U.S. Military Reform Unlikely, Eland Argues

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the armed services to devote more resources to training for counterinsurgency and guerilla warfare and fewer resources to preparing for conventional warfare against traditional nation-states. Will the military—and Congress, which controls the purse strings—take his heed? Probably not.

According to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace and Liberty, even if Gates were not a lame-duck secretary, his proposal would still face very powerful obstacles—namely, the Pentagon’s infamous inertia and Congress’s strong incentives to favor big-ticket arms and equipment manufactured in favored congressional districts, such as the F-22 fighter and expensive naval vessels.

“Thus, Gates and his successors as Secretary of Defense can chatter, cajole, exhort, prod, and even threaten the services, but they’ll probably have little luck in changing the incentive structure of the military-industrial-congressional complex,” Eland writes. “In short, when U.S. policy makers stumble into the next counterinsurgency quagmire, the U.S. military will probably have to reinvent the wheel yet again.”

“Bob Gates’s Hope to Reform the Pentagon Is Barking at the Moon,” by Ivan Eland (5/19/08)

40,000 Told to Prepare for Action - Sara Carter, Washington Times
Defense Directives Have Wide Scope - Walter Pincus, Washington Post
Pentagon Scales Back Elite Forces’ Authority - Thom Shanker, New York Times
USA Corps of Engineers Mission Shift - Patrik Jonsson, Christian Science Monitor
Reports Criticize Pentagon's Recruiting Methods - Betsy Pisik, Washington Times
Why Harvard Harasses the Military - William McGurn, Wall Street Journal opinion

US Special Forces to Stay in Iraq, Afghanistan - Julian Barnes, Los Angeles Times
Fear of Exodus Fuels Debate on G.I. Bill - Steven Lee Meyers, New York Times
US: Cluster Bomb Ban Could Jeopardize Peacekeeping - Reuters
Americans Under Fire - Mackubin Thomas Owens, Weekly Standard books review
We Still Have Grants and Shermans? - Victor Davis Hanson, National Review opinion
Air Force Wants New Killer Drone - Sharon Weinberger, Danger Room
More Spy Drones, Less Information? - Noah Shachtman, Danger Room

New Choice for US Commander in Pakistan - New York Times
'Reset' Aims to Standardize Redeployment Services - AFPS
Inside the Ring - Bill Gertz, Washington Times
We Still Need a Larger Army - Donnelly and Kagan, Wall Street Journal opinion
Americans Under Fire - Mackubin Thomas Owens, Weekly Standard books review
We Still Have Grants and Shermans? - Victor Davis Hanson, National Review opinion
The Best Tanker Won - Ronald Sugar, Los Angeles Times opinon
Military Culture, Causation... - Michael Innes, Complex Terrain Laboratory
The Ray and Dave Show - Phillip Carter, Intel Dump

2 Inquiries Set on Pentagon Publicity Effort - David Barstow, New York Times
China, Russia Condemn US Missile Defense Plans - Associated Press
Any More Grants and Shermans? - Victor Davis Hanson, Washington Times opinion
New MilBlogs... - Greyhawk, Mudville Gazette

Rewarding Patriotism - Washington Post editorial
The Proud, The Few - Donnelly and Kagan, New York Post opinion
Military Mettle - Oliver North, Washington Times opinion
New MilBlogs... - Greyhawk, Mudville Gazette

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics - Thom Shanker, New York Times
The Proud, The Few - Donnelly and Kagan, New York Post opinion
A Test for Army Recruiting - Kip, Abu Muqawama
Mr. Bush and the GI Bill - New York Times editorial

Frida Berrigan: Entrenched, Embedded, and Here to Stay: The Pentagon's Expansion Will Be Bush's Lasting Legacy , Part I Here are words to pin to the Bush years like a wilting corsage: We don't know what we paid for...the Pentagon cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort."

More Post-Traumatic Stress Diagnosed - Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post
Embracing Opportunity With Soft Power - Galrahn, Information Dissemination
The Tactical Node and the Strategic Network - Galrahn, Information Dissemination
Watchdogs Swamped by Military Spending - Noah Shachtman, Danger Room
Fleet Constitution Evolution For 2009 QDR - Galrahn, Information Dissemination
Tom's Ideas in Naval Strategy Circles - Sean Meade, Thomas PM Barnett
Clueless as a Hog Looking at a Wristwatch - Uncle Jimbo, Blackfive

Secretary Gates Visits Guam Military Base - Eric Schmitt, New York Times
Ultimate Fighting Recruits Military to Its Ranks - Michael Brick, New York Times
Sticker Shock and Awe at the Pentagon - New York Times editorial
Who Trains US Military Advisors - Kip, Abu Muqawama
Combat-Ready - Max Boot, Contentions
Documenting Our Kills - Tom Barnett, Thomas PM Barnett
Observing Possible Evolution With Sea Basing - Galrahn, Information Dissemination

The Washington Times recently published two pieces that presented two very different pictures of how well the U.S. Army is dealing with the turmoil and stress of America's overcommitment of soldiers to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon asserts that things are going "reasonably well." CDI's Lawrence Korb strongly dissents. You decide.

These pieces, "Military Check-Up Time" by Michael O'Hanlon and "Reagan and the Draft" by Lawrence Korb, appeared in the May 4 and 16 issues of the Washington Times. Both pieces appear below; they can also be found at the Washington Times website.

The Korb piece can be accessed by clicking here, and here for the O'Hanlon piece.



Reagan and the Draft

May 16, 2008

By Lawrence Korb - As the person charged with saving the all-volunteer force (AVF) under President Reagan, I find Michael O'Hanlon's May 4 Commentary comparing the quality of today's ground forces with that of the quality of the force of the 1970s, the early Reagan years, or even 1985, to be misleading.

In 1981, Mr. Reagan inherited what the Army chief of staff called a "hollow Army" and a military force in disarray. With Mr. Reagan's rhetorical skills (he did a recruiting commercial) and the leadership efforts of Defense Secretaries Caspar Weinberger and Frank Carlucci, we began to turn things around. But it took a decade to do that and it was only by the end of the Reagan administration in fiscal 1989 that we had the Army back to where it should be. Even Mr. O'Hanlon admits that today's Army does not meet those standards.

Mr. O'Hanlon also distorts the picture by lumping the GED with a high school diploma. The military wants to recruit people who remain in high school until graduation because they are more likely to complete their enlistments and adapt to the military culture. Someone getting a general education diploma is a high school dropout.

Mr. O'Hanlon's data about West Point's graduates is also misleading. By January 2008, 54 percent of the class of 2000 had left the service and 46 percent of the class of 2001 had left. It is true that as of June 2007, only 32 percent of the class of 2002 had left.

But many could not leave because of the Army's stop-loss policy, which prevents soldiers from leaving until three months after their unit returns from Iraq or Afghanistan. And others re-enlisted because they knew if they got out after five years, they most probably would have been called back over the next three years from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, the former commandant of the Army War College, has pointed out that for West Point graduates, eight has become the new five-year obligation. Let's see how many of the class of 2002 are in by 2010.

Mr. O'Hanlon's data on the quality of recruits is also misleading. He says that the aggregate total of 860 waivers for convicted felons is minor. Really. How many convicted felons were drafted by the NFL? Moreover, he ignores the fact that 13 percent of the Army's new recruits (or more than 10,000) received so-called "moral waivers" in 2008.

What is more troubling about the article is the way Mr. O'Hanlon glosses over the problems of those deploying to Iraq. He says that 15,000 have faced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a third or fourth tour. But the total number of troops with PTSD, according to the RAND Corp., is about 230,000.

He says we must do everything to help those individuals. What, exactly? Do we keep sending them back to Iraq and Afghanistan without sufficient time at home?

Moreover, in looking at problems faced by soldiers, he compares suicides and divorces first to the general population and only then to levels in the ground forces before we invaded Iraq. But in saying our soldiers' serious problems are no more than the rest of the population, he ignores the fact that the military has higher standards. Moreover, even he admits that the number of suicides in the Army has doubled since 2001.

