Inside the Headquarters

Virginia senator and Man-about-Oktoberfest Jim “Women Can’t Fight” Webb http://webb.senate.gov/ has proposed what has been on the minds of bar flies for years: “Ditch the antidepressants and pass me a cold one.”

The suggestion is typical of the 1968 Naval Academy graduate, who is lauded by some for his performance as a Marine in the all-but-forgotten tussle in Vietnam.

We are not anti alcohol, but we are anti Webb. It was during hearings before the Senate Armed services’ personnel subcommittee, which Webb now heads, that he learned servicemembers in theater are medicated with antidepressants and other drugs for mental maladies.

Webb agreed with leaders that the force is under stress and gave his solution: get rid of the meds, lift the drinking ban in theater and let them drink to relieve stress.

We agree with Webb. The drinking ban is ridiculous. But replacing prescription medication with alcohol (as a means of self-medication as Webb appears to suggest) is a bad idea. This is the man who railed against the presence of women at his precious academy and quit as Navy secretary after 10 months because he did not get the funding he wanted. Are defense drinking guidelines his latest cause? He may have the force of 2010 confused with that of the late ‘60s when, if the lore and B movies are accurate, self-medication was the rule.

We also agree with Webb’s concerns about meds at the front. There was a time when those suffering from mental health concerns would be sent packing, and it has been reported many still are. But it seems you may have individuals who may or may not take their medication sporting the latest firepower. While this probably is not a good idea, liquoring them up like the supporting cast in a John Wayne flick (or Webb novel) may not be the way to go either. What Webb may have been getting at (and we hate to agree with him again) is command climate. Life in a war zone isn’t the greatest, so why not give those who serve some normalcy. Webb sees that in an occasional brewski. Our guess is this crowd self-medicates at home, so why break the routine?

Here’s to you senator, and to the Men of Genius like you. Deceased Pennsylvania congressman John “Blurtha” Murtha would be proud.

I will admit it – I love television. Give me a 24-hour marathon of “Homicide Life on the Street,” or a newer iteration, and I am fixated. Better yet, lock me in a room with “Dirty Dancing” and “Top Gun” and I could not be happier. These are my guilty pleasures.

I think I may add HBO’s, “The Pacific” to the shortlist. Sunday was the first of 10 installments. It focused on the path to and arrival at Guadalcanal. WOW. I was lucky to have worked the 50th anniversary commemoration of the campaign. I spent two weeks on the island reliving the lengthy and lethal struggle. (The fighting positions are still visible.)

Watch this show! Of course it is not possible to capture every vignette, but the creators do a very good job portraying key events. As one would expect with HBO, the cinematography is lush and enticing. The show informs, entertains, captivates, shocks, surprises, sobers, (add your verb here). No tear-jerkers yet, but you can see that it may take a most welcome emotional toll.

They call this a miniseries. This first episode was as strong as its ensemble cast of striking, though imperfect, boys (and men – Chesty Puller is larger than life). You know they are going to detail John Basilone’s famed action on the island for which he received the Medal of Honor and chronicle his personal tale. But you want to know about the other boys going to war.

This is when Marines were Marines and not the Army Auxiliary they slowly became with war’s end. Yeah, we may hound Corps Commandant James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway, but given his push to get the boys out of Iraq and his interest in sea basing (we’ll cover that separately) it seems he wants to move the Gun Club generally to what it appears we will witness in “The Pacific.” (I believe they may refer to those as core competencies.)

Don’t have HBO? Get it. Well, I don’t have HBO either, but I have a friend with it plus a working television. Game on! Sundays 9 -10 pm.

This is not an advertisement for HBO or the Marine Corps – Just watch “The Pacific.” Make it your guilty pleasure. I think I will.

If you saw it or have thoughts on it, please comment. I am very excited about this series, as you can tell.

We’ve been told the Marine Corps’ three-star Mafia has been looking over a letter from Commandant James T. “Not in my Corps” Conway. It is what they call a White Letter. Few are issued. They are reserved for matters of top import to the Boys’ Gun Club.

It seems this letter about leadership deficiencies targets junior officers, staff non-commissioned officers as well as sergeants and corporals. Our source insists the letter is well-meaning, but the message is heavy, even accusatory, looking to lay blame: “Hey small-unit leaders, you are disengaged from your Marines. Fix it.” We’re told included with the letter is a leadership engagement campaign plan is to help “fix” the problem, if there is a problem, as Conway may see it. (But will the boxed set be available on Amazon?)

Of particular concern are harmful personnel issues including the increase in suicides. January alone witnessed roughly 20 Marines who took Plan B.

