Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Just Military News and Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,113499,00.html

Truth is Again a War Casualty
Joe Galloway | September 14, 2006
It was 41 years ago in a place called South Vietnam where I first saw an American administration begin telling lies so often and so convincingly that officials began to believe their own propaganda.
Then, as now, they did so in an attempt to convince the American public and the world that things were going well in a new and different kind of war far from home.

At first the lies were small: about who we were fighting and where they went when the fights ended.

In President Lyndon B. Johnson's White House, the official position was that we were fighting the Viet Cong, the local South Vietnamese guerrillas. No one else was involved, and no wider war was intended. That was true for the first few months after the first American troops landed at Danang in March 1965.

But in the fall of that year, in November, in the remote Ia Drang Valley of the Central Highlands, the battalions of the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) clashed head-on with three regiments of the North Vietnamese Peoples Army.

In four days of brutal hand-to-hand fighting, 234 American soldiers died and the North Vietnamese had lost an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 killed. As the fighting waned, the North Vietnamese withdrew across the nearby border into the jungles of Cambodia.

As cables from both military and diplomatic channels flowed into LBJ's White House, someone carefully crossed out the words "North Vietnamese" and replaced them with "Viet Cong." Any mention of the enemy escaping into Cambodia was excised. It never happened.

When the American commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, debriefed 1st Cavalry officers at Camp Holloway near Pleiku after the battles, a battalion operations officer made the mistake of referring to radio reports that soldiers had seen the body of someone who was much larger than the North Vietnamese and wearing a different uniform. There had been speculation that this was the body of a Chinese adviser attached to the North Vietnamese. The Americans had done their best to retrieve the body, but the North Vietnamese had beaten them to it.

Westmoreland became enraged. There were NO Chinese advisers, and no one would ever mention them again. A direct order was given, and it would be obeyed.

Years later, officers who'd fought in that battle dug out the certificates that accompanied their awards of valor and found that the lie extended even to them. They'd been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross or the Silver Star or the Bronze Star with V for gallantry in combat "against the Viet Cong."

A few months later, Lt. Gen. Stanley (Swede) Larsen, who commanded the American corps in that region, was home on leave and gave a news conference at the Pentagon's request. When he was asked where the enemy had gone after the Ia Drang battles Larsen replied: Into Cambodia to rest, reinforce and refit.

Within hours, the secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara, and the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, both gave news conferences denying everything Gen. Larsen had told the press. There were no North Vietnamese troops, and wherever they'd gone, it certainly wasn't into neutral Cambodia.

There's a moral, and a lesson, in this story from a long-ago war: Don't tell lies when you need the support of the American people for something as serious as a war. Never let the truth be the first casualty of any war. Don't build your foundation on a tissue of lies.

This is written in a week when we've learned from McClatchy Newspapers reporter Mark Brunswick in Baghdad that U.S. spokesmen, military and civilian, were able to boast that American operations in Baghdad had produced a 50 percent decrease in Iraqi casualties from sectarian violence because they'd changed how they counted the dead.

The Americans stopped counting Iraqis who were slaughtered by car bombs, mortar shells or IEDs. They were counting only those who were directly executed by the gangs of militia roaming the streets -- a change they somehow had neglected to mention.

This is written in a week when the Senate Intelligence Committee made it plain, once and for all, that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no links with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations -- although some of our civilian leaders continue to suggest, insinuate and even baldly claim that he did.

This is written in a week when the White House, which had vehemently refused to comment on reports that terrorist detainees were being held in secret CIA prisons, suddenly announced that those prisoners had been moved to the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This is written in a week when it should be amply clear to anyone who can read and think that there were no -- none -- nada -- zip -- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when we invaded the country to seize them and make us all safer. A thousand American specialists wasted a year and at least a million dollars searching for even one such weapon without finding anything but a few rusted relics of Saddam's WMD programs.

Yet the administration and its agents hinted, speculated and flatly insisted that there were WMD in Iraq so often and for so long that the number of Americans who believe that lie has grown to nearly 50 percent today from 35 percent in 2005.

The results of these attempts to deceive and manipulate the public are sadly predictable. The American people are turning against the war in Iraq, though thankfully not, this time, against the troops who've been sent to fight it. The administration is so unwilling to acknowledge reality that it can't even recognize it, much less come up with plans to deal with it. And those who were our friends and allies, weary of the bogus cries of wolf about Iraq, are dismissing the cries about Iran.
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,113164,00.html

We Remember
Donald Rumsfeld | September 11, 2006
We remember where we were that day.
At 9:38 a.m., the entire Pentagon shook. I went outside and saw the horrific face of war in the 21st century. Those present could feel the heat of the flames and smell the burning jet fuel -- all that remained of American Airlines flight 77.

Destruction surrounded us: smoldering rubble, twisted steel, victims in agony.

Last week, President Bush greeted the families of September 11 victims in the East Room of the White House and told them about the efforts to bring to justice those who attacked our nation -- and those who supported them. He said, "The families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. ... They should have to wait no longer." He announced that 14 high-level terrorists, including the man referred to as the mastermind of the attacks, have been transferred to the Department of Defense and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. There they will be treated humanely -- though their victims were not -- and, if and when the necessary legislation is passed by the Congress, prosecuted for their crimes, in accordance with law.

President Bush has reminded us that this enemy is still seeking new ways to attack us. He told us about captured terrorists who provided key information about planned attacks on buildings here in the U.S., and about al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. Information the interrogators received from these terrorists has led to the capture of other terrorists, who have in turn led us to still more.

Yet, even with these victories in the war, President Bush reminded us that it is important to understand the nature of this enemy, and what it is seeking to do. The extremist movement that threatens us is not a reactionary force -- it actively looks for opportunities to acquire new and deadlier weapons, to destabilize governments, and to create discord among our allies and within our own country.

This enemy has made its immediate strategy clear in public announcements and in captured documents: to undermine the Coalition effort in Iraq, drive our forces out, and then use that nation as a base from which to destabilize the surrounding nations. They seek to extend a hoped-for victory in Iraq to a broad part of the Middle East and even parts of Europe and Asia -- to restore an ancient caliphate.

Iraq is the linchpin in their effort. Osama bin Laden calls Iraq the "epicenter" of this war, and he believes that "America is prepared to wage easy wars but not prepared to fight long and bitter wars." When Gen. Abizaid, commander of Central Command, was asked what effect pulling out of Iraq would have, he said the extremists would become "emboldened, empowered, more aggressive." They will turn whatever part of Iraq they can control into a safe haven for terrorists, just as Afghanistan was before September 11. They likely will attract still more recruits, inspired by their "victory" over the West.

To stop them in Iraq, our country has sent our finest young people -- all volunteers -- to help the Iraqis defeat the terrorists seeking to control the region. And while our military tactics, techniques and procedures have adapted as the enemy has changed its tactics, the guiding principle of the overall military strategy remains constant -- namely, to empower the Iraqi people to defend, govern and rebuild their own country. Extremists know that war and anarchy are their friends -- peace and order their enemies.

There are many challenges ahead in this young century: Among others, Iran's nuclear aspirations, North Korea and the proliferation of dangerous weapons, and the need to build on recent progress in missile defense.

All this while fighting a war in the media on a global stage. As I recently mentioned in remarks to the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, everyone is watching: the enemies, their supporters, their potential supporters, our allies and our potential allies. In this very public battle for hearts and minds, we must be as confident in the rightness of our cause as the enemy is in its evil purpose. We cannot allow the world to forget that America, though imperfect, is a force for good in the world.

(This article first appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 11, 2006.)
Snuffysmith
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/13/...le2007125.shtml

Powell Opposes Bush Interrogation Plan

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed efforts to block President Bush's plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects, even as Mr. Bush lobbied personally for it Thursday on Capitol Hill.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this plan to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.

Mr. Bush's former secretary of state, meanwhile, joined opponents to that legislation who argue it would undermine the Geneva Conventions, further hurt America's image in the world and put future American POWs at greater risk, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk," said Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Powell's letter to Sen. John McCain (.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came as Mr. Bush made a rare visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans.

Republican dissatisfaction with the administration's security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Mr. Bush said he would "continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation."

"I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland," he told reporters after the session. Mr. Bush was accompanied to the Hill by Vice President Dick Cheney and White House adviser Karl Rove.

In an effort to drum up support for its proposal, the White House released a second letter to lawmakers signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to "clarify" past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration's plan, the service lawyers wrote that they "do not object" to sections of Mr. Bush's proposal for the treatment of detainees and found the provisions "helpful."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from military lawyers supporting the president's plan for treatment of detainees (.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Mr. Bush's plan.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Not that I'm aware of."

Mr. Bush was forced to propose the measure after the Supreme Court ruled in June that his existing court system established to prosecute terrorism suspects was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions. The White House legislation would create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects, as well as redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

For Mr. Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.

"I have not really seen anybody running away from the president," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus' split. "Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea."

At nearly the same time Mr. Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

The White House on Thursday said the alternate approach was unacceptable because it would force the CIA to end a program of using forceful interrogation methods with suspected terrorists.

"The president will not accept something that shuts the program down," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have joined Warner in opposing Mr. Bush's bill.

The administration didn't allow such a direct challenge to pass without criticism. On Wednesday, the White House arranged for a conference call with reporters so National Intelligence Director John Negroponte could argue that Warner's proposal would undermine the nation's ability to interrogate prisoners.

"If this draft legislation were passed in its present form, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has told me that he did not believe that the (interrogation) program could go forward," Negroponte said.

The other bill Mr. Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid staunch opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.
Snuffysmith
What is the U.S. Military Doing in Paraguay?:

The U.S. military is conducting secretive operations in Paraguay and reportedly building a new base there. Human rights groups and military analysts in the region believe trouble is brewing. However, the U.S. embassy in Paraguay denies the base exists and describes the military activity as routine
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blo...06/09/14/p10792
Snuffysmith
Test nonlethal weapons on U.S. citizens, official says:

Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...on/4182615.html
Snuffysmith
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9701

September 15, 2006
General Puff

by William S. Lind
During World War II, one of the Fuhrer's favorite sayings was, "All generals lie." Today, Washington prefers the word "spin" to lie, although the difference is often difficult to parse. As an 18th-century man, I prefer an 18th century word: puffery. If we consider some of the statements coming from our military leaders regarding the war in Iraq, we might think they are all clones of General Puff.