These problems would never have occurred in a Reagan administration. The 40th president accepted the social compact with the troops that said for every day in a combat zone, the military person would spend at least two days at home. Moreover, because he recognized that the all-volunteer force was not meant to fight a long war, he kept draft registration.

Those who support this mindless, needless and senseless war in Iraq should have the courage of their convictions and bring back the draft. Only then will we give real relief to the troops who have sacrificed so much for us. If we do not, the quality of the ground troops will continue to deteriorate and "soldiers' problems" will continue to mount.

By now, Mr. Reagan would most likely have redeployed our forces from Iraq as he did from Lebanon. But if he stayed, he would have implemented a draft.

Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, is senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information.


Military check-up time

May 4, 2008

By Michael O'Hanlon - How well are our armed forces, and particularly our ground forces, holding up under the remarkable strain of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

As a nation, never have we asked so much of so few for so long. As such, the strain on soldiers and Marines must be constantly tracked as we reach decisions about how long to sustain 15 brigades in Iraq (once we draw down to that number this summer), how much to increase our forces in Afghanistan (now that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has promised U.S. allies that the next American administration will do so), and how much faster we should increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps (if that is even possible).

In fact, to date, our military is holding up reasonably well under the immense strain. By most measures of quality, it still looks roughly comparable to say the early years of the Reagan buildup — if not necessarily as strong as its typical state of the late Reagan years or the 1990s.

Of course, there have been huge individual sacrifices, and for many soldiers and Marines and their families, things are not good at all. We owe these people more than we can every say, more than we can ever repay. But at a strategic level, the state of the force is not so bad as to necessitate an immediate change in our approaches to fighting wars.

The most important area of strain on the military is on its personnel. While there are equipment shortages and maintenance depot queues of equipment due to the ongoing wars, Congress has been generous enough with supplemental appropriations that these situations are not dire. And while normal training patterns for soldiers and Marines have been badly disrupted by Iraq and Afghanistan, there can be little doubt that the overall battle toughness of these forces is robust.

But how well are people holding up? Key measures of personnel readiness include the experience and aptitude of typical troops, the availability of individuals with critical specialized skills, and the ability of the military to recruit new members and retain those already in.

One recent worry relates to a lowering of personnel standards. For example, the military has accepted more recruits with general equivalency degrees rather than high-school diplomas; it has enlisted a higher percentage of applicants scoring very low on its aptitude tests; and it has also taken on more individuals over 40 years old as first-time military personnel.

For the most part, however, these are not huge problems at present. The G.E.D. is considered academically equivalent to a high-school diploma, and certainly the military can ensure that anyone with such qualifications is up to par by testing them in other ways too. As of 2005, moreover, 90 percent of recruits continued to have high-school diplomas, comparable to the 1985 figure at the height of the Reagan buildup. And the typical recruit scored better on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) in 2005 than in 1985.

That said, while figures for the other services have remained good, the Army has had some worsening problems of late, with the high-school graduation figure for 2007 declining to just over 70 percent of new recruits — comparable to the norm of the 1970s. That suggests a trendline that needs to be arrested and reversed, even if overall statistics on the quality of new recruits are reasonably solid.

Moral waivers for new recruits for their criminal histories have increased substantially in recent years. A total of 860 soldiers and Marines required waivers from convictions for felony crimes in 2007, up by 400 from 2006.

While most of the convictions were for juvenile theft, and the aggregate total is modest compared with the size of the force, only by arresting such trends will the quality of the force be ensured. Again, the current situation is not that dire, but the trendlines are worrisome and must be watched.

So much for finding new soldiers and Marines; what about holding on to those we already have? There has been a recent rumor that West Point graduates have been leaving the service at drastically increased rates as soon as their minimal obligations are satisfied.

In fact, this appears not to be true. The last year for which data are available as of this writing (the class of 2002, which was eligible to leave the service as of 2007), showed a 68 percent re-enlistment rate, only 4 percentage points below the 1990s average.

More generally, company grade officers (first and second lieutenants as well as captains, and West Point grads and others all combined) have not been leaving the force at a greater than normal rate.

The average attrition rate during the Iraq war has been less than the average rate of the late 1990s, for example. A similar conclusion is true of majors.

Nonetheless, there is a problem: The Army is now short several thousand officers in aggregate. The reason is not what one might think. As noted, officers are not quitting in droves. Rather, the Army is trying to increase the number of its officers as it enlarges the number of brigades in its active-duty force by at least 25 percent.

In addition, the Army did not enlist enough young officers in the early 1990s, meaning the current pool of officers from which to recruit for mid-level positions is too small.

How about the general morale of the force? One way to assess this is to look at those having serious problems in their lives. Soldiers and Marines' divorce rates have leveled off somewhat at about 3.5 percent, after reaching 3.9 percent in 2004, and are not worse than in the general population — but still above the 2.9 percent of 2003.

Suicide rates reached 17.3 per 100,000 soldiers in the U.S. Army in 2006, not far off from the age-adjusted and gender-adjusted average for the U.S. population on the whole (for males, for example, the rate is 17.6 per 100,000), but still much higher than the rate of 9.1 per 100,000 soldiers in 2001.

Most of all, many soldiers and Marines face huge personal challenges and often tragedy, in part due to the strain of the wars. These trends area serious reason for worry. But as noted, they are not totally out of the norm of historical experience either.

For one group of soldiers surveyed in 2008, among those who had been to Iraq on three or four separate tours, the fraction displaying signs of post-traumatic stress disorders was 27 percent (in contrast to 12 percent after one tour and 18.5 percent after two).

As of early 2008, among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq, more than 197,000 had served more than once, and more than 53,000 had deployed three or more times. That means almost 15,000 people have faced PTSD after a third or fourth tour. We must of course do everything possible to help these individuals.

As we near Memorial Day, the above statistics should not only cause us considerable concern at a policy level, they should of course further reinforce our desire and commitment to honor those who serve our nation in uniform, now and in the past.

Thankfully, however, they do not add up to a broken force or a military on the verge of collapse. We should not continue to deploy them lightly at the pace of the recent past.

But the picture that emerges from the above information is that our soldiers and Marines are continuing to find it within themselves to do the near-impossible to protect the country.

Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Pentagon Overseer Calls for Larger Staff - Walter Pincus, Washington Post
US Africa Command Trims Its Aspirations - Karen DeYoung, Washington Post
The Hidden Casualties - Baltimore Sun editorial
Indefensible Spending - Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times opinion
Pentagon's Internet 'Civil War' - David Axe, Danger Room

Pentagon Overseer Calls for Larger Staff - Walter Pincus, Washington Post
US Africa Command Trims Its Aspirations - Karen DeYoung, Washington Post
Combat Robots and Perception Management - Matt Armstrong, SERVIAM
Should Marines Have Special Ops Forces? - Herschel Smith, The Captain's Journal

Navy: UAV Future is Spying Not Fighting - Sebastion Abbot, Associated Press

The Navy lags well behind the Air Force in the development of armed drones - the unmanned aircraft now used increasingly in Iraq and Afghanistan - insisting that its "Top Gun" fighter pilots are still smarter, better and more flexible in combat. But the contrasting visions for the next generation of America's air arsenal point to wider debates within the military about the pace of incorporating remote-control technology into future battle strategies.

Gates Mulling 3-year Postings - Lolita Baldor, Associated Press

Extending the tours of U.S. troops serving in South Korea to three years and allowing them to bring their families is overdue, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday as he arrived in Seoul. The change in deployments is caught up in the ongoing transfer of military bases to South Korean control, but Mr. Gates said it's time to stop the one-year, unaccompanied tours that forces currently serve here because it is considered a war zone.

Uncle Sam Wants You - William Wallace, Miami Herald opinion

The US Army today faces an imminent and menacing threat to our national security. We are engaged in a struggle that will determine our future. Failure to resolve this problem could leave us vulnerable and our enemies victorious. The threat? The lack of fully qualified young people to serve in the military. Many young Americans are willing to serve but too little is made of the declining number of young people who are qualified to serve. This is the real story, and it's a shocking one. Only 28 percent of the 17- to 24-year-old population qualifies to wear a military uniform. The other 72 percent fail to meet minimum standards on education, character and health. The problem gets worse. Of those eligible to serve, a significant part chooses not to for a variety of reasons.

