Inside the Headquarters

Michael Edwards has been in the Navy less than eight years, joining in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. He is a Culinary Specialist First Class — and that has taken on multiple meanings. Edwards is the 2009 Armed Forces Chef of the Year. He also is an executive chef to the stars — four stars, to be exact. As an enlisted aide to Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, he works his magic for his boss as well as a host of dignitaries.

Edwards’ latest credit? NPR budget cooking sensation.

In a brilliant move by either the Navy, Mullen’s office, or NPR, Edwards appeared in the public radio’s miniseries “How Low Can You Go?” in which chefs are asked to create a meal for a family of four for under 10 bucks.

Host Michele Norris noted not only did Edwards succeed, but he is the first guest to put together a multiple-course feast.

In a charming exchange, the gifted sailor talked about his decision to join the Navy (“I was going to join the Army, but the Navy recruiter told me the food was better in the Navy”). He dished about his time on the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, with its large and hungry crew, and how much he learned there as a cook. He described a galley staffed by 300, ‘round-the-clock ops, and something about large steam kettles called coppers — apparently a big deal. Sounded dangerous to us.

Back at land-based NPR, Edwards’ three-course meal for the fictitious four included cream of asparagus soup, gnocchi (potato dumplings typically the domain of Italian grandmothers), and sautéed skate meuniere. Skate is a fish, and a tasty, inexpensive one, according to Edwards, though the listener comments posted online say otherwise. Total cost: $9.75. It was unclear if he feeds these low-cost delicacies to Mullen.

Note to Navy: Get more like Edwards and showcase them. We don’t cook (we’ve never heard of skate), but we were captivated by Edwards.

Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates has indicated reservists with the specialized skills sought for Afghanistan may be called to fill jobs planned as civilian posts.

It appears the so-called “civilian surge” may be anything but.

In recent remarks at Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, N.C., Gates stated that the plan for civilian infrastructure experts to get Afghanistan shakin’ isn’t panning out. (And this is a surprise?) But why let that derail this train? Why not get reservists to volunteer to hold down these jobs (for the duration) until civilians can be found (never)?

Great idea, except that it’s not. In the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul scenario, reserve units might suffer. Reservists skilled as accountants, engineers, veterinarians, air traffic controllers, and legal experts are expected to volunteer. But what if they don’t? No problem. These are uniformed personnel subject to the UCMJ. Our guess is they will be ordered to those jobs, but in the capacity as civilians.

This set-up sounded suspect, so we called on our legal experts. One D.C. power lawyer and former Army JAG can see challenges to the move, but from a UCMJ stand point, he sees no argument. Title 10 gives commanders and the executive branch “broad, discretionary powers.” DoD can order its people — active or reserve — in varied capacities as long as the order has a military purpose, which Afghanistan does. Changes to Title 10 during 2008 also brought civilians (DoD and contractor) under UCMJ jurisdiction.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Dennis McCarthy, who heads the Reserve Officers Association quickly said not so fast, Bob. He is concerned with the gutting of reserve units. We won’t list the issues potentially impacting the individual reservist.

So why has Plan A sputtered? Are these slots being handled with the appropriate import? We’ve heard some complain about the applicant clearing house, which appears to be USA Jobs — a known black hole according to some in government service.

Critics have charged the now defunct “stop loss” policy was a backdoor draft. Will this be more of the same?

The new crew in Washington,D.C., continues its work filling top government posts — including a few at DoD. It appears Arnold Punaro is on the short list for a service secretary slot.

The retired Marine two-star might be the next secretary of the Army.

Aside from Marines, Beltway banditos, and Hill denizens, few may know his name. Punaro currently is executive vice president at techno-giant Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), based just outside D.C., where “he is the senior corporate official responsible for SAIC’s government affairs, worldwide communications and support operations as well as general manager of their Washington operations,” according to his corporate bio. In short, he is the top lobbyist for the company and runs its efforts with lawmakers.

Punaro’s ties to Washington run deep, and he possesses an enviable Capitol Hill pedigree. He was with Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn from 1973 to 1997. He held various jobs and spent eight years as staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nunn’s number one rose to a position of power and influence — a point never lost on the Corps.