In recent days, a classified report on the situation in Anbar province, written by a senior Marine intelligence official in Iraq, has been widely reported on in the press. The report, which I have not seen, apparently paints a bleak picture of the situation there. According to a story by Tom Ricks of the Washington Post, the Marine commander in Anbar, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, said, "I have seen that report and I do concur with that assessment." Score one for the Marine Corps in the honesty department.

But then, Gen. Puff seems to have stolen Gen. Zilmer's identity. According to Ricks' story, Zilmer "also insisted that 'tremendous progress' is being made in that part of the country."

"'I think we are winning this war,' he told reporters. 'We are certainly accomplishing our mission….'

"The 30,000 U.S. and allied troops are 'stifling' the enemy in the province, Zilmer told reporters. But he wouldn't say the insurgents are being defeated."

Puffery, you see, tries to avoid statements that might later be checked against facts. By puffing out nice-sounding words such as "stifling," it seeks to create an impression that is favorable but too nebulous to hold to account.

The Associated Press reported a wonderful piece of military puffery on Sept. 7. Speaking of a supposed turnover of command of the Iraqi armed forces to Iraq's government, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said,

"This is such a huge, significant event that's about to occur tomorrow. If you go back and map out significant events that have occurred in this government's formation in taking control of the country, tomorrow is gigantic."

In reality, the Iraqi government took control of just a single division; most troops in the Iraqi army take their orders from militia leaders, not the government; and the Iraqi government itself takes its orders from the United States. This "huge, significant event" changed nothing.

According to a story on Sept. 12,

"The U.S. military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets, or other mass attacks – including suicide bombings – when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of killings in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. Command said Monday. …

"That led to confusion after Iraqi Health Ministry figures showed that 1,536 people died violently in and around Baghdad in August, nearly the same number as in July.

"The figures raise serious questions about the success of the security operation launched by the U.S.-led coalition. When they released the murder rate figures, U.S. officials and their Iraqi counterparts were eager to show progress in restoring security in Baghdad."

Sufficiently eager, it seems, to puff the numbers.

We expect puffery from politicians. But when Gen. Puff represents the military to the American people, the military puts itself in a dangerous situation. The loss of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will, at some point, have domestic political repercussions, perhaps of some magnitude. The U.S. military will rightly bear some of the blame for both failures. It cannot credibly claim that it was forced to fight two Fourth Generation wars with Second Generation tactics and doctrine, when it has rebuffed every effort to move beyond the Second Generation (the Marine Corps is a partial exception).

But the American people, I think, will be more forgiving of mistakes than of puffery, which in the end is a deliberate attempt to deceive. If the public comes to think that all generals lie, the American armed services may find it difficult to reestablish their good reputations.
Snuffysmith
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/41512/

Rumsfeld's Fake News Flop in Iraq

By Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, AlterNet. Posted September 15, 2006.


The Pentagon hired some amateurs to create the fake news operation in Iraq that they've dreamed of having in the United States. Tools
The following is an excerpt from The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (Tarcher, 2006).

The Spin War at Home

The danger of negative news, according to President Bush, is that it may undermine morale and support for the war, as Americans "look at the violence they see each night on their television screens and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq." But propaganda itself is a danger to the nation, as the United States has long recognized, both in theory and in law. In 1948, Congress, concerned by what it had seen propaganda do to Hitler's Germany, passed the Smith-Mundt Act, a law that forbids domestic dissemination of U.S. government materials intended for foreign audiences.

The law is so strict that programming from Voice of America, the government's overseas news service, may not be broadcast to domestic audiences. Legislators were concerned that giving any U.S. administration access to the government's tools for influencing opinion overseas would undermine the democratic process at home. Since 1951, this concern has also been expressed in the appropriations acts passed each year by Congress, which include language that stipulates, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress."

Economic and media globalization, however, have shrunk the planet in ways that blur the distinction between foreign and domestic propaganda. This has been acknowledged in the U.S. Defense Department's Information Operations Roadmap, a 74page document approved in 2003 by Donald Rumsfeld. It noted that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP [psychological operations], increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa. PSYOP messages disseminated to any audience... will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public."

This ought to be of particular concern to Americans because the Pentagon's doctrine for psychological operations specifically contemplates "actions to convey and (or) deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning. ... In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover, and deception, and psyops."

An example of a psyops operation that used "deception" in Iraq occurred during the 2004 preparations for the U.S. military assault on Fallujah, which had become a stronghold for insurgents. On October 14, a spokesman for the marines appeared on CNN and announced that the long-awaited military campaign to retake Fallujah had begun. In fact, the announcement was a deliberate falsehood. The announcement on CNN was intended to trick the insurgents so that U.S. commanders could see how they would react to the real offensive, which would not begin until three weeks later. In giving this bit of false information to CNN, however, the marines were not merely reaching a "foreign audience" but also Americans who watch CNN.

Much of the U.S. propaganda effort, however, is aimed not at tactical deception of enemy combatants but at influencing morale and support for the war in the United States. The Office of Media Outreach, a taxpayer-funded arm of the Department of Defense, has offered government-subsidized trips to Iraq for radio talk-show hosts. "Virtually all expenses are being picked up by the U.S. government, with the exception of broadcasters providing their own means of broadcasting or delivering their content," reported Billboard magazine's Radio Monitor website.

Office of Media Outreach activities included hosting "Operation Truth," a one-week tour of Iraq by right-wing talk-show hosts, organized by Russo Marsh & Rogers, a Republican PR firm based in California that sponsors a conservative advocacy group called Move America Forward. The purpose of the "Truth Tour," they reported on the Move America Forward website, was "to report the good news on Operation Iraqi Freedom you're not hearing from the old line news media...to get the news straight from our troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the positive developments and successes they are achieving." Even before the trip began, however, the radio talkers' take on Iraq was already decided. "The war is being won, if not already won, I think," said tour participant Buzz Patterson in a predeparture interview with Fox News. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story."

In September 2004, the U.S. military circulated a request for proposals, inviting private public relations firms to apply for a contract to perform an "aggressive" PR and advertising push inside Iraq to include weekly reports on Iraqi public opinion, production of news releases, video news, the training of Iraqis to serve as spokesmen, and creation of a "rebuttal cell" that would monitor all media throughout Iraq, "immediately and effectively responding to reports that unfairly target the Coalition or Coalition interests."

According to the request for proposals, "Recent polls suggest support for the Coalition is falling and more and more Iraqis are questioning Coalition resolve, intentions, and effectiveness. It is essential to the success of the Coalition and the future of Iraq that the Coalition gain widespread Iraqi acceptance of its core themes and messages."

The contract, valued initially at $5.4 million, went to Iraqex, a newly formed company based in Washington, D.C., that was set up specifically to provide services in Iraq. Not long thereafter, Iraqex changed its name to the Lincoln Group. Its success in winning the contract "is something of a mystery," the New York Times would report a year later, since the "two men who ran the small business had no background in public relations or the media."

They were: Christian Bailey, a thirty-year-old businessman from England, and Paige Craig, a 31-year-old former marine intelligence officer. Before taking the PR job in Iraq, they had racked up a string of short-lived businesses such as Express Action, an Internet-based shipping company that raised $14 million in startup financing during the dot-com boom but disappeared within two years; or Motion Power, an attempt to invent a shoe that would generate electrical power.45 Bailey had also been active with Lead21, a fund-raising and networking operation for young Republicans.

Shortly before the commencement of war in Iraq, he set up shop in Iraq, offering "tailored intelligence services" for "government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges." In its various incarnations, Iraqex/Lincoln dabbled in real estate, published a short-lived online business publication called the Iraq Business Journal, and tried its hand at exporting scrap metal, manufacturing construction materials, and providing logistics for U.S. forces before finally striking gold with the Pentagon PR contract.

Lincoln partnered initially with the Rendon Group, a public relations firm that had already played a major role in leading the U.S. into war through its work for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. A few weeks later, Rendon dropped out of the project and left Lincoln in charge. Lincoln hired another Washington-based public relations firm as a subcontractor -- BKSH & Associates, headed by Republican political strategist Charles R. Black, Jr. BKSH is a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller, a PR firm whose previous experience in Iraq also included work for Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Other Pentagon contracts for public relations work were awarded to SYColeman Inc. of Arlington, Virginia, and Science Applications International Corporation. All totaled, the PR contracts added up to $300 million over a five-year period.

On November 30, 2005 -- the same day that Bush gave his "Plan for Victory" speech to naval cadets -- taxpayers got their first glimpse at what was being done with their money. The Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. military was "secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U.S. military 'information operations' troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers."

In an effort to mask any connection with the military, the Pentagon had employed the Lincoln Group to translate and place the stories. When delivering the stories to media outlets in Baghdad, Lincoln's staff and subcontractors had sometimes posed as freelance reporters or advertising executives. The amounts paid ranged from $50 to $2,000 per story placed.48 All told, the Lincoln Group had planted more than one thousand stories in the Iraqi and Arab press.49 The U.S. Army also went directly into the journalism business itself, launching a publication called Baghdad Now, with articles written by some of its Iraqi translators, who received training in journalism from a sergeant in the First Armored Division's Public Affairs Office. The U.S. also founded and financed the Baghdad Press Club, ostensibly a gathering place for Iraqi journalists. In December 2005, however, it was revealed that the military had also been using the press club to pay journalists for writing stories favorable to the U.S. and the occupation. For each story they wrote and placed in an Iraqi newspaper, they received $25, or $45 if the story ran with photos.

