Inside the Headquarters

World War II had its “gallant Finns” persevering in the face of aggression.

We have our gallant Swedes.

“Sweden Renews Financial Pressure on Armed Forces,” screams one headline. “Isn’t Sweden Neutral?” readers wonder. Oh, that’s Switzerland, but all of Scandinavia is essentially neutral — and gallant.

Yes, Sweden has a military, and it is remarkable that its challenges are not unlike those faced by U.S. military leaders, though its plight may be worse. It seems Sweden’s state-run National Financial Management Authority is determined to keep its nation’s armed forces as cost-efficient as possible. Although DoD might think it’s hobbled by oversight, the Swedes’ situation gives American gun-toters something to cheer about (so long as those financial types are not advising Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens — or the U.S. Air Force or the Navy for that matter.

Gen. Haken Syren, Sweden’s armed forces chief, has described his military’s on-going transformation as one of the “greatest military challenges” faced by his nation’s defense leaders. (Clearly he has been talking to Big Daddy of Defense Transformation, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or to U.S. Army strat comm types.) Our guess is the Swedish military just has not been awash with challenge in its history. But we digress.

It’s a well-known refrains: According to Syren, Sweden’s leaders want to increase the requirements placed on its forces while continuing to slash budgets. He has noted the ambitious goals outlined in the 2004 “Strategy for Swedish Defense” are not attainable at current budget levels, and thus has stated it is becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate political ambitions. Sweden already has gone through its own version of base realignment and closure, reportedly closing a third of its installations. On the personnel side, the force has been slashed by 17 percent since 2004. At the same time, the Swedes are revamping their officer corps and moving to a more voluntary, if not completely voluntary force.

But relief might be on the way: Parliamentary elections are on the horizon. One Swedish political leader, possibly looking to woo voters, has stated “Sweden needs a strong defense.”

We will assume he has no ties to France. 

Over there. Send the word, send the word over there. That the Yanks are comin’, the Yanks are comin’ [the French are still runnin’ to la mer (the sea)!]

Who can forget that favorite World War I ditty, encapsulating the pride, determination, and reckless euphoria of fighting in the trenches of war-torn France?

The French seem to be feeling pretty secure nowadays, with the two world wars of the past century well behind them. We’re not even sure if they study les bons hommes of battle like French Bad Boy Napoleon Bonaparte. Tant pis (too bad).

France has unveiled it plans to scale down its military. (We did not realize it still had one post-de Gaulle.)
France will shed 20 regiments and a number of military bases in an effort to transform itself to better deal with the threat of terrorism (whatever that really is … in France). The planned total personal reduction of 54,000 will be roughly 20 percent of current force levels.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon (not to be confused the Hot Prez, Nick Sarkozy, who has Hungarian roots, so he’s not really French) has noted the “considerable development of terrorism” (to wit: the banning headscarves in French schools). Get this: Apparently he has said the threat of invasion of France or French territory no longer exists. Our guess is more than one French leader has said that in the past — and was wrong. Just to test his theory, we — the U.S. or “Inside the Headquarters” readers (take your pick) — could invade France. If we were on better terms with the Germans (and if the Germans had not had militarism bred out of them), it would be a hoot to see Fillon’s face when he heard the Germans were massing on the border. 

Ah, but we Geste!

Hot Nick has assured significant investment in French intelligence capability (which we think reached its pinnacle during the Resistance) and a “planned” return to NATO. Our guess is Nick wants to continue to vacation in Vermont or some free French border security.

Is it true the French have a blanket combat exclusion clause?

Watch out matinee idols!

A classic never goes out of style, and a practical, yet elegant, move, the Navy has resurrected a classic. No, not the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) — yet, (more on the possible demise of the costly and unstable Zumwalt class DDG-1000 in the future) but something simpler and less expensive — the service dress khaki uniform. Naval officers have bemoaned the demise of the dress khaki since it was scuttled under ’70s icon Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo Zumwalt. Z-gram Man tossed the uniform overboard to lighten the seabag. But there was a problem: It left the fleet without togs comparable to the coat-and-tie uniforms of its sister services, service dress blues aside.

The Klassic Khaki will not replace any existing unforms but can be worn in place of service khaki and dress blues and whites. It allows officers and chief petty officers to move from service khaki to service dress khaki by tossing on a tie and jacket. This is one transformation we can understand. There are other changes afoot for Navy uniforms but none as remarkable as the return of this old friend.

