Inside the Headquarters

The Pentagon has determined one in seven Guantanamo Bay detainees will return to life as a terrorist. That would be a recidivism rate of 14 percent. Of the 534 prisoners released from GITMO, 74 have fallen off the wagon.

By comparison, the recidivism rate in the U.S. prison system is as high as 73.8 percent for some offenders. How’s that for perspective?

Here’s a more sobering figure: a 15-state Bureau of Justice study published in 2002 showed the re-arrest rate for violent offenders within three years of release was 60 percent.

Granted, GITMO has some bad guys and the sample size might be too small to get an accurate picture. But a recidivism rate of 14 percent compared with more than half of violent offenders released from U.S. prisons landing back behind bars in short order is dramatic. Much debate has surrounded whether some of GITMO’s wrong-place, wrong-time guests belong there or not. Regardless, their incarceration was less than inviting. Violent U.S. prisoners probably received better treatment behind maximum security bars. The figures can lead one to infer we might be safer with those released from GITMO than those exiting say, Louisiana’s Angola bound for the big city or smaller environs.

The politicos like to frighten their constituents with their talking points like “One terrorist … is one too many.” But what does the risk assessment suggest? Given the striking difference in recidivism, it appears there is considerably more risk with U.S. ex-cons than with purported terrorists. Sure, some of the GITMO guys will return to radical Islam. Sure, they might recruit the non-radical to join them, but there are legions to do that work already, and the U.S. and its allies are well aware they must win the middle to defeat radical Islamists. The gang of 74? The data suggests we might have to accept recidivism of 14 percent. (It would be reasonable for one to rejoice in the rate.) The U.S. not only accepts the ungodly rate of 60 percent with murderers, rapists and pedophiles, but fights for the rights of these ex-cons because that’s what our system does. (Serving one’s debt? Blah blah blah.) But toss in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and four downed aircraft (and the reasonable fear it could all happen again), and it’s a different kettle of fish.

Fourteen percent or the murderer next door? You choose.

This August 1, DoD will roll out what it has touted as “the most comprehensive educational benefit package” since the original GI Bill, or the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, was signed into law.

Servicemembers under the new bill will be able to pass their benefit onto a spouse or child. The new policy did not sound like a big deal to us, but defense honchos explained transferability has been one of the most requested changes by the men and women in uniform as well as family advocacy groups.

A defense spokesman sees transferability as a crucial tool to address the force management (read: retention) goals of the services. Dr. Curtis Gilroy, director for accession policy within the office of the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. stated, “Educational benefits cut both ways. They are great recruiting tools, but they can be tremendous disincentives to retention,” he said. In fact, the Post 9/11 GI Bill apparently has been a self-inflicted gunshot wound to retention across the services. They say members have left the service to take advantage of its generous benefits. (And we thought they were leaving because they wanted out.) To remedy this retention challenge, lawmakers modified the program allowing the transfer, ideally keeping the member in uniform longer. Ideally.

After August 1, the program is available to any member of the Armed Forces (active duty or Selected Reserve, officer or enlisted). Specifics on time in service, payback tours and the like vary, but there seems to be a program that fits everyone’s situation.

Under the new provisions, the program’s cost cannot exceed the top dollar of an undergraduate program at in-state school. In some cases a living stipend is provided. There also is an annual book allowance, and the transfer is not limited to a spouse or child. It can go to either, both, and multiple children — though we did not see a provision about multiple spouses though.

We’re still skeptical that this program is the milestone defense officials are making it out to be, but we’ll take the body counters’ word on it.

The hot ticket on the social media military circuit is Facebook, the wildly popular Web site where kids, 60-somethings, and the hordes in between divulge entirely too much information about themselves.

We have observed that the passage of time seems to have dulled the memories of many in the military community. Never had a civil word with Fred? No worries, he doesn’t remember and wants you to be his Facebook buddy. Blew off your roommate’s wedding because you two never were particularly chummy? Maybe she has not forgotten, but she wants you linked to her Facebook page anyway. (The latter could be “enemies closer.” Not sure.)

