Inside the Headquarters

The French seem to be experiencing their first significant reemergence of military might since (dare we say) Napoleon. Forget the battlefield, France is making noteworthy changes to its defense organization and — maybe more importantly — to the business of defense.French President Nicolas Sarkozy has become cozy with such leaders as Libya’s Momar Quadafi, agreeing to sell our former foe and bad boy arms and nuclear technology. Sarcozy has sought to peddle French nuclear reactors across North Africa and the Middle East. Closer to home, Brazil might buy 50 helos from France’s Eurocopter SA. There are reports that Brazil might purchase a nuke sub from the French (a first in Latin America) and add it to its vast fleet of five conventional subs. There are reports this Franco-Brazilian alliance will consist of equipment sales and technological transfers, and military, economic, and cultural cooperation. (French culture, we assume, with some Brazilian Carnivale thrown in?)The energetic French president also has been busy in India. The two nations are forging ties they hope go beyond arms sales. Read that as nuclear technology. As soon as India gets the international green light to resume nuke-related activities (the international community has a long memory), we’re sure these two will be quite chummy (Cricket, monsieur?).Back in the homeland (France), it has been reported the plan is to the build a French-style “Pentagon” in Paris. Yes, we think someone used the term “cathedral,” though we can’t believe they just came up with this idea. The fact is it seems they’ll need it: France recently entered into an agreement with the United Arab Emirates that includes among other things – get this – a French military base there. Though the 500-person contingent is small compared with the 40,000 or so the United States has in the region, it seems to make a strong statement that the French have interests, too.It was just a matter of time. All this makes sense for France and for any other nation that can pull it off and back it up. This shift could assist the U.S. in the area of foreign policy, though reports are clear that the battle continues with NATO nations in support to areas like Afghanistan. The down side here is the increased competition for defense contracts worldwide. U.S. defense spending will not continue as it has over the past six years and some companies will be looking off shore. These moves by France are simply brilliant.

The world of the Lead System Integrator (LSI) has moved yet again — backward abutting the theater of the absurd.

LSIs are those large defense contractors that honcho complex projects, much like a general contractor would in building a house. But they have become a scapegoat in defense contracting for the past year. In early 2007, program disasters like the Coast Guard’s Deepwater and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program became public. If one cares to engage in the blame game, there is plenty to go around, though most fingers point toward the LSIs — more often than they should.The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill struck a huge blow to the LSI concept, ending the position of LSI (at least as we know it) starting in 2010.The downward spiral continues. In targeting vertical integration, DoD now has prohibited the LSIs having “a stake in any single piece of hardware going into a new military platform,” according to Gannett defense tell-all, Defense News.More bad news for the big boys? Stepping back, one source is not so sure. He maintains the services still do not have the people they need to manage complex programs. DoD has admitted as much and confesses it will be years before they will have such a cadre. (Though we think they never will have the expertise necessary.) Our source also explained that vertical integration is not a slam dunk for an LSI. The contract process for each piece of gear on a project is transparent. If the bidding is close, an LSI like Lockheed Martin might forego a contract to avoid any negative perceptions. Regardless, the service approves each contract awarded on a project.

So, we’re baffled. Why get rid of the LSI? Why continue to erect barriers to legitimate business practices? Does Congress see itself as muckrakers cleaning up defense contracting? More importantly, if DoD needs congressional assistance in protecting it from big, bad contractors, can DoD run large, complex programs? Probably not.

LSIs are an easy target in this climate. Keep pushing and maybe they will find more lucrative business opportunities elsewhere, leaving a dearth of competitors for DoD wares.Given the trend in recent legislative initiatives, why not just nationalize the defense industry (a la France) and be done with it.

Florida Congresswoman Corrine Brown has been working with the Montford Point Marine Association “to draft language calling for the Congressional Gold Medal to be awarded to them,” according to her letter to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, dated Oct. 16, 2007. The Montford Point Marine Association confirmed this effort in its October/November newsletter. The Montford Point Marines are those black men who were segregated from their white counterparts and went through boot camp separately at Montford Point at Camp Lejeune, N.C., from 1942-49.

