Inside the Headquarters

The Rapture. Or is it Raptor? Personally we like Rapture, but no matter the name, the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 is quite the little hot commodity. Like the overused “Men want her, and women want to be her,” the Air Force wants more of this reportedly most advanced fighter, and many nations — including friends like Australia and strange bedfellows like Japan — want her, too. There is a prohibition against selling our most advanced wares to foreign nations (guess we got that one right!), but what’s a prohibition in the OK Corral (or maybe Coral Sea?) of diplomacy where firepower and bucks speak volumes. 

So, do we sell to the Aussies? Our guess is we will purport to seriously weigh the pros and cons. (You know, “D— the rules and full speed ahead!) And Japan? Our guess is that one’s not going to happen. It has been a chilly relationship, World War II aside. Our warmest moment collectively was back in 1912 when the Japanese gave us those really nice cherry blossom trees, a few of which have survived and can be enjoyed by the Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C., and many of which survived longer than the feigned friendship that was blown out of the water with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though enraptured by even the most remote prospect of acquiring the F-22, Japan’s forces are defense forces, and their need for the F-22 is a stretch at best. That said, the “Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend” rule applies and given concerns over other nations’ strength in the region (and we’re not talking our war buds in North Korea), the U.S. seems to be courting this former foe (uh, Japan), not with roses and chocolate but with the sweet whispers of love just the same: Technology. 

Though a number of nations are salivating over the new fighter, having both Japan and Australia with checkbooks open may show how far we’ve come in 65 years, or it shows that maybe not much has changed. Atomic bomb detonations aside, Japan came out of World War II in a trading position it may not have enjoyed otherwise. Has Japan been biding its time for an opportunity to strike and annex, oh, all of Asia, moving southward toward Aussie country? At this point, many think the Japanese navy might be second only to the U.S. Navy (haven’t we been there before?), which must give someone other than those at “Inside the Headquarters” pause.

A stretch? Maybe. Maybe not. Peace constitution? C’mon.

Good thing? N’important! Billions more may be headed into these boutique “defense” programs, regardless of reason. “Cha-ching,” says Defense Contractor.

If Fowler and Company want to tweak these policies, fine, but be honest and don’t pass these efforts off as “refocusing” in preparation for post-graduation conflict.

News flash: London’s Financial Times says “U.S. Army stretched thin.”
Accurate? Yes. But is this news? No.

Well, at least not to many of us. What wonks “Inside the Headquarters” and those cozy inside the Beltway’s bubble know to be true may not be what journalists around the world or real Americans perceive as reality.Eyes worldwide are fixed on Washington as they often are. What will the power brokers do in the wake of yet another survey — this time of military officers — one using strong imagery like, “Dangerously thin” but not “broken,” and “Can’t fight another large-scale war”? Of course they won’t be swayed by the survey du jour, but it seems those who report the findings expect to exact some strong reaction. (The survey was conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security.)

We know these results. We’ve heard and read them before. We’re sure everyone knows. Does it bear repeating? Its replicated utterance almost forces flashbacks of the Soviets in Afghanistan and maybe the crumbling French and British Empires before that debacle. (We saw it as a debacle, but did the Soviets?)

The reporter for U.S. News was writing from the bleakness before her and echoed what soldiers in Iraq were saying when she penned

“America as a nation is not waging this war …its military is.”This reality is the opposite of the survey results. The defense audience at-large knows resources are stretched; the public, not so much. BUT, the defense audience, to a degree, believes America is in this conflict thing with its military; the public, not so much. We’re not sure who told these soldiers America was at war. Maybe that perception was accurate in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but it was never a reality.

The heartbreak comes in the fantasy played out by U.S. servicemembers. As quoted by U.S. News:

“Our soldiers here are giving 100 percent for every American guy back in the States. It makes you wonder, does anybody really appreciate what that guy gave up today?” The answer is as easy as it is tragic. Probably not.We all live in a fantasy on some level.

The Navy is looking for a match or two — in cyberspace. The sea siren is trawling for prospects — officer, enlisted, active, and reserve — with “jobs” at the mega-job superstore Monster.com. 

