Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: WoT
Gates Proposal Reveals His Alienation From Procurement System
2009-04-07
Best read as a companion piece to yesterday's news on the Pentagon weapons cuts. Perhaps Gates is just implementing Obama's wishes, but it's also possible that Gates is on to something in the purchasing system. I don't claim to be smart enough to know the answer.
After reading a newspaper article's report that a particular armored vehicle had dramatically cut fatality rates in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior defense officials traveled 80 miles northeast to Aberdeen Proving Ground in spring 2007 to see for themselves how the V-shaped hull of the costly Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle deflected the worst blast effects of buried explosives.

Within weeks, and after some pointed demands for the MRAPs from Capitol Hill, Gates decided to make accelerated production of the vehicles his top priority, using a special task force that circumvented the department's normal purchasing methods -- and the initial opposition of the Army and the Marine Corps. The results were not perfect -- an inspector general's report said later that in its rush, the department overspent by tens of millions of dollars -- but they were effective: Thousands of additional MRAPs flooded into Iraq and fatality rates dropped precipitously.

Aides say that the experience was like a baptism for Gates into the weirdness of the Pentagon's weapons-procurement system, which experts have long assailed for buying the wrong arms and paying far too much. Hired by President George W. Bush mostly to fix the Iraq war, Gates initially left key buying decisions to his deputy, Gordon England. But they say Gates's decision to buy more MRAPs and a similarly frustrating battle to build more unmanned aerial vehicles for use in Iraq persuaded him that he would have to wade deeply into the procurement mess.

Gates concluded that "the building was not being responsive to the requests for these vehicles," his spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said.

In calling yesterday for "a dramatic change in the way we acquire military equipment," Gates showed his slow but palpable alienation from the so-called iron triangle of defense contractors, lawmakers and military service executives that has long promoted building the best weapons systems, no matter what the price. In the future, he said, weapons should be engineered to counter "the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries," not what a potential adversary might create with "unlimited time and resources."
We can't afford 300-plus F-22s, the B-3 bomber, the CG-X and other big ticket items on the budget and economy we have. And I'd rather have our troops trained and maintained properly first.
Gates has signaled his frustrations with the broken and "rigid" purchasing system for months, and in a January article in Foreign Affairs magazine, he noted that the pursuit of perfect solutions combined with a lack of flexibility and innovation had made it "necessary to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities needed to protect U.S. troops and fight ongoing wars."

But Gates sees this year as a rare opportunity to pursue politically controversial ideas, one of his top aides said, largely because of two factors. First, President Obama's repeated claim that procurement reforms can increase efficiency and save expenses across the government will provide "top cover" for Gates in his head-butting with a group of service chiefs that proposed last year to alleviate their woes by adding tens of billions of dollars to the budget instead of making hard choices or undertaking major reforms.

Second, Gates feels the nation's woeful economic status will give him added leverage in beating back attempts on Capitol Hill to continue financing weapons that troops don't need or want. "It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to overinsure against a remote or diminishing risk, or in effect to run up the score" is a dollar that might otherwise be spent on troops or winning the wars we are in, Gates said yesterday.

To some military experts, the two-year wait for Gates to take such a step since his December 2006 appointment has been long. Kori Schake, a National Security Council staff member during the Bush administration and adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that "with the important exception of his emphasis on MRAP acquisition, he submitted two budgets and several supplemental spending requests that were straight-line extensions of previous spending."

Now, Schake said, Gates has called for ruthlessly separating appetites from real requirements, but Congress may "serve him up his own previous justifications for the very programs he proposes to cut."
Link


Home Front: Politix
Gates softens opposition to 16-month Iraq timetable
2008-12-03
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US commanders are considering an accelerated drawdown of US forces from Iraq, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday, softening his opposition to president-elect Barack Obama's 16-month timetable. "I am less concerned about that timetable," he told a news conference at the Pentagon a day after Obama announced Gates had agreed to stay on as defense secretary in a Democratic administration.

Gates said US commanders were already "looking at what the implications of that are in terms of the potential for accelerating the drawdown and -- and in terms of how we meet our obligations to the Iraqis."
Here it comes ...
How Gates would handle his differences with Obama over the pace of the drawdown has been a key question ever since advisers to the president-elect suggested he might be asked to work in an Obama administration. He acknowledged that being the first defense secretary ever to be kept on by a newly elected president, much less one from another party, makes his a "unique situation."