It is always to CMC’s credit that he solicits a sanity check. But it is interesting the Marine Corps would shotgun what seems to be a delicate and crucial issue. We hear there are grumblings from the second tier: We’re told the reaction in this three-star sweep has been negative and one of strong concern.

Counterpoint: It has been noted these same, targeted small-unit leaders may have some post traumatic stress disorder adding to their load. If accurate, their PTSD and possible guilt from the war may cause them to isolate themselves from their units, this according to one retired Marine who led a unit in Afghanistan. This adds to an already complex situation. Such a scenario may suggest a different approach from the “Holly Graf Guide to Leadership and Morale” strategy the Marine Corps is considering.

Conway has been slugging it out in Washington three years now. It’s a tough route, and we would not want his job. Could it be Conway who has become disengaged?

They call it the experimental forward operating base, or ExFOB. (We call it a mud pit.) The results of these Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.-based experiments could reduce a combat unit’s need for power and water. (This is big.) It would reduce its logistic needs. It will get resupply trucks (and the Marines driving those trucks) off the IED-laced roads. Ah, sounds pretty good, now, yes?

In fact, it is good enough that they say our friend, Corps Commandant Gen. James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway, may spend some time with the boys, tents and toys (and mud).

Conway was the catalyst for the Corps’ current work in energy conservation.

ExFOB, created by the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, is a four-phase experiment that tests methods to reduce the logistic needs of combat units. Aside from its ecological and cost benefits, reducing consumption can extend a Marine unit’s sustainability.

Though ExFOB can improve support to today’s warfighter, it targets Conway’s goals of reducing energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015, reducing water consumption by 16 percent the same year and increasing renewable electric power by 25 percent by 2025. Nearly 30 vendor equipment displays will address power, shelter and water capabilities.

Phase One of the experiment simulated the energy and water demands of a Marine unit at forward operating bases similar to those in Afghanistan. Phase Two evaluates existing commercial technologies to produce water on site to meet the Marines’ needs and increase power generation efficiency to sustain the base. Commercial, off-the-shelf technologies have the potential to increase the efficiency of Marine Corps forward-deployed forces, sustaining them over longer periods.

During Phase Three, a Marine unit training in real-world operations will use the renewable technology and energy-saving techniques learned during the earlier phases. (That should be interesting.) Phase Four will facilitate future science and technology efforts by gathering data on experimental systems.

The ExFOB is a collaborative effort. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory is working closely with the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the Office of Naval Research, Marine Corps Systems Command, the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office and Marine Corps Base Quantico.

Because the event is in a Secret-Squirrel kind of area, access is limited. We observed some of the most unattractive terrain we’ve ever seen, though we did see a baby deer and a convention of squirrels. The landscape is stark, a vista of mud. What trees there are would not improve much with foliage. But ExFOB is supposed to simulate a forward operating base in desolate Afghanistan, so maybe we feel our need to visit the rugged nation waning.

It is only recently we learned of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. They do many technological experiments, warfare simulations and war gaming. Robotics? They do it. Resupply with unmanned aerial systems? They’re looking at it. Changing the way their precious Gun Club fights? That, too. How about their work with the newspaper industry? Ah, more on that in a later post.

Despite the misfortune of Navy Capt. Holly Graf and the alleged suffering of the USS Cowpens (CG 63) crew under this so-called Capt. Bligh, we find the allegations and subsequent findings against her outrageous.

Foul and harsh language around sailors a problem? Fear on a warship? What has this Navy come to?

In the name of “We’re bored so now we’ll spy in on our commanding officers,” it has been reported the Navy has relieved no fewer than six commanders since January – this January. But, the downfall of “Horrible Holly” has piqued considerable interest and spiked column inches.

Graf is a 1985 Naval Academy grad who was relieved for allegedly abusing her position and crew.  The Navy Inspector General performed its investigation post haste. Its finding against Graf: cruelty and maltreatment. This is a rare—and not to mention a tad suspect. Do we have another railroaded officer to cover the deficiencies of her seniors?

Graf may have treated everyone poorly, but she treated them equally. In watching the carnage, we cannot help but ask, “So, do you, Cowpens crew, get it now?” We certainly are shedding no tears for this ship’s company. Our guess is the whistleblowers, while justified, have not endured years of true abuse, maltreatment, beratement and sexual harassment. Hey, let’s add sexual assault to the mix. They like to say those things don’t happen today; we’ll let them live the fantasy.