RIP William Odom - Max Boot, Contentions

I was saddened to read of the death of William E. Odom, one of America’s leading soldier-scholars. In recent years he has become known as an outspoken critic of Bush foreign policy and advocate of withdrawal from Iraq. I disagreed with him, and we even debated at least once on the radio. But I never lost my respect or affection for him, formulated initially when, as a graduate student at Yale in 1991-92, I took a class with him on the Russian military. He was a refreshing outpost of pro-military, anti-communist thinking on a campus where neither viewpoint was much encouraged.

Thought you might be interested in this new military toy that works well, wish it was ready for use in Iraq...[/color]<h1 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 24pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The Airborne Laser Cannon</h1>Boeing's new laser cannon can melt a hole in a tank from five miles away and 10,000 feet up—and it's ready to fly this year
Inside the Advanced Tactical Laser Creating a laser that can melt a soda can in a lab is a finicky enough task. Later this year, scientists will put a 40,000-pound chemical laser in the belly of a gunship flying at 300 mph and take aim at targets as far away as five miles. And we're not talking aluminum cans. Boeing's new Advanced Tactical Laser will cook trucks, tanks, radio stations—the kinds of things hit with missiles and rockets today. Whereas conventional projectiles can lose sight of their target and be shot down or deflected, the ATL moves at the speed of light and can strike several targets in rapid succession.

Last December, Boeing, under contract from the Department of Defense, installed a $200-million prototype of the laser into a C-130 at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico in preparation for test flights this year. From there it will go to the Air Force for more testing, and it could be in battle within five years.

Precise control over the beam's aim allows it to hit a moving target a few inches wide and confine the damage to that space. The Pentagon hopes such precision will translate into less collateral damage than even today's most accurate missiles. Future versions using different types of lasers could be mounted on smaller vehicles, such as fighter jets, helicopters and trucks.<h3 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 13.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">How to Melt a Tank in Three Seconds Or Less</h3>1. Find Your TargetWhen the C-130 flies within targeting range (up to five miles away), the gunner aims using a rotating video camera mounted beneath the fuselage. The computer locks onto the object to continually track it. A second crew member precisely adjusts the laser beam's strength—higher power to disable vehicles, lower power to knock out, say, a small power generator. The gunner hits 'fire,' and the computer takes over from there.

2. Heat Up the LaserIn a fraction of a second, chlorine gas mixes with hydrogen peroxide. The resulting chemical reaction creates highly energetic oxygen molecules. Pressurized nitrogen pushes the oxygen through a fine mist of iodine, transferring the oxygen's energy to iodine molecules, which shed it in the form of intense light.

3. Amplify the BeamThe optical resonator bounces this light between mirrors, forcing more iodine molecules to cough up their photons, further increasing the laser beam's intensity. From there, the light travels through a sealed pipe above the weapon's crew station and into a chamber called the optical bench. There, sensors determine the beam's quality, while mechanically controlled mirrors compensate for movement of the airplane, vibration and atmospheric conditions. Precise airflow regulates the chamber's temperature and humidity, which helps keep the beam strong.

4. Stand ClearA kind of reverse telescope called the beam expander inside a retractable, swiveling pod called the turret widens the beam to 20 inches and aims it. The laser's computer determines the distance to the target and adjusts the beam so it condenses into a focused point at just the right spot. Tracking computers help make microscopic adjustments to compensate for both the airplane's and the target's movement. A burst of a few seconds' duration will burn a several-inch-wide hole in whatever it hits.<h3 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 13.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">FAQ</h3>· How hot is the beam? The laser itself isn't hot, but it can heat its target to thousands of degrees. · Does the laser sear everything in its path? Yes. If a bird flew into the firing laser's line of sight—well, no more bird. Fortunately, the weapon will fire for only a few seconds at a time, minimizing the risk. · Does it melt its target or just set it aflame? That depends on what it hits. It will melt metal, but if the target is combustible, it will burn. Source: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-sp...?page=#comments[color="black"]

An Odd Prescription - Seth Cropsey, Armed Forces Journal

The House Armed Services Committee, chaired by the venerable and serious Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., established a panel in 2007 to look at the military’s roles and missions. The panel reported its findings early this year and sought responses from AFJ readers [“Request for proposals,” US Rep. Jim Cooper, March.] Observing that “every twenty or thirty years, we seem to realize that our national security institutions are driven not by our country’s strategic needs, but by petty organizational interests, political expediency, or plain inertia,” the roles and missions panel concluded that the time for additional military reform - a “Goldwater-Nichols II” is mentioned specifically - has arrived. This may be true. However, the report looks firmly to the past not only to measure whatever ails the military today, but also as the fundamental answer to today’s - and tomorrow’s - problems. Rivalry between the military services, the report says, was, and remains, the obstacle to effectiveness. The 1940s Revolt of the Admirals poisoned the atmosphere needed for reform for decades. Passage of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation was a miracle. US combatant commanders need more bureaucratic/budgetary heft. Creating a new staff position as advocate for future joint warfare might solve the problem.

Why Presidents No Longer Fire Generals - Robert Bateman, Armed Forces Journal

The financial cost of this conflict, by even conservative measures, is approaching that of our largest war. The human cost, although lower as an absolute than many other wars imposed, also has taken a heavy toll on our all-volunteer professional military. In many ways one could consider this conflict, even at this point, one of the largest endeavors the nation ever attempted. In one area, however, the current conflict is anomalous. We have retained nearly all our generals (and admirals) throughout the fight. Only a single brigadier general has been relieved for the performance of duty in a combat zone. Historically speaking, that is a curious fact.

Gates Backs Changes for Korea Troops - Eric Schmitt, New York Times

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tuesday that he supported extending the tours of thousands of troops stationed here to three years and allowing their spouses and children to live with them during their assignments. Mr. Gates’s endorsement adds new momentum to a policy shift favored by commanders to improve the quality of life for most of the 28,500 troops assigned here on unaccompanied 12-month tours because South Korea is considered a combat zone.

Lies, Damned Lies and COIN - Robert Chamberlain, Armed Forces Journal

It has become a matter of conventional wisdom that insurgencies last an average of 10 years and that the insurgents win about 40 percent of the time. These statistics have appeared in USA Today, PBS, Pentagon media briefings and on National Public Radio. The insight these numbers are meant to convey is that counterinsurgencies are inherently long and difficult struggles against wily and resilient foes, so it is unrealistic to expect rapid, quantifiable progress in the near term. Fortunately, these statistics are misleading and the associated analysis is wrong. The source of this mistaken conventional wisdom is the prestigious Dupuy Institute, which has been providing rigorous quantitative analysis to the military for more than 40 years. In May 2007, Dupuy researchers published the preliminary results of a study in which they examined 63 modern insurgencies for a variety of factors, including the longevity and the success rate of the conflicts. Given their analytical talent and track record of precision, their statistical computations are undoubtedly accurate. The problem, however, isn’t with their math; it’s with the initial selection of cases.

COIN Behind Bars - Dr. iRack, Abu Muqawama

Over the past year, the US military has attempted to apply COIN principles inside detention facilities in Iraq. These steps were initiated by MajGen Doug Stone, the Marine in charge of MNF-I's detention ops. The idea was to not just prevent Abu Ghraib-style abuses, but also stop detention centers from becoming "jihad U," producing more insurgents than they took off the streets. The controversial system Stone put in place sought to expedite review of cases, physically separate extremists from reconcilables behind bars, mentally separate them by providing anti-extremist Islamic literacy classes, and reduce recidivism by providing education and vocational training to ease reintegration

North Korea is "serious adversary": U.S.'s Gates

Moseley and Wynne Forced Out - Air Force Times

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Secretary Michael W. Wynne were forced to resign Thursday during hastily arranged meetings with their Pentagon bosses. Moseley was summoned to an early morning meeting with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss a report on the Air Force’s problems handling nuclear weapons. The report, by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, convinced Defense Secretary Robert Gates that senior officials should be held accountable. Moseley resigned in response. Later in the morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was dispatched to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to ask for Wynne’s resignation, sources said. Wynne resigned during the meeting.

