Inside the Headquarters

Will they or won’t they? In a story that has changed little in the past few years, U.S. requests for additional combat troops in Afghanistan have been met with resounding silence from NATO.

We first wrote of the “Issue that Wouldn’t Die,” May 5, 2008, when U.S. Army Gen. and Supreme Allied Commander John Craddock revealed his frustration during a National Public Radio interview. Yet as much as the U.S. pushes for an increased NATO combat presence, it continues its love-hate relationship with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Though ISAF is light on elements like “NATO,” “Security,” and “Assistance,” U.S. leaders remain determined to make Afghanistan a NATO event, dire predictions be damned!

As recently as last week, Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates was in Europe scrounging for NATO cooperation with little success. A recent editorial in The New York Times opined that President Obama should employ his rock star image to jar loose some support, though few think Europeans will cooperate.

Frustrated and with increased combat operations imminent, the U.S. might be taking a different approach. It seems U.S. leaders will take anything they can get, so noncombat troops and civilian donations by NATO nations might be the compromise. While soft power has been emphasized and might be the only way to secure Afghanistan, a U.S.-shouldered combat burden might be as irritating now as it has been since World War I.

The challenges extend beyond manpower. U.S. leaders are working to keep supplies flowing, notably through the ‘stans. Kyrgyzstan has ordered the U.S. out of an important air base within six months. Actually, Kyrgyzstan tossed the money-challenged Americans in favor of (you guessed it) the high-rolling Ruskies who will pay a reported $2.15 billion in a package deal. (The U.S. has paid $63 million annually and is looking for a way to remain in place.) Uzbekistan has said it will allow nonmilitary U.S. transports in its country.

Given the new Taliban homeland in Pakistan, making offers that can’t be refused might not be too far off.

History is fraught with controversy, and controversy is fraught with history. Military history and its museum exhibits have caused a row or two. In 1994, when the Enola Gay was to go on display at the Smithsonian during World War II 50th anniversary commemorations, controversy raged about this B-29 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima to end the war. The Smithsonian was forced to pull the plug on its plans for the Enola Gay and change the program.

Recently, controversy again swirled around the World War II Pacific theater. A framed 1945 headline “Japs Surrender” was removed from a wall display after an employee said the term “Jap” was derogatory.

But this was not just any venue: The artifact was hanging at a VA medical center — the Roudebush VA Medical Center in Indianapolis to be exact.

Here’s a shock: veterans complained about the move, and groups like the local Marine Corps league balked it was a “slap in the face of the U.S. Military.” 

Medical center director Tom Mattice tucked the period newspaper away. He has posed the question of the display’s appropriateness to the VA’s national ethics office (who knew?), wondering if this would constitute a national policy. Mattice has stated the facility is a medical center and not a museum, though we would think the two can happily coexists. Veterans. History. Museum. Works for us.

We are unsure if the employee understood this was an actual newspaper from 1945, that the “Japs” was period parlance and its very survival as an artifact transcends real or perceived racism. The Japanese did surrender to people receiving care at that facility. Seems sort of ironic. These veterans — military veterans — probably were thrilled the center (unlike some more prominent facilities like the one in Washington, D.C.) made a significant effort to incorporate military history into the décor.

In the meantime, “Germany Surrenders” still hangs, and the VA will replace “Japs Surrender” with something gentler like “Japanese Surrender” or “Victory in the Pacific.” Maybe something as positive and inspirational.

World War II veterans continue to pass away in large numbers. Someday, few in the VA system (or elsewhere) will care about the history of that headline.

The Indystar.com story elicited more than 300 comments.

Blackwater has changed its name. The princely-company-of-private-security-turned-Rambo is now “Xe.” It’s pronounced “zee” in case you’re not up on the Periodic Table, gender-neutral pronouns, or the latest Cirque de Soleil production.

The rebranding effort comes as the company has been awash in controversy. Founder and CEO Erik Prince might be reeling from the Iraqi government’s decision to not renew Blackwater’s (uh, Xe’s) license to operate in Iraq. The State Department, whose contracts with Xe reportedly account for one-third of the company’s billion-dollar bonanza each year, has said it is not renewing with the beleaguered firm. Though the company says otherwise, it seems Prince has buckled under the weight of market challenges.

