, you might say, Iraq is not that kind of warfare. And besides, we're talking about phasing out of Iraq. So what's the big deal?

For one thing, we won't be phasing out the soft-trained recruits.

For another, compare 1950 with the possibility of being committed to Iran.

Not Iran, you say? Then what about an attack by the North Koreans. Would this be 1950 Redux?

Top | Home

The limits of loyalty

What do you owe those who fight your fight?

by Fred Edwards

March 3, 2006 -- To build a guerrilla force within a country, you either must recruit citizens who will stake their lives in a fight against the government, or turn to an ethnic group within the country that holds little or no allegiance to the government, or find fighters from outside the country. The individuals you seek may be motivated by patriotism, money, religion, ethnic hate, a quest for power when a new government is installed, or even counterintelligence. So you have to vet them and test them.

Those who make the cut must be trained into a cohesive force that can be depended upon to do its utmost to accomplish missions assigned. They must learn to work as a team and they must be loyal to each other.

Let's say the purpose of the guerrilla campaign is to replace the existing government, such as Fidel Castro did in Cuba in 1959.

Once he gained power, Castro had a guerrilla force that no longer had a cause, so he had to demobilize. He moved some of those he trusted into government positions. But many of his former comrades who had been fighting against the government for years had developed a hatred for anything resembling a bureaucracy. How would a man who had killed government employees for most of his adult life react if he disagreed with a decision by a low-level employee of the new hierarchy?

So Castro had to redirect loyalties within the guerrilla forces he had created. He used the classic tools -- assimilation, expatriation, re-education, incarceration, and murder.

Now let's turn to the Iraq war and the concept of loyalty -- not from the guerrilla viewpoint -- but from that of the United States as it trains the Iraqi armed forces.

A unit's training progresses to level three, where it can fight but must do so alongside U.S. troops. Its next goal is level two, where it can fight on its own, but needs certain support from U.S. forces. To reach level one, it must be able to fight completely on its own.

Hardly any battalion can truly reach level one, because a battalion is simply not self-contained (nor is a division, for that matter). To become a level one unit, it would have to possess, among others, its own logistics (such as food, fuel and ammunition) and air support and other supporting arms. So we have to be content to field level two battalions and give them the additional support they need.

But when U.S. troops go home, what will happen?

If we are to back the new Iraqi army, our troops can't all go home because of two reasons. First, they will have to continue providing the support the Iraqi military doesn't have. And second, according to some, we don't even want them to build that support into their own armed forces.

Why? Think of the factions within Iraq -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds. Some day we might have to fight any or all of them. So we don't want to give them all of our power or every one of our secrets. Indeed, we don't even want to make them powerful enough to attack their neighbors.

So standing up Iraqi battalions and divisions becomes a delicate balancing act. They must eventually be able to stand tall by themselves -- but not too tall. This imposes limits on our loyalty.

Top | Home

Military wins 8-0 -- Court says let 'em recruit on campus

Attempted tie to First Amendment is hogwash

by Fred Edwards

March 10, 2006 -- In an 8-0 ruling on March 6, the U.S. Supreme Court found that colleges and universities must provide military recruiters the same access on campus that they give other recruiters or they will lose their federal funds. That might sound fair, so maybe you wonder how on earth this case even got to the court.

It began with President Clinton's plan to force the armed forces to accept homosexual men and women in the face of fierce opposition from military and congressional leaders, from veterans organizations, and from almost every service member and veteran who heard about it except for the closet homosexuals. Clinton failed, but he created the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1994, whereby homosexuals may serve if they don't discuss their sexual orientation or homosexual acts. (Of course the policy essentially confirmed existing procedures; if they got caught, out they went.)

Meanwhile, Congress added the Solomon Amendment to the 1994 Defense Authorization Act, which was ultimately interpreted to mean that federal money for a university had to be cut off if any of its undergraduate or graduate programs prohibited military recruiting.

I said that the March 6 ruling might have sounded fair, but, on the heels of the Solomon Amendment came another kind of "fair." Thirty-one law schools formed the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) and joined with others. They claimed that the Solomon Amendment was inconsistent with their constitutional right to free speech. Why? They said the don't ask, don't tell policy inhibited freedom of speech, thus they had the right to bar military recruiters from campuses, presumably until homosexual service members could come out of the closet.

After the 9/11 attacks, it would seem that the FAIR folks would have accepted the importance of building a diverse officer corps of college graduates to fight a global war. That would be fair. But fair wasn't FAIR, and the case ultimately got to the Supreme Court.

The court interpreted it the fair (not FAIR) way. The justices accepted the Bush administration's arguments that after 9/11, and during the war in Iraq, the government had a responsibility to shore up recruiting. The justices in fact went further, suggesting that Congress could directly demand military access to campuses without linking the requirement to federal funds.

The court even affirmed the don't ask policy. In a footnote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "a person generally may not serve in the Armed Forces if he has engaged in homosexual acts, stated that he is a homosexual, or married a person of the same sex."

Critics of the don't ask policy seem to come in two types: those who decry the talent lost by denying military service to open homosexuals; and those who - I must say it once again - just don't think it's "fair" that the armed forces aren't "allowed" to be diverse.

Let's see how serious the so-called losses are. According to Defense Department statistics provided to the GAO last year, 9,501 service members were separated for homosexuality from 1994 to 2003. Compare this with 26,446 discharges for pregnancy, and 36,513 for failure to meet weight standards in the same period.

In light of this, perhaps it would be more cost effective and diverse to be harping about heterosexuality and carping about calories. Or, to be "fair," we might issue nursing-bra packs to mothers and Segway Human Transporters (electric scooters) to the fatties, armor them all, and deploy them to Iraq. Some troops who didn't get pregnant or fat, and who are on their second or third combat tours, might like that idea.

Leaving levity aside (I consider my last comment to be frivolous, but the fair-and-diversity crowd might believe I was serious), the battle for the college campuses has not ended. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing his third decision since he joined the court last fall, opened the gates for campus protests by writing, "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message."

We'll see how fair that is.

Top | Home

Linking military funerals to homosexuals

How weird can it get?

by Fred Edwards

March 17, 2006 -- A clergyman from Topeka, Kansas, named Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church have shown so much disrespect at funerals for our nation's fallen heroes that the Congress and at least 14 states are considering laws aimed to stop them. In addition, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project in Montgomery, Ala., is tracking the church as one of more than 700 hate groups it monitors.

The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, consists mostly of Phelps' extended family. Until recently, the members were picketing funerals of AIDS victims, but they expanded. For example, they dispatched a small group to West Virginia in January to picket outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. Their signs read, "Thank God for Dead Miners" and "Miners in Hell."

Late last year they started targeting grieving families of fallen service members. That's when a bunch of bikers got riled. Members of American Legion Riders Chapter 136 from Kansas were "appalled to hear that a fallen hero's memory was being tarnished by misguided religious zealots who were protesting at funerals." So when they learned that the Westboro church was going to protest at the funeral of Sgt. John Doles in Chelsea, Okla., they formed the Patriot Guard, with a mission statement that included getting the family's permission and contacting law enforcement and other motorcycle groups in Oklahoma, and that forswore the use of force. Their goal - to shield the family from vitriol and show them that America cared.

The Patriot Guard soon went nationwide, with bikers in each state handling the state's issues. According to their Web site at www.patriotguard.org, the growth has been phenomenal. Within a week their rolls listed riders from the American Legion, VFW, Rolling Thunder, ABATE, Combat Vets Motorcycle Association, Intruder Alert, Leathernecks Motorcycle Club, and almost five hundred individual riders.

It's hard for many of us to understand the logic that drives these Westboro people. They will defile military funerals to insist that U.S. combat deaths are a sign God is punishing the United States for harboring homosexuals. Some protesters' signs state "Thank God for IEDs," the improvised explosive devices that are maiming and killing our warriors in Iraq.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Phelps and an attorney for the church, said recently that neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God kills American soldiers because they fight for a country that embraces homosexuals.

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper asserts. I wonder if Muslim Jihadists realize they are doing the work of her God.

It takes quite a leap to move from groups who want homosexual men and women to serve openly in the military service to this little faction that's hoping to tie military deaths to some national lenient attitude toward homosexuals. But rather than my trying to describe this group, just visit their Website at www.godhatesfags.com and you'll get an idea of what drives them.

Meanwhile, I prefer to cast my lot with the Patriot Guard. Here's their mission statement.

"The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America's freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

"We don't care what you ride, what your political views are, or whether you're a 'hawk' or a 'dove.' It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you're from or what your income is. You don't even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

"Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives.

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.

2. Shield the mourning family and friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

"We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means."

I doubt that the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project's hate-group list includes any of these Patriot Guard groups, whose members will ride 300 miles through the snow to shield a fallen service member's family from degradation and hate. God bless 'em.

Top | Home

Why and how we are winning the war

by Fred Edwards

March 24, 2006 -- According to the radical jihadist Muslims, their war has been going on for 1,400 years. It has ebbed and flowed as Islam occupied Arabia and the Levant, the Christian Crusades took some of the territory back from time to time, the Ottoman Empire rose, and finally fell apart after failing to capture Vienna in 1683.

In the face of this, the three years of our military operations in Iraq constitute barely a tick on the clock of history. But it's a mighty strong tick. Here's why.

The enemy, under the mantle of al Qaeda, intended to replace the governments in predominantly Muslim countries with the type of fundamentalist rule the Taliban enjoyed in Afghanistan. With that step completed, they would destroy western civilization by imposing a world-wide non-national Caliphate system on all countries. If World War II was a dangerous time for democracy, this war promises Armageddon if the West loses - and America represents the West.

By Sept. 11, 2001, the enemy already had killed 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut, Lebanon; and killed 17 sailors and wounded 33 in an attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen; not to mention thousands of murders they carried out in dozens of other attacks around the world. Then came the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon, killing almost 3,000 innocents.

Americans finally realized that, if they didn't counterattack, the assaults would continue until the enemy got to their doorsteps, broke into their homes, and offered them Islam or death. America was thrown into a total war. If a country that faces a total war wants to survive, it must do anything necessary to win. And it can't win by defending.

So what was a president to do on 9/11?

The United States immediately had to disrupt the al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and topple the Taliban government. In less than a month it launched air operations. By Dec. 7, 2001, major Afghan cities had been taken and the bulk of the Taliban were either killed, dispersed, or had exfiltrated. Thus the immediate threat to further attacks on U.S. soil was neutralized.

Meanwhile, the United States had to convince leaders of countries in the Middle East that any power collaborating with al Qaeda risked facing indomitable American military power. And it had to prove that Americans had the willpower to do it. The United States had to eradicate Islamic contempt for Americas' historical record of being impotent when attacked. We could never expect the Islamists to love us, but we could make them fear and respect us.

No matter what reasons would be given beforehand, the President had to establish a powerful U.S. military presence smack-dab in the center of the Middle East. And he needed to do it so audaciously that leaders in countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would look fearfully over their shoulders at U.S. troops and aircraft operating in striking range of their borders. So he chose to invade Iraq.

Why and how are we winning? After only three years, compared with 1,400 years of jihad conflict, the United States (along with our coalition partners) has made remarkable progress. The Muslim world is learning to respect our strength and tenacity, and to fear American air, sea and ground prowess. Not one regime has fallen to al Qaeda. The majority of Islamic governments are aligned with us. The fledgling Iraqi government is reasonably intact and on the march. The Iraqi police and civil infrastructure is growing. Seventy-five percent of the insurgent attacks are taking place in only three of the 18 provinces. And we've turned over enough of the battlespace to the Iraqis to start consolidating our forces into protected bases away from the cities.

With these bases, such as Balad Air Base, al Asad to the west and Tallil to the south, we can continue to assist the Iraqis while overseeing their neighbors. There's talk of U.S. aircraft and perhaps 40,000 troops posted in western Iraq for as long as 15 years. That's a flyspeck compared with 1,400. We've created a massive momentum in a very short time. With fire brigades in country we can continue the attack and continue to win. Total war leaves us no choice.

Top | Home

Another new military compensation plan

or another old pitch in new language?

by Fred Edwards

March 31, 2006 -- The Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) report of March 16 said "the concept of immediate lifetime retired pay was designed for another era and force." It added that the 20 year retirement window produces an inflexible and inequitable system, fails to recognize service of less than 20 years, contains no incentive to serve beyond 30 years.

Retired Navy Adm. Donald Pilling, committee chair, said the current military retirement system is based on a 1940s-era model. At that time, most members served 30 years, retired in their 50s and typically lived into their 60s, he said. Today, the typical service member retires after 20 years to start a second career and lives a longer life. That would seem that the system modernized itself. So what's to change?

DACMC says that most private-sector compensation packages give 80 percent of their cash up front, deferring 20 percent for retirement. In contrast, the present military system pays about one-half the total compensation up front and defers the rest. DACMC plan would give service members more pay throughout their careers instead of afterward.

Members would be eligible for retired pay beginning at 25 percent of their base pay after 10 years of service, with percentages rising until they would rate 100 percent after 40 years. They wouldn't start enjoying it, however, until age 60. To compensate, while on active duty they could contribute to a type of Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) annuity augmented by government contributions of 5 percent to 10 percent of base pay. Proponents of the TSP idea assert that it gives members the chance to increase their retirement nest eggs. Opponents counter that the retirees will have to choose the TSP option to fund their own retirement.

Many of DACMC's ideas have been proposed in one form or another by military compensation panels for 40 years. Consider the Career Status Bonus enacted in 1986, which established a cash "bonus" at 15 years of service in exchange for significantly reduced retirement later. Well, you can't con the troops. They recognized the system as a rip-off, immediately dubbed it "Redux," and voted with their feet until the retention picture got mighty murky. The Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Congress to abolish Redux, which it did in 1999.

Congress may try this new retirement scheme by DACMC, and maybe it will work. But if it fails, the United States could be in deep trouble at the wrong time of the war against the Islamic jihadist extremists. Military service is just too onerous for most Americans to treat it like General Motors. The current system has proven that enough people will stick it out for 20 years for a larger retirement than they would get elsewhere. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

The committee also says it would institute pay for performance by revising the pay charts to increase pay for time in grade rather than years of service. It's not clear how this change in time in grade would vary from today's system, since raises in time-in-grade payments eventually bump into beginning pay levels at the next rank.

DACMC also would scratch the "with dependents" and "without dependents" provisions of basic allowance for housing so that members would be paid for performance rather than marital status, says Pilling. If the new pay charts begin with the "with dependents" rates for all, that might pose no problem. But if only current members who are married would be grandfathered into the "with dependents" rate, that would be a tough trick to sell. And if future raises lag the actual costs of housing, military families could be the first to feel the pinch. The devil, as they say, will be in the details, which Congress will hammer out if it gets the recommendations.

In another highly controversial part of the plan, Pilling claims it recognizes that military service is unique and needs special considerations. Thus, he says it will continue to ensure full medical care after 20 years of service. So far this sounds fine. But recipients would face heavy cost sharing for TRICARE medical care. So tomorrow's retirees not only would draw less retirement pay and receive it later, but also would face more medical expenses. The Defense Department already has tried this scheme to raise TRICARE medical fees for today's younger retirees and is running into a big congressional brick wall.

If Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommends the DACMC plan to Congress, prepare for sparks to fly.

Top | Home

The military Survivor Benefit Plan needs two final fixes

by Fred Edwards

April 7, 2006 -- Under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), military retirees can pay premiums to guarantee their surviving spouses lifetime annuity payments of a percentage of their retired pay. Unfortunately, 61,000 survivors, mostly widows, have lost this guarantee and here's why.

The Department of Veterans Affairs pays Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to certain surviving spouses of veterans who die from causes connected with service to their country. DIC, currently $1,033 monthly, can be awarded to survivors of both military retirees and active duty service members. It's the least a grateful country can do for somebody who has given their all, so it sounds fair.

But it's not fair. The law says that a surviving military spouse drawing SBP annuity payments who is awarded DIC must forfeit a like amount of the SBP. Note the term, "military spouse." The forfeiture does not apply to the surviving spouse of a federal civilian retiree who is a disabled veteran and dies of service-connected causes. If that retiree had paid into SBP, the spouse would receive DIC as well as SBP payments.

Moreover, it's comparing apples and oranges. SBP is a paid insurance policy and DIC is compensation to the survivor of a spouse who died from service to country.

Granted, a surviving spouse who loses all or some SBP will be reimbursed a pro-rated lump sum of the SBP premiums the military retiree paid - but without interest. Come on, Mr. Government, we can do better than that.

Some survivors are losing ALL of their SBP. The survivors of enlisted members at the E-6 or E-7 level lose all of their SBP because it doesn't amount to the $1,033 DIC check.

Now consider the following Catch-22. The surviving spouses of service members who die on active duty can be awarded SBP (without having paid any premiums) and DIC. The offset still applies, so the government gives -- but takes it right back. It does throw them a bone; they can irrevocably assign the SBP payments to their children, but only until they reach majority. Then the SBP is gone forever.

I believe the best solution to this whole thing is for Congress to simply abolish the SBP/DIC offset. The Senate agrees, and has passed Sen. Bill Nelson's (D-Fla.) amendment to the fiscal 2007 budget resolution that would do just that. It's time for the House to act.

That would leave just one last oddball provision in the SBP program, and this is one that makes 198,000 retirees shake their heads in bewilderment. The law says premium payments will stop after a retiree reaches age 70 and has made payments for 30 years. Government experts decided that actuarial statistics show that 30 years is long enough for a paid-up annuity, so that's fair.

But it's not fair, because the law doesn't kick in until 2008. SBP began in 1972, and retirees who signed up are already paying for their 34th year! And, unless the law is changed, they'll pay for 36 years -- until the so-called 30-year paid up SBP takes effect. It's no wonder these members of "The Greatest Generation" are shaking their heads in bewilderment.

There's more. Thousands of these older retirees who had bought into an earlier annuity program called the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan (RSFPP) opted to convert to SBP in 1972, which was generally a much better plan. Just add the RSFPP payments to the extra six years they'll pay into the "30-year paid up SBP" program.

And there's still more. They also incurred more additional costs because in the early years of SBP they were paying more into the plan than the number crunchers eventually decided they should.

Can you imagine taking out a civilian life insurance policy that would be paid up in 30 years and be told by the underwriter that … well … thanks for the 30, but we've decided you should pay us for another four … or five … or six?

If by now you are shaking your head in bewilderment, be assured that Congress can correct this weird way we're treating the World War II military generation. The Senate has already done so by approving Sen. Bill Nelson's (D-Fla.) amendment to the budget resolution. The rest is up to the House.

Top | Home

Casualty assistance calls

The commander is responsible for the troops; the casualty assistance officer for their families

by Fred Edwards

April 14, 2006 -- Not 30 seconds after the mother learns she is no longer a mother, she dabs her dish towel at a tear-soaked face and looks up with sad, sly eyes. "You know," she murmurs, "the government is always making mistakes. Tell me there's a tiny possibility of a mistake."