"I think the president-elect has made it pretty clear that he wanted a team of people around him who would tell him what they thought and give him their best advice. I think he has assembled that team," he said. "There will, no doubt, be differences among the team. And it will be up to the president to make the decisions," he said.

Gates made clear that he intends to be a full participant, not just a wartime placeholder while Obama and his administration get settled. "I have no intention of being a caretaker secretary," he said.

He said he and Obama agreed his tenure would be open ended.
Gates has insisted in recent months that he could not conceive of conditions under which he would stay on. But he met discreetly with Obama for the first time on November 11 in Washington after the president-elect had visited President George W. Bush at the White House. "We actually met in the fire station at National Airport and they pulled the trucks out so that our cars could go in," Gates said. "I spent a long time hoping the question would never be popped," he said. "I then hoped he'd change his mind. And yesterday it became a reality."

All other political appointees at the Defense Department are subject to replacement by the new administration, he said. Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary announced he would be leaving.

Gates wrapped his position on Iraq in some ambiguity. He said that while Obama had repeated his desire to get US combat troops out by the end of 2011, "he also said that he wanted to have a responsible drawdown."

"And he also said that he was prepared to listen to his commanders," he said. "And it's within that framework that I think it is agreeable," he added.

Gates emphasized that a timetable calling for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 already had been set under a status of forces agreement reached with Baghdad. "It's a longer one, but it's a definite timetable. So that bridge has been crossed," he said. "And so the question is how do we do this in a responsible way. And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved with so much sacrifice on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis at this point," he said.

Gates concurred with Obama's view that South Asia is the region that now poses the greatest threat of attack to the United States, observing that "we basically have our foot on the neck of Al Qaeda in Iraq."
Link


Fifth Column
Hesham Islam to leave Pentagon job
2008-02-12
In a stunning turn of events, a high-level Muslim military aide blamed for costing an intelligence contractor his job will step down from his own Pentagon post, WND has learned.

Meanwhile, his rival, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a leading authority on Islamic war doctrine, may stay in the Pentagon, moving from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the office of the secretary of defense. However, sources say a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey is trying to block his new contract.

The top Pentagon aide, Egyptian-born Hesham H. Islam, came under a cloud of suspicion after reports raised doubt about his resume and contacts he had made with radical Muslims. He is expected to leave the government next month, officials say.

Islam and Coughlin recently quarreled over intelligence briefings Coughlin presented showing a close connection between the religion of Islam and terrorism. Coughlin's contract with the Joint Chiefs, which ends in March, was not renewed. But as a result of the ensuing firestorm that played out in the conservative press – led by Washington Times Pentagon reporter Bill Gertz – Islam was put under a microscope, and questions were raised regarding his background.

For example, Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote a column challenging key claims in Islam's official biography. Within days, a Defense Department profile of Islam was removed from the department's website. A Pentagon spokesman said it was "taken down in an attempt to reduce the rhetoric and the emotion surrounding this issue while we try to determine the facts."

A senior U.S. official says the life story Islam presented now appears sketchy. "His resume didn't add up, and he knows it," the official said. "He's voluntarily leaving the government in March."

At the same time, a report by terror expert Steven Emerson revealed that Islam, as special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, has scheduled at least two meetings in the Pentagon with Syrian-tied radicals – including a leading member of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood – in direct violation of U.S. policy. As WND previously reported, FBI officials believe Islam is involved with the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is helping its front groups run "influence operations" against the U.S. government. "He's a Muslim brother," an FBI official told WND. "He's a bad actor, and he's made other unreported nefarious contacts."

Islam has worked closely in the Pentagon with Muslim chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam, who as WND also previously reported, received his training at a radical Islamic school in Northern Virginia that was raided by federal authorities after 9/11.

Islam, whose son is active in the military, obtained one of the highest security clearances for classified information. Sources confirm he has sat in on Pentagon meetings in which intelligence clearance was restricted at the Top Secret/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) level.

The Pentagon had no comment. And Islam, who has not been accused of any crimes, has refused interviews.