The planted stories were "basically factual," U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times, although they admitted that they presented only one side of events and omitted information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments. Actually, though, concealing the fact that the stories were written and paid for by the United States was itself a form of deception. Concealment of sponsorship, in fact, is the very standard by which the U.S. Government Accountability Office defines propaganda. In a 1988 report that has served as a standard ever since, the GAO stated, "Our decisions have defined covert propaganda as materials such as editorials or other articles prepared by an agency or its contractors at the behest of the agency and circulated as the ostensible position of parties outside the agency. ... A critical element of covert propaganda is the concealment of the agency's role in sponsoring such material."

"In the very process of preventing misinformation from another side, they are creating misinformation through a process that disguises the source for information that is going out," said John J. Schulz, the dean of Boston University's College of Communications. "You can't be creating a model for democracy while subverting one of its core principles, a free independent press." When the program was exposed, government officials responded with contradictory statements. The White House denied any knowledge of the program, and Donald Rumsfeld said at first that it was "troubling." General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was "concerned." In Iraq, however, a military spokesman said the program was "an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents." A couple of months later, Rumsfeld claimed that the pay-for-praise operation had been shut down. "When we heard about it, we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing' and told the people down there. ... They stopped doing that," Rumsfeld told interviewer Charlie Rose during an appearance on public television. However, he said, "It wasn't anything terrible that happened," and he argued that U.S. media exposure of the program was unfortunate because it would have a "chilling effect" on "anyone involved in public affairs in the military," preventing them from doing "anything that the media thinks is not exactly the way we do it in America."

The problem, in other words, was not that the United States was running a covert propaganda operation. The problem was that there were still independent journalists in the United States capable of straying from the script. Even more unfortunately for Rumsfeld, those same journalists happened to notice that he was not telling the truth when he said the program had been shut down. Four days after his interview with Charlie Rose, Rumsfeld was forced to admit that he had been "mistaken" and that the program was merely "under review." A couple of weeks later General George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the military's review had found that it was acting "within our authorities and responsibilities" in paying to place stories in the press, and that it had no plans to stop.

It is difficult to imagine that Rumsfeld and other White House officials were as naive as they pretended to be when they denied knowledge of the Lincoln Group's activities, since Lincoln's work was closely coordinated with the Pentagon's psychological operations unit, a 1,200-person organization based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, whose media center was so large that the New York Times called it "the envy of any global communications company." The Pentagon had spent $57.6 million on contracts to the Rendon Group and Lincoln Group -- an amount that "is more than the annual newsroom budget allotted to most American newsrooms to cover all the news from everywhere for an entire year," observed Paul McLeary, a politics and media reporter for the Columbia Journalism Review. Spending on that scale, he added, "sure sounds like well-financed policy to us -- and a well-coordinated one as well -- and not one hatched by low-level officials who never let their bosses at the White House in on what they were doing."

Interviews with Lincoln Group employees also undercut the claim that their work was some kind of rogue operation. "In clandestine parlance, Lincoln Group was a 'cutout' -- a third party -- that would provide the military with plausible deniability," said a former Lincoln Group employee in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. "To attribute products to [the military] would defeat the entire purpose," he said. "Hence, no product by Lincoln Group ever said 'Made in the U.S.A.'"

Another former Lincoln employee openly scoffed at the program on grounds that it was having no effect on Iraqi public opinion: "In my own estimation, this stuff has absolutely no effect, and it's a total waste of money. Every Iraqi can read right through it."

The question, then, is who was believing it? Just who was the United States really fooling? The answer is that it was mostly fooling itself.

Reprinted with the permission of Tarcher/Penguin. Copyright © 2006.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber are the authors of, most recently, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (Tarcher, 2006). Stauber is the founder and director of the Center for Media & Democracy. Rampton is the founder of the website SourceWatch.org.
Snuffysmith
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/13/...main/index.html

Annan: Mideast leaders view Iraq war as disaster
POSTED: 1:42 p.m. EDT, September 13, 2006
Adjust font size:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said leaders of Middle Eastern nations believe the Iraq war has "been a real disaster" for the region.

His comments to reporters on Wednesday came after a two-week trip through the Middle East and on a day when separate bomb attacks killed at least 22 people in Baghdad.

"Honestly, most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."

Annan went on to describe "two schools" of thought -- those who believe the United States should stay, "having created the problem, they cannot walk away," and those, "particularly in Iran," who "believe the presence of the U.S." is a problem.

Annan said it is his opinion that "the U.S. has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave."

In Wednesday's violence, a roadside bomb exploded near traffic police headquarters in central Baghdad, killing at least 14 people and wounding 67, police said.

Later, a car bomb detonated near a police patrol in the Zayouna section of eastern Baghdad, killing eight people, including three police officers, and wounding 19, Baghdad emergency police said. (Watch aftermath of deadly car bomb -- :58)

In southern Baghdad's Dora neighborhood, police found four more bodies, adding to the 60 slain bodies found dumped across the sprawling capital on Tuesday.

The bodies are believed to be victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence -- shot execution style and frequently showing signs of torture, which police say is the preferred method of sectarian slayings.

The year's second-highest monthly total of bodies arrived at Baghdad's morgue in August, Iraqi authorities said, but the figures do not include people killed by bombs or other mass attacks.

About 1,500 bodies were delivered to Baghdad's morgue last month, according to figures provided by an Iraqi Health Ministry official on condition of anonymity. The figure is second only to July's toll of 1,850 bodies.

Of the bodies taken to the morgue last month, 90 percent had been shot, the official said. The other 10 percent were killed by other means, including torture, beheading and stabbing, the official said.

The official noted that the morgue figures did not include most bombing victims, as that number was calculated separately.

On Monday, the U.S. Command acknowledged that its report of a dramatic drop in murders in Baghdad last month did not include people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks, The Associated Press reported. The count only included victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution. (Full story)

Two U.S. service members killed
Two U.S. service members were killed this week during operations around the capital, the U.S. military reported Wednesday.

Late Tuesday, a U.S. soldier was killed when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling south of Baghdad.

On Monday, a U.S. Marine died of injuries received in "enemy action" during an operation in Iraq's Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad, the military said.

The Marine was serving in a battalion under I Marine Expeditionary Force.

The deaths brought to 2,666 the number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war. Seven U.S. civilian contractors of the military also have died in the conflict.

Other developments

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran Wednesday. Khamenei praised the new Iraqi government and said Iran looks forward to the day when U.S. troops leave Iraq, according to an Iranian media report. (Full story)


The chief prosecutor in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial demanded Wednesday that the presiding judge step down, accusing him of bias toward the deposed leader and his co-defendants. (Full story)


Iran's president -- hosting a visit from Iraq's prime minister and expressing support for his country's beleaguered war-torn neighbor -- said the Islamic republic supports a united Iraq and will help the nation "establish full security," an Iranian news agency reported. (Full story)


The commander of the U.S. Marine force in Iraq denied on Tuesday that his troops had lost control of Anbar, Iraq's largest province, Reuters reported. In a statement, Maj. Gen Richard Zilmer, commander of the 2nd Marine Division, said media reports "fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity" of the situation in Anbar. (Watch Gen. Zilmer react to the dire assessment -- 1:23)

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Snuffysmith
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6081840,00.html

Iraq War's Signature Wound: Brain Injury

Friday September 15, 2006 8:01 AM


By JORDAN ROBERTSON

Associated Press Writer

PALO ALTO, Calif. (AP) - Lance Cpl. Sam Reyes bears scars from three horrific attacks in Iraq, but his most debilitating wound cannot be seen.

He recovered from the chest wound delivered by a machine gun-toting insurgent and the bullet wound to his back that came during an ambush. He survived the severe burns and broken ribs inflicted by a suicide bomber who struck a lightly armored 18-wheeler he was riding in - an explosion that killed 12 of his fellow Marines.

One injury initially went undetected. It continues to cripple him long after he arrived home with a clean bill of health.

Reyes suffered a traumatic brain injury in the truck explosion. The blast sent a powerful shock wave through his brain tissue, bursting blood vessels and smacking his brain against the inside of his skull.

``I thought I was a mess-up, just damn near dumb,'' Reyes, 22, said about the mysterious fogginess that plagued him long after his physical wounds healed. ``I thought I was just a failure at this. I was recognized before as being the best. I knew my stuff real well. It made me feel like I wasn't a Marine no more.''

Doctors say traumatic brain injuries are the signature wound of the Iraq war, a byproduct of improved armor that allows troops to survive once-deadly attacks but does not fully protect against roadside explosives and suicide bombers.

So far, about 1,000 patients have been treated for the symptoms, which include slowed thinking, severe memory loss and problems with coordination and impulse control. Some doctors fear there may be thousands more active duty and discharged troops who are suffering undiagnosed.

``People who were hit by lightning, a lot of energy goes through their systems and their brains are cooked,'' said Dr. Harriet Zeiner, a neuropsychologist at the VA hospital in Palo Alto. ``A lot of that happens in (improvised explosive device) blasts. Your brain is not meant to handle that energy blast going through it.''

The injury, a loss of brain tissue, shares some symptoms with post-traumatic stress disorder, which is triggered by extreme anxiety and permanently resets the brain's fight-or-flight mechanism.

Battlefield medics and military supervisors often fail to spot traumatic brain injuries. Many troops don't know the symptoms or won't discuss their difficulties for fear of being sent home.

``Most of us are used to the Vietnam War, where people didn't trust the government,'' Zeiner said. ``That's not going on here. A lot of these guys want to go back, they want to go help their buddies.''

The most devastating effects of traumatic brain injuries - depression, agitation and social withdrawal - are difficult to treat with medications, said Dr. Rohit Das, a Boston Medical Center neurologist who treats injured troops at the VA Boston Healthcare System.

Certain symptoms, such as seizures, can be treated, but after that ``we just draw a blank,'' Das said, adding that doctors are just beginning to cope with the mounting volume of brain injuries as the war drags on.

``We're just unlocking the secrets of the brain,'' he said. ``And when they have memory problems, leg weakness, arm weakness - there's no quick fix for that. We're probably decades away from regrowing brain tissue. Once you lose that, it's permanent.''