Not looking to join the Navy? Well, she’s on the prowl for you. If you’ve posted a resume on Monster.com and your search criteria match one of the Navy’s postings, BAM! You’re on her radar screen. You’ll get an e-mail telling you there’s a match. (Your heart races. You’re overcome by desire. A match?! But who … ?) Some of the e-mails note the company is the U.S. Navy, but the latest hits say “Company Confidential,” which makes your heart race all the more. (Company Confidential. A mystery match.) N’important. Of course you’re going to check it out. (This could be love.) You bring up the ad. It’s hot. It’s slick. It’s sexy. It’s an enlistment ad, but that fact is obscured by her long, lean lines. This is exactly the match you’ve been looking for. You can hear her sultry voice as you read, and there’s nary a mention of the Navy or the fact that you need to enlist (like, be a sailor) or go to boot camp (or, like, be on a ship) — all those things that could make a seemingly perfect match go south. Regardless, you’re smitten, so you click “Apply Now” and staring at you is a stark, general screen asking for contact info. How cruel! Where did she go? 

If you succumb and submit, we suspect someone will contact you with information about the Navy — not about that job that sent you rushing head first into this relationship: “Gather facts and write articles for publications. Write, edit and proofread news for radio and TV. Write and produce radio and television programs.” Take me now! 

Bait-and-switch? Not really. This tactic is smart, though a tad underhanded. There is a larger problem: The true benefits of military service are intangible. Once the services start pushing job specifics — something they really cannot deliver, customer satisfaction plummets and you end up with dissatisfied recruits who complain to friends and family. Maybe those who sign up at the prospect of anchoring the network news will fail to ship off to boot camp when reality hits them. Maybe they don’t complete their term of enlistment. We understand the reality of recruiting as well as the very real challenges the services face long term.
Such ads might open an opportunity to those who might never have considered military service. So, why not sell intangibles? Even the most magnificent tarnish and fade with age. Intangibles have classic, timeless beauty.

Or so implores the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Code Pink — a fringe Chicks-for-Peace group. (Has anyone found Women for War?) They, along with the Berkeley City Council*, are heading the effort to rid this Bay Area hotbed of pointless activism of its Marine recruiters. 

Military recruiting has long been a target of the San Francisco-hippee-hey-dayers, longing for their misspent youth, plus a large number of younger wannabes — all lunatic-fringers just the same. This is just the latest move in a game of vanity veiled as activism. In downtown Berkeley, it’s about who can outdo whom on the Absurd-O-Meter. 

Oddly, it’s also about denying the Marine Corps its right to maintain an office on Shattuck Square and denying young adults access to information and restricting their free choice. “My rights trump your rights” is alive and well. Live in the Bay Area and one begins to understand that brand of activism. Again, we digress. 

So, our friends at Code Pink pretty much encourage people to harass the Marines within the law. Here’s the plan for the Feb. 14 Kiss-In:

” ‘Stay & Kiss, Don’t Enlist — then EVERYBODY Makes out!’ Bring a partner or just BE THERE! Join Vee and Travis today and every Friday this year for a Kiss-In for Peace as part of our How Berkeley Can U BE actions in front of the Marine Recruiting Station. Make-out for two hours in front of the Marine Recruiting Station and tell them — and the nation — THIS is what we want in Berkeley, NOT soldiers!” 

Dude! As a more daily reminder of what’s really important, Pinkers encourage you to go to the recruiting station before or after hours and chalk the sidewalk with your message — but watch out for the “young, angry white male [who] has taken it upon himself to try to erase our chalk messages — he comes by around 5-5:30pm on his way to the suburbs.” He’s white, male and lives in the ‘burbs — obviously he can’t be trusted. 

In the tradition of lemons and lemonade, we see opportunity outside the Marines’ door. Our guess is the Kiss-In could attract qualified prospects (recruiting, not romantic) for the officer selection officer and any recruiter. Our Chicks-for-Peace might be onto something, and hopefully our studs and sirens in uniform will make the most of this love fest. 