Top Two Air Force Officials Ousted - Tyson and White, Washington Post

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ousted the Air Force's civilian and military chiefs yesterday, an unprecedented move that came after a classified Pentagon investigation found "a chain of failures" in the Air Force's safeguarding of the US nuclear arsenal. Gates decided to remove Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and the chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, because "the focus of the Air Force leadership has drifted with respect to perhaps its most sensitive mission," he said yesterday, adding that he would recommend replacements for both positions to President Bush shortly.

2 Top Leaders of Air Force Pushed Out - Thom Shanker, New York Times

The Air Force’s senior civilian official and its highest-ranking general were ousted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday following an official inquiry into the mishandling of nuclear weapons and components, an episode that Mr. Gates called an indication of systemic problems in the Air Force. The Air Force secretary, Michael W. Wynne, and the service’s chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, were forced to resign after the inquiry found that the latest incident reflected “a pattern of poor performance” in securing sensitive military components, Mr. Gates said at a Pentagon briefing. So deep and serious are the problems, Mr. Gates said, that he has asked a former defense secretary, James R. Schlesinger, to head “a senior-level task force” to recommend improvements in the safekeeping of weapons, delivery vehicles and other sensitive items.

Air Force Leadership in Shake-up - Robert Burns, Associated Press

The military and civilian chiefs of the Air Force are resigning, U.S. officials said Thursday. Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down. Wynne is the second civilian chief of a military service to be forced out by Gates. In March 2007 the defense secretary pushed out Francis Harvey, the Army secretary, because Gates was dissatisfied with Harvey's handling of revelations of inadequate housing conditions and bureaucratic delays for troops recovering from war wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. The pilot and crew were unaware they had nuclear arms aboard.

Air Force Firings - Max Boot, Contentions

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talked a lot about the need for good management in this sprawling government bureaucracy. His successor, Bob Gates, seems to be practicing it. First he forced out the Army secretary, Francis Harvey, in March 2007, because of the scandal at Walter Read Army Medical Center over the handling of disabled veterans. Then this March he got rid of Admiral Fox Fallon, the head of Central Command, who had made his position untenable through what were perceived as public disagreements with administration foreign policy. Now he has canned Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. Gates had developed a long line of grievances against them.

Finding Context For Ousted Air Force Leaders - Galrahn, Information Dissemination

You have to look back a fairly long distance to find generals and admirals being relieved of combat commands, either in combat or just prior to deployment. Only eight American generals or admirals have been publicly relieved of command from a combatant unit, or in a combat zone, since 1945. As noted, significantly, only one of them was relieved for failure. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was yanked from command by President Truman during the Korean War not because he had failed, but for outright insubordination. He disagreed with the president, was privately informed to toe the line and, instead, continued his de facto attempts to create his own foreign policy. (This included the threat to bring Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese into the conflict in Korea, as well as his better-known comments on the use of nuclear weapons.) More recently, Adm. William Fallon “voluntarily stepped down” after a media story appeared that highlighted his heretofore apparent private disagreements with members of the executive office of the vice president and the president. In both cases, the salient feature was not a failure to win at the operational or strategic level - the echelon occupied by both Fallon and MacArthur - but one of subordination of the military to the duly constituted civilian authority.

Gates Shoots Down Air Force Brass - Westhawk, Westhawk

In his statement to the Pentagon press corps, Secretary Gates stated that the reason for the firings of Secretary Wynne and General Moseley was their inattention to the Air Force's nuclear mission. Mr. Gates pointed to the mis-shipment of ICBM missile components to Taiwan, last year's 5th Bomb Wing Bent Spear incident, and, most fatally, the Air Force's nonchalant follow-up to these grievous custody errors. What most annoyed Mr. Gates, as he made clear in his speech, was that he had to personally inquire about what remedial actions the Air Force was taking to address these command failures. Evidently, Secretary Gates was neither happy that he had to do so, nor was he pleased by the responses he received.

Inside the Ring - Bill Gertz, Washington Times

Beginning today, Inside the Ring moves from Friday to Thursday and will appear each week in the National Security section of Plugged In.

Youngest Marine to get Medal of Honor Dies - Washington Times

Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into military service during World War II and became the youngest Marine to receive the Medal of Honor, died Thursday in a Hattiesburg, Miss., hospital. He was 80. Jacklyln "Jack" Lucas was just six days past his 17th birthday in February 1945 when his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the nation's highest military honor. He used his body to shield three fellow squad members from two grenades, and was nearly killed when one exploded.

Shakeup May Lead to Overhaul - Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor

The US Air Force must undertake a wholesale assessment of itself in the wake of the extraordinary firings last week of its top two officials, say analysts. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the forced resignations of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley was only the result of a loss of confidence in the service's ability to handle nuclear weapons after two embarrassing incidents in the past year. But those events capped a period of turbulence between the service and the Pentagon and Congress over broader issues such as acquisition, contracting, and strategy, analysts say.

Proving Missile Defense - John Carey, Washington Times opinion

On Thursday June 5, 2008, USS Lake Erie, a US Navy guided missile cruiser, did something many critics say was and still is impossible. That ship and her crew destroyed a ballistic missile target just before that ballistic missile would have obliterated its target. This was the first ballistic missile defense test of the sea-based system since a Navy cruiser surprised the world when it shot down an errant satellite earlier this year. USS Lake Erie fired two interceptor missiles that shot down the target in its final seconds of flight about 12 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The target was destroyed about 100 miles northwest of the Hawaiian Island of Kauai about 5 minutes after it was launched.

Mocking the Troops at The Onion - Herschel Smith, The Captain's Journal

The sentiment where one opposes the war but supports the troops has evolved into mocking the troops regardless of any war. The Onion (famous for satirical or fake news) released a report entitled Love Letters from US Troops Increasingly Gruesome. The Captain’s Journal hates to bring any more attention to this sophomoric tripe (it really is very poorly done and inept), but its real value might very well be the instruction it gives us about the author in contrast with its subject.

2 Picked For Top Spots in Air Force - Josh White, Washington Post

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday recommended two nominees to the White House to take the top leadership positions in the Air Force, just days after he ousted the service's secretary and chief of staff amid concerns about the security of the nation's nuclear arsenal and other recent shortfalls. Gates recommended that President Bush nominate Michael B. Donley to take over as secretary of the Air Force and that Gen. Norton A. Schwartz become the top Air Force military officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both moves would put proven managers into critical positions that have recently lost credibility within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

Non-fighter Pilot to Head the Air Force - Barnes and Spiegel, Los Angeles Times

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took action Monday to dramatically reorient the leadership of the Air Force, calling for the nomination of the first non-fighter or bomber pilot to lead the service since its inception after World War II. His recommendation that Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, who began his military career as a cargo pilot, be nominated by President Bush as Air Force chief of staff marks a significant shift in Air Force leadership. Over time, the move could lead the service to give more emphasis to missions that support ground wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as cargo flights and in-air refueling, over more traditional roles like air dogfights.

Gates Earns His Wings - Boston Globe editorial

The US military can ill afford leadership failures in its top positions, as it fights two wars and continues to oversee the nuclear weapons left over from the Cold War. So it is reassuring that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is willing to sack civilian and uniformed officials who fail to measure up. Last week, Gates took the unprecedented step of firing both top Air Force leaders - the service's secretary, Michael Wynne, and its chief of staff, General Michael Moseley. Gates made the moves after an inquiry showed systemic failures by the Air Force to manage properly the nuclear weapons under its control. Gates had called for the investigation after the Air Force mistakenly shipped high-tech electrical nose cone fuses for missiles to Taiwan. In a previous incident in 2007, a B-52 flew cross-country without anyone aware that it was carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen speaking to the graduating class at the US Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA, 7 June 2008.