In Reyes' case, the Purple Heart recipient didn't recognize his father and closest friends when they picked him up at the airport. His math and reading skills had deteriorated to a child's level.

A machine gun operator in the war, he taught recruits while healing at Camp Pendleton, but was relieved of the position after he started to forget the differences among weapons.

After his injury was discovered, he was sent to the Palo Alto VA hospital, where his treatment includes exercises to improve his speed and attention and to control his angry outbursts.

But his memory may never fully recover: He'll watch half of a movie before remembering he has already seen it multiple times. He forgets basic tasks without Post-it note reminders and alerts programmed into his cell phone.

He feels ``like I'm back to a little kid,'' he said. ``I've got to go through the whole process. It's frustrating, depressing and very overwhelming.''

The spike in traumatic brain injury cases is forcing the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand its treatment. The VA operates four hospital trauma centers specializing in treating traumatic brain injuries, and is creating 21 smaller regional facilities, said Secretary of Veterans Affairs R. James Nicholson.

``This is very high priority,'' he said. ``It's a very serious injury to those young heroes that suffer it. We're pulling out all the stops.''

The patients need a combination of psychiatric, psychological and physical rehabilitation that can be difficult to coordinate in a traditional hospital, Nicholson said.

In troops with brain injuries, the loss of brain function is often compounded by other serious injuries.

Eric Cagle, a 26-year-old Army staff sergeant from Arizona, lost his right eye and was paralyzed on his left side when an IED exploded under his patrol Humvee two years ago.

A concussion he sustained in the blast left him with a brain injury that makes math difficult and triggers inappropriate outbursts. He feels its symptoms caused his divorce.

Treatment has improved his outlook, he said. He's been using a wheelchair, but took his first tentative steps last year. He wants to study forensic science and hopes to work in an FBI crime lab.

``I'm getting part of me back here,'' he said in Palo Alto. ``I'm getting my life back.''
Snuffysmith
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&...d=15&m=9&y=2006
NATO in Afghanistan: The Wrong Force in the Wrong Place
Adrian Hamilton, The Independent

For anyone who cares for multilateralism, the sight of the Europeans still refusing to offer more soldiers to the NATO force in Afghanistan is indeed excruciating. What no one dares to ask, however, is what the hell NATO is doing there in the first place.

Not in the sense of its mission, but the body itself. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was, after all, founded and developed as a defense alliance to defend Western Europe against Russia. Once the wall came down, NATO should have been downgraded to something much smaller and looser.

Instead, it did the opposite, adding new members by the handful as the former Soviets span out of Moscow’s orbit, developing a new policy of “out-of-theater” operations and extending its remit from Europe to the world. Part of this was the pure survival instincts of any large bureaucracy. If the Russian threat no longer warranted a huge defense alliance, then they had to think up new challenges to justify its existence — humanitarian intervention in the surrounding continents and peacekeeping across the globe.

At the same time, the generals also argued — with rather more conviction — that in NATO the West at least had a functioning military command structure with proven experience of multinational cooperation. The alternatives, the European force favored by the French or a standing UN army, did not exist. NATO was at least at hand, and proved its worth in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But those were European crises where the Organization had an obvious locus. The trouble with trying to extend NATO’s role into Afghanistan and beyond is that you get into precisely the difficulties it has now. There isn’t a unity of purpose, and NATO’s own role is confused.

Formally, NATO is there to provide security and keep the peace on behalf of the Kabul government. In practice, particularly in the southern Helmand province, it is there to intervene to defeat Kabul’s enemies and wipe out the opium trade — in other words to fight a war on behalf of the political center, to break the power of the warlords who seized control of areas in the aftermath of the defeat of the Taleban (a victory for which they could claim some credit) and to overturn a major part of the domestic economy.

To the locals, that is pretty near to outright occupation, and it is made all the more unacceptable by the fact that NATO is, to put it bluntly, an all-white Western grouping, led by the US, which has regional aims of its own, and largely manned in the south by a Britain that is seen as America’s sidekick.

No wonder Italy and Spain are resisting calls for troop deployment, and the Germans are resisting an extension of their role from the more peaceable north of the country to active engagement in the south. No wonder, too, that Turkey, the one Muslim member of NATO, is willing to put its troops into the UN force in Lebanon but not the NATO one in Central Asia. Turkey’s interests lie in extending its influence and position in the Middle East. They don’t lie in getting tangled up in the Muslim wars further east. NATO’s secretary-general talks bravely of his organization’s members having to stump up, as if this were a straight alliance obligation. But it isn’t. The operation is part of a Western intervention in a foreign country, pursued under an agenda quite different from NATO’s core purpose.

You can argue that the cause is a noble one: To support a democratically-elected government and to defeat, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair likes to emphasize, the returning Taleban. But you could equally argue that all that is happening is that, led by the British, European forces are getting embroiled in a factional conflict in which Mohammed Karzai’s government is far from national in its interests or approach and fighting a war which is as much tribal as it is “Taleban”.

As with Iraq, it may be that we are in so deep that we cannot get out now without bringing catastrophe down on the heads of those we are supposedly there to help. It may also be that, having been sucked in so far, we have no choice but to reinforce the troops already there, with whatever arm-twisting the organization can mange to exercise over its members at its Slovenia summit at the end of the month.

But before the accusations of pusillanimity against the Germans and others get too loud, and before the conviction takes hold that this latest debacle is proof of why multilateralism cannot work for world security, the West needs to think again about just what it is doing at the moment in its foreign ventures.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, has presented the latest call to arms as a test for NATO which, if it fails, could bring down the whole organization. But is that necessarily such a bad thing? Or at least would it be so terrible if NATO retreated from its out-of-theater role and returned to being a European defense pact covering wider Europe. There’s more than enough work for it there. It can only operate as a global player if it broadens its base of members. But then what would be the point? If the world is to develop mechanisms for world security, it should be around the UN, in its peacekeeping role, and regional associations in their role of guardians of stability. The NATO adventure in Afghanistan is not failing because of the cowardice of its partners, but is because it is the wrong organization given the wrong job. Its members are right to be shy about making any further commitment.
Snuffysmith
In a Volatile Region of Iraq, U.S. Military Takes Two Paths

By Ann Scott Tyson

AL-FURAT, Iraq -- With a biker's bandanna tied under his helmet, the Special Forces team sergeant gunned a Humvee down a desert road in Iraq's volatile Anbar province. Skirting the restive town of Hit, the team of a dozen soldiers crossed the Euphrates River into an oasis of relative calm: the rural...

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,113702,00.html

Reprimand Suggested for Chaplain
Associated Press | September 15, 2006
NORFOLK, Va. - A jury on Thursday recommended that a Navy chaplain receive a letter of reprimand for disobeying an order by appearing in uniform at a political news conference at the White House.

The jury also recommended that Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt forfeit $250 pay per month for a year but suggested that the monetary punishment be suspended.

Rear Adm. Frederic Ruehe, commander of the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Region, must decide whether to approve the recommendation.

The jury of five officers at Klingenschmitt's special court-martial determined Wednesday that he had disobeyed a superior officer's order prohibiting him from wearing his uniform during media appearances without prior permission.

The charge centered on a March 30 news conference protesting a Navy policy that requires nondenominational prayers outside of religious services.

Klingenschmitt had argued that he was allowed to wear his uniform if conducting a "bona fide worship service." He said he believes he was punished for making a political speech in uniform because he prayed in Jesus' name.

"Jesus was crucified, Peter and John were flogged and I got a minor reprimand," Klingenschmitt said in a telephone interview after court. "I have not yet become a martyr for the faith."

He said he would appeal the conviction and fight to remain a chaplain if the Navy tries to oust him. He said senior naval officials had already decided to fire him before the event.

Last December, the chaplain went on an 18-day hunger strike in front of the White House over the right to invoke Jesus' name outside such services.

Klingenschmitt had faced a maximum punishment of a reprimand and fines of $41,916, or two-thirds of his annual salary. He also could have been restricted to base for up to two months.

Military prosecutor Cmdr. Rex Guinn said the government had proved its case.

"Justice was done," Guinn told reporters.
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113242,00.html
Wounded Marine Finds Comfort in Brother's Presence
Marine Corps News | September 12, 2006
Al Asad, Iraq - While growing up, Daniel and Anthony Martinez, two brothers and U.S. Marines from Michigan's Bay City, were typical young brothers - they fought and argued. But when Daniel was injured last month when a suicide bomber attacked his unit's post in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, everything changed.

For the two Marines, who are just one year apart in age and both stationed in Iraq, communication has been sparse at best - Anthony serves at this sprawling U.S. airbase, while Daniel serves on a much smaller outpost northwest of Al Asad. Plus, the two brothers' daily duties in Iraq leave little time for emails and phone calls.

"We knew that we would be out here at the same time," said Cpl. Anthony Martinez, an organizational automotive mechanic with Marine Aircraft Group 16 (Reinforced), 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward). "We knew that we would probably have little to no contact with each other because of the situations we were in. Serving in a war doesn't leave much time for catching up."

The brothers did manage to meet and talk with each other once at an Al Asad chow hall under extremely rare circumstances before Daniel, a mortar man with 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 7, was injured.

Talking to random Marines while eating chow was Anthony's ticket to finding out his brother was actually in the same room as him without either of them knowing it, according to Anthony.

"I was talking to a Marine, and he told me he was with 3rd LAR," said Anthony. "I asked if my brother was with them, and they told me, 'yeah, he's sitting right over there.'"

After a quick greeting and a short talk, the brothers parted ways once again to do the duties entrusted to them, and it wouldn't be until after that fateful day Daniel's post was attacked that either of them would see one another again.

Daniel's unit was working with the Iraqi Army, verifying identifications while the Iraqi Army searched vehicles. According to Daniel, a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device hit his post, and he was among the injured.

He received shrapnel to the head from the explosion, and his legs were pinned under the beams of a fallen building.

Because of his injuries, he was flown to Al Asad for treatment. The encounter left him battered and shaken, but knowing his brother was stationed in Al Asad lessened the stress building up inside of him.

