Inside the Headquarters

Recently on Fox News Sunday Army Gen. David (King David) Petraeus demurred when asked if politics lay in his future, recalling the words of Civil War icon (Union, anyway) Gen. William T. Sherman, who said in 1884, “If drafted I will not run; if nominated I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.”

Guess Sherman wasn’t interested in the presidency and was likely reacting to the woes that had befallen another Civil War hero (again, Union) retired general and then-President Ulysses. S. Grant. While Grant is in the minority of how badly a military leader’s political career can turn out, his example is certainly sobering.

Ah, but we digress.

America’s love-affair tradition with its hot general du jour is alive and well. Petraeus smartly was not as emphatic as Sherman.

Americans have long looked to their successful military commanders for leadership off the battlefield and often in the White House. These include: George Washington (OK, pre-White House), Andrew Jackson (questionable actions as a military leader but a success nonetheless), Grant (one of our most tragic figures), Teddy Roosevelt (our personal favorite), and Dwight Eisenhower. Though a large number of U.S. presidents have had military experience, it has not defined them with the American people as it has with this group. These men arguably were gifted, and stories of their service grew into legend, not unlike the “King David” moniker — a title bestowed upon Petraeus by admirers.

Some runs for office by military leaders have been disastrous, and unfortunately, men of great honor and talent wind up looking pathetic in the political arena. This is something no one, including Petraeus, wants. The untidiness of it all might keep those who ooze talent from running for office — a loss on many levels.

The not-so-successful military leaders, well, they seem to follow a different path. Ah, fodder for another day.

Haven’t heard of the Cold War Victory Medal? We hadn’t either until one presidential candidate voiced support while stumping to a group of veterans. For over a decade there has been a movement afoot to win approval for the award. Though one might wonder about its validity and merit, supporters have no question. Even the period is defined with precision — Sept. 2, 1945, to Dec. 26, 1991. DoD has argued against the medal based on cost concerns with the tab totaling $10 a vet — or more than $200 million. The other and more compelling argument is reported Pentagon policy that such a campaign award not overlap with other campaign awards. The Cold War Victory Medal would overlap with “the Korean Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal, to name a few.”

A compromise of sorts was reached in 1998, and a certificate has been available since 1999. DoD again stated its position in early 2002.

But what’s a dead issue to lawmakers? New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Maine Sen. Susan Collins introduced a bill for the medal in the Senate. There seemed to be strong support this year in the House, and lawmakers included support for the medal in their version of the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, though it did not make its way into the final bill.

Well-meaning members? Maybe self-serving. Such feel-good “awards” can cheapen the meaning of other military decorations and divert attention from substantive issues. The proposed Cold War Victory Medal would be “awarded” just for attending the party on active duty for 180 days. Did we “win” the “Cold War?” It sounds nice, and we like to think so. But a medal seems rather ungracious and in-your-face, which may be a sign of the times. If we did in fact win this Cold War, then maybe we should continue with quiet dignity and with no need for a ribbon with a piece of medal attached.

Awards other than the Medal of Honor virtually were unheard of until World War I. Service is service. Honor is honor. Maybe the true reward is in the knowing of one’s contribution.

In light of concern (panic) over contracting irregularities (count ‘em — more than 70 fraud investigations) and program cost overruns (the rage across DoD), the Army has announced the creation of a “new” contracting command. It will be headed by a two-star, harbor about 1,400 people, and be located within the Army’s Materiel Command.

That’s the right answer if you’re testifying before Congress and lawmakers are a little concerned about your management of taxpayer dollars. Pandering aside, what about the old “new” contracting entity?

In 2002, the Army established the U.S. Army Contracting Agency under the Army assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics, and technology to consolidate and reorganize, which seems to be the purpose again. The current agency is civilian-led, and there are Army contracting commands — the U.S. Army Contracting Command Korea and the same for Europe. The agency’s mission: “To lead the Army in efficient and effective contracting with a professional team committed to continuous innovation and process improvement.” Sounds good to us.