In a statement to investigators, Graf explained her actions were her way to challenge her crew. (Sounds reasonable.) We say it was a way to toughen up what has become a flaccid Navy. Most commanders probably would not subscribe to Graf’s methods. (With all Navy’s focus on diversity, vice leadership, will hugs be required next?)

We wonder about Graf’s executive officer, with whom many of the quoted conversations should have taken place. “Don’t come to me with your problems,” Graf said. “You’re a f______ department head.”  Sounds reasonable to us. “I can’t express how mad you make me without getting violent.” Apparently this statement was a problem for the Navy, but not a problem for Graf. She was to the point and used imagery with great effect.

We’re told the overall morale in the Navy, especially the surface community, has been in the toilet for some time. The officer corps seems to lack the (oddly out-of-control) strength and confidence of a Holly Graf, traits she may have sought to instill in her crew.

The main offenders in this tragedy are the myriad officers above Graf. Reports say she has had this controversial leadership style for some time. Where were those officers to say, “Hey Holly, what the hell is going on?” They certainly rushed to judgment when her behavior became a problem for them.

Navy – In case of war, break glass.

The Marine Corps seems to have it own Tea Party movement: There is a bill in the House of Representatives to rename the “Department of the Navy” to the “Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.” While it might garner some additional awareness for the Boys’ Gun Club, proponents of the change seek parity with the Navy.

But there’s a down side to this equalizer, and bill backers don’t seem to see the Marine Corps may lose more than it gains.

The Marine Corps and the Navy both fall under the Department of the Navy. That top cover has been a sweet deal for the Marines. Equal footing could cost the Marine Corps people and money. The lean Marine Corps? No more! The Navy Department is saddled with tremendous administrative responsibilities, many the Corps has been able to avoid.

Legal and contracting are just two areas that could shift resources away from Corps Commandant Gen. James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway’s precious (and simple) priorities. Do movement supporters know what ball-and-chain possibly awaits? If we were the Navy, we’d say, “Great. Here’s the table of organization and required funding. You get the cubes in the basement. Welcome aboard.”

Point man of this assault on the Hill is North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones whose district includes sprawling Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Joining him is former Corps commandant Gen. Al “Only When There’s Trouble” Gray and Gen. Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM chief. Also involved are the Marine Corps Mafia (uh, League) and the Marine Parents Association.(Who?).  Star power comes in the form of R. Lee Ermey, a Marine Corps veteran and cable TV host who played the drill instructor (shot and killed by a recruit) in the movie “Full Metal Jacket.”

The bill, HR 24, has 370 cosponsors and was introduced in January 6, 2009. It appears it has been in committee since. Senate bill S 504 has two cosponsors and remains in committee. Though these bills may be going nowhere, this group may want to rethink its oddly placed priorities. Proponents of the change are whining the well-worn “recognition for our sacrifices” refrain. We believe they were paid for their service and already receive tremendous credit. We would hope they move on, otherwise the Boys’ Gun Club may become a bit less expeditionary.

We have been reading the reports on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with waning interest. They call it “Lightning II.” We call it “Déjà vu.” Pick your poison. It is another DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer-to-Nowhere. It is the littoral combat ship that more than doubled in price. It is the bankrupt and canceled presidential helicopter.  Just change the name and the general facts remain about the same.

The Joint Strike Fighter reportedly is the Pentagon’s most expensive system. Defense leaders bought into the dream. Yeah, it was pricey, but DoD would come out ahead in the long run. (Their opinion, not ours.) The Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and nine allied nations all were going to the same bird. It made sense for everyone to have the same plane. (This seemed more a liability than combined advantage from the start.) And birds could be delivered quickly. (Read: Check’s in the mail.)

DoD’s Dream Machine seems to be anything but. The F-35 has been fraught with (you guessed it) cost overruns and delays. Reports say building the plane has been “difficult,” and it is running billions over budget. Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates has described the situation as “troubling.” Worse, production is behind schedule. The Air Force delivery has been pushed from 2013 to 2015.

Our guess is things will get worse before they improve (or the program dies). We guess no one will see a full squadron of F-35s until well after 2015. Cost overruns will continue. (See programs above.) Given the size or the F-35 program, economies of scale will come into play: the size of the program will send costs further out of control at a faster rate.

Is the Joint Strike Fighter the Defense Department’s version of “too big to fail”?

The phrase, “For Official Use Only” is the faux veil behind which government agencies, including the Defense Department, hide. All too often those with authority declare, “Make it FOUO.” The intent often is to hide information. But it is a designation not a classification.

Essentially, FOUO is meaningless.