The Company Formerly Called Blackwater still will be headquartered in Moyock, N.C., just south of Norfolk, Va. It has changed the names of its other companies, and almost gone is the adorable bear paw logo. Blackwater Airships now is Guardian Flight Systems and Blackwater Target Systems has become GSD Manufacturing. The Moyock compound where Blackwater, uh, Xe, (uh, Cirque) trains its people and others (for a hefty fee) is now the U.S. Training Center. Don’t confuse that with the Army’s National Training Center, though ringmaster Prince and his marketeers might welcome the tie. The training center comes up online under Blackwater USA, and thankfully the pro shop has retained the infamous name (and bear paw!) Apparently those who shop Blackwater have different buying signals (shoot-‘em-up) than those who hire Blackwater (shoot-‘em-up, but don’t make the news). 

Company President Gary Jackson in an employee memo stated, “This company will continue to provide personnel protective services for high-threat environments when needed by the U.S. government, but its primary mission will be operating our training facilities around the world, including the flagship campus in North Carolina.”

While poking fun at this unfortunate set of circumstances is easy, the reality of image change can be daunting. But is the change necessary? Is it riskier to change the brand or to do nothing? The decision probably was a tough one for a company that seems to pride itself on the quality it offers its clients. Don’t know.

To date, Erik Prince has kept his name and is not referred to as the “Mercenary Formerly Known as Prince.” 

U.S. forces are having difficulty accounting for weapons. Thousands of weapons. And get this — they had a very similar problem in 2007.

The GAO recently reported the U.S. might have lost 87,000 of the 242,000 arms meant for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Machine guns, AK-47s, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers might have found their way into Taliban arsenals. Or not. No one really knows. To add to this tale of woe, the GAO found no “reliable records” indicating the fates of 135,000 weapons donated by NATO nations for the ANSF, so they (the weapons) might be missing, too. This potentially gives hostile forces in Afghanistan quite an arsenal — much of it paid for with U.S. tax dollars.

Flashback to 2007: the GAO found that from 2004-05, 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols vanished — one-third of the weapons issued by the U.S. But this time the intended recipient was Iraq. The culprit: a lack of accountability.

Call it weapons déjà vu. Both large-scale incidents reported by the GAO have been within the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility, and both have involved flawed accountability procedures. Losses ran about one-third in each case for arms meant for the host nation. Does lightning strike twice? (Does the postman always ring twice?) While training the Iraqis and Afghans and fighting the bad guys has been paramount, we would think not arming hostiles would be an important task. It’s like taking out a few a poppy fields or bad-guy teams while handing out weapons to the very happy guys at the back of the truck.

In a possible end-run around executive guidance that DoD ratchet back spending, two lawmakers have proposed a baseline criteria for defense budgets.

S.J. Res. 10 proposes a minimum budget of not less than 4 percent of the GDP. The joint resolution was introduced Feb. 12 by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). A similar bill introduced last year failed.

Typically, the base defense budget (as opposed to the actual budget) clocks in at roughly 3.6 percent, but once the massive supplemental giveaways of recent years are factored in, DoD is above the 4 percent factor. Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, and Franks, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, maintain the bill will “keep this country safe, restore our military to the level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand of them. …”

So why “Four Percent for the Defense of Freedom” now? The dynamic duo seems to see defense as stimulus. (There seems to be little disagreement on defense’s positive role in the economy.) Inhofe and Franks want to ensure defense spending will continue to spur economic growth and job production. They also want to send a clear message “to our military, our allies, and enemies alike that we are committed to the security of our nation and the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world.” (We assume that saber rattling targets Iran, Somali pirates, and France. We made that up.) Additionally, the release from Inhofe warns of the “hollow force” of the 1970s. Timing with the latest financial endless soup-and-salad bar (compliments of Washington) might be no coincidence.

The question among defense pundits seems to be, “Does a proper defense require an expenditure of the level of 4 percent of the GDP?” Opinions vary, but if you blow through program budgets like toner at the IRS, you need every dollar possible. Has the endless (read: endless) stream of green enabled a culture of budget-be-damned? Would fewer dollars force responsible oversight and spur creativity?  (When queried, Magic Eight Ball stared back blankly.)

The bill has been referred to a probable death in committee. 

There are rare (non-lethal) instances when there are no second chances. Even fatal incidents are more forgiving to surviving commanders than running one’s ship aground.