A few Army wags are aghast that the secretary’s office might be occupied by a Marine. Some consider Punaro a polarizing figure, but it’s his day job that might pose challenges to his confirmation if nominated. SAIC has a number of Army contracts and works on the beleaguered and controversial Future Combat Systems. One source close to the secretary’s office and familiar with Hill proceedings does not see Punaro’s lobbying career as a problem. He concedes there might be the requisite concerns, but nothing that would prevent confirmation if he’s nominated. Punaro’s is the only name he’s heard for the job.

Punaro’s friends are in the White House as well. Marine sources say he’s tight with national security advisor, retired Marine general, former commandant, and all-around Corps superhero Jim Jones. It’s our guess the former Georgetown basketball standout (oh, and NATO commander) has played a part in Punaro’s probable nomination.

According to a Washington Post brief, Punaro will be engaged with what he does well: He is scheduled to visit the Hill this week to call on buds and Senate Armed Services Committee members John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Take that, Hill.

Forget the best places to eat, live, or retire. We have the tally of the best places to work throughout the federal government. Compiled every two years and produced by the Partnership for Public Service and American University’s Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation, the rankings represent what’s billed as “the most comprehensive and authoritative rating of employee engagement in the federal government.”

It may be the only one, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Organized by large agencies, small agencies, and agency subcomponents, the first and third categories are of most interest to defense fans. Of the 30 largest agencies, the Department of the Army takes top defense honors at 10th. The Department of the Air Force clocks in at 11th followed by DoD itself at 13th. The Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps) is last in the group at 19th. Top honors in this set go to the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. At the very bottom at 30 is the Small Business Administration. The Department of Homeland Security squeaked in at 29th.

The agency subcomponents category breaks down the federal equivalent of the Dow. We see a truer picture, and DoD fares rather well. U.S. Army National Guard units top the defense entities at the 14th spot. The Office of the Secretary of Defense comes in at 77th. The whole U.S. Marine Corps lands at 94th. The lowest defense ranking honor goes to the Defense Contract Management Agency sliding in at 206th. (Would you want to work there?) Top dog in this category is Treasury’s Inspector General while Homeland Security’s Undersecretary for Science and Technology is dead last clinging to 222th. In comparison, the Federal Emergency Management Administration ranks 211th.

Researchers based their rankings on a variety of workplace categories. They looked at training and development, strategic management, pay and benefits, work/life balance, and more. Scores also were broken down by demographic — gender, age, and ethnicity.

The 2007 report is online and can be viewed here. Previous reports were compiled for 2003 and 2005.

A handful of outlets published an e-mail that has been said to be from one of the crewman aboard the U.S. cargo ship Maersk Alabama . You may have heard the Alabama was boarded by Somali pirates and its captain abducted and later rescued We’re sure a movie is in the works. Which chiseled gods will play the SEAL team? Though a bit long in the tooth, Val Kilmer is our pick to play the Bainbridge CO. And we like Stacy Keach for the Alabama’s captain. In fact, it could be written as a historical fantasy with the current fight fading to Capt. William Bainbridge’s efforts off the Barbary Coast at the turn of the 18th century.

But we have digressed considerably.

Though published by the likes of CNN, check out this e-mail reprinted on Information Dissemination (Observations of an Armchair Admiral)from a member of the Maersk crew identified as Matt Fisher. This naval-themed blog does not disappoint. With its multiple authors, it runs an interesting of collection of naval reports and opinions pieces. (They’re not fans of the littoral combat ship cost overruns either.)

While interesting from this “rifleman’s” perspective, his emphasis is on the absolute last line of defense. The U.S. task force patrolling the Gulf of Aden has noted the marginal preventive efforts by ships’ (small) company to keep the pirates off their vessels. Since the Alabama had been targeted by these waterborne profiteers for several hours under the veil of darkness (and darkness at sea is like no other), were the appropriate watches established, notably on the fan tail, the attack point of choice for these thugs? These details still are somewhat murky. Not to take away from the crews’ efforts, but employ the five-inch gun mount before the Zero slams into your superstructure.
The Alabama’s saga provides the illustration many have hoped for to support the greatly embellished claims of piracy as crippling menace. It is true incidents have increased in the Gulf of Aden as well as off the eastern coast of Somalia. A comparison of the first quarters of 2008 to 2009 shows incidents in the area went from 53 to 102. Actual and attempted attacks jumped from 6 to 61 for the same period. The increase of tenfold is considerable. While the IMB’s statistics are sobering, they pale when compared with total ships transiting the region. In 2008 pirate attacks affected a small fraction of one percent of the 34,000 ships (20,000 according to the IMB) passing through the region. A fourfold increase still would not break the one percent mark.

