Inside the Headquarters

It was Memorial Day Weekend in Washington, D.C., marked not by the calendar or by the too-few American flags in the Rockwellian neighborhoods, but by the continuous roar that shook these once-safe havens. The sound rumbled forth from thousands of large, gleaming, gorgeous (insert additional adjectives here) motorcycles, all seeming the Harley ilk. 

For its 21st year, this pestilence visited upon us under the guise of remembering the fallen is Rolling Blunder (uh, Thunder for purists), though the group’s purpose seems otherwise. 

It’s a misguided motorcycle rally. 

Admittedly, some aspects were different this year. In the past, Blunder riders, with their babes perched atop their HOG thrones, would have the classic red, white, and blue fluttering gracefully next to the rebel-without-a-clue POW-MIA black-and-white standard. It seems someone got the clue and many of flags, which do more to act as road hazards than inspire patriotism, were gone — though the backseat babes remained. 

Blunder National Executive Director Artie Muller figured he needed to pander to the non-Blunder majority, saying the group was there to honor the fallen. (Message: We’re not here to berate America regarding the “POW-MIA” non-issue.) Ah, but Blunder’s Web site says otherwise. Though it states, “Rolling Thunder®, Inc. Is Not a Motorcycle Club” (could have fooled us), it continues, “All members of this organization must be willing to help fight the prisoner of war missing in action issue, which still exists.” 

Talk to riders at random, and they are sold on the POW-MIA “issue.” Probe further and you might find they don’t understand its meaning. 

Back in the real world the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) long has done tremendous work worldwide locating, recovering, and identifying the remains of the fallen from conflicts from World War II forward. The task is challenging, and DoD personnel risk their lives on their many recovery missions. DPMO publishes its findings and regularly briefs family members. In watching this well-orchestrated Herculean effort from our limited vantage, we are mystified by Blunder’s self-serving actions. Ask Blunder riders about DPMO, and many have no knowledge about these DoD efforts. Yet the spectacle continues.

Anthropologists have slipped into Army and Marine Corps units as a part of a DoD program to better understand the cultural challenges U.S. forces face in current operations. It appears judges score this effort a big “10.” 

The Human Terrain Team (HTT) program is a Pentagon-sponsored initiative that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Commanders on the ground look to these teams to understand subtle points of tribal relations. Instead of focusing on the “enemy,” U.S. forces are focusing more and more on the people and the human solution. In September 2007, Defense Secretary and occasional superhero Robert M. Gates authorized the expansion of the program, and the plan is to place social scientists with each combat brigade in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to one Marine familiar with the program, the services started consulting with academia and nongovernmental organizations to learn more about the people in Iraq. They wanted help figuring out the culture and its tribal system, and there has been some success. He notes the progress the Marines had in “cleaning up” al-Anbar was due in large part to what the anthropologists were able to teach the Marines. 

As gratifying as the program might be, it has come with costs to the embedded. Some of the social scientists have been criticized by colleagues for involving themselves in this program in light of what has been deemed past abuse of the social sciences during Vietnam and in Latin America. Other critics call it “mercenary anthropology” and fear this move could peg all anthropologists as intelligence gatherers for the military. One HTT social scientist was killed by a roadside bomb in early May in Afghanistan. 

There seems to be concern that the breakthroughs might be short-lived. In Afghanistan, for example, pushing the Taliban out of an area might prove an all-too-brief accomplishment: They have a way of finding their way back. It would be interesting if military planners have looked at possibly adding a new specialty to each services, that of a cultural anthropologist. Then again, the eyes of trained social scientists uncluttered by a long-term association with DoD might be more effective.

Super hero and occasional Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has dropped yet another bomb: No longer will his babes in uniform have to reveal treatment for combat-related mental health issues. In short, they now may answer “No” to Question 21 on security clearance applications. 

So, why not just get rid of the question? 

The revised SF-86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, will permit a respondent to answer “No” if mental health care was not court-ordered and was “strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.” (Message: If you have a mental health issue that is not combat-related, watch out.) 

In their (bumbling) efforts to “destigmatize” mental health care, officials hope this change will encourage people to seek help for combat-related mental health disorders. It has been reported the change covers civilian DoD employees and all applicants for security clearances. 

But the exact opposite might be occurring: The move might further stigmatize mental illness and treatment. In this latest move, warfighters with these “accepted” combat mental health issues are permitted (encouraged?) to conceal their conditions. But their answer of “No,” is still really “Yes,” because it is a smoke screen of sorts orchestrated by Defense Denizens. The spirit of “don’t ask, don’t tell” has many applications it seems, though one might be curious if any ethics or fairness questions were raised. What about those hapless schleps who may need help, but have no “justification” like combat? The message we hear: Hapless Schleps! Hide your condition, lie, or pack your bags, you have been voted off the island. 