Emerson says Islam prescribed a steady diet of Muslim Brotherhood-connected outreach for his unwitting boss, deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
Who also appears to be the driver to kill F-22 production.
For example, England spoke at the Islamic Society of North America's 2006 convention and last year even hosted a luncheon with ISNA officials in the Pentagon. At the time, federal prosecutors had linked ISNA to the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy in the U.S. and named the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism-financing case.

In one intelligence briefing, Coughlin argued that the Pentagon should end its outreach programs with ISNA, which also put him at odds with Islam. Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, ...
Another name to keep a weary eye on.
undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a ... new contract to Coughlin. Edelman served as ambassador to Turkey from 2003 to 2005.

Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who co-chairs the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus, has been fighting to keep Coughlin in the Pentagon, where she says his blunt analysis of the Islamic enemy is sorely needed.
Kudos Rep. Myrick. Unlike most of your colleagues, you have EARNED your salary and perks for the month. Interested in becoming VP?
Citing federal court documents introduced as evidence in a recent major terror case, she also warns that U.S. front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood are conspiring to destroy America from within. "Our enemies have clearly stated their intention to infiltrate us, much like the Russians did during the Cold war," Myrick said. "We had no problem analyzing and acting on that information then."

"I know that some people will refuse to admit there is a subversive movement going on here, but let me remind you that we have underestimated the will and capability of our enemy for more than 30 years," she added. "They are patient and determined to achieve their radical agenda."
Before attacking, the early muslims would prepare a city by sending agents to spread subversion and chaos. The methods haven't changed. The size of the targets have.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Dear Hesham Islam, Go Fark Yourself. Signed, Stephen Coughlin
2008-02-07
So says Congresswoman Sue Myrick in a statement:

I decided to vet this matter personally. I met with Members of the House and Senate, Pentagon officials, and even Major Coughlin himself. Major Coughlin told me that he has had a great working relationship with the Joint Staff and that he did not believe there was any conspiracy to remove him from his position. In fact, he was already planning to leave the Joint Staff at the end of his contract. Lest the rumors persist, Major Coughlin will be associated with another office program within the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he will continue to spread his message.

Coughlin, of course, is the Islamic law expert who had apparently been fired at the insistence of Hesham Islam, an assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Myrick is one of the most conservative members of the House
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
Who is Hesham Islam?
2008-01-25
This is a long, well researched, troubling look at the man who seeming is responsible for the firing of Islamist extremist expert, Stephen Coughlin at the Pentagon

By Claudia Rosett

In the sorry tradition of shooting the messenger, the Pentagon is cashiering its top expert on Islamist doctrine, Stephen Coughlin. Some members of Congress are now contemplating hearings to ask why. Along with drawing attention to Coughlin’s research, now circulating on the Internet, the growing controversy has thrown a spotlight on Coughlin’s alleged nemesis at the Pentagon, a top aide named Hesham Islam — whose tale deserves closer attention. Not least, as a reporter for the Armed Forces Press Service observed last year, it would make a great Hollywood blockbuster.

Certainly there are subplots here that seem made for the movies, including tales of Islam, in his youth, living through an air raid in Egypt, a ship sinking in the Arabian Sea, and now, years later, this scuffle under the Pentagon rug over how to deal with the chief threat to America today — Islamic extremism.

Hesham Islam is a native Arabic speaker, a Muslim, born in 1959 in Cairo and schooled in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In 1980 he immigrated to the U.S. From 1985-2005 he served in the U.S. Navy, rising to the mid-level officer rank of commander. At some point after former defense-industry executive Gordon England joined the Bush administration as secretary of the Navy, in 2001, Islam went to work on his staff. In 2005, when England, after a stint in Homeland Security took over from Paul Wolfowitz in the Defense Department’s number two slot of deputy secretary, Islam came with him.

In England’s office, Islam’s official title is special assistant for international affairs. In that capacity he pops up as a man-about-town in Washington, making the rounds of embassies. But Islam also works as England’s point man for Pentagon outreach programs to Muslim groups. These include organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, with whom Islam and England have forged ties — attending ISNA conventions, and hosting ISNA delegations at Pentagon events, and in England’s office.

