Inside the Headquarters

An Army-Air Force feud has spread outside the Pentagon’s hallowed halls to Capitol Hill, where lawmakers seem to be a little bit too involved.

The debate surrounds the purchase of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). Though originally developed by the Army as the Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA), DoD mandated a shotgun wedding of sorts and directed the Army to join forces with its Air Force brethren and merge the FCA and the Air Force’s Light Cargo Aircraft under a single program. So, they drew up an agreement, and presto! The stuff of fairytales.

Sadly, the marriage is over (irreconcilable differences?), and there was no pre-nup. The Air Force wants complete control of the program, including the money marked for the Army. Sources say this movement also gained momentum on the Hill, pushed by a single staffer. (Cue galloping horses.) Lawmakers now seem poised to hand the flight controls of the JCA to the Air Force, along with the all the funds.

Lawmaker reasoning: This is an Air Force mission.

But the Army has cried foul.

While much of the cargo-flying gig falls to the Air Force, the Army has its “organic airlift needs” and flies what’s called “the last tactical mile.” It needs a plane that can get its wings dirty, and it seems the C-27J is that plane. This is not a part of the Air Force mission, according to Army officials.

Air Force leaders (including Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Mosley) have pledged the Army’s needs for the aircraft would be met under the proposed arrangement. But the Army’s not buying it (Air Force assurances, that is. Big surprise.) and is working ‘round the clock to “inform” (they certainly would NEVER lobby) lawmakers. Sources say it’s been an uphill battle.

It appears the Air Force might have its eye more on its waning relevance in the tactical world than on who needs the JCAs.

So, what’s the deal with Congress on this one?

Sometimes an event takes on a life of its own and represents issues larger, deeper, and more far-reaching than the incident itself.

Service rivalry, operational philosophies, missions, and even history come to mind.
Take, for example, the now-beleaguered Marine Corps Special Operations Company that ran afoul of at least one Army general, resulting in its expulsion from Afghanistan. (See Turf Wars and Kearney in the Crosshairs) Was this an opportunity seized to discredit the competition? Depends on with whom you speak. Regardless upon which perch you park, the results are in, and some reports say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation into the March 4 ambush and its bloody aftermath has found that the Marines used excessive force.

Bummer.

But not so fast.

In an unusual move, Marine Lt. Gen. James “I Like Brawling” Mattis (See “I Like Brawling”), commander of the Corps’ forces under U.S. Central Command, has ordered up the Marine Corps’ first court of inquiry in more than 50 years to explore the event.

The officers were hand-picked by “… Fun to Shoot Some People” Mattis, based on their combat records. Beginning Nov. 1, they will take another look at the incident that left several Afghan civilians dead. According to sources and published accounts, this rare path chosen by “It’s a Hell of A lot of Fun to Shoot Them” Mattis, should provide him the “best possible evaluation” from the combat officers’ perspectives of events, assisting him in determining how he’ll proceed.

(Gee, any chance this crew won’t be biased?)

You’ll have to go to the history books for the last time the Marine Corps convened a court of inquiry. The year was 1956 when a Parris Island drill instructor marched a platoon of recruits into a creek killing six.

It looks like Harrison Ford will have his work cut out for him when he portrays “Guys Like that Ain’t Got No Manhood” Mattis in an upcoming film.

The saga continues, and we remain riveted.

Our friends who follow the Defense Establishment have reported on a Marine Corps proposal that will send the Army packing from Afghanistan, replacing it with, who else? The Marine Corps.

What a PR coup!

Though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seemed to feign ignorance of the proposal early on, our guess is not much gets past him and certainly nothing as big as the Marine Corps pulling out of Iraq and shifting its toys to Afghanistan. Apparently he got read in rather quickly since he reportedly nixed the idea a few days later.

But when has such a simple inconvenience stopped the Marine Corps? Sources say planning continues.