The Congressional Gold Medal is Congress’s “highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions.” Though it was originally a military award and its first recipient was George Washington in 1776, the scope of the award has broadened to include in the arts, public service, and science.

The award would place the Montford Point Marines in distinguished company, reemphasizing their place in history. (The Tuskegee Airmen and Navajo Code Talkers are past recipients.) While these efforts in support of the Montford Point Marines are admirable, are they appropriate? Rep. Brown’s comments in the Congressional Record (Feb. 17, 2005) noted Montford Point-trained Marines proved as capable as any other Marine and helped bring an end to racial segregation in the Armed Forces. Important and true, but are groups that have sacrificed in the face of adversity while serving the greater good the intended recipients of this medal? Should Congress then award medals to women from a certain era because of oppression they might have experienced that later ensured expanded opportunities for future female generations? Play the female card and one easily can guess the response.

Men and women of honor know their sacrifices and contributions have paved the way for others. They need no medal to underscore this or to right any past wrongs.

To ensure burial services at the 125 national cemeteries operated by the VA reflect the wishes of veterans and their families, VA officials have clarified the Department’s policy about recitations made while the U.S. flag is folded at the gravesite of a veteran.

“Honoring the burial wishes of veterans is one of the highest commitments for the men and women of VA,” said William F. Tuerk, VA’s Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. “A family may request the recitation of words to accompany the meaningful presentation of the American flag as we honor the dedication and sacrifice of their loved ones.”

Traditional gravesite military funeral honors include the silent folding and presentation of an American flag, a 21-gun rifle salute, and the playing of “Taps.” The clarification includes the following:

• Volunteer honor guards are authorized to read the so-called “13-fold” flag recitation or any comparable script;
• Survivors of the deceased need to provide material and request it be read by the volunteer honor guards; and
• Volunteer honor guards will accept requests for recitations that reflect any or no religious traditions, on an equal basis.

Veterans with a discharge other than dishonorable, their spouses, and eligible dependent children can be buried in a national cemetery. Other burial benefits available for all eligible veterans, regardless of whether they are buried in a national cemetery or a private cemetery, include a burial flag, a Presidential Memorial Certificate, and a government headstone or marker.

For more information, please visit <a href=”http://www.blogger.com/www.va.gov”>www.va.gov</a>.

Why climb a greased-up granite obelisk with hundreds of screaming teenagers?

It seems U.S. Naval Academy officials are asking themselves the same thing and are looking at doing away with the plebe practice of climbing Herndon Monument as a symbolic close to freshman year.

Granted, the practice is bizarre. Climbing the greased beast to swap the plebe cover with that of an upperclassman’s is a rather odd — dare we say — tradition, dating only to the early 1960s. But who really cares? If the mids enjoy it and it’s the worst thing they do in life, why is this even an issue? Sure, some people get hurt (though published accounts say otherwise) but these guys do worse things at greater peril.

So what is it about Herndon, and why now?

One source cites a generational shift in Academy leadership. The former superintendent was from the Class of 1965 — solidly Vietnam-era. The new “Supe” is out of ’78. (Again, dare we say, a nuke!) Solidly post-Vietnam and a Rickover man. That has to affect anyone’s psyche.

Check out the Academy’s statement on the matter: “Similar to how our Navy looks at all traditions in the fleet, we are evaluating the Herndon Monument Climb to ensure the event remains a valid part of our heritage, but it is conducted with professionalism, respect, and most important, safety in mind.” Hundreds of screaming, teenage college kids climbing a greased monument, and they’re looking for an event with professionalism and respect? (And do they really believe the Navy “looks at all traditions in the fleet?”)

How about this: “The commandant has selected a team of midshipmen to review the Herndon ceremony and provide recommendations for a traditional and meaningful evolution emphasizing teamwork and determination.” Meaningful evolution? Like a group hug? If they want to get rid of the thing, why replace it?
Our guess is Academy officials have pretty much cleaned up the Yard in their minds and with no crisis du jour might be looking for something to keep themselves occupied. No cheating scandals? No sex scandals? No drug issues? (Oops, did we say that?) Oh the leadership challenges of a well-mannered, boring brigade! Sigh. Why not liven things up a bit and give Herndon the hatchet?

An ‘80 grad might have summed it up best, “Come on. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.” Touche!

