Inside the Headquarters

While the nation’s national security, diplomatic, and defense leadership has been in the beleaguered Middle East, one service chief is looking at his future fleet.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead swung by Fort Worth, Texas, July 28 for the big roll out of his most-favored aircraft, the F-35 (carrier variant, of course). The (contrived?) event marked the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter shift from production to its test phase.

“The JSF will show the world that our sailors will never be in a fair fight because this airplane will top anything that comes its way,” said Roughead according to the Lockheed Martin release.  We think Gary may have been playing to the crowds as well as Lockheed suits. Nice quote, though.

Roughead has been a huge proponent of the new bird, explaining to lawmakers that the F-35 is what his Navy needs. It seems the CNO cannot get away quickly enough from the old-but-reliable F/A 18 Hornet in favor of the F-35, which also will be flown by the Air Force and the Marine Corps. (Our guess is the Corps doesn’t have much choice.)

Roughead, a surface line man, has come under attack over his push for the F-35 as his service’s fighter. Some question a Navy with just one type of fighter jet. There is concern a defect could ground the fleet. There is precedence: Defects have grounded other birds like the Navy’s now-retired retired A-6. (The cracks in the wings came after the Intruder had been naval workhorses for many years.)

In remarks by a service chief who wants what he wants, Roughead said this aircraft was absolutely needed on time, or there would be a gap in the number of aircraft deployed.  It has been some time since the Navy has had a major program running on time and on budget. On time for the F-35 is an operational aircraft by 2015 — a lot can happen in six years.

So why would ol’ Gary head to Fort Worth for an event that is more about Lockheed Martin than the Navy or its aircraft? Lockheed has been one of the major culprits in the defense budget busting culture. The littoral combat ship price tag ballooned from $220 million a copy to roughly $600 million. Lockheed also is behind the ridiculously expensive VH-71 presidential helicopter to nowhere

Adm. Gary Roughead strong-arming contractors? Was this a warranted warning shot over the bow?

What is now viewed as an epic battle in urban counterinsurgency might be on store shelves sometime next year.

The video game “Six Days in Fallujah” is hyped to give insight into the battle while presenting “the horrors of war.” Developed by Atomic Games, company president Peter Tamte explains he learned of the battle through friends who were there. The game was developed working closely with Marines who were there and video footage and photographs of the battle. In a recent NPR interview, one Marine consultant seemed positive about the project, noting the same quick decision making that often made the difference in the battle is necessary in the game. (His monetary incentive was not disclosed.)

Not everyone agrees with Tamte’s history-as-game approach. Atomic has come under attack by some groups like Gold Star Families who lost loved ones in Iraq. Members say no way can the game accurately and fully represent the battle; such portrayals should be left to books and movies. Their opposition might have pushed Japanese gaming giant Konami to pull out of the project.

Is the run-up to the “Six Days” release all hype by Atomic? Comments on some of the gaming sites reveal a suspicious crowd. According to gamers in the know, similar games have pretty much “sucked” and a bad product from “Six Days in Fallujah” would do a disservice to the Marines who fought and died there.

Regardless of motive, Atomic seems interested in making a different game that might attract new players and infuse some real-world knowledge into zombie and violent gamers. Though “history” is a misnomer five years out from an event, it seems Atomic has gone to great lengths to produce a game with accuracy. Just as the services picked up on gaming more than a decade ago for its training value, “Six Days” could have an impact on an industry dominated by the “Grand Theft Auto” series and other crimes-as-entertainment games. (We’re OK with crime as entertainment, which makes an argument against “Six Days in Fallujah” a stretch.)

Most understand the renewed pain for the Gold Star family members. Many agree nothing really can replicate those six days in Fallujah (or any event). Would critics rather people ignore that battle, save for film and the written word? Why not open it up to a new audience?

Would you want your battle reenacted in a game?

Defense Secretary (and Occasional Superhero) Robert M. Gates announced a temporary personnel increase for the U.S. Army. Gates floated a number of 30,000 during a speech at Fort Drum, N.Y. The official figure is set at 22,000 soldiers. Temps. Nonpermanent additions to the senior service’s rolls.

Our question: When does the drawdown begin?

This latest increase is supposedly good for just three years. Given its relatively small size (though it will push the Army’s size to 569,000 troops), attrition should absorb a similar reduction on the other end. But this is “The Long War,” not “The Three-Year War.” Will the 22,000 be extended beyond three years? Will additional soldiers be added (again and again) to compensate for the inability to deploy increasing numbers to Afghanistan? Will these numbers balance the talent lacking to time unit rotations? (Admittedly, these are leading questions.)