Four-Star Heresy - Phillip Carter, Intel Dump

On Friday, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave the commencement address to the colonels and senior lieutenant colonels graduating from the Army War College in Carlisle, Penn. These 339 graduates represent the cream of the Army's crop - the officers destined for brigade-level command, and possibly generals' stars someday. But instead of telling them how smart they are, Mullen admonished them to be professionally curious and intellectually humble - and to listen carefully to the wisdom of their subordinates, who have spent years learning hard lessons about warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Elusive Starting Point - Scott Shane, New York Times

In a flurry of oversight that some critics say comes years too late, Congress is pressing Bush administration officials on a still-unanswered question: How did the United States come to embrace harsh interrogation methods it had always shunned? The interrogation techniques themselves have been repeatedly discussed, and administration officials have been forced to explain why waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique of torturers dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was not torture when used by the CIA.

Dying in Detention - New York Times editorial

The government has a duty to provide decent, effective, timely medical care to people in its custody. That should be beyond debate, but not when the government in question is the Bush administration and the people in custody are illegal immigrants. Recent news reports from The Times, The Washington Post and CBS News have shone a harsh light on the immigration detention system, finding alarming evidence of shoddy care, inadequate staffing, lax standards, secrecy and chronic ineptitude.

Harboring al Qaeda - Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard opinion

The Senate Intelligence Committee has once again released a report claiming that the Bush administration hyped prewar intelligence. The so-called Phase Two report is supposed to investigate the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence. In reality, the report is little more than yet another attempt by partisan Democrats to make political hay out of flawed prewar intelligence. (The only Republicans to endorse the report were two of the Senate's most liberal GOP members.) The committee focused exclusively on prewar statements by Bush administration officials, ignoring similar statements by leading Democrats. Therefore, the report is intended to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light. But even with this bias, the committee came to a noteworthy conclusion: The Bush administration was right to claim that Saddam's regime was harboring al Qaeda members.

The End of Intervention - Madeleine Albright, New York Times opinion

The Burmese government’s criminally neglectful response to last month’s cyclone, and the world’s response to that response, illustrate three grim realities today: totalitarian governments are alive and well; their neighbors are reluctant to pressure them to change; and the notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground, helped in no small part by the disastrous results of the American invasion of Iraq. Indeed, many of the world’s necessary interventions in the decade before the invasion - in places like Haiti and the Balkans - would seem impossible in today’s climate. The first and most obvious reality is the survival of totalitarian government in an age of global communications and democratic progress. Myanmar’s military junta employs the same set of tools used by the likes of Stalin to crush dissent and monitor the lives of citizens. The needs of the victims of Cyclone Nargis mean nothing to a regime focused solely on preserving its own authority.

US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

American Civil-Military Relations - US Army, CSPAN

CSPAN Video: A panel discussion was held on civilian-military relations from U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Panelists were Dale Herspring, author of Rumsfeld's Wars; Marybeth Ulrich, author of Democratizing Communist Militaries; Col. Matthew Moten, author of The Delafield Commission and the American Military Profession; and Peter Feaver, author of Armed Servants. Don Snider, co-author of The Future of the Army Profession moderated.

Gates on Support for Air Force - Thom Shanker, New York Times

A senior sergeant complained that the attention to the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had left the Air Force short of personnel. Veteran pilots pressed for answers about the future of the advanced F-22 fighter, which the Air Force regards as crucial to control of the skies. The questions were asked of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by Air Force personnel who were clearly uneasy about the status of their service after the ouster last week of the two top Air Force officials following an inquiry into the mishandling of nuclear weapons or components.

The Boys in Blue - Phillip Carter, Intel Dump

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the Air Force's top leadership. Although he cited breakdowns in nuclear weapons security as the main cause, I've heard a lot of chatter since then about how Gates intended it to serve as a broader message to the Air Force about the need to play team ball. Yesterday, Gates announced his picks to head the embattled air service. He tapped Michael Donley, currently director of the Pentagon's administration and management office, to be Secretary of the Air Force. And he picked General Norton Schwartz, commander of the Air Force's Transportation Command, to be the Air Force's top uniformed officer. What do the choices signify?

Gates Freezes Out Air Force’s ‘Fighter Mafia’ - Westhawk, Westhawk

After firing the US Air Force’s top leadership last week, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has chosen his replacements. With his choices, Mr. Gates delivered the Air Force’s fighter community a scathing rebuke. Officers with careers in transport aircraft, logistics, special operations, bombers, and reconnaissance will now lead the Air Force. Out as Air Force Chief of Staff is General Michael Moseley, who obsession with buying more and more and more short-endurance fighter aircraft was a reflection of his background as an F-15 pilot. The fact that General Moseley lobbied Congress for additional fighter purchases in defiance of decisions already taken by his civilian masters will be something surviving Air Force generals will have to ponder. Replacing General Moseley will be General Norton Schwartz, a C-130 pilot with a career in special operations and, currently, logistics management as Commander, Transportation Command. The new vice chief of staff will be Lieutenant General William Fraser, a bomber pilot with experience in nuclear staff planning and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations.

The Psychological Fog of War - Boston Globe editorial

The harsh emotional and mental costs of sending troops to frequent and long deployments in wars without clear battle lines became apparent last month, when the Pentagon released data on suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2007, there were 115 suicides among active duty service members, an increase over a total of 102 in 2006 and the highest figure since the Pentagon began keeping data on suicides in 1980. Last year, the services also registered their highest number of post-traumatic stress disorder cases - 14,000, an increase of 46 percent over 2006. As one step to reduce the pressure on its ranks, the Department of Defense has already announced it would end the 15-month deployments in Iraq required by the surge of 2007. For the longer term, a drawdown in US forces in Iraq would reduce the need for the frequent deployments that are so harmful to service members' family relationships.

Cocky Ignorance - Thomas Sowell, Washington Times opinion

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians. No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics commit suicide at an even higher rate at home. Moreover, this is not the first time military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

Will Gates’s Axe Strike Navy Next? - Westhawk, Westhawk

Robert Gates has been Secretary of Defense for about 18 months. During that time he has fired the Secretary of the Army, declined to reappoint the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fired the Commander of Centcom, and fired the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff. There are likely a few other notable executive service-level civilians and flag officers I have neglected to mention who have met Mr. Gates’s axe. Might Mr. Gates’s next blows land on the Navy? Those who follow defense issues know about the deep problems the Navy has with its acquisition programs, particularly for surface combatants. The Navy is trying to plan for the replacement of its frigate, destroyer, and cruiser fleets. Unfortunately, the programs designed to accomplish these recapitalizations have all gone badly awry.

What Rumsfeld Got Right - Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic

Rumsfeld, one former Pentagon official told me, saw Iraq’s degraded military as an easy target for our own; its destruction would provide a quick demonstration of American power, as well as get rid of the regional threat that the Iraqi regime constituted. No firm believer in democratic transformation, he probably assumed, as did many other people at the time, that any new regime in Baghdad, even a military one, would be a dramatic improvement, in strategic terms for the US and in human-rights terms for the Iraqis. Rather than a fear of chaos, what is more apparent at this stage is a certain complacency on Rumsfeld’s part. For example, he evidently did not challenge the personnel system’s choice of ground commander in post-invasion Iraq. The Army’s 5th Corps was slated to rotate out of Germany and into Iraq. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the 5th Corps commander, and his staff, despite their service in Bosnia, had done little thinking about counterinsurgency. From that set of circumstances, a long trail of well-documented mistakes followed. In this and other cases, Rumsfeld, who is often accused of micromanaging, did not micromanage enough.

Air Force Firings Followed Budget Battle - Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' decapitation of the Air Force leadership came months after a heated debate pitting Mr. Gates and his staff against Air Force generals over spending priorities, knowledgeable sources have revealed. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, whom Mr. Gates fired June 5 over lax nuclear weapons controls, vehemently argued in private for producing more F-22 Raptors, an advanced stealth fighter that represents air power's future. Gen. Moseley, a fighter pilot with extensive combat experience, argued that Mr. Gates and his budget shop were so focused on providing money for the current wars of counterinsurgency, it shortchanged the Air Force's future, according to a source close to the Air Force leadership.

