Inside the Headquarters

Thought to be dead on arrival, the Air Force F-22 Raptor (rapture better fits its story) has been resurrected by Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 13 to 11 to greenlight $1.75 billion for production of another seven birds. In a similar move, the House contribution to F-22 coffers was $369 million. Though not a large amount, the gauntlet has been thrown.

You may recall that Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates killed the program, halting the F-22s at 187 aircraft. Gates called the House action a “big problem.” (He may have passed out at news from the Senate.) The White House also is displeased and has threatened to veto the 2010 Appropriations Bill if the F-22 provisions remain.

Though defense lobbyists (and the Air Force — think Jumbotron) would be the usual suspects, it has been reported the F-22 was resurrected by World War II hero and Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, who asked Air Force officials about the possibility of an F-22 suitable for export to places like Japan. (The F-22 has been on the “Do Not Sell” List, and Japan and others have been salivating, waiting for an opportunity to get a Rapture squadron of their own.)

The jet had been full of promise when conceived in the early 1980s. The Air Force saw a bright future with 700-plus birds, but developmental costs pushed the price per plane to $361 million, according to the Government Accountability Office.  Cost aside, Gates has pointed out that the F-22 has not flown in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, and says the Air Force needs to reorient its gear toward counterinsurgency operations (Cost + obsolescence = 187).

Back on the Hill, Congress is saying, “Not so fast, Bob,” maintaining that the F-22 is viable, noting possible threats from China.  At the same time, Lockheed lobbyists have been telling lawmakers the Rapture program makes or breaks more than 25,000 jobs spread out over 44 states (smart).

The Senate bill also calls for a study into an exportable Rapture. (Cha-ching.) If the birds make it in the final bill, what will the commander in chief do? Lawmakers say “No way he’ll veto.”

What say you?

In what has been reported as Afghanistan’s deadliest military incident since 2001, as many as 140 Afghan civilians were killed. The culprit: U.S.-initiated airstrikes.

Though there is disparity between U.S. and Afghan estimates, the civilian deaths were widely reported, sparking outrage in this vast, dangerous nation.

Despite the somewhat familiar scenario, absent has been U.S. military leadership’s outrage, quick judgments, and gushing of insincere apologies. No servicemembers have been in stocks in the town square. (We made that up.) No units tossed out from the country. (We did not make that up.) The sky is still intact. Now less than two months after the May 4 incident, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen has said he doubts action will be taken against the American fighters.

This is a significant change and one stemming from lessons learned, according to one source familiar with a deadly Marine incident.

The bombings in Taliban territory (Farah Province in western Afghanistan) increased tension between the U.S. and President Hamid Karzai’s government. While killing the people you are trying to win over can present a problem, this is war and such damage is sometimes unavoidable. (Does anyone recall World War II?)

People die. Innocent people die in war.

There is serious talk of scaling back U.S. airstrikes, especially now with special operations guru Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal in charge of operations. He has said he hopes to shift his units from a hot combat mentality more to one of saving the people of Afghanistan. (It is no secret if the U.S. can break the code with the Afghan people, ideally, Taliban Man goes away.)

Lesson learned: innocent people die … in bombings … in firefights. In 2007, Army Lt. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III, U.S. Central Command’s head of special operations, and Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, now back in southern Afghanistan, seemed quick to lose confidence in the U.S. Marine Corps special operations units in the country and kicked them out of Afghanistan. Today, things might have turned out differently.

A reader passed along a piece about the future of U.S. Navy battle groups.
In “Danger Room: What’s Next In National Security? Navy Admiral Wants Do-Good Battlegroups,” the well-traveled and often prolific David Axe looks at the traditional carrier battle group and argues this heavily armed flotilla might not be the way for the U.S. Navy to navigate “today’s environment.” (Does anyone know what “today’s environment” really means?)

We love Axe’s stuff. His blog, “War is Boring,” is consistently a good read. It always is interesting to follow his underfunded travels to the next hot spot. But he seems to be parroting (if not overstating) what the Navy is trying to sell and this naval message is short on substance.

The proposal afloat calls for Humanitarian Service Groups, with the primary functions of training, disaster relief, and support of humanitarian projects. These hearts-and-minds missions (as transparent and patronizing as they truly are) have been proposed by naval leaders like Adm. James Starvridis, who is leaving his post as U.S. Southern Command chief to take over as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

The humanitarian gig has been a reality for some time. Recently, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was diverted to act as the U.S. headquarters for tsunami relief in Indonesia. The Navy was in New Orleans shortly after Hurricane Katrina. It was early on the scene after the tsunami that devastated Thailand in late 2004. If we correctly recall, the U.S. Great White Fleet was helping pull people out of the rubble in the aftermath of the catastrophic 1908 Messina (Sicily) earthquake, a humanitarian effort still commemorated by the Italians today.