We often see FOUO documents sitting in our cyber box here at Inside the Headquarters. Far from the Pentagon Papers, they are average Defense Department fare. It is easy to find what out the creator was trying to hide, but it is more humorous than newsworthy, and a tad pathetic.

Yet FOUO spells security, for many. Of those with whom we spoke, few understood its meaning and equated it with a classification.

Classified material, like “secret” and “top secret,” have specific handling instructions. Only those with the clearance and a need to know can view such documents.

But FOUO? The intent is to classify a document that is unclassified. It is to bury it from public view without codified protections. But FOUO material is subject to the same Freedom of Information Act guidelines as other documents.

Recently a war game and all related documents were assigned FOUO. The move instilled a culture of fear and mistrust. Organizers were trying to bury one word by waving the FOUO wand. It has worked thus far. (We won’t reveal their “secret” yet.)

The culture of fear seems to be gripping many departments in Washington. FOUO feeds this “Revolution of No.”

Maybe this is a tad obvious, but women who VOLUNTEER to serve in the ALL-VOLUNTEER force are volunteering to serve in the military service of choice. Most understand this. Many who have not served get it, too.

But not everyone is trackin’. Recently, a column in the Washington Times newspaper portrayed female servicemembers as victims of the big, bad military conspiracy.

In “Leaving Home and Hearth for Battle: When Women must Fight, America’s Families Lose,” Suzanne Fields wrote, “… some of them are victims of military bureaucrats and high-ranking policymakers who are blind to the values of our culture and deaf to the ancient call of history.”

Huh?

Yeah, we thought Phyllis Schafly, too. Fields used a recent report of a soldier facing legal action because she could not deploy. Her family care plan had fallen through. Actually, her mother brought the child back cross-country and reneged on her promise. While details of this soldier and her unit’s circumstances have been well-publicized, it seems there may have been more going on here with Spec Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother and Army cook, than reports conveyed. (But we digress.)

The Army treated Hutchinson who declined to deploy to Afghanistan with her unit like it would any other soldier. Fields (and it seems most news outlets) found this an outrage, because Hutchinson happens to have a child. (It seems no consideration was given to her fellow soldiers who would have to suck up her workload.) Hutchinson’s story is the basis of Field’s argument that “Motherhood Trumps Military Commitments Every Time.”

Fields seems to argue that women with children be removed from the armed forces. The ancient call of history seems to be that of motherhood. In fact, back in the olden days, parents and grandparents could not fathom a mother serving in any capacity other than mother. (We really can’t fathom she believes this. This post-World War II ideal is not accurate.)

The author drags in the deaths of women (not just mothers) in theater and blames a wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement between Congress and the Army. Similarly she blames the swell of female servicemembers (Read: Lambs led to slaughter.) on this deal with lawmakers. (There has been no significant increase in percentages of females serving in the past decade.)

Eat More Chicken … Discharge all Moms. You will be doing America a favor.

Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates announced the Navy will be opening service on board submarines to women. It is a move decades behind women’s service aboard surface ships and gender neutralizes nearly all Navy specialties (excluding Navy SEALS and a handful of others).

As required by Title 10, Gates forwarded his notification to Congress, informing lawmakers of the Navy’s intent. Congress has 30 days to act, but once the clock runs out the Navy is free to move forward.

On the heels of Gates’ announcement, the Army felt the need to emerge from the Navy’s wake. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr., declared his service will take a hard look at women’s roles in combat and review current Army policies in that area.

Wow, do you think this is the first time they’ve looked at women in warfare? This from the man canned from combat and “promoted” to his current position? Casey is no luminary, but he seems well-meaning. Maybe the Army will reach the same conclusion about combat exclusion that most already have. But will there be proposed changes in ground combat guidelines, and will they pass the notification test?

One service we did not hear from was, you guessed it—The Boys’ Gun Club. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway made no announcement like Casey. In fact, we probably won’t hear from him. His precious Corps has wars to fight, he says. But his over protection of his service may be the thing that’s killing it.

Homosexuals? Women? There has been little progress. (We’re not talking social experiments.) The “I’ve got a war to fight” excuse may be wearing thin. Does the Marine Corps offer something the Army doesn’t? Of course it does, namely light, quick-reaction infantry, but few understand what that something is. The Army is narrowing the gap. It is a bad day in Marineland when the commandant seems bitter and out of touch. Jim, friends on the Hill may be harder to keep, even with guys like Son of Murtha in your legislative office.

That aside, we say, “Nice move,” on the part of the Navy, and, “Way to ride the Navy’s wave,” Army (though it did seem a tad desperate). Both should gain some ground on what seems to be an increasingly isolated and oblivious Marine Corps.