"I was in a lot of pain," said Daniel. "All I wanted to do was see my brother. I talked to one of the sergeants (at MAG-16) and found out my brother was on leave."

Anthony had taken 15 days of combat leave to tour Europe when his brother was injured and flown in to the air base. When Anthony returned from Europe on Aug. 3, he was given the news of his brother.

"I came back and turned in my leave papers and was told by the sergeant that my brother had been injured pretty badly," said Anthony. "My warrant officer told me where my brother was and that I needed to go see him. Since that day, I've been spending as much time with him as possible before he leaves. I hated not being here for him when he really needed me."

Although Daniel could not see his brother immediately, Anthony found him upon his return and was able to comfort his younger brother.

"Every now and then, it's good to know you have a brother that's there for you," said Daniel. "The overall picture would have been a lot harder to deal with without family here, especially when something like that happens. Nobody back home can picture what you are going through, but my brother was here."
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113152,00.html

Army Committed to Force Protection, Not False Security
American Forces Press Service | Jim Garamone | September 11, 2006
Washington D.C. - Army leaders are committed to ensuring soldiers have the best force-protection capability possible, but also want to avoid giving soldiers a false sense of security, service officials said here today.
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A, Sorenson, the Army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management, took exception to an NBC News report that said the Army is not buying an Israeli system, called Trophy, that could protect soldiers and their vehicles from rocket-propelled grenades. The report alleges the Army manipulated information in favor of a competing Raytheon system, called Quick Kill.

Both the Israeli and Raytheon systems are designed to fire missiles that intercept RPGs in flight. The Israeli system may be six months ahead of the Raytheon system, but it has limitations. The NBC report made it sound as if the Army refused to field a perfectly fine combat system that would save lives, officials said.

Sorenson said they system is not a “produceable item.” The Israelis have been working on the Trophy system for 10 or 11 years, Sorenson said. “If this thing was ready to go, my question would be, why wasn’t it on the particular tanks that went into Lebanon?” he said. No Israeli Merkava tanks carried the Trophy system, he said.

Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”

The general said there also is confusion on the contract award. “It was awarded by the lead system integrator and the government team,” Sorenson said. “It was not done by Raytheon. There was confusion in the report that the Army was cooking the books and which was absolutely false, blatantly false.”

Sorenson said the Army has standards of performance for force-protection capabilities. “These have not only been dictated by lessons learned in theater, but all the work we have done heretofore on all the systems prior to this,” he said. “We will not put anything out there that has not demonstrated that it is capable of doing what it is alleged to do.”

The bottom line is that if a system “does not have the ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ it does not go forward,” Sorenson said.

The general said that every soldier lost is a tragedy. But, of the more than 1,400 soldiers killed in Iraq, most died from improvised explosive devices. A total of 148 soldiers have been lost due to an RPG or an RPG and other weapons. Sixty-three soldiers died by RPG only, he said. Broken down further, 10 soldiers died as a result of an RPG hit to a U.S. combat system -- an Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Stryker wheeled vehicle or M-113 armored personnel carrier.

“The reason that is so low is that those combat systems already have good force-protection systems applied,” Sorenson said. There are reactive armor tiles on the Bradley. Officials added slat-armor protection to the Stryker, and all combat vehicles have protection built into them, officials said.
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,113499,00.html

Truth is Again a War Casualty
Joe Galloway | September 14, 2006
It was 41 years ago in a place called South Vietnam where I first saw an American administration begin telling lies so often and so convincingly that officials began to believe their own propaganda.
Then, as now, they did so in an attempt to convince the American public and the world that things were going well in a new and different kind of war far from home.

At first the lies were small: about who we were fighting and where they went when the fights ended.

In President Lyndon B. Johnson's White House, the official position was that we were fighting the Viet Cong, the local South Vietnamese guerrillas. No one else was involved, and no wider war was intended. That was true for the first few months after the first American troops landed at Danang in March 1965.

But in the fall of that year, in November, in the remote Ia Drang Valley of the Central Highlands, the battalions of the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) clashed head-on with three regiments of the North Vietnamese Peoples Army.

In four days of brutal hand-to-hand fighting, 234 American soldiers died and the North Vietnamese had lost an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 killed. As the fighting waned, the North Vietnamese withdrew across the nearby border into the jungles of Cambodia.

As cables from both military and diplomatic channels flowed into LBJ's White House, someone carefully crossed out the words "North Vietnamese" and replaced them with "Viet Cong." Any mention of the enemy escaping into Cambodia was excised. It never happened.

When the American commander, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, debriefed 1st Cavalry officers at Camp Holloway near Pleiku after the battles, a battalion operations officer made the mistake of referring to radio reports that soldiers had seen the body of someone who was much larger than the North Vietnamese and wearing a different uniform. There had been speculation that this was the body of a Chinese adviser attached to the North Vietnamese. The Americans had done their best to retrieve the body, but the North Vietnamese had beaten them to it.

Westmoreland became enraged. There were NO Chinese advisers, and no one would ever mention them again. A direct order was given, and it would be obeyed.

Years later, officers who'd fought in that battle dug out the certificates that accompanied their awards of valor and found that the lie extended even to them. They'd been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross or the Silver Star or the Bronze Star with V for gallantry in combat "against the Viet Cong."

A few months later, Lt. Gen. Stanley (Swede) Larsen, who commanded the American corps in that region, was home on leave and gave a news conference at the Pentagon's request. When he was asked where the enemy had gone after the Ia Drang battles Larsen replied: Into Cambodia to rest, reinforce and refit.

Within hours, the secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara, and the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, both gave news conferences denying everything Gen. Larsen had told the press. There were no North Vietnamese troops, and wherever they'd gone, it certainly wasn't into neutral Cambodia.

There's a moral, and a lesson, in this story from a long-ago war: Don't tell lies when you need the support of the American people for something as serious as a war. Never let the truth be the first casualty of any war. Don't build your foundation on a tissue of lies.

This is written in a week when we've learned from McClatchy Newspapers reporter Mark Brunswick in Baghdad that U.S. spokesmen, military and civilian, were able to boast that American operations in Baghdad had produced a 50 percent decrease in Iraqi casualties from sectarian violence because they'd changed how they counted the dead.

The Americans stopped counting Iraqis who were slaughtered by car bombs, mortar shells or IEDs. They were counting only those who were directly executed by the gangs of militia roaming the streets -- a change they somehow had neglected to mention.

This is written in a week when the Senate Intelligence Committee made it plain, once and for all, that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no links with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations -- although some of our civilian leaders continue to suggest, insinuate and even baldly claim that he did.

This is written in a week when the White House, which had vehemently refused to comment on reports that terrorist detainees were being held in secret CIA prisons, suddenly announced that those prisoners had been moved to the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This is written in a week when it should be amply clear to anyone who can read and think that there were no -- none -- nada -- zip -- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when we invaded the country to seize them and make us all safer. A thousand American specialists wasted a year and at least a million dollars searching for even one such weapon without finding anything but a few rusted relics of Saddam's WMD programs.

Yet the administration and its agents hinted, speculated and flatly insisted that there were WMD in Iraq so often and for so long that the number of Americans who believe that lie has grown to nearly 50 percent today from 35 percent in 2005.

The results of these attempts to deceive and manipulate the public are sadly predictable. The American people are turning against the war in Iraq, though thankfully not, this time, against the troops who've been sent to fight it. The administration is so unwilling to acknowledge reality that it can't even recognize it, much less come up with plans to deal with it. And those who were our friends and allies, weary of the bogus cries of wolf about Iraq, are dismissing the c
Snuffysmith
September 15, 2006, 7:07 a.m.

Troop Nonsense
Korb and Ogden are wrong.

By Rich Lowry


Lawrence Korb and Peter Ogden of the Center for American Progress had an op-ed in the Washington Post Thursday responding to the piece I wrote with Bill Kristol the other day. They argue we simply don’t have any additional troops to send to Iraq. The headline is, “Why We Can’t Send More Troops.” Note the “can’t.” Not “shouldn’t,” “can’t.” This is nonsense.

As recently as December 2005, we had 160,000 troops in Iraq. Now, we have 147,000. Are we to believe that suddenly it is impossible to have another 14,000 or so — roughly four combat brigades — in Iraq to be back at 160,000? Those troops would nearly triple the number of troops we are currently surging into Baghdad.

Let’s say we are talking about another two or three divisions, in other words 30,000-45,000 troops. That is certainly doable as well, even though it would obviously be a strain. The way critics of the war argue that it is impossible to send more troops is to assume we need 250,000 troops in Iraq to make any difference. That would indeed be impossible.

But increments short of that will make a difference in Iraq. The Marine intelligence officer whose downbeat report in Anbar recently got so much attention said another division, 15,000 troops, would make a difference there. 15,000 more troops would unquestionably make a difference in Baghdad, too. Much smaller increases in Ramadi and elsewhere would dramatically change the local equations as well. Remember: Only about 3,500 American soldiers were enough to clear Tall Afar.

Let’s roll through Korb and Ogden’s argument. “In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the active U.S. Army was classified as ‘not ready for combat.’ When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve.”

This is all true, but is not quite as meaningful as Korb and Ogden suggest. The Army is clearly strained and the fall-off in readiness is alarming. The result is that most Army brigades are not rated “ready” — a complex metric that includes troop strength, equipment levels, and so on — until right before they deploy. In particular, units that have just rotated out of Iraq this summer are inevitably rated “not ready.” But that is not to say that no brigades could be gotten ready fairly quickly to go to Iraq or elsewhere.

“The second place to seek new troops and equipment is the Army National Guard and Reserve. But the news here is, if anything, worse.”

The National Guard is indeed a mess. But you’re not going to pull National Guard brigades for sudden deployment anyway.

“Already, the stress of Iraq and Afghanistan on our soldiers has been significant: Every available active-duty combat brigade has served at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, and many have served two or three.”

This speaks to a strain, no doubt. But just because a combat brigade has served once in Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn’t mean that it can’t go back. The same is true for brigades that have been there more than once. This is a hardship, but I’m guessing if you asked most soldiers if they’d rather avoid the strain, or win in Iraq, they’d take the strain and the victory. (Which is just one of the reasons why they are so amazing.)