C’mon who’s kidding whom? 

What is the purpose of Question 21 if defense officials are going to cherry pick who gets to answer in what manner? Because the change seems to effectively nullify the question, why not toss it? The Security Clearance Police probably can catch what they need to in other questions. 

Though well-intentioned, the latest policy on mental health disclosure is unfair to combat and non-combat servicemembers and undermines efforts to destigmatize treatment across the services. 

Combat zone-related mental illness, the new protected class.

I may not actually be the best person to speak at a conference titled, ‘The Military Beyond Iraq.’ I say this because for much of the past year I’ve been trying to concentrate the minds and energies of the defense establishment on the current needs and current conflicts. — Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense 

Gates derided the defense establishment for focusing too little on the current conflict. Short of stating tomorrow would take care of itself, it was clear he wants the preponderance of effort to be on the tasks at hand in Iraq and Afghanistan and current operations, in general. He was critical of those service denizens off fighting the next war. He called it “next-war-itis.” It seemed to be a curious and possibly politically motivated comment. Gates was addressing a seminar sponsored by the Heritage Foundation when he made his comments in Colorado Springs, Colo. 

We consulted with our active-duty panel of experts, and they backed Gates without question. Our experts agreed the U.S defense establishment is not fighting the current war. For example, “How did the services let themselves get dragged in the MRAP [(mine-resistant ambush-protected) vehicle] ‘fiasco?’” one asked, meaning that the bulky behemoth completely goes against what current ops warrant. “You have to be among the people and not buttoned up in an MRAP, said a senior officer who served in Afghanistan. (Gates considers MRAP a success, as he mentioned in the speech. Our panel thought the investment might not be a total loss if the U.S. dukes it out on the African Plain. Hello, AFRICOM. Any takers?) 

According to one senior officer, another of Gates’ concerns is we have not learned enough from the current situation to plan correctly for the next. “Gates is right. We still have people stuck in the good old days with the Soviets. You’d think we’d be past that now, but we’re not,” he said. He gave more evidence supporting Gates concerns. “We completely missed the cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) and the earthquake in China. It’s no secret that we don’t have people in place in these crucial areas of the world. And oh by the way, a lot of these people affected by these disasters are susceptible to extremist philosophy.” He continued “These disasters? They ARE the current war, but we don’t get that. These disasters impact and inform future planning. If we don’t get current ops — if we don’t fight the current war — how do we plan for future ops? 

Don’t know. Stay tuned.

It seems there might be another service academy with solutions in search of problems. 

For several weeks, e-mails have been flying among academy wags. The issue: The top dog at the U.S. Military Academy wants to change two of the school’s songs, and not the “classic” alluded to above. 

“Castrate” might be more accurate. West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Franklin “Buster” Hagenbeck wants to make the century-old “Alma Mater” and “The Corps” more inclusive on the gender front. We are reasonably sure even the most ardent activist (note our gender-neutral term) would walk away in disgust. 

The issue would have remained in the burro barn and related chat rooms, but ol’ “Buster” decided to test the news on to West Point’s Board of Visitors (BOV), which includes members of Congress (we’re sensing four-star potential here). He explained that in view of the more than 3,000 women who have graduated, some of whom have lost their lives in the line of duty, it was time to include them — in the songs. For example, in “The Corps” says “the men” would become “the ranks,” and “we sons” would change to “the Corps.” Beautiful. 

We are reasonably sure marching songs as well as drinking songs are gender neutral. Why not replace the two venerable oldies in question with some bawdy gender-bender ballads and presto! Everyone’s happy. 

Maybe this seemingly bizarre gender romp is a step toward eradicating the long-vilified combat exclusion clause. If so, you go, “Buster.” But we don’t give “Buster” that much credit. Maybe we don’t know “Buster” well enough, but we like his name: “Buster.” “Buster.” “Buster.” It should be noted “Buster” obtained alumni input. According to the numbers we’ve seen, 72 percent of West Point alum chums want the song to remain as it is. We do not have a gender break down, but our guess is female grads might be more concerned with the combat exclusion clause. 

We are reasonably sure the U.S. Naval Academy is not considering similar changes, though the Bold and the Beautiful on the Banks of the Severn continue their search for a village. This crowd would melt down like a reactor at the thought of further encroachment in their beloved boat house, though they’d go for the drinking songs, regardless of gender themes. 

(“Mine eyes are dim. I cannot see—ee—ee. I have (hey!) not (ho!) brought my specs with me.”) 

While “Buster” considers changing the words to his historic ditties, maybe the BOV Honchos on the Hill will do something useful and work with fellow members to end the combat exclusion clause. Come gender-neutral members, take a walk on the wild side.