When in Rome … 

*The city council seems officially to have backed down somewhat amid threats of funding cuts from both Sacramento and Washington. We’ll watch that wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Each year, DoD lobbies (did we say the “L” word?) Congress for its annual trust-fund disbursement. Some call these war-on-terrorism funds. Others call it a supplemental funding. We call it extortion. 

The services have come to depend — really depend — on supplemental funding separately allocated from annual budgets. Without exception, defense officials talk matter-of-factly about the supplemental, a staple of the Pentagon diet, the same way they’d talk about the soup choices at one of the food vendors. No longer is thought given to making the main budget work. 

It’s as angering as it is brilliant: Defense officials have declared, “We should not have to pay for the war.” That’s it. So they don’t. They supposedly use their main budget to fund everything but “the war.” So how do you split that out? And if a service is crying it’s going to have to send some civilians home if they don’t get this money, then their argument really does not stand up to even the laxest scrutiny. 

Are there two sets of books? Did DoD consult with Enron’s CFO (from his jail cell)? Is DoD extorting money from Congress? We think so. If DoD, in fact, convinced lawmakers the services’ budgets should not fund the war on terrorism and Congress should fund it separately … BAM — funding will be approved. What lawmaker is going to come down on this scam and appear against the doe-eyed in uniform? That’s right. They’re stuck. Civilian oversight of military? Checks and balances? So close to tipping that balance. 

Why not stop the absurdity and have one budget? We think generally accepted accounting principles are a good thing, and a budget is a budget, which is why it’s a budget. Six-plus years into this war on terrorism, we think the services have this funding thing down. 

Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Michael Mullen, USN, seems to agree and has called for all funding to be accounted for in annual budgets, acknowledging it would take time to roll everything into one. Hey, we even understand that some programs might be funded separately, like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles or other such dogs (our apologies to canines everywhere) into which the services might be forced to satisfy agendas other than those important to the actual defense of the U.S. We digress. 

Supplementals, now a DoD birthright, have a starring role in the theater of the absurd. Hopefully, leaders and lawmakers will heed the Ghost of Enron Past and send the supplemental packing.

Recently three Marine Corps reserve lieutenant colonels were on their way across the vast Northern Virginia wasteland sometimes referred to as Quantico. One was a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, one hailed from the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland, and one graduated from Villanova in Pennsylvania. Out of the blue, one of the boys brought up the subject of women in the military (this is still a subject?), saying it was immoral. The other two apparently agreed. Our source, cringing in the vehicle, mentioned to them this had been settled long ago. They ignored him. The three argued that women’s presence was immoral because women need to be protected. Though this is paternalistic, degrading, and insulting, it probably is not a minority opinion. 

These cannot be the only three guys who believe — really believe — women’s presence in the military is immoral. It is this view (ridiculous, archaic, but very real) that helps keep the legal ban on women from direct ground combat (combat units and those in direct support) in place. (Army leaders were at odds with lawmakers in 2005 when this policy was reaffirmed.) If a large number of people did not hold a similar opinion to our three blind mice, lawmakers probably could be convinced to change the law. 

Many reasons have been given over the years to keep women out of the military, and certain specialties and readiness concerns were chief among them. For lack of a more pragmatic argument, are the mice playing the God Card and making this a morality issue? Sadly, there are women who feed this belief. No one is innocent on this one. 

So how many serving have this view? Can they serve objectively with female peers, seniors, and subordinates? Are women’s careers ruined in the fallout? Do people die as a result? 

Men and women are equally adept at protecting one another, though possibly in different ways. This issue is not a matter of training. These are characteristics that can only be bred out over time.

“Alarming Increase in Soldier Suicides Tied to Long War,” hawks The Washington Post (TWP). “Uh, not quite,” says Inside the Headquarters.The story, covered by the same reporter who brought you “The World of Walter Reed According to TWP” seems to being in search of The Next Big Story or a back-up to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Pulitzer-pleasing piece.