Had the Alabama been an Italian vessel (one was nabbed around the same time … did anyone outside Italy hear about it?) or one from India (one such ship successfully repelled attacks In November) chances are the current level of misinformed interest in Somali piracy would have remained unchanged. The single Alabama incident has given some meat to the myth and provided justification to the fantasy some crave. It has given the IMB a banner to wave, “See, I told you so.”

Maybe we’ll see “Dog, the Pirate Hunter” on the small screen soon. That’s right. A show about U.S. Navy swashbucklers is in the works. Maybe they’ll sneak Steven Segal on board.

In an effort to move away from what some charge has been an operation of propaganda overseas, the Pentagon has dismantled the office for support of public diplomacy. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele A. Flournoy, it reportedly made the move to ensure global communications efforts by the defense department would be aligned with the rest of the U.S. government.

It seems the now-defunct office “violated guidelines for accuracy and transparency.” (Worse, it seems its biggest faux pas is its association with a previous administration.) Critics have called it the DoD Propaganda office, though we would think that title has been bestowed on many a government information operation. Created in 2007, the office for support of public diplomacy was tasked to coordinate DoD’s information efforts with the White House, State Department, and U.S. embassies specifically for overseas efforts. This mission was not unlike that of its predecessor, the Office of Strategic Influence (we love that name!), which shut down in 2002 amid concerns that the office’s work might serve to undermine the U.S. military when at war.

Communication castration? Despite this latest shut down, DoD remains armed with more money and trained communicators than anyone else in government, which makes the P-word allegations even more curious. Possibly one person’s information dissemination is another’s propaganda? If we may, let’s fall back on a reliable convention: According to Webster, propaganda is (1) the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; (2) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.

Applying those definitions, military recruiting and retention messages are … maybe propaganda? Winning over foreign populations … may be more propaganda? If there is a line, it is either very fine or very blurred.

No more propaganda! Or centralized coordination. Or leadership in the area of communication. We wish communicators and policy wonks well in their efforts to make everyone equal and maybe DoD a little less so. They might not have much more work inside DoD. Communications efforts across the DoD are fragmented at best. It boggles the mind the many of the Army’s “G” sections at the Pentagon have their own nearly autonomous communications professionals, with little coordination with what should be the Army’s central communications entity, the office of the chief of public affairs. Reducing redundancy is always encouraged, but ridding the Pentagon of the guy (or the office) that says “I know how to do this thing. I’ll lead the effort,” might further degrade effective communications efforts at the Defense Department.

Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates announced his fiscal 2010 priorities when he outlined his proposed budget last week.
There were few surprises. Gates deviated little from past statements, service fears, and fact-based speculation (oh, and common sense) that have dominated this most-anticipated defense announcement (well, second to the eagerly awaited debut of the commander in chief’s puppy).
Ah, but don’t be misled by the wailing and gnashing of teeth that have been evenly distributed between right and left. Gates’ $534 billion budget is … unremarkable. Some examples include:
The F-22 Raptor. This Air Force budget-buster whose price tag (sans research and development costs) hit $140 million per bird will cease production at 187 copies as expected. At the same time, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has gotten the green light. Lockheed’s loss (F-22) is Lockheed’s gain (F-35).
Future Combat Systems (FCS). We love the Army and its efforts to modernize, but the whole 18+1+1 spiel (downgraded to 14 systems with the ghosts of Crusader and Comanche always looming) will take some hits. It is losing a number of vehicles. This is an opportunity for the Army, and its FCS (modernization, please!) gods are in the huddle. FCS has long been a hard sell and the Army failed to put this mega program in terms even the biggest hoo-ah monster could understand. Gates has been clear he wants to continue Army modernization — and we believe him. The Army should, too.
Presidential Helicopter (VH-71). After costs spiraled out of control, Lockheed’s latest helo for the Corps is history, but there will be a new Marine One — just at a more reasonable cost.
Missile Defense. Arguing missile defense is like fighting the Civil War. There is no middle ground on this issue, though Gates may have found one: cuts could have been much deeper. Missile defense is a big-ticket item that some lawmakers have had in their crosshairs for years. On the flip side, big, expensive programs tend to employ a lot of people — people who vote. So this might not be the last we’ve heard on this topic. (The South shall rise again?)
DDG-1000. Someone finally has put the Zumwalt and the Navy out of their collective misery. It could be called a mercy killing. The boys in blue have been hobbled by cost overruns in their quest for the stealth destroyer. (Stealth boats. Invisible clothes. We see a connection.) DDG-1000’s cost now exceeds $3 billion per vessel, (possibly closer to $6 billion if penalties from the cancellation kick in). But that’s water over the superstructure. Man the rails! Ding, ding, ding, ding; Uncle Elmo is departing.
Carriers. Some see the Navy losing a carrier (bilges half full). We see it as gaining an opportunity (bilges half empty). Again, our Boys in Blue seem to want to define/redefine themselves. Do they want a fleet that is faster and more maneuverable like their super-sized jet ski the littoral combat ship? If so, they may not need as many carrier battle groups. If they later find carriers are crucial, then build more. Sure, it puts them a few years behind, but this decision should free them to think differently, as uncomfortable as the loss of a carrier may be.
No announcement (or blog entry) is without its critics. Some charge Gates is getting ahead of the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review when these matters would be decided. Others say the services are being penalized for the money needed to pay for the current operations. But opinions on Dr. Gates’ preferences may matter little. Ultimately these decisions lie with lawmakers and the Fat Lady resides on Capitol Hill.