Firing Up the Air Force - Austin Bay, Washington Times opinion

The classic World War II-era poster reminded talkative dock workers that "loose lips sink ships." Well, loose nukes present an even more imposing problem, one with continent-cracking possibilities. Last week, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested and received the resignations of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, Mr. Gates' office cited as a reason a Pentagon investigation of lax standards in Air Force oversight of nuclear weapons. One incident involved a USAF bomber with cruise missiles overflying a wide swath of the United States - and the crew didn't know the weapons had real nuclear warheads. That sounds bad, and bad it is. Resignation at Mr. Wynne's and Gen. Moseley's level of national service, especially under these conditions, is a euphemism for "fired."

Tom Ricks's Inbox - Thomas Ricks, Washington Post

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently fired the two top officials in the Air Force over the service's sloppy handling of nuclear weapons. Last week, he visited the Air Force Combat Command to explain his actions. His remarks struck me as a model of the way a civilian chief should speak to service members: respectfully and precisely, but leaving no doubt about who is in charge.

Kaplan on Rumsfeld - Max Boot, Contentions

Robert D. Kaplan, one of our most thoughtful and enterprising foreign correspondents, has an intriguing article in the Atlantic headlined, “What Rumsfeld Got Right.” He admits that the Rumsfeld legacy is not a good one, as seen in the worsening situation in Iraq and Afghanistan on his watch. But he tries to argue that Rumsfeld wasn’t wrong about everything. “Even before 9/11,” he writes, “Rumsfeld saw a new strategic landscape of manifest uncertainty, of fundamental and catastrophic surprise.” In responding to that changed environment, Rumsfeld moved tens of thousands of troops out of established bases in Europe and Asia

Reforming Strategic Defense Planning - Robert Jordan Prescott, House of Marathon

With a pivotal presidential election on the horizon, contesting visions for the future will proliferate. Presidential contenders will outline their agenda for America over the next four years and esteemed observers will elaborate on global trends. Perusing the bookshelves, one can find new titles declaring the “return of history”, a “post-American world,” or journal articles describing an “age of non-polarity,” globalization, violent insurgencies, and the challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran, India, Brazil, and Japan. Similarly, the departing administration will undertake a last round of assessments and identify key trends and challenges in its compendium of strategic plans. Previously, American strategic planning was facilitated by the singularity of the enemy and the indisputable likelihood of its endurance. One would reasonably conclude the successful peaceful end of the Cold War of 1991 would have validated the inherent value of strategic planning and identification of national interests and objectives. However, the near universal conclusion of former policymakers and observers alike has been the paucity of strategic planning capability within the government and insufficiency of existing strategic plans. Rectifying this deficiency will entail substantial presidential leadership as well as a departure from existing approaches.

What Rumsfeld Got Right - Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic

Rumsfeld, one former Pentagon official told me, saw Iraq’s degraded military as an easy target for our own; its destruction would provide a quick demonstration of American power, as well as get rid of the regional threat that the Iraqi regime constituted. No firm believer in democratic transformation, he probably assumed, as did many other people at the time, that any new regime in Baghdad, even a military one, would be a dramatic improvement, in strategic terms for the US and in human-rights terms for the Iraqis. Rather than a fear of chaos, what is more apparent at this stage is a certain complacency on Rumsfeld’s part. For example, he evidently did not challenge the personnel system’s choice of ground commander in post-invasion Iraq. The Army’s 5th Corps was slated to rotate out of Germany and into Iraq. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the 5th Corps commander, and his staff, despite their service in Bosnia, had done little thinking about counterinsurgency. From that set of circumstances, a long trail of well-documented mistakes followed. In this and other cases, Rumsfeld, who is often accused of micromanaging, did not micromanage enough.

Air Force Firings Followed Budget Battle - Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' decapitation of the Air Force leadership came months after a heated debate pitting Mr. Gates and his staff against Air Force generals over spending priorities, knowledgeable sources have revealed. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, whom Mr. Gates fired June 5 over lax nuclear weapons controls, vehemently argued in private for producing more F-22 Raptors, an advanced stealth fighter that represents air power's future. Gen. Moseley, a fighter pilot with extensive combat experience, argued that Mr. Gates and his budget shop were so focused on providing money for the current wars of counterinsurgency, it shortchanged the Air Force's future, according to a source close to the Air Force leadership.

The Heir Up There - Max Boot, New York Times opinion

The appointment of Gen. Norton A. Schwartz as the chief of staff of the Air Force last week is a historic first, one that could serve as inspiration for people who share his underprivileged background. General Schwartz is, you see, a cargo pilot. He started his career flying a C-130, the main transport aircraft of the Air Force, and he took part in the airlift of American personnel out of Saigon in 1975. He comes to his new job from a stint as the commander of the Pentagon’s Transportation Command, and he has also been the deputy commander of the Special Operations Command. His résumé may not raise eyebrows outside the Air Force, but among blue suits it is unique for a chief of staff. Flying fighter jets has been the formative experience of every chief of staff for the past quarter-century.

Firing Up the Air Force - Austin Bay, Washington Times opinion

The classic World War II-era poster reminded talkative dock workers that "loose lips sink ships." Well, loose nukes present an even more imposing problem, one with continent-cracking possibilities. Last week, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested and received the resignations of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, Mr. Gates' office cited as a reason a Pentagon investigation of lax standards in Air Force oversight of nuclear weapons. One incident involved a USAF bomber with cruise missiles overflying a wide swath of the United States - and the crew didn't know the weapons had real nuclear warheads. That sounds bad, and bad it is. Resignation at Mr. Wynne's and Gen. Moseley's level of national service, especially under these conditions, is a euphemism for "fired."

Tom Ricks's Inbox - Thomas Ricks, Washington Post

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently fired the two top officials in the Air Force over the service's sloppy handling of nuclear weapons. Last week, he visited the Air Force Combat Command to explain his actions. His remarks struck me as a model of the way a civilian chief should speak to service members: respectfully and precisely, but leaving no doubt about who is in charge.

Kaplan on Rumsfeld - Max Boot, Contentions

Robert D. Kaplan, one of our most thoughtful and enterprising foreign correspondents, has an intriguing article in the Atlantic headlined, “What Rumsfeld Got Right.” He admits that the Rumsfeld legacy is not a good one, as seen in the worsening situation in Iraq and Afghanistan on his watch. But he tries to argue that Rumsfeld wasn’t wrong about everything. “Even before 9/11,” he writes, “Rumsfeld saw a new strategic landscape of manifest uncertainty, of fundamental and catastrophic surprise.” In responding to that changed environment, Rumsfeld moved tens of thousands of troops out of established bases in Europe and Asia

Army Displays New Equipment, ‘Team Soldier’ Logo - Michael Carden, AFPS

The Army displayed its latest product line of clothing and equipment in the Pentagon courtyard. Representatives of Program Executive Office Soldier gave Pentagon personnel a look at the Land Warrior System, the Common Remotely Operated Weapon System and the T-11 parachute. They also presented several new and improved shoulder-fired weapons, gloves, eye protection, and night vision gear.

UK MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

A Credit to Our Country - Prince Charles, Daily Telegraph of London opinion

Across the world our servicemen and women, including our Reserve Forces, are operating in hostile and stark environments, enduring real hardships and danger on a daily basis. We hear about the battles and the fighting in which many of them are engaged - and, incidentally, we must remember that many personnel from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are conducting essential flying operations in Afghanistan, often under intense enemy fire, to support troops on the ground. Nor should we ever forget the unique role played by the Special Forces, unseen and unheard, and the equally unique support provided by their remarkable families and loved ones. But sometimes I think it is all too easy to forget that our Armed Forces' role is so much wider. Military force is only one aspect of their work. For instance, in both Iraq and Afghanistan there are countless examples of civil projects in which the military has been involved.

PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES

Blackwater's Bright Future - Jeremy Scahill, Los Angeles Times opinion

From California to Iraq, business has never been better for the controversial private security firm Blackwater Worldwide. Company President Gary Jackson recently boasted that Blackwater has "had two successive quarters of unprecedented growth." Owner Erik Prince recently spun his company as the "FedEx" of the US national security apparatus, describing Blackwater as a "robust temp agency." Such rhetoric may seem brazen, given Blackwater's deadly record in Iraq and troubled reputation at home, but here is the cold, hard fact: Blackwater knows its future is bright no matter who next takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Report Questions Pentagon Accounts - Joby Warrick, Washington Post

A Senate investigation has concluded that top Pentagon officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command, according to congressional sources briefed on the findings. The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.

Lawyers Face Inquiry on Interrogation Role - Mark Mazzetti, New York Times

Senior Pentagon lawyers played a more active role than previously known in developing the aggressive interrogation techniques approved for use in 2002 at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to officials familiar with a Senate investigation. Investigators with the Senate Armed Services Committee have found documents from July 2002 showing that Pentagon lawyers working for William J. Haynes II, then the Defense Department general counsel, gathered information about a program used to train American pilots to withstand captivity, according to the officials.

The Navy is not the Air Force - Galrahn, Information Dissemination

The Navy clearly has some tough challenges right now, shipbuilding is a popular topic in Congress, the media, and among industry observers, but shipbuilding is only one of several issues that draw the ire of observers regarding Naval leadership. When Air Force secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley were forced to resign on June 6th, we began to wonder how long it would be before speculation begins regarding replacing the current Naval leadership. As it turns out, it didn't even take a full week. On June 12th we observed the first conversation pop up by blogger Westhawk. We aren't familiar with Westhawk, but his profile lists him as a former U.S. Marine Corps officer: infantry company commander, artillery battalion staff officer. Being that he is also on the blogroll of the Small Wars Journal, we observe Westhawk to come with highly credible credentials. Westhawk raises an interesting discussion.

PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES

Army Overseer Tells of Ouster Over KBR Stir - James Risen, New York Times

The Army official who managed the Pentagon’s largest contract in Iraq says he was ousted from his job when he refused to approve paying more than $1 billion in questionable charges to KBR, the Houston-based company that has provided food, housing and other services to American troops. The official, Charles M. Smith, was the senior civilian overseeing the multibillion-dollar contract with KBR during the first two years of the war. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Smith said that he was forced from his job in 2004 after informing KBR officials that the Army would impose escalating financial penalties if they failed to improve their chaotic Iraqi operations.

Oceania's New Airstrip One - Patrick Walters, The Australian

The US island territory is destined to become the key hub for American maritime power in the western Pacific with the start of a long, $15billion construction boom. The strategic importance of Guam to Washington's long-term presence in East Asia was a point hammered home by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates in Singapore a fortnight ago. Gates's speech to the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual gathering of Asian defence ministers and military chiefs, was his most complete exposition of future US defence strategy in the region since he took over from Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon 18 months ago. Gates's key theme to his East Asian interlocutors was that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the US was not about to begin a long, slow, historic withdrawal from the region. Instead he outlined the concept of the US as a "resident power" in addition to its longstanding roles as an ally, partner, friend and routine offshore presence.

DoD Paradigm Shift and the Navy - Galrahn, Information Dissemination

Today we turn our attention to an article recently published in the 2008 Summer Washington Quarterly by Michael J. Mazarr. Michael J. Mazarr, a professor of national security strategy at the US National War College, brings a thought provoking article regarding the Paradigm Shift in the DoD towards asymmetrical warfare that is sure to be cited in future research. As a 33 page PDF, we believe those who take the minutes to read in full will be rewarded with a thoughtful view for consideration regarding the current military retooling effort. Naturally, over the coming days we will discuss this contribution in more depth.

Transition in Time of War - Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor

The Pentagon is making a pointed effort to ensure that the transition to a new administration in January 2009 – the first time in 40 years that a handover of power will take place during wartime – goes smoothly, minimizing the risk of disruptions or attacks on military operations during the changeover…. Meanwhile, Gates's reputation for demanding accountability without trumpeting his own personality is popular across the department and in Congress, too. "I think he may be the best secretary of defense we ever had," says one active-duty Army officer in high-level circles.

Pentagon to Consult Academics on Security - Patricia Cohen, New York Times

Eager to embrace eggheads and ideas, the Pentagon has started an ambitious and unusual program to recruit social scientists and direct the nation’s brainpower to combating security threats like the Chinese military, Iraq, terrorism and religious fundamentalism. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has compared the initiative - named Minerva, after the Roman goddess of wisdom (and warriors) - to the government’s effort to pump up its intellectual capital during the cold war after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957. Although the Pentagon regularly finances science and engineering research, systematic support for the social sciences and humanities has been rare. Minerva is the first systematic effort in this area since the Vietnam War, said Thomas G. Mahnken, deputy assistant secretary of defense for policy planning, whose office will be overseeing the project.

GAO Agrees with Boeing in Tanker Contract - Dana Hedgpeth, Washington Post

The Government Accountability Office has sustained a protest from Boeing on a $40 billion contract awarded to rival Northrop Grumman to build new aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force, saying "a number of significant errors" had been made in the evaluations of the heated competition. The GAO said it recommends that the Air Force "reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision." The Air Force has 60 days to tell the GAO how it will proceed. Boeing, which built the Air Force's existing tankers, filed a protest with the agency on March 11 after it lost the deal to build 179 new refueling aircraft.

GAO Hits Air Force Deal - Sean Lengell, Washington Times

Congress' investigative arm Wednesday sharply rebuked the Air Force's awarding of a $35 billion aircraft contract to a European-American team over U.S.-based Boeing Co., and recommended the deal be re-evaluated and the bidding process reopened. News of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report was greeted enthusiastically by Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill, particularly those from Washington state and Kansas, where Boeing had proposed to build its plane.

GAO Sustains Boeing Protest - Samuel Mahaney, National Security Review

The Air Force continues to get knocked around like a ping pong ball over the award of its tanker replacement contract to Northrop Grumman / European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (NG/EADS). The GAO has sustained the Boeing Company’s protest and has given the Air Force 60 days to respond to the GAO’s recommendations. The GAO’s sustainment of Boeings protest should not be seen as a “reversal” of the tanker deal as the LA Times Headline reported on-line just a few minutes ago. It is, however, a recommendation by the GAO that the Air Force reopen discussions with Boeing and NG/EADS to obtain and evaluate revised proposals and make a new decision concerning the contract award.

GAO: Boeing was Right - Sharon Weinberger, Danger Room

I think I hear the sound of champagne corks popping somewhere in Boeing headquarters. In a surprise decision, the Government Accountability Office has sided with the Chicago-based company in its bid to overturn a multi-billion contract for aerial refueling tankers (see the decision here). The GAO today sustained the Boeing protest, concluding that the "Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman." The deal could be worth as much as $100 billion, ultimately.

DoD Paradigm Shift and the Navy - Galrahn, Information Dissemination

Today we turn our attention to an article recently published in the 2008 Summer Washington Quarterly by Michael J. Mazarr. Michael J. Mazarr, a professor of national security strategy at the US National War College, brings a thought provoking article regarding the Paradigm Shift in the DoD towards asymmetrical warfare that is sure to be cited in future research. As a 33 page PDF, we believe those who take the minutes to read in full will be rewarded with a thoughtful view for consideration regarding the current military retooling effort. Naturally, over the coming days we will discuss this contribution in more depth.

DARPA Brain Drain Costs Agency $32 Million - Noah Shachtman, Danger Room

The US military is shifting $32 million away from its premiere research agency -- because that agency, DARPA, can't find enough qualified people to run its cutting-edge projects. A Pentagon "reprogramming action," obtained by Danger Room, takes the cash from DARPA to "fund higher priorities within the Department" -- including "infrastructure to prevent IT security breaches." That money is available, the document adds, because the agency "continues to underexecute its Research, Development, Test and Evaluation programs."