“Thus the simple fact is that the only way for Kristol and Lowry to put their new plan into action anytime soon without resorting to a draft … is by demanding even more from our soldiers by accelerating their training and rotation schedules.”

Yes, this is true. And it manifestly is not impossible, so why do Korb and Ogden pretend it is?

“The equipment shortage that the U.S. Army faces at the moment is making it difficult to train troops even at current levels.”

Again, this speaks to a strain, and there might not be enough equipment for another 100,000 troops in Iraq, but increases in troop levels short of that can make a difference.

“Increasing the number of deployed troops would compound this readiness problem and leave the Army with little spare capacity to respond to other conflicts around the globe that might demand immediate and urgent action.”

This is where Korb and Ogden give away the store. I thought there were no troops capable of responding at all. Now, suddenly, there are? Since they admit two-thirds of the way through their op-ed that we do have this spare capacity, the question comes down to whether the Battle for Baghdad “demand[s] immediate and urgent action”? I think it obviously does.

The basic choice is whether it is better not to strain the army at the cost of potentially losing in Iraq, or better to strain the army while doing everything plausible to win the war in Iraq. The latter is clearly preferable. If there is ever a circumstance that calls for straining the Army, this is it. And we can be sure that if we lose in Iraq, there will be many more strains on the military to come.

“While we disagree with Kristol and Lowry's contention that sending more troops to Iraq would bring peace and stability to the country…”

This is a big disagreement. If they want to argue that the war is lost and we shouldn’t send more troops there, fine, but they shouldn’t pretend we “can’t” send more troops there.

“The solution is to do two things that the Bush administration has not: permanently increase the number of troops in the active Army and fully fund its equipment needs.”

I no longer have any doubts that this is true, and I look forward to the Center for American Progress vigorously making the case for a larger military and bringing lots of liberals along with them.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.






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

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTAyN...jFlOWMyYTNlOTQ=
Snuffysmith
Inside-the-Beltway dilatants tout America’s armed forces as the best in the world; some even say in history. Some of them also argue that the Pentagon’s management is competent. Such assertions stand in stark contrast to the facts. In an article released on September 13 by Mother Jones magazine, Straus Military Reform Project Director Winslow Wheeler argues that the Pentagon is probably the worst managed agency of the federal government, but there could be relief from a place that few in Washington would expect.

This article, "The Mess in the Defense Budget: Congress Helped Make It. Will It Help Fix It?" appears below. It can also be found at the website for Mother Jones magazine at: http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_re...ons_reform.html


The Mess in the Defense Budget: Congress Helped Make It. Will It Help Fix It?

By Winslow T. Wheeler
September 13, 2006

US defense spending will exceed $513 billion next year, the highest amount at any time since World War II. It also exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending – combined. The largest adversary anyone can point to – China - spends barely more than a tenth of what we do, and North Korea and Iran each spend roughly one percent.

Yet, US military forces are smaller today than at anytime since 1945: in terms of Army divisions, naval combatants, and Air Force wings. This shrunken force is equipped with major hardware items that, on average, have been aging for two decades, and we have been sending US forces into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan incompletely trained and equipped.

America’s defense spending is out of all proportion to any conceivable threat, and yet America’s forces are in real trouble.

How did it get this way?

Simple. The Pentagon’s management is incompetent, and Congress, which is ultimately responsible, doesn’t care.

The Nature of the Problem

Every three months, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rates federal agencies on five measures of governance. The "Executive Branch Management Scorecard" for March 2006 ranks the Department of Defense (DOD) "unsatisfactory," the worst rating, in three of five categories; in the other two, the best DOD could do was "mixed results." Of the 25 agencies rated, only Veterans Affairs did worse. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more areas of managerial concern in the Pentagon than in any other cabinet-level department in its "High Risk" series of reports.

For decades, GAO and the Defense Department's Inspector General (DOD IG) have both reported that the Pentagon's financial transactions, supply system and payments to contractors are so chaotic that they cannot be audited. Note the wording: The Pentagon does not fail audits; it is un-auditable. It would literally be an improvement for it to be able to flunk an audit.

The Pentagon may be the worst managed agency in the federal government.

DOD’s procurement budget is riddled with programs that reflect this incompetence and make the problems worse. Although many describe it a wonder weapon, the F-22 is a prime example. The program was started in 1983 and quickly gained weight and cost, thus diminishing its performance as a fighter and the number we can afford. As the sticker price grew from less than $130 million to more than $360 million per aircraft, the proposed inventory shrank from 750 to 181. Nonetheless, the "modernization" plan of adding F-22s as we retire F-15s proceeded from one administration to the next. The F-15 inventory, initially more than 700 aircraft, is now aging faster than the F-22 will ever "replace" it. Moreover, a recent evaluation by one of the designers of the highly successful F-16 demonstrates with data the Air Force won’t show you that the F-22's design ignores the realities of air combat and compares unfavorably to aircraft we already have.

And, there you have it: a shrinking, aging, less capable force at increasing cost.

The above notwithstanding, the ultimate test is on the battlefield where some might think things have worked rather well. However, the lopsided victories of US armed forces against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 were against an opponent that, with only minor exceptions, behaved in combat like a tethered goat led by a military jackass. Many have come to the same conclusion, including the US Army’s War College in Carlisle, PA which studied Operation Iraqi Freedom and found the enemy’s incompetence to be the critical element in the initial American victory in 2003.

And yet, under-equipped remnants of these same incompetent armed forces together with an almost incoherent combination of insurgents from disparate religious sects, lands, and motivations have all combined – with and against each other – to confront the United States armed forces with a situation in Iraq that worsens each year.

It is so tempting to blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for it all. However, while he will go down in history as a prime architect of the unfolding disaster in Iraq, he did not cause our high cost, shrinking military forces or the Pentagon’s incompetent management. As decades of reports from GAO, CBO, and the DOD IG make abundantly clear, he inherited the problems from his predecessors, several of them Democrats.

Blaming secretaries of defense, even presidents, in our system of government is inappropriate, however. The American Constitution is not so misguided to assign the responsibility for repairing DOD’s handiwork to itself. The primary institution we should hold responsible is Congress.

Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr., observed “The Founding Fathers supposed that the Legislative branch would play its part in preserving the balance of the Constitution through its possession of three vital powers: the power to authorize war; the power of the purse; and the power of investigation.” It is that power of investigation, rather “oversight,” that is supposed to hold secretaries of defense responsible for failures and to require changes, if not in the programs, then in the people. Moreover, the Constitution charges Congress, not secretaries of defense or presidents, to “raise and support armies,” ”provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.”

For all of his foibles – which are legion – secretary Rumsfeld is not the ultimate culprit, it is Congress, which has been snoring deeply on the job.

Any inquiry into the exercise of Congress’ oversight of the defense budget inevitably leads to the issue of “pork”? the museums, athletic events, holiday celebrations, recreational parks, agricultural programs, etc. - that legislators add to the defense budget for their states. With 2,847 examples costing $9.4 billion, the pork add-ons to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 constitute the vast majority of modifications the House and Senate made to the defense budget.

The baubles are added by Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, moderates, males, females? virtually every single member of Congress. They generally perceive it as the most important thing they do when Congress considers defense legislation, and they require their staff to focus on it to the exclusion of almost all else. Literally, no time or mental energy is left for oversight to explore, let alone repair, the serious problems.

A good example occurred in February 2003. It was obvious that America was about to go to war in Iraq; Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, were testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The first question the Chairman, John Warner, R. VA, asked of Gen. Myers was whether US armed forces were ready to fight in Iraq. Myers responded, “Absolutely.”

This fifteen-second exchange was not the precursor to a lively dialogue; it was the totality of the hearing’s probe into the – literally – life and death question of military readiness during the pre-war build up. Had Warner or the horde of staffers sitting behind him in the hearing room bothered to scratch the surface, they would have found real problems. Shortly after this hearing, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, sent a letter to Congress complaining that the US Army was anything but “absolutely” ready. The Army budget was already $3.2 billion short for base operations, ammunition, and training. Since then, at soldiers’ expense we learned of other shortages: armored Humvees, body armor, shotguns and “quickie saws” for urban operations, desert boots, backpacks and “camelbacks,” sunglasses, machine gun repair parts, and lip balm are only a few of the things the troops said they needed more of, or something better.

They were all things a vigilant Armed Services Committee would have checked for. Instead, several senators at the hearing (including Hilary Clinton, D. NY, Mark Pryor, D. AR, and Warner himself) directed their comments to home state pork. As a result, American soldiers were mutilated and died.

Unraveling the Mess

Most proposals this author has seen to reorganize Congress or change a few rules amount to little more than changing the room assignments in the bordello. What is needed is to change how members of Congress behave and think.

The saying goes in Washington, “Information is power.”

Today, members of Congress do not know how to get information or even what it is. They subsist on biased, unreliable, and incomplete “factoids.” To members and their staff on Capitol Hill these days, the penultimate validation of defense data, of understanding a weapon system, or probing the true state of affairs, for example, in Iraq is to find out what DOD says about it. Some who think they are getting the real skinny, ask military officers and DOD officials privately – some of them even critics of the official position on the matter at hand.

Knowing the officially approved spin or the spin of the critics does provide data points on any given issue, but not an accurate picture. Two opposing sides of biased information make for two flavors of baloney, not balanced and reliable information. Sorting out which side is right, if either, and getting to the bottom of the issues is not just a mystery to Congress, it is to be avoided: it can lead to places they do not want to go.

The first step to reform will require wholesale change in the primary mechanism members use to learn about defense issues: their staff.

Getting a Competent Staff: There is no such thing as Republican F-16 or a Democratic aircraft carrier. Then, why do the Armed Services Committees and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittees hire separate Democratic and Republican staffs. It is to interject partisanship into national security issues, especially at the base information level. National security information should not come in Democratic or Republican slants to members.