According to THE Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology Claude Bolton (think Charlton Heston as Moses), “the success of our war fighters is linked directly to the success of the contracting work force.” So the implication is that the Army Contracting Agency is a total failure or it does not do the type of contracting the Army needs? We’re confused.

We strolled over to the contracting agency’s Web site and were greeted by the nice civilian director, “We are an Agency created in 2002, and we continue to transform to meet the evolving needs of a transforming Army at war.” Apparently not. It seems no one has told the nice man what’s in the works. Maybe he has lost his job and doesn’t know yet! Another secret we must keep.

Senior officials seem to think the “problem” (fraud) stems from a lack of training. We think this new command could better train crooks who are going to take the system for all they can regardless. The challenge may lie in the hiring for these positions, not the number hired or the training to the degree believed. Like MRAP and body armor, this new and improved way of doing business is NOT and may be just the same, “Look at us Congress. We are correcting perceived deficiencies. Please fund us,” schtick. Pathetic. But maybe it is a small price to pay to keep good relations with lawmakers. If there is a problem, however, one wants to define that challenge, a “new” contracting command is probably not the solution.
Someone really needs to let the Army Contracting Agency in on this.

Photo caption: “A woman who is a victim of domestic violence cannot go to the police or another man for help or she will lose honor with her family.” Army Capt. Jordan Berry, Bagram Provincial Reconstruction Team. He and fellow Soldiers helped to establish the first women’s shelter in Kapisa Province, Afghanistan.

Is this the picture of domestic violence in Afghanistan? It seems Army.mil wants you to think so. The Army’s home page has done it again with the above image, illustrating the quote about women and domestic violence in Afghanistan (Dec. 20). Readers might assume the Afghan woman wearing the burka symbolizes domestic violence in that country. Muslim women in the West have gone on record recently asking that people not assume women wearing headscarves are victims. (OK, they did not mention the attire pictured that many would view as extreme.) While the staff at Inside the Headquarters can be a bit radical, we find this effort to illustrate domestic violence a blatant faux pas by the Army. Option? The face of domestic violence probably cannot be displayed appropriately on Army.mil, and that’s OK.

We dug a little deeper. Here’s the actual caption for this photo: “KAPISA PROVINCE, Afghanistan — An Afghan woman sells handmade crafts during the opening of a women’s shelter here Dec. 13. The Bagram Provincial Reconstruction Team provided more than $86,000 in support of the shelter’s construction, which was accomplished by local contractors.” Hmmmm. Maybe she is a victim, but it appears to us she’s an entrepreneur contributing monetarily to the cause. Seems like a good-news photo to us. We have no idea who’s checking this stuff before it’s posted, but we’d like to thank him or her for giving us a lot to write about.

This is not the first example of Army rogue Web content. On Nov. 1, it was the beefcake boy-toy representing the Iraqi Security Forces ((Cover) Model Hero?). On Dec. 14, we told you about the Army’s endorsement of “GI Jill,” combat medic and Miss Utah and Miss America contestant Jill Stevens. Now the Army.mil people are somehow trying to put a “face” on domestic violence in Afghanistan with another misleading photo. Army.mil is handled by a contracted company we won’t name. We will tell you they come under the larger group L-3 Communications. With such glaringly misleading content, contractors are doing the Army no favors. Some oversight might go a long way. Images aside, congratulations on the women’s shelter.

Was it the Christmas Spirit? Were they just feeling generous? Or guilty? Or again pandering to the home district on feel-good programs? Not to be outdone by societal do-gooders, veterans’ charities, and the like, the Senate has approved a measure that will give veterans better and easier access to small business loans and other benefits. Lawmakers point to Senate studies that show the rate of unemployment among vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is twice that of the national average. Statistically significant? We’re not sure. We would expect this rate to be higher. On the up side, veterans traditionally have had reasonable access to Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and loans, though additional assistance and enhanced programs always are welcome. In one provision of S. 1784, a veteran may receive a loan of up to $50,000 without collateral. It’s anyone’s guess how this will play out, though it beats the arts-and-craft kits provided by so-called veterans’ charities.