For those deployed and trying to stay in touch with friends and family, this book’s for you. If self-promotion is your game, this is a great tool — make people feel they are invested. Make them think they are your “friend.” You will gain a degree of loyalty and buy-in from a sizeable market otherwise difficult to reach.

Maybe you’ve dabbled in Facebook, acquiescing to seemingly innocent invites. Do you now find yourself the target of predators from your past? The military type? If so, you’re not alone. You might not be looking for Mr. Goodbar, but do we really know the motives of old acquaintances? If you want your life to be an open (Face)book, this gig’s for you. We have been surprised by the number of military (active as well as retired) who tell all, detail family trips, and provide photos of hobbies and unit happenings. Privacy? Wiretaps may be the least of America’s concerns.

There are friends, then there are Facebook friends. One retiree said, “I would not keep in touch with these friends if it wasn’t for Facebook. (Does this baffle only us?)

Years after classmates or military mates have been together, even in the most hostile relationships, you can bet there will be a Facebook invite asking, “How are you?” Since the person knows nothing about you, he will continue “Are you still on active duty? Are you really in DC?” Does time dull the memory or is this a set up?

Our friends at MOAA are on Facebook. The association also is on LinkedIn, a professional online network, and YouTube (who knew?) though we reasonably sure MOAA’s leadership is not singin’ the best of Queen. There are reports military recruiters use Facebook as a prospecting tool. And they should.

Facebook: Do you really not recall how poorly your Facebook “friends” treated you oh so many years ago?

Recent comments by a top U.S. official regarding civilian casualties in the fight for Afghanistan stand in stark contrast to actions surrounding similar events just two years ago that led to the banishment of Marine Corps special operations units from the beleaguered nation.

The U.S. may be falling victim to superior enemy information operations.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said publicly that the killing of civilians during aerial bombings May 4 in Farah Province jeopardizes U.S. success in the nation. (Ya think?) Mullen’s restraint might have belied the screaming, pacing, and hand-wringing that took place privately. Surely sorting out the actual civilian noncombatant casualties from the Taliban has proved no easy task. (It was announced within the hour that “government” estimates peg civilian casualties at 140. U.S. investigators say two to three dozen. You do the math.)

Despite Mullen’s paternal declaration, “Our (probable) bad,” we don’t see entire units (or services) tossed from Afghanistan for collateral damage, nor should they be. But it appears this has not always been the case. …

Flash back to March 4, 2007. A Marine special operations company new to the territory was operating in Afghanistan and was caught in a fire fight. The local military investigation of the incident conflicts with the Marine Corps account. A court of inquiry later convened to sort out the matter. The latter agreed the boys were taking fire and acted appropriately. The Afghans say 19 noncombatant civilians were killed, though those numbers have come under scrutiny.

Five days later, the same boys of MSOC-F allegedly were operating without proper authority. (Not true, the COI later determined.) Within several days, the whole company was sent packin’ back to Kuwait. Army Col. John Nicholson, the commander for Task Force Spartan, and his boss Lt, Gen. Francis H, Kearny (the current deputy commander of U.S. Special Forces Command) said they had lost faith in the unit. Nicholson made some questionable public comments about the unit and this May 4 incident (something about “deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry”)m enraging Corps Commandant Gen. James T Conway. In May he referred to the Marines as “cowboys.” Nicholson, now a baby brigadier, is back in southern Afghanistan as deputy commander, regional command south, and still chattin’ it up with the press.

There have been deadly incidents before May 4 and there will be more in the future. One of the biggest problems according to one intelligence officer who has served in Afghanistan is that Taliban and al-Qaida information operations capabilities far exceed those of the U.S. These foes quickly and effectively convince the public that U.S. forces are responsible for anything that might go wrong — fatalities, mishaps, you name it. This information (at best) often is misleading and more often untrue but the people believe it, even when it might be Taliban forces responsible for the harm caused.