That’s alarming to some, such as terrorism expert Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, who, for more than a decade, has been tracking Islamic extremist networks in the U.S. In a recent appearance on Fox News, Emerson described Hesham Islam as, in his view, “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.”

Emerson was apparently referring to ISNA, named last summer by the Department of Justice as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity indicted in 2005 in Dallas federal court for allegedly providing millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas (itself an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood). ISNA, in a press statement, says it “remains unjustly branded by the government as an unindicted co-conspirator.” (The Holy Land Foundation case resulted in a mistrial last fall, and is expected to be re-tried).

But whatever Emerson’s worries, Islam’s boss, Gordon England, apparently can’t praise Hesham Islam and his work enough. In public statements over the past year, England has described Islam as “my personal close confidante,” “my interlocutor,” a man who “represents me to the international community,” and “assists me in my own outreach efforts.” Photos taken on the Washington’s diplomatic reception circuit show England and Islam side-by-side, chatting up contacts. Last October, England described Islam to a Pentagon in-house reporter as a man with “wonderful friendships and relationships” which allow Islam to “give me extraordinarily good advice in dealing with countries and people.” England added, “I take his advice, and I listen to him all the time.”

As for the Pentagon’s soon-to-be-evicted Stephen Coughlin, who sits well below Islam on the Defense totem pole — he is a lawyer by training, and a major in the U.S. Army Reserve. On contract with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Coughlin made it his mission to set aside the feel-good assumptions about Islam which have been guiding U.S. strategy, and take an unblinkered look at facts.
Link


Home Front: WoT
Unsuccessful intrigue? One friend in high places vs. the rest of the DoD
2008-01-11
From the Washington Times Inside the Ring gossip columnist. The reporter is having great fun stirring the pot. This article should be commented as if it were a mixed martial arts fight, but I'm not quite sure how to do that. So I've just bolded the names of those lining up against the deputy defense secretary, poor man. Note also the reporter's choice of adjectives and the services the various people mentioned belong to.
Some Pentagon and military leaders, along with lots of working-level officials, are quietly rallying to support ousted Joint Staff counterterrorism analyst Stephen Coughlin. Pentagon officials said a number of generals and admirals who share Mr. Coughlin's well-reasoned assessment of the Islamic law underpinnings of Islamist terror are voicing support for the lawyer and former military intelligence official.

Mr. Coughlin was fired last month as a Joint Staff contractor after his confrontation with Hasham Islam, a special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Mr. Islam, a Muslim, referred to Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian zealot with a pen" during the meeting several weeks ago. Critics of Mr. Coughlin are spreading word — falsely — that he is being let go because he talked out of school to the press. One official suggested the action was due to budget cuts.

But defense and military officials supportive of Mr. Coughlin said the real reason is that critics, like Mr. Islam want him sidelined because they oppose his hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine. Those views have triggered a harsh debate challenging the widespread and politically correct view of Islam as a religion of peace hijacked by extremists. "Steve Coughlin is the most knowledgeable person in the U.S. government on Islamic law," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. "The secretary of defense should ensure that he stays at DOD."

Another booster is Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Corps, who said in November that Mr. Coughlin's briefing for Marines bound for Iraq "hit the mark in explaining how jihadists use the Koran to justify their actions."

Army Lt. Col. Joseph C. Myers, commandant's Army adviser at the Air Force Air Command and Staff College in Alabama, said in a letter posted on the Internet that the Joint Staff is losing its only Islamic law scholar if the firing stands. Col. Myers said Mr. Coughlin should continue to educate the military for the war on terrorism. "If we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against, we remain vulnerable and we cannot win," he stated. Unlike during the Cold War, when Soviet war-fighting doctrine dominated his education at West Point, "can anyone show me where the equivalent of the Soviet threat doctrine series for the global war on terror is published?" he asked. "It has not been done." Col. Myers said the military is fighting a war that "from doctrinal perspective, we fundamentally do not understand."

Mr. Myers also stated that U.S. counterintelligence failures should lead people to "wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social compact."