The Corps has strong interest in keeping the current defense policy on homosexuals in the armed forces unchanged according to a series of e-mails and sources in the know. The matter is of such significance that Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway raised the issue in a recent letter to his senior leaders.

In a Personal For (P4) that went to top brass, Conway sought input on a handful of issues.

“… I value your feedback for course directions and rudder steers to the direction of our Corps. On the occasion of this e-mail, I again ask for your thoughts.

To this end, I would like each of you to comment on the following four items and e-mail me your thoughts directly:

1. As we anticipate dwindling DOD budgets, what USMC programs or enhancements do you consider top priority?
2. How strongly should we, as an institution, challenge the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy?
3. What is your opinion of Seabasing? Do you think it represents a vital cog in the future of the Marine Corps as a naval expeditionary force? Do you think our more expensive programs, such as the EFV, JSF, and MV-22 are correctly aligned as a prelude to Seabasing?
4. Any topic that you think is important and should influence the course and speed of the Corps.

Your thoughts and opinions are vital to the betterment of our institution. Please be focused, and candid but brief in your response – I plan to read every one! As appropriate, include your chain of command. “

Budget and program concerns? Makes sense. Seabasing? Not our favorite topic, but we can see Conway’s tossing that out to the crew, especially in light of his Navy brethren’s search for purpose (and dollars and ships). But if you had three things you could bring with you on that desert island would the question of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be one of them?

Conway did not just broach “Don’t Ask,” but queried how strongly the Corps as a whole should challenge the policy, or more specifically, intercede in efforts to repeal the policy. Challenge with a MEU? How about a platoon? Or maybe just a couple of guys in Ghillie suits? Possibly press Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen? Or Secretary of Defense (and Occasional Superhero) Robert M. Gates? Lobby lawmakers? Cut a deal with Murtha?

But we digress.

Do Conway and the Gun Club think the repeal of this policy will hurt the Marine Corps (even if the effects are temporary) and negatively impact its warfighting capability? Is this an indication of systemic homophobia, a cautious leader, or both? We’re told the homophobia may lie with the O-5/O-6 crowd. General officer and the gender-bending junior Generation X’ers and Generation Y-types may well roll their eyes at the very mention of what may be needless hysteria. (There was much panic at Headquarters Marine Corps when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” first arrived on the scene in the early 1990s. Cue eye roll.)

Is the current policy regarding homosexuals’ military service a true issue for the Marine Corps? Maybe in his next P4 Conway could solicit input about the effect of combat exclusion of women on the Corps. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” covers sexual orientation but does not bar anyone from an occupational specialty. Combat exclusion (legally) restricts a group based on gender. Concealing one’s sexuality may be a bit of a challenge. Concealing one’s gender is even more of a feat. Concealing one’s frustration over the long-standing endorsement of antiquated (and arbitrary) policies—priceless.

Even with a burgeoning U.S. intelligence community and a czar to orchestrate their often disparate efforts, the state of U.S. intelligence is grim according to one immersed in the topic.