While the journalist factually reports the latest stats on Army suicides show an increase — 121 in 2007 (this is if all suspected cases are verified as suicides — a point not clearly made) up by 20 percent over 2006. (That would be up from about 100 or so in 2006.) But is this number statistically significant given the large number of active duty servicemembers? 

Let’s look at the Marine Corps. Its suicides tallied 24 for 2006 and increased to 33 in 2007. Smaller numbers, smaller service, but the increase is 37.5 percent, almost double the Army’s. Because we are reducing a complex issue to simple numbers, maybe a more telling figure is number of suicides per 100,000. For the Corps, it went from 12.4 in 2006 to 16.5 in 2007. Marine Corps researchers claim the suicide rate is about the same for all the services. (We are reasonably sure the Army is one of the other services.) 

When graphed over 27 years, increases and decreases in the numbers are evident. Tying them to a particular conflict or event is a stretch, though TWP tries to do it. Suicide rates were up in the early 1990s, but that might have been a function of lowered recruiting standards at the time. Officer and enlistment accession standards are the greased pigs with which the services are wrestling today. The quality of the people coming in — and the baggage they bring — might hold more answers over the long term than external factors. 

Get this: According to a 2008 report, most Marine Corps suicides show no past deployment history. We take that as an indicator that current ops and op-tempo might not be leading factors. Pointing to “war” as a probable “cause” is close to pegging the “absurdity” meter. Maybe we’re missing something, but isn’t armed conflict in the armed forces’ job description? That fact aside, given stats dating back to 1980, it is difficult to pin a one-year increase on anything. To do so without looking at trends within the armed services and the civilian sector is irresponsible.
Speaking of trends, the Marine Corps’ average over the most recent 10-year period is 14.3 per 100,000. Researchers report the civilian rate for a similar demographic in the same period is significantly higher at 20. The overall average for the U.S. population comes in at around 11 but varies considerably by age group. 

Through carefully (or carelessly) chosen statistics, this complex (and private) issue has been thrust into “The Sky Is Falling” category. Might we suggest more accurate and balanced future reporting?

It’s THE Big Day in THE Big Easy. Fat Tuesday in the City of Our Lady of Perpetual Decay. It is such an important period that coverage of the revelry, parades, and balls has pushed any news of 400,000-plus suits against the Army Corps of Engineers in the Katrina aftermath off the front pages and to the bottom of the locally beloved Times Picayune Web site NOLA.com. (Even victims have priorities.)

We wrote last week that a federal judge ruled in favor of the Corps saying, in essence, the suits as filed were trumped by a 1928 law giving the Corps virtual immunity from such actions. No big surprise. Now the hoards of plaintiffs and lawyers seeking another day in court, not to mention a few quadrillion dollars, will alter their approach, probably alleging decisions made by the Corps regarding the levees and flood walls in the 1960s in the aftermath of big hurricanes Betsy and Camille were not approved by Congress. Toss in the Flood Control Act of 1965 and it gets a event murkier. One source tells us this approach is their only avenue of attack but sees little to no chance of success (and, based on precedent, predicts a 9-0 decision in favor of the Corps, if it goes to the Supreme Court).

However, on The Big Day in The Big Easy, a city obsessed with The Big Storm and The Big, Bad Feds, laissez les bon temps roulez rules.

One famed King Cake baker has been known to hide a porcelain replica of a FEMA trailer in his traditional Mardi Gras delicacy.

Artist and Blue Dog master George Rodrigue juxtaposed both post-Katrina and traditional Mardi Gras mantras with his “Throw Me Something FEMA” creation (above). This work captures the cultural convention that mandates mortals clamor for freebie throws from the denizens of Mardi Gras (Rex, Zulu, Endymion), just as they clamored after the storm and continue to demand the equivalent of colorful plastic beads, go cups, and maybe the prized coconut from Rex’s nemesis-from-the-north FEMA and its queen — the Corps. In fact, at this point FEMA and the Corps of Engineers should have their own parade — Mid City would be a good route. Love it or hate it, this one little poster ($850 — yes, we’re serious — is available online) captures the irony and absurdity that fuel the city’s thirst for drama no matter the cost.

Old traditions die hard.