One hundred lucky officers from Washington, D.C., to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, are testing the uniform. Joint Chiefs Chairman (and former CNO) Adm. Mike Mullen himself has been sporting the fashion declaration. Our guess is the Navy will move forward. Everyone seems to be raving, though one news outlet found someone who actually called the uniform “too old-fashioned.” Old-fashioned? Does John Wayne ever go out of style? (We don’t care for the Duke, but he could wear a uniform!)

There already are shipboard shots of seafaring men on the decks of the high seas. Sexist? Definitely. But this throwback theme is a rare flash of brilliance for the sea service and might serve it well in overcoming recruiting and retention challenges. 

He rolled into town with little warning and preached a message of protection from evil and a promise of safety. The Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle would cost the boys and girls in uniform, but they already understood the cost of war.

The problem was they had yet to master the concept of monetary cost. But they did not have to, buoyed by the make-believe budgets and supplementals those high on the Hill allowed. Thousands melted into millions of dollars without any apparent consequence.

Enter the GAO. (Cue bugles.)

In a report released recently the government watchdog concluded the procurement of MRAP could cost DoD more than it had bargained for.

The GAO looked at DoD’s “approach for and progress in implementing its strategy for rapidly acquiring and fielding MRAP vehicles, and the challenges remaining for the program.”

Generally it found that the urgency of the purchase produced significant risks. “While the department’s concurrent approach to producing, testing, and fielding the vehicles has provided an urgently needed operational capability, it has also increased performance, sustainability, and cost risks,” the report states.

In the rush to field more than 15,000 MRAPs, $22 billion was spread over no fewer than five companies. Risk was certainly pushed to the future: typical testing requirements were waived. To date, safety testing is not yet complete. MRAP’s stability issues, evidenced by the 30-plus reported rollovers in theater, have played a role in design modifications and changes in orders. The accountability gurus have warned modifications could be costly — and they’re right: In a move away from MRAP II (Kong), the Army will eat $25 million paid on development of the beast.

Get this: According to the GAO, cost estimates to operate and sustain the current MRAP fleet have not yet been determined (and could send overall program costs right through MRAP’s reinforced frame).

There is a move toward a “lighter,” “smaller” MRAP (we like Son of Kong), which underscores another GAO concern: Functional obsolescence. According to the GAO, “… as threats change, performance requirements — and MRAP’s role in DOD’s overall tactical wheeled vehicle strategy — could change, further exacerbating these challenges.”

Interpretation: These things might be obsolete before the last ones roll off the assembly line, but certainly before they are redeployed to … maybe … Afghanistan.

Oh, they’re already there.

A message flashed on the “Inside the Headquarters” hotline. The caller’s news? Defense officials planned to send hundreds of Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles (love ‘em or hate ‘em) to Afghanistan to join the 800 or so that already are there.

“Bad move,” he said. “Are we becoming the Russians?”

MRAP. Maligned by some for its bulk, weight, and limited maneuverability, the current Afghanistan MRAP fleet will be joined by a smaller and more maneuverable model, the RG-31. (Though we prefer “Son of Kong.” 

“It doesn’t matter if they’re smaller, MRAP cannot handle the terrain and sends the wrong message. This is not Iraq,” said the caller. 

The former provincial reconstruction team (PRT) commander from a garden-spot province on the now-infamous (and ever-treacherous) border with Pakistan was outraged. Many routes are vulnerable to attack but are the only surface routes to get to some towns.

“You disable one of those things [MRAP] and no one is getting out,” the caller warned, referring to a hostile attack in the narrow mountain passes. That very scenario was always a concern of his, and a disabled MRAP could doom just about any unit. The caller might know something on the subject: He and his unit were fatally ambushed in the mountains in 2004. “Increased maneuverability?” he spouted incredulously at the mention of Son of Kong’s touted features. “There is no room to move.”

At the request of commanders on the ground, MRAP is being deployed in the face of a mounting improvised explosive device (IED) threat that was not a factor when the caller was in Afghanistan. Knowing the situation is dynamic, the caller recounted that the IED was not the weapon of choice and thinks there are segments of the population that will not resort to the IED. (“Unmanly” was his characterization.) We recall there have been clashes between how PRT commanders and maneuver elements approach situations in Afghanistan and it seems they may disagree on MRAP.

Our caller was especially concerned about the humanitarian element that characterizes the struggle for Afghanistan: “Pull into a village and climb out of one of those things? What kind of message does that send,” he queried. “If anything, the MRAP may encourage the use of the IED by certain elements, and probably foreign fighters.”

Manly or unmanly, debate over the short-and long-term merits of MRAP in any theater will continue. 

… queried John Metzler, Arlington National Cemetery superintendent.