Some familiar with the plan say the mission makes a lot of sense for the Marine Corps and would be more efficient for all parties. Though landlocked (sorry, no beach landings here), Afghanistan has the elements of a classic Marine Corps mission, according to one source. He noted it was geared toward “lightweight, fast-moving maneuver warfare and small-scale, low-intensity conflict.” He opined that the Army’s “fort[ress]” mentality is better suited to Iraq. Marines in contrast prefer a lack of permanence. They want to be “outside the gate,” making them better-suited to be among the locals in Afghanistan. His opinion, not ours, and surely a point of contention between the services.

Regardless of who should do what mission where, we see this as a public relations coup. (Note: We are not detracting from the seriousness of the situation or from the potential brilliance of the plan.)

Once again, the Marine Corps has forced the Army on the defensive. The boldness of the plan underscores the Corps’ “warrior savvy,” even if only in the minds of Congress (money!). We don’t think it will hurt Marine Corps recruiting either.

Afghanistan seems to enjoy more public support than operations in Iraq. Control of the country and success there would go a long way to reinforce The Gun Club’s Most Favored Service status.

This issue is far from moot: We’re told the Joint Chiefs soon will meet to discuss the plan.

Cool.

Is the DoD’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program fueling the Powder Keg of the early 21st century?

Missile pods for Turkey. Missile upgrades for Pakistan. Jet fuel sales. Possible aircraft sales in the area of $900 million for Iraq.

And one of the Navy’s newest — the littoral combat ship — possibly to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

We thought the FMS was the Manheim Auto Auction — the CraigsList — of DoD. Apparently, we were mistaken.

According to the FMS, “Responsible arms sales further national security and foreign policy objectives by strengthening bilateral defense relations, supporting coalition building, and enhancing interoperability between U.S. forces and militaries of friends and allies. These sales also contribute to American prosperity by improving the U.S. balance of trade position, sustaining highly skilled jobs in the defense industrial base, and extending production lines and lowering unit costs for key weapon systems.”

All true, but Turkey looms on Iraq’s northern border, and concern continues to grow in the Middle East over relations other than those with Iraq. While diplomatically such sales can keep the U.S. tied to its allies (not sure if this is always a good thing), it seems the biggest advantage goes to the defense behemoths that make out like bandits. See “American prosperity” above.

Lose a contract bid or not selling much of an older system? No worries. Sell abroad. Better yet, sell to an entity into which the U.S. is pumping money. Why not siphon that money back to your company though the FMS program? Unstable region? All the better. They need your product, and DoD will help you sell it and take care of notifying Congress and writing up the contract. What a deal.

According one source “If we don’t [sell to these countries] someone else will.”

True.

Opines a senior officer: “It’s important to keep these crooks in steaks and cigars.”
Well. That’s another way of looking at it.

Again, the jury is still out on this one.

Oh, to be the hunted and no longer the hunter.

It seems it’s open season on Special Operation Command’s deputy commander Lt. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III. Not long ago, Kearney was gunning for Marine Corps Special Operations Marines in Afghanistan and a couple of Army Special Forces soldiers when he was in charge of Special Operations for the U.S. Central Command.

Not only did Kearney successfully toss the entire Marine company out of Afghanistan, in an unrelated case he directed that charges be brought against two Army Special Forces soldiers, a captain and a master sergeant — after one Army Criminal Investigation Command investigation exonerated both men.

Now at least one member of Congress is gunning for him.

In at letter to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, North Carolina Congressman Walter B. Jones, a Republican whose district includes Jacksonville’s Camp Lejeune where the Marines were stationed, asked that Kearney’s actions be investigated. Jones, a member of the powerful Armed Service Committee, noted Kearney’s actions “damaged not only the development of Marine Special Operation Command but also the Marines’ personal livelihood.”

Jones demanded “a thorough investigation of Lt. Gen Kearney be initiated immediately by the Inspector General (IG) regarding the command influence to bring charges against [Master Sergeant Patriot] and [Captain America].” He also requested the IG determine whether the expulsion of the Marines was “proper and void of improper motivation.”