It’s a beautiful day in the Navy’s fleet.
A beautiful in the Navy’s fleet.
Won’t you fund my Navy? …

Virginia Senator Jim “Mr.” Webb might have some unfinished business — that of building the fleet he quit when he was secretary of the Navy in 1988. Webb, already a lightning rod for controversy when he took over as Navy secretary, stormed off the job after just 10 months when he would not agree to cut funding for ships when faced with budgetary challenges. The 600-ship dream was slipping away, and he certainly showed ‘em with his purported protest resignation. Ah, but we digress.

Now 20 years older (and maybe no wiser), Webb might be out to avenge himself of that wrong he committed so many years ago. (This is about him and not the Navy.) In 1988, he reportedly did not want to be the “father of the 300-ship Navy.” Now he is the spokesmodel for a fleet of 313.

Cover boy Webb sees 313 as a minimum, so it will be interesting to see defense and fiscal realities pitted against one another. He has waited a long time to settle this score. Someone will lose, but we don’t think it will be Mr. Webb or anyone in his neighborhood this time around.

Recently, one group that claims to represent the disabled worked to play its members like the accordions they’re not, using fear and intimidation rather than facts.

The inflammatory cover of a recent issue of the organization’s magazine is telling, but sadly such scare tactics are not unique in the world of self-proclaimed do-gooders — veteran or otherwise.

Powerful organizations seem to strong-arm the weak and those least able to see these tactics for what they are. Statements like “The budget battle between the White House and Congress put disabled veterans at risk,” while true in its broadest sense, are misleading, unsettling, and even terrifying for some.

How about “The real danger is that the 2009 appropriation could again fall well short of what is needed to make up for the deep cuts in other agencies’ budgets over the last two years.” Huh? Sounds pretty scary, but why divert attention to other agencies? Our guess is this tactic warns already-cowering members that a similar fate might befall them. Facts and reason are irrelevant. This underhanded approach makes sense if an organization’s primary concern continued relevance with members and donors.

The Award for Most Outlandish Claim by an organization goes to our personal fave, Gun Owners of America (GOA). These guys certainly can exploit an opportunity. GOA has used and continues to use the trumped-up “issue” of veterans’ gun rights as its own War-of-the-Worlds mayhem dubbing recent legislation as the ”Veterans Disarmament Act” — which it’s not and which it doesn’t. (But it certainly sounds scary.) These gunslingers have asked “How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs, hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?” Shocking. Frightening. Misleading.

Groups that represent the interests of veterans, gun owners or gun owners who happen to be veterans, or anyone who needs to be represented might want to consider drawing their support from a well-informed base. (Strength through knowledge!) We get that they are fighting for members and their monetary life lines, but support and funding based on marginal information and fear is detrimental to the organization over the long haul. Organizations become populated by victims instead of partners for the cause.

There is a difference between an informed member and a hostage.

Mama, just killed a man. (You remember it!) Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger now he’s dead. (C’mon, sing it with me!) Mama …

You expected a Sousa march?

Well, maybe that’s what the president would have expected, too. The U.S. commander in chief has been taking time to speak to those who serve during his trip to the Middle East. National Public Radio reported on one stop in Kuwait. There was the usual grumbling about the president’s remarks being too vague. (Uh, not sure why they’d expect. A detailed run down of unit movements, plus policy comments on Iran?) One commented that he’d rather be sleeping. (Big surprise.) Another said he had been “voluntold” to go.

The reporter touched on the waiting game for the visit. One can only imagine the countless hours of prep. Seems everyone was in place for more than an hour waiting for “The Man.”

Why not music to pass the time?

The band sounded too much like the Naval Academy Pep Band. (Not good.) Did they entertain the troops with patriotic ditties? Not sure, but they did tear into Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which sounds pretty bad when played by brass, but it was unmistakably Queen nonetheless. Why sing “Stars and Stripes Forever” when you can get away with your best Freddy Mercury impression crooning “Mama just killed a man” in uniform on duty while waiting for the president? Probably a bad idea to sing “Pulled my trigger now he’s dead” in the security line at the airport, but you can belt every beautiful word while waiting for the “Big Guy” in the Middle East.

So hip. So cool.