Though most would like to see veterans get loans for small businesses, the judicious management of these funds is crucial. The failure rate of new businesses is high for a variety of reasons, and a slowing economy will make small business challenges more pronounced. Throwing feel-good funds at vets to show the government cares does little for veterans in the long term.

The bill seems to target reservists, a group that lost businesses when called to duty in Desert Storm. This is a nice, bipartisan try, but we’ll wait and see. Loans without collateral are unwise, unless the interest rate is higher to account for the increased risk. Details! Details!

SBA programs in general could be real winners if coupled with the training a veteran may receive in the VA’s vocational rehabilitation program.

It seems similar provisions to S. 1784 were in the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill but were stripped out in committee. (To fund those earmarks?) Again, we’ll wait and see.

It’s official: The 2008 Defense Authorization Act finally agreed to by House and Senate earlier this month bans lead systems integrators (LSIs) after Oct. 1, 2010.

Not the brightest move by lawmakers.

Inside the Headquarters reported in September that the House version of the bill sought to nix LSIs by October 2011. Nowhere did LSI appear in the Senate version. Somehow senators bought off on the idea and BAM! — good-bye LSI, effective one year earlier than the House had suggested. But that political gem is another story.

LSIs widely have been vilified and blamed for myriad cost overruns, system errors, global warming, and the Kennedy assassination, (OK, maybe not the latter two). Though many want to see inherently government work performed by the government and not contractors, LSI work is not govvie stuff. According to one source that has been on both sides of projects: “The government never had the ability to be a lead systems integrator on any complex program. Overall they just don’t have the talent or depth to perform that task.”

LSIs answer to government lords, submit periodic (monthly) reports, and perform work that is beyond the government’s scope. According to our source, the need for LSIs, or prime contractors, arose in the face of increasingly complex contracts in the 1990s. Today, the Army’s Future Combat Systems, the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program have LSIs. Lawmakers have been quick to blame the LSIs for cost overruns in these programs, and hail the new provision as a solution to this “problem.” Our source pointed out that a contracting system based on best-case scenarios and almost certain follow-on spec changes rapidly can blow any budget.
Will the problem of cost overruns improve with LSIs gone? Probably not, and it might just worsen. Though there are overtures to “train” govvies as LSIs (uh, right) we doubt that’s going to happen. Lawmakers might doubt it, too, and left some wiggle room in the legislation: If properly justified, an LSI may be appointed for a project.

Will next year’s bill (election year, lots of lobbying) reverse this bizarre provision? We can only hope so for DoD’s sake.

What exactly is a veterans’ charity, and why do we need them? Never missing an opportunity to make a buck, some of these nonprofit organizations — disguised as do-gooders — collect donations from the well-meaning and guilt-ridden to line their pockets and propagate their organizations.

Ah, but we digress. Think about it: Why do we need veterans’ charities? Do we need them? We can understand lobbying organizations that fight for vets’ rights on the Hill but charities that help veterans? Help them do what? What could a “charity” possibly do that DoD, the VA, and the benefits legit vets have from honorable service cannot or do not? If veterans need help from private charities, then we are no better than the nations that see their pensioners sell trinkets and bits of food by the road or outside metro stops (a la Moscow at one time).

The watchdog group American Institute of Philanthropy found that 20 of the 29 military (?!) charities it looked at did not make the grade. Though we don’t completely agree with this well-respected organization, most of these nonprofits showed a pretty poor percentage of funds actually going to the purported cause. Another trend was debilitating overhead, which has been no secret on the giving circuit for some time. Charity founders and fat cats also seem to pocket some rather hefty paychecks.