While the Navy has based much around a carrier battle group, smaller forces have been assembled to meet varying missions. Aside from amphibious operations, a recent example is the Combined Task Force 151 that supports counterpiracy ops in the vast Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia.

As with such projects in a foreign country, training, medical, supplies, etc., would have to be arranged through the U.S. embassy. Other than the benefits of a U.S. hospital ship (and showing the flag) personnel, supplies, etc., could just as easily be flown in. The humanitarian service group essentially takes high-priced, high-tech warships and turns them into transports. Maybe they’ll toss some livestock on board and reenact life in the 19th century Navy.

Starvridis says he’s only looking at a small percentage of the incredible shrinking U.S. Navy to be involved in humanitarian ops. (Maybe the rest are in such bad shape? In his interview, Starvridis implies the aging fleet has seen better days.) And a 300-ship Navy? It appears the Navy might be wrestling with how to employ the 280-290 or so it has adrift right now.

Transporting a uniformed peace corps has its merits, but it is not a new idea and the Boys in Blue already do it well. Ah, but package this correctly and we are reasonably sure this idea will be a hit with lawmakers — which might translate into more than spare change to fund those $460 million (ha!) littoral CARE ships and other humanitarian peace vessels.

As lawmakers tussle with a trillion dollar health care spending bill, the VA has made some healthcare changes of its own.

Interesting the moves would coincide.

Effective June 15, the VA has put out the welcome sign for an estimated 266,000 veterans of moderate income to obtain care at VA medical facilities. Service-connected conditions are unnecessary: if you are a vet and meet the means criteria, you’re in.

The VA has long permitted non-service connected lower-income vets into the VA medical system. (In fact, in some locations, one sometimes gets the feeling this group far exceeds the service-connected, disabled crowd.)

As chronicled in the May 15 Federal Register, the VA published its intent to broaden eligibility on Jan. 21, 2009. (Also interesting is how close that date was to the change in administration.) While it seems the VA would see $121 million in copayments, it projects the cost of this move to be near $3 billion over the next five years.

Since a large number of higher-income vets were cut from the system in 2003 under a cost-cutting measure, this latest move relaxes the financial requirements (but only by 10 percent). Vets still must take a means test. It is online and might remind one more of a tax form than a veteran benefit. The income rate sheet itself is not so encouraging. For example, a vet with no dependents is ineligible if income and assets exceed $80,000.

According to one VA official, the program has been funded to increase VA staffing as needed. He noted the VA would monitor capacity and wrote the VA expects an increase of 500,000 vets in the next four years.

And what does VA Secretary Eric Shinseki have to say on this? No idea. He’s still not talking in his self-made media moratorium.

Affirmative action might be alive and well. Just look at the incoming class at the U.S. Naval Academy. With a “minority” population of 35 percent, one could call this the face of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead’s “diverse” Navy. Since coming on board as CNO, Roughead’s diversity efforts have been in overdrive. The Navy’s actions in this area appear forced; ask Ol’ Gary and it seems OK with him.

We first wrote of Roughead’s “interest” (read: obsession) in diversity with the Black Engineer of the Year Award.  After looking at the pedigree of the Navy’s winner, our guess was he could score top honors regardless of race. When pressed, the Navy told us they supported a number of race-based awards. We were shocked.

At a recent Naval Academy alumni gathering outside Washington, D.C., we heard the CNO (Class of ’73) told the alum chums the Navy is “too white” and the issue of diversity is important to him. It seems he thinks these uber-efforts will serve the greater good of … the Navy? Society? Does he know something the other services don’t, though they are less white than Roughead’s Boys in Blue?

Back at Annapolis, the Naval Academy used to choose the best qualified, which often meant the most well-rounded — strong academic and athletic skills, proven leadership, extracurricular activities. Injecting race into the mix destabilizes a system that has been surprisingly fair. It tosses waning values like fairness and equity right off the Academy seawall.

In a recent article, Academy Professor Bruce Fleming dished. He says there is a separate set of standards for minority applicants.  While white applicants must have 600s on the SAT and grades of As and Bs, minority candidates are allowed lower SAT scores and grades. In fact, he writes that minority applicants with SATs in the 300s and grades down in the Cs and Ds will be sent to the Naval Academy prep school to help them prepare for the rigors of academy life. (This is common, regardless of race.)

Let’s be brutal: Will minorities in the Navy be labeled quota fillers, as they have for decades? When do those long-term, greater-good benefits kick in? Is it worth engaging in these practices? We’ve been told Roughead has opened new Navy ROTC units at three traditionally black colleges.

Sources also have pointed to similar trends for Navy flag promotions both in race and gender. Specific examples of official, subpar performance were noted for more than one selectee. Congratulations are in order to all selected, but are they now saddled with the questions and whispers and blog entries that appear sexist, racist and no better than the misplaced mutterings that often have accompanied change?