The firing of Joint Staff counterterrorism analyst Stephen Coughlin also is having a negative impact throughout the U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism community. Analysts are watching closely to see if the firing of the Islamic law specialist over his views of the Islamist law basis for extremism will be allowed to stand and thus hamper the production of honest intelligence analysis of terrorist threats throughout the 16-agency community. "The analyst now sees two threats to their work: the enemy and the uninformed policy-maker," said one analyst.
Link


Home Front: WoT
DoD Spec. on Islam gets Sacked for Offending Pro-Muslim Official
2008-01-04
Outrageous. Someone whould be reviewing Mr. Islam very carefully for his connections. People have differences of opinion all the time, and it shouldn't be a cause for dismissal, even at the Pentagon.
By Bill Gertz

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism. Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism. The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism. Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for Mr. England, said "no one in the deputy's office had any input into this decision" by the Joint Staff to end Mr. Coughlin's contract. A Joint Staff spokesman had no immediate comment
Link


Iraq
Tighter Control of Blackwater Seen
2007-12-06
WASHINGTON (AP) - The military would have more control over Blackwater Worldwide and other private security contractors working in Iraq under a new agreement between the Pentagon and State Department, officials said Wednesday. The agreement was signed at the Pentagon by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, whose department uses Blackwater to guard its diplomats.

The move to tighten military oversight followed Iraqi outrage over a Sept. 16 shooting in which 17 Iraq civilians were killed in a Baghdad square. Blackwater said its guards were protecting diplomats under attack before they opened fire, but Iraqi investigators concluded the shooting was unprovoked. U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq later complained that they often do not know security firms are moving through their areas of responsibility until after some incident has taken place.

One of the chief features of the new accord is a provision giving the main U.S. military command in Iraq, known as Multi-National Force-Iraq, or MNF-I, more information on ground and air movements of private security contractors.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Reid threatens funds for Iraq war
2007-11-13

Going for 41 straight losses. You should get Harry and Nancy's faces photoshopped on that thing...
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home. By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
Sure it will. What else ya got? Need some funding for some LSD Museum in Haight Ashbury?
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Sure he won't, Harry. Selling out American fighting men and women. Make sure you put that in your reelection brochure...
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.
I can't take these filthy hippies pissing on my lawn any more! I CAN'T TAKE IT!!!
The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.
Wait'll next year. Red Sox fans know what that means. Maybe in 86 years Harry and Nancy might actually pull it off too...
But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.
...and that's worked really well for them. Really elevated those public opinion polls on Congress.
If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.

The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war. "We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."
beep..."But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."...beep..."But tragically, unfortunately...

In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February. England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts.
Oh,no...no more pork!
Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said. "The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.
Isn't that the point of this exercise?
A White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets a timetable for troop withdrawals. Despite the administration's opposition, the Democratic legislation is not a dramatic departure from Bush's current plans for Iraq. The Pentagon has already begun to reverse its buildup of 30,000 troops — an act that would more than satisfy the bill's requirement that Bush withdraw an unspecified number of troops. But the administration says troop levels should be based on conditions on the ground and not predetermined by Congress.

The bill to be voted on this week is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without restrictions.
Coming up next: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...
Link


Home Front: WoT
Files raise questions on Gitmo decisions
2007-10-04
Originally in the New York Times and written by NYT reporters, including James Risen. Just so you know (as if you couldn't guess).
Two dozen prisoners were cleared for transfer from Guantanamo Bay last year even though U.S. military panels found they still posed a threat to the United States and its allies. Dozens more were cleared even though they didn't show up for their hearings. One Saudi arrested in Afghanistan was approved for release after offering a peculiar account that he had gone to the Taliban-controlled country to lose weight.

Pentagon documents obtained by The Associated Press show seemingly inconsistent decisions to release men declared by the Bush administration to be among America's most-hardened enemies. Coupled with accusations that some detainees have been held for years on little evidence, the decisions raise questions about whether they were arbitrary.

Human rights groups contend the documents show the military panels, known as Administrative Review Boards, often are overridden by political expediency at Guantanamo, where about 340 men are still held. "What it says on your passport is more important than what it says in your ARB," said Ben Wizner, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, noting that European citizens at Guantanamo were among the first to get out amid intense lobbying by their countries. "It's all about diplomatic pressure."