“No. That’s why I’m calling you,” responded Inside the Headquarters, looking for his side of the story.

Arlington recently has come under fire over the sudden firing of its public affairs director, Gina Gray, who claims the beef was over her handling of media access at funerals. She and her lawyer since have hit the cable TV talk show circuit. “It’s up to the families to decide how close or far away they want the media to be,” Gray says. “It is not up to Arlington Cemetery officials to do that.”

We’re sure she believes that.

Both sides’ stories probably have merit. We did not discuss Gray with Metzler, just Arlington’s media policy. According to the superintendent who has decades on the job, the cemetery leaves the decision to the family. If the family agrees to media presence, Arlington alerts the media outlets that have asked to be contacted. Those that attend are placed in a holding area from where they may cover the burial. Fifty yards might seem like a lot, but Metzler points to frequent The Washington Post photos that (and we agree) do look as if they were taken up close.

Metzler maintains he and his staff want to keep the cameras and reporters out of the funeral ceremony itself — literally out of the movement of the color guards, marching platoons, and the like. There can be a lot of moving parts, he says.

Could media be closer? Probably, though Arlington might be protecting bereaved families from something they might not be ready for. Gray is wrong about at least one thing, it is up to Arlington officials to lay some ground rules. Should Arlington be more flexible with the media and families? Possibly, and that is probably why Army Secretary Pete Geren is looking into the matter — not Gray’s termination but Arlington’s media policy, which Metzler says long has been in place. In D.C.’s game of political placation, our guess is there will be some give in the policy in the near future.

Get this: Regarding the investigation, Gray’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, stated “You’re going to see some skeletons unearthed at Arlington.” (Where did she find this guy?)

Maybe they should lay some ground rules for lawyers.

A DoD fave is forcing its way back to the forefront. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” might be en route to the trash heap. At least that’s the recommendation by a panel in a recent study.

A panel of retired flag officers. 

The “Report of the General/Flag Officers’ Study Group”sponsored and released by the University of California Santa Barbara Michael D. Palm Center recommended Congress and DoD scrap the policy that has barred homosexual behavior of military members (and essentially the service of gays).

Though the recommendation probably tracks with the views of many military members (we have nothing credible to support this statement), the study struck us as curious. It turns out the Palm Center, according to its Web site, is “committed to sponsoring state-of-the-art research to enhance the quality of public dialogue about critical and controversial issues of the day. The Center’s priority, the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Project, continues the work of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.”

That’s an oddly narrow focus. Take a gander at some of the “news” items the center highlights:

“New Report by Senior Military Leaders Urges End to Gay Ban”

“52 Retired Generals and Admirals Call for Repeal of Gay Ban”

“New Data on Lesbian Discharges Has Historical Precedent”

“British Army to Allow Uniformed Soldiers to March in Gay Parade”

And don’t miss “… the much-anticipated new book on gays in the military by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, the country’s leading expert on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America will be published in the winter of 2009.”

Focused!

But we digress. The study apparently was conducted by Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, Marine Brig. Gen. Hugh Aitkin, Air Force Lt. Gen. Minter Alexander, and Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan. These are not just four flags — they might be the oldest flags alive, with one service entry date of 1942. The “bipartisan” group conducted its “in-depth assessment” by “examining the key academic and social science literature on the subject and interviewing a range of experts on leadership, unit cohesion and military law, including those who are training our nation’s future military leaders at the service academies.” (The “experts” listed might have been slanted toward the interests of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but you did not hear that from us.)

We cannot fathom the money being spent on this issue. Though the group’s recommendation to change the law and pass control to DoD has great merit, this manufactured “study” is disingenuous and ultimately discrediting.

Is anyone taking up the battle flag to end the combat exclusion clause? That’s right — not enough money to take on that last bastion.

In yet another in the long line of Monday Morning Quarterback offerings at a bookstore near you is a book by a warrior bad boy of the Iraq war. Now-retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman paints an angry, critical, and unflattering picture of his fellow officers on the gridiron, uh, battlefield.

One of the first books to take ground commanders to task, the seemingly self-titled Warrior King: The Triumph and Betrayal of an American Commander in Iraq, Sassaman skewers his fellow officers for making a mess of things beginning early in the war. (Except Sassaman. It’s his book.) The book’s jacket has him as “one of the most prominent members of the U.S. fighting forces in Iraq.” (Who knew?) The Wall Street Journal feature noted the book underscores the continuing argument over the early decisions in Iraq and debate over the course for the future. Sassaman’s mission seems clear: Vindication and revenge. (Reviews on Amazon laud Sassaman.) His contempt is illustrated in a vignette in which he recounts that orders had come from brigade early in the war — Minimize heavily artillery to minimize civilian casualties. Sassaman: “Screw Brigade. Return fire now.” (We love an irreverent maverick, but … )

Hindsight is truly a thing of beauty.

On the “hearts-and-minds” front, Sassaman has a different take. “The simple, somewhat barbaric truth is that we had to convince the Iraqi people that they should fear us more than they feared the insurgents.” That’s one approach — if you’re talking football, a subject he is qualified to discuss.

Sassaman is more than armchair quarterback. He was a reasonably successful leader on the field before his graduation from West Point in 1985. He seems to have retained some of the star-athlete bravado. Crucial qualities? Fatal flaws? Aggressive? Dangerous? It seems Sassaman’s final undoing was an incident in which his men tossed two apparently innocent Iraqis off a bridge. He called it a prank. (Are we surprised?) The men were handcuffed by the Americans and tossed into the Tigris. One reportedly drowned. The tossers might have gone to jail. Sassaman received a letter of reprimand.

Warrior King (not to be confused with Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush) probably makes for interesting if not outright entertaining reading. Hero, heretic, narcissist — the man is probably many things. Boring is not one of them.

Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha has been a man on a mission — to single-handedly take down the Marine Corps and maybe all of DoD. 

Blurtha, as he’s known at “Inside the Headquarters,” has engaged in more than one petulant rant. He can make any tragedy worse, and that takes skill. It is one of his most infamous statements about Marines’ actions during an incident in Iraq that might have him in court defending himself against accusations of libel and defamation of character.

His comments in May 2006 followed a briefing regarding actions at Haditha, Iraq, that left 24 Iraqis and one Marine dead. Blutha blurted publicly, “There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” The M-word (massacre) followed in the court of public opinion. Eight Marines were charged.

The man who wants his day in court — on the offense this time — is Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the battalion commander at the time of the incident. His case was dismissed in June when the judge ruled there had been unlawful command influence.

Events surrounding Haditha are as complex as the legal structure surrounding the GITMO (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) detainees. Most of the cases have been dismissed; one trial remains. But attention has turned to that powerful member of Congress — the once-revered, silver-maned, retired Marine Corps colonel who has seemed angry and vindictive in recent years.

What happened?

Though possibly no one knows for certain (except Blurtha), we hear his vendetta against DoD goes back to an earlier round of Base-Realignment-and-Closure Roulette — and he apparently lost. He has gone from one known as a friend of defense to unreasonable opponent, taking out targets of opportunity along the way.

Will Chessani and the other Marines become as bitter and embattled as the veteran from Pennsylvania?

The “blurt watch” continues.

“Walter Reed” is now synonymous with scandal. What was billed as a breakdown in patient care at the Army’s premier medical facility in Washington, D.C., has come to represent what ails defense, health care, and probably climate change. It is a beacon for activists and is destined to become a verb. Over-the-top media coverage has ranked Walter Reed up there with Hooverville. 

In the feeding-frenzy that followed revelations of substandard living conditions, many a star was tossed on the funeral pyre, including the hospital commander, the Army surgeon general, and the secretary of the Army (though service secretaries seem to have a short life expectancy nowadays). 

But wait. In the “Oops, So Sorry about That” category of Python proportions (Monty, that is), the Army seems to have acknowledged it made a mistake in canning Walter Reed hospital head and fall guy, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman. Ten short days after The Washington Post published its most compelling fodder for a Pulitzer in some time, telling of supposed horrifying conditions at the aging medical facility, the Army stated it had lost trust and confidence in Weightman’s leadership. It had been widely noted at the time that Weightman was well-respected in the medical community and well-liked by his staff. He already had been credited with improving outpatient care in his brief and suddenly disastrous tenure. This did not seem to matter. Then-Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley filled in, though it was reported at the time he knew of adverse conditions at the facility. Somehow, the Army did not see that as an issue: Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates wanted action. Apparently he did not specify he wanted correct (and just) action. 

Within 8 months of its haste to act, the Army extended an apology of sorts sending Weightman to head the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, Md. For the “Who’s on First?” followers: Weightman ultimately was replaced at Walter Reed by then-Maj. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the brother of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who was chief when the story broke. Now a lieutenant general, Schoomaker-the-Younger is the Army’s Surgeon General, the office where Weightman awaited his fate before taking Schoomaker’s old job at Detrick. 

The Army’s admission of its mistake is admirable but cannot compensate Weightman for his loss; his reputation is forever marred. On the up side, Gates looked tough. The Post got its Pulitzer. The mob got its show at the base of the guillotine.