And such was the story when the billion-dollar USS Port Royal (CG-73) ran hard (read: almost permanently) aground Feb. 6 in a mere 17-22 feet of water. Bad news when you’re draftin’ 33 feet.

During her first outing since entering the repair yards four months ago, the Port Royal, the Navy’s final cruiser in the Ticonderoga class, came to rest just off Honolulu within sight of the airport. Early efforts to float her off the shoal at high tide failed. Towing attempts proved pointless. It was early Monday, more than 72 hours after the incident, that the Port Royal was freed. In fact, the crew had to lighten the load by hundreds of tons before their ship could be helped back to Pearl Harbor.

Can you imagine? Capt. John Carroll, USN, just assumed command in October 2008. This probably was one of his few times under way on his ship when BAM! He knows he’s lost command, but to sit there with the crew in a collective hell, watching Hawaiian Airlines ferry visitors in and out of paradise … brutal.

Interest in the mishap went all ahead full when it was learned the Port Royal dumped 5,000 gallons of raw sewage into the coastal waters. (This is a problem.) An always forthright Navy said the action was taken “to protect the health and welfare” of the crew. (Odd that it coincided with having to lighten the ship. Also, the Navy neglected to mention the health and welfare of the island’s residents.)

The U.S. Naval Institute’s blog (always worth the read) posted valuable information about the incident. Of even greater interest is that the entry garnered well over 100 comments — and more than a bunch o’ chatterin’ black shoes.

They did it during the Revolution and the Civil War. World War I had its rallying cry, “Knit for Victory.” A generation later, “Knit Your Bit” was the homefront’s call to action. There is a long tradition of citizens mobilizing to knit socks, mufflers, sweaters, and other items for American warfighters often on the frigid front.

Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom might not have a slogan, but knitters across the country are producing helmet liners.

Helmet liners?

These practical pullover head warmers wrap the head, neck, and much of the face in cozy, soft wool. Updated from a World War II pattern, helmet liners are making their way over the heads of some pretty pleased soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

The knitters are a part of an informal, loosely organized grassroots movement that stretches across the country. They communicate via Web sites, chat rooms, blogs, and the like, sharing information and imploring expert as well as novice knitters to pick up needles (the right size of course, not that we knew there are different sizes) and their soft, 100-percent wool yarn. No synthetics: the liner would melt onto the wearer in the case of fire. Black, brown, tan, and olive round out the range of colors.

At a recent event in Alexandria, Va., there were more than 40 knitters present, including Marine Maj. Gen, Doug Stone, who recently returned from reorganizing detainee operations in Iraq. Stone, a big supporter of the movement noted, “I don’t know what [they] think about the war. What I do know is a connection is being made between these great citizens here and those kids on the other end.”

Some larger outfits such as the Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, Va., are honchoing efforts. Volunteers help knitters as well as collect the liners for transport “over there.”

As a member of the overpay-to-play hit parade outlined in our last posting, we thought a little more information on the U.S. Marine Corps’ support cart might be helpful.

The relatively obscure Growler, whose concept dates back to 1999, was purchased by the Corps as a companion to its V-22 Osprey aircraft. It is an “internally transportable vehicle,” designed fit inside the Osprey. Once on the ground, it would tow mortars and a trailer laden with ammunition in support of ground forces.

But its “light” (read: no armor, no protection) construction seems to limit its use. The Corps has said it could be used in Afghanistan, and we suppose that’s true — if the Taliban and assorted factions would lay down their arms.

Some call the Growler Jeep-like. In 2005, USA Today referred to it as “a recycled version of the M151 Jeep.” There might be a reason or two the services moved away from the open vehicles of old toward something like the more-protective HUMVEE. Comments on several blogs reveal frustration with Growler, a program seen as money squandered. Virginia Commonwealth University engineering school dean, Russell D. Jamison, wrote to The Washington Post, saying schools like his could design something better and for less money.

The Osprey is the Corps’ tiltrotor vertical and short takeoff and landing aircraft with its own turbulent and checkered past. Lovechild Growler’s costs shot up 120 percent from $94,000 to $209,000 for each vehicle because of (you guessed it) redesigns and other issues. The trailer has been a small fortune since inception but has jumped 86 percent from $579,000 to just over a million dollars.