The Pentagon created the Administrative Review Board process in 2004 as the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was filling up with men captured around the world in the war on terrorist groups. It said the boards would "help ensure no one is detained any longer than is warranted, and that no one is released who remains a threat to our nation's security."

The boards hold sessions in an air-conditioned trailer, hearing testimony from shackled detainees and making recommendations on whether to transfer, release or continue to hold the men. The final decisions are made by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, who is not bound by the recommendations, but who officials say usually follows them.

The Pentagon, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from AP, released transcripts and memos last month from last year's hearings. Based on those sessions, England ordered 273 inmates kept at Guantanamo and 55 transferred to authorities in other nations. He didn't order any outright releases, but most detainees transferred from Guantanamo have been freed soon after arriving home.

The heavily censored documents indicate testimony before the panels often had little effect on the outcome. Of the 55 detainees cleared for transfer to their homelands or countries of residence, only 14 participated in their hearings. And 24 found to still pose a threat were ordered transferred by England anyway.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a military spokesman, said "a great majority of detainees who left Guantanamo have been a threat," but added that many factors are considered in deciding their fate. "There are mitigating factors that the deputy secretary of defense can take into account in deciding whether to approve a transfer of a detainee," Gordon said by phone from the Pentagon. U.S. officials say those include whether the receiving country can confiscate the detainee's passport and monitor or detain him.

The military has kept secret much of the case files, so there is no way for the public to judge the quality of the evidence against each detainee. But defense attorneys say that while classified evidence is often used to justify holding a detainee, it rarely comes into play in decisions to let people go from Guantanamo.

Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, an Army reservist who served as a liaison between Guantanamo tribunals and intelligence agencies, criticized the process used to decide which detainees are sent home. "The decisions are not orderly nor analytic and only rational if you accept the premise that they are made for political and not legal reasons," Abraham said in an e-mail to AP.
And the problem with that is ....? Our response to terrorism is more than just a legal proceeding, and brings the full weight of our state onto the terrorists. That includes political considerations, and while we sometimes might find that unseemly, there are legitimate political considerations in housing and returning the mooks at Gitmo. That's what we pay our leaders to consider.
One of the men who was transferred was Mohammad Akhtiar, an Afghan who told the panel he had worked for the U.S.-allied Karzai government in Afghanistan and that he was steadfastly opposed to the Taliban. He listed several senior Afghan officials, including the minister for refugees and repatriation, who he said could vouch for him. In December, Akhtiar was flown to Afghanistan and immediately released, said his U.S. lawyer, Dicky Grigg. Grigg considered it a happy ending, saying: "I believed that Mohammed Akhtiar was not a terrorist."
And if they tossed his file completely and decided it was safe, I have no problem with that.
But some of the Administrative Review Board results were murkier.
Of course they are to the journalists.
Abdul Rahman Mohammed Hussein Khowlan, a Saudi, said he went to Afghanistan to lose weight and to find the Prophet Muhammad's clothing — even though the founder of Islam had never been in that country. A board member asked Khowlan to explain the search, but the detainee, who allegedly was carrying a Kalashnikov assault rifle when he was captured, responded: "There's nothing to add."
Smart boy, kept his mouth shut after telling a whopper.
England ordered Khowlan sent home to Saudi Arabia, whose government is a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Pro'ly because the Saoodis promised to thump him for us.
During the Administrative Review Board hearings, the transcripts show, military officers painstakingly questioned detainees to gauge the truth of their accounts. The panel's recommendations are censored from the Pentagon memos, however, meaning only England's final decisions are publicly known. But the military said those decisions differed from the panels' recommendations only occasionally.
So everyone's working together. Nice when that happens.
Human rights groups say the documents bolster their suspicions the review board hearings are window dressing and that the panels aren't really the mechanism for determining who gets out of Guantanamo and who stays. "The findings suggest the transfer and release determinations were made independently based on security risks, relations with other countries and other factors that are independent of the ARB process, and that the ARB process may be for show," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch.
Again, Jenny, that isn't a problem for us. Of course there are a number of considerations going into the final decision. That's a more 'nuanced' position than you're used to.
Lawyers said lobbying by detainees' home countries is a major factor in release decisions. Of the 55 men slated for transfer last year, 30 were from Saudi Arabia, which has a reintegration program that provides former detainees with guidance from psychiatrists, clerics and sociologists.
And a number seven truncheon in case the psychiatrist is unsuccessful.
Wizner, the ACLU attorney, said he did not feel dangerous men were being released from Guantanamo, but rather that the Pentagon was labeling them as threats to avoid accusations it had imprisoned innocent men.