Power run amuck? Control issues? Rivalry?

And that IG investigation. Since Kearney is a three-star, the investigation probably will be conducted by a four-star. Lots of them running around with all kinds of time. We think we know how this investigation will turn out.

Thanks anyway, Congressman.

Like a Bob Hope-Bing Crosby Road picture, The Road to GITMO is full of adventure, mayhem, and an odd cast of characters. Take for instance Peter E. Brownback III — judge, Army officer …

… Road Crew Flagman.

That’s right. Brownback traveled The Road to GITMO out of retirement to serve as a presiding officer for the military commissions. Somewhere along the road, a source tells us, he stopped in the tanned, toned, and glistening world of road crew flagmen.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Brownback, who retired as an Army colonel, served as the judge in the reasonably well-known if not notorious Kreutzer case. Sgt. William J. Kreutzer is the guy who took the wrong road when he shot nearly 20 soldiers one morning at Fort Bragg, N.C. His death sentence was vacated on appeal, because it seems Judge Brownback denied certain defense requests. A source says this type of victory for the defense is almost unheard of in the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. Fork in the road?

But that’s ancient history. Why use that as criteria for Brownback’s current line of work?

Citizen Brownback’s post-retirement choice to take the low-stress road as a census taker and one more catatonic as a road crew flagman is … interesting. He has also rented beach chairs, which is actually pretty hip in beach culture. While Inside the Headquarters agrees that such jobs can be a lot of fun and provide a well-earned respite from, oh, say being a judge, sources wonder if Brownback was the best choice to preside over commissions, despite his newfound perspective from alternative careers. Unless of course, his appointment was a precursor to the staffing drama that continues to plague the prosecution and defense teams.

The jury is still out on this one.

It appears the Navy’s cost overruns, contract failures, and general mismanagement have angered Senate gods enough to yank $910 million from the littoral combat ship program.

In a last-ditch effort to appease the gods, the Navy is trying something different:

Human sacrifice.

Seventy-two virgins? Better. One assistant secretary.

The Navy’s Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition Delores Etter submitted her resignation Oct. 5. (Note that this is the Friday before a federal holiday!) In a statement, Etter says she deliberated with her staff and family, and this move will allow her to resume teaching at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in the spring.

In reality, Friday afternoon resignations usually mean someone has been asked to leave in the near future or has been fired. Going back to academia, OK, but heading to the electrical engineering department at the Naval Academy seems a bit sketchy. So does the fact that no private sector positions are beckoning. And “deliberating” with family and staff — deliberating? — also seems a bit contrived.

While Etter’s statement is probably factual, Inside the Headquarters and a number of Vegas bookies lay odds that she was forced out after a horrendous year in the acquisition department, specifically with the LCS “Who’s on First?” deal. And how does this help LCS? SECNAV might well be able to point to her (sudden) departure as a signal that the acquisition business is now right full rudder.

Will it be enough to appease the Senate gods and win back the $910 million for LCS and the families it feeds? We’ve got money on this one.

It’s good to have defense news announced by a member of Congress during a press conference, unless it is “blurted” by John Murtha (D-Pa.).

Take cover!

The senior statesman who seems to be the one to watch for his “what-will-he-say-next” quotient, backhandedly announced the Oct. 1 start-up of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) during remarks in which he expressed concern over China’s strong foray into the continent. While chastising the U.S. for its failures in the region, he used the new command as a pawn to underscore supposed U.S. shortcomings, plainly stating that AFRICOM sat in Stuttgart, Germany, because not one African nation would host the command.

Not one? Wow. Makes you want to toss any Lee Greenwood recordings until you realize that Murtha’s bomb was a dirty one.

Gasp.