How does the casualty assistance officer reply? "I'm sorry, ma'am. There's not a chance in the world of a mistake."

The officer has made a split-second decision -- one of dozens that these messengers of death and disability face with each casualty call.

Depending upon the branch of service, they may carry one of several titles and responsibilities. I'll call them casualty assistance officers (CAOs) although they could be either officers or senior noncommissioned officers. And they generally operate in teams, with at least one member being of the same rank, or higher, as the deceased or severely injured.

Their responsibilities to the next of kin (NOK) may last for months. Consider the following.

When the CAO arrives, the person confronted knows it's the worst kind of bad news, but the CAO must confirm that this person is indeed the next of kin -- there can be no mistake. The NOK earns that title through a strict protocol list, starting with the spouse. In the absence of a spouse, then the child or children. If there are neither a spouse nor children, then parents. If there are no parents, it's siblings.

But what do you do if a six-year-old answers the door bell, sees a solemn, uniformed stranger, turns and runs back into the house screaming, "Mama, mama, the soldiers took daddy."? You wait for mama, and remain as cool as you ever were under fire. When she arrives, you will be official but compassionate.

After notification, the CAO should not leave the NOK alone. This can make communications a tremendous challenge. Take a mother who is home alone when the CAO arrives. She is a slight woman who shrinks smaller when she gets the news. She collapses into her worn cloth-covered easy chair and says, "What am I going to do? I can't take this. My husband won't be home for two hours. I need him here now to get me through this." How does the CAO answer?

Or consider the father who berates the CAO, saying, "Do you have a son? Why isn't he over there? Why is he still alive? What business do you have -- a stranger -- coming into my house in uniform to tell me they've killed my son?"

Like any long battle, the initial contact is only the beginning.

In a few days the remains will arrive. The next of kin might want to go to the airport or the train station. Unless there's a military escort, this might not be advisable. Otherwise, the next of kin might see a stark, gray crate being carried on a forklift like a piece of merchandise. But it's the NOK's choice. The CAO can only make suggestions.

Are the remains viewable? Sometimes the NOK accepts a recommendation that they not be viewed. But at other times the next of kin rejects the recommendation, and has that right. From this springs another title the CAO must honor: "person authorized to direct disposition of remains" (PADD). The Marine Corps Casualty Procedures Manual advises, "there is NO LAW that will prevent them from ultimately viewing the remains." So the PADDs can view the remains if they want to, no matter how traumatic the effect might be.

Following the funeral and interment come weeks of administrative details -- medals, personal effects, contact information for claims, headstones -- and sometimes the CAO has to deliver more bad news.

How can there be more bad news? A young Marine had assigned his death benefits to his mother. Later he married and had a child, but didn't change all the forms. The mother and daughter-in-law had never been friendly. What can the CAO do? Nothing more than explain the facts to the NOK and guide the mother to the forms and the agencies.

The good news? The casualty notification system works well almost all of the time. It gives the next of kin deep feelings of respect for a service that shows it cares for them and their loved one. The bad news is that human beings make mistakes. In combat, the person who makes the fewest mistakes generally wins. In casualty assistance any mistake compounds a grievous loss.

Thus, a CAO's responsibility to families is exactly the same as a commander's to the troops -- make no mistakes.

Top | Home

Marriage and military BAH can create unlikely bedfellows

by Fred Edwards

April 21, 2006 -- The Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) report of March 16 recommended that the Defense Department scratch the "with dependents" and "without dependents" provisions of basic allowance for housing (BAH) so that both married and unmarried service members would draw the same amount of BAH. The report inferred this would pay members only for performance of military duties and nothing extra for performance of marital responsibilities.

DACMC failed to mention a seamier side to this story that can take susceptible service men and women down -- if not a primrose path -- a path to career destruction. From 2003 through 2005, according to Naval Criminal Investigative Service records, 136 sailors tried to obtain fraudulent Basic Allowances for Housing through marriage scams, and many of them cheated the government of thousands of dollars before being apprehended.

For example, in Aug. 2004, eight sailors from the San Diego-based dock landing ship, USS Germantown, faced Navy discipline for fraud, larceny and conspiracy involving $122,000 in BAH payments.

One of the sailors had arranged a bogus marriage to a coworker's friend, while another - also female - fabricated a husband and a fake Mexican wedding certificate to qualify for higher BAH payments. Both women received fines, forfeitures of pay, reductions in rank, lock-up time and bad conduct discharges.

In Nov. 2005, seven sailors from the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, were arrested by the FBI in New York on charges of setting up sham marriages with illegal immigrants. The three women and four men were among 10 people caught in a sting operation in which the sailors allegedly shared fees as high as $4,000 each for marriages to allow the immigrants to remain in the United States.

The seven sailors had gone to New York expecting to meet illegal immigrants from Egypt, Russia, South America and Europe, according to the FBI complaint. Instead, they were confronted by undercover FBI agents and assistants.

In a more recent episode, on Apr. 11, 2006, five sailors and a former sailor appeared in federal court in Jacksonville, Fla., and two other sailors were scheduled for arrest. These eight faced charges that, while stationed aboard the carrier USS John F. Kennedy and the frigate USS Simpson, they had married European women to pad their BAH checks and to help the brides become U.S. citizens. The Romanian woman and seven Polish women involved reportedly paid from $2,000 to $6,000 in fees for the marriages of convenience.

None of the women ever lived with the sailors they married, according to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Even if the immigrants were legal immigrants, they would have been askance of the law, and here is why.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, a legal immigrant who marries can obtain a conditional green card good for two years. The bureau's Web site says, "Your permanent (green card) is conditional, because you must prove that you did not get married to evade the immigration laws of the United States." Within 90 days of the end of the two-year period, the couple is expected to apply together to remove the conditions on the immigrant's residence.

How can they prove they lived together and shared normal everyday family responsibilities? They can produce such evidence as mortgages, leases, utility bills, and records of checking and savings accounts. If they don't, after two years the agency will search for its own evidence.

In the cases I've summarized, the immigrants had spread to the winds so there was no question about whether the "couples" had lived together.

These tales raise a ton of disturbing questions to bedevil honest service members who run into the soul-mate of their dreams. Besides the obvious counsel that chiefs give their sailors -- legal status, family background, no overnight marriages, and so on -- perhaps the DACMC recommendation to roll BAH into a single sum for all hands has more merit that DACMC realized. It could put the brakes on these scams and maybe even keep some errant-prone service members on a cleaner career path.

Top | Home

The generals' stars are getting tarnished

by Fred Edwards

April 28, 2006 -- Such a tiny percentage of career service members reach the rank of general officer (or flag officer in the naval services) that those who succeed become the American version of the Greek gods of Mount Olympus. They attend "charm school" where they are warned to be extremely careful about expressing any desire for something, because lesser military mortals are taught that anything a general desires is a direct order.

Such power can be dangerous in a democracy like ours unless kept under control. So we keep it leashed by placing the entire military system under civilian authority.

At the top, the head of each branch of service works for a civilian secretary, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reports to a civilian boss.

The department secretaries approve (or disapprove) officer selections for promotion, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Nominations for three- and four-star rank -- and in come cases one- and two-star nominations -- must be approved by the President. Again the Senate has the final say.

Like all service members on active duty, general officers must obey their superiors and cannot openly criticize them. Nevertheless, this does not excuse them from speaking up if they are not being given sufficient resources to achieve the mission. Ultimately, if they cannot support a superior's decision, they can resign. For example, General Ronald Fogelman, who was chief of staff of the Air Force, resigned during the Clinton Administration because of disagreements with the administration's cutbacks of the Air Force.

Once retired, general officers can speak out, to a degree. But the mantle of generalship that cloaks them should make them couch their public statements very carefully.

A handful of retired general officers have been accusing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of mis-handling the war in Iraq, and have complained about his authoritarian management style.

One retired general officer told me privately that he "hates" Rumsfeld. That's a strong word, but, consider that Rumsfeld brought retired Special Forces Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker back to active duty in Aug. 2003 to be chief of staff of the Army, effectively passing over every active-duty general officer in the Army. This, after Gen. Eric Shinseki was let go early as Army chief of staff after contending that it would require "several hundred thousand" soldiers to control Iraq. So it's easy to understand my source's enmity. But there's more.

When Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston was nearing the end of his assignment as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and the Commander of the United States European Command, many expected his successor to be an Army general. Instead, Rumsfeld, having difficulty getting the Army to jump into "transformation" with alacrity, assigned Marine Gen. James L. Jones in Jan. 2003. Was he telling the Army that, if it couldn't become expeditionary, a general from a truly expeditionary service would show them how to do it?

Add to this background the refusal of the administration to recognize that Gen. Shinseki was right.

So some retired general officers, such as Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, and Army Maj. Generals Paul D. Eaton, John Batiste, John Riggs and Charles H. Swannack Jr., have demanded Rumsfeld's resignation or replacement. Where were they when Shinseki spoke up?

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, assert that the senior general officers were often asked if they were being given enough assets, and they assented.

Whining after retirement accomplishes nothing except to damage morale in the lower ranks and create confusion among the American public.

A few retired general officers have disagreed with the latter-day naysayers, and the Defense Department has even e-mailed a one-page memorandum to a group of former military commanders and civilian analysts to counter the complaints. Pace of course strongly supports Rumsfeld, his boss.

Considering some 8,000 active and retired general officers, the few we've heard from publicly are miniscule. Nevertheless, they're down to "he said" -- "she said," or at this point, "he said" -- "he said." An old African proverb goes, "When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." Well, when the generals get into "he said" and "he said," their stars start losing their glitter. If they want to keep their credibility, they should stay on Mount Olympus and do their bickering out of sight. And if they're going to mix it up with the troops, they would be well served to do it privately.

Top | Home

Here's the straight scoop from the troops about the war

(Letter to the Editor from WFG, a retired Air Force colonel in Florida: "Fred, Your columns are always topical and right on target. This is one of your best!")

by Fred Edwards

May 5, 2006 -- The American Legion did a marvelous service to our country's warriors in the May issue of its magazine by compiling what the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan think about their mission. Because of the Privacy Act, Assistant Editor Elissa Kaupisch had to jump through hoops to get her request to the field. But she got the word out, and the troops sent a deluge of responses.

And, get this. When asked if she got any negative responses from the troops, she said, "Not a single one."

Her article, "War Correspondence," contains 15 responses from service members serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their ranks range from sergeant to colonel, plus a response from a Navy yeoman 2nd class, and they represent the active forces, the reserves and the Guard. Read the following summary of what they wrote and decide if some of the media are reporting the same wars that the troops are describing.

* The meaning of the vote
An Army captain whose team provided security for Iraqi polling stations wrote that, after one group of Iraqi soldiers voted, they left the station and erupted into singing and dancing. They explained that the candidate for whom they had just voted had opposed Saddam Hussein, and in return many of his family members had been murdered. They were celebrating because they were confident he would be elected, and they knew he would help unify Iraq. When they finished celebrating and walked past the American, more than one said, "Thank you, mister."

* The value of hope
A National Guard member of an engineer unit -- who had graduated from high school less than a year earlier, and who labeled himself, "a teenager and an adult" - wrote: "Two of the most powerful forces in the world today" are "kindness and hope." He said that, after seeing the glimmer of hope in an Iraqi child's eyes, he was convinced that hope -- and kindness -- stretch far beyond cultural and racial divides.

* American kindness
A National Guard sergeant reported that his unit distributed more than 1,000 soccer balls to Iraqi children, helped distribute millions of dollars of welfare money to the Iraqis, and helped rebuild the Karbala children's hospital. The unit did it through the kindness of the American people.

* American dedication
A reserve lieutenant colonel left a civilian job helping veterans in order to take a second active duty deployment to Iraq. He felt compelled to contribute once more to the Iraqis and their quest for democracy. He wrote that "the humanity of the Iraqi people is more important" than any sacrifice he might undergo during 18 months.

And a man who signed himself, "Dad," explained that his "chow hall" has a prominent bulletin board labeled "The Reasons We are Here." The reasons? Photos from home. He told his family that being away from them is no big deal since their lives "will be better and safer in the years to come."

* Iraqi dedication
An Army sergeant who has returned home maintains contact with his former Iraqi interpreter. The interpreter is concerned for his own safety, but he asked the sergeant if he didn't fight for his freedom, who would? I bet we would have heard something like this in the American colonies in 1776.

* Why Iraq?
A reserve Navy Seabee described terrorism as a dandelion in your yard that you can kill only by ripping out the root. She asked American protesters what they would do when (she didn't write, "if") terrorism surfaces at home. Would they picket with a sign saying, "You naughty terrorists, go away"? Her answer: The only way to keep them from American neighborhoods is to root them out in Iraq.

* In-depth support required
An Army colonel assigned to support both the Iraq and the Afghanistan operations gave the administration and the Defense Department a lesson. Although he thanked Americans for their overwhelming support, he said the troops also must have sufficient training, equipment, supplies and pay to conduct the two wars.

* The future's for the children
A sergeant first class in a military police company saw the Iraqi children as the future. He presented an allegory of somebody who had spent their entire life inside a room in order to be protected from villains outside. Suddenly the door is thrown open and a stranger says the outsiders are now friends. That individual would require a long time to believe in the change. But it would be easy for the children.

* The bottom line
A staff sergeant from the 76th Infantry Brigade could have been speaking about the American colonies in 1776 when he wrote what the people of Afghanistan want: The right to vote for a government that will guarantee the freedoms of religion and speech, and will assure rights to own property and to protect their homes.

I'll end on that note. The troops have told it like it is, and we know how they feel, thanks to the American Legion.

Top | Home

We need a new Manhattan Project

Letter to the Editor from retired Air Force Colonel W. F. Gavitt: "Fred, Your columns are always topical and right on target. This one is one of your best!"

by Fred Edwards

May 12, 2006 -- Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Defense Department the single largest consumer of petroleum in the United States. This tells me that we had better look to the future. Here's what I mean.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. When FDR died, President Harry S. Truman carried the project to its conclusion and ultimately used the weapons to force the Japanese to capitulate unconditionally. Truman also launched the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe. President John F. Kennedy took the United States to space. President Ronald Reagan frightened the Soviet Union so much it spent itself into poverty and disintegrated as quickly as the Berlin Wall came down.

These were men of vision.

President George W. Bush took the fight against the Islamic fascists into the heart of the Middle East, and deposed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That took vision.

But nobody has displayed strategic vision to look beyond today's gasoline prices that are topping $3 per gallon.

The long-range picture encompasses the addiction -- as Bush aptly calls it - that Americans have to gasoline. But the future also includes factors such as the 1.3 billion Chinese who are just beginning to emerge as gas guzzlers. And it ends with the shortfall of fuel our military forces will face if we don't start applying vision today.

What about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)? The president has announced plans to halt deposits into the SPR, but that's window dressing. It already contains some 687 million barrels of sweet and sour crude (no pun intended toward China). If full, considering physical removal restraints, it would protect our inventory protection for only seven or eight weeks, with an extension to about 150 days through private inventory protection. This would be great for the short haul, but the term, "strategic," hardly fits.

And what about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Republicans periodically propose to open it up for oil drilling, but Democrats won't buy it. Ho hum.

Bush has requested authority from Congress to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars. Ho, hum. And Congress is asking whether gasoline prices might somehow drop if it raised taxes on oil companies. Others are demanding that taxes be slashed. Or what about a hundred-dollar-or-so rebate to gasoline users? Well, what about the strategic tomorrow for our military forces when oil becomes so much of a luxury that it hardly exists?

Almost nobody is talking about the long term. And the long term means alternative energy.

Take Brazil. For the last 25 years, Brazil has been smack-dab in the center of the sugar cane business -- producing ethanol. Consequently Brazilians have been manufacturing vehicles that run on dual-fuels as well as solely on ethanol. The cane product also provides electricity and industrial heating. It is expected shortly to fuel airplanes. Imagine, an entire nation converted to ethanol!

I'm not saying we should, or could, follow Brazil's lead. I'm simply suggesting that a new Manhattan Project should look at all prospects, select the most likely alternatives, and - as sailors say - "hit the deck running."

Here's why.

1. This planet contains a finite amount of oil;

2. The American armed forces cannot operate today without petroleum products; and

3. Countries with huge populations, like China, will gobble up more and more of what's left of worldwide oil deposits.

Perhaps the best alternative is nuclear-generated energy. Even Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, now supports nuclear power, although as a method of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from the more than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States. He wrote in the Washington Post: "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." In fact, 103 nuclear reactors are already on line, delivering 20 percent of U.S. electricity. But 20 percent is not enough.

The new Manhattan Project should look at sugar cane, nuclear power and every other alternative source of energy. Think of windmills, sun-powered fuel cells, hydraulics, and power sources not yet even imagined.

Of course, we must apply vision to the problem of addiction to fossil fuel. If, for example, the alternative energy we eventually must adopt is more expensive and less efficient than today's gasoline, we need to plan changes in social, cultural, and work-place lifestyles. After all, with gasoline at $3 per gallon today, what is a worker to do who currently drives 60 miles round trip to get to the job because no affordable housing is near the place of work - or because the schools near the job are substandard?

The military services teach that a poor plan that is thoroughly, forcefully carried out, will defeat a better plan produced by an enemy that doesn't successfully carry it out. Today, we need the best plan we can get, in order to take a strategic jump into the energy future. Maybe the Department of Energy has one. If so, let's make a Manhattan Project of it.

Top | Home

Here's how Rumsfeld is winning

by Fred Edwards

Letter to the editor from Alan T. "Well done Fred. Regardless of how one might perceive how the War in Iraq and Afghanistan is going and who is the blame, it's hard to beat the facts that you have eloquently outlined."

May 19, 2006 -- No matter how long service members of all ranks carp about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and no matter whether or not we're "winning" in Afghanistan or Iraq, Rumsfeld definitely is winning one war -- the war to transform U.S. military forces.

Transformation started in earnest right after 9/11, when, by Dec. 7, 2001, America and its allies had taken control of the major Afghan cities, and the majority of the Taliban had either dispersed or escaped to other countries. To execute the regime change, the United States had assembled a team of Navy SEALs; British, Australian and New Zealand Special Air Service commandos; CIA operatives; Air Force air controllers; and a melange of other experts. They were given support by Air Force B-52s and B-2s, packed with high-tech Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Air Force Spectre gunships, Navy F-14s and Air Force F/A-18s. Special ops troops even got handy with riding horseback and painting the enemy with laser beams so the pilots could "see" them and kill them. That was transformation.

Then, when combat operations began in Iraq, the services learned they had to transform big time, and they were quite happy to do it. At least the Army was, because it desperately needed more security forces than it had brought into country. So Navy and Air Force personnel moved in to guard Army convoys and patrol bases, and search for Improvised Explosive Devices, the top killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

So the transformation tide was rising.

Recently more than 30 airborne-qualified Air Force engineers and their counterparts from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division conducted a training jump into a simulated unusable airfield. There mission was to make it ready for use by Air Force airplanes, which they accomplished. Now they're ready to do it in combat.

Meanwhile, the Army's Fort Jackson in South Carolina is running a crash course on ground combat which trains some 200 sailors every two weeks.

Long before the Rumsfeld era, the Army and the Air force had jockeyed and fought during several generations about the roles and missions of the airplane. Air Force thinking was that the Army shouldn't own any high performance aircraft. Army thinking was that, if the Air Force couldn't give the Army sufficient aerial support, then the Army would just build its own planes. Today, however, comes transformation in the form of the joint cargo aircraft. The Air Force wants a cargo aircraft smaller than its C-130 Hercules, and the Army needs to replace its aging fleet of small cargo aircraft. So a Joint Program Office will open Oct. 1, with Army and Air Force specialists who will begin fielding the new aircraft.

And I've even heard what once would have been heresy from the Air Force -- the idea that the Air Force should once again become part of the Army. Now that would be transformation.

Jointness is even moving onto the campus. The University of South Florida (USF) has established a Joint Military Leadership Center for more than 320 undergraduate students who participate in the Reserve Officer Training Corps programs of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Retired Navy Commander El Ahlwardt says that USF, one of only a handful of universities in the United States to boast all three ROTC services on its campus, is the first to stand up a joint center.

Secretary Rumsfeld says that transformation requires a mix of arms and equipment to match the threat, along with an attitude flexible enough to modify tactics and strategy on the fly. It took a long time to break the services (particularly the Army) out of the Cold War mold involving nuclear warfare and mass military movement across Europe into the East. But, with the help of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Cold-War mentality is disappearing.

More and more military decision makers are not only embracing transformation, they are actively seeking it as a force multiplier. Rumsfeld is winning the domestic war.

Top | Home

26.5 million veterans should be enraged over VA security breach

But not for the reason you might think

by Fred Edwards

May 24, 2006 -- Millions of veterans are infuriated because an employee from the Department of Veterans Affairs managed to take a database of 26.5 veterans home where it was stolen.

They are incensed that the database lists their dates of birth, names of some of their spouses, and some of their disability ratings.

They are outraged that the database disclosed their Social Security numbers.

They are disgusted that the VA waited two weeks after the theft before warning them that their personal lives are at risk.

But the reason that all 26.5 million veterans should be enraged is because the VA insists upon using Social Security numbers in the first place.

Actually it's in the second place, because once upon a time VA used the veteran's claim number along with Social Security number to track their files. Then they switched solely to the Social Security number. And, get this! They printed the Social Security Number on each Veterans Identification Card (VIC).

Everybody knows you shouldn't carry around cards containing your Social Security number because they can be lost or stolen. Somebody must have told the VA, because they eventually eliminated the Social Security number from the front of the VIC. It now contains a bar code on the front and a magnetic tape on the back, however, and the VA Web site says, "The new card protects personal privacy by not showing Social Security Numbers or dates of birth on the front of the cards." It doesn't mention the magnetic tape on the back. Furthermore, the Web site for the VA Maryland Health Care System, as an example, says, "Your Social Security number, date of birth and a control number will be encrypted on a magnetic tape on the back of the card." Let's just hope the encryption is safer than the 26.5-million record database was.

And it's the database that poses the major problem. By using Social Security Numbers, the VA has guaranteed that, if this 26.5-million loss cannot be corrected, every veteran in the database is wide open to identity theft. If the VA had been using a separate numbering system, only the veteran's VA connection would have been compromised. But any thief who gets the Social Security number can contact one of the three major credit rating agencies, produce the number, and bag a full printout of our credit information.

So the Congress should require the VA to purge the veterans' database of Social Security numbers. Of course, they'll hear a ton of complaints: It's too expensive. It's not technically possible. The Social Security numbers must be paired with VA ID numbers somewhere in the system because the VA must associate veteran applicants with Social Security Numbers. And so on.

Well, an individual veteran who's identity is stolen finds it very, very expensive and faces a personal and family technical nightmare. That veteran's future should not be tied to a government agency that can't control the privacy of its records.

Now consider this: On the day after the VA announced the theft, I called the local Medical Center with a question about my records. The response on the telephone was, "What's your full Social Security number?" My, my.

Meanwhile, here's the advice the VA gave to the 26.5-million veterans at risk:

First, affected veterans (those discharged from 1975 and afterward, or who were discharged earlier and filed a claim with the VA) should closely monitor their financial statements and visit the VA special website at www.firstgov.gov or call 1-800-FED-INFO (1-800-333-4636).

Second, in case of suspicious or unusual activity, follow the Federal Trade Commission's four recommended steps.

1. Contact the fraud department of one of the three major credit bureaus: Equifax: 1-800-525-6285; www.equifax.com; P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, GA 30374-0241 Experian: 1-888-EXPERIAN (397-3742); www.experian.com; P.O. Box 9532, Allen, Texas 75013 TransUnion: 1-800-680-7289; www.transunion.com; Fraud Victim Assistance Division, P.O. Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92834-6790.

2. Close any accounts that have been tampered with or opened fraudulently

3. File a report with your local police or the police in the community where the identity theft took place.

4. File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-438-4338, online at www.consumer.gov/idtheft, or by mail at Identity Theft Clearinghouse, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20580.

And good luck.

Top | Home

The Battle for Belleau Wood

From an Air Force reader: "Great inspirational column, Fred. Thanks."

by Fred Edwards

June 2, 2006 -- The fight for Belleau Wood took place 88 years ago this month. It stopped the German drive for Paris and taught the Germans that America had come to the Western Front to win World War I. Space limitations allow me only to summarize the 4th Marine Brigade's exploits, although U.S. Army troops within the American Expeditionary Force exhibited the same gallantry and took the same high casualties as the Marines.

In late May of 1918, the 4th Marine Brigade, consisting of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments and the Marines' 6th Machine Gun Battalion, arrived at Chateau-Thierry in France. The Marines, under command of the U.S. Army's 2nd Division, had been issued Army uniforms. The U.S. 2nd Division formed part of the French army's XXI Corps.

The French and the English were skeptical of the Americans' will to face machine gun fire and artillery barrages that had turned the war into a bloody stalemate. They were acutely wary of the American Marines because they considered the Marines' early 20th Century operations against indigenous troops in Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Dominican Republic to be poor preparation for war against the German army. They didn't know that the Marines had trained intensively during the months they had been demanding a slice of the action in France.

On June 1, as the 2nd Division was digging in just north of the village of Lucy-le-Bocage, a panicked French officer drove up to Marine Captain Lloyd W. Williams and reported that the lines had broken; the Americans had to retreat. This would give the Germans free access to Paris, only 50 miles away. And if they took Paris, France would fall. Williams glared at the officer. "Retreat Hell!" he barked. "We just got here." Williams would die during the next 26 days, but his answer foretold countless acts of heroism by the Marines, which would sharply rebut the notion that Americans were too green to withstand battle.

On June 4, the Germans, heavily reinforced, launched an attack from Belleau Wood designed to punch through and win the war. Lines of infantry marched confidently across wide wheat fields, their helmets glistening in the sun. The American machine guns hadn't arrived, so the enemy continued unopposed, firing from their shoulders, until their front line was within a hundred yards. Then the Marines opened up with steady, aimed fire from their bolt-action rifles, as if they were on the rifle range. The German front line collapsed into the wheat. And so did the second line. The German soldiers had never faced such sharpshooting, and on the third assault try they broke and ran.

By June 5, the French had regrouped and their high command ordered the U.S. 2nd Division to recapture Belleau Wood. For the division's brigade of Marines, this meant a frontal assault into the center, and - unknown to the French and Americans -- the Germans had turned Belleau Wood into a killing zone of machine guns nested under an artillery umbrella.

During the late afternoon of June 6, Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly's platoon, part of the 6th Marines, was pinned down by machine gun fire in the same wheat fields where the Germans had been stopped two days earlier. Daly, the only enlisted Marine to earn two Medals of Honor (before deploying to France), was haranguing his troops to move out but getting nowhere. Finally, he leaped up with his bayoneted rifle in one hand and yelled "Come on, you sons of b_____s, do you want to live forever?", and marched forward into the hell of machine gun fire like he was on a parade ground. His troops followed.

They marched because they expected hand-to-hand combat when they reached the enemy. If you charge, you would be too exhausted to survive. So you march, step by measured step, as your comrades are cut down, and you maintain the discipline that training has taught you, until you -- or whoever survives -- reaches the enemy and kills him.

Attacks to completely clear the woods continued unsuccessfully until the exhausted Marines who had survived were pulled out of Belleau June 16th. The Army took whacks at it until June 22, when the Marines were thrown back into the line.

On June 25, after a fourteen-hour artillery bombardment starting at 3 a.m., the Marines launched another assault, and the next day Major Maurice Shearer signaled, "Woods now entirely U.S. Marine Corps."

By the time it was over, the Marine casualty toll had climbed to 126 officers and 5,057 men. The French army presented the 4th Marine Brigade two awards of the Croix de Guerre, making it the only American unit in the war to earn the right to wear the French fourragere. To this day, members of the 5th and 6th Marines wear the fourragere over their shoulders (the Marine 6th Machine Gun Battalion has been deactivated).

The Germans, astounded by the ferocity of the previously unknown warriors, bestowed their own award on the Marines. They named them "Teufelhunden," which might be interpreted to mean "fierce fighting dogs of legendary origin," thus "Devil Dogs."

Top | Home

Guam in the Crosshairs

by Fred Edwards

June 9, 2006 -- In the short run, the 212-square mile island of Guam in the Western Pacific could be a key launch pad for conventional air strikes against Iran - some speculate this year. In the long run, look for Guam to become a gigantic U.S. base bristling with military might.

For the short run, Paul Rogers, global security consultant to the Oxford Research Group, has been quoted as saying that a U.S. attack against Iran would be non-nuclear, conducted mainly by aircraft and stand-off missiles rather than ground troops to enhance surprise and minimize U.S. casualties. A weapon of choice would be long-range, B-2 stealth-bombers flying from Guam, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. A fourth location, the Royal Air Force's Fairford base in Gloucester, England, might be sidelined because of the United Kingdom's opposition to military action against Iran.

The Air Force has deployed more than 250 personnel and several B-2s from the 509th Bomb Wing based at Whiteman to Guam's Andersen Air Force Base. According to the Air Force, the move is merely part of a continual adjustment of force posture to enhance regional security by the U.S. Pacific Command. But it certainly advances the Air Force's capability to launch a strategic strike against Iran. And Guam is a territory of the United States, which will obviate any restriction against a B-2 launch.

Such short-run possibilities are perhaps far-fetched, but they highlight the beginning of the long run -- a surge to transform Guam into a strategic launching platform. B-1 bombers and the venerable B-52s are rotating through the island. A wing of 48 F-15 fighters and their replacements, F-22 Raptors, is poised to go to Guam on similar rotations. Expected also are Global Hawk unmanned surveillance and intelligence aircraft that can loiter on station for 24 hours at a range of 1,200 miles.

Reconstruction of runways at Anderson has begun. A new hangar has been completed and more are on the horizon, to be typhoon-proofed so that aircraft won't have to be evacuated when the island is buffeted by storms.

Along with the weaponry and runways will come housing and other support facilities, to the tune of more than $2 billion, according to Gen. Paul Hester, U.S. Pacific Air Forces commander.

Meanwhile, the Navy has based three nuclear-powered attack submarines at Guam's Apra Harbor. And the Marines are coming.

The United States will move 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by 2012, say Defense officials. This will include the III Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters and a brigade of combat troops. The move will boost the island's population by some 10 percent.

The relocation is part of an Alliance Transformation Realignment agreement between the United States and Japan that was completed April 23 by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Japanese Minister of State for Defense Fukushiro Nukaga. Under the agreement, Japan is expected to pay nearly 60 percent of the $10.3 billion cost of moving.

It seems to me that the United States essentially told Japan, "The population of Okinawa complains more and more about the presence of U.S. troops there, so we'll move out. But we want you to help pay the costs. We'll still be ready to help defend your homeland, but we'll be 1,500 miles away. So you'd better start looking after some of your own defense." Good idea.

The move will create a public works bonanza on Guam, where the unemployment rate is above 7 percent and per capita income reaches only $22,600. U.S. planners expect to use Guam's workers and contractors wherever possible, but the small labor force of 170,000 will only stretch so far, so they will have to be reinforced by outside laborers.

In addition to constructing housing for 8,000 plus troops, officials expect to refurbish Guam's electrical grid, its roads, and water and sewage systems, and expand its schools.

Defense officials characterized the realignment of the Marines and other U.S. forces in the Pacific as a strategic move, similar to domestic Base Realignment and Closure moves.

Guam is about 3,700 miles southwest of Hawaii and some 1,500 miles southeast of Tokyo, making it a closer, less expensive vacation destination for Japanese tourists than Hawaii. Accordingly, Japanese tourism provides the largest input to the Guamanian economy. Number two is U.S. military spending, which will skyrocket, to the benefit of the island.

It's well to remember that the United States once had to pull its military bases out of the Philippines, and it's important to remember that South Korea has said it would restrict U.S. forces from deploying from there. With Guam as a launch platform, we'll be ruling our own roost without foreign interference. Of course the usual complaints will flitter from the U.N. about America not giving Guam some sort of self-rule, but let 'em complain. Guam's ours.

Top | Home

Crosshairs on the Predator UAV

by Fred Edwards

June 16, 2006 -- Aerial reconnaissance systems have advanced from tethered balloons, to piloted aircraft, to spy satellites, to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Each system performed better than its predecessor, but each had critical limitations.

Balloons had to be flown behind friendly lines, which limited the observer's capability. Yet they were fully visible to the enemy who could target them with artillery or aircraft like shooting at big, bulbous, stationary bulls eyes. Furthermore, if weather or nightfall didn't blind the observer, the enemy could do it with smoke generators.

Piloted aircraft became more difficult to see and harder to destroy, and they also could carry out armed reconnaissance missions. But the only real-time imagery the pilot could get was when the aircraft was on station. And every pilot who's ever flown a combat aerial reconnaissance mission knows that the enemy will throw everything he has at the plane - and the pilot - in order to kill them both.

Satellites don't expose pilots to annihilation, but anybody who's tried to use satellite imagery knows that it generally shows only where the enemy was. It also doesn't always cover the sector you need. And, if the enemy discovers a time when the satellites are not overhead, he just waits until then to conduct movements.

The UAV eliminates all those limitations, and the MQ-1 Predator offers an excellent example of how far aerial reconnaissance has progressed.

One of the Air Forces smallest aircraft, with a 50-foot wingspan, the Predator buzzes like a giant insect but it can put an AGM-114 Hellfire missile through a window from 8,000 miles away. It can loiter on station some 20 hours, and can be relieved by a replacement aircraft. It gives ground commanders real-time eyes in the sky without a single pilot's life at risk.

Human life still remains at risk because it takes a ground crew to launch and recover a Predator, and in Iraq the ground control station operates from Balad Air Base. When a Predator operates over Afghanistan, however, a pilot at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., flies it from what is essentially a small cockpit. Pilots say it's like flying an airplane through a straw. A mission also requires a pair of sensor operators, and of course the aerial team can only "fly" until fatigue requires another team to take over.

In Iraq, the Air Force's 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron (ERS) employs about 20 Predators to patrol convoy routes, support ground force raids and perform as aerial sentries to prevent insurgent and terrorist attacks. The aircraft can see at low light and night, as well as through clouds and haze. Think about it - you are on a ground patrol and you've got a pair of eyes and two Hellfire missiles ahead of you to tell you what to expect and to take out any bad guys.

The Predator's pilot can either pinpoint and destroy a target, or can paint it for the ground troops. Capt. Fred Atwater, 46th ERS commander, explains "From overhead, we can put a pinpoint of light on an individual who is trying to ambush or hide from our troops." He continues, "You can't really see this marker unless you've got on night-vision goggles. We've worked with the Army this way and have captured hundreds of individuals who otherwise wouldn't have been seen."

One factor in the Predator's reliability over a 20-hour mission is its Rotax 914 four cylinder engine, which is essentially the same engine used on snowmobiles. Another is the power supply backup of two 8-pound, 14-amp-hour Ni-Cad battery packs that will kick in if the alternator fails or even if the engine quits.

The Predator's Hellfire missile is a favorite weapon for dealing with terrorists. Flying high and far from the target, the small Predator generally escapes detection by radar, sight or sound. Thus the aircraft can strike deep inside what the enemy normally would consider to be safe territory. The missile flies at supersonic speed, so when it strikes, the only warning the enemy gets that he is under attack is when Hellfire's warhead explodes. This capability produces an intense psychological impact on an enemy who never knows when a split-second Armageddon might hit.

One dictionary definition of a predator is "One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain." That's a perfect description of the MQ-1 Predator.

Top | Home

After the bash, it was time for a cup of Joe

by Fred Edwards

Letters to the Editor

"Great article. If Josephus had been named Jack, the whole Navy might have been better off. Thanks for this bit of first-hand history." WG, California

"Absolutely hilarious. It's got to be true; no one could make this up intentionally. Thanks for the history lesson and a cup of Joe will have a whole new meaning for me to pass on." AT, Florida

June 23, 2006 -- Exactly Ninety-two years ago July 1, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels added a new term to the Navy's lexicon -- a cup of Joe. Here's how it happened.

Daniels' General Order No. 99 of June 1, 1914, declared that effective July 1, "The use or introduction for drinking purposes of alcoholic liquors on board any naval vessel, or within any navy yard or station, is strictly prohibited, and commanding officers will be held directly responsible for the enforcement of this order."

Thus ended 114 years of tinkering with a sailor's right to drink.

In the beginning, sailors were issued a daily ration of grog (watered down rum) in line with the British navy tradition. Then, in 1794, the Congress authorized either a half-pint of "distilled spirits" or a quart of beer. Three years later, the beer substitute was deleted. In 1831, service members could draw 6 cents a day in lieu of their liquor ration. And in 1842, Congress slashed the daily ration to one gill (1/4 pint), and -- a precursor of the 21st century -- prohibited officers or enlisted members from drawing a liquor ration at all unless they were at least 21.

Then, in 1851, Congress restricted the liquor ration to officers. But after two years of enlisted sobriety, Congress again opened the ration to the enlisted ranks.

On July 14, 1862, Congress prohibited distilled liquors from ships except for medicinal purposes.

As the century neared its end, the Navy interpreted the various laws to mean that wardroom officers could form a "wine mess," with each member contributing funds for the purchase of wine.

Naval lore has it that the wine mess aboard many ships stocked three kinds of wine, "Wine," "Wine A" (bourbon) and "Wine B" (scotch).

Then came Daniel's General Order 99.

And with it came a problem.

Here's a comparison. In today's armed forces, when an organization is likely to lose its budget funds, if it doesn't spend them before the end of the fiscal year, it goes out and buys stuff.

For the U.S. Navy, June 30, 1914, was worse than the end of a fiscal year; it was the end of the booze years.

On that date, a large part of the U.S. Atlantic fleet -- along with ships from five foreign navies -- was anchored off Mexico because of the Mexican civil war. The wine messes had sold some of their stock to individuals and given some to enlisted men, and even shipped some back to the states. But they had gallons and gallons of alcohol remaining. And they couldn't keep it aboard ship the following day.

So as eight bells sounded the end of the last dog watch of the last day of the booze years, the flagship Wyoming signaled: "Prepare to bury King John Barleycorn. Burial party of pall bearers and mourners will call. Execute."

And the burial parties -- including representatives from British, German, Spanish, French and Dutch pallbearers -- began their rounds.

The mourners were piped aboard by wine mess attendants armed with brooms. Once aboard, they made a courtesy call on the captain, then went to the wardroom, and finally to the warrant officers' mess.

The wardroom on one battleship had become a mirror image of a western saloon, complete with bar, brass rail, spittoons, gambling paraphernalia, and, behind the bar, an etched mirror alongside a painting of a nude woman.

Pallbearers assembled aboard USS North Dakota because something special had been promised. While they were loading up on salad, ham, turkey, beer, whiskey and wine, the executive officer excused himself. He returned wearing a baseball mask and a chest protector, and told the guests to fill their glasses for a toast. Raising his glass high, he roared, "Here's to Josephus Daniels."

He needed his protection because the audience threw everything at him they could get their hands on -- food, drink, and even salad.

Just before midnight, ships' working parties threw the remaining booze over the side, in some cases thoughtfully laid out in black boxes.

Thanks to Josephus Daniels, over the years a cup of coffee became known as a cup of Joe. It became the strongest drink allowed aboard ship, and anybody who's been on a ship knows that Navy coffee can be mighty strong.

Top | Home

Let 'em launch!

by Fred Edwards

June 30, 2006 -- What an opportunity the North Korean government seems about to drop into the lap of the United States.

All signs point to Pyongyang launching a Taepodong 2 missile from a test facility in northeastern North Korea soon. American experts estimate the missile has a range of between 5,000 and 7,500 miles That would place U.S. bases in Japan, the territory of Guam, and perhaps even Alaska or Hawaii under the Taepodong fan.

Some have called for a pre-emptive strike to "take out" the intercontinental missile while it's on the launch pad. President Bush might even decide to do it, but it doesn't seem likely. If al Qaeda was about to launch a missile, the president's doctrine says the United States would destroy missile, launcher, and anybody nearby. "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il, however, has as much legal right to test a missile as the United States. Besides, an air strike against North Korea would disrupt the possibility of any diplomatic assistance from Chinese president Hu Jintao. He maintains influence over North Korea because almost of all of that country's commerce goes through China.

Even if the United States opted for a direct attack, I would think that common sense and world opinion would lead the president to make it a conventional attack. But the armed forces couldn't just vector in a stand-by aircraft like it did to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It would take a coordinated attack, probably by stealth aircraft and stand-off missiles, perhaps with B-2s flying from Guam, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The mission shouldn't be merely to destroy the site; it should to demolish every facility involved in developing, producing, storing and transporting North Korean missiles and warheads.

But here's another option that would give the United States an ideal opportunity on two counts: Let 'em launch.

First, it's not known if the launch would even be a success. Remembering the disasters the United States incurred with its space launches when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was pressured for deadlines and performance, if Kim Jong-il sets a time limit for launch … well, we'll see what happens.

Second, IF the missile is launched and if it goes far enough into space to become intercontinental, the United States can conduct a full dress rehearsal of it's missile defense system. And I think the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is ready for it. Today the system includes 11 ground-base interceptors in Alaska and Standard Missile-3s aboard Aegis-class cruisers at sea.

Unfortunately, Americans hear very little about the successful tests of the system. The latest was when the Missile Defense Agency and the Navy conducted a "hit to kill" test June 22 off the island of Kauai, Hawaii. "Hit to kill" means the interceptor missile must directly collide with the target, destroying it from the force of the collision. In this test, the Aegis cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67) launched a Standard Missile 3 against a "separating" target, meaning a target warhead separated from its booster rocket. The missile intercepted the target warhead outside the Earth's atmosphere, more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai.

This was the seventh success out of eight tests of a sea-launched interceptor off the coast of Hawaii. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. "Trey" Obering III expressed confidence that, if North Korea should fire a three-stage rocket and the flight path threaten the United States, the system would be able to hit the intercontinental missile.

Meanwhile, Japan is standing tall with America. According to reports, the United States has notified Japan of its plans to deploy Patriot interceptor missiles at U.S. bases in Japan. The PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability-3) missiles are expected to be emplaced at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa.

Furthermore, Japan has agreed to host a huge U.S. high-resolution tracking radar at the Air Self-Defense Force's Shariki base in Tsugaru in northern Honshu to monitor any North Korean ballistic missile launch, according to a U.S. government official. The acquisition and tracking capabilities of the X-Band radar are expected to confirm whether any North Korean launch was merely intended to put a satellite into orbit.

"All options are on the table," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said June 25 on public broadcast NHK, referring to Japan's opposition to a launch. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi followed up during a visit with President Bush June 29 by saying, "Should they ever launch the missile, that will cause various pressures - we would apply various pressures."

Obvious pressures would include cutting off ferry service and other trade with North Korea or preventing North Koreans living in Japan from transferring cash to North Korea.

In a move already decided, according to a press source, Japan's Self-Defense Forces will deploy its own PAC-3 missiles at the Iruma Air Base in Saitama by the end of the year, at Kasuga Base in Fukuoka and two other bases in Shizuoka prefecture by 2010.

Of course, the U.S. missile defense system could fail a real-world test. If so, it would still rate a double plus. First, it would be far better to discover weaknesses in the system now, when experts say that North Korea can't arm the missile with a nuclear tip, rather than when it's too late. Second, it might impel the American people to fully support final development of the system.

On the other hand, if the system should succeed, that would silence the naysayers in the press who have been pooh-poohing the system for years.

Let 'em launch!

Top | Home

Special report about the war

What the mainstream media won't tell you

by Fred Edwards

July 7, 2006 -- The setting was a conference of retired general and flag officers at Fort Carson, Colo., hosted by Maj. Gen. Bob Mixon, commander of the Army's 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson.

The Army planned to explain its modular brigade concept to the participants. But Fort Carson happens to be the installation from which a tremendous number of Army troopers have deployed for multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the source of a high number of combat deaths over the last three years. Ft. Carson units stage to and from the combat area virtually on a monthly basis. Thus the active-duty Army participants at the conference represented the essence of knowledge about the war.

According to a participant who signed himself as "a Navy Rear Adm. retiree," the 55 generals and admirals who attended quickly lost interest in modular brigades because they were facing witnesses to the war who would tell it like it is. And for three and a half hours they did. Here are some high points.

Are we winning? "We are clearly winning the fight against the insurgents but we are losing the public relations battle there and here." More on that shortly.

When should the troops come home? Not until the job is done, which means U.S. troops should remain in Iraq at least ten more years. The troop strength, however, would not have to be nearly what it is today.

Do the Iraqis want us there? You bet. The panel said that 80 percent to 90 percent of the Iraqi people want U.S. troops to stay until their own armed forces and police can take over. For an example of their fervor, after Colonel H.R. McMaster brought his 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment (ACR) back this year from its second tour in Iraq, the mayor of the Iraqi city of Tal Afar journeyed to Fort Carson to thank the troopers and their families personally for "freeing his people."

Is the Army's morale "broken"? Absolutely not. The morale and combat capability of the troops is the highest that the senior officers have ever seen in the 20-30 years that each has served. They pointed out that, two weeks earlier, the local TV channels showed a 3rd ACR re-enlistment ceremony that Col. McMaster held at Ft. Carson after the unit returned from a one-year combat tour, and 654 of 670 soldiers eligible for re-enlistment held up their hands to swear, "I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic … ." And they knew that they probably would be returning to Iraq within less than a year.

What's the problem with public relations? First it's a matter of timing, according to the sources. The terrorists can give Al Jazeera footage of their more sensational attacks early enough that the Arab world sees it on TV within minutes of the event. In contrast, a story written by Army Public Affairs requires four to six days to get clearance from Combined Forces Command, and two or three more days to clear the Defense Department.

Second, the U.S. mainstream media balks at embedding reporters with U.S. troops in the combat zone, claiming they get "less objective" and begin to see events through the eyes of the troops. Consequently, according to a conference participant, most of the reporters hole up in hotels in the Green Zone and have Iraqi stringers send them stories by cell phone. The reporters themselves make no effort to confirm the stories or the credibility of the stringers. The recent serious injuries to Bob Woodruff of ABC and Kimberly Dozier of CBS makes the likelihood of using local stringers even higher, said the participant.

Third, reporters for the mainstream media that do write stories from the field find that very seldom do their stories reach the American public as written.

Here's an example given by one of the participants. A major news magazine sent a reporter to stay six weeks with the 3rd ACR during the unit's battle for Tal Afar. When the battle was over, the reporter filed his story, accompanied with almost 100 photographs taken by his photographer. A week later, the magazine published a feature about the battle, but the core of the story was missing and none of the pictures were used. Instead the magazine depicted a weeping child on the cover, taken from stock photos. When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors replied that it and photos were "too heroic". The senior officer telling this account said he had read both the submission and the resulting article and that the editors had completely changed the thrust and context of the submission.

If senior active-duty officers at Fort Carson are telling it like it is, it's time the main stream media publishes it like it is. Our troops deserve no less.

Top | Home

Iraq crescendo heads for climax

by Fred Edwards

July 14, 2006 -- In business, when sales go south it's time to double the advertising budget. In jihadism when you're backed against the wall, it's time to throw everything you've got against the "crusaders." And it looks like that's what's happening in Iraq.

Consider Osama bin Laden's point of view. The United States has made Iraq the crunch point in the struggle between jihadists and the West. He absolutely does not want a central government in Iraq, but it's heading that way. He wasn't on the best of terms with the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because al-Zarqawi had been too bloodthirsty, but al-Zarqawi was tough and was carrying the fight to re-establish the caliphate.

Then al-Zarqawi was killed, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki immediately filled key cabinet positions of defense and interior with a Sunni and a Shiite respectively. This swift move after a long impasse against bringing in a minority Sunni -- along with hints that human intelligence played a part in pinpointing al-Zarqawi -- makes it seem likely that al-Zarqawi was betrayed by the very people he'd been inciting to civil war.

Bin Laden's world had turned bleak. He had been unable to launch any attacks on U.S. soil since the aircraft assaults against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Except for the recent events in Somalia, not one country has been taken over by jihadists since the Taliban were neutralized in Afghanistan; he had hoped that by now his caliphate would be sprouting like a giant mushroom. And he no longer could even call his homeland of Saudi Arabia "home." Meanwhile, if the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq wind up with a negotiated settlement for a central government, it would take a generation of jihadists to undo it.

It was time to double the advertising budget, and that's what bin Laden did.

On June 29 and July 1 he released two new videos. The last time he did something like that was in February 2003, on the brink of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That time he told his Muslim audience that the American invasion (with other Coalition forces) was a continuation of the Crusades.

This time he praised al-Zarqawi for 19 minutes as an example for the jihadists -- indeed all Muslims -- to follow. And he prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al-Zarqawi's successor, telling him to continue to march until the caliphate is re-established.

If bin Laden could get the Sunnis out of the government, or better yet, prevent the government from governing, he could recover his losses. He had to play the Sunni card and play it decisively.

Hence the stepped up kidnappings and killings.

Sales went south, so bin Laden and the jihadists doubled the advertising budget. But let's change the metaphor.

Military leaders are taught to hold reserves for an opportunity to exploit a breakthrough in the battle, and to be wary about throwing them in to save a lost fight. Look on it as a matter of mathematics. Let's say you have three divisions, and commit two of them. If they become ineffective before a determined enemy, surely committing the last one, is suicidal.

Bin Laden's jihadists are making things nasty in Iraq but they may be the reserve that has been thrown into a losing battle. If so, the only way he can win is to use the killing as a spectacular propaganda bait and get the mainstream media to bite.

Top | Home

America's 21st Century Revolution

by Fred Edwards

July 21, 2006 - No matter how hideous war is, it can spawn unexpected benefits, and our current warfare in Iraq and Iran is doing just that. Two generations of veterans from America are returning from deployments with a greater sense of cohesiveness than the United States saw in the last several wars. These veterans are different and they're great. Soldiers without legs are begging to return to their units. Marines without arms are insisting on going back.

And those that leave the service just might launch a bigger revolution in this country than did the 60s counterculture.

Yes, two generations. Forty-year-old sergeants from the reserves and the National Guard are coming back with the same attitudes as their 18-year-old counterparts. They went because they signed up to go. Many have been over for the third time; some the fourth.

They know what jihadist terrorism is about and they won't forget it.

They will remember it as the American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan goes on - some say for 10 years, some merely say "until the job is finished."

At the end of World War II, the GI Bill brought a revolution to the working class. As today's war continues, its veterans have a chance to launch another revolution. This double-generation can take over the same infrastructure the 60s kids did.

Imagine what would happen to the public school system if they move onto the school boards. Think how the liberals in the colleges and universities would fear their philosophies being uprooted and replaced by others. And ponder what can happen to the liberals on the bench if the new veterans should become judges.

Envision the leftists being shut out of the "mainstream" media and being replaced by these generations who can tell it like it is.

They already are moving into politics. By one count, 56 Democrats and 39 Republicans running for Congress have military experience.

Remember that at least one of these new veterans is likely to be president someday.

Most important, speculate on the possibility that these young men and women will rebuild our national backbone and prove themselves to be the best hope for our future. More than 20,000 of them have been wounded, perhaps half of them terribly so. Hundreds of thousands of them have seen innocent civilians tortured, mutilated and killed. They've learned that life is not fair. They've accepted that and they ask only for a chance to make their own future.

A Marine major general reports that he chatted with three enlisted Marines sitting by themselves at a golf tournament that was being used as a fund raiser to help wounded Marines. The three had been required to attend, but not one of them had learned to play golf. Nobody in their family had ever played golf, and they had never been on a golf course before.

One of them was just back from his third deployment, and he had been wounded during each tour. Asked if he was going to stay in the Marines, he chose his words carefully, telling the general he wanted to be the first in his family to try college.

The general offered to buy them a beer, but they smiled, and one said, "We can't ask you to break the rules, sir. None of us are 21 yet."

The United States gave them the power to decide who to kill and who to spare, but not the right to drink a beer. They had never shot golf but they had shot and killed other men in order to carry out U.S. policy. They might not be 21, but their observations of life and death have given them enough maturity to become leaders in every walk of American life.

They didn't let us down in Iraq. They didn't let us down in Afghanistan. They won't let us down in all the other battlefields of the war against Islamic extremism. And they won't let us down here at home. Thank them when you encounter them. They're the best hope for America's future.

Top | Home

How to win or lose the war against Islamic fascists

by Fred Edwards

July 28, 2006 -- We must understand two things.

First, the United States is in a total war for survival of our way of life. In total war, if strategic and tactical capabilities remain equal, the most powerful, most bloodthirsty, and most downright mean and nasty side will win.

Second, today's enemy understands American weaknesses and exploits them right under our noses, and they know that some of the greatest weaknesses are media they can manipulate.

Let's put things into perspective by looking at the whining about Israel using "disproportionate" force when that country was invaded, then attacked with rockets.

Imagine, as has been said, an Islamic fascist army operating in Canada outside of the Canadian government's control. It invades the United States and captures American soldiers.

Then that force launches more than 1,500 rockets into the United States, with hundreds of them slamming into Chicago.

And imagine that the fascist army declares it intends to wipe the United States off the map as if it had never existed.

Further, imagine that this Army is supported with hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of tons of sophisticated arms by a pair of countries outside of Canada - countries run by dictators who also have sworn to eliminate the United States of America.

Would we go to the United Nations and plead for a cease fire?

If I were president or a member of Congress, I know what l would do, for the sake of my family, my friends, and all who truly believe in everything that freedom means. And I would either ignore the naysaying media or take steps to have them make patriotism (meaning survival) the highest priority, as the American media did during our struggle for survival in World War II.

Put this into perspective and look at the Islamist-fascist enemy in Lebanon, and also in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else we are fighting or will fight.

If the enemy holes up in mosques and targets Israeli troops, does the Israeli Defense Force have a choice other than to return fire?

If the enemy uses hospitals and Red Cross shelters as fortified bunkers, do the Israelis have a choice except to counterattack?

If the enemy stores its Katyusha rockets and launchers in civilian neighborhoods, what choice do the Israelis have but to attack?

It sounds nasty, but, face it, Americans have been nasty too, big time. Think of the U.S. and British fire-bombings on Dresden, Germany, between Feb. 13 and Feb. 15, 1945, which destroyed 14,000 homes and 75,000 apartments, and killed perhaps 25,000 civilians (as many as 300,000 if you believe the Nazi propaganda). The mission was to protect the allied Soviet advance into Germany by obstructing the movement of German reinforcements numbering as many as 42 divisions (half a million men), and thus end World War II in Europe.

Even more deadly than the Dresden holocaust was the American fire-bombing of Japan because of the matchbox housing in densely populated Japanese cities.

Then came the atomic bombs the United States unleashed over Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed, by some estimates, 214,000 Japanese who were mostly civilians.

Some historians may claim we could have chosen another course.

Perhaps they didn't read about the Italian fascist invaders who killed 275,000 Ethiopians when they invaded in 1935.

Perhaps they didn't record the rape of Nanking in 1937 when Japanese invaders murdered 200,000 captured Chinese soldiers and civilians, raped and slaughtered 20,000 women and girls, and tossed babies onto bayoneted rifles.

And perhaps they don't believe that the Nazis murdered and cremated more than 2-million human beings at death factories such as Dachau and Auschwitz.

And perhaps they don't care that, thanks to the atomic bombs, at least 1 million Americans lived, along with unknown millions of Japanese who had been sworn to defend an American invasion with their lives.

But Americans at the time felt that all means were necessary to keep monsters from occupying their home towns. That is total war. And that is what we face today. Monsters.

We must remember that in total war, if strategic and tactical capabilities remain equal, the toughest, meanest, nastiest side will win, and the most squeamish will lose. We can't afford to be squeamish.

And we must remember what Daniel Webster said: "We live under the only government that ever existed, which was formed by the deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would leave a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism."

The choice is ours - to win or lose.

Top | Home

Let's stop pitting people against hardware

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 4, 2006 -- The administration, the Department of Defense and legislators who bow to the administration's edicts behave like the real war is between military hardware and the troops. Here's what happens.

Start with a set amount of money and call it a defense budget. Slice it in two. Set one piece aside for military hardware, weapons, equipment. Earmark the other for the cost of troops. The thinking goes that you must have a certain amount of hardware and if you run out of money, you'll have to get it from personnel costs. Or as Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee so poetically said recently: DoD will have to choose "between weapons and warriors."

On the surface, it makes for a good argument because personnel costs are rising faster than hardware procurement and maintenance. And the argument gets better because Congress insists on including military retiree payments and medical funding in the same pot with active-duty money. And the retiree costs are skyrocketing. Here's why.

It started with a retirement system called Redux, whereby retirees would receive 40 percent of their base pay upon initial retirement, instead of the traditional 50 percent. The troops didn't buy Redux and started voting with their feet. At the request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 1999 Congress reinstated a 20-year retirement plan based on 50 percent of the average of the highest three years of basic pay. The legislation also included service members who had entered after July 31, 1986, thus forcing DoD to plug retroactive retirement costs into its budgeting.

Then came Tricare for Life, which subsidizes medical costs for military retirees who are Medicare-eligible. Congress saw this as a retention measure because many retirees had been promised lifetime medical care upon retirement, but the law was changed June 7, 1956, making such care "space available." Then, as bases were closed by the Base Realignment and Closure process, medical care simply became "unavailable" for tens of thousands Tricare for Life is one reason why military health care costs have jumped from $19 billion in 2001 to between $38 billion and $42 billion (depending on who's figures you like) this year.

The Defense Department conveniently forgets that Public Law 106-398 established a fully funded Medicare Eligible Health Care Trust Fund, effective Oct. 1, 2002, for Tricare for Life. So the costs should not be part of DoD's defense budget. Although the trust fund theoretically protects older military retirees, it doesn't protect the younger ones. Consequently, their Tricare program has been under attack with a plan by the administration to impose draconian hikes in their costs.

Next, until 2003, disabled military retirees who received disability payments from the Department of Veterans affairs saw their retirement pay cut by the amount of the disability award. This was just plain wrong because retired pay and disability payments are earned for two different reasons and no other class of retirees or disabled persons were being penalized. So the law was changed, and the net affect upon the Defense Department was an increase in their military retiree payment obligations.

Finally, because of the war in Iraq, recruitment and retention costs have spiraled upward through use of such measures as huge selective re-enlistment bonuses, some two-dozen types of special pays, and even $1,000 bonuses to Army retirees who refer prospects to recruiters if the prospects become soldiers.

Since every one of these costs was considered essential for recruiting and retention when enacted, they remain indispensable. But here's the problem: one percent of the population is fighting the war against the Islamic fascists, and they're doing it for the other 99 percent. The idea of pitting the personnel costs of that 1 percent against the costs of military weaponry and machinery is pure hogwash. And there is no reason to balance the hardware budget on the backs of military retirees. A lynchpin of recruiting and retention success is the service member's knowledge that health care will be adequately subsidized after retirement. And that lynchpin will be yanked out if today's service members see that military retirees are being shortchanged.

The fix is simple. Pay our warriors what it takes to recruit and retain them, and make sure they see that retirement promises are kept.

As for the honest-it's-true statements that some legislators give you about not being able to afford it, just remind them of this: Our defense budget at the height of this war represents less than 3.5 percent of the gross national product. In the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000, Defense spending averaged 5.7 percent of the GNP.

The 99 percent who are not affected by the war can afford to pay for both military hardware and the troops.

Top | Home

Hezbollah wins this round -- no matter how the war ends

Its military machine stunned almost everybody, except Iran and Syria

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 11, 2006 -- It doesn't matter whether the Israelis root out every last Hezbollah fighter in Lebanon, Hezbollah has changed the military psychology of the Middle East, and perhaps has overturned the balance of power held by the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Before the day Hezbollah raiders slipped across Israel's northern border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was perceived as the invincible military force in the Middle East. It had fought Arab armies five times, exercising a mix of brilliance, boldness and backbone that overwhelmed their enemies.

But in 2006, these troops, whose fathers and mothers had outmaneuvered and outfought Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian armies, ran into a force resembling a heavily reinforced but asymmetric brigade of 1,500-to-3,000 Hezbollah fighters - and the Hezbollah, who were willing to die for their concept of Islam, stood their ground. Indeed, they were dug in well under ground in tunnels and caves they had constructed after the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000. The Israelis found the Hezbollah troops -- trained and financed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard -- to be a different breed than the Soviet-trained and Soviet-equipped Arab armies that dissolved in 1967 and 1973.

Nor do they resemble the Hamas or the Palestinian fighters. For one thing, they possess body armor and night-vision goggles. For another, they operate a modern, effective command and control system, including satellite communications. For yet another, they have a huge rocket fleet.

Their inventory of Syrian- and Iranian-produced Katyusha rockets has displayed no more accuracy than the Nazi buzz bombs that crashed indiscriminately into London in 1944. But what the Katyushas lack in accuracy, they've made up for in quantity, with more than 3,000 Katyushas slamming into northern Israel in four weeks. That's a respectable-sized aerial attack from a force that owns no military aircraft.

Hezbollah has successfully employed Russian-made laser-guided Metis-M missiles equipped with tandem, shaped-charge warheads. The missiles, with about a one-mile range, will penetrate armored vehicles, and even Israel's modern Merkava tanks. They also will pierce concrete block buildings where Israeli troops are sheltered. Whether armor or concrete, the first charge penetrates the exterior protection and the second explodes inside.

They also have used the Metis-M with an anti-personnel warhead - a weapon as deadly to Israeli troops as grapeshot was to both sides during the American Civil War.

Hezbollah also employs the older, wire-guided Sagger missile. Although it flies so slowly that armored vehicles sometimes can evade its shaped charge, it has offered an excellent, economical weapon of choice for use against concrete block structures.

In addition to rocket launching ability and antitank warfare capability, the Hezbollah fighters have exhibited sophistication in intelligence, explosives, engineering and even sniping; their snipers can kill at 600 yards.

Other Hezbollah fighters will pop out of tunnels, fire shoulder-held antitank missiles, and slip back underground. This reflects the way Chechen rebels used Grozny's sewer system to attack Russian armor columns. It also emulates revolutionary war tactics of colonial Americans who hid behind trees to sharpshoot British troop columns advancing like they were on parade.

Using the full spread of asymmetric warfare, Hezbollah troops hide themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. At certain times, they might don Israeli uniforms. And they exploit civilian casualties to play the propaganda card for world opinion.

So Hezbollah has fielded a new Arab military force, blending technology, training and discipline with asymmetric warfare, and setting their own battlefield. This stymied the IDF, a Middle East master of conventional warfare and warfare of movement that wasn't prepared for what they confronted.

Thus Hezbollah wins this round because it has proven that a small Arab force can stand up to the vaunted Israeli whirlwind for at least four weeks.

This could be ominous for Israel in a region where Muslim leaders have sworn to wipe it off the face of the earth and populate its land with Muslims. But Israel has existed under ominous conditions since its birth, and it has shown the world time after time that it can adapt and survive.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah could portend a new legion of Muslim Arab warriors (and their Persian counterparts in Iran), willing to die for their concept of religion, in fact eager to die, because they believe that if they die while spilling the blood of infidels, Allah will give them a special reward.

And, if the Hezbollah force is an instrument of Iran and Syria, and the IDF is a surrogate for the United States, think of the implications for the next war if the principals step in.

Top | Home

Into Africa - beginning with the basics

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 18, 2006 - While we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, why in the world should we be expending military resources in Africa? Here are four reasons.

First, in 1991 Osama bin Laden used Sudan as an operating base until the United States pressured the Sudanese government to expel him in 1996.

Second, in August 1998 came the two car bombs outside the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 224 innocents and injuring 5,000.

Third, on March 11, 2004, African jihadists killed 191 people and wounded 1,400 others in the Madrid train bombings.

Fourth, Defense Department officials have estimated that 25 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq today came from Africa, some rotating to and from Africa.

Clearly it was past time to commence a military effort in the second largest continent. But rather than invade, the United States visits countries by invitation, beginning with fundamental defenses against the spread of Islamic fascism. One - help host countries learn the basic military skills needed to defend against the threat. Two - Conduct civic-action operations to help build the infrastructure.

So in 2002 the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) established a base at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, with the ambitious mission of detecting and defeating transnational terrorism.

And in June 2005, Marine Gen. James Jones, commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM), launched Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara (OEF-TS) in nine nations circling the Sahara Desert. The general says the operation has two purposes. First, to train African troops to help them protect their borders and fight drug and arms smuggling. Second, to give the United States increased visibility as we fight to keep terrorist organizations from taking root in developing countries.

In a nutshell, he says the United States must be active on the second largest continent so African nations "don't become the Afghanistans and Iraqs of the future."

Meanwhile, EUCOM's Navy component is doing its share along Africa's western littoral.

Let's start with the Horn of Africa

"The Horn is a hotbed now," said Eritrean Navy Cdr. Berhane Tesfamichael, his country's senior national representative to U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla. "There is the Sudan problem, the Somalia problem, and the Red Sea is a strategic place connecting the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea. It is actually a main transport line and it is in the Middle East where the terrorists are now."

In Somalia the situation remains chaotic, beginning with Islamic clerics and Muslim warlords in Mogadishu on one side and an internationally-recognized transitional government in Baidoa on the other. Add rumors, or realities, that Ethiopian troops (read Christians) have flown in to defend Baidoa from the Muslims. Mix in restless Muslim tribes in Ethiopia's deserts who dispute Ethiopia's Christian leadership. And top off the whole boiling pot with the history of hate between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and it's easy to see why CJTF-HOA has a most delicate mission.

Now let's move west from the Horn of Africa to participating countries of OEF-TS's Exercise Flintlock 2005, which ran June 6-26. That exercise took the largest number of U.S. military troops into Africa since World War II, with nearly 1,000 U.S. Navy Seals and other special ops troops moving into host nations that many Americans can't even find on a map: Algeria, Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad.

Host country participants participated in airborne operations, small-unit tactics, security operations, land navigation, marksmanship, medical skills, human rights training and land warfare. The exercise also featured establishment of command, control and communications systems for supporting future humanitarian, peacekeeping and disaster relief operations.

Along the southwestern coast beneath the huge bulge of western Africa, the Navy is considering a possible forward operating base in the Gulf of Guinea region. The area's importance is underlined because it produces some 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, and is expected to surpass the Persian Gulf's contribution by 2015.

Capt. Tom Rowden, commander of U.S. European Command's naval surface combatant warships, said recently that U.S. military engagement along southwestern Africa's Atlantic coast has increased from almost no activity in 2004 to 130 "ship days" in 2005, with even more planned ship days this year.

The region faces destabilizing factors such as narcotics trafficking from South America, smuggling of illegal aliens into Europe, about $1 billion a year in illegal fishing, and pollution that threatens the coast and the local food supply.

Every year since 1978 the Navy and Marines have conducted a West African Training Cruise along the coasts of nations such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Senegal. During the most recent cruise, a Marine rifle platoon from Camp Lejeune, N.C., operated for six weeks along the coastlines of Ghana, Senegal and Guinea aboard USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) and the high speed vessel Swift (HSV-2)

The Marines, along with Navy Seals and special-boat crews from Stuttgart, Germany, trained their African counterparts in riverine operations, ambushes and counter-ambushes, combat patrolling, jungle warfare and night-vision techniques.

From February to May 2006, the submarine tender USS Emory S. Land (AS-39) conducted its second European Command Theater Security Cooperation cruise in the Gulf of Guinea. Embarked were Marines, Seabees, a Fleet hydrographic survey team, public affairs personnel, a force protection boat team, and special instructors in naval leadership, hazmat, and maritime law. Emory S. Land conducted training afloat and ashore, and performed civic action missions in the gulf nations.

Such are the fundamentals. Considering the immense size and complexity of the African nations, they may seem little more than baby steps. But as has been said, "A thousand mile journey starts with the first step."

Top | Home

If they are not fascists, tell me what they are

by Fred Edwards

Aug. 25, 2006 - Two years ago it became manifestly evident to me that the term "terrorists" fell woefully short of describing the monsters that intend to destroy Western civilization and even annihilate other Muslims who disagree with them. So I began using the term, "Islamic fascists." It seemed that President Bush validated my decision when he used the term August 10 while speaking about the plot to blow up passenger airplanes en route between London's Heathrow Airport and several U.S. destinations. Not unsurprisingly, his words provoked outcries from some American Muslims and even evoked an indirect rebuke from the Saudi government.

The Saudi cabinet said the Kingdom "warns of accusing Muslims of terrorism and fascism without considering the history of the pure Islamic civilization," and that "terrorism has no religion and no nationality."

Really? Of course terrorism in general has no nationality because anybody can become a terrorist for just about any reason. But most of us are concerned with a specific breed of terrorists -terrorists that would remake the map of the Middle East to exclude any reference to Israel, terrorists that would commit heinous acts against citizens of any country that appears to support the Israelis or America's Middle-East bridgehead in Iraq, animals that have cut off people's heads in public while insisting they are carrying out Allah's orders. These terrorists intend to intimidate, humiliate, and demolish every vestige of Western culture in the name of their God.

So there's no question whether these terrorists have a religion. It might not be the same Islam that most Muslims support, but it's a splinter group of Islam that demands branding.

Would we be more correct to label them "jihadists?" The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines a jihad as a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. That's close to the mark, but it doesn't clearly describe the goal of today's enemy. They want a form of fascism as was proven by the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Two years ago I rejected the linking, "fascist Islamics." First that poses a question of adjectives and nouns. More important, by stretching a point, such usage might infer that all Islamics are fascists, and this would be doing a terrible disservice to the millions of Muslims who are not bent on destroying Western values. By reversing the order of the words, we are suggesting that all fascists are tyrannical and Islamics who are fascists form a religious group who seek to impose their form of tyranny.

So, for me -- and at least once for George W. Bush -- Islamic fascists are Muslims who embrace fascism as their way to govern. But is fascism a misnomer?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary declares fascism to be a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

That definition springs from the brand of fascism that Benito Mussolini forged from Italy in the 1930s. It takes very little to transform the definition to a radical, fundamentalist Muslim's idea of a caliphate that will allow no dissension, no separate opinions, no voting, and no government except his interpretation of the Quran. I said "his" because such a government does not allow for women in power.

If you have a better term to target this vicious enemy than "terrorist," please contact me at email@frededwards.net.

Top | Home

A tale of two thugs

and what our service members did about them

by Fred Edwards

Sept. 1, 2006 -- Early Saturday morning, Aug. 19, two sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan were driving through the San Diego suburb of Chula Vista, going to go jump-start a friend's car. Airman Deon Millan and Gunner's Mate 3rd Class Dejion Rivers heard screams, and slammed on the brakes. They confronted a man swinging a hatchet at his girlfriend and members of her family. Rivers dialed "911" on his cell phone while Millan jumped into the fray.

After separating the thug from his victims, the two sailors shut an iron gate to keep him from fleeing in his car. But the hoodlum rammed through the gate, knocking it off its hinges and forcing the sailors to jump aside. They committed the license plate number and a description of the vehicle to memory, then performed first aid on the victims of the hatchet attack. Three of those would be hospitalized from the hatchet wounds.

The Chula Vista police caught the assailant only a block away from the scene.

Chula Vista police Sgt. John McAvenia credited Millan and Rivers with saving the victims from further injury and possible death. He also praised them for staying to make sure the police got the information, even though they had just been attacked by a "berserk" aggressor. He promised that the police department would recognize them officially for their unselfish acts of bravery and courage.

"I was just doing my job," said Millan. "I'm military so if I see somebody in need, whatever it is, I'm going to help."

"You don't expect things like this to happen to you," said Rivers. "We did the best we could in this situation."

Three days later just before 8 p.m. in a Salt Lake City suburb, a man reached the head of the line at a 7-Eleven store. He got a carton of cigarettes from the clerk and walked out without paying. A female clerk followed him outside and ordered him to stop. The man turned around and hit her in the face.

James Sjostrom had been standing in line behind the robber. "He just turned and clocked her," Sjostrom said. "He pounded her face. It was pretty vicious."

Sjostrom raced outside where the man was kneeling over the prostrate clerk, about to punch her again. When he saw Sjostrom coming, he took a swing at him.

"I grabbed him, threw him on the ground, put his hands behind his back, sat on him and waited for the cops to come," Sjostrom said. When the man realized he had no escape, Sjostrom said he became "pretty quiet."

Sjostrom is a former Marine who taught hand-to-hand combat and currently teaches a course on Russian kettlebells, or the martial art of strength training in the Salt Lake City area.

"Anybody would have done the same thing," he said. In fact, another man had left the store to tell Sjostrom he was in the Army and ask if he needed help.

Sjostrom's reply: "The Marines got here first."

When the police searched the assailant, they found release papers from the Salt Lake County Jail, where he had been released just hours earlier on another assault arrest.

The clerk, who suffered a cut above her eyebrow, was treated at the scene by paramedics and released.

So two thugs were put down. They were not Islamic fascists but they were terrorizing innocent people. And our valiant service members and veterans helped keep the victims safe. Punks, take heed.

Top | Home

The 5-year 9/11 balance sheet

by Fred Edwards

September 8, 2006 -- The Bush Doctrine that the president formulated in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, states that, if a country harbors or supports terrorists, the United States has the right for preemptive actions. Here's where we've gone with the doctrine in five years.

1. We recognized the Middle East as a hotbed of several brutal dictatorships and we overturned two - in Afghanistan and Iraq. This brought outside political interests into play which catalyzed the two countries as pivotal points for an all-out struggle which is ongoing.

2. To execute the two regime changes, we projected U.S. military force into the Middle East. Thus we are attacking abroad instead of merely defending at home in wait for another attack.

3. Our actions have shown any future enemies that we're not afraid to take casualties for the cause of American ideals.

4. In Iraq, we have forged a staging area for preemptive strikes against Iran and Syria, and any other country sheltering or supporting Islamic fascists.

5. In Afghanistan, we brought in NATO as a surrogate coalition member. This insulates us from diplomatic and political static from both the enemy and other Muslim peoples.

Here's where we've stalled as a nation.

1. We have allowed Iran and Syria to be in a protected status, enabling them to export fighters, material and funding to Iraq and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. The final chapter in this issue has not been completed.

2. We do not have a clear moral resolve or political consensus to continue the Middle East venture. More on this issue later.

3. We do not really understand the utter seriousness of the war, partly because we have been unable to define it with a credible, discrete term.

President Bush calls it vaguely, "The War on Terrorism." Samuel P. Huntington writes of a "clash of civilizations," with radical Islam as only one threat. Newt Gingrich names it "World War III, which implies it didn't begin until 1945. On the other hand, arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden brands it a continual, centuries-old struggle between Islam and the "crusader-Zionist alliance."

Here's where we haven't even begun.

We are losing the propaganda war (propaganda, meaning propagation of a cause) because we have not created a propaganda machine similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's World War II apparatus. In the homeland, for example, FDR personalized the threat and thrust it into American neighborhoods, schools, homes and factories, using posters, radio and movies. He instilled nationalistic pride, created personal hate for the enemy, and induced Americans on the home front to work harder, contribute more and endure rationing of food, materials and transportation.

The methods often were racist (or at least mean spirited, my my) because they converted Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo into cartoon monsters that everybody - from age two or three and up -- could fear and loathe. Throughout the campaign, the propagandists depicted America as the civilized nation, and characterized the enemy as barbaric and sub-human. Could we do this today?

We could if we focus on the rationale for the Bush Doctrine.

First, the Islamic fascists want to replace Western governments - and Islamic governments that don't meet their level of fundamentalism- with Sharia-dominated regimes. Anybody who does not understand the significance of this should review the way the Taliban enslaved the people of Afghanistan. Then imagine replacing the American system of government (of the people, by the people and for the people) with rule by a religious body just as extreme as the Taliban.

Second, these fanatics will not be appeased any more than thugs throughout history have been converted by concessions from their prey. They intend to influence the world and the American media that the United States is materialistic, decadent and oppressive, and that its rulers despise all Muslims.

If we don't win the communications battle abroad and at home, the five points enumerated in the beginning of this column will be meaningless. Furthermore, most Americans will not grasp the importance of the war nor will they support its prosecution. The propaganda machine requires three tools: laws supported by a friendly Congress and Supreme Court, presidential executive orders, and a cooperative press. The most important is the press. Are they patriotic enough to participate?

Top | Home

Loose Taliban and loose gays

by Fred Edwards

Sept. 15, 2006 -- Today's column treats two unrelated subjects, starting with a group of Taliban insurrectionists.

Last July an American Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle put the crosshairs on some 100 Taliban in southern Afghanistan. What a perfect target those guys made! Just imagine five rows of the enemy all lined up like, as they say, ducks in a row.

Moreover, the Predator was packing an AGM-114 Hellfire missile. That's the weapon that -- if you tell the operator to fire at a building, he would ask, "Which window?" (See a description of the Predator and the Hellfire in my column of June 16, 2006, at http://www.frededwards.net/archive2006.htm#060616.)

So there they stood, a hundred killers lined up ready to be mowed down, but they got away! To be truthful, a U.S. officer let them off because they were in a cemetery, apparently attending a funeral. And under American rules of engagement, U.S. service members don't make attacks on cemeteries unless they receive fire.

The rules of engagement can make for a sloppy war. Too bad the Americans involved didn't find a way to get them to fire.

Meanwhile, in Madison, Wis., two college students and a college graduate who tried to enlist in the Army were turned down because they announced they were homosexuals. Under the military services' "don't ask, don't tell" policy based on a 1993 law, if they tell, they're out -- or in this case they never got in.

Some gay rights groups are campaigning mightily to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" law by seizing on the opportunity created by the Army's rather bleak recruiting picture. They are reinforced by others who bleat about the cost of training some 11,000 service members who have been discharged since 1993 for being openly gay. They say the United States is wasting a vast resource. Yet, speaking from the other side of their mouths, they quote a 2004 report by the Urban Institute asserting that 60,000 or more homosexuals and lesbians continue to serve silently in uniform.

Let's accept that figure for a moment and think about what the armed services might face if 60,000 gays legally came out. It's one thing for a straight male soldier to shower with a closet homosexual without realizing he's being eyed with desire. But what if the straight soldier knows his shower-mate is a homosexual?

Well, the services currently have separate facilities for men and women. If 60,000 gay members come out, why not put the homosexuals with straight women and the lesbians with straight men? Would the straights stand for it? Would the gays? Would parents?

If that wouldn't work, what would be the solution? Would the facilities be segregated for "straight men," "straight women," "homosexuals," and "lesbians" (or whatever politically correct terms would satisfy all concerned)?

Think of service clubs and unit parties. Who would dance with whom? Who would hit on whom?

Would some troops, noncommissioned officers and officers attend formal military social events with spouses while others brought "partners?"

A friend discussed these possibilities not long ago with very little facetiousness, in fact with serious concern.

Nevertheless, England and Israel, along with almost two dozen other countries, have integrated gays-who-tell with no apparent problems. Perhaps the United States will do the same someday, but I doubt it will happen on my watch.

Top | Home

Afghanistan round two

NATO has six months before the bell

by Fred Edwards

Sept. 22, 2006 -- Here's a chain of events that started in the 1980s: The superpower Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan; the CIA financed and supported the Mujahideen; the Mujahideen defeated the Soviets; Soviet troops completed their pullout in Feb. 1989 just as the Soviet Union imploded; the Taliban took over in Afghanistan; al Qaeda set up headquarters there for world-wide attacks against the United States, Israel and any countries perceived to support Israel. Many former Mujahideen fighters, flushed with their success, linked with al Qaeda and the Taliban, while some returned to their homelands as returning heroes among their fellow extremists.

Then, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden engineered the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Round one. Within a month, the United States and allies went into Afghanistan to chase the Taliban and al Qaeda into the mountains bordering Pakistan.

Now the Taliban have resurfaced, supported by Pashtun on both sides of the border, and aided by a new influx of foreign jihadist fighters. The Taliban also have teamed up with the opium poppy producers. Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium and heroin supply, and this year Western officials forecast as much as a 40 percent increase in land under cultivation for poppies. So we're talking of big, big dollars that corrupt both locally and worldwide.

Round two. Enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On July 31, the United States handed over responsibility for southern Afghanistan -- a hotbed of Taliban insurgency -- to the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and is expected to transfer the multinational coalition in eastern Afghanistan before the end of the year.

British army Lt. Gen. David Richards, ISAF commander, says that 10 percent of the south's population supports the Taliban while 70 percent will remain "undecided" until they see which side to stake their lives on. He set a six-month deadline to neutralize the insurgency or lose the 70 percent.

At present, ISAF has just over 20,000 troops from 26 countries, including 1,300 from the United States. Still under separate U.S. control are an additional 19,700 Americans. About 6,000 ISAF members from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands are deployed in the south.

Remembering that the Soviets, with about 300,000 troops, couldn't break the hold of the Taliban, Richards' glass at the national level might appear to be uncomfortably close to the empty mark. And in the south, the number of foreign jihadist fighters with the Taliban and the outbreak of enemy suicide bombings could squeeze his self-imposed six-month deadline to the breaking point.

To assist, on Sept. 7, NATO's overall commander, U.S. Marine Gen. James L. Jones, said that ISAF needs 2,300 more soldiers, along with a squadron of 18 attack helicopters and three C-130 transport aircraft.

Poland, which has contributed 10 soldiers -- yes, 10 -- offered a mechanized battalion of some 900 troops. But Poland doesn't want to send the battalion until February and has balked at deploying it to southern Afghanistan. Romania is said to be considering some 200 soldiers in addition to the 560 currently in country. The UK and Canada also said they would add to their contingents of 5,000 and 2,000 respectively.

Although many of the countries are already committed to other NATO missions, these numbers make for a lot of lip service about Afghanistan, and eight of the 26 countries involved are fielding more than three-fourths of ISAF. But at least all 26 have publicly committed to the war against Islamic fascists.

Can the Afghan National Army help? It currently has about 30,000 troops of a planned 70,000. It is adding about 1,000 more each month, which is the largest number possible to produce trained soldiers, according to officials.

On the other hand, Afghanistan's defense minister, Abdul Rahim Wardak, said that the army must have at least 150,000 troops to secure the country. If he is correct, we're looking at a composite total of 70,000 friendly troops, not counting police forces, or less than half of what he says will be needed. If we recall that the Soviet Union's 300,000 troops had to be pulled out, the numbers game looks bleak.

Nevertheless, General Richards, the ISAF commander, is concerned right now only with round two -- the insurgency in the south. He still has just over five months left to sway the 70 percent of the Afghanistanis who are lounging in the galleries there, and he reports that his forces already have killed as many as 1,500 fierce-fighting Taliban. So he's expecting to throw a knockout punch in the south. Then NATO and the emergent Afghan army can start round three in eastern Afghanistan.

Top | Home

Deployment crunch time coming big time

Unless somebody realizes there's a war going on

by Fred Edwards

Letter to the editor

"What a wonderful article! My son, a sergeant, and Marine reservist is in a truck company and has been to Iraq twice. Half of his unit is now deployed and he faces a return in the near future. Some of the equipment has been left in Iraq. Some of the questions I have as a father are: How good is the equipment reservists presently have, and are all reservists getting the proper training with up to date equipment? Fred's article raises a lot of very serious questions." VW, Florida

Sept. 29, 2006 -- For those who would listen, the warning came Feb. 25, 2003, from then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik Shinseki, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be needed both to win a war with Iraq and then maintain control over the country. But Shinseki was rudely ignored and the decision was to use "shock and awe" to race to Baghdad with less than half of the several hundred thousand.

If the Department of Defense had admitted the insurgency when it started, there still would have been time to start pumping troops into the training pipeline and bring the Army and Marine Corps up to enough strength to fight a long war on multiple fronts.

It's not just the troops that are wearing out. The equipment is being worn out at such a rate it can't be replaced when it's needed. As early as June 2004, Lt. Gen Robert Magnus, then deputy Marine Corps commandant for programs and resources, said that Marines will face up to increased requirements of war, but equipment can't. "The trucks don't know they are Marine trucks," he said.

Fast forward to Sept. 2006 and we find the Army's Third Infantry Division training in preparation for a third deployment to Iraq -- if they don't have to plug a gap in Korea instead -- with at least one brigade using computer simulators in place of tanks that actually fire their main guns. It's a 21st-century equivalent of the era just before the Japanese fleet attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, when grown Americans were pointing broomsticks at each other and yelling, "Bang, bang."

It's not only the troops and equipment, it's also the infrastructure. The Marine Corps, for example, is being forced to pay for the war by stealing from its infrastructure at home. When the Corps gets its fiscal 2007 money on Oct. 1, it will go first to the war fighters. Then, whatever is left will be doled out to Marine bases and stations until it runs out.

In short, you can only push troops so far until they or their families quit. You can only defer maintenance so long, until the equipment quits. And you can only ignore the infrastructure so long, until it turns into inferior structure.

The Army and Marines have found their deployment rate deteriorating down to a 1-1 tradeoff -- meaning troops undergo a year in combat, followed by a year in the States, then back to combat. With that rate, officials are taking another look at the policy of guaranteeing National Guard or Reserve soldiers four or five years at home for every year in combat.

A simple numerical answer is to consider the overall strength of the Army. It probably will end the fiscal year on Sept. 30 with 504,000 soldiers, and is geared to grow by 30,000. That would be enough only if the U.S. withdraws substantial troops from Iraq and ignores countries like North Korea and Iran, and Somalia, where thugs who happen to be Islamic are quickly smothering the fledgling government.

The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, has said that the Marine Corps should remain at 181,000 troops, although it's programmed to shrink to 175,000. Same comment as I made for the Army.

If we have the national fortitude to continue this war, we'll be fighting it for a generation or more. How long can we keep jacking up the workload and cutting back on troops?

The Navy and Air Force are reducing their strength to fit their new missions and strategy. During the interim, the Defense Department has been putting Navy and Air Force boots on the ground -- as they say -- but that's been little more than a Band-Aid.

Meanwhile, the Army has extended the deployment of a second unit. The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division has been ordered to remain in Iraq 46 extra days. And a brigade from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, will deploy a month earlier than scheduled, in late October, for a year of combat duty in Iraq.

"There's no question but that any time there's a war, the forces of the countries involved are asked to do a great deal," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said when asked about the decisions concerning the two Army brigades.

His statement brings us to the crux of the problem. More than just "the forces of the countries involved" must bite the bullet. All Americans and all America's institutions must be "asked to do a great deal."

If the United States is to survive the war against Islamic fascists -- with a madman dictator thrown in here and there -- it must be a 21st Century superpower in order to counter the threats. That requires more money than the administration and the Congress have been willing to spend. It demands a substantial increase in military strength. And it means a national change in mindset.

In the end, war is a contest of national will. The Islamic jihadists have shown they have it. Americans have it, but the national leadership hasn't succeeded in forging it into a weapon of war. The jihadists know that time is on their side if the United States doesn't awaken.

Top | Home

Skimpy military pay raise labeled an 'abysmal failure of leadership'

by Fred Edwards

Letter to the editor:

"Fred: Good article. The Nation needs to understand that this war is going to have very large long term costs and the current percentage of GDP that goes to DoD has been in steady decline for decades and this needs to change." RM, Florida

Oct. 6, 2006 -- Congress completed its legislative session Sept. 30 by enacting the smallest pay raise for active-duty military troops in more than a decade. The House originally had endorsed a 2.7 percent hike proposed by a House Armed Services panel, but House delegates at a joint House-Senate conference agreed to a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise effective Jan. 1. The 2.2 percent increase was exactly what the Bush administration sought.

Paltry? You bet. It's so scanty that one retired general officer cited today's combat deployment tempo and concluded that the meager pay raise is simply an "abysmal failure of leadership." Here's why:

In 1999, military pay rates were 13.5 percent lower than pay drawn by workers in the private sector who had similar skills, education and experience. Recruiting and retention rates were going south. To correct the situation, Congress placed provisions in the fiscal 2000 National Defense Authorization Act that, for years 2000 through 2006, annual pay raises would exceed the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index (ECI) by 0.5 percent each year.

In fact, the administration and Congress went further, approving cumulative pay raises of 32.5 percent over the six-year period. This reduced the pay gap from 13.5 percent to 4.9 percent. With the current plan for fiscal 2007, the gap will be 4.5 percent, according to proponents of further pay increases.

Of course administration officials have a pile of data asserting that, by some standards, military pay is higher than that in the civilian sector. But don't try to tell that to the troops.

Some legislators complain that they can't balance burgeoning costs of military pay against astronomical costs of sophisticated equipment and weaponry on hand and on the drawing board. And some analysts insist that a lot of the weaponry in the procurement pipeline is irrelevant to today's needs.

I think both groups are completely missing the point because they are overlooking the basic constitutional requirement for Congress to provide for the common defense. The Constitution doesn't qualify this by adding, "if Congress can afford it." It doesn't even say, "if the United States can afford it."

Maj. General C. Mark Bowen, Adjutant General of Alabama, discussed this during a speech Sept. 29 at the Marriott Savannah Riverfront hotel in Savannah, Ga. He concluded that Congress' responsibility to defend our country simply "cannot be budget driven."

Of course there's a limit, which the Soviet Union encountered when it spent itself into oblivion trying to keep in step with U.S. military strategic capabilities. But we haven't come close to that limit.

We haven't even had a war bond drive, like those that America's War Finance Committee oversaw between May 1, 1941, and Jan. 3, 1946. During that era, industry donated space for war bond advertising as part of its war effort. And more than 85 million Americans on the home front invested through the payroll savings plan. This pairing of corporate America and working Americans created a tight, patriotic bond in the common fight against two enemies determined to destroy us.

And, except for the peacetime-level U.S. military machine and the homeland security apparatus, we've hardly mobilized the country. Politicians seem to be more concerned about the price of gasoline and the sexual antics of legislators than with an all out effort to pay for an all out war.

Consequently, relatively few Americans are sacrificing while the huge remainder are conducting business as usual, or more accurately, pleasure as usual.

Congress did approve the administration's plan for targeted pay raises for warrant officers and for certain members in pay grades E-5 through E-7. But it should be willing to give all ranks an adequate pay raise. And it should stop trying to finance equipment and weapons costs on the backs of the troops.

Top | Home

A regime change in the homeland?

November's U.S. election could mark the beginning

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 13, 2006 -- Insurgent leaders in Iraq know that if the U.S. election installs enough legislators in Congress who want to disengage from Iraq, the clock will start ticking. Those in other countries supporting the insurgents and radical Islamists also know it and are going to the mat for a climax to the battle for Baghdad.

In the July 14 issue of Crosshairs ("Iraq crescendo heads for climax," at www.milmat.net, archives 2006, 060714) I wrote that military leaders don't like to throw in their reserves to save the day -- that's like throwing good money after lost money. They prefer to use reserves to exploit enemy weaknesses in order to win the battle. I then said that Bin Laden's jihadists could represent the reserve that has been thrown into a losing battle in Baghdad. I added a caveat, however, that they might win if they should launch a spectacular slaughter machine to influence the U. S. mainstream media, and thus the American voters.

Fast forward to today. Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman, was quoted on Oct. 12 as saying that violence in Baghdad is at an "all-time high." Here's why.

* Shiite and Sunni militias and insurgent groups have jumped into the ring to join the Islamic jihadists. Now we find the United States throwing in its reserves, or at least searching for reserves to employ. Top commanders in Iraq say they need six more Iraqi battalions in Baghdad in addition to the 30,000 Iraqi forces and 15,000 American troops already there.

* Death squads killed 1,450 Iraqis in September, more than three times the 450 killed in February, according to U.S. military statistics. The slaughter continued through Oct. 10, with 770 more people killed.

* On a daily basis, in the deadliest months this year, sectarian assassinations averaged 47 a day; so far in October, sectarian murders have claimed an average of 77 lives a day.

* At least 40 American troops have been killed in combat this month, about half of them in or around Baghdad

* On Oct. 9, men wearing military police uniforms broke into the home of Amir al-Hashemi a brother of Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, chased him up to his neighbor's roof and killed him. He was the third sibling of the vice president to be killed since spring.

* Meanwhile researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have estimated that more than 600,000 civilians in Iraq have died since the United States invaded in 2003. Of course that's a statistical figure and the actual number could be no more than the 30,000 that President Bush has posited. Whatever the number, thousands of Iraqi families point fingers of blame at the United States.

If all this doesn't offer enough grist for the mainstream media's mill, here's more. At least 10 Iraqi army and police officers died and 1,200 became violently ill after breaking their Ramadan fast Oct. 8 at a base in Mumaniyah, in southern Iraq. It was conjectured that their chicken dinner may have been laced with cyanide.

But Baghdad remains "the center of gravity for the country. Everybody knows that," said Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. officer in Iraq. "The bad guys know it, we know it, the Iraqis know it. So we have to help the Iraqis secure their capital if they're going to go forward." During a visit to Washington Oct. 11 he added that he and the Iraqi leaders are "not comfortable" with the situation. When a general says, "not comfortable," he means, "We're near the breaking point."

And Anthony Cordesman, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said just that by declaring the battle for Baghdad "a critical point in the Iraq war." He said that "securing Baghdad ... won't win, but losing Baghdad will lose. If they lose, Iraq is likely to slip into a major civil war."

This brings a new domino theory: first Baghdad, then full-scale civil war, then a split into warring groups of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. And perhaps a regime change in the United States.

The issues in Iraq and its neighboring countries won't be resolved this year, or this generation, or even this century, because they have been embedded in religious, ethnic and tribal cultures over thousands of years. But the result of the battle of Baghdad not only could burst the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, but also could strangle American chances of learning how to fight 21st Century, transnational, asymmetrical forces that wish to destroy us. And it could impel the American electorate to decide it's time to cut and run -- and turn to legislators they expect to do it.

The bad guys don't want the United States to "win" in Iraq, and that means they don't want legislators in office who support U.S. operations in Iraq. So if they can influence the American public's vote in November, they'll die trying. The final step of the regime change would come at the general election of 2008.

Another domino theory pops into mind: a new Congress starts a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. A new administration gains ascendancy in 2009, and tries to create a 21st Century version of "fortress America." Would that prevent another 9/11?

Unless the administration comes up with something dramatically different (read "successful"), it's playing with a bad selection of dominos. It needs to draw a better set if it's to avoid a regime change at home.
Top | Home

NATO takes the reins in Afghanistan

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 20, 2006 -- NATO took the lead for international military operations throughout Afghanistan Oct. 5, assuming authority from the U.S.-led Combined Forces Command Afghanistan for 14 eastern provinces at a ceremony in Kabul.

With the transfer, 12,000 of the 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan now form part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This gives ISAF some 32,000 troops from 26 countries. The remaining 8,000 American troops form part of the combined forces coalition, with missions to conduct counter terrorism efforts, train Afghan security forces and provide combat service support.

The transfer of command "illustrates the enduring commitment of NATO and its international partners to the future of this great country," said newly-promoted British Gen. David Richards, commander of ISAF. The ceremony, which was attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, took place at the NATO compound.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan involves the biggest ground combat operation in the organization's history, and gives Richards command of the largest number of U.S. troops fighting under a foreign commander since World War II.

Richards follows the footsteps of ghosts from three conflicts the English fought in Afghanistan in the 19th and 20th centuries. The struggles, romantically called "The Great Game, " became publicized by the British novelist, Rudyard Kipling, in his work, "Kim." The British Empire played the "game" against the Tsarist Russian Empire for control of the crossroads of Central Asia.

The first armed struggle began in1838 when the British installed a puppet, Shah Shujah, as king of Afghanistan. Riots erupted until the English were forced from Kabul in the dead of winter. The army, including its women, children, servants and camp followers, was decimated while trying to retreat through the snow-filled pass to India. In return, the English regrouped, devastated Kabul, torched the bazaar, and killed 20,000 Afghans.

The second war occurred in 1878 when the British seized the Khyber Pass, and the third broke out in 1919 when the Afghans attempted to throw off the British yoke.

World War II came and went, and in 1994 the Taliban created a government which hosted al Qaeda. Russia, which had aggregated into the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, started following its own ghosts, eventually pouring some 300,000 troops into Afghanistan. The United States substituted for the English, and played its own "Great Game" of the Cold War by supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets. By the time it was over, the Soviet Union had lost more than 14,000 troops and its republics started spinning off until nothing remained except Russia.

After Sept. 11, 2001, the United States jumped into the game in earnest, toppled the Taliban government, disrupted the al Qaeda and facilitated a government with Hamid Karzai as president.

And on Oct. 5, NATO leaped into the crucible, with Gen. Richards in command. Unlike the United States in Iraq, Richards pronounced an exit strategy up front. He might have learned it from the U.S. failures in Iraq, or perhaps he simply exercised the sure knowledge that the Brits had learned in other counterinsurgencies in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, Borneo, and Oman.

Richards said Oct. 8 that the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, where his forces killed between 500 and 1,500 Taliban-friendly fighters from a possible force of 4,000 during Operation Medusa, has been "broadly stabilized," to the point that the alliance can launch projects there.

But he cautioned that the majority of Afghans there would probably switch their allegiance to the Taliban if their daily lives didn't change for the better in six months. He was quoted as saying, "They will say, 'We do not want the Taliban, but then we would rather have that austere and unpleasant life ... than another five years of fighting,' He added that, if he didn't succeed, an additional 10,000 troops next year would have no impact without the "consent of the people."

So NATO's ISAF must build infrastructure and provide security in the south and east, while the Taliban insurgents continue suicide attacks and intimidation tactics like those used in Iraq. If Richards' prognostication proves correct, ISAF will be in the crosshairs for the next six months.

Top | Home

At the crossroads in Iraq

Resetting the milestones

by Fred Edwards

Oct. 27, 2006 -- As the battle for Baghdad was exploding like an erupting volcano and the American death toll in Iraq for October neared 100, the United States was forced to reassess "tactics," as the president called them during a radio address Oct. 21. The strategic goal is still victory, he said, but the journey to get there demands a modification. Here's a look at that journey.

It began with an assessment meeting of key advisors held by the president Saturday Oct. 21 which the top leaders in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, attended by videoconference. The participants discussed benchmarks, we are told, which the administration has been forced to extend each time the calendar has overtaken the previous ones.

Extending the timeline is not only practical but also mandatory. First, it keeps the logical milestones to victory in place. And second, if the United States should insist upon withdrawing its troops even though the timelines are not met, it would give the enemy its own timeline for victory.

Let's label the new schedule a "soft timeline" by outlining goals that would allow U.S. troops to move out as Iraqi forces move in. It begins with requiring Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to set target dates for completing six unfinished tasks:

* create a law to equitably share Iraq's oil resources;

* amend the constitution to provide the Sunnis (and Kurds) reason to support the government;

* institute a reconciliation process;

* disband the Shiite militias;

* set a date for provincial elections; and

* increase "the credibility and capability of Iraqi forces."

The first five are critical to the Sunni minority and the sixth is crucial to the concept of an Iraqi government that can police its own people.

Add to these our own timeline, which I'll call a "hard timeline." Here's the background.

More and more voices are agreeing with former Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki that we need "several hundred thousand" troops in Iraq to handle a nationwide counterinsurgency mission. Well, we don't have them and they are not on the horizon.

Even if we had the troops, we could not apply cure-all measures throughout Iraq at this point because different parts of the country pose separate, distinct challenges, from mild-to-no insurgency, to full-scale insurgency, to civil war by militia, to pure anarchy.

So we must shorten the inexorable path to complete turnover of internal responsibility to the Iraqi government. This may be a copout, because how will the Iraqis cope with insurgencies and possible civil war? The answer is a tough one, but necessary because the United States is not prepared to introduce a significant number of additional troops into Iraq at the expense of ignoring other threats external to the Middle East -- such as North Korea for the moment. This leaves the Iraqis to do it themselves, milestone by milestone.

This is not a cut-and-run position. It's an economy of force measure that would allow the United States to support Iraq with emergency military responses while maintaining a staging area in the Middle East. From there U.S. troops and firepower can counter regional threats of Islamic fascist movements and rogue governments such as Iran.

This stance also supports a primary, originally unspoken, purpose of the invasion -- to establish a U.S. military presence in the heart of the Middle East as a springboard from which to counter threats to the United States.

So the tough timeline should consider:

* withdrawing from the American-created "Green Zone," which is currently the safe area for coalition forces in central Baghdad, and which will always be a magnet for attacks from any lawless faction;

* taking a hard look at American bases such as Balad AB, Tallil AB, Camp Taji and al Asad, with their McDonalds, Pizza Huts, Subways, and more, to decide if they can provide the long-term staging areas needed;

* creating other, staging areas away from the cities; and

* looking at bases in other countries.

Thus for the near term, we must insist upon the Iraqi milestone timeline that is not set in concrete for us. And for the long term, we can trade former U.S. bases in Europe for bases in Iraq or other countries in the Middle East. Top | Home

Marine Corps Birthday takes the Corps back to the future

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 3, 2006 - As the 231st birthday of the Marine Corps approaches on Nov. 10, the Marines and the Army are facing severe challenges with repeated deployments of scarce troops and tired equipment along with top-down budget restrictions. In spite of this, as the Corps nears the beginning of its 232nd year, it finds today's warfare strikingly similar to past conflicts. Let's march with the Marines back to the future.

Chapultepec
On September 13, 1847, during the Mexican-American War, Marines helped seize the fortress of Chapultepec. The following day they occupied the National Palace on the site of the Halls of the Montezumas. The campaign cost the Marines 90 percent of their officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) either killed or wounded. In honor of them and in memory of the blood they shed, to this day Marine officers and NCOs wear red stripes on their dress blue uniform trousers. And all Marines begin the Marine Corps Hymn by singing "From the Halls of Montezuma." Now let's compare this two-phase battle with two battles for Fallujah.

Fallujah phase one
Leaning upon Marine experiences in the banana wars of the early 20th century, Maj. Gen. James Mattis intended to apply lessons learned when he brought the 1st Marine Division back to Iraq. He wanted to go into Fallujah with a small force, not a kinetic force, with the motto: "No better friend, no worst enemy." But it was not to be.

Two days after the division took over responsibility from the Army's 82nd Airborne on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, the city erupted. And on April 5, the Marines launched the first attack into Fallujah. Fighting was fiercer than anticipated, but on April 8 Army Gen. John Abizaid, the military commander responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan as part of his central command, vowed, "We'll get Fallujah under control."

But that also was not to be. Although the Marines felt they had victory in their grasp, orders above the Marine chain of command forced them to implement a unilateral cease fire April 9.

Fallujah phase two
By the time the second battle for Fallujah began in November, the Marines were facing two new obstacles. First, the enemy felt they had faced down the Western forces, which signaled that they could do it again. Second, they had fully prepared their defenses and intended to fight to the death.

A core attacking force of 6,500 Marines, 1,500 soldiers and 2,000 Iraqi troops kicked off in an attack that was in some ways reminiscent of island assaults in the Pacific during World War II. In the islands, Marines had to neutralize pillbox after pillbox and destroy cave after cave; in Fallujah, the combined forces had to clear building after building, room by room. They did it.

Counterinsurgency and near civil war
In spite of the fierce battles for Fallujah and certain other cities in Iraq, a major part of post-invasion operations has focused on counterinsurgency. As retired Marine Col. John Keenan said in an interview, "We've done this before. The overall mission in Iraq is more of a Marine Corps mission like Haiti and DomRep."

He was referring to counterinsurgency operations during the early 20th century against the Caco rebels in Haiti. During that intervention, Marine Corps legend Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller learned his combat a-b-c's. Now if the cut-and-run crowd would review the 19-year Haiti operation, they might have second thoughts about insisting that -- after only three years -- the United States should leave Iraq.

Keenan's term, "DomRep," refers to the Dominican Republic on the island of Hispaniola, where Marines conducted their trade of nation building and national policing for five years beginning in 1919.

Add to Haiti and the Dominican Republic the Nicaraguan expedition that lasted 21 years. In comparison with today's deployments, consider that Chesty Puller served in Nicaragua from 1928 to 1933, where he earned two of the five Navy Crosses he would attain during 37 years of service. We also might reflect that these deployments to Haiti, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua overlapped in time, just like today's deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. So let's look at the ongoing Afghanistan campaign.

The Mountain Warfare Training Center was established at Pickel Meadow, 21 miles northwest of Bridgeport, Calif., in 1951, to train Marines bound for the Korean War. Today the center provides pre-deployment training for Marines and sailors headed for the mountains of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the Marines have dusted off their Small Wars Manual, last updated in 1940. They are bringing it into the 21st century war against Islamic fascists, although they have found that the basics remain unchanged. It's not déjà vu all over again and it's not instant replay. It's something in between. It's back to the future.

Happy birthday, Marines! Top | Home

Robert Gates challenged to historic balancing act

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 10, 2006 -- Robert M. Gates, the president's pick to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, must chart a new course in Iraq. His success or failure could tag him in one of three ways:

1. A brilliant man who brought the United States from the brink of capitulating to a worldwide caliphate scheme; or

2. A man who did a good job, considering the state of the American debacle in Iraq and the condition of the U.S. military machine he was given; or

3. An unfortunate choice to be replaced by another hopeful.

As a member of the Iraq Study Group, a 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Gates has been working with a squad of accomplished bipartisan experts: former House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, who co-chairs the group with Baker; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican; former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan; Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration; former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry; former Sen. Chuck Robb, a Democrat; Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming; and Edwin Meese, who served as attorney general under the Reagan administration.

The commission now has a much better chance to be heard than when it was preparing to propose changes unlikely to please Rumsfeld. In fact its entire agenda is likely to be acceptable to the president, since Bush could hardly appoint a panel member as defense secretary and then veto the commission's conclusions.

A more dramatic development was the appointment of a special team of more than a dozen officers who, as we say, have been there and done that. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tagged them to conduct a wide-ranging review of how to fight what now is being called "the long war."

The coordinator is Navy Capt. Michael Rogers, who is Pace's special assistant. Members include Army Col. H. R. McMaster, of counterinsurgency fame in Tal Afar in 2005. Another is Army Col. Peter R. Mansoor, director of the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., with command experience in Karbala against the Mahdi Army militia in 2004. Yet another is Marine Col. Thomas C. Greenwood, director of the Marine Command and Staff College, who trained Iraqi security forces in Anbar.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, and Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, are also involved.

So what are the options?

It's obvious that Gates can't "stay the course" because that is why Rumsfeld left; his policies had simply failed.

Neither can he opt to cut and run, for three reasons.

First, although polls and the electorate have signaled strong dissatisfaction with current policies, very few top-level officials have simply said we must withdraw completely.

Second, to cut out would leave Iraq open to Iranian hegemony, which in turn could ignite the entire region in sectarian violence.

And third, a precipitous withdrawal would tempt al Qaeda as well as any rogue nation to strike at will against a perceived spineless former super power. To the enemy, Iraq is a crucible -- a clash between Islam and the West. To retreat under pressure would be to slink home in defeat as surely as the remnants of the British, Anzac and Irish forces slunk out to sea from Gallipoli in December of 1915 and January of 1916 -- heroic survivors of a debacle created by their top leaders.

Gates also cannot opt for a full-scale military occupation of Iraq for two cogent reasons.

First, he would have to commit the "several hundred thousand" troops that former Army Secretary Shinseki had forecast. And where would he get such forces without a full-scale mobilization backed up by selective service?

Second, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki already has complained that the United States isn't treating his government as a sovereign nation. For the United States to impose the equivalent of martial law from border to border would be a tough step backwards.

Meanwhile, Gates must do something immediately to defuse the killing crisis in Baghdad, either with more troops from somewhere or by pulling back.

The Iraq Study Group's recommendations are rumored to be either stability first, or redeploy and contain -- or maybe both.

Redeploying could mean disengagement from Baghdad as well as from direct civilian contact in parts of the country. In the classic ink-blot system of counterinsurgency, you cover only the areas you have the forces to permanently pacify, then expand the ink blots when you are certain the initial sectors are solidly irreversible. This is the opposite of search-and-destroy or search-and-clear, then go back and do it again and again.

It also could involve regrouping coalition forces to parts of the country -- and other countries in the region -- for possible use against, say, Iranian full-scale military incursions.

It would have to be a phase back that didn't look like a drawdown.

And it shouldn't have a public time table.

In addition to dealing with all the warring parties in the middle east, the new secretary also will have to look at his own staff. Rumsfeld spent years trying to "transform" an intransigent military establishment, and Gates doesn't have those years. He must make dramatic changes to our strategy in Iraq and he has the top military minds in the country to help him - the chairman and the joint chiefs. This is their chance -- finally -- to apply their years of military experience toward an achievable solution.

In short, not staying the course means cut and run in one basic sense. The entire defense establishment must run, not walk, from a failed policy while embracing a new one. This requires an unprecedented balancing act involving the highest stakes.

We wish you the best of success, Mr. Secretary.

Top | Home

The 1,000-ship navy

A symmetrical (balanced) defense against asymmetrical warfare

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 17, 2006 -- In the early decades of the U.S. Navy, a captain of a ship sailing in the waters of a foreign country often would find himself (no female captains then) required to make decisions normally made by the President of the United States, or at least an American ambassador. He had to add gut instinct to the orders he had received before getting underway.

Why? Communications.

The only guidance came either from another American official who had left the United States after the ship got underway, or from written instructions brought to the captain by a courier, or news he might receive in a foreign port about changes in world affairs, or perhaps even a simple letter from home.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries have changed this. Today's naval commanders operate under an umbrella of instant communications, where they might be talking directly with a combatant commander, or maybe the secretary of defense, or even the president.

This technology continued to increase after the Cold War, and was coupled with a cost-driven emphasis on U.S. ship construction and operations, and driven by global asymmetrical threats. The sum of these events has created a demand for a 21st-century, globalized maritime strategy. Accepting the challenge is Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen, who is the architect with his "1,000-ship navy."

He reviewed the concept during a forum in Newport, R.I., on June 14 by outlining three aspects of globalization that the United States must face as a maritime nation.

First, globalization of world markets and economies, corporations and peoples requires maritime security -- an extension of the "freedom of the seas" of the past.

Second, competition for energy is bound to create conflict.

And third, cooperating countries must be prepared to meet asymmetrical threats at sea: "terrorists, proliferators of WMD and other weapons, organized criminals, smugglers, drug traffickers and pirates" as well as the spread of ideological ideas that can create conflict.

I used the term, "cooperating countries," because the plan does not invoke a fleet of 1,000 steel-hulled, gray-painted vessels steaming in formation on patrol. It means an untold number of craft of all sizes from countries with mutual interests that drive them to focus on stability. Mullen, who has been promoting the idea for more than a year, called it in May "a network of international navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers and local law enforcement, all working together."

Of course, such a melange of naval and commercial water craft isn't correctly titled a "1,000 ship navy," so another name might prevail. For example, Harlan Ullman, a columnist for the Naval Institute's "Proceedings," suggests something like "maritime partnership," after NATO's "partnership for peace."

Whatever the ultimate name, Adm. Mullen has launched the blueprint and has mandated it to be operational within 18 months.

He began with a test concept called "global fleet stations," where navies, coast guard organizations and civilian services join to conduct cross-training in support of common interests. Furthermore, the fleet stations around the world will use ships and riverine boats to assist and promote good will with other nations' maritime services. The Navy's southern command has offered to coordinate the initial test of the fleet station concept in its area of responsibility, which includes the waters surrounding Latin America and the Caribbean.

As a preamble, the Navy southern command headquarters hosted U.S. Embassy naval attachés from 18 countries last September in Mayport, Fla., to discuss theater security cooperation. During the conference, the attachés, along with representatives from the State Department, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Coast Guard, discussed plans for future operations in the AOR, including counter-narcotics operations, maritime security, and country visits to build partnerships and community relations.

The Navy southern command followed that conference with one in late September to consider a pilot program for Global Fleet Stations. Attending that meeting were key officials of the Navy, Marine Corps and the Coast Guard who will responsible for implementing the pilot. Their commencement target date is spring of 2007.

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used to speak of "transformation," many thought he was referring only to the Army. Nonetheless, Adm. Mullen, the Navy's top admiral, is smack dab in the middle of transformation. He has hit the deck running to create a multinational group of maritime interests that will operate with 21st century communications. This will create a symmetrical force to face asymmetrical threats. Top | Home "Fred, One of your best. You encapsulated the symposium accurately and factually. More need to read (and heed) your writings." W.F.G., Riverside, Calif.

Panel preempts Rep. Rangel with a sole reason for reinstating the draft

by Fred Edwards

Nov. 24, 2006 -- A distinguished panel presented a "Military Professionals Symposium" to a group of nearly 400 participants from the Military Officers Association of America, the National Defense University and guests Nov. 16 in Arlington, Va. They explored the question, "Can we sustain the all-volunteer force in an extended conflict?"

This symposium occurred three days before Rep. Charles D. Rangel, D-N.Y., issued his second call to renew the draft. He first surfaced the idea in 2004. The House Republicans put it up for a vote and it went down 402-2. Even Rangel voted against it.

The symposium participants were:

William A. Chatfield, Director of the Selective Service System;

Michael L. Dominguez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;

Tom Donnelly, senior advisor for the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies;

Retired Army general Barry McCaffrey, former advisor to the Secretary of State and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and

Army Lt. Gen. Mike Rochelle, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel.

The Moderator was Stephen M. Duncan, director of the Institute for Homeland Security Studies at the National Defense University.

The panelists unanimously praised the 1 percent of the U.S. population that is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. McAffrey called them "the most courageous, dedicated servicemen and women I have known." Gen. Rochelle dubbed them "The Millennial Generation," and declared them "the next great generation."

According to the panel's consensus, the Army and Marines, along with their Guard and Reserves, are headed for a train wreck within the next two years if administration leaders do not roll them back into the depot to rebuild people and equipment.

McAffrey said it's not just an Army problem or a Marine Corps problem, but it's service-wide because we're stripping the manpower of the Navy and Air Force to fight the war. "Are we undermanned?" he asked. "Of course we are," he answered, saying our resources and our strategy must match our rhetoric. Then he laid out the numbers:

Active duty Army -- 80,000 short;

Marines -- 25,000 too few;

Coast Guard -- ought to be 75,000;

Border patrol -- should be 45,000; and

National Guard -- needs to be 600,000.

How can the United States pay for such an increase in personnel? McAffrey gave the answer through a history of percentages of Gross National Product that went to national defense during the three wars before this one:

World War II -- 38 percent;

Korea -- 14 percent;

Vietnam -- 10 percent; and

Today -- 4 percent

He called this World War III with the tiniest Army the United States has had since 1939.

Rochelle gave an indirect, advance reply to the assertion Rangel would make three days later that the draft would provide a fairer representation of young men (the selective service law doesn't authorize female draftees) than the all-volunteer force. Rochelle made two points:

1. No matter where you get recruits, fewer than 3 of 10 young Americans are qualified to serve in the Army; and

2. The Army is not ignoring college students in its recruiting efforts, because it is targeting the 67 percent of high school graduates who begin college. Why would those students opt for the Army? Because half of them don't start their second year of college studies, said Rochelle.

Not one of the panelists called for an outright return to the draft, although Gen. McAffrey came close when he spoke of relaxations of the Army's standards: "When you tell me that you think enlisting a 42-year-old grandmother is the right thing to do, you don't understand what we're doing. We need 19-year-old boys and girls in good health to carry guns and fight."

One panelist said, "We are the strongest, richest nation in the world. We can do anything our people have the resolve to do." Nevertheless, several members said that the country wouldn't stand for a resumption of the draft in any scenario short of "a war for national survival."

That makes for a reasonable conclusion, but it ignores the question about whether what's being called "the long war" qualifies as a struggle for national survival. If today's war satisfies the requirement, then the rhetoric of the national leadership has failed to impart that urgency to the American people.

Five distinguished panelists and a respected moderator see the armed forces train headed down the line to calamity in the near future -- unless we can get the other 99 percent of the country onto the track. Top | Home

Gen. Abizaid trains crosshairs on Central Command's theater of operations

by Fred Edwards

Dec. 1, 2006 -- The senior general responsible for 27 countries stretching from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia -- a strategic region with Mesopotamia at its core, put the crosshairs on the region during a presentation to some 300 members of the Military Officers Association of America last November.

Army General John Abizaid started by saying that U.S. Central Command is maintaining combat forces of 206,000 Americans and 22,000 coalition members, and handling 1,300 combat aircraft, in a vast undertaking that has moved 1.5 million people into two countries. Furthermore, he added, in five years CentCom has not lost a platoon in combat.

Displaying a map of the region, he emphasized that people fail to look at it as a theater of operations. He added that the region has a history of conflict, and war is long standing among the peoples, requiring patience, because "We're not going to control this part of the world, but we can shape it."

He explained that much of what is going on is a conflict of globalization and modernization versus the old way of life. The result, he said, creates "an incredible danger." He said he has four major conflicts to confront:

1. Stabilize Iraq;

2. Stabilize Afghanistan;

3. (handle) the Middle East peace process; and

4. Conduct counter-terrorist operations anywhere in the region.

He added that the most important countries to watch after Iraq and Afghanistan are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He emphasized that they cannot be allowed to come under extremist domination.

Extremist threats make the entire region volatile because they grow from non-state ideologies that will cross borders. He mentioned three.

1. The rise of extremist Shia influence. This brings the Iran missile threat, Shia terrorist arms, and a nuclear threat. It also poses a naval threat to the Strait of Homuz, which can be critical because our "absolute, overall" mission is control of the oil flow through the strait. And extremist Shiite ideologues translate into a global terrorist threat.

2. The rise of Sunni extremism under the aegis of Osama bin Laden. Pacing among the audience, he said that this ideology is against everything we stand for, and the members are ruthless, seeking WMD to bear in the region. The ideology is as dangerous as fascism was in the 1930s and 40s, he said They are organized on the Internet in ways we must learn to understand. They are so thorough they even use PayPal for worldwide financial contributions.

Moving back to the speaker stand, he declared that, if they start to win the ideology battle, in the next 50 years we will see the clash of civilization.

3. AQAM (al Qaeda and Associated Movements). Giving this a little thought makes one remember the terrorist attacks in Spain and London as well as other strikes around the world by terrorist groups held together by the glue of radical Islam.

Flashing up another slide on twin screens on either side of the room, he said that military force can counter only 20 percent of the threat. The other 80 percent has to be mobilization of all our resources to counter the enemy's full-scale mobilization. We must use the media and the Internet. We must counter their recruitment and education. We must find and neutralize their safe havens, stop their financers, expose sympathetic members of legitimate governments, and destroy or dismantle their training camps. In short, we must mobilize every non-military element of our national power.

Although he didn't mention it, he was referring to fourth generation warfare, a concept proposed by William S. Lind et al in the Oct. 1989 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette.

Lind describes the first generation as the wars of Napoleon and conscription of forces. In the second -- like the U.S. Civil War and World War I -- nation-states employed firepower against each other. The third brought the maneuver and armored warfare of World War II. And the fourth generation is fielding ad hoc warriors, seeking moral victory for their own side.

This puts us, said Abizaid, in a test of wills. "You can back away from them but they won't back away from us." So the way for us to win this war is to tell the truth and have it heard.

He concluded that the enemy can't beat us militarily. They just want to stay alive (to continue the fight for their version of moral victory). He didn't add that the United States also can't beat them militarily, but he didn't need to after enumerating the 80 percent of the non-military tools that we must mobilize and employ.

We had better hurry. Top | Home

The long war -- there's no silver bullet

by Fred Edwards

December 8, 2006 -- No, Virginia, there's no Santa Claus. Charlie Brown, there's no Great Pumpkin. And Lone Ranger, there's no Silver Bullet. The United States must face the long war with nothing more than raw national courage, just as it confronted the Italian fascists and the German Nazis.

And one of the great, sorry, battlefields of the long war is Iraq. Some of the best minds in America have failed to show us how to deliver a quick one-two punch to handle the Iraq crisis. They said we can't win that fight in one round, and we might have to be thankful for a split decision.

The bipartisan,10-member Iraq Study Group led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton reached a unanimous consensus, but the results sound like any consensus made by groups with disparate backgrounds.

The group made 79 recommendations for what the United States must do in order to escape the calamity in Iraq. But it didn't -- nor could it -- tell the president and the Congress how to do it. It merely asserted that every recommendation must be carried out or their entire plan will fail.

The logic of their report is unquestionable. Here's why.

The United States can consider four possible options that may or may not intertwine:

1. "Stay the course"

2. Massively reinforce troop strength to increase counterinsurgency operations

3. Withdraw from contact and redeploy

4. Withdraw from Iraq.

Even the president no longer speaks of "staying the course." The current plan has failed for many reasons, but mainly because the United States and coalition forces have committed a pitifully small number of troops. As Sen. John McCain says, the only way to confront the insurgency would be to deploy huge numbers of troops. How many?

Counterinsurgency expert David Galula wrote in 1964 that "a ratio of force of 10 or 20 to one between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent is not uncommon." He was referring to simpler insurgencies wherein a single group was trying to overthrow the government.

But how many of the 26 million people in Iraq are Sunni insurgents, aggressive Shiite retaliators, and members of semi-autonomous militias. And how many foreign fighters have been dispatched by Iran and al Qaeda?

Whatever the numbers, the United States can't consider massive reinforcements, because -- as the report says -- our armed forces are already stretched too thin to react to other threats around the world.

So the study group's only option was to give the president a plan for withdrawal or redeployment that would place up to 20,000 troops into training assignments and move all combat troops out of the country by 2008.

There's no question about the reaction of the radical Islamists who have sworn to impose a caliphate. They carry in their minds stark photos of the final evacuation of U.S. troops and refugees from the American embassy in South Vietnam April 30, 1975. They are salivating for another scene like that.

Retired Army General Barry R. McCaffrey says the study group's plan "… is a recipe for national humiliation."

In 1975 the United States was humiliated by a country that didn't have the power to threaten Americans on U.S. soil. This time an American defeat would place the future of our homeland in terrible jeopardy.

The study group also says the United States must talk with Iran and Syria. Again, the question, "How?" arises.

Imagine President Franklin Delano Roosevelt talking with the dictator of Nazi Germany, Adolph Hitler, while Hitler was systematically slaughtering six million Jews and others he considered unworthy of life.

Imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt conversing with Japan's War Minister Hideki Tojo while Tojo's Army troops were fresh from the Bataan death march.

And imagine President Bush sitting down at the table with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while Ahmadinejad is funneling thousands of insurgents into Iraq, and might even have been a key ringleader of the 1979 hostage crisis in the U.S. embassy in Teheran.

Well, the Iraq Study Group doesn't represent the only game in Washington, nor does it wield any authority except for the prestige of its individual members and the impact of a unanimous report. The group must be heard, but the president, the Congress and the Defense Department must decide whether or how to carry out the advice.

Meanwhile the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has commissioned a group of military experts from the services to come up with their conclusions. Furthermore, the president has said he will seek advice from the National Security Council and the State Department before he makes decisions.

Regrettably, the Iraq crisis has reached a crescendo that might not allow more study time.

There is no silver bullet. Perhaps we can do the near-impossible by training Iraqi troops and security forces while withdrawing simultaneously. Perhaps there's no other choice.

We had better move carefully. Top | Home

We've been fighting the long war for years

It's about time we started to mobilize

By Fred Edwards

Letter to the Editor. "Fred: ... Not only have the Marines and Army been stretched, but the Reserve elements (including the Guard) have been decimated for all services. We need not a draft but higher personnel authorizations and concomitant appropriations for all services. We've paid for this war on the cheap, which, in the long run, is always expensive." EP -- Florida

Dec. 15, 2006 -- The idea of a fortress America disintegrated with the meltdown of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Americans began to realize they were confronting a worldwide war. In response to the attacks, President Bush established the doctrine that we could preserve America only by finding and destroying Islamic fascist groups wherever they form and train. But for too long, the administration and the Congress have been conducting this long war on the cheap. Here's what I mean.

First, Congress has been paying for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with supplemental appropriations, resulting in barracks pilferage and equipment thievery.

It's as difficult to budget for a war as it is to wage one, and some would say a budget is not practical. Maybe that's why the legislators have leaned on supplementals to pay for combat operations. But supplementals mask the true amount of financial sacrifice that America must undergo in this long war. In fact failure to budget smacks of wishful thinking, as if maybe the war will go away in two or three years.

I reported in an earlier column that our defense budget represented less than 3.5 percent of the gross national product, while in the years between 1940 and 2000, Defense Department spending averaged 5.7 percent of the GNP. This year it looks like defense spending will reach 4.0 percent. Compare this to 14.2 percent during the Korean War in 1953 and 6.2 percent in 1968 during the Vietnam War, and it becomes obvious that we have hardly started mobilizing for a war that's more critical to America's survival than any Korea or Vietnam war.

Piecemeal funding has forced the services into barracks pilferage -- let's be kind and call it "deferred maintenance" -- in America's posts, bases and stations.

For example, the Miami Herald reported that, at Fort Hood, Texas, a stall in the ladies' room recently sported a sign asking women to clean up because janitorial service had been cut back. And officials at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., closed swimming pools a month early and cut back shuttle van service to save money. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, amassed more than $4 million in unpaid utility bills, and had to reduce mail delivery to cut costs.

More serious are the combat equipment deficiencies. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that some 6,200 Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, trucks and ambulances were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas due to insufficient funds.

And the Wall Street Journal recently reported that, six weeks before deploying to Iraq, soldiers in the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade at Fort Stewart, Ga., still lacked machine guns and long-range surveillance systems needed to prepare them for their mission.

So far, overall funding for military spending for fiscal 2007 will reach $466.6 billion. This includes a $50 billion "bridge" fund. Some of these dollars are considered emergency funding which would not count against spending caps, thus would not require commensurate cuts in domestic programs.

In theory, this will take care of worn out equipment, but it ignores budgeting to repair military housing, mow the grass and maintain base recreation centers.

It's time for Americans to realize that the United States must pay the full costs of the long war, whether the money comes from domestic programs or whether it is new money. But this is only half the problem.

Cases of deteriorated base infrastructure and worn out equipment pale when considering that the troops are wearing out. On the heels of Donald Rumsfeld's departure as secretary of defense, the two chiefs of the services bearing the brunt of ground combat operations are speaking out.

On Dec. 14, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves not only that a temporary 30,000-soldier increase provided by Congress must be permanent but also that the Army must add 7,000 troops a year. He also called for a change in the rules for mobilizing Army National Guard and reserve members, citing that only 90,000 of 522,000 guard members and reservists remain available for callup under the current rules.

To sustain its operational tempo, the Marine Corps, with 180,000 active-duty Marines, needs three more infantry battalions, according to Marine Corps officials.

Unfortunately, increases in the Army and Marine Corps strengths won't help today, because it takes a year or so to gear up for recruiting and training thousands of new-hires. Furthermore, it takes 10 years to grow a middle-grade officer or a mid-grade noncommissioned or petty officer - and service members in those ranks are beginning to bail.

But at long last it appears that America is changing its mindset and is starting to mobilize. Top | Home

Somalia and the Horn of Africa

War by proxy on the African continent

by Fred Edwards

Dec. 29, 2006 -- At one point, events in Somalia seemed eerily reminiscent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Christian-led Ethiopia used "shock and awe" to throw as many as 15,000 troops into Somalia, backed up with tanks, helicopter gunships and jet fighters. Like Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and other elite Iraqi units, the Somali Islamic Courts Union (ICU) had sworn to fight to the death against the invaders, checkpoint by checkpoint.

But suddenly on Dec. 27 in Mogadishu, the teenagers that the ICU radicals had yanked from the schools and impressed into the militias hid or abandoned their weapons, doffed their trademark green skullcaps, and melted into the civilian populace. This opened the door for Somalia's secular Transitional Federal Government's (TFG) armed forces to enter Mogadishu.

Seven days earlier, when the Islamists had attacked Baidoa, then the seat of the transitional, internationally-sanctioned government, they urged Muslim fighters around the world to come to Somalia to wage a holy war. Maybe it will happen; foreign jihadists reportedly are in Somalia already. But for the moment, Mogadishu's clan-based militias that had destroyed any semblance of government in 1991 appear to be holding things together.

The Ethiopian military incursion gave the TFG's armed forces a chance to step back up to the plate, and it gave the TFG itself the opportunity to continue taking baby steps toward creating an efficient government. It also gave the United States, which tacitly supported the American-trained Ethiopians, a chance to take a deep breath of relief about a vital event in the overall war against Islamic terrorists. So, for the moment America can treat the Horn of Africa at arm's length.

To qualify that statement, let's remember that many Somalis welcomed the ICU because their militias had pulled together the various Courts in order to halt the inter-militia fighting that had kept the country in anarchy. But extremists soon took over. For example, in the town of Bulo Burti the clerics in charge had threatened to behead anybody who refused to pray five times a day.

So that's what is vital about events in the Horn of Africa -- Islamic fascists who have called on their extremist brethren worldwide to fight a jihad in Africa.

But, as mentioned, we are handling the threat at arms length. On Dec. 7 the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted U.S.-sponsored Resolution 1725, authorizing the deployment to Somalia of up to 8,000 troops from seven East African nations. Specifically excluded are Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia -- countries that have a historical hate for Somalia. It looks like Uganda will take the lead in the U.N. effort, while the United States will do little more than provide funding and logistical support.

But that only buys America a breathing spell because Africa remains a big player in the global war against terrorists. Accordingly, the Department of Defense is taking a careful look at a possible new military partition of the continent.

Currently, the Defense Department divides responsibility for U.S. military operations in Africa among three of its five combatant commands. U.S. Central Command's (CentCom) area of responsibility in Africa spans from Kenya to Egypt, which includes Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti. U.S. European Command (EuCom) covers the rest of the continent, and U.S. Pacific Command concerns itself with eastern island nations such as Madagascar.

Theresa Whelan, the principal defense deputy for African affairs, has been formulating a plan to create a U.S. Africa Command (AfCom). It is being studied by a DoD implementation planning group, and recently a PowerPoint map surfaced that showed AfCom having responsibility for most of the continent, leaving the seven countries previously mentioned to CentCom.

It has even been suggested that Army Gen. William "Kip" Ward, deputy chief of EuCom, would head the new command.

While CentCom would continue to watch over the powder keg around the Horn of Africa, the new AfCom would follow the policy currently favored by EuCom. Whelan says AfCom would concentrate on preventing problems from becoming crises and crises from becoming catastrophes. Thus, the AfCom mission would be proactive by choice, while the CentCom mission in the Horn would be reactive by necessity -- both due to economy of force considerations.

In each case, we would be conducting war by proxy against Islamic extremism in Africa -- for the moment.

Top | Home | More Archives