The handiwork of this system is currently available in the form of committee reports on legislation. As analysis of the issues, these are pitiful documents. A truly professional staff would feel itself insulted by such a public work product.

A competent professional staff for national security – or other - issues would have the following characteristics.

The individuals would have demonstrated competence not just in the subject area assigned to them, but also formal training or experience in evaluative techniques, such as auditing, program evaluation, or investigation. Today, members of Congress frequently hire ex-service pilots as aviation “experts,” but while such individuals may have the considerable brains and skill to fly modern aircraft, they have no knowledge or experience in how to buy or evaluate them.

The professional staff should work for members on both sides of the aisle. They should be hired and fired only by a joint decision of both the senior Democrat and Republican on a committee. They should also be afforded aggressive “whistleblower” protection (which they are now specifically denied.)

The staff’s memoranda on all issues, especially all oversight issues, should be public documents, when they are not by necessity classified, and in all cases, their memoranda should be distributed to all members - not just on the committee where they work but to all members of the House and Senate. More members would be better informed, but much more important, it can be just amazing how exposure to those on more than one side of an issue and to the public can make a staffer think longer, harder, and better before he or she communicates with a member of Congress.

All national security staffers on Capitol Hill should be prohibited to accept any job with any defense manufacturer and especially DOD for at least five years after they leave Capitol Hill. Period. No exceptions. The biggest revolving door problem on Capitol Hill is not the members; it is the staff. Human nature is too frail to permit Boeing, Lockheed, or any defense manufacturer to dangle the prospect of future employment before, during, or after a staffer provides his analysis of candidates for a multibillion dollar defense contract. The prospect of employment with DOD is just as problematic. Presidents and their Pentagons are every bit as anxious as the commercial manufacturers to influence data and advice in Congress.

The whole point is to put before members of Congress accurate, objective information whether they want it or not, and to do so publicly, or – in the case of classified analysis - with the concurrent knowledge of many others. The members would still be free to follow their perceived political or local contractor-induced self-interest, but they will be doing so in the face of objective information, their own consciences, and easy public scrutiny. My experience of more than 30 years in Congress as a staffer tells me that such will not lead to perfection in congressional decision-making, but it will significantly improve things.

Oversight: Just Do It: With a competent professional staff, oversight should be a simple, but not necessarily easy, matter. One real problem is to convince members to conduct inquiries that explore an issue rather than lead to a pre-determined result. Another problem is to hold more than one hearing on major subjects, such as the solitary hearing the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee holds each year to “consider” the entire budget for the Navy and Marine Corps. Finally, something is needed to interest members in questions on subjects other than pork for their states.

With professionally written staff memoranda distributed to all members and the press (when the information is unclassified), chairmen would be under some pressure to probe the issues more thoroughly than today. More importantly, with a competent staff and public distribution of their memoranda, there will be less of a requirement to conduct oversight only via committee hearings. The memoranda will comprise a form of oversight in themselves.

One area that needs specific attention – and that could be a model for other areas – is how to perform oversight of “pork.” If Congress were to be truly interested in separating foolish ideas for spending in their states from the meritorious, the “pork” oversight process would routinely include the following:

An independent estimate of the cost of the proposal from the Congressional Budget Office for as many as five years.

An evaluation by GAO, or another reputable evaluation entity with no contract relationship with the Pentagon or the defense program in question, on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the proposed spending.

A requirement that any pork earmark that makes it through the above should only be awarded to a contractor after a nation-wide contract competition.

In short, rudimentary diligence should be applied to the spending members propose for their states. Perhaps, once Congress uses an appropriate process for pork, it might consider applying the same procedures to major weapons programs, a process now observed all but universally in the breach.

Accountability: A recent study of DOD’s decades long failure to be able to track its own money, supplies, and people – that is, to be financially accountable – concluded that the current state of affairs is simply “not acceptable.” The report states further –

If, indeed, the [Defense] Department’s senior managers are working toward achieving a favorable audit opinion by FY2007, Congress should hold them accountable. Specifically, Congress should call the comptroller to testify under oath on this promise. Congress should grant any additional authorities that the comptroller deems necessary to accomplish this goal, including the need to hire and fire those managers overseeing the programs. Given these responsibilities and authorities, the comptroller should be held accountable for producing financial statements that would conform to generally accepted accounting principles. If the result is to the contrary, then the comptroller/CFO should be treated as if he or she is running a private corporation, and it will be time for the President to find a replacement.

A Congress that observes basic diligence in oversight is also likely to impose similar standards on DOD. What better place to start than how the Pentagon handles the taxpayer dollars Congress appropriates to it and to insist that DOD know, record, and report what it did with the money. If Congress is not willing to insist on this basic competence, there is – quite literally – no hope.

Help the Press Do Its Job: None of this will work if the press does not do its job. Members of Congress live and die based what the press reveals to the public. Some of the steps listed above should make it easy to report who is doing aggressive, competent oversight (such as Senator McCain’s work on the Boeing tanker scandal) and who is not (currently a target rich environment). That will provide compelling motivation for members of Congress to get themselves on the side of the angels.

Conclusion

Of course, the chances that Congress will adopt the reforms recommended here are slim. However, they do provide a reference point for distinguishing real reformers from phonies.

The American political scene currently lacks a true reformer. Many believe I am wrong, and Senator John McCain, who may be the next Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the real thing. I seriously doubt it. It is true, as indicated above, that he and his staff did an excellent job of oversight on the Boeing tanker scandal. They obviously know how to do it. But that is literally the grand total of their real oversight work. They claim to have done more of the same on the Air Force’s C-130J and the Army’s Future Combat System (both pigs for money but not effectiveness). However, in truth, all McCain and his staff did for those systems was to alter how the money flows to the contractor. They did not alter the content of the program, or even the amount of money paid; they only changed the plumbing for the money flow.

I hope I am wrong; that McCain will open the door even wider to his presidential ambitions by bringing real oversight to the committee he might chair next year. Indeed, what better evidence is there that a politician can be an effective Chief Executive than by showing he, or she, knows how to get beyond the baloney constantly being served up by the minions of bloat and ineffectiveness in Washington and that he, or she, is willing to act on valid and reliable information, regardless of whose rice bowl gets jiggled.

Or, perhaps some new dark horse will emerge to lead Congress out of its current morass. It will be interesting to see what happens.


# # #





Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
202 797-5271 in DC
301 840-8992 in MD
winslowwheeler@comcast.net
Snuffysmith
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/...html&frame=true

United States Army Military Readiness
September 2006
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI16Aa03.html
FIGHTING FORCES
Coaxing the unwilling
By Nick Turse

US military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, propaganda releases by the Pentagon, and a spate of recent press reports touting the way the military has made its wo/manpower goals.

But the US armed forces have only met with success through a fundamental "transformation", and not the transformation of the military - that "co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology" - Rumsfeld is always talking about, either.

While the secretary of defense's long-standing goal of transforming the planet's most powerful military into its highest-tech, most agile, most futuristic fighting force has, in the words of the Washington Post's David Von Drehle, "melted away", the very makeup of the armed forces has been mutating before our collective eyes under the pressure of the war in Iraq. This actual transformation has been reported, but only in scattered articles on the new recruitment landscape in the United States.

Last year, despite NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing), professional bull-riding and Arena Football sponsorships; popular video games that doubled as recruiting tools; television commercials dripping with seductive scenes of military glory; a "joint marketing communications and market research and studies" program actively engaged in measures to target for military service Hispanics, dropouts and those with criminal records; and at least US$16,000 in promotional costs for each soldier it managed to sign up, the US military failed to meet its recruiting goals.

This year, those methods have been pumped up and taken over the top in 12 critical areas of recruitment that make the old army ad-line "Be all that you can be" into material for late-night TV punch lines of the future.

1. Hard sell
When not trolling for potential soldiers via video games, websites or, most recently, the social-networking site MySpace.com and text messaging, the armed forces employ recruiters who use old-fashioned hard-sell tactics to cajole impressionable teens into enlisting.

Recently, one New Jersey mother told her local newspaper about the army's persistence in targeting her 17-year-old daughter. When the mother finally asked the army to stop calling her child, the recruiter argued vigorously against it. The mother, who otherwise praised the military, was nonetheless aghast at the recruiter's tactics. "That's what frightened and enraged me - this military person telling me that I have no rights over my child," she said.

Teens are also subject to military advertising and high-pressure tactics at school. The Boston Globe recently wrote that recruiters were now setting up booths in "cafeterias in high schools across the nation", while the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois, reported that local recruiters were "visiting each school about every three to four weeks". At one school, administrators were forced to "clamp down on aggressive recruiters" and bar at least one from ever returning to campus.

2. Green to gray
The US military has always filled its rolls primarily by targeting the young, but these days the "old" are in its sights, too. In 2005, the Army Reserves increased their maximum enlistment age from 35 to 40; then, later that year, to 42. This year, regular-army green went grayer as well with a similar two-step increase that boosted active-duty enlistment eligibility to 42 years.

3. Back-door draft
Another group of old-timers has recently been targeted by the military: the Marine Corps Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) - troops who have left active-duty status and transitioned back into civilian life.

In August, the marines announced that they would begin making up for a shortage of volunteers by "dipping into [this] rarely used pool of troops to fill growing personnel gaps in units scheduled to deploy in coming months". As the Boston Globe noted, it was "the first time since the invasion of Iraq three years ago that marine commanders have taken the extraordinary step of drafting back into uniform those who have left the ranks".

For its part, the army, according to the Washington Post, "has used its IRR several times since the September 11, 2001, attacks. It has mobilized about 5,000 soldiers from that pool over the past five years, most of them since the middle of 2004." CBS News reports that, from the Army Reserve, "approximately 14,000 soldiers on IRR status have been called to active duty since March 2003 and about 7,300 have been deployed to Iraq".

4. Rubber-stamp promotions
This year the US Army admitted that to maintain desperately needed numbers, it was forgoing almost any measure of quality when it came to its officer corps.

According to 2005 Pentagon figures, 97% of all eligible captains were promoted to major - a significant jump from the already historically high average of 70-80%.