It seems the plan has been to station the new command, which takes over duties from EUCOM, PACOM and CENTCOM, in Stuttgart probably at least until it becomes “fully established as a separate unified command” sometime in the next year and after it is responsible for U.S. military relations with all African nations. This probably will take some time, because it’s a big place with more than 50 countries. But the command is not without controversy, and reports indicate some African nations are concerned about the possible militarization of relations with the U.S., Liberia, and Ethiopia (and maybe others) reportedly have offered to host U.S. Army Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward and company. Other nations are waiting to see more before they make any commitments.

And Murtha? Firing for effect? The “blurt watch” continues.

As Congress hammers out its differences on the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, it has become a nail-biter for service leaders and the Defense contractors who love them.

Specifically, the Navy has been holding its breath awaiting the fate of the Senate’s $910 million cut from its littoral combat ship program, effectively killing off the already gasping LCS-4.

In a rare move, the Senate, possibly tiring of the shipbuilding side show, cut nearly $1 billion, probably leaving Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to compete for top honors with just one ship each as the Navy decides which company will build the projected 55 ships in the class. That decision projected for 2010 might now come as early as late 2008 if the cuts stand.

According to a source close to the program, it seems the Navy might have backed its way into this corner and should not be surprised by Senate actions.

“Inside the Headquarters” reported earlier this year the Navy ordered work stopped on Lockheed Martin’s LCS-3 in January after it understood the first in the class — Lockheed’s LCS-1 — was running tens of millions of dollars over budget, due, in great part, to the Navy’s own requests for design changes. According to a source close to the program, Lockheed specifically explained the cost reality to the Navy, though those financial facts had been reported to the Navy’s program officials in the mandated, monthly contract performance reports.

In April, the Navy reported it could not reach an agreement with Lockheed for a fixed-price alternative for LCS-3, but in reality, it applied to LCS-1, too, which was nearing completion. Including LCS-1 in the mix seemed to be the deal breaker for Lockheed, according to a source familiar with the contract.

Though it appeared to be anchors aweigh for General Dynamics on LCS-2 and LCS-4, despite similar, known cost overruns, a source familiar with the program acknowledged the Navy has asked General Dynamics to slow production on LCS-4. (Deja-vu?) One source speculates that the slowdown might be an effort to avoid the millions the Navy will have to pay Lockheed Martin for the stop-work stunt.

It also been reported that the Navy and General Dynamics are looking at a fixed-price alternative for LCS-2 and LCS-4. Deja-vu, part deux?

Can one really blame the Senate?

There’s a fine, fine line between bonus and bounty.

Department of the Army civilian employees now constitute a team of bounty hunters over 240,000 strong.

Effective March 15, Army civilians and — get this — Army retirees and members of the active duty Army, Guard, and Reserve, became eligible for a $2,000 enlistment referral bonus. No need to sell plasma any longer; just point a prospect to a waiting Army recruiter, and if he or she enlists, ships to boot camp, graduates, and successfully completes advanced individual training, that cool cash can be yours. But just like redeeming rewards of the current millennium, qualifying for and collecting that booty can be tricky. Prior to the prospect’s first meeting with a recruiter, the bounty hunter must make the referral via www.usarec.army.mil/smart or (800) 223-3735, ext. 6-0473. Army National Guard recruits can refer via www.1800goguard.com/esar or (866) GO-GUARD (566-2472).

Prospects cannot be immediate family members (so no sending son, daughter, brother, sister, father, or mother downrange!), and bounty hunters cannot be professional body snatchers — they cannot serve in a recruiting or retention position. Oh, and the prospect cannot have prior service.

According to Army officials, more than 31,000 referrals have been made under the program from all sources, though they did not know the number of payouts. Repeated trips to the trough? “Sure,” says the Army. “No limit.” And how does the IRS view this? The bounty, uh, bonus, is treated as taxable income and is paid by the Defense Financing and Accounting Service, according to the Army.

Hurry! The program ends Dec. 31 but might be extended.

Who’s on your block?