Inside the Headquarters

After years of fighting the “global war on terrorism,” it seems the name “GWOT” has been kicked to the curb. Worry not. The age of the “overseas contingency operation” has dawned.

As reported by The Washington Post and a handful of major outlets, an e-mail from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to DoD helped set the apparent transition in motion. Echoing what it saw as an OMB directive the Pentagon sent word internally that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terrorism’ [GWOT]. Please use ‘overseas contingency operation.’” (Defense officials were probably thrilled to be rid of this albatross.)

OMB has denied abolishing the terms per se, though it has said the term recommendations were the opinion of one official. White House watchers have noted administration representatives have been using “overseas contingency operations” while “global war on terrorism” and “long war” have been conspicuously absent.

Some at DoD have long cringed at the references to the “long war” or “global war on terrorism.” Even worse has been the ill-advised practice to turn the mission into a four-letter nonsensical acronym GWOT. Some have avoided using the terms. Others have questioned the accuracy of the monikers altogether. (What exactly is a global war on terrorism? Can one wage such a thing?)

But “overseas contingency operations?” This newest label seems benign, at worst. Will a phrase void of overt urgency mean an altered focus? Diminished budgets? A further shift in mission to non-DoD entities?

Or will another hot name take hold like “a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm,” as reportedly preferred by some in the Pentagon? (Extremists who wish us well are in the clear.)

The follow-up installments to this saga soon are due out in the media outlet nearest you.

The attack submarine USS Hartford (SSN-768) and the USS New Orleans (LPD 18), a San Antonio class amphibious transport dock, collided in the night in the narrow but strategically important Strait of Hormuz. 

Yet another two vessels have been sidelined in a fleet the Navy hopes to grow to 313. But this is not the first high-seas tale of woe of late for the Boys in Blue. Run of bad luck? Too much mission for too few vessels? Incompetence? Lack of funding?

Reports from the March 20 Middle Eastern mishap indicate the Hartford was submerged but traveling close to the surface when the vessels collided. At least 15 submariners were injured, though none seriously. The submarine did not fare so well and suffered significant damage to its sail. On the up side the nuclear power plant reportedly was unaffected. Above the surface the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank dumping 25,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel into the sea. Two ballast tanks also were damaged. Despite their wounds, both vessels made it back to port in Bahrain on their own. (Read: They did not have to be towed like the USS Port Royal that recently spent three days stuck on a reef off the coast of Hawaii after running hard aground.)

It appears no fewer than three U.S. submarines have been involved in collisions in the area in the recent years, which might indicate the importance of the region.

On Jan. 8, 2007, the USS Newport News (SSN-750), an attack submarine, collided with the Mogamigawa, a Japanese oil tanker, which overtook the sub in the narrow strait while they were heading out of the area. In 2005, the USS Philadelphia (SSN-690), another attack submarine collided with a Turkish cargo ship off Bahrain.

The Hartford and New Orleans were a part of an expeditionary strike group conducting counterpiracy ops in the region. The Strait of Hormuz is considered the world’s most important choke point. Nearly 20 million barrels of oil pass through this strait between Iran and Oman each day (not to mention a number of unlucky Navy ships).

The Strait of Hormuz might be narrow, but one would think that surface and subsurface vessels would have broken the code on safe passage.

Our friends at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are claiming victory. The group infamous for its blood-tossing antics is crowing about the probable cessation of using animals to realistically portray battlefield injuries.

PETA has been spearheading efforts to stop DoD from using barnyard animals (normally pigs and goats) to simulate the carnage of war. The animals receive very real wounds to replicate battlefield injuries suffered by uniformed personnel. The Army has maintained the training is invaluable and realistic for medics and others working to save Wilbur (pig) and Bill (goat). Despite the medical effort devoted to saving these wounded, in the end, these four-leggers are euthanized.

The Pentagon maintains it has been reviewing its use of live animals in medical training and education for some time, and its decision is independent of the efforts of PETA or other organizations. The Air Force and Navy already use medical simulation technology, instead of breathing livestock, to train their personnel, but is it as realistic? The Army has been slower to transition.

A recent episode of the ABC’s night-time soap/medical drama “Grey’s Anatomy” showed an Iraq Army veteran doctor stabbing six very large pigs so interns could save their lives — only to euthanize them after doing so. (Do not try this at home.)

The 16-month campaign by the Norfolk-based PETA seems tame compared to the group’s past efforts. Protests and letters pale when compared to blood-hurling at the fur-clad. Few are immune to the group’s wrath. PETA has taken a stance against (get this) the unsighted having guide dogs, questioning this group’s ability to adequately care for the animals. Note, they maintain guide dogs get little play time. (Writers in D.C. get even less.)