It might have crossed a few minds that “temporary” increase(s) might become permanent through need or inertia. But at some point the zombie effect will lift and someone will exclaim, “Holy manpower, Batman! We need to ‘right size’ the force.” History has chronicled the repeated growth of the armed forces followed by a near complete gutting of each service, only to see the force swell a few years later just to be dismantled again. Cost savings have been debated. One of the most astonishing peacetime slash and toss endeavors was during the 1990s. You might recall it was a time of slow (nearly impossible) promotions. Augmentation slots seemed to fill before a year group even was eligible. Finally, in the desperate attempt to “right size” (quite possibly one of the most annoying feel-good terms ever), the services were paying people to leave. While the severance was appropriate, it often had unintended results. In the “Hey, I can be bought” approach to military service, some specialties, like Marine Corps ground supply, stampeded out the fire exit. It was haphazard and poorly managed. Draw downs have seen talent leave and the lesser qualified remain, weakening services for the years.

Gates is still in the “plus-up, we-must-win-this-war” phase. How much larger can he make the Army and Marine Corps? If the formula is still three support soldiers for every one combat soldier, Gates has bought himself just over 5,000 combat troops. Where does that get him? Probably not close enough, unless this targets projected casualties? Though he says DoD will fund the 22,000 initially, Gates will seek money from Congress for the last two years of the program.

The plus-up is essentially a Hail Mary pass. Does plus-up mean stop-gap? Who will remember these men and women down the road when the drawdown puts them on the street?

History can be a good predictor.

Recently, the Pentagon Channel was featured in the news and we wondered: What is the Pentagon Channel of 2009?

The feature showcased “Grill Sergeants,” a Pentagon Channel original series. “Grill Sergeants” is a cooking show featuring military cooks and chefs. Kitschy and lower-budget, it appears it can hold its own in creativity and quality to many of the food offerings on, say, the Food Channel, but we’re not sure who in the demographic is watching TV Mondays at noon when new episodes air. This week it was Swiss Chicken Cutlet, which sounds about as appetizing as Hamburger Helper. Mais laissez les bontemps rouler! New Orleans-born host Army Sgt. 1st Class Brad Turner and his myriad guest chefs of the services present interesting fare in interesting ways. One show featured admirals’ favorites, while another was devoted to brownies — and is there a food group more worthy?

The Pentagon Channel has other offbeat offering of shows that target the young and the restless. “Command Performance” features military journalists stalking (our word) entertainers and interviewing them backstage. (It appears to be unabashed marketing by the artists.) There’s the hip “FNG,” a show “for new guys” that shows the bold and the beautiful low-cost travel tips, cooking secrets, and advices on electronics. “Recon Revisited,” another original Pentagon Channel series, “is a half-hour informational television program providing an in-depth look at real-world operations, missions, military events / history and other subjects highlighting the accomplishments of U.S. military men and women.” Sounds like the network primetime “Homeland Security” series earlier this year — which begs the question, “Why a Pentagon Channel?

Our guess is the cost is infinitesimal when compared with Defense Secretary Robert M Gates’ favorite program, the F-22, the plane that wouldn’t die. Our parallel guess is the Pentagon Channel is approaching functional obsolescence given the hundreds of channels available through cable and the nearly endless choices on the Internet. You Tube vs. the Pentagon Channel? Hmmmm.

Is vanity ever obsolete?

Much has been said about the F-22 (“The Lazarus”) and Congress (“The Savior”). A quick survey of House and Senate defense authorization bills shows a legislative branch marching to a different drummer — one more in step with their districts and industry than DoD.

Both bills have inserted items Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had cut from DoD’s needs. No unfunded requirements this year. Gates’ message is simple: All eyes and money are on the wars at hand.

In addition to the $1.75 billion* for seven additional F-22 Raptors that has received F-22 Raptors that has received some attention (it has been said the target of the Gates crackdown is what some have seen as an out-of-control Air Force), lawmakers have provided for an additional three C-17 Globemasters and the House coughed up just under half a billion for laughable presidential helicopter (VH-71) that might have broken any existing budget record (program costs went from $6.1 billion to more than $13 billion). Lockheed announced it was cutting 600 jobs because of the loss of the contract.

Maybe lawmakers were concerned about national defense calling for doubling the F/A-18 Hornets, something the chief of naval operations has said he wants to move away from so he can move forward on the joint strike fighter. Jack “Show Me the Money” Murtha expressed concern over a shortage of F/A-18s down the road. How far down and exactly which road remains unclear, but we are reasonably sure it is a path paved with gold and leading past fat cat contractors en route to his Pennsylvania district. Get this: The House even added two ships, one a littoral combat ship. (Maybe CNO Gary Roughead does have friends in Congress.)