Navy: Most are over the race and gender deal. Best qualified gets the golden ring. This is old news on the legal circuit. We see a court challenge brewing.

DoD continues its quest for a few good adventurers. It has hundreds of slots to fill in far flung places in Iraq and more importantly Afghanistan.

DoD was kind enough to explain how one may apply.

“Inside the Headquarters” readers responded with interest to our May 19 posting on the filling of positions in current war zones. We shot what you had to say over to the Pentagon. While Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials say they cannot speak for other federal agencies (sure they can!), one rep directed us to this site which lists the positions and seems to have a reasonable application process. The catch? The Civilian Expeditionary Workforce program appears to be for DoD civilian employees and closed to non-DoD types.

Not true, we’re told. We pressed an OSD spokesman, who, after much rutting around, confirmed the site is for non-DoD personnel as well.

The Civilian Expeditionary Workforce program was announced in February 2008. There have been reports civilian positions have been tough to fill. Again, “Not true!” according to our DoD fountain of knowledge, who added DoD has been filling its slots with relative ease. (We don’t completely believe that.) Though numbers appear murky, he stated, “[Under the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce program] in Iraq we have 2,478 civilians and in Afghanistan we have1,080.”

Here’s the scoop according to our guy in the know:

“Department of Defense and non-DoD federal civilian employees, retired federal employees, and applicants from the private sector may all apply for Civilian Expeditionary Workforce positions on our Web site, www.cpms.osd.mil/expeditionary. Available job opportunities are posted on the Web site and vacancies are updated daily. If an applicant’s skill set is not a match for a position currently being advertised, his or her résumé will be maintained in our database for future needs.”

Since needs change, he could not quote the number of available positions.

If selected, DoD individuals are funded by their current agencies. Non-DoD types would be brought on in a temporary status and paid by the Army. DoD is working on a funding agreement of sorts with other federal agencies.

The DoD site explains the positions in detail. Openings can be accessed by job category such as accounting, electrical engineer, and many more.

There are medical exclusions and, except for a handful, it appears medical issues are handled by case. The program specifically excludes bipolar disorder, for example. But if you are current for heart failure (?) or positive for tuberculosis, you may have a shot. (That’s reassuring.) OSD says other conditions will be reviewed in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, though we would think all conditions would come under review so as not to violate federal law.

Most positions run 12 months, though we noticed some contracting officers are called for just a six month hitch. (Given the grief and graft in the contracting world of late, this is no surprise.) Civilians may take a period of leave after 60 days in theater. Most positions require at least a secret security clearance; many are top secret and higher.

The Civilian Expeditionary Work program appears to be a solid, reasonable system to help fill the civilian vacancies in the CENTCOM theater of operations. Hey DoD: It might be helpful if interested and qualified parties knew about this dedicated Web site.

There is still a belief that the number of homeless vets is exploding in the country. Tune into just about any newscast and you will hear a story about the former military downtrodden. The numbers are shocking — and misleading.

There might, in fact, be a decline in the veteran homeless population. In 2005, the VA estimated the number of homeless veterans to be 194,254 of the 744,313 homeless nationwide. Today VA officials place that count at 131,000.

But where do these figures come from?

VA officials have said they rely on estimates from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The VA also has confirmed it uses evening bed counts from a hodgepodge of shelters and other places of homeless refuge around the country. If a guest tells a shelter he or she is a vet, then he (or she) counts as a veteran. Done. Add those up and you get the number of homeless vets in America.

The National Coalition for the Homeless pegs the VA’s current number at 154,000 and says there is “an estimated 300,000 veterans homeless at some time during the year.” It is said the VA only reaches one-third (or 100,000), leaving the remaining 200,000 to seek help from the communities. (Huh?)

We’ll go out on a limb again: it seems safe to say no one knows the homeless veteran population in this country, and that might be OK — except for the taxpayer funds devoted to homeless vets.

The current budget for VA homeless veterans programs is $400 million and officials expect that to increase to more than $500 million next year. Anyone who says “I’m a vet!” receives basic outreach and referral services. Beyond that, the VA says recipients must be bonafide vets. It is the VA that establishes eligibility for services.

A VA spokesman reminded us that President George W. Bush mandated cities develop 10-year plans to end homelessness. The VA says it has a responsibility to do its part, and thus funds beds for veterans in the shelters and sponsors “stand downs” to get clothing and medical attention to this population.

Assets dedicated to help unconfirmed veterans might play well with some groups, but potentially steers limited assets from known veterans seeking VA assistance. It happens every day.

The blog “Naval Leadership” ran a throwback piece, “7 Lessons in Manliness From the Greatest Generation.”

Who knew?