It looks like PETA will get its wish to stop the slaughter of livestock on the training battlefield. Some at DoD probably will lose very good training opportunities. As grotesque as DoD’s practice might seem, in reality, these animals probably would be on their way to the slaughterhouse be it the battlefield or Smithfield.

Is an all-volunteer force that stops its volunteers from leaving the ranks once their agreed to terms of service have concluded really an all-volunteer force?

The Pentagon has announced it practically will eliminate the use of stop-loss, a practice that holds servicemembers past their service obligation. This comes at a time when the operational stress on the Army seems reduced, while the recruiting environment has improved. (There’s always an angle.).

Stop-loss, long controversial and highly unpopular, currently ensnares roughly 13,000 in uniform past their obligations. (It has been reported that 120,000 have been affected since 2001.) These are mostly Army soldiers, with half in the active component and the rest in the National Guard and Reserve. Though the program has been around for nearly two decades, it was only in October 2008 that an additional monthly compensation of $500 a servicemember was authorized by lawmakers. 

But $6,000 is a bargain when compared to the cost to find, recruit, and train qualified individuals to refill the ranks. (An all-volunteer force can be a challenge to manage!) 

By mid-2010 Defense Secretary (and Occasional Superhero) Robert M. Gates hopes to halve those currently serving under stop-loss, and, by 2011, he hopes to have maybe a few dozen remaining. 

In a March 18 release, Army Chief of Staff George Casey explained that stop-loss “ensure[s] that units that have trained together remain together in combat and that they have the qualified and experienced troops necessary for the full spectrum of military operations.” He went on to say, “Stop-loss is a legal tool that has allowed the Army to sustain a force that has trained together as a cohesive element. Losses caused by separation, retirement, and reassignments can adversely affect training, cohesion, readiness, and stability in deploying units. Limiting the use of stop-loss balances the need for unit effectiveness against the impact on individual soldiers and their families.” (We’re not so sure he really said this, and it is interesting that stop-loss seems to be such the one-stop remedy for an ailing force.) 

While unit cohesion seems a reasonable argument, stop-loss can be a great stop-gap measure when recruiting is a challenge and end-strength is elusive. In 2004, it was then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) who called the program a “backdoor draft.” With improved recruiting prospects, the services will be eager to cull the herd. 

Overtures aside, the stop-loss policy will remain in effect to cover DoD in the event of a major emergency. 

Wasn’t that the deal the first time?

We had thought the White House had unleashed a brilliant strategy to help with military retention. Now, the stated priority of military families is looking suspect at best.

Quite possibly taking a page from the playbook of military retention gurus, First Lady Michelle Obama made her first trip outside the White House to visit family members of those stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C.

But the recent wailing and gnashing of teeth over possible veterans’ health care changes proposed by the White House seem in stark contrast to Michelle’s efforts to support military families.

The First Lady visited the sprawling base, home to the 82nd Airborne Division among others. Bragg’s units are in constant motion. Multiple and repeated deployments can take their toll on units, and the effect on members often is worsened by the toll exacted on their spouses, children, and loved ones, Many believe a uniformed member will ditch the ranks if the family is unhappy. (We are not accounting for economic conditions.) But if the home fires are happily burning, the uniformed member might have a greater propensity to reenlist. Retention is a fickle Achilles heel.

But those fires might be have cooled somewhat. What happens when that healthy soldier at Bragg is retired into the VA health care system with a service-connected disability? In a surprise announcement by the White House, it seems the money changers might be looking at billing a veteran’s private insurance for the care, whereas currently service-connected care is handled by the VA. We’re trackin’, but the proposal seems bizarre. (A VA spokesperson says additional information will come from Secretary Eric Shinseki and team. Our guess is the former Army chief of staff knew little about this, but that’s speculation. We will publish additional information from the VA when we have it.)

Even stranger than catching the VA secretary off guard (our guess), is the timing of this “announcement” just days after the First Lady’s visit highlighting the priority of military families. Maybe there is a big difference between active duty members and retirees, even though some were forced from active duty service because of the scars of war. Don’t know.

And all this as military families believe they are important to Washington.

If those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, then it seems allied intelligence efforts in Afghanistan — are doomed. 

According to a RAND study, and as reported by Britain’s Guardian and Telegraph newspapers, redundancies as well as the inability to share crucial information are undermining counterinsurgency operations on the ground. Troubles in paradise also include a reliance on “meaningless” metrics to track progress in Afghanistan. 