So, yes, killing the people one purports to help probably sends some mixed messages and can work against, say the U.S. But the MSOC F probably was railroaded, doomed from the outset. Was it destined for disaster in an effort to keep the Marines out of Afghanistan at that time? Was there concern over encroachment by these upstarts (“cowboys”) into special operations, long an Army domain?

Sometimes we defeat ourselves without much Taliban help.

Here’s a shocker: Lawmakers and military leaders are concerned that too few military and civilian personnel with badly needed skills are working in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Pakistan is another tale of woe.) According to Congressional Quarterly, members of the Senate Armed Service Committee tossed out numerous (desperate) recommendations:

• Retrain soldiers in critical specialties. The idea to retrain soldiers as badly needed engineers, medics, and the like has merit (like no one has thought of that one), but the time needed to turn out well-trained specialists is outside JCS Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s narrow timeframe. He needs them now.

• Tap the Guard and Reserve. It seems lawmakers might be unaware that reservists and members of their state guards already might have enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan to apply for citizenship. Mullen nixed that suggestion pretty quickly.

• Increase the end strength of the U.S. Army yet again. Possibly the most bizarre idea, this increase would come on the heels of a plus-up of both the Army and Marine Corps. But this recruit pool essentially would be brought on as temps — in for a period and then booted when no longer needed. Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates said, “The question is whether the increase beyond the level where the Army and Marine Corps already are is sustainable over the long term.” We’ll take that as a “no way,” since the budget barely sustains current manpower levels.
The civilian slots are a different story.

Since entering Afghanistan in 2001-2002, defense leaders have been concerned about the lack of trained civilian personnel. The commander of the Paktika, Afghanistian, provincial reconstruction team told us he had 11 civilian slots in his 70-person PRT. Civilians on hand? Zero. Between Paktika and two other Afghan cities, Gardez and Ghazni, 29 of 33 slots were empty. Extrapolate that across Afghanistan and things look pretty bleak.

Putting aside the recently touted idea of pressing into service reservists with desirable civilian specialties, it appears there are a number of retirees who would sign on for the Afghanistan gig. These are young, healthy, successful retirees who are not put off the by the risk as many civilians have been. These are people across the retired community who would walk away from sizeable private sector paychecks, because intangible fulfillment has no price tag.

Surely someone has thought of this manpower pool? Or maybe lawmakers are looking at scoring points at home instead of in the nation’s defense.

The U.S. Marine Corps sponsors an event intended to give Marine spouses a better understanding of their loved ones’ life in uniform.

This one day oorah fest is called Jane Wayne Day, a title that’s catchy at best but degrading and patronizing to the little ladies who keep the home fires burning and the females who slog it out with their male counterparts at U.S bases and myriad hostile zones abroad. Though historians have cannot pin an exact date to the origin of this unofficial program, the event has spread to many Corps installations and includes wives, girlfriends and others. But we’re not seeing evidence of many male loved ones (of female Marines, that is). Even the most secure guy might just draw the line at anything called, “Jane Wayne.” And can anyone really blame him? We would think a number of women would be repulsed by the name, but what do we know?

Programs vary. Some are full of high-speed, adrenaline junkie, shoot ‘em up (simulated) and take ‘em down (also simulated) activities that are not what Buck and Rocco really do each day in the disbursing office. Others appear more realistic for stateside duties. It appears no one is being loaded into an MRAP and driving the streets of Bagdad (complete with simulated IEDs). Go figure.

Jane Wayne. What’s the message? Marine recruiters confirm their female mission is so small that plenty of female applicants seek them out. The Corps is now six percent female (gasp!) up from five a few years ago. One must wonder if the Boys’ Gun Club really needs its women— its uniformed women, that is. Lose some females? Fine, we’ll get more. Uncomfortable with the title of “Jane Wayne Day”? Tough. It works for us.

The program brings to mind another Jane doing her thing with the big guns in North Vietnam. Both scenarios are embarrassing.

Jane Wayne Must Die. Surely the Corps pays its M-ad-Men at J. Walter Thompson enough that JWT’s creative minds could come up with something current, catchy, and dare we say inclusive.

This is not about touchy-feely, hug-hug- I heart my Marine slop. Jane’s time has come. One would think more of God’s Corps.