There is no rainbow for the Army in this story. Gates cut much of the man-ground technology from Future Combat Systems (FCS), the centerpiece of the Army’s modernization program. No Congress to the rescue on this one, possibly because FCS has been the target of lawmakers for some time. The Army was challenged in explaining its 18-plus systems in a way staffers could understand.

Despite congressional efforts to keep contractors afloat and constituents employed, the budget clocks in at $3.8 billion less than what Gates and the president have recommended. One cut appears to be funding to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At the same time, lawmakers increased military pay 3.4 percent, up a half percent from the president’s plan.

Lawmakers will work to resolve these issues in the coming days, as they do each year.

* By 58-40 the Seante voted to remove the $1.75 billion provision July 21.

Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires, and, as you might agree, with good reason. In his new book, “In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan,” RAND political scientist Seth Jones chronicles Afghanistan’s descent back into war. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/books/in-the-graveyard-of-empires-americas-war-in-afghanistan

Or hell.

Jones spoke July 17 on NPR’s “Morning Edition” and provided historical perspective as well as up-to-date insight into U.S., coalition, and Taliban efforts there.

Historically, says Jones, less-than-successful attempts to secure Afghanistan date to Alexander the Great. Some have had a go at the prize more than once, like the Brits. The Soviet’s disaster can partially be attributed to their heavy-handed, traditional warfare approach.

A very different view was taken at the turn of the last century. “The less the Afghans see us, the less they will like us.” Though attributed to Sir Frederick Roberts, a British commander, it could have been uttered by a handful of current U.S. military leaders.

Jones says it is clear the U.S. has learned from its predecessors. The localized, light-footprint approach of 2001 was heartening, but there were other detrimental issues: no serious Afghan government, no serious Afghan security forces, and too few U.S. forces.

Jones is buoyed by the increase in U.S. forces and by what he sees as a definite shift under Gen. Stanley McChrystal to a true counterinsurgency to “protect” the Afghan people. The footprint remains light, but reliable government and security forces (what Afghan forces?) still are an issue.

Maybe most importantly, Jones notes the top-down focus should move toward a bottom-up approach. (This was the idea behind some programs like the provincial reconstruction teams, but a stronger effort is needed.) He says Afghanistan has been at its most stable with local Afghans at the village level. Tribes, sub-tribes and clans are crucial. There currently is a local anti-Taliban sentiment, and it presents an opportunity for the coalition — but a shift in Taliban tactics (more on that later) might close that window sooner than thought.

We hope to highlight writings and discussions on the topic of Afghanistan in the coming weeks. These will include books, essays, op-eds, and maybe speeches from those who have sweated over what might be the most important challenge facing the U.S. in some time. (Sorry, healthcare.)
Please share what you can.

After eight years of slugging it out in the Middle East, it is comforting to know the Cold War remains a fallback option.

The scene is the U.S. president shaking hands inside the Kremlin with his Russian counterpart. The men are smiling, stiffly, as the screen fades to U.S. warships entering the waters of a former Soviet satellite nation. Michael Corleone settling scores in “The Godfather“? Not quite, but we may have a Scorsese film in the making.

The USS Stout (DDG 55) recently anchored in the Georgian Black Sea port of Batumi, ready to train members of the Georgian Coast Guard. The Russians, who decimated the young republic several months earlier over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, were less than pleased.

The Georgians embrace the U.S. as its “strategic ally.” Given its drive to join NATO — much to the displeasure of the Russians — it looks to the U.S. for some degree of safety from its large and lethal neighbor.

Training onboard the Stout included boarding of a hostile vessel and firefighting drills. Benign, but symbolic, since the Ruskies were close by flexing their naval might.

The Stout is the sixth U.S. vessel to visit the small but strategic nation since it was trounced by the Russians in August 2008. The first ships brought aid, which the Russians assume meant guns. The Stout is an Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, a favorite of many including the chief of naval operations who strongly implied his penchant for the class in a recent interview. Stout and her sisters make up a potent class of ship and can launch a Tomahawk cruise missile.

We are reasonably sure that Russia’s tangible and invaluable support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan will continue, possibly with some offer the Americans can’t refuse.

Or not. We can always fall back on the familiar chilling of relations.

In the latest installment about the F-22 (also known as “The Jet that Wouldn’t Die”), the Senate has taken up the 2010 defense bill and with it, the most contentious issue: the $1.75 billion Hail Mary pass thrown to score another seven jets. The Raptor’s future is anyone’s guess, and F-22 builder Lockheed Martin has its fate in congressional hands.