Military-Industrial Complications - Wall Street Journal editorial

Here we go again. American soldiers will have to wait even longer for new aerial refueling tankers after government auditors said Wednesday that the Air Force had broken its own rules in awarding the $35 billion contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS over Boeing. The Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, agreed with Boeing that Air Force officials unduly gave extra credit to Northrop and EADS, or the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., for surpassing specification requirements for the tankers. The GAO also found that the Air Force miscalculated the costs of both the winning bid and Boeing's offering. The Air Force is now expected to request revised proposals from the two bidders and make a new selection.

Justice? - Mackubin Thomas Owens, National Review opinion

What can we say about Haditha? As I have observed previously, our opponents in Iraq have chosen to deny us the ability to fight the sort of conventional war we would prefer and forced us to fight the one they want - an insurgency. Insurgents blend in with the people, making it hard to distinguish between combatant and noncombatant. A counterinsurgency always has to negotiate a fine line between too much and too little force. Indeed, it suits the insurgents’ goal when too much force is applied. For insurgents, there is no more powerful propaganda tool than the claim that their adversaries are employing force in an indiscriminate manner. It is even better for the insurgents’ cause if they can credibly charge the forces of the counterinsurgency with the targeted killing of noncombatants. For many people even today, the entire Americans enterprise in Vietnam is discredited by the belief that the US military committed atrocities on a regular basis and as a matter of official policy — even though, as Jim Webb has noted, stories of atrocious conduct, e.g. My Lai, “represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme.” Under the circumstances, what is most remarkable is not that incidents such as Haditha have occurred, but that there have been so few of them.

Marines vs. The Smear - Michelle Malkin, Washington Times opinion

Yet another US Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre - bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the prosecution led to the outcome in Col. Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go. I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won't see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font the New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke.

US CONGRESS

House Passes War Bill - Paul Kane, Washington Post

In a pair of bipartisan votes, the House yesterday approved $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into 2009 and a separate measure that would allow veterans returning from those battlefields to receive increased education benefits.

Ex-official Cites Differences with Gates - Robert Burns, Associated Press

Two weeks after being ousted, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne said Friday he had a "difference in philosophy" with his boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, on numerous issues - not just on the nuclear slip-up that Mr. Gates said was his reason for removing Mr. Wynne. On his final day in office, a relaxed-looking Mr. Wynne told a group of reporters that he is not angry about being forced out as the top civilian official of the Air Force. He defended his record, saying he had "pushed the system pretty hard" to ensure that the Air Force is at the leading edge of war fighting. He indicated no animosity toward Mr. Gates, with whom he said he was "not aligned" on some key issues.

Air Force Adrift - Washington Post editorial

Slowly and painfully, the US Army has adapted itself to the unconventional wars the country has faced since Sept. 11, 2001. Following a reorganization of forces, a rewrite of doctrine and the emergence of new commanders such as Gen. David H. Petraeus, American ground troops are winning counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and eastern Afghanistan -- and are recognized as state-of-the-art by NATO allies. In contrast, the US Air Force, which dominated the 1990s with its smart bombs and stealth planes, has lost its way in the new century. Its top leaders have remained stubbornly focused on the production of advanced tactical aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor, which has not flown a single mission in Iraq, while failing to provide adequate numbers of the unmanned aircraft that are crucial to American success in the new wars. Air Force commanders allowed two inexcusable breaches of nuclear security, in which warheads were flown across the country by mistake and bomb fuses were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan. Now the Government Accountability Office has found that the Air Force bungled one of its largest and most important procurement contracts, for the second time.

Military-Industrial Complications - Wall Street Journal editorial

Here we go again. American soldiers will have to wait even longer for new aerial refueling tankers after government auditors said Wednesday that the Air Force had broken its own rules in awarding the $35 billion contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS over Boeing. The Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, agreed with Boeing that Air Force officials unduly gave extra credit to Northrop and EADS, or the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., for surpassing specification requirements for the tankers. The GAO also found that the Air Force miscalculated the costs of both the winning bid and Boeing's offering. The Air Force is now expected to request revised proposals from the two bidders and make a new selection. The auditors didn't presume to decide which tanker was actually better, and neither will we. But what is clear is that this setback is a blow to U.S. troops, who are stuck fighting two hot wars with Eisenhower-era tankers while the companies continue their seven-year-old dogfight.

Military Inventions HIt Civilian Market - Tom Peter, Christian Science Monitor

Although Hugh Herr was a respected professor at Harvard Medical School, he says finding someone to bankroll a new prosthetic knee project was tough before the Iraq war. He could get funding from the prosthetic industry, but government sources showed little interest. But a year and a half after the invasion of Iraq, the tides turned. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs provided the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several other institutions with $7.2 million to study artificial arms and legs for amputees. The money, along with key technological innovations, has helped Dr. Herr, now an associate professor at the MIT Media Lab, create a powered ankle and knee, the next generation of prosthetics.

Hayden Applauded for Military Service - Bill Gertz, Washington Times

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday that ties between military and intelligence operations today are the closest in the history of modern warfare, and he praised CIA Director Michael V. Hayden during his military retirement ceremony for boosting joint efforts. "We are all on one team these days, and Mike has played a key role in this effort," Mr. Gates said during a speech at Bolling Air Force Base. Mr. Gates, a former CIA director, said close cooperation between the military and the CIA's clandestine intelligence agents is essential to countering the twin threats of global terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Army Adds Air Unit - Thom Shanker, New York Times

In Iraq, the Army has quietly decided to try going it alone for the important surveillance mission, organizing an all-Army surveillance unit that represents a new move by the service toward self-sufficiency, and away from joint operations. Senior aides to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates say that he has shown keen interest in the Army initiative - much to the frustration of embattled Air Force leaders - as a potential way to improve battlefield surveillance. The work of the new aviation battalion was initially kept secret, but Army officials involved in its planning say it has been exceptionally active, using remotely piloted surveillance aircraft to call in Apache helicopter strikes with missiles and heavy machine gun fire that have killed more than 3,000 adversaries in the last year and led to the capture of almost 150 insurgent leaders.

Army General's Nomination Called Historic - Josh White, Washington Post

President Bush has nominated Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody to take over the Army's Materiel Command as a four-star general, and if confirmed by the Senate she would be the first woman in US history to receive such a high military rank. In announcing the nomination yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates praised Dunwoody's "extraordinary leadership and devotion to duty" and called the choice "an historic occasion." There are 57 active-duty female general officers in the US armed forces, five of whom are three-star generals. About 5 percent of the Army's general officers are women.

Nominee Withdrawn over 'Conflict' - Shaun Watterman, United Press International

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has blocked the Pentagon´s nominee to head the Defense Information Systems Agency, because her husband is a senior executive at the nation´s No. 3 defense contractor and the perceived conflicts of interest made the nomination "untenable." A senior congressional aide told United Press International that during a routine investigation into the background of the nominee, Rear Adm. Elizabeth Hight, committee staff noted that her husband, retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Gary Salisbury, is vice president of business development and sales for Northrop Grumman's mission systems sector.

Wounds You Can’t See - Bob Herbert, New York Times opinion

The US has been at war for years now, but ordinary Americans have never been asked to step up and make the kind of sacrifices that wars have historically required. That’s actually an added danger for the young men and women who have volunteered to fight in those far-off lands. It’s too easy for the larger society to put them out of sight and out of mind.

Top Engineers Shun Military - Philip Taubman, New York Times

When Paul G. Kaminski completed his graduate work in 1971 with degrees from M.I.T. and Stanford, he started building advanced airplanes for the Air Force. By the time he stopped several decades later, he had played a pivotal role in producing a flock of new weapons, including radar-evading stealth aircraft. Over the last decade, even as spending on new military projects has reached its highest level since the Reagan years, the Pentagon has increasingly been losing the people most skilled at managing them. That brain dra