Not long ago, the host of a small gathering about radical Islam tangentially spoke of Afghanistan’s rugged terrain. This led to a mention of Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL standout who was killed in 2004 in the region in question. Unsolicited, our host described what he observed and mentioned in passing that it was unfortunate the Tillman affair had ended the career of the best officer in all the services for leading special operations and all possibly operations in Afghanistan — very high praise.

That spec ops guru discussed was none other than Army Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the recent pick to head U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Though confirmation is almost assured, McChrystal and his favorite lawmakers (not to mention the media and the Tillman family) probably will relive the details of Tillman’s death by U.S. fire, though initially it had been reported as a hostile fire incident. There will be discussions of the misleading information that characterized the investigation. Especially embarrassing for McChrystal is the Silver Star he approved despite his concerns that Tillman had been killed by his own people. Reports that McChrystal warned President Bush about the possibility of friendly fire might make for a less-than amicable meeting with lawmakers. (“General, you could not get the facts on Mr. Tillman’s death right, but you think you can lead in Afghanistan?” Brutal.)

It was an untidy incident made more emotionally charged by a grieving family and a high-profile soldier. We heard from one source the misinformation began with a misunderstood first report. Regardless, it looked like McChrystal would toil in obscurity.

McChrystal successfully entered Special Forces just a few years into his career and there he stayed, save for that stint at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy’s School of Government. He headed the Joint Special Operations Command from 2003 to 2008.

On the upside, McChrystal is credited with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. On the downside (or up, depending on your views), his units might have been involved in questionable interrogation practices. But the big downer is Tillman’s death. Though McChrystal made his third star, he could not get picked up for any four-star gigs. It looked like he’d toil away in obscurity as director of the joint staff at the Pentagon, et voila! He lives to fight another day.

Not sure who broke him lose. Lesser purported leaders would have allowed him to languish despite the knowledge he might bring to Gallipoli.

The Marine Corps has named Col. Brian Murtha to the Corps’ office of legislative liaison. These are the guys that interact with and inform lawmakers on behalf of the Marine Corps. We think of them as the Corps’ lobbyists, though what Marine isn’t.

But it’s not every day the nephew of a lawmaker who is a retired Marine and a lightning rod for controversy enters so overtly into the families’ D.C.-based business.

Col. Brian Murtha, meet Pennsylvania Rep. John “Bring Home the Bacon” Murtha.

According to the Marines, Col. Murtha is the deputy legislative assistant to the commandant. His boss is a two-star select. This young fox is in neither the House nor the Senate-specific hen houses. Such a move would have raised more than eyebrows.

It appears no legal or ethical lines have been crossed by having Murtha the Younger serve in the Corps’ lobbying headquarters. Regardless, the choice either was truly inspired or incredibly aloof, smacking of entitlement. Of all the gin joints in the Marine Corps, Commandant Gen. James T. Conway sent Baby Murtha to the one office whose job it is to cajole money from his uncle. (And Uncle Jack is … chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on defense)

Do you think the Marines were aware of this?

A recent New York Times article reported that Uncle Jack and Brian live in the same condo complex in Arlington, Va. (Could former Marine and Va. Sen. Jim “Women Can’t Fight” Webb be too far away? Maybe they toss back a few cold ones and barbeque together?) The paper also noted this is not the first time where relatives have ended up on opposite sides of the table. Ah, but the New York Times may have underestimated the Murtha men. For Uncle Jack and the boy there is only one side — and more often than not, it’s probably Uncle Jack’s. Though Murtha might not be the only lawmaker with relatives who have interests in the decisions made on the Hill, none seem to rise to the level of Marine lobbyists (there’s that word again) tugging at defense purse strings. And isn’t that what it’s about with Congress — the money? The Marine Corps probably could accept changes in policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and might even survive with terminating laws that laugh in the face of the Constitution (like combat exclusion). Fund their precious Corps, and they’ll shuffle off to Afghanistan.

So The Gun Club has forgotten about Murtha’s Haditha comments that indicted the Marines involved as murderers prior to their trials? A Faustian Pact for a buck.