"The problem here is that you're not knocking off the bottom 20%," one high-ranking army officer at the Pentagon told the Los Angeles Times. "Basically, if you haven't been court-martialed, you're going to be promoted to major."

Despite near-guaranteed promotions, the San Antonio Express-News reported that the "army expects to be short 2,500 captains and majors this year, with the number rising to 3,300 in 2007".

5. Foreign legion
In July, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David S C Chu listed a series of inducements currently offered to get foreigners to risk life and limb for Uncle Sam. These included "President [George W] Bush's executive order allowing non-citizens to apply for citizenship after only one day of active-duty military service", a streamlined application process for service members, and the elimination of "all application fees for non-citizens in the military".

While noting that about 40,000 non-citizens were already serving in the US armed forces, Chu offered his own solution to the immigration crisis. With the services denied the possibility of a draft, he made a pitch for creating a true foreign legion from a group "potentially interested in military service", the "estimated 50,000-65,000 undocumented alien young adults who entered the US at an early age". Chu then talked up such legislation as the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act - which would give illegal aliens the opportunity, among other options, to join the military as a vehicle to conditional permanent-resident status.

In addition to proposing a possible source of undocumented cannon fodder that might prove less disturbing to Americans than their own sons and daughters, Chu noted that the "military also has initiated several new programs, including opportunities for those with language skills, which may hold particular appeal for non-citizens".

Just in case non-citizens aren't thrilled to the depths by the chance to serve with the occupation forces in Iraq, the army promises expedited citizenship, quick advancement and a host of other perks - including a boatload of cash. In addition to "foreign-language-proficiency pay while on active duty", those willing to sell their "Middle Eastern-language skills and join the US Army as a translator aide ... in Iraq and Afghanistan" will receive an enlistment bonus of $10,000 - a sizable sum given yearly per capita incomes in those countries that hover in the $800-$2,000 range.

6. Mercenary military
To solve its wo/manpower woes, the US military has also enhanced its lure at home, in the form of "more recruiters and more financial incentives". In some cases, this can mean enlistment bonuses as high as $40,000 for those documented but poor Americans looking to put themselves directly in harm's way for three years as an army infantryman or explosive-ordnance disposal specialist - markedly more than 2005 per capita yearly income for black Americans ($16,874), Hispanics ($14,483) and even non-Hispanic whites ($28,946).

According to a recent Associated Press report, the army is doling out yet more fistfuls of taxpayer dollars to entice troops to reenlist - "an average bonus of $14,000, to eligible soldiers, for a total of $610 million in extra payments".

Marine re-enlistees seem to rake in the biggest bucks of all. This July, Major Jerry Morgan, who runs the Selective Re-enlistment Bonus Program, told Stars and Stripes that "the maximum bonus has been raised ... to $60,000 for marines" serving in five critical military occupational specialties.

Add to these sums promised benefits of up to $71,424 and $23,292, for active duty and reserve personnel respectively, to "help pay for college" and you've got a potentially life-changing bribe, provided you still have a life when that college acceptance finally comes through.

7. Abuse of power
More recruiters waving more money has its pitfalls. Last year, amid a swirl of complaints as recruiters struggled to meet monthly goals (including tips to potential enlistees on how to pass drug tests), the US Army suspended all recruiting activities for a one-day nationwide "stand down" to re-examine its methods and retrain its men.

Just last month, however, the Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that "between fiscal years 2004 and 2005, allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing increased, collectively, from 4,400 cases to 6,500 cases; substantiated cases increased from just over 400 to almost 630 cases; and criminal violations more than doubled from just over 30 to almost 70 cases".

What also came to light last month, courtesy of the Associated Press, was this revelation: "More than 100 young women who expressed an interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters." According to one of the victim's lawyers, a recruiter "said to her, outright, if you want to join the marines, you have to have sex with me. She was a virgin. She was 17 years old." Another teenage victim spelled out the situation quite clearly: "The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He had my future. I trusted him."

8. Civilian headhunters
Not surprisingly, given tough times and an administration that never saw anything it couldn't imagine privatizing, the private headhunter has landed on the military recruitment landscape. According to Renae Merle of the Washington Post, as part of a pilot program that began in 2002, two Virginia-based companies, Serco and MPRI Inc, "have more than 400 recruiters assigned across the country, and have signed up more than 15,000 soldiers. They are paid about $5,700 per recruit."

While these companies rake in the recruitment money, the mercenary recruiters themselves reap cash bonuses, free gasoline cards and suede jackets. They can augment their base salary by about $30,000 a year by successfully shuttling large numbers of aimless kids and others into the armed forces.

As has been true with the military's use of private contractors in all sorts of roles in recent years, this step has drawn ire. Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky said, "The use of contractors for this sensitive purpose, dealing with the lives of young people, is troublesome." She was particularly worried by the lack of oversight.

Quality control has been another issue. While an army report recommended continuing the $170 million program, it also noted that the civilian headhunters "enlisted a lower quality of recruit".

Yet the army's less-than-complimentary assessment of the private sector's performance didn't sway its officials from announcing last month that they had awarded MPRI "a firm-fixed price requirements-type contract for $11,196,996 as the base-period portion of an estimated $34,272,571 contract (if all options are exercised) for recruiting services to ... be performed at any of the army's 1,700 recruiting stations nationwide".

9. How low can you go?
Lowered standards have hardly remained the property of privateers these days. Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor noted, "The army has had to recruit more soldiers from the 'lowest acceptable' category based on test scores, education levels, personal background and other indicators of ability."

Even Chu admitted in July that almost 40% of all military recruits scored in the bottom half of the armed forces' own aptitude test.

Other how-low-can-you-go indicators of the US military's desperation are now regularly surfacing in news reports. Here are two examples:

Last year, the New York Times reported that two Ohio recruiters were quick to sign up a recruit "fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward ... even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder - a diagnosis that would disqualify him". After senior officers found out, the mentally ill man's enlistment was canceled, but in "interviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states", the Times heard others talk of "concealing mental-health histories and police records", among other illicit practices.

This May, The Oregonian reported that army recruiters, using hard-sell tactics and offering thousands of dollars in enlistment bonus money, signed up an autistic teenager "for the army's most dangerous job: cavalry scout". The boy, who had been enrolled in "special-education classes since preschool" and through "a special program for disabled workers ... had a part-time job scrubbing toilets and dumping trash", didn't even know the US was at war in Iraq until his parents explained it to him after he was first approached by a recruiter. Only after a flurry of negative publicity did the army announce that it would release the autistic teen from his enlistment obligation.

10. Armed and considered dangerous
In 2004, the Pentagon instituted a "Moral Waiver Study" whose seemingly benign goal was "to better define relationships between pre-service behaviors and subsequent service success". That turned out to mean opening the recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was "a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the army terms 'serious criminal misconduct' in their background" - a category that included "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats". From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits had spiked by more than 54%, while alcohol and illegal-drug waivers, reversing a four-year downward trend, increased by more than 13%.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that under pressure to fill the ranks, the US Army had been allowing in increasing numbers of "recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records". In fact, as the military's own data indicated, "The percentage of recruits entering the army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001."

One beneficiary of the army's new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven D Green, who served in the army's 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been "a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an 'antisocial personality disorder'".

Recently, Eli Flyer, a former Pentagon senior military analyst and specialist on "the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct", told Harper's magazine that Green had actually "enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, though this offense may not have been known to the army when he enlisted."

With Green in jail awaiting trial, the Houston Chronicle reported last month that army recruiters were trolling around the outskirts of a Dallas-area job fair for ex-convicts. "We're looking for high-school graduates with no more than one felony on their record," one recruiter said.

The army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits - in one reported case, a "youth prison" in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated and was "barely 17 when he enlisted last January", his divorced parents say "recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him". While confusion exists about whether the boy's mother actually signed a parental consent form allowing her son to enlist, his "father apparently wasn't even at the signing, but his name is on the form too".

11. Gang warfare
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, law-enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up". They also note that "gang activity may be rising among soldiers". The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities".

Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond - and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment".

While this particular recruit was eventually booted from the corps, a Milwaukee police detective and army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons".

It was reported this year that an expected transfer of 10,000-20,000 troops to Fort Bliss, Texas, caused the Federal Bureau of Instigation and local law enforcement to fear "a turf war" between "members of the Folk Nation gang ... and a criminal group that is already well established in the area, Barrio Azteca". The New York Sun wrote that according to one FBI agent, "Folk Nation, which was founded in Chicago and includes several branches using the name Gangster Disciples, has gained a foothold in the army."

12. Trading desert camo for white sheets
Another type of "gang" member has also begun to proliferate within the military, evidently thanks to lowered recruitment standards and an increasing urge by recruiters to look the other way.

In July, a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, found that - because of pressing manpower concerns - "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" are now serving the US military.

"Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report.

The New York Times noted that the neo-Nazi magazine Resistance is actually recruiting for the US military "urging skinheads to join the army and insist on being assigned to light-infantry units". The magazine explained, "The coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war ... It will be house-to-house ... until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed'."

Apparently, the recruiting push has worked. Barfield reported that he and other investigators had identified a network of neo-Nazi active-duty army and marine personnel spread across five military installations in five states. "They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military." Little wonder that "Aryan Nations graffiti" is now apparently competing for space among US inner-city gang graffiti in Iraq.

Force transformation
When the US war in Vietnam finally ground to a halt, the US military was in a state of disarray, if not near-disintegration. Uniformed leaders vowed never again to allow the military to be degraded to such a point.

A generation later, as the ever less appetizing-looking wars in Iraq and Afghanistan spiral on without end, an overstretched US Army and Marine Corps have clearly become desperate. At a remarkable cost in dollars, effort and lowered standards, recruiting and retention numbers are being maintained for now.

The result: US ground forces are increasingly made up of a motley mix of under-age teens, old-timers, foreign fighters, gang-bangers, neo-Nazis, ex-cons, inferior officers and a host of near-mercenary troops, lured in or kept in uniform through big payouts and promises.

In the latter half of the Vietnam War, as the brea