President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if the provision for the seven F-22s makes it to his desk. And speaking of odd bedfellows, longtime F-22 foe Arizona Sen. John McCain has called for the provision to be removed, as has Senate Armed Forces Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI).*

Love can be so fickle.

Enter (scorned) labor. It has been reported F-22 supporters have received letters from several labor organizations (no surprise) and even have been contacted by National Guard leaders who want Rapture (Rapture in good times; Raptor, in bad) to continue production past its current cap.

It is anyone’s guess what the defense bill going to the president will look like. It is interesting to note the lengths some in the Senate went for seven paltry aircraft. While these would keep production lines open a little longer, maybe this is about keeping them open a lot longer by wrangling approval for the F-22 to be sold abroad.  Lawmakers and others have sought the green light for an export version of Rapture, which is not approved for foreign sale. As we have recounted in the past, countries like Japan are clamoring to get a piece of F-22 heaven. Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye has pushed hard for an exportable Raptor. We would think this has something to do with his state’s economic ties to Japan. (Note: It has been nearly 70 years since Japan last bombed Hawaii — without the benefit of the F-22.)

The production of the Raptor was to be halted at 187. The Air Force (as well as the Navy) was to move toward the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a bird that has received more adoration than a starlet at Cannes. It is built by F-22 maker Lockheed.

[update] Levin has withdraw his ammendment to halt the additional funding for the F-22. Despite the July 15 move, he has said both he and fellow McCain will continue to work to stop the F-22 at 187 aircraft.

For some time there has been news of lethal improvised explosive device (IED) blasts in Afghanistan, and attacks have increased in recent months.

According to figures published by the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), roadside bomb incidents hit a high of 736 last month. June was the fourth month in a row that such attacks have increased. By comparison, incidents during March clocked in at 361.

Afghanistan czar (and overall commander) Army Gen. Stanley McCrystal as well as Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen see the IED as the top threat to U.S. forces on the ground.

And with that, the “different” war that Afghanistan was believed to be now is becoming similar to Iraq. The counterinsurgency mantra that all subscribe to in Afghanistan was the rallying cry on the dark streets of Ramadi in the early days.

But we digress.

So where’re the MRAP (mine resistant ambush protected) vehicles? In 2007 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made MRAP a (read: the) Pentagon priority. The push was so ambitious that 9,500 MRAPs now are in Iraq and might stay due to the cost of moving them. After lawmakers treated the protective albeit unwieldy beast as the second coming and strongly “encouraged” the services to purchase the vehicles (in large quantities) one would think it would be MRAP to the rescue in the Afghan danger zone.

And it is — sort of. There are a reported 2,600 in the country. Another 5,244 have been contracted for more than $1 billion. (The HUMVEE costs less than 200,000 each.).

Leaders have waxed eloquent on how servicemembers are working to defeat the network (and they are), and most will agree this is the true way to defeat the IED (and it is). We are reasonably sure the JIEDDO did not have to change its models much between Iraq and Afghanistan. The principles are the same.

Until that network is defeated (and as long as people vote and we need jobs here in the U.S.) we will have MRAP. We will contract for expensive MRAPs. The U.S. will have to pay for MRAP, and Afghan foes like to see the U.S. go through money like water.

Let the monetary bloodletting (on both sides) begin.

As difficult as it might be to believe, it has been reported that U.S. generals are calling for more forces in the fight for southern Afghanistan. Officials long have wanted more firepower, though the Marine Corps, as it spearheads this effort, is pushing aside indiscriminate firepower in favor of counterinsurgency precision.

Still, more troops in the vast region to fight the Taliban insurgency could be helpful. Money would be good, too.

The former (and dare we say beleaguered) supreme allied commander in Europe, Army Gen. John Craddock, has fought his own war with NATO over these very issues throughout much of his time in this top slot. He, as well as Defense Secretary M. Gates, have asked, cajoled, and shamed NATO nations to do their part in Afghanistan. Though NATO “supports” U.S. efforts there, attempts to get this league of nations to act and support operations with manpower have failed.

Undoubtedly the U.S. will continue to try to garner useful NATO involvement — but this is Europe, after all, and they will continue to fail. It seems even support to supporting roles may be a stretch. Craddock, who is not holding back on the eve of his retirement, says NATO nations come up with countless reasons they cannot assist. Those from NATO nations who do make it in theater come with so many restrictions they can barely perform. (Right or wrong, Europe probably does not have the collective stomach for the bloodshed that might result.)

What lies ahead for the U.S., NATO, and Afghanistan is beyond prediction. It appears the U.S. will go continue to go at it with the Brits and too few of the crucial Afghan military. (More to come on Afghan forces.)