In May 2008, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the military cannot toss a member just for being gay. The services would have to prove the individual’s dismissal positively impacted unit cohesion.

Under the policy dubbed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no one is to question a member’s sexual preference. Conversely, the boys and girls in uniform are to keep their sexual orientation secret. If the powder keg blows, and it is determined a member is gay, discharge almost is a certainty. Challenges to the policy have been made, and the one of latest interest is Witt v. The Department of the Air Force.
At the center of this complex tale is Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, a decorated flight nurse. She appealed her 2004 discharge through the military court system. Once those petitions were exhausted, she requested a writ of habeas corpus, catapulting her case into the civilian courts.
Enter the 9th Circuit. The three-judge panel decided in favor of the plaintiff. Writing for the majority, Judge Ronald Gold noted Witt’s impact on her unit:
“Indeed, the facts as alleged by Major Witt indicate the contrary. Major Witt was a model officer whose sexual activities hundreds of miles away from base did not affect her unit until the military initiated discharge proceedings under DADT and, even then, it was her suspension pursuant to DADT, not her homosexuality, that damaged unit cohesion.”

Despite the opinions of some close to the matter, Witt does not seem to strike down Don’t Ask. The ruling allows Maj. Witt to live to fight another day and establishes altered evidence-gathering standards for a new investigation, the “show-us-how-this-decision-improves-unit-cohesion” litmus. We’re not quite sure how anyone really wins with this, though the court is clear: You cannot use a person’s sexual orientation as the basis for a discharge.

Though the case is a year old, it still is very current. When we spoke to an attorney familiar with the government’s “interest” in this case, it seemed clear that if Don’t Ask is to be reversed (Hey, Marine Corps, are you listening?), it will come not from the top down (read: the White House doesn’t plan to touch it), but rather will be nullified by decisions like that made by the 9th Circuit. But will Witt or similar challenges make it to the Supreme Court?

The Magic 8 Ball says, “Cannot predict now.”

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki conspicuously has been absent from the media circuit — and veterans want to hear from the man they consider one of their own.

Shinseki, a retired general, was a difficult interview to nab in his days as chief of staff of the Army. He started his career at West Point, graduating in 1965. While fighting in Vietnam, Shinseki had a portion of his foot blown off, though the injury did not derail this quiet native Hawaiian’s career. (Put the emphasis on quiet.) Tapped for the Army’s top post in 1999, he guided his force through the early throes of transformation. It was Shinseki who put his soldiers in the black beret, an inspired decision some of us say, though he continues to be vilified by others.

Shinseki became the unintentional mouse that roared when before the Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 25, 2003, he estimated troop levels of several hundred thousand necessary in post-war Iraq, far exceeding defense official estimates of just 100,000. Shinseki was banished from the kingdom and finished his tour as Army chief in relative obscurity. He retired June 11, 2003, but his 15 minutes of Senate hearing fame was repeated many times in the years the followed.

Fast forward to 2008: The retired four-star was tapped to head the VA. We found an interview or two when he was still the nominee, but the gatekeepers have pulled up the drawbridge to 810 Vermont Ave.

Does the VA secretary have an obligation to talk in his very public and official capacity? Shinseki was a man of too few public words when heading the Army — a mistake. His silence has been explained to some degree by his reps as ongoing work with policy issues. We’ll go out on a limb here and say that he may be working on VA policy issues over the next four years. Finished or unfinished vets want to hear from the man they believe gets “it.” (Shinseki is a smart, insightful guy.)

MOAA’s Military Officer magazine is just one on a long list that wants to talk to the secretary, according to public affairs rep Jim Benson. We want to bring his perspective to readers – on healthcare, veterans’ benefits and other items. Shinseki made a couple of strong statements early on about improving care. The VA already has been named one of the best managed healthcare systems in the country. Of course the system can be improved, and the catastrophic injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan may need to be further addressed (though they probably comprise a fraction of the care for which the VA health system is responsible.)

Mr. Secretary, tear down this wall!