This week Parade magazine features an article by the man-boy who singly did more to hurt the plight of women at the service academies (Washingtonian “Women Can’t Fight,” 1979 — no, we’re not letting it go) and possibly in the Naval services in general than any other person. (Forget his brief (10-month) stint as Navy Secretary — those specialties that “opened” for women in the Navy and Marine Corps during his reign would have opened regardless.) 

The cover ‘splays ol’ Virginia Sen. Jim “Women Can’t Fight” Webb in a not-so-crisp white shirt with sleeves rolled up (must be that “Fight” theme), slightly loosened red tie (Fight!), and wedding ring (Stable!) with the Capitol in the background (Fight!). Caption: “What it Means to be a Leader.” Inspirational! Not really, but the man can write. The Web site (no pun) confesses the article has been adapted from his latest book A Time to Fight. Of course that should not to be confused with Born Fighting. Does this guy like to fight or what? This seeming penchant for conflict might explain that whole hand-your-(concealed)-weapon-to-your-aid-to-mistakenly-take-into-the-Capitol-and-spend-a-night-in-a-DC-jail-on-a-felony-arms-charge thing. So what if it was devoted aid’s birthday? No reason to interrupt a New Orleans junket, where the gun laws are as loose as the levees! 

Ah, but we digress. 

Love him or hate him, one thing most can agree on, Fightin’ Jim can write. As in write well. The former Marine is a gifted artist who pens with aching beauty and striking clarity. Sadness envelops much of his work. We would like to say it is contrived, but it’s not. It’s honest stuff. His prose flows, rushing when needed, urging one to read on. He writes simply and works his descriptive passages to give one the feeling of participant or spectator — you choose. 

“The doc put the boy on a wooden box next to our command post. Over the next half hour, as I spoke on the radio, the boy lay near me quietly, never making a sound, all the while watching me. Nor could I stop watching him. And as we stared at each other, he slowly died.” 

As destructive some consider this controversial figure, his written works (save for his ill-timed, vitriolic diatribe nearly 30 years’ past) are … very good.

In yet another installment written by the allies Americans love to hate (and vice versa), seven men were convicted in a French court on terrorism charges stemming from their (successful?) efforts to recruit Muslim Frenchmen to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq. 

Judge Jacqueline Rebeyrotte handed down the sentences that ranged from 18 months to seven years to the five Frenchmen, one Algerian, and one Moroccan. Though all admit to being in Iraq post-2003, each denied any terrorist dealings. (And who would admit to hangin’ with terrorists, except for maybe Sept. 11, 2001, attack meanie Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or KSM to his GITMO friends?) The seven were found guilty of “criminal association with a terrorist enterprise” and had been recruiting in northeastern Paris in 2004 (though this is not the image of Paris most Americans have). Our guess is they did not have a store-front set-up in a Parisian strip mall. 

On the up side, this terrorist group was broken up in 2005, which bodes well for terror-cell bashers. On the negative side — and one which seems to cause some concern — the plight of the Muslims in France (and other Western European locales), whose situation has been less than ideal. (Remember that whole ban-the-headscarf thing?) As steeped in irony as the recruitment of anti-U.S. fighters in France might be, the available pool of freedom fighters might stem more from an impoverished Muslim population than outright hatred of the U.S. Suicide mission? God trumps the Paris slums almost every time. 

According to reports, estimates of French Muslims who have made their way to Iraq to fight vary between less than 20 up to 60. (Can anyone really be certain of the number?) Those susceptible to the tactics and rhetoric of the Paris Seven is a small percentage, probably similar to other disaffected groups. Could this become a problem? Possibly. At this point hysteria and the hourly dose of “Spot the Terrorist” courtesy of mainstream media, cable wags, fringe groups, and, yes, government entities (gasp!) can make this object d’ interest appear to be a genuine issue.

In the second of a two-parter about German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K) and its efforts to rule the world, though it will settle for the Army’s gazillion-dollar rifle biz, we will delve into the testing that might have placed the HK416 at the top of the firearms heap. 

There has been a sandstorm of controversy surrounding the M-4 and possible successors, especially following last year’s Army-sponsored (and congressionally requested) “dust test” in which the Colt M-4, the MK16 SCAR from Belgium’s FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from H&K were coated with fine dust to simulate sandstorm conditions. We’re told by our source that 50,000 rounds were fired through each. (It seems the number might have been closer to 6,000.) The M-4 malfunctioned 882 times according to published reports. The HK416 experienced 233 stoppages (our guy quoted 100, and thus says the HK416 performed 800 times better than the M-4. We’re not sure if we’d state it that strongly regardless of the number. It also appears H&K’s XM8 performed the best, but that’s another story.) When expressed as a percentage, it seems the M-4, though dead last, was just one percentage point behind the other weapons. Though the top possess a gas-piston system design, the M-4’s gas-impingement system leaves gun-clogging residue. 