Not that the intel types aren’t good at what they do; it is the sheer volume of information that poses a seemingly insurmountable challenge. At the same time it is difficult (at best) to gauge the credible leads. Our source says the large of amount of raw information without the means to glean the crucial gems is leading to general paranoia in the community. Numerous threats reveal themselves each day – but which (if any) are the true challenges to U.S. security? It seems it’s anyone’s guess.

Attempts to align intelligence efforts have fallen woefully short. Across the public-private spectrum from federal to state to local and corporate entities, intelligence forces continue to work at cross purposes despite very public announcements to the contrary. Czar or no czar, sharing with perceived competitors? “Not on my watch!” (Or so we interpret.)

Human intelligence remains of interest to all parties. While these intel types on the ground would be yet another source in a swollen sea of information, they would most likely be the first to learn of credible plots against the United States. Training of anti-American radicals (and potential attackers) has been occurring on U.S. soil. Regardless, the plethora of uncategorized information remains.

There may be a consequence: America may be more vulnerable to attack. Our source sees a major attack as likely as do sources like renowned counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv (there are also colonies of bloggers, doomsdayers and conspiracy theorists who believe the same thing. Go figure.)

A peek inside another defense agency reveals concern over a lack of crucial talent. One analyst is visibly frustrated by the inability of her counterparts to, well, analyze within her agency. She explains that the pieces of the puzzle are there, but current analysts are challenged to link A to B to C. Gift vs. learned skill? These agencies lobby hard to recruit prospects with such talents.

U.S. intelligence challenges were a source of humor when Ivan headlined the threat parade. Information and the agencies to gather and assess intelligence have increased as have community woes. No one is laughing any longer.

After nearly a year adrift, the Navy has reawarding the third of four littoral combat ships contracted, with additional orders a near certainty.

Is LCS back on course? Defense as stimulus?

A bit of background: Defense behemoths Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics won the right to go tête-à-tête in the littoral combat ship design-to-win contract. (The better design gets to build the preponderance of the class. No pressure, though.) Lockheed was slated to build LCS 1 and 3, with General Dynamics building 2 and 4. Each created a unique design — LM crafted a graceful, monohulled beauty, while GD submitted an unusual but exciting trimaran hull with a substantial flight deck. The ships were to clock in around $220 million a piece, but shortly after the award, the drama began. The Navy handed LM new specs. Our source says Lockheed should have raised a flag or two then, but time was short and the changes had put them behind schedule. They already had sunk $14 million in the project, we’re told, so LM needed to make LCS 1 happen. The Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of the Navy themselves were pushing hard for the ship to be completed. But the changes continued and costs skyrocketed. Finally, in late 2007, the program began to unravel, and by early 2008, the finger pointing began. The Navy renegotiated LCS 3 to a fixed price incentive contract. When it tried to include LCS 1 in the deal, negotiations stalled and LCS 3 was cancelled, sort of.

The General Dynamics saga mirrored Lockheed’s cost overruns, fixed-price contract, and the ultimate cancelation of its second vessel.

Lawmakers were not immune and after requisite political posturing capped the vessels at $460 million per entry. Despite the drama, Lockheed Martin’s Freedom is undergoing acceptance trials. The re-award for LCS 3, the Fort Worth, is another fixed-price vessel and a similar deal with General Dynamics for LCS 4, the Coronado, may not be far behind.

Three additional ships are expected in the 2010 budget. Our Lockheed contact is confident his company will get two of the three, though he admittedly has no official knowledge on this one.

What has changed?

Has the disaster of the not-so-stealthy and really expensive DDG 1000 made its full impact? (The Zumwalt most likely will die with a price tag of $3 billion-$6 billion per entry.) The all-things-to-all-mariners the Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer is no bargain either.

Out in the real word, without additional orders, shipyards and their subcontractors are looking at ill-timed job losses. The workers are in congressional districts. Can you say Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine?

This is not a bad deal for the Navy, which wants its 300 ships. Currently LCS seems to be the only channel leading there. Our Lockheed source is quite proud of his ship, but we’re not so sure 50-plus of these oversize jet skies is the way to go. If the Navy still is struggling with its mission, maybe some clarity on strategic issues will help determine if the answer is LCS, the Arleigh Burke, or some other design.

Welcome back, LCS. Lawmakers and black shoes are pleased.