The November 2008 confidential report, titled ”Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan,” was compiled for U.S. Joint Forces Command. Researchers spoke with nearly 300 intelligence officers and diplomats not just from the U.S. but also from the U.K. and the Netherlands. The report is available online. Vignettes paint a troubling picture, like one unit not telling another the location of the known IED “factory,” everyone passed each day. In another illustration, no fewer than 13 intelligence sections co-located at one camp but worked with little cooperation. 

The “fallacy of body counts,” aptly describes the challenges with metrics. For example, measures of success like enemy forces killed or captured and numbers of weapons seized have been looked at as stand-alone measures and not in relation to other intelligence or the broader landscape. While higher enemy casualties might be seen as a positive trend, it was the opinion of one interviewee that this phenomenon might indicate more enemy fighters on the battlefield (and possibly a growing enemy force). 

This story appears ignored by U.S. media outlets, though the report resides at Joint Forces Command, according to a senior intelligence official. The report calls for “a substantial overhaul of how military intelligence is gathered, organized, and acted on,” according to the Guardian. Another senior official reportedly said the findings bring into question everyday operations like weapons searches and the arrest of wanted individuals. This person suggested these operations can serve to “alienate the local population for little measurable gain.” 

Bumbled intelligence can only alienate the crucial moderate middle of the Afghan people. Once moderate Muslims are lost, all bets are off.

The private sector could soon own a Navy ship to lay the hull of its own disaster-preparedness fleet. 

A certain Virginia senator, on behalf of a constituent, has asked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano about the possibility that the USS Tarawa (LHA-1) could be turned over to an emergency-preparedness nonprofit to commence a second career as a “mobile, state-of-the-art disaster-response platform.” 

In a three-page manifesto, the Virginia-based constituent outlined a plan somewhat akin to maritime pre-positioning — but in private hands. The Tarawa would become a part of the Maritime Emergency Preparedness Project. He points to the effectiveness of the Navy’s USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and USS Nassau (LHA-4) in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Ike, respectively. His proposal targets two additional vessels, suggesting once the Nassau and USS Peleliu (LHA-5) are decommissioned, they join the Tarawa. (The gater grand dame is slated to be decommissioned March 31 in San Diego.) 

It appears the constituent’s nonprofit buds are looking at a near takeover of emergency and disaster response. The Virginia-based gentleman all but stated DHS cannot handle the mission, implying it falls to DoD when DHS agencies come up short. He envisions a smorgasbord of shipboard capabilities on an uber-Tarawa, but that would require a tremendous outlay of cash, as would maintaining a ship that rusts at any opportunity. (We don’t think he has any idea what poor shape a decommissioned ship could be in.) The most perplexing aspect of the proposal is the assured and repeated clash with government officials that would result. (Disaster assistance and emergency management, inherently government functions, belong to [you guessed it] FEMA. FEMA might be small, but its dedicated crew is getting better with age.) While assistance from the private sector is crucial, as evidenced by FEMA’s relative newcomer, its Private Sector Office, this level of involvement could prove detrimental. (Imagine Blackwater [Xe] in Iraq. That’s right, we’ve already lived through that one. Imagine Blackwater [Xe] in disaster preparedness.) 

Our question: Is it the Navy’s intent to decommission ships faster than it can launch ‘em in an effort to build the fleet to 313? 

The House Armed Services Committee recently heard testimony about Somali piracy from professionals in the know. But a gander at the transcripts reveals an issue misunderstood on Capitol Hill.

Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command; Daniel Pike, acting principal director of the Office of African Affairs for DoD; Ambassador Stephen Mull, acting undersecretary of state for International Security and Arms Control; and Karl Wycoff, acting deputy assistant secretary of state for African Affairs discussed combating piracy off the Horn of Africa and the progress made during the two months the U.S. and Combined Task Force 151 have been on station.

In his submitted testimony, Gortney was clear that piracy in the Gulf of Aden off the northern coast of Somalia affects less than 1 percent of the 30,000-plus ships that transit the region each year. Gortney stressed that the Navy’s work on the high seas can keep the sea lanes open but has had little impact on stopping piracy. In his written testimony, he explained that, while the Navy is a part of an international naval presence, it works to improve defensive measures taken by the shipping industry. Regardless, there seemed little disagreement from the panel that the solution to piracy in the region was land-based in the failed state of Somalia.

Pan to lawmakers. Let he cat-herding begin. 

Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) wanted to know if a pirate attack on a U.S. ship was an act of war. (Maybe he’s looking for an excuse to invade Somalia, though most would advise against it.) Amb. Mull seemed to have trouble answering the question, though he might have been thinking, “You’re joking right? Have you heard or read nothing we’ve presented on the issue? This is an economic crime by desperately poor people. The word is out: ‘Steer clear of the Navy sheriff and his international posse.’ ”

John McHugh (R-N.Y.) expressed concern, as others both on and off the Hill have, that the increase in piracy might be a sign of radical Islamist activity. Gortney explained that any connection had been ruled out and that most of the pirates since August 2008 had been narrowed to a new albeit impoverished, Somali clan. 

Committee Chair Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) stated, “We need an international counter-piracy league under the auspices of the United Nations,” We ask, “Why?” Why entangle the Navy with the flotillas of the world as nations continue to hiss and claw under NATO as well as the U.N.? 

Speaking of NATO and the U.N., “cooperation” on this piracy issue seems to have tremendous support. To date, nations involved in the counter-piracy effort are the U.S., U.K., Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and Yemen. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Belgium, and Poland are expected to join this party the coming months.

Such collaboration is rare. Why now and why this issue, when challenges like those posed by radical Islam are more pressing?

As has been reported widely, the “ban” on media coverage of servicemembers’ coffins returning through Dover Air Force Base, Del., has been lifted with one caveat — the final decision will be left to family members.

Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates has made what seems to be a reasonable call (and maybe even for the right reasons), though the subject remains polarizing.

Love it or hate it, photographing deceased military members has historical precedence. From corpses on Civil War battlefields to those killed on the beaches in World War II to the similarly flag-draped coffins of Vietnam, a variety of images has been snapped and widely published. But times change, and how DoD implements its “new” guidelines is anyone’s guess. 

In the aftermath of the compromise, the National Press Photographers Association applauded the decision in the name of the First Amendment. According to USA Today, organization President Bob Carey said, “This is a major step to having an open government.” (One would hope this was taken out of context.) 

Opponents of the revised policy include many families and veterans’ organization like the VFW and American Legion. Some have voiced concern over added stress on families, to include unintended pressure on loved ones to make the trip to Dover, regardless of financial circumstances. 

The infamous ban went into effect nearly two decades ago under President George H.W. Bush and has been under fire ever since. First Amendment? Right to privacy? The latter is trickier than the former if we call in the lawyers. One’s journey to a final resting place seems a solemn and private event. Swarming paparazzi might be the last thing DoD wants, but in letting this genie out of its bottle, anything’s possible, (and quite possibly at the expense of grieving families). 

And this really should be about those who remain, their lives altered forever. How will DoD work this? Will the casualty assistance officer say, “I’m sorry for your loss, but would you mind if news outlets photograph [insert name here]?” Will the “yeses” be removed from the aircraft for photographers and the “nos” removed once the media have been cleared? 

What if “much adieu” and no cameras show? Does that make it worse? 

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

Apparently we spoke too soon. Prince, founder of the armed conglomerate formerly known as Blackwater, has announced he is stepping down as president and CEO of the beleaguered company.

Prince recently announced Blackwater’s name change to the breathy “Xe” in an apparent effort to break with a past that is costing his company access and money. Iraq refused to relicense his gun-toters, and it seems the State Department will not renew its big-bucks protection services contracts with the company.

The former Navy SEAL also is heir to multimillion dollar manufacturing fortune whose funds helped him build his empire based in Moyock, N.C. When we first wrote about Blackwater three years ago (after reading a six-part Virginia Pilot series on the company), we found Prince accessible and kind enough to speak with us.

But they say war changes people, and Blackwater’s public image went from sexed-up renegades to murderous thugs-for-hire. Protecting their State Department clients was understandably paramount, and they mowed down a few Iraqis to do it. Despite U.S. indictments, we’re sure the boys are thankful for the status of forces agreement; otherwise the U.S. might have handed over the young guns in the name of the greater good.

We’re as fascinated by Blackwater’s every move as the groupies at the Virginia Pilot. Despite the (purposeful?) “upheaval” Blackwater/Xe still is Prince’s company, and he remains its chair. Though his people have put out the word that he’s not involved in Xe’s daily activities, Prince is involved with other aspects of the company’s business, which now includes building stuff (like mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles and aircraft.)  The company has an aviation arm with more than 70 birds. Xe now is “engaged” in Africa and Afghanistan, areas of more than just a little interest to the U.S. (and Blackwater/Xe  client, the State Department). Prince’s efforts in “business development” probably are better suited to his personality than dealing with the Blackwater mess.   

Xe will always be Blackwater, and Prince will always be king.