Inside the Headquarters

It has been two decades since the Marine Corps crowned the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as the replacement for the ‘70s era Amphibious Assault Vehicle. It has been a long, expensive and apparently fruitless road. Defense Secretary (and Occasional Superhero) Robert M. Gates who has stood by the vehicle may be wavering. The Corps has cut its “requirement” from more than 1,000 to 573, and discussions on the merits of the EFV are on the rise.

Do the Marines need the EFV, and what is the future of amphibious global stomp-and-romps?
The nature of warfare has changed somewhat (a recycled statement) as has the nature of amphibious warfare. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim “Not in My Corps” Conway agrees: beach landings a la World War II are doubtful, though the tactic will remain in the Corps’ bag o’ tricks. (During World War II, at least one famous Marine leader, whose name eludes me, was critical of the Corps’ deadly up-the-middle approach to amphibious warfare.)

Despite being America’s second land Army, a title the Marines deplore, the Corps is sticking to its “soldiers of the sea” mantra. Documents like the “Marine Corps Operating Concepts” and the “Vision and Strategy 2025” underscore the importance of the Corps’ amphibious mission. My guess is the Boys’ Gun Club actually believes its own rhetoric. They also may see their future tied to the Navy’s fan tail cruising the world’s waterways looking for the next hot spot. Regardless, given a decade of mostly ground warfare, it is natural to question why the U.S continues to fund a Marine Corps, let alone the EFV.

The Marines have a good response but have done a horrible job explaining to Americans the importance of maneuver from the sea. A bunch of Marines and a few ships can operate in disaster areas as well as hostile regions where traditional forces can’t. Today’s Navy will operate over-the-horizon and the Marines must make their way to their objective be it by air as with the V-22 Osprey or by sea in a waterborne MRAP like the EFV. (Whale boats would make a great visual as the Marines row ashore.)

Warfare will continue to change and the Corps deserves to reclaim its amphibious crown, but the behind-schedule and over-budget EFV may not be the way to go.

With Conway’s looming retirement so goes the EFV.

I was intrigued by the growling in the vehicle at the next pump, but could not make out the culprit, though it seemed to be a dog in a police cruiser. A uniformed officer was Jake’s handler (the growl had a name), and the German Shepherd-Border Collie mix is a member of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency Police Canine Division, which stood up in 1998 to combat terrorism, three years prior to the September 11 attacks. His handler took great pride in Jake, and it was clear he cared deeply for this animal. “Well, he’s 8, but he’s got a lot of good years left,” he said. “Obviously. I can hear that,” I thought.

This Pentagon unit with 21-40 dogs is an explosives K-9 division protecting the thousands working at the Defense Department as well as the Pentagon’s many visiting dignitaries. They also help other police forces around the national capital region. Aside from explosives detection, dogs and handlers respond to bomb threats, and check out suspicious vehicles and packages.

The officer confided Jake had faced some challenges, including a brush with death row. He had bitten his previous handler numerous times and was thought to be untrainable. Enter our police hero who said “Give me a shot,” and he and Jake have been working and living together for two years. Unlike military working dogs, these K-9s go home each night with their handlers. It has been found this lifestyle arrangement maintains a crucial rapport between dog and handler. (I wonder how an officer would react if his or her dog was in danger. I have done some crazy things for even crazier dogs.)

The public relations people have taken the sports hero approach with the dogs. Be it during school visits or with overly curious gas station patrons, the officers are happy to share the dog’s trading card. K-9 Jake has his own card with his photograph (complete with American flag) on the front. Biographical information and a synopsis about the K-9 program are on the back. It is difficult to imagine the dog I heard in the cruiser looks like the calm, bundle of joy pictured.

The officer shared when Jake retires he’d like to take him home permanently.

I’d settle for more trading cards.

With the Potomac in the background I saw this sign billowing at the “Free Bradley Manning” protest in Quantico Town, just outside the confines of the “Crossroads of the Marine Corps.” This image is not something one sees around Quantico very often. I found it striking in its silence and beauty away from the Manning mess.

Is this accurate or just more rhetoric?

(click on image to enlarge)

As they wear burlap and beat themselves with reeds, the services are taking yet another look at increases in suicide in the ranks.

The Army recently published its 350-page report, “Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, Suicide Prevention.” Finding the “causes” of the increase in suicides among service members has become a bit like the search for the Holy Grail—unsatisfying and elusive. Judging from the report, the Army has collated a tremendous collection of data. It says it has zeroed in on some possible suicide indicators seen in the above illustration, but little information is new. There are pages of recommendations, yet no answers.

Service scrutiny of the suicide phenomenon may spring more from public opinion and law maker pressure than a genuine problem for the Army. Are 160 suicides in an active component of more than 500,000 soldiers a service’s problem? Whatever this situation is, the traditional problem-solution model does not fit.

Researchers found 79 percent of soldiers who committed suicide in fiscal 2009 had no deployment experience, which seems to imply factors other than combat are at play. (Another shocker.) Though the source of suicides has been known, certain media outlets have tried to pin this tail on the op tempo donkey.

It has been reported the Army suicide rate of 20 per 100,000 has surpassed the civilian rate reported by the Centers for Disease Control, 19 per 100,000. Is this difference statistically significant? (If you go to the CDC Web site, you will see most information seems to end in 2006 – a world away from the Army of 2009.)

There has been anecdotal evidence of civilian increases in the rates of suicide, and the Army has included examples in its report. For instance, the Idaho Mountain Express reported that the suicide rate had “tripled in Blaine County, Idaho, during the past six months.” In March 2010, The New York Times covered Cornell University’s “suicide cluster.” Before that, in November 2009, MSNBC reported the increase in suicide deaths in Elkhart, Indiana. But are the increases statistically significant to point to a societal shift? We don’t know.

Researchers note suicide hotline calls are up. General Lifeline calls increased from 381,316 in 2007 to 501,562 in 2009, while the Veterans Hotline increased from 20,853 to 125,625 during the same period.

So, where does the Army really fall in the suicide monologues? There seems to be an unwillingness to place some responsibility on the deceased servicemember. While suicides are complex, generally people take their own lives because they are engulfed by a hopelessness few can understand. They want the all-consuming pain to stop and have found no other way.

It is difficult to identify these people. Many of the ones who want to die don’t want to be found. Despite reports like the Army’s, few can recognize those in crisis. The services have never been good at helping even those who seek assistance. This is one of the few areas all services can realistically improve.

Regardless of reports of sleepless nights, the Army is going to lose some to suicide. It loