http://www.defenselink.mil/home/faceofdefe...f20060714a.html



U.S. Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer 4 Wayne H. Silva
Marine's Service Honored in Iraq

By Lance Cpl. James B. Hoke, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing
AL ASAD, Iraq, July 14, 2006 — From navigating the jungles of Vietnam to surviving the deserts of Iraq, one warrior has been a part of almost every major campaign that the Marine Corps has had in the past four decades.

Marines with Task Force Military Police, 1st Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment, honored Chief Warrant Officer 4 Wayne H. Silva for his anniversary in the Marine Corps while in Al Asad, July 8.

"June 28, 1966, was the day that I stepped onto the yellow footprints," said Silva, Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense officer, Task Force Military Police. "I've been serving for 30 years, but I really had a 10-year break in July of '69 thru July of '79."

During the past month, Silva's fellow Marines had secretly been planning the ceremony under his nose. From getting the Wings of Freedom Dining Facility to bake an enormous cake, to reserving a room for a few hours at the Morale, Welfare and Recreation building, they managed to set up the entire ceremony without letting him discover their plans, which was fairly easy to do given that Silva worked night shifts.

"When I stepped in that door, it was a total surprise," said Silva, a 57-year-old native of Martinez, Calif. "I was being very serious about this, as I thought I was about to get yelled at. I really did think someone was getting ready to chew my butt. Why else would they get you up in the middle of your sleeping hours?"

However, the actual person to originally begin setting up the ceremony was more than 7,000 miles away, according to Master Sgt. Brian J. Kemp, battalion operations chief, 1st Battalion, 14th Marines.

"His wife was talking to my wife and brought it up to the (executive officer) and the sergeant major," said Kemp, a 40-year-old Glen Ellen, Calif., native. "They then brought it up with the MWR, who were all over it. I would say that within a day everyone was involved, and it blew up to what it is now."

The ceremony, being somewhat informal, began when the chief warrant officer stepped into the room to hear a loud, "Semper Fi!" from the group of Marines.

After walking around the room and shaking everyone's hands, Silva cut the cake.

"It really did bring back memories," said Silva, a graduate of Saint Mary's College. "Cake cutting is the importance of an event in our history. This cake, in particular, had a large eagle, globe and anchor on it, which gave it some real importance."

Once everyone had had their fair share of cake, several Marines stopped to talk to the old-time war veteran.

"I actually expected him to be retired by now, as he was in Vietnam," said Kemp, a Sonoma High School graduate. "When I first met him in 1984 as a (private first class), he was already a newly commissioned warrant officer. He was one of the first Marines outside of boot camp that I met. I'm now at 22 years in the Corps, and it's great to finish it off with him. We've kept bumping into each other over the years.


Chief Warrant Officer 4 Wayne H. Silva cuts into the cake prepared for his anniversary with the Marine Corps at the Morale, Welfare and Recreation building at Al Asad, Iraq, July 8, 2006. Silva is a Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense officer with Task Force Military Police, 1st Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment, who stepped on the yellow footprints June 28, 1966. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. James B. Hoke




"Even though I was born in 1966, I don't feel so old as long as he is around," Kemp added. "He's definitely one of the most unique Marines I've known. He's dedicated to the Marines, and he has a passion for the Corps."

He is far and beyond one of the best Marines the battalion has, according to Cpl. Taletha L. Evans, CBRN noncommissioned officer-in-charge, Task Force Military Police.

"He is one of the best Marine officers I've ever worked for," said Evans, a 21-year-old native of Mountain Grove, Mo. "He has more knowledge than anyone here. He knows how to get things done, and he's very diplomatic in the way he does things. He's a great role model, as I can only hope that one day I have that much knowledge and rapport."

When asked about his service to the Marine Corps, Silva only had a few words to describe it.

"It has been a long ride," Silva concluded. "It has been fraught with difficulties. However, it's a ride that I'd do again. As you know the Marine Corps is different, and it is very demanding. That's why we wear the eagle, globe and anchor. That's why we chose this path."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060714_5655.html




Guard Border Security Mission Progressing Well, On Schedule
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, July 14, 2006 – With about 3,600 troops reporting on or ahead of schedule so far for border security duty in the Southwest, the National Guard is solidly on track to meet the requirement of up to 6,000 troops by Aug. 1, the chief of the National Guard Bureau told Pentagon reporters today.
Army Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum said he's received nothing but positive feedback about the National Guard response to the mission, both about its speed and the capabilities it brings in support of the U.S. Border Patrol. "We are delivering the capabilities and effects that they have requested," Blum said.

As Operation Jump Start kicked off June 15, just a month after President Bush announced it, the National Guard had already exceeded the scheduled commitment of 800 troops by 237, Blum noted. By the month's end, the Guard's commitment skyrocketed to 2,800 -- 300 above the expectation.

Most of the Guardsmen are coming from the four border states: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Arizona and New Mexico, both with smaller National Guard forces than their neighbors to the immediate east and west, will rely more heavily on augmentees from other states, Blum said.

Arizona, with two of the biggest areas of focus -- Tucson and Yuma -- is likely to see the most out-of-state forces, he said. These troops will generally rotate to the region for three-week rotations conducted as their regularly scheduled annual training periods, Blum explained.

So far, 30 state governors have committed to support the mission, with no governors refusing to participate, Blum said. "There is a great cooperation (and) collaboration among the nation's governors, and they understand the importance of having the National Guard be a reliable, essential and ready force, because they are also commanders in chief of their National Guards," Blum said.

"And since Sept. 11, 2001, they have seen how essential the Guard is both overseas, for the global war on terrorism, and here at home, to deal with natural or man-made disasters that may happen in our own nation."

Blum said he's abiding by his promise to governors that he will ensure they always have at least 50 percent of their capability as they support the terror war, border mission and other national-level requirements.

During Operation Jump Start, Guardsmen are providing communications, transportation, logistics, training, medical and construction support to the U.S. Border Patrol as it boosts its own ranks. They're building and maintaining roads; installing fences, lighting, sensors and towers with cameras; and providing aviation support over big expanses with no roads, Blum explained.

The Defense Department hasn't yet authorized the Guard to provide intelligence analysis support, but Blum said he expects that it will. "We anticipate we will be doing that, because we do that in the drug-enforcement mission," he said.

Guardsmen assigned to the mission are getting trained in everything from the political and cultural sensitivities of the operation to the practical aspects of operating in the desert heat and being exposed to insects and reptiles, Blum said. Each Guard member receives a tri-fold card that explains the rules of engagement. He emphasized that Guardsmen aren't defending the border, but simply are supporting civilian authorities who control it. but each has the "inherent right of self-protection," he added.

Blum said he expects the mission to last no more than two years, after the Border Patrol trains more people and develops more infrastructure so it's able to protect the border without support. "I expect to work our way out of this mission," he said.

In the meantime, he said, Guardsmen are benefiting through the opportunity to conduct an important real-life mission in their training.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060714_5656.html




Blum: Army Guard Enjoying Big Recruiting Successes
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, July 14, 2006 – The Army National Guard is experiencing its biggest and longest-running recruiting success since the end of the draft, the chief of the National Guard Bureau told Pentagon reporters today.
The Army Guard has met or exceeded its recruiting goals for the past nine months, Army Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum said. The force also increased its end strength each month for the past nine months, to its current 350,000, he said.

Defense officials announced earlier this week that the Army National Guard has recruited almost 51,500 soldiers since Oct. 1, about 1,500 above its year-to-date goal. During June alone, the Guard recruited more than 5,800 soldiers, 1 percent above its goal for the month.

"Our recruiting continues to be extraordinarily effective," Blum said today. "We have just concluded the ninth consecutive best recruiting month in the history of the National Guard since the end of the draft. So in the last 35 years, we have never seen nine consecutive recruiting months or a net gain to the extent that we are enjoying right now."

Blum called this phenomenon a testament to the country's youth and their belief in the mission, particularly when Guardsmen are being called to duty and deploying at "an unprecedented rate."

"Everyone who joins the Army or Air National Guard knows that they will deploy; (it's) just a matter of when," he said. "And yet that has not shown any reluctance on their part to join our ranks.

"The young men and women of this nation are responding to the challenge and to the missions that the Guard's being called upon (to carry out)," he said.

Blum noted that those who enlist "are staying with us in unprecedented numbers." During June, retention in the Army National Guard was 122 percent of the cumulative goal of more than 25,000 re-enlistments, defense officials announced earlier this week.

"(This) speaks volumes about the magnificent young men and women of this nation and how well that people support the National Guard," Blum said.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript


On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...0714-13461.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presenter: Chief, National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum July 14, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DoD News Briefing with Lt. Gen. Blum from the Pentagon

GEN. BLUM: Good morning, folks. Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you today. We're going to talk about the Southwest border mission, that seems to be a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there, and we hope to clear some of that up here this morning.



There's a chart to my left, your right, I'd like to direct your attention to, and it kind of gives you the big picture for what your National Guard is doing around the world and here at home this morning. You can see that we have 69,000 people deployed overseas in the global war on terrorism, both Army Guard and -- Army National Guard and Air National Guardsmen in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Sinai, the Balkans, and in about 40 other countries in addition to that in smaller numbers.



At the same time, we are preparing for the upcoming hurricane season -- in fact, we're in the hurricane season, just so far we've been lucky and we've had a very inactive hurricane season as far as landfall in the United States. But this year, the scientists and the experts tell us that we will probably get hit with several significant hurricanes and that we may see them hit in places that we haven't seen in the last two years, such as along the Mid-Atlantic coast and maybe even in New England. So we have redoubled our efforts over the last nine months, since Katrina and Rita and Wilma, and everywhere from Maine to Texas, the states shown in the light blue, are much, much better trained, exercised and equipped and prepared, at least at the National Guard level, to respond to this hurricane season.



In addition to that, we have about 8,000 National Guardsmen around the country either fighting forest fires or doing critical infrastructure protection. And about 3,600 of those are today in the Southwest border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. And that number will grow to up to 6,000 by the 1st of August, as promised.



Now, this mission on the Southwest border does not reduce our capability to provide Army and Air Guardsmen to the combatant commanders for the GWOT. That does in no way diminish our capability in that regard. At the same time, it does not diminish the equipment or the troops available in the pale blue states, which are the hurricane-threatened states.



We have been very cognizant and careful not to pull significant numbers or units or capabilities out of those states to do the Southwest border mission. We have relied on the former states, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, to take the first rotation as heavy as they can, and we have augmented New Mexico and Arizona significantly because they are smaller National Guards then the huge National Guard that Texas has and California has. So most of the rotational forces that will come from outside other states there is right now 30 other states that are contributing to this mission. There are 30 governors that have signed a memorandum of agreement. We expected every governor will ultimately sign the memorandum of agreement. We have had no governor tell us no. We have had no governor refuse to participate in this operation contrary to some of -- the reports that you have heard.



There is a great cooperation, collaboration amongst the nations' governors, and they understand the importance of having the National Guard be a reliable, essential and ready force because they are also commanders in chief of their National Guard. And since September 11th, 2001, they have seen how essential the Guard is both overseas for the global war on terrorism and here at home to deal with natural or man-made disasters that may happen in our own nation.



So as you can see, the numbers have changed. I did this purposely because I showed you this chart in May, and I wanted you to see the trends since May. You can see we now have more soldiers in the National Guard than we did in May. Our recruiting continues to be extraordinarily effective. We have just concluded the ninth consecutive best recruiting month in the history of the National Guard since the end of the draft. So in the last 35 years, we have never seen nine consecutive recruiting months or a net gain to the extent that we are enjoying right now. The young men and women of this nation are responding to the challenge and to the missions that the Guard's being called upon. They are staying with us in unprecedented numbers. They have served being at war now almost five years and being used at an unprecedented rate and unprecedented amounts of troops being called up. Everyone who joins the Army or Air National Guard knows that they will deploy; it's just a matter of when. And yet that has not shown any reluctance on their part to join our ranks, which I think says -- speaks volumes about the magnificent young men and women of this nation and how well that people support the National Guard.



So what are we going to do on the border? We are going to provide a military capability in support of civilian law enforcement.



The law enforcement agency in this case is Customs and Border Protection. It's part of the Department of Homeland Security. It's called CBP. It is the Customs and Border Patrol reorganized since -- in the last few years. And they have the responsibility -- the legal authority and the legal obligation and responsibility -- to secure our nation's borders, both on the northern tier and as well as the Southwest border.



The National Guard has no responsibility in this whatsoever, but we do have a responsibility to provide military capabilities when we are called upon by the Department of Defense, and in this case we were directed by the president and the secretary of Defense to work with the governors of the four border states and provide them the military capabilities that the governors asked for, that the Customs and Border Protection organization has asked for. They generate the requirements. They tell the military which tasks they would like the military to perform, what skill sets they want us to bring, what capabilities they want us to deliver for them so that they can do their job more effectively.



We are not replacing the Border Patrol. We are not doing law enforcement. That is the legal function of the Border Patrol. We have provided the troops of the National Guard to the four border states. And the president has -- and the secretary of defense have put them down there under U.S. Code Title 32, which means that the commanders of the National Guard forces in California will be Governor Schwarzenegger, and the commander of the National Guard forces in Arizona will be the governor of Arizona, and the same for New Mexico and the same for Texas.



It was a deliberate decision to do that. That decision, I think, was prudent for two reasons. The border is an international border, absolutely national responsibility, but it is also the border of the state, and the state has great equities in how that border is protected. So it's a great sharing of responsibility and authorities and resources between the state and the federal government.



And it is built on a time-proven model we have been operating on the Southwest border now for over 20 years, military support to drug enforcement agencies. We took that proven model, and we took the Department of Defense's innovative readiness training model, which produced many of the roads, much of the fencing, some of the lighting and barriers that exist on the Southwest border.



That was done by Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force engineers and construction units over the last 20 years as part of a Department of Defense innovative readiness initiative. The Guard has done significant work in that regard; perhaps 80 percent of the total effort in the infrastructure over the last 20 years has been performed by the Guard.



And then there's another partner in this border. It's called the Mexican government and the people of Mexico. They share this border as well. They are used to seeing the National Guard on the border. They are accepted. They realize we're there temporarily. We come in on short rotations, by and large, and we're there for a few weeks, then we leave. And what we do there does not threaten their liberties, their lives or their freedom, and it's accepted. So putting the National Guard down there in greater numbers actually does not excite our Mexican friends and allies in any unproductive manner.



What exactly are we going to do with the troops that we send down there? We will amplify what they call the tactical infrastructure for the Customs and Border Protection Agency. That means we'll build some roads. We will maintain some of the roads down there that are very rudimentary but absolutely necessary to be able to give the Border Patrol the mobility to move east to west along that border. It is a very, very difficult, frontier-like border in many places. In other places, it is very mountainous and very restrictive. And then in other parts of the border, it is clearly -- almost like a(n) urban megalopolis. If you go -- if you're familiar with El Paso and Juarez, it's literally almost one giant city divided by a(n) international border that's really a very small stream that we call the Rio Grande.



So we'll be doing that. That will constitute about 25 percent of the effort that we do down there. The Customs and Border Protection people call that tactical infrastructure. What that means to you is roads, fences, lighting, sensors, towers with cameras and things that you've seen in the past, mostly in the San Diego region. If you've ever been in San Diego, that's what they're trying to do, is to give you that kind of tactical infrastructure.



That has proven to be very effective in controlling drugs and illegal immigration in the San Diego Sector.



And so, obviously, if it works there, they think that it will work in other places and (we will go ?). Twenty-five percent of our effort will be directed to doing that kind of work.



In addition, we'll give them some aviation support so that they have greater mobility. We'll also do some aerial reconnaissance. It's a vast area. We're talking about an area that's probably 1,300 miles in expanse from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of it doesn't have roads and infrastructure, so the very best way you can observe what's going on or know what's going on is fly over it, observe it from the air. We'll help them with that. There are places where there's very difficult time-distance to move between Point A and Point B because of the lack of roads and infrastructure. Our aviation support will help them immensely in that regard as well. And that's probably going to be about 10 percent of our effort.



We'll have a command and control and support element that receives our soldiers as they come in from the 50 states that contribute forces to this mission. They will be briefed; they will be given cultural awareness training, because this is a very different part of our nation from the rest of our nation, and there are some political sensitivities and cultural sensitivities that we want our soldiers to be aware of when they're operating in that environment. So that will take a little bit of time, several hours or a couple of days to get them to understand the rules of the use of force, the climate they're going to be operating in, the insects and reptiles that they're going to run into in certain places there that they're unfamiliar with and need to know how to handle -- things like the.



We'll provide some communication support, some medical support, some intelligence analysis, when that mission gets approved by the Department of Defense. It has not been approved yet, so we're not doing that yet, but we anticipate we will be doing that because we do that in the drug enforcement mission. I want to be very, very clear to you, the drug enforcement -- military assistance to the Drug Enforcement Agency will continue, but that will be a separate, stand- alone, parallel operation. We're not commingling that with this.



This mission is called Operation Jump Start, and it is not named by the Department of Defense. That's the Customs and Border Protection name for their operation -- or the Department of Homeland Security's operation, Jump Start. This is not a military operation. We are in support of a Department of Homeland Security operation or a Customs and Border Protection operation. So unlike most of the briefings you get here from people in uniform where they talk about operation this, or operation that, and it's truly a military operation, this is anything but a military operation.



This is truly a civilian law enforcement operation that we happen to be in support of.



I think with that, I would rather hear what your concerns and questions are beyond what I already described.



Pam?



Q General, the rules of the use of force, what are they? And what percentage of your force do you expect to actually have to worry about that? And when you and Secretary McHale talked to us about this initially, you hadn't yet determined what those metrics were going to be to see if this makes any difference at all. Have you guys identified how you're going to measure if progress has been made?



GEN. BLUM: Okay, let me deal with them in reverse order. The metrics of effects. I would rather let the people we're supporting, the Customs and Border Protection folks, decide how effective we are. We are delivering capabilities and effects that they have requested. It's best that I let them grade the paper and tell us how effective we are. Otherwise, we get into an unhelpful comparison of are we as good as we think we are.



We know what they've asked us to do. I have re-verified what they've asked us to do as of two days ago. I had a customer satisfaction survey. Not really; I met with all of the Customs and Border Patrol chiefs from the nine sectors. As you can see on this map, we have four states involved, but those four states are subdivided into nine sectors. Two of the sectors overlap state boundaries. So it depends who you ask as to how satisfied people are.



So I wanted to go to the root people in charge of each of those sectors. We met with all nine of them. In addition to the nine sector chiefs, Chief Aguilar was there, who is the Customs and Border Protection chief here in Washington, and their commissioner was also there, their senior-most member was there as well. So all 11 of them met with the four adjutants general from the states and the four Joint Task Force commanders from the National Guard.



So all of the people that own the mission and the territory that you see on this map met face to face in El Paso 48 hours ago, and I challenged them personally, as you do me when we meet, to tell me are we delivering what you're asking for, how you're asking for it, where you're asking for it, on time. And the answer was universally yes. There was absolutely not one sector chief that had one critical comment or dissatisfaction with the National Guard in terms of capabilities, in terms of numbers and in terms of timing in meeting the timeline of their expectations and as we have advertised.



They acknowledge the receipt of all of the capabilities we promised by 15 June, which was the first 800 -- which we exceeded and delivered 1,037. And then by the end of June, we were supposed to have 2,500 in there. We did not have 2,500 in there; we had 2,800 in there. They acknowledge that they were in place and they were doing exactly the tasks that we -- that they expected us to do. That has been erroneously re-reported again and again in the press, where it has taken on a life of its own. But if you want fact and you want truth, we exceeded the 2,500. And we are on the glide slope to deliver up to 6,000 by the 1st of August.



Having said that -- let me finish your question there -- the rules of use of force for these people are universal. They're the same in California as they are in Arizona as they are in New Mexico as they are in Texas. Every state that sends troops there will have a blue trifold card. I will get you a copy of the card. Because rather than read the card to you or tell you what's in it, let me give you the executive summary. Every Guardsman that goes down there has the inherent right of self-protection. They can protect themselves. We will arm those that are in mission profiles that put soldiers in harm's way. They will carry side arms. They will carry ammunition, and they do have the right to self-protect. And there are other rules that are in there that keep them from abusing the -- any authority over use of lethal force. I mean, they're prudent. They are vetted by the Department of Defense. They were vetted by the Department of Homeland Security. They were vetted by the Border Patrol, and they're vetted by the attorney generals of all of the contributing states that are going in there. They're pretty solid rules of use of force. And I -- make sure she gets a copy of it. We'll give her --



Q What percentage will be in that position, where they would be carrying side arms?



GEN. BLUM: You know, I don't know. But I'll have to tell you, if I had to give you a rough order of magnitude, I'd say somewhere around 40 percent.



Let me tell you what we're not doing. We're not putting 6,000 armed National Guardsmen on the border as a show of force. That's not what the Border Patrol wants us to do. That's not what any of the governors wants us to do. That's not what the president has asked us to do. That's not what we're going to do. That's not our mission.



We are -- our mission is to provide the capabilities that I described and the percentages that I described to support the Border Patrol so that they have an enhanced intelligence capability, they have an enhanced mobility capability, they have an enhanced infrastructure capability, and we can expand their eyes and their ears so they can see more and they can hear more and they can focus their law enforcement effort more effectively than they're doing right now.



I expect to be out of this mission in two years. I expect to work our way out of this mission. As the Border Patrol trains more people, develops more infrastructure, has more technological enablers, I think the National Guard will be out of this mission in two years or less, to be frank about it.



Did that answer your question completely?



Q Not quite completely.



What kind of jobs will the people be doing that need to carry weapons?



GEN. BLUM: Well, they'll be doing jobs that puts them in harm's way or proximity to the criminal element on the border --



Q This could be -- somebody building a road would need protection.



GEN. BLUM: Yeah, somebody who's building a road close to the border in a contentious area, they will have either armed escorts, and those armed escorts will be Customs and Border Patrol law enforcement officers and, if necessary, we will augment that Customs and Border Patrol officer or officers with soldiers who are armed to provide protection to the other soldiers and airmen that are operating bulldozers and graders and focusing on construction work, and these other people will focus on providing safety and security.



Tom?



Q A quick follow-up. The roughly 40 percent that will be armed, is it mostly sidearms they'll be carrying?



GEN. BLUM: Mostly sidearms. There will be some rifles and there'll be some shotguns. But we're not going to be taking machine guns or mortars. We are not invading. This is not a -- we are not defending our border and we're not invading Mexico. So all we're doing is protecting our soldiers, so we'll arm them for that particular purpose.



Q In the aerial recon, what are we talking about here for that?



GEN. BLUM: We're talking about helicopters, we're talking about fixed-wing aircraft, we're talking -- and we're talking about probably UAVs in the future.



Q Any ballpark on the numbers across the board?



GEN. BLUM: What are you asking?



Q From all the fixed-wing to UAVs, ballpark on the numbers.



GEN. BLUM: No. I think that will fluctuate, frankly, on the requirement. This is a dynamic mission. What we start off doing will be the initial set. We're not going to be inflexible and rigid and keep it the same for the whole two years. As a matter of fact, it should come down, it should reach its peak at 6,000 and it should stay there. And then, as the Border Patrol stands up their capabilities, we ought to be taking that down. As they go up, we should be coming down.



So that number will change, Tom. I'd be reluctant to give you a steady-state number because I don't think I could do it if I wanted to.



Yes, sir?



Q I just want to go over the numbers. Sixty-nine thousand National Guard troops are currently deployed on the global war on terrorism. Can you say how many National Guard troops have returned recently from Iraq and Afghanistan and can't be deployed for -- I think it's one or two years? And also --



GEN. BLUM: Okay, I can, but this has nothing to do with that. The people that are in this mission are going to be, first of all, in two categories: duration people, people that will be there longer than a couple of weeks; some will be there 30 days, some will be there 90 days, some will be there a year. There will be some examples of people that may be there two years from the start of the mission till conclusion of the mission.



That's the duration force. We're also requiring this year probably are going to have rotate about 50,000 soldiers from all around the country in three week annual training rotations; their normal, expected annual training that they pull every year. We will expand it by a week; normally they pull 15 days. The employers expect it, the families expect it, the service members expect it. This is normal routine training. All we're going to do is add a couple days on the training because I need time to get them there; I need time to give them this cultural awareness training, rules, use of force and then get them absorbed into the mission.



It'll be a two-day right seat ride, left seat ride, if you're familiar with that terminology, where the person their replacing actually tells them how to do their job for a day or two and then they do the job for a day or two, and then, that person that was doing the job goes home and they stay there and do the job. That will require about 50,000 soldiers to rotate in there for three week periods of time so that we continue to keep the capabilities and the skill sets that the Customs and Border Protection Agency requires of us. None of those people are being mobilized for two years. Nobody is being mobilized for this. Nobody is on Title 10 orders. This has nothing to do with the mobilization cap. This is almost exclusively volunteers.



This -- and when I say almost exclusively, it is exclusively volunteers. This is -- if you're in a unit, your unit gets sent down there, maybe you didn't personally volunteer, but your unit was going to Fort AP Hill, Virginia to do engineer work, and you find out, "No, we're not going to Virginia. You're going to Arizona, and you're going to do engineer work." The only difference is the training you get will be in an environment that really is a better environment, a more realistic environment. It's a real operational mission, and the engineer work you do instead of tearing it down at the end of two weeks and leaving a pile of dirt for somebody else to rearrange when they come in with their equipment is that you are leaving something lasting, and that is, improving the capability of the Customs and Border Protection Agency.



Q So if I understand you, those units that have recently returned can be part of this mission for the three weeks? Can you also talk about --



GEN. BLUM: Yes. The answer is yes, but nobody is coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan or an overseas and being forced to do this. There are some people down there that have just come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and want to do it. That's a different paradigm all together.



Q Can you talk about is there an amount or percentage of the National Guard that has to be in the United States by law that can't be deployed?



GEN. BLUM: No. No such thing exists. What does exist is an arrangement that I have with the governors to provide them at minimum of 50 percent of their capabilities at all times.



We have made that agreement almost two years ago. And since, in the last two years, we have ensured that every governor had at least 75 percent of their forces available back at home.



We have done a tremendous job of being sensitive to the requirements of the governor for their homeland defense and to support the homeland security operations, yet at the same time, the governors have been extremely patriotic and supportive of sending their National Guard overseas as part of the United States Air Force and Army forces that are generated to the combatant commanders overseas. It has been an amazing partnership in a positive sense between the governors and the Department of Defense.



Yes, ma'am?



Q You say that one of your missions in this operation is intelligence support, but not intelligence analysis. Can you explain what is the difference here and why can you do one and not the other?



GEN. BLUM: No, that -- I want to rephrase your question a little bit, make sure that I understand what you're asking me and I didn't misspeak. If you have it right, I misspoke.



What we are doing -- here's what we cannot do, so that you know clearly what we will never do and not do. We will not collect intelligence on American people with United States military forces, to include the National Guard. We're prohibited by law. It is absolutely illegal to do that.



So, what can we do? We can put intelligence analysts who can take law-enforcement-secured information and coalesce it in a pattern that provides some better analytics to them so that they, instead of having little fragments of information collected by law enforcement, they actually connect the dots for them and help them understand and analyze what they're collecting. We do not collect intelligence, but we are allowed to analyze and support civilian law enforcement with intelligence analysis.



We are doing that currently with the counternarcotics mission that we're conducting in the United States, to include down on the Southwest border. That authority to do that has to come out of ASDIO, Information -- I mean, Intelligence Oversight Office of the DOD.



A request from the Border Patrol has gone to the DOD to ask that the National Guard be allowed to do that. I have not gotten that green light yet. I'm not saying that we won't, but I am not going to put anybody in that role until we do. And if we get a red light and they say, no, we don't want to do that in this particular operation, we won't do that. But that's what we are preparing people to be ready to do.



We're not going to go out and interrogate illegals. We are not going to arrest illegals. The National Guard will not even handle or be in custody of illegal immigrants at any time.



That is clearly a law enforcement role. And the governors don't want their National Guard doing that, and the president doesn't want the National Guard doing that, the Secretary of Defense doesn't want to do that. So we'll do what we're asked to do and no more.



Q Do you think the green light is going to be coming in the near future?



GEN. BLUM: I would expect it will be. But until it is here, we will not do that mission.



Yes, sir?



Q You said that the governors have all done what they've been asked to do. But Governor Schwarzenegger refused to send California Guard outside of the state, is the way we understand. So is there some difference between what we've been told and your understanding?



GEN. BLUM: No. No. There's some difference between what we've been told and what's really going on. Let me give you a perfect example.



Governor Schwarzenegger has been fully supportive of this mission -- I'm going to tell you that right upfront. He has -- California has met and exceeded the number of soldiers that were required by the Customs and Border Protection people in California. They have not failed to deliver any capability that Customs or Border Protection people want in California.



What he has said is with forest fires and mudslides and the other natural events that happen in California, he -- as the hurricane states that I showed you earlier -- is reluctant to let California -- he's not reluctant to send National Guardsmen overseas; he is reluctant to send National Guardsmen from his state on this particular mission into other states for this particular mission. That's fine. That's fine. I will -- that's perfectly acceptable. He's got his sector; he's got basically one-fourth of the border, essentially one- fourth of the border, and he's covering that very well. We can deal with Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. By the way, those governors feel essentially the same way, essentially the same way. I don't think Governor Schwarzenegger is absolute in that, I just think he set that as a general guideline, and that's -- and we can live with it and it's acceptable to us. I think it's been a very satisfactory arrangement.



Q You can meet your goal without shifting California Guard to other states?



GEN. BLUM: Oh, sure. And let me tell you -- I mean, California has a National Guard availability of over 15,000 soldiers right now. So they're a very robust National Guard, and they have a very deep bench of capabilities; they have a very good mix of their skill sets. It's a very robust Guard -- Army and Air. So, if they cover their sector, I'm very satisfied with that, and so is the Department of Defense, and so is the Customs and Border Patrol -- or Border Protection people.



Yes, sir?



Q David -- (inaudible) -- from ABC. A couple of questions. On the numbers, you said 2,500 were in July 1st -- or 2,800 -- excuse me. And I believe as of yesterday, 3,500 were in, but of those, only 1,100 were actually on the job. So, I know that others are considered training and transition. So have you actually fulfilled what you wanted to do by July 1?



GEN. BLUM: Absolutely. And I have a chart that might help with that. This really might help get to that. Let me show a real simple chart that -- if you're looking at this mission through the eyes of Customs/Border Protection people only, you wouldn't see anything on the left side of this chart. Okay? So if you can exclusively just look to the right of that line, that's -- those things that the Border Patrol wants us to do that are directly operationally visible, easily visible on the border.



In order to generate those capabilities in those four states, I have to have a command and control apparatus, a logistics apparatus, an administrative support apparatus; a reception -- people to receive these people, schedule these people, liaison with the Border Patrol, keep them fed, keep them paid, take care of them medically, make sure that they have places to live, know where they're going to work, brief them, set up the rotation and transportation to bring them in and take them out. All of that is invisible to the Border Patrol but is necessary in those numbers.



So that is the root of the confusion, to be frank about it. The truth of it is that I have a Social Security account number and direct deposit; I have to pay everybody that we cut an order on. Dave, if I send you down there and you're in the Guard, I know you're there because I'm paying you, and I'm tracking you by Social Security number. If I tell you there's 3,592 there today, there are 3,592 there that are on orders receiving federal taxpayers' dollars to be down there performing that mission. And if they're not there and I know about it and I'm still counting them, I go to jail. So if I --



Q Are they building roads?



GEN. BLUM: Well, some of them are. Some of them are building roads. Some of them you won't see at all, even though they're there. I mean, if you go down on the border and you're looking and you say, "My God, where's the National Guard?" First of all, the border's 1,300 miles long. We're stretched all across that. There are people performing functions that are called Entry Identification Team members. They basically observe illegals or people coming across the border day and night with night-vision goggles and binoculars and GPSs, and they radio that information to the Border Patrol so the Border Patrol can intersect or intercept those people, determine whether it's criminal or it's legitimate, and then take the law enforcement action necessary.



There's about 2,500 people that will be involved in that by the 1st of August. Most of those you'll never see, if they're doing their job right. You won't even see them.



The Border Patrol doesn't own these forces. There was some confusion early on that because we were supporting them, essentially they come into their system, get accounted for in their system. And I said, no, that's not the way it works. You tell us what you want us to do. We're in a system. We're in the DOD personnel system. They pay us. They account for us. They track us. You just tell us what jobs you want to do, and I'll deliver the capabilities.



We're beyond that now. They finally understand that. Initially there was some confusion, and that's where I think we got the well- intended differences in the numbers and how they're counted.



STAFF: (Off mike) -- one or two more.



GEN. BLUM: Yeah.



Yes, sir?



Q Sir, you mentioned at the top that primarily right now you have National Guard forces from the four border states in the lead right now, or that they're the ones that are actually present in those states right now for their first rotation. Can you explain how -- or expand on that, what you mean by that first rotation, what you anticipate seeing after that, how long will this first rotation go on for?



GEN. BLUM: Okay. The border is not homogenous. The terrain on the border is different in different places. And the states are not homogenous. The issues on the borders are different in the different -- in the states. And they're different in the nine sectors. So if you think that anything I'm going to tell you, you can walk down to any part of this border and it will be exactly the same in any one place and the sector next door to it, it is not. They will all be done a little bit different.



So it is not one size fits all, and each sector has tailored their requirements and their force structure; and how they're doing what they're doing is not exactly the same in every place. There's nothing wrong with that. You have to understand that's the way they do their business and we're not in there to do their business, we're in there to support their business. So we accommodate those differences. Okay? So that should help you understand the disparities that you may see from place to place.



Q Do you anticipate in, let's say, Arizona, New Mexico, receiving the most out-of-state National Guardsmen?



GEN. BLUM: Yes, I do. And I'll tell you why. Arizona is the main effort. Tucson and Yuma is the main problem area. Beyond that, El Paso is the main problem area. So the bulk of our forces will go to assisting the Border Patrol in Tucson, Yuma and El Paso.



Now, they are also the smaller National Guards. They have smaller National Guards than California and Texas. So in California and Texas, we will rely heavily -- more heavily on the duration force, people that don't rotate quite as often or don't rotate at all. And in Arizona and New Mexico, because the National Guard -- the populations of those two states don't -- can't -- is not supported by a large National Guard -- they have a modest-size National Guard, roughly 7,000, it's not insignificant, but it's not 15(,000) or 20,000 like California and Texas -- we'll have to rely more heavily on rotational forces for Arizona and New Mexico.



The heaviest state that will receive the rotations from out of state will probably Arizona if they stay as the main effort over the two years. If the effort shifts, then we'll shift the troops, obviously, to the task. We're not going to just keep sticking with the plan because there's dynamics on that border, and we'll adjust to the requirements of the Customs and Border Patrol.



Does that make sense to you?



Q And the first rotation will -- when do you anticipate that finishing up? You referred to it as --



GEN. BLUM: It's continues. It's refreshing all the time. As I told you, you'll find -- if you go down to the border and interview National Guardsmen, you will find young men and women down there; some will tell you they're there for 30 days, some will tell you they're there for 90 days, some will tell you they're there for a year, some will tell you -- most in Arizona, probably after September time frame or August time frame, most of them will tell you they're there for 21 days. The bulk of them will be 21 days.



Yes, sir.



STAFF: We'll make this the last one.



Q One of the long-standing concerns from the Justice Department, DA, others like that, is corruption on the Mexican side in terms of their border service and Border Patrol. I'm wondering, in your experience, in the Guard's experience in the counternarcotics mission and in this mission thus far, to what degree does corruption of Mexican border service, as in police, foment the illegal immigration?



GEN. BLUM: I'm not an expert to comment on that. Corruption is not unique on the Mexican side of the border. Corruption exists any time that the criminal elements can exploit a weakness in the border; hence the reason we want to get control of the border better than we have it right now. The initiatives, Operation Jump Start, putting the Guard down there to assist Customs and Border Protection personnel, will help make the criminal element on both sides of the border much more difficult and will help get control of our border. We're not -- again, remember, the mission isn't close the border. The mission is help, assist, provide military capabilities that the Guard has and DOD has to assist the Customs and Border Protection Agency to get better control of the border. We're not closing the border. We still want legitimate people coming in to this country and leaving this country and letting commerce flow. But there are some troublesome illegal activities on both sides of the border that I think will find this new arrangement very uncomfortable to try to operate in. I think it would make their lives more difficult.



Q General Blum?



GEN. BLUM: Thank you.



© COPYRIGHT 2005, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE.

NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY

REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY

PROHIBITED.



UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION

CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION

LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL

REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION.



FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT

AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO

ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.



FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME

AT 202-347-1400.

BUSH TAPS ARMY GENERAL FOR TOP NATO MILITARY COMMAND - JIM MANNION (YAHOO! NEWS, JULY 14): General Bantz Craddock, who heads the US Southern Command, which oversees the US "war on terror" detention center at Guantanamo Bay, as well as US military operations in Latin America, has been nominated by President George W. Bush to the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the Pentagon said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060714/pl_af...to_060714174029

ABU GHRAIB REWARDED EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, JULY 17): William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, has been closely involved in shaping some of the Bush administration's most legally and morally objectionable policies, notably on the use of torture. The last thing he is suited to be is a federal judge, but that is just what President Bush wants to make him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/opinion/...agewanted=print

MEANWHILE, IN OTHER WARS: CASCADING CRISES MUST NOT DISTRACT THE ADMINISTRATION FROM AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, JULY 16): Americans and Iraqis alike want U.S. troops out as soon as possible, but a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos and at the mercy of terrorists would not strengthen America's position in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1500745_pf.html

IRAQ AND U.S. SIGN COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT - ASSOCIATED PRESS (WASHINGTON POST, JULY 17): Iraq and the United States signed a commercial cooperation agreement Monday that officials hope will help this country move into a free market after decades of wars, sanctions and state control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071700143.html

RICE CALLS IDEA THAT IRAQ WAR CONTRIBUTED TO REGIONAL INSTABILITY GROTESQUE (THINK PROGRESS, JULY 16)
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/rice-grotesque/

THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF DR. EVIL: SPURRED BY A SALON INQUIRY, THE ARMY IS REOPENING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER SADDAM'S POISON MASTER [DR. MUHAMMAD MUNIM AL-AZMERLI] DIED AS A RESULT OF ABUSIVE TREATMENT BY U.S. TROOPS - MICHAEL SCHERER (SALON, JULY 14)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/...erli/print.html

ARE WE HEADING FOR THE EXIT IN IRAQ? - JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY (MIAMI HERALD, FLORIDA, JULY 16/COMMON DREAMS): Even if the civil war that's now claiming hundreds of Iraqi lives each week begins to claim thousands or scores of thousands of lives each week, the American drawdown may only accelerate.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0716-28.htm

DOD DOCTRINE ON OPERATIONS SECURITY

"Operations security" (OPSEC) refers to the practice of identifying
and controlling information that could be exploited by a hostile
observer to discern intelligence about U.S. operations.

"OPSEC is a methodology that denies critical information to an
adversary," according to a new Defense Department publication on the
subject.

"Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified information,
OPSEC measures identify, control, and protect generally unclassified
evidence that is associated with sensitive operations and
activities."

See "Operations Security," Joint Publication 3-13.3, June 29, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_13_3.pdf

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,105828,00.html

Navy Probes Multiple V-22 Surges, Stalls
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Christopher J. Castelli | July 17, 2006
In addition to the compressor stalls that recently caused a V-22 Osprey to make an emergency landing in Iceland, other V-22s last week experienced compressor surges that were imperceptible to pilots at the time and officials are investigating whether all of these problems are related.

Two V-22 Ospreys departed July 10 from Goose Bay, Canada, for what was supposed to be a nine-hour, direct flight to Farnborough, England. About halfway through the trip, however, there was an incident that forced one of the V-22s to land in Keflavik, Iceland.

The other V-22, meanwhile, continued on to Farnborough and landed there about four hours later. But it turns out this aircraft's flight was not entirely uneventful. At press time (July 14), Navy V-22 spokesman James Darcy said officials learned from computer data that this V-22 experienced a compressor surge that was imperceptible during the flight.

Also, officials learned that another V-22, which had been in Goose Bay as a backup aircraft, similarly experienced an imperceptible compressor surge during its return flight to New River, NC.

Like a compressor stall, a compressor surge is a disruption of the air flow to the compressor, but it is not as serious, said Darcy. There may be a link between the problems experienced by these various V-22s. At press time, however, Darcy said the investigation is ongoing and would not comment further.

The Osprey that landed in Iceland June 10 had its right engine replaced before flying to Farnborough, where it landed safely July 13 in the early afternoon, said Darcy.

Officials are still investigating what caused the problems that forced the landing in Iceland. Darcy said the first sign of trouble was a compressor stall in the right engine, but he had no details on when this happened. The compressor stall led the right engine to flame out, meaning it stopped providing propulsion, he said. Both of the aircraft's two proprotors continued turning under the power of the remaining engine, he said.

After about “10 seconds,” the pilot was able to relight the engine, said Darcy. Subsequently, however, the same engine experienced another compressor stall, prompting the pilot to land in Iceland at about 2 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time.

Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing make the Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter, but can also fly like a plane. Bell spokesman Bob Leder downplayed the July 10 incident that led to the landing in Iceland, which he called “a common event with turbine-powered aircraft.”

But the Iceland incident was clearly not what V-22 program officials had in mind last month when they issued a press release boasting the Osprey was “writing the book” on long-range deployments. The statement predicted two V-22s would fly July 10 directly from Goose Bay to Farnborough, along with two tankers.

“This will be the first time that an assault support aircraft has ever flown across the Atlantic,” said V-22 program manager Col. Bill Taylor, in the press release.

“Unlike conventional rotary wing aircraft, which must be transported into overseas theaters of operation aboard amphibious shipping or heavy lift transport planes, the V-22 can self-deploy thousands of miles over water to get itself to the fight,” Taylor said in the statement.

Both Ospreys participating in the air show are part of the Marine Corps V-22 squadron based in New River, NC. The V-22 that stopped in Iceland is production model No. 59, known in the squadron as Osprey No. 23, Darcy said. The other aircraft is production model No. 58, known in the squadron as Osprey No. 22.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,105845,00.html

Iraq Market Attack Kills Dozens
Associated Press | July 17, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen sprayed grenades and automatic weapons fire Monday at shoppers in a market south of Baghdad, killing at least 50 people, mostly Shiites, in a major escalation of sectarian tension. The dead and wounded included women and children, hospital officials said.

Angry Shiite lawmakers stormed out of parliament to protest the attack, accusing U.S.-trained Iraqi police and soldiers of standing idly by while the killers - presumed to be Sunnis - went on a rampage in Mahmoudiya, 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of the capital.

Details of the assault were unclear. But several witnesses, including municipal council members, said the attack began when gunmen opened fire on the funeral for a member of a Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, killing nine mourners.

Assailants then drove to the nearby market area, killing three soldiers at a checkpoint and firing grenades and automatic rifles at the terrified crowd. After the gunmen sped away, they lobbed several mortar rounds into the neighborhood, the witnesses said.

The deadly assault occurred a few hundred meters (yards) from Iraqi army and police positions, but the troops did not intervene until the attackers were fleeing, the witnesses said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals.

In the capital, the U.S. command announced that an American soldier was fatally wounded Monday in western Baghdad. It was the fourth American death in the capital since Saturday.

There were conflicting figures on casualties from the market attack, with a Shiite television station reporting more than 70 dead. But local police and Dr. Dawoud al-Taie, director of the Mahmoudiya hospital, said 50 people were killed and about 90 were wounded.

In Baghdad, prominent Shiite legislator Jalaluddin al-Saghir said Iraqi military authorities had ignored warnings that weapons were being stocked in a nearby mosque. He also said the local police commander refused to order his men to confront the attackers because they lacked weapons and ammunition.

Dozens of Shiite lawmakers, including followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, stormed out of a parliament session to protest the performance of the security forces.

In Mahmoudiya, long a flashpoint of Shiite-Sunni tension, tempers boiled as frantic relatives milled about the hospital, scuffling with guards and Iraqi soldiers who tried to keep them outside so doctors could treat their relatives.

"You are strong men only when you face us, but you let them do what they did to us," one man shouted at a guard.

In Baghdad, the Shiite television station Al-Forat broadcast strident quotes from Shiites who blamed the attack on Sunni religious extremists. They expressed outrage that Sunni politicians cannot rein in Sunni extremists.

But the main Sunni bloc in parliament said the attack may have been retaliation for the kidnapping of seven Sunnis whose bodies were found Sunday in Mahmoudiya. The bloc accused Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces of failing to control the situation.

The events also raised doubts about the effectiveness of the U.S. strategy of handing over large areas of the country to Iraqi control, while keeping U.S. troops in reserve in case the Iraqis need help.

U.S. troops of the 101st Airborne Division reported hearing detonations and gunfire, the U.S. command said in a statement. But Iraqi troops are responsible for security in the town, and American soldiers do not intervene unless asked by the Iraqis.

Four soldiers and a former soldier from the division are accused of raping and murdering a teenager near Mahmoudiya on March 12. A sixth soldier is accused of failing to report the crime.

The Mahmoudiya attack was part of a rising tide of tit-for-tat killings and intimidation that many Iraqis fear is the prelude to fullscale civil war. The campaign of intimidation and attacks is slowly transforming Baghdad into sectarian zones under the tacit control of armed groups that protect members of their sect and drive away the others.

On July 9, Shiite militiamen swept through the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Jihad in western Baghdad, dragging Sunnis from their cars and shooting them in the street. About 50 people were slain.

Faced with such horrific massacres, Iraqis are turning to sectarian militias to protect them because government forces cannot. Some Sunnis, who form the foundation of the insurgency, now say privately they want American troops to remain in Iraq to protect them from Shiite militias.

Despite the security crisis, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez arrived in the Iraqi capital Monday and signed an agreement with the Iraqis to encourage foreign investment and lay the foundation for a market economy after decades of state control.

"We are convinced that Iraq is ready for recovery," Gutierrez told reporters, later acknowledging that "clearly, security is still the No. 1 challenge."

Also Monday, the final group of Japanese troops left Iraq and arrived in Kuwait, ending Japan's two-year humanitarian mission in southern Iraq. The rest of the Japanese contingent, which had numbered more than 600, left over the past two weeks.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,105740,00.html

Civilians Mull Whether to Follow Base Jobs
Associated Press | July 17, 2006
TINTON FALLS, N.J. - When Jim and Teresa Savarese took their family to check out the Maryland area where his civilian Army job will be transferred, the three children were sold on the move once they rode horses with the real estate agent.

By the time the family returned to their New Jersey shore community of Point Pleasant, the horses were a fading memory and the children were back to their familiar refrain: "We don't want to move."

Tens of thousands of civilians who work at military bases the government plans to close face the same choice as the Savareses - relocate or look for a new job. The Pentagon says the plan to close 22 major bases by 2011 and reconfigure many others will save $4.2 billion a year.

The base-closings commission held a relocation fair for civilian workers at the Army's Fort Monmouth research and development installation, telling them about housing and schools in Maryland. Their jobs are moving to the Aberdeen Proving Ground near the Chesapeake Bay.

"We're trying to give out basic relocation information to our work force," said Sue Nappi of the Army's Communications Electronics Life Cycle Management Command at Fort Monmouth, who coordinated the fair. "We want to encourage as many people as possible to move, so when we get to Maryland we keep our mission going."

Relocation fairs also have been held for workers at Fort Rucker, Ala., the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois and the Army Testing and Evaluation Command at Alexandria, Va., where 270 civilian jobs also are being moved to Aberdeen. More events are planned, since the base closings are projected four or five years away.

People attending the Alexandria fair were bused to Aberdeen, where exhibitors at the town's minor league baseball park set up displays to show workers what life was like in northeastern Maryland.

The Defense Department hopes the civilians choose to move with their jobs so the military can retain an experienced work force, especially in highly specialized operations.

"It is in the Army's best interest," especially for midlevel and senior workers, said J.M. Mike Hayes, a retired Marine Corps brigadier general who works for the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development.

At the Fort Monmouth event, Jim Farkas gathered plastic bags full of brochures, maps and handouts to look over later with his wife.

Farkas, 52, whose job involves supplying equipment to troops, has 13 years in and said he's pretty sure he'll move. The Farkases have already found some Maryland communities where they would like to live.

"Right now, nobody knows when we're going to move," Farkas said. "You can't plan on selling your home."

With the Monmouth closing still years away, Nappi said her role now is to get workers to think about their options. But for some, it's a tough sell.

"As soon as I have a date, I make a decision," said Susan Martin of Tinton Falls, who hopes the base closing will be delayed long enough so she can close out her career as a property manager at Fort Monmouth.

Chris Savarese, 10, knows he won't get so lucky, unless his parents - his dad is a computer specialist at the base - decide to stay put.

"I don't want to leave my friends, and I'm addicted to this house," the sixth-grader said.

http://www.military.com/blog/defensetech

Hezbollah's Biggest Missile Yet
Jul 17, 2006

Watching the news over the last few years, we've grown accustomed to seeing terrorists as a low-tech threat -- guys who hijack airplanes with pocket knives and make bombs out of leftover parts. And that threat has been plenty scary, on its own.

But in recent days, we're starting to see what happens when Islamic extremists get their hands on the relatively sophisticated arsenal of a country like Iran. Talk about terror.

On Sunday, Hezbollah again struck Haifa -- a city untouched by the militia until a few days ago -- using its biggest and most powerful missile yet. It's one of 800 rockets Hezbollah has launched against Israel in the last five days.

The weapon "hit a busy railway maintenance building, destroying the roof, killing eight, wounding more than 20 and leaving congealing pools of blood on the platform," the Times reports. "Israel said [the missile] was a Syrian-produced model of a Iranian Fajr-3 model, [which Tehran claims can avoid radars and carry multiple warheads -- ed.]. [It] has a range of more than 30 miles and carries a warhead with about 100 pounds of high explosives, which includes antipersonnel shrapnel, a significant change from the smaller Katyushas that Hezbollah has mostly been using."

And there may be worse to come, Ha'Aretz warns.


The fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has still not reached its zenith. The Israel Defense Forces' operational plans against the Shi'ite organizations have not yet been carried out. The next two days are the most critical and a lot depends on whether Tehran decides to take a chance and authorize Hezbollah to launch long-range missiles with more powerful warheads. This is a capability Hezbollah still retains, despite the heavy blows it has suffered in the IDF air strikes.

Israeli Military Site Gets Bloggy
Jul 17, 2006

Excellent. Defense Update, the long-standing supersite devoted to Israeli military gear, now has a blog. Here's a taste -- its take on the Hezbollah missile (not drone) attack:


Apparently, two missiles were launched toward the Israel Navy Ship (INS) Hanit (Spear), SAAR V class corvette patrolling the Lebanese coast 16 kilometers from the shore. The attack was a coordinated, simultaneous ?high/low? attack - the first ?high? missile passed over the Israeli ship. Missing the target, it continued flying, hitting and sinking a civilian Egyptian ship cruising 60 kilometers from the shore. The second missile followed a sea-skimming flight profile hitting the Israeli vessel at the stern, killing four sailors and setting the flight deck on fire and crippling the propulsion systems inside the hull.

The simultaneous attack was probably using two techniques as well, ensuring maximum chances of success. The first missiles was apparently used as a radar-guided ?bait?. seducing the ship to deploy its defensive systems against it, focusing all the attention on the ?obvious? threat while the second sea-skimming missile closing below. A supporting fact for this assumption is the fact that the first missile locked on the unfortunate Egyptian ship 44 kilometers away, as it was the next visible target in its flightpath. The second, missile could have been guided by radar or, more probably, Electro-optically. This method would require the launch of two types of missiles, a C-801/802 for the ?high? profile and a C-701 TV guided missile for the ?low? profile.


Israel's Aerial Blockade
Jul 17, 2006

Some of the same technologies that the U.S. military used to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are playing a critical role in Israel's new campaign against Hezbollah. The Israeli air force has brought to bear strike aircraft armed with laser- and satellite guided bombs and toting sophisticated targeting pods. The mission: sever communications links to Lebanon -- depriving the terrorist network of foreign support -- and to ensure that captured Israeli soldiers are not sneaked out of the country.

Since Wednesday, Israeli warplanes have systematically bombed roads, bridges, television and radio stations and the runways at the Beirut airport. These attacks have effectively isolated Lebanon at the price of around 100 Lebanese deaths plus many injuries (see picture). In light of the swift and devastating nature of the air campaign, that death toll is surprisingly low. But then, considering that Hezbollah has no air defenses to speak of -- and that all the world is watching -- in this conflict the Israeli air force's greatest enemy is itself. It must achieve its operational goals with minimal civilian deaths to avoid turning world opinion against Israel.

That means accurate targeting and precision weapons. Most of the communications targets are static ones that Israel mapped out years ago, using aerial reconnaissance -- as well as signals and human intelligence. So figuring out what to bomb isn't hard. Hitting the targets accurately -- without civilian casualties -- is. And with airport terminals, bridges and highways teeming with local civilians and foreign tourists, the job is even tougher.

Fortunately for Israel, its air force is on the cutting edge of precision weapons technology. In the 1980s, Israeli firm Rafael pioneered small targeting pods for tactical warplanes. Today, the Rafael Litening family of pods -- containing day and night sensors, a laser designator and tracker and GPS -- equips Israeli F-16s and F-15s and U.S. aircraft such as Marine Corps F/A-18s.

Israeli aircrews probably approach from medium altitude, straight and level, using the cameras in their pods to zoom in on the target. They then designate it with a laser or determine its GPS coordinates -- or both. At the optimal distance and angle, they pickle the weapon, either an Israeli Aircraft Industries laser-guided bomb or a Boeing Joint Direction Attack Munition (JDAM), which Israel has procured in quantity since 1999.

To deliver these weapons, the Israeli air force calls upon the most capable tactical jet fleet in the Middle East. The inventory includes:

25 F-15I Ra'am (essentially F-15Es)
11 F-15D Akef
17 F-15C Akef
8 F-15B Baz
27 F-15A Baz
102 F-16I Soufa (advanced F-16 Block 50s, some still in delivery)
75 F-16D Brakeet
52 F-16C Barak
20 F-16B Netz
90 F-16A Netz

The F-15Is and F-16Is are the most advanced strike aircraft in the Middle East, with the possible exception of the Emirates' F-16E/Fs. But the only pictures of current air operations that I've seen have shown just F-16Cs and Ds, which makes sense. The early F-16s and F-15s are best suited for air-to-air missions and the F-15Is and F-16Is are long-range strike aircraft with conformal fuel tanks, likely being held in reserve for possible action against Iran, which reportedly has troops in Lebanon and supplied the drone that damaged an Israeli patrol boat and killed four sailors on Thursday.

--David Axe

UPDATE 6:59 PM: Stratfor says that "we are now in the period preceding major conventional operations. Israel is in the process of sealing the Lebanese coast. They have disrupted Lebanese telecommunications, although they have not completely collapsed the structure. Israeli aircraft are attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure and road system. In the meantime, Hezbollah, aware it is going to be hit hard, is in a use-it or-lose-it scenario, firing what projectiles it can into Israel."


The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.

Hezbollah's strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly.


UPDATE 7:20 PM: Be sure to check out Tom Barnett's take on the crisis, too; this is Iran's "form of a pre-emptive war -- well-timed and well-placed," he says.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,105844,00.html

Israel Sets Terms for Cease-Fire
Associated Press | July 17, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Diplomatic efforts to end Israeli-Hezbollah fighting gained traction Monday, with Israeli officials saying the country would agree to halt fighting if its two captured soldiers were returned and Islamic guerrillas withdrew from the border.

Publicly, the officials continued to insist their goal was to dismantle Hezbollah. But senior aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert office said he told his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, that Israel would accept cease-fire terms of Hezbollah releasing the Israeli soldiers and withdrawing from the border.

On Sunday, Lebanese officials said that Israel had sent the terms of a possible cease-fire through Italian mediators. The terms were the release of the two captured soldiers, and a Hezbollah pullback to roughly 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Hezbollah-patron Iran, meanwhile, said a cease-fire was feasible and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special political adviser emerged from talks with Lebanon's prime minister to say he would present Israel "concrete ideas" to end the fighting.

"We have made some promising first efforts on the way forward," Vijay Nambiar told reporters, while warning that "much diplomatic work needs to be done" before the conflict ends.

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki - in Damascus, Syria for talks with Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa - said a cease-fire and prisoner exchange would be acceptable and fair .

"We believe that we should think of an acceptable and fair (deal) to resolve this," he said. "In fact, there can be a cease-fire followed by a prisoner swap."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for sending international forces to southern Lebanon. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would consider dispatching troops, and the European Union announced it was considering a peacekeeping force as well.

Overnight attacks by Israeli warplanes and big guns killed 17 people and wounded at least 53, Lebanese security officials said. The death toll since fighting began on Wednesday after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers has climbed above 200 - 209 in Lebanon, 24 in Israel.

Israeli government spokesman Asaf Shariv said ground troops entered southern Lebanon, attacked Hezbollah bases near the border and quickly returned inside Israel.

A large explosion was heard across Beirut Monday evening in the heavily hit southern suburbs where Hezbollah's headquarters is located. In the south, nine civilians were killed, including two children, when an afternoon strike hit a bridge at the entrance to the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanese security officials said.

An Israeli missile also targeted a building housing Al-Manar offices in the southern market town of Nabatiyeh, wounding 7 people.

Hezbollah Katyusha rockets landed in the Israeli town of Atlit, about 55 kilometers (35 miles) south of the border and 10 kilometers (six miles) south of the port city of Haifa. Nobody was hurt. Later, guerrillas fired three rocket barrages into Haifa, destroying a three-story building and wounding at least three people, Israeli medics said.

Guerrilla rockets killed eight Israelis in an attack on Haifa Sunday in what was believed to be Hezbollah's deadliest-ever single attack on Israel.

A Lebanese TV station also showed video of what it said an F-16 fighter jet crashing in the Jamjour district near the Hezbollah stronghold of southern Beirut. Israel said none of its aircraft had been hit or had crashed. Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV said the aircraft was a helicopter gunship.

A Lebanese security official said the object was a fuel tank dropped by an Israeli aircraft over Kfar Chima, a town near southern Beirut. After it dropped the fuel tank, the aircraft fired two missiles at three cargo trucks in the area, killing four people and wounding two others, he added, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

It was not clear why the fuel tank was dropped by the aircraft.

Israel said its planes and artillery struck 60 targets in Lebanon overnight in retaliation for Sunday's 20-rocket barrage on Haifa, Israel's third-largest city and one that had not been hit before the current round of fighting began.

Israel also kept up pressure in the Gaza Strip as it searched for a kidnapped soldier, bombing the empty Palestinian Foreign Ministry building for the second time in less than a week in what it said was a warning to the ruling Hamas party.

Israel launched the offensive on June 25 after Hamas-linked militants carried out a cross-border attack on a military outpost, killing two soldiers and capturing one other. Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas joined the fray last week, attacking a military patrol in northern Israel, killing eight soldiers and capturing two others.

Israeli officials accused Syria and Iran of providing Lebanese guerrillas with sophisticated weapons, saying the missiles that hit Haifa had greater range and heavier warheads than those Hezbollah had fired before.

Speaking on the margin of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, Blair said the fighting would not stop until the conditions for a cease-fire were created.

"The only way is if we have a deployment of international forces that can stop bombardment coming into Israel," he said.

Annan appealed to Israel to spare civilian lives and infrastructure. The G-8 nations, who had struggled to reach a consensus on the escalating warfare between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, have expressed concern on the "rising civilian casualties" and urged both sides to stop the violence.

Bush expressed his frustration in a discussion with Blair before the G-8 leaders began their final lunch.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush said. He also suggested that Annan call Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen."

Foreigners continued to flee and several nations drew up plans to get their citizens out. Russia sent an airliner to Jordan on Monday, and Britain also airlifted 40 of its citizens from Lebanon over the weekend and another group was taken out on Monday. A French ship was due to arrive in the port later Monday to evacuate Europeans.

In their raids on Beirut Monday, Israeli planes killed two people in the harbor and started a large fire that was later extinguished.

The Israeli jets also set fire to a gas storage tank in the northern neighborhood of Dawra and another fuel storage tank at Beirut airport, sending plumes of smoke billowing into the sky. The airport has been closed since Thursday, when Israeli jets blasted its runways.

Israeli missiles also blasted southern Beirut, causing three explosions that shook the city. The targets were not immediately clear, but Hezbollah has a host of offices, clinics, schools, social clubs and the homes of its leaders in the southern suburbs.

Elsewhere in Lebanon, Israeli planes again hit the Beirut to Damascus highway, which has been targeted as part of a strategy of severing Lebanon's links to the outside world. Monday's attacks struck the highway in the eastern Bekaa Valley and killed two people.

In another attack, eight Lebanese soldiers were killed when Israeli aircraft attacked a small fishing port at Abdeh in northern Lebanon near a highway leading to Syria. Witnesses and security officials said 12 Lebanese soldiers were wounded in the attack.

The Israeli military warned residents of south Lebanon to flee, promising heavy retaliation after the Haifa assault.

In one airstrike on southern Lebanon early Monday, an Israeli missile missed its apparent target - a Hezbollah site - and hit a private house, killing two people, according to security officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,105819,00.html

Soldiers Blow up Terrorist Safe-Route
Army News Service | Spc. Edgar Reyes | July 17, 2006
FOB Kalsu, Iraq - An explosive ordnance disposal team used their detonation skills to cut off a terrorist safe-route in the northern Babil province early this month.

Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and the 73rd Explosive Ordnance Disposal Detachment launched Operation Cobra Cutter July 8 to eliminate an escape route for terrorists placing roadside bombs on the roads in Haswah.

“We planned to remove the terrorists’ access in and out of the area, but the way we accomplished the mission was rather ironic,” said Capt. Aaron Scheinberg, platoon leader, Company B, 2nd Bn., 8th Inf. Regt., 2nd BCT. “We used the rounds found in weapon caches and would-be bombs to blow up the same routes the terrorists use to hide and emplace these munitions. It was actually poetic justice,” said Scheinberg.

Soldiers escorting and providing security for the EOD team took more than an hour to sweep the area in search of booby traps and command wiring used to detonate explosives.

“The hardest thing about the mission was trying to detect roadside bombs and booby traps. We had to make sure the site was secure before we started pulling perimeter security,” said Staff Sgt. Chris Woodruff, section sergeant, Co. B, 2nd Bn., 8th Inf. Regt., 2nd BCT.

After leaders deemed the area safe, EOD Soldiers began preparing the area for demolition. The Soldiers laid artillery and mortar rounds acquired from terrorist caches in the middle of the pathway, then taped more than 300 pounds of C4 explosives on top of the materials and added extra explosives at the ends of the route to ensure its destruction.

The Soldiers also moved two families living nearby and their animals to safety. With Soldiers and civilians several hundred meters away from the blast site, the EOD team detonated the explosives.

“The explosion was pretty loud. The flames and the smoke looked really cool in the sky. It’s something you don’t normally see in the civilian world,” said Pvt. Chris Peer, tanker, Co. B, 2nd Bn., 8th Inf. Regt., 2nd BCT.

Initially, Soldiers placed barriers around the site to keep out terrorist, but they removed the blockades, said Woodruff. Coalition forces then decided destroying the entire entry and exit points would be the best deterrent against the terrorist threat.

“The barriers we used were being compromised after just a couple of weeks,” said Peer. “It’s going to be much harder for the terrorists to compromise because instead of blocking the route, we destroyed it. They could try to rebuild it, but it is going to take them a long time.”
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.


Copyright 2006 Army News Service. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,105320,00.html
Oil Folly
Allan Topol | July 12, 2006
I remember distinctly sitting behind the wheel of my car at four a.m. on a cold morning in late 1973 on McArthur Boulevard in Washington, waiting in line for an Exxon station to open. I was furious at Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil exporters for imposing an embargo on the United States. However, I was almost as angry with our own government. “They couldn't let this happen,” I kept saying to myself as I sipped coffee from a thermos.

Of course I was not alone in my views. As a result of the sentiment among the American population as a whole, President Richard Nixon announced a goal of “energy independence” in 1973. That was 33 years ago. In the intervening period, we have had more than one Democrat in the White House and more than one Republican. We've had Democratic control of one or both houses of congress and we have had Republican control of one or both houses.

We have not taken any steps toward “energy independence.” Indeed in every respect, the current situation of the United States is far worse than it was in 1973.

At the time of President Nixon's pronouncements, the United States imported a third of its oil. At the present time, notwithstanding new domestic sources of supply offshore and in Alaska, we now import sixty percent of our oil. Even more troublesome, this percentage will increase over time -- not only because United States consumption continues to increase, but also because domestic production is in decline. Indeed, ever since the early 70s United States domestic production has, following standard analyses of oil production, been going down.

Three primary factors have contributed to the worsening of our country's oil situation.

The first is the continued surge in U.S. demand. Somewhere in the period since 1973, we lost our way on oil conservation. The numbers of small cars that minimize gasoline usage gave way to the huge percentage of SUVs and minivans now on American roads. If you bother to count them in a parking lot or on a highway, you will be astounded at the huge percentage of SUVs and other high gasoline usage vehicles on American roads. In other areas of American life, the noises we made about energy conservation have failed to produce meaningful results. Yes, we did develop the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve, however that only provides relief for days or weeks. It is not a long-term solution.

The other primary factors are worldwide supply and demand. It is not surprising that the price of gasoline exceeds $3 a gallon and keeps rising. Nor is it surprising that the price of oil has crashed through $70 a barrel several months ago en route to a cost in excess of $100 a barrel.

Worldwide supplies are tight and diminishing. Much of the oil is produced in the world's trouble spots such as Nigeria where an insurrection has shut off twenty percent of production, or Iraq where the oil industry has been ripped apart, or Venezuela where governmental policies have reduced output. Terrorism, insurrections, and storms like Katrina will continue to batter oil production.

Likewise, shipping routes and pipelines are vulnerable to sabotage and blockage. Then there are the Chinese, who are busily making private supply arrangements with numerous oil producers, thereby taking those nations' oil output from the world market.

The situation on the demand side is equally ominous. In 1973, the United States dominated the oil consumption market. Prices rose sharply with changes in U.S. consumption. Currently, the United States consumes less than one fourth of the 82.5 million barrels of oil being consumed daily. China has replaced Japan as the second largest consumer with 8.5 percent of global oil consumption. Moreover, the Chinese consumption figures are rising rapidly as the Chinese people are not only enjoying economic prosperity, but also developing a love of the automobile similar to what occurred in the United States decades ago. Other nations in Asia (particularly India), and in Latin America now have developing economies, euphemistically referred to as emerging markets, which will also use increased quantities of oil.

As a nation, our entire economy is at risk if we remain subject to continually increasing costs for imported oil. The impact on inflation and the American way of life will be devastating in the decades ahead. The President and Congressional leaders must utilize experts -- perhaps by forming a committee akin to the Manhattan Project during the Second World War -- to deal with the matter of U.S. energy independence. What is troublesome is that none of our political leaders are making serious noises about addressing this problem.

Copyright 2006 Allan Topol. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

http://www.military.com/blog/indepundit

Beirut Evacuations Begin Tuesday
Jul 17, 2006

THE U.S. MILITARY will begin evacuating Americans from Lebanon by air and sea Tuesday, NBC reports.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman said the commercial ship, the Orient Queen, which can carry up to 750 people, will take evacuees to Cyprus. A U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Gonzalez, will escort it and the USS Iwo Jima may do so as well, he said.
There are some 25,000 Americans in Lebanon, and the U.S. Embassy has advised those who wish to leave that they should prepare their bags — one for each person, weighing no more than 30 pounds — and be ready for announcements on how to depart.

Three CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters — each able to carry 36 people — are available to fly evacuees from Beirut to a British air base on Cyprus, Whitman said, and more choppers will be made available on Tuesday.

From the American Embassy in Beirut:

Americans who wish to depart Lebanon should prepare important travel documents such as a valid U.S. passport, birth certificates, and other civil documents such as marriage certificates, and medical records.
Once U.S.-sponsored travel arrangements are in place, travelers will each be allowed only one small suitcase. We give priority to U.S. citizens but will consider departure assistance to Legal Permanent Residents accompanying a U.S. citizen immediate family member. ONE guardian may accompany an American citizen minor, even if that guardian is not an American. The guardian must have a valid passport and a U.S. visa, if traveling to the U.S. We understand that neither Lebanese nor Americans need a visa to enter Cyprus. Pets will not be allowed to travel.

Don't forget to leave plenty of food and water out for the cat.

Israel's Next Move
Jul 17, 2006

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION unfolded over the weekend on what Israel's next move might be, over at OPFOR.

The consensus: The IDF is making preparations for an invasion of Hezbollah-occupied areas of Lebanon, the objective being the destruction of Hezbollah as a credible military source.

The only question appears to be how far the Israelis are willing to push. South Beirut? Bekaa Valley?

Damascus?

Lebanon Evacuation Scramble
Jul 17, 2006

THE WASHINGTON POST reports on efforts by various nations to evacuate noncombatants from Lebanon, including France, Italy, Britain, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States.

France hired a cruise ship, which should arrive on Monday and can carry 1,000 to 2,000 passengers, to help evacuate its citizens and other Europeans to Cyprus. It also hired another ferry with Norway which can take up to 650 people.
So far most foreigners have been forced to flee overland to take flights from Syria after Israeli forces bombed the Beirut airport and its ships began patrolling Lebanon's Mediterranean coast.

Given that the number of foreign nationals requiring evacuation will likely reach into the tens of thousands, a cooperative sealift effort involving several nations appears to be the most likely scenario.

The French ferry initiative is just the tip of the iceberg. Expect the British, Italian and American navies to provide additional sea and airlift, with possible cooperation from other Mediterranean nations.

CHESTER has further thoughts.

Time to Get Out
A retired U.S. Air Force officer and former Middle East planner for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the only sensible course in Iraq is an immediate withdrawal of most U.S. forces

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY

By Col. Mike Turner
Special to Newsweek

Updated: 5:00 p.m. ET July 17, 2006

July 17, 2006 - For those appalled by the Bush Administration's inability to formulate a coherent policy in Iraq, the events of the past few weeks have taken on an ominous significance. It was profoundly disturbing to see the president and senior administration officials so inappropriately giddy over a six-point jump in the Bush's approval rating following the death of Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi. Seasoned warfighters and diplomats understood the purely symbolic nature of that event, and the dramatic rise in sectarian violence last week, including the kidnapping last Saturday of the head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee and at least 30 others, only confirmed fears that the downward spiral into civil war continues unabated. At the same time, the increase in alleged incidents of U.S. atrocities in Iraq suggests that American forces are finding it difficult to maintain strict unit discipline in an increasingly dangerous and deteriorating security environment. And the demands of Iraq have left the White House ill-prepared to deal with the rapidly escalating Israeli-Arab violence in Gaza and Lebanon.

Given that this debate is so vital, and understanding that, while headlines may come and go, the true dangers of a prolonged war in Iraq will continue, Americans would do well to begin to separate Bush Administration spin from reality. Let's examine three administration myths about the war:

Myth #1: U.S. forces will be withdrawn when military commanders determine the Iraqis are capable of maintaining their own security. This is utter nonsense, and I would be willing to bet a substantial sum that every military planner in the Pentagon knows it. Karl Rove will determine the timing of any pullout. The Republican Party is terrified of Iraq, and Rove, as the architect of the 2008 GOP presidential campaign strategy, will time the withdrawal of U.S. forces precisely to coincide with that election. That means U.S. forces will be reduced to an "acceptable threshold" sometime during the spring or summer of 2008. The key for Rove will be to draw down U.S. troop levels to a size that's small enough to plausibly say the U.S. is getting out, while still large enough to maintain some semblance of control over Iraq. Put more succinctly, the war is now being fought to try to ensure a Republican victory in November of 2008. While this seems both obscene and outrageous, one need only watch the drawdown schedule evolve. My bet is that the critical threshold will be 20-50,000 troops in country by the summer of 2008.

Myth #2: There are now 260,000 trained Iraqi troops. In 1997, I worked for the State Department on the development of a pan-African force of five battalions trained to sustain peacekeeping operations throughout sub-Saharan Africa. In coordination with the commander of the 5th Special Forces Group, we developed a five-year initial training schedule, which we felt was sufficient to adequately train and maintain a force of about 3,000 African troops for light peacekeeping operations. That's five years to train 3,000 troops for basic duties. Compare this, then, to the Bush administration's continuing claim that we have now "trained" 260,000 Iraqi troops for what will inevitably be brutal, sustained and autonomous urban combat operations. A few weeks ago Gen. Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided the real answer. He was asked, pointedly, by a member of Congress, not how many Iraqi forces had been "trained" but how many were capable of sustained, independent operations throughout Iraq today. His answer? None. And it's been three years. Pay attention, America. If the president is serious about leaving U.S. troops in Iraq until they are capable of maintaining their own security, our grandchildren will be fighting there.

Myth #3: Our only options are "stay the course" or "cut and run." Given the remarkably inept foreign policy initiatives of the neo-conservatives during the past five years, Americans need to demand a more substantive debate surrounding a war that has now cost the lives of over 2,500 servicemen and women. We should seriously consider a rational and immediate drawdown of American troops to a level that is both sustainable and tolerable. Congressman John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who supported the war and now calls for a U.S. withdrawal, is right葉he American presence in Iraq is now doing far more harm than good. With the alleged massacre in Haditha and the alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers, we have now begun to see the first real danger signs of a military occupation force stuck in a war with no clear mission, ineffective civilian leadership, and no way out. We must begin now to dramatically reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. As that drawdown begins, we must develop a strategy to retain a minimal force in country to secure Baghdad's Green Zone and to enable U.S. Special Forces advisors to embed within Iraqi security units for training and monitoring. Finally, we must get this war out of the press and rely heavily on Special Forces counterinsurgency operations supported by external, conventional air forces to undermine the insurgents and support the new Iraqi government. This was precisely the type of operation that ultimately defeated Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, a butcher whose rise to prominence can be traced directly to the ill-conceived U.S. invasion.

There can be no doubt that a likely outcome of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be a complete collapse of that country into chaos. Yet remaining in Iraq and trusting the future conduct of the war to an administration that badly bungled this operation from the beginning and has no coherent plan for remaining is irresponsible. I believe there is a way to mount an effective war in Iraq that greatly reduces the risk to U.S. forces and U.S. national security while retaining a reasonable possibility for a measure of success. However, I do not think that the present administration is capable of either acknowledging its failures or rethinking its strategy to the extent necessary to achieve such a limited victory. For that reason, I'm left with a simple solution様et's save as many U.S. lives as possible and get out now.

Turner is a 24-year Air Force veteran and former fighter pilot and air rescue helicopter pilot. He is a military analyst and commentator who spent seven years serving in U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon as a Middle East/Africa planner.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13906475/site/newsweek/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060718_5686.html



Rumsfeld, Top Chinese Officer Discuss North Korea, Other Issues
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, July 18, 2006 – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hosted China's senior military officer here today to build on the growing U.S.-China military relationship and discuss issues of mutual interest, including North Korea.
Gen. Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission, visited the Pentagon today as part of his first visit to the United States.

Guo and Rumsfeld spent about an hour and a half talking about a wide range of issues, from North Korea's nuclear program to plans for the two countries to participate in a search-and-rescue exercise, a senior defense official told Pentagon reporters following the meeting.

That exercise is expected to take place later this year within the context of the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, the official said.

Rumsfeld and Guo also discussed U.S. interest in repatriating missing U.S. servicemembers lost over Chinese territory, the official said. Among them is a former comrade of Rumsfeld, Lt. James Deane Jr., a Navy pilot whose plane was shot down off the China coast in August 1956.

The secretary also urged Guo to participate in the sessions of the Asia Pacific Center for Strategic Studies in Hawaii as well as the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, both of which promote regional understanding and cooperation. China opts out of both sessions due to Taiwan's participation, the official said.

Today's visit reaffirmed commitments expressed by both U.S. and Chinese leaders and their mutual interest in promoting military-to-military relations, the official told reporters.

Rumsfeld and Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan agreed to that goal and committed to bringing the U.S.-China defense relationship up to par with progress in the political and economic realms during Rumsfeld's three-day trip to China in October 2005.

President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao reaffirmed this commitment in April, agreeing to step up cooperation and provide a more unified front against terrorism, North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs, and other global security threats.

Guo began his visit yesterday with a tour of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing in San Diego.

He was scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later today and to attend a dinner tonight hosted by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Guo will deliver a speech tomorrow here at the National Defense University and will visit the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., July 20, before two days of cultural activities and meetings in New York City, a defense official said.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/4716_0_2_0/



Where are the WMD?
By Cliff Kincaid | July 19, 2006
Only a tiny fragment of information on the Iraq WMD program was declassified and released.

Did Fox News go too far in promoting claims that chemical munitions found in Iraq constitute the long-sought evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program? The major liberal media highlighted the fact that the munitions were somewhat degraded and dated from before the first Gulf War. But it's also true that we still do not have all the evidence in the possession of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte about what has been discovered in Iraq. Only a tiny fragment of information on the Iraq WMD program was declassified and released.

It has not been made completely clear that what was released by Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra was a memo on chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since the 2003 invasion that is only a half-page in length. That is all that Negroponte would release.

In this context, Rep. Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is absolutely correct in saying that "there is still a lot we do not know about Iraq." What's more, Santorum learned about the memo "from an outside nongovernment source." Santorum has been seeking the release of this information since March.

The issue is not whether Fox News got it wrong in hyping this information but what other information is still out there. What has happened to the "right to know" and "freedom of information?" The media should demand the complete declassification of all of the documents on Iraq's WMD.

It has taken three years since the invasion for the U.S. Government to start posting some of the documents captured in Iraq. You can find them here.

In terms of the WMD, the big mystery is what took place during the six months between the time that President Bush went to the U.N laying out the case for war against Iraq and when the U.S. actually liberated Iraq. Bush was assured by Clinton holdover CIA Director George Tenet that finding WMD was a "slam dunk" and there are reports that trucks left Iraq with cargo of some kind.

The tragedy is that the U.S. Government may not know, compounding one failure of intelligence with another.

In a June 26 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Santorum and Hoekstra took issue with the Bush Administration's failure to release more information.

They wrote, "Information is a potent weapon in the current war. Al Qaeda uses the Internet very effectively and uses the media as a terrorist tool. If the American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield."

Does the administration want to win this war or not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/i...html?view=print

Art Levine


07.19.2006
Is Rumsfeld DOD's Michael Brown?
Rummy, you're doing a heck of a job.
First Rumsfeld let his ideological fantasy of a quick three-week invasion lead to too few forces, no planning, no security and a bungled military operation that has created the onset of civil war in Iraq. That, in turn, has strengthened the hand of Islamic extremists throughout the Mideast, leading, in part, to the conflagration between Lebanon and Israel.


Now, just like the administration's FEMA didn't care if it saved the people of New Orleans, its Defense Department is taking a somewhat similar -- but not quite as extreme -- slow-poke approach to evacuating Americans seeking to get out of Lebanon. And its privatization mantra continued even oveseas, where it planned to charge Americans for the cost of evacuation until mounting political outrage forced the government to backpedal.

To understand why this administration is so poor at carrying out the basic functions of government, you'll need to read Alan Wolfe's brilliant essay in The Washington Monthly, "Why Conservatives Can't Govern," in which he shows that the Bush crowd doesn't have any interest in governing -- just in winning power so it can turn the federal government into a money spigot dispensing contracts and tax breaks to its wealthy supporters. He points out:

The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.
Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.

But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.


Keep all that in mind as you watch the Bush administration mishandle one crisis after another, including the outbreak of a potential regional war in the Mideast.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,106042,00.html

Soldiers Retake Afghan Town From Taliban
Associated Press | July 19, 2006
KABUL, Afghanistan - Hundreds of Afghan and coalition soldiers reclaimed one southern town from the Taliban without incident Tuesday and were planning to recapture another, an Afghan official said.

The troops descended on Naway-i-Barakzayi, taking back the town after Taliban fighters fled, said