(It appears the M-4 performed far better in a second test with less than half the malfunctions after the firing of a greater number of rounds. Increased lubrication seemed to be the answer.) 

Regardless, “stand by your man” seems to be the Army’s mantra, and the Boys in Green seem satisfied with the results. Not so fast! Our determined source, who favors the H&K, in case you haven’t noticed, says 11 percent of soldiers who have been firing their weapons in theater are griping about the M-4. Our guess is 10 percent would gripe regardless. 

Sources say H&K is telling Army Secretary Pete Geren all it wants is an open competition for a new weapon, despite there being no perceived need for a new rifle. Even M-4 proponents concede the HK416 is a better weapon but are not so sure the Army needs to change — especially now during high-tempo operations. H&K reps discount this concern, saying the transition would be “easy.” (Again, we’re not so sure we’re tracking with H&K’s view on this.) History tells us such a change proved less than ideal in Vietnam. However, a similar transition was successful during World War II. 

The potential for decades of dollars across DoD is probably pushing H&K. Army reluctance might be less a function of the judicious stewardship of taxpayer greenbacks and more a concern over pulling precious funding away from its Future Combat Systems and thwarting its dream of modernization. 

The Army has no plans of changing weapons until there is a leap ahead in technology. One Army source put such a leap in the realm of bullets bending around corners. We get his point.

It’s no surprise that various gun companies want to be the Army’s next top gun runner. One in particular wants to shoot down competitor Colt and its M-4, the current rifle-of-choice, and fill the unrealized void for decades to come. 

In an effort to vie for a hefty contract that really does not yet exist (we call it “uncovering unrealized needs”), German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K), which really, really wants to supply the Army (and probably all Defense-dom and beyond) with its next rifle is set to meet with top Army officials — we hear Army Secretary Pete Geren himself (soon … like today), according to one source in the fray. (Word has it they might have a posse of former four-stars, including at least one former commandant of the Marine Corps.) 

Though Army officials say they are holding fast to the M-4, the German arms dealer might not need the hard-sell. The source in the fray tells us Sec Army already might see the need for a new weapon, though we could not verify this through his office. 

Thought to be a dead issue, the possibility of the new rifle is anything but. H&K’s stated goal is to get an “open competition” going for the Army’s next rifle and “may the best weapon win,” according to our source. Colt-bashing aside, he’s pretty confident H&K would trounce any other entry, and the HK416 already has proved itself, he says. 

Despite the Army’s interest in keeping its M-4s attached to its soldiers, will Geren push for a competition for America’s Next Top Model? How much pull does the posse have? (We’re sure they’re not doing this for free.) Officers from the Army and the Marine Corps swoon at the mere utterance of an H&K anything. Is a compromise in the offing: Could a new rifle be a part of Army modernization? 

Stay tuned. Tomorrow in “Good Guns Don’t, Good Guns Don’t … (But I do),” we’ll look at the somewhat controversial testing and the “Dialing for Dollars,” in which both the Army and gun runners Colt and H&K are engaged.

“From the halls of military justice to the shores of Guantanamo Bay, we will fight Driver Boy’s battles … at GITMO, on CNN, or in D.C. …” 

Continuing from yesterday’s entry, like all good defense attorneys, the boys and girls representing Salim Ahmed Hamdan are on a mission. Justice? Fame? Monetary cahe? We will assume their quest for justice drives them and the circus-like antics are unintentional. In the past several months, the former chief prosecutor for Military Commissions, has been on the op-ed writing, lip-flapping circuit railing against his former bosses. Air Force Col. Morris “Moe” Davis quit in a huff over how the politicos were inappropriately pushing their agendas (or so he says). Early on, his writings were clear in their conviction and sound legal basis, but now he strikes more of a pathetic figure. 

Davis is but a red herring and a witness whose impact peaked some time ago. He is of little use to Hamdan’s defense. Our guess is after years of dogged defense, the Hamdan team might have evidence that could put Driver o’ bin Laden in a more sympathetic light. They have been granted access to several high-value detainees and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM” to his friends) of Sept. 11 infamy reportedly has agreed to assist in the case. Interesting. Why the prosecution will not deal on Driver Boy makes little sense, other than for some political end (inadequately served by this guppy). Sure he was bin Laden’s driver, but our guess is he might not have been an al-Qaida zealot, as he and his legal team maintain. Sure, he’s probably guilty of something, but he is lamb-slaughter material when compared to the high-value types on whom precious U.S. assets might be better spent. Hamden might be seen as an easy mark, but it is reasonable to discern from the puzzle pieces strewn about that the defense may have a metaphorical bomb to drop if this ever gets to trial. 

Deal or No Deal? Our guess is the prosecution will have to deal this one or risk facing testimony that might undermine the commission process further.