We love Queen, love the military, love the prez. OK, we love Queen. But this was an odd song choice for the occasion, with its extreme themes and no-holds-barred lyrics. For example, the word “Bismillah” opens the Koran and means “In the name of Allah” (or something close). Maybe no thought went into this, and these guys just agree Queen rocks.

“… Just gotta get out — just gotta get right outta here …”

Generally, we’d say the American public, if not much of the world, buys into the U.S. Marine Corps reputation of uber-integrity.

Recently, the commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) tested that trust by stating, “We ask hard questions. We’re the only service that sits a young American down and asks, ” ‘Have you ever used drugs?’ “

We found that interesting. The Marine Corps is the only service that asks this? No other service screens for drug use? We were intrigued — and suspicious — so we checked into it.

In discussions with the Army and a representative from DoD, we found the other services screen for drug use, too.

So where’s CMC getting his scoop? Was he misquoted? Did he mean something different? (Maybe, but that’s a pretty straightforward statement.) Maybe the Marine Corps sits and asks this question while the other services stand. Maybe the Navy asks it underwater and the Air Force at 10,000 feet. Maybe the other services word the question differently.

Regardless of wording, this is not about drug screening. This is about misleading the public at the expense of others. In this case, CMC has made a statement that implies its sister services have lesser standards. And maybe they do, but such statements should be based on fact instead of what appears to be misinformation. He’s the commandant of the Marine Corps; who’s going to question the statement?

Here’s his complete quote:
We do issue a lot of waivers. I’ll tell you why: “We ask hard questions. We’re the only service that sits a young American down and asks, “Have you ever used drugs?” If they answer, “Yes, I experimented,” we can still take them, but they will require a waiver.” Our waiver percentages are way high compared to others, but it’s not because these people are criminals. It’s that we’re asking hard questions.

They probably approve a sizable portion of those waivers, too.

Though not a recent example, a source who was a Marine Corps waiver officer in recruiting once saw a waiver approved for a prospect who had used marijuana over 1,000 times during a three-year period. Yes, that would seem to be daily use up to the day the prospect walked into the recruiter’s office. Sure, the Marine Corps screens.

Is this scenario unique to the Corps? Probably not, but who are we to judge?

It seems Boudreaux and Clotile are at it again.

Lawsuits against the Army Corps of Engineers (yes, THAT Corps) stemming from the levee and floodwall breaches in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina continue to be filed. The dollar figures are staggering, giving new meaning to “frivolous lawsuit.”

Of the 489,000 claims, a reported 247 have been for one billion — that’s billion with a “B.” The largest filed has pegged $3 quadrillion. (Has anyone ever really even given much thought to what “quadrillion” means?) The 2007 U.S. gross domestic product was a mere 13.7 to 14 trillion or so.

The Corps all but said “Sue me” when it issued its report in mid-2006 saying the flooding occurred because the levees failed, and they failed because they were flawed in design and outdated. Four canal breaches were determined to be from foundation failures causing most of the city’s flooding. These were designed and built by the Corps: So blame the Corps. Most suits have been by individuals; some say the outrageous dollar figures underscore the anger of the residents. We find that naïve and simplistic.

Though a number of good people lost a tremendous amount in that storm (possibly overstated by the anything-but-balanced media coverage Katrina and its aftermath have received) some might be out to get what they can from whomever they can. Heard that and seen it before? It’s an art form there. The federal government has the deepest pockets, and the Corps of Engineers seems an easy target. Nearly one half million lawsuits? C’mon. Government legal teams have to be overwhelmed by this Katrina of paper. (How much does it cost to track a half billion lawsuits anyway?)

If you’re not a local but have lived in New Orleans, maybe stationed at Marine Forces Reserve, Navy Reserve Force, 8th Marine Corps Recruiting District, Joint Reserve Base (formerly Naval Air Station) Belle Chasse, or even Jackson Barracks (though that’s Guard — Boudreaux and Clotile territory), you are in an exclusive club that knows the real deal in the City of Our Lady of Perpetual Decay.

Sadly, the dependence on these and other lawsuits seems to be holding residents back from recovery in whatever form that might take. With 489,000 claims, everyone loses.

Laissez les bons temps rouler!