It begins:

“Every generation has its share of men who fully live the art of manliness. But there may never have been a generation when the ratio of honorable men to slackers was higher than the one born between 1914 and 1929. These were the men that grew up during the Great Depression. They’re the men who went off to fight in the Big One. And they’re the men who came home from that war and built the nations of the Western world into economic powerhouses. They knew the meaning of sacrifice, both in terms of material possessions and of real blood, sweat, and tears. They were humble men who never bragged about what they had done or been through. They were loyal, patriotic, and level-headed. They were our Greatest Generation.”

Manliness can be gender neutral and all inclusive (really), but not in the above entry. In fact exclusion and gender inequality seem embraced if you subscribe to these seven steps to manly heaven. You might disagree.

Though poignant, thoughtful, and well-written, we did not realize it was only the males of the so-called greatest generation that led the nation through the Depression, the Second World War, and beyond. The seven lessons in manliness include:

Lesson #1: Take Personal Responsibility for Your Life
Lesson #2: Be Frugal
Lesson #3: Be Humble
Lesson #4: Love Loyally
Lesson #5: Work Hard
Lesson #6: Embrace Challenge
Lesson #7: Don’t Make Life So Damn Complicated

You might come up with different lessons, as would we. Regardless, we wonder how these are unique to males of any generation. The entry as a whole brings to mind the gender stereotyping that dominated military culture for decades, destroying the lives and careers of the innocent and those who would not accept the sexually-charged, ego-fueled, gender-embattled struggle that had become routine.

We have learned depression and war know no gender; pain and suffering do not discriminate. Why Naval Leadership ignores these lessons remains unknown.

According to a source at Lockheed Martin, the Navy wants the USS Freedom (LCS 1) to deploy soon and well ahead of schedule. Apparently the chief of naval operations himself, Adm. Gary Roughead, has called for the move. Currently, the Freedom is not scheduled to deploy until 2012.

So what’s the rush? We say Congress and money. We guess (and our source speculates) the Freedom would head to pirate ops in the Gulf of Aden to join the U.S. Central Command’s handful of vessels patrolling the vast 1.1 million square mile area. Not long ago, Navy officials bragged LCS could chase pirates to Somalia’s shoreline. While the international community has greenlighted the hot pursuit, we’re still not so sure we’d send a now-$600 million vessel after a few (heavily) armed thugs on their tug. “An RPG could do some damage,” we said to our contact. “Freedom is a warship with a steel hull,” he said, reminding us of competitor General Dynamic’s hip trimiran take on the littoral combat ship is crafted from aluminum.

Roughead might have several points to make. First, he might want to show he has too few ships and thus is forced to get the Freedom out there right away. Second, he may want to show his Navy is competent enough to pull off getting Freedom deployed early. This matter has been debatable among lawmakers and wags alike given the cost debacles of recent years. Deploying the Freedom provides the passion play lawmakers love and might help make the case for the budget Roughead has argued for. How will a vessel with a crew of just 40 perform? The Navy probably needs this answer to help guide it with future designs.

Bottom line: The Navy needs money and ships. Send this jet ski-warship into harm’s way now without disaster and cha-ching — it’s raining men (George, Abe, Tom, Ben.)

The Navy did not respond to our request for verification.

Unemployment just jumped to a reported 9.4 percent, the highest it has been in a quarter century.

While this might be scary for some, it might present opportunities for others. Few on the active duty side of the military rainbow can say, “Man, I lost my job,” but it is a very different story for Guard, Reserve, former uniformed members and retirees. Sure, a number left the service for greener pastures at hedge funds or the Blackwaters of the paramilitary world, but they have the same street cred as the rest of the jobless. (Lesson: You can only count on you. Recession-proof your skill set.)

Many servicemembers are leaving Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere) for the civilian sector and are faced with employment challenges. They join history’s returning servicemembers from World War II and other conflicts; their situation is hardly unique.

But there is help available. According to the Department of Labor, if you are a servicemember separating from active duty you might qualify for unemployment compensation if you are unable to find a new job. The Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers program provides benefits for eligible former military personnel. The program is administered by the states as agents of the federal government. You are eligible if you were on active duty with a branch of the U.S. military and were separated under honorable conditions; and there is no payroll deduction from your wages for unemployment insurance protection.

Free money is free money. The VA administers educational benefit and job assistance programs. Nowadays if you are looking for help under vocational rehabilitation, have an advanced degree (or two), and present yourself well, further aid with education is improbable, though this sometimes can depend on your caseworker. (We’ll stop there.) However, the VA will help you find suitable employment. If you are really interested in VA assistance we actually had one VA rep in rural Virginia tell us to try and get to the lesser-taxed VA hubs. (Read: Get out of D.C., Norfolk, Va., and San Diego. Look at, say, Roanoke, Va.)

There are always the Internet cafés where you can feed that caffeine and Dunhill habit you picked up in Afghanistan working on the next great American novel.