Again, we digress. Regardless of the findings, why do we need charities for our veterans or the military? To provide “therapeutic arts-and-crafts kits to hospitalized veterans?” Please. We understand the service-related aid societies (all of which received top marks). We get the USO. We don’t get the rest, and it is unfortunate that some perceived void exists that has allowed them seemingly to flourish at the expense of some good people.
Epilogue: Congress in feigning its outrage has called for more regulation. Yeah, that’s the answer. We’re baffled why Congress would get involved — other than to pander to voters on a feel-good topic — of little importance to veterans or taxpayers. Did one lawmaker ask why these organizations exist? We didn’t think so.

On Dec. 3, we told you about allegations that Samar Khalil Nabbouh/Spinelli, Marine captain and gal pal of FBI/CIA agent and sham-marriage expert Nada Nadim Prouty also had entered into a fraudulent marriage. Things are a bit more complex.

Our promised update: The Justice Department announced Dec. 4 that Nabbouh/Spinelli had pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit citizenship and passport fraud. (Read the entire plea.). Justice confirmed what had been reported in limited circles for some time. Nabbouh came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1989 and in 1990 entered into a fraudulent marriage with one hapless schlep ”for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws.” She committed naturalization fraud when she submitted a series of “false, fraudulent, and forged documents and letters to federal immigration officials in order to obtain permanent residency status” and later U.S. citizenship. Nice. In late 1997, she used her fraudulently obtained citizenship to secure a commission in the Marine Corps. Words cannot convey …

Justice states she assisted BFF Prouty in a similar illegal union, with Hapless Schlep’s brother. Worse, Nabbouh/Spinelli acting as a reference, helped her former sister-in-law defraud the FBI. Justice reports Nabbouh/Spinelli also lied to FBI investigators.

Pretty bad? Well, Justice went with the plea anyway: Nabbou/Spinelli will have to resign her commission and face six to 12 months behind bars (not to exceed nine months — do read the plea). The fine can be no more than $250,000 for each of the two counts. Sentencing is set for early next year. It is unclear if she is facing deportation. A source tells us her military discharge probably will be an “other-than-honorable” one, which still gives her some VA bennies. (See Incarcerated Veterans entry.)

Nabbouh/Spinelli is five years from retirement. We assume, she will not be permitted to reenter the Marine Corps as an E-7 to finish out her 20 years. One Marine familiar with the case said, “We’re not taking her back. Good riddance.” We also assume she will not be permitted to join another service. The Army has loosened up on its waivers, so who knows?

The bigger question that remains unanswered: How could security-clearance investigators not catch this? It appears Nabbouh/Spinelli’s actions only came to light after gal pal Prouty was exposed. Prouty’s cover was blown only by the unusual digging she did to see if she and her sister were being watched in conjunction with Hezbollah. (One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.) Prouty’s sister, another Nabbouh/Spinelli gal pal, is married to a bad guy who fled the U.S. because of millions of dollars he owes to the IRS. It has been widely reported he has ties to Hezbollah, though that group soon might become what the Irish Republican Army became in this country. Regardless, it would seem that Nabbouh/Spinelli has ties to Hezbollah. And wasn’t Hezbollah involved in the 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut killing 241 servicemembers? Six degrees of separation.

Hey, but this criminal can look on the bright side: If the U.S. deports her, maybe Hezbollah can use her as an operative. She has done remarkably well deceiving U.S officials for nearly two decades. If she is not deported, maybe a U.S. agency can use a person with her skills. Regardless, she can make a mint as a consultant.

We smell a book deal.

That’s the Army’s moniker. This one’s not on us. In today’s world of two-way exploitation, the U.S. Army and Utah National Guard Sgt. Jill Stevens seem to be getting quite a bit of mileage from one another. Stevens, who has served in the Guard for six years, is a combat medic. She is also Miss Utah 2007 and will be vying for the 2008 Miss America Crown in Las Vegas Jan . 26. We think that’s great and wish her all the best. The problem comes with the Army’s homepage. Stevens is featured and a link at the screen’s center takes you to GI Jill’s (again their term, not ours) Army homepage, complete with blog and self-promo fodder. We’re not sure if this concept or the site’s content is weirder. Her blog/journal entries spout some true classic material. Unfortunately, it seems the site’s copy editor has been away, doing Stevens no favors. Here’s a gem from Nov. 15:

“It’s funny how these past few months as Miss Utah has related so much to a Military Deployment for me. I feel like on June 29 I received my ‘orders for mobilization’ and I have entered a whole new combat zone as I prep for Miss America. … I guess on a more ‘internal’ note… this really does feel like a combat zone to me. As I have gone to these Miss America events it is like walking into enemy territory as I receive so many judgments/’advice’ from so many that are so willing to shoot them at me. Some bullets I dodge and some hit me hard. There are others that give off ‘friendly fire’ (constructive criticism) and I know that they are just trying to help. My armor is my belief in myself that I can do this.”

Metaphor or not, it’s a beauty pageant. It is not combat. The position of Miss Utah equated to that of a military deployment? Now Stevens did spend over a year as a combat medic in Afghanistan, but relating the two is just bizarre. The Army’s endorsement and posting of this freestyle drivel to its Web site might appeal to a narrow audience but alienate an even larger one. Regardless, Stevens gains exposure going into the pageant prep homestretch.

It gets better. With the pageant fast-approaching, Stevens ratcheted it up a notch: This is no longer about her, it’s about the children — and thus clearly about her scoring points with the judges. Dec. 6:

“Since being among the people of Afghanistan and especially the children, a few soldier’s and I saw a great need. Many of these children are without food and live on the streets being subject to sickness and life-threatening situations. Its scary! Seeing that happening right in front of us sparked a desire inside that has now grown into The Afghanistan Orphanage Project, or TAO Project. A few soldiers and I have worked together over the past couple of years to build this project and now we have secured a ‘nonprofit organization’ status, trying to raise money for these children that so need our help. We have had lots of meetings but one of our biggest just took place this last week as we laid out plans for fundraising and filming a Documentary. We have now established a Web site at: http://taoproject.org/main.html.”

The Army has moved past promoting Stevens and the Miss America Pageant and is now promoting this nonprofit. Nothing against nonprofits or orphans in any country, but Stevens stands to gain big time if the publicity helps her secure the crown. Pageant officials might like what Stevens brings — the endorsement of the U.S. Army. And the Army? We’re still not sure what Army officials were thinking on this one. It’s just strange.

The writers who report on Defense have announced the Marine Corps and now the Army will roll back their orders for God’s Gift to improvised explosive device (IED) protection, the IED panacea — the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle.

It’s about time.

When the beast first was ordered — and it is an unwieldy monster of armor, with immense girth and reduced visibility — it seemed effective against an actual detonation of an explosive device, which is nice, but it does nothing to go after the source of the device — a strategy that would eliminate the need for MRAP in the first place. (Of course, such a strategy has been in effect for several months now.) One of our favorite Army generals, when queried, told us MRAP was superb against a specific threat, but he seemed troubled at its downside, including its limited maneuverability.

It seems odd that the Marine Corps out-ordered the Army on this thing earlier this year. Did planners — leaders — know something others didn’t? Was it an effort to impress lawmakers? Was it a move to pander to influencers here in the homeland — people who vote, call their representatives, and have the yea-or-nay power over their 17-year-olds following the Pied Pipers of the Marine Corps? Maybe. It seems the Corps’ new commandant might see things differently, having slashed the MRAP order of 3,700 by more than a third.

Apparently the Army did not up its order until pressured by DoD, when the projected number shot up past 17,000. Though numbers fluctuate, the latest Army projection is around 10,000 vehicles. We guess that number will continue downward, but it’s just a guess.

Protecting people in a combat environment is obvious, but as one general noted, you can wrap people in all the armor you want, but you can only do so much against a determined threat. One source interviewed more than a year ago, could not emphasize the importance of going after the threat — and losing the armor. He spoke from experience in some the most dangerous neighborhoods in Iraq.
MRAP, like body armor, seems to have been more like a reaction to outside pressure. What will the services cave on next?