One lawyer said the U.S. even sent away two detainees who "failed" their hearings. England determined last year that both Isa al-Murbati and Jumah al-Dossari should continue to be held, but both got out of Guantanamo this summer, said their New York attorney, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan.

Navy Capt. Lana Hampton, a military spokeswoman, said England on occasion "may change his decision, based on the receipt of additional information or for other reasons," even without another hearing.

Colangelo-Bryan said al-Murbati was released upon arrival in his native Bahrain, an island state in the Persian Gulf that is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet. Al-Dossari, who holds dual Bahraini-Saudi citizenship, is in the Saudi reintegration program and will be home soon, the lawyer said. "If a government is on good terms with the United States and presses for a detainee's release, the release will happen regardless of the ARB findings," Colangelo-Bryan said. "I believe that is what happened with Isa and Jumah."
Link


Iraq
U.S. general: Security contractors use 'over-the-top' tactics in Iraq
2007-09-29
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Security contractors in Iraq use some over-the-top tactics and overreact at times, a top U.S. general in Iraq said Friday.

Many in Iraq have witnessed security contractors operating in a questionable fashion, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq. "I can certainly say I've seen them do some tactics that I thought were over the top. But that's something we've got to keep working out," Anderson said in a briefing to Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Iraq.

His comments soon after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wants closer oversight of Pentagon contractors in Iraq. Gates has dispatched a team there to review accountability and oversight.

Anderson did not offer specific examples of incidents he had seen.
Oh, well, thanks then, General.
He agreed security contractors in Iraq have taken a lot of criticism, but he said they are in a tough position. "They obviously have a tough job to do in a tough environment. I don't know if they're overly aggressive. I think the question becomes what rules do they follow with respect to what the rules of engagement are," he said.

Under an order laid down by the U.S.-led occupation government in 2004, security contractors are not subject to Iraqi law for actions taken within their contracts, a condition that irritates Iraqi officials. About 137,000 civilians are working for the U.S. military in Iraq, Gates said Wednesday. That number includes at least 7,300 of the estimated 25,000 private security contractors working in Iraq, he said.

After the Blackwater shootings, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England issued a memo to commanders in Iraq outlining their responsibility for holding contractors accountable, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Anderson said the assessment team sent by Gates is getting a feel for how the military employs contractors, to what scale, what functions they're providing and what differentiates between Department of Defense and Department of State contractors in the security role.

The State Department also is investigating the role of private security contractors. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, a management and policy expert, will lead the effort, along with a high-level panel of outside experts, including retired Gen. George Joulwan, former commander of NATO forces in Europe; Stapleton Roy, former U.S. ambassador to China; and Eric Boswell, a former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants an interim report by next Friday.
Link


Science & Technology
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against 'Sizzler' Missile
2007-04-16
The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the "Sizzler," has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

"This is a carrier-destroying weapon," said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. "That's its purpose."

"Take out the carriers" and China "can walk into Taiwan," he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

"This is a very low-flying, fast missile," said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. "It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile."

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

"This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001," Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

"The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production" of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. "They haven't."

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. "would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon," Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler "but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort," Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is "researching suitable alternatives" to defend against it. "U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats," Mann said.

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

On final approach, the missile "has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers," including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is "unique," the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

"We take the threat very seriously," Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of U.S. naval operations said today.

"Secretary of Defense England has asked us to come to him by April with our approach," Mullen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. There "may not be a single answer. It would probably be a multifaceted."

The Sizzler "is very fast and it has maneuvering characteristics that are of concern," Mullen said. "That has put us in a position to make sure we evaluate it as rapidly and specifically as we can."

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that "to the best of our knowledge," the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. "The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills," he said.

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is "aggressively marketing" the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler "right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict." Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication "Missiles and Rockets" that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines "with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles."

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy "immediately implement" a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

"Time is of the essence here," the board said.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More