But there might be hope. It was reported that, in 2005, the Dominican Republic bought a scaled-down version for $33,000 a piece. Similar kits range from $7,500 to $14,500. Why not send some kits to oceanfront Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Camp Pendleton, Calif., and grab a squad or two of Marines a few cases of beverages? You could build a fleet of these things (on each U.S. coast) in an afternoon.

Growler might quickly go the way of other well-meaning but tactically foolish systems: foreign military sales.

The GAO recently reported that U.S. government contract obligations are at an all-time high. For its part, DoD pimped $315 billion of the $532 billion committed in FY 2007. The GAO also found that a chunk of change has being squandered because of poor contract management. It is feared 2008 might set another record.

To quote the Air Force: Aim high!

So what’s the correlation between increases in defense contract spending and program cost overruns? Are they proportionate? Unrelated? Are they just fun facts for the Tom Daschles of the world who choose not to pay their taxes?

The defense contracting spree is probably no surprise given operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The services also have been upgrading equipment. But the cost overruns, well, they are big and they are plentiful. Call us simplistic, but aren’t the overruns killing some badly needed programs?

Here are some examples of Gear Gone Wild:

• DDG 1000. The most stunning might be the Navy’s USS Zumwalt, though we prefer to call Uncle Elmo’s namesake “the flipped ship to nowhere.” Costs have ballooned a reported 550 percent with the cost per ship recently estimated at $3.3 billion. However, the move to stop the bleeding at just three ships has shot costs to nearly $6 billion per vessels. Options are under review. Fathom that one.

• LCS. The Navy’s littoral combat ship (LCS) program, a perennial fave and offender, has watched costs go from the overly optimistic bids of $220 million to $550 million or more a ship.

• F-22. The Air Force’s Raptor clocks in at $361 million per aircraft according to the GAO or $140 million a bird (depending on accounting method). Either way, “Rapture” could break the bank, even if the bank prez is the U.S. Air Force.

• MRAP. It was recently reported that the Few and the Proud might have spent too much on their mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The DoD inspector general found that the Marine Corps Systems Command failed to determine if the pricing was “fair and reasonable” when it awarded a number of firm-fixed price contracts. (Each service has had issues with procuring these vehicles pushed by Big Brother at OSD.)

• Marine One. Lockheed Martin Corp. is over budget on the presidential helicopter, a contract it won against odds-on favorite Sikorsky. The contract for a fleet of 28 Marine One birds started at $6.1 billion. But there has been trouble in paradise, and delays and engineering issues have pushed the program at least 50 percent over budget, according to The Wall Street Journal and other outlets. The article cites that the Navy, which oversees the contract, has been going at it with Lockheed over “hundreds” of changes. Though not a service that typically embraces change, the Navy loves to alter specs and dollars be damned! (See LCS above.)

• Growler. This Marine Corps’ vehicle, which looks more like a Leisure World cart (or the recycled M151 jeep that it appears to be), is 120 percent over budget. Costs for the vehicle went from $94,000 to $209,000. But the real money is in the trailer Growler needs to transport (get this) mortars and ammo. Costs jumped 86 percent from $579,000 to more than a million. We doubt these things will see action in Iraq or Afghanistan, but could end up on base golf courses around the United States.

“Damn the dollars and aim high,” said the few and the proud as the Army kept rolling along.

If House lawmakers have their way, future disaster victims might be housed on military bases. A bill has been introduced that would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to establish national emergency centers on military installations for its subsidiary, FEMA. 

The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) says these facilities will “provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” They also will provide centralized locations for training and ensuring the coordination of federal, state, and local first responders. These centralized facilities will “improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts” for all kinds or organizations — public as well as private.

Finally they will “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

So, what exactly does that last one mean? According to the bill, the DHS and Defense secretaries are to designate no fewer than six sites that meet myriad requirements. Oh, and the six have to be spread over the FEMA regions. The preference is that the installations chosen already be closed, like those shuttered through Base Realignment and Closure. Requirements like “capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian, and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster” (try that in one breath) are a tall order, as is “asking” DoD to fork over control of its property.

The bill’s detractors refer to the facilities as FEMA prison camps and FEMA concentration camps among other light-hearted fare. Historical references and some very bad B movies aside, sinister is in the eyes of the beholder.

This real estate-internment camps deal was sponsored by Florida Democrat Alcee L. Hastings, who seems to like to sponsor lots of bills. HR 645 is in committee and might die there. Hasting’s district includes densely populated portions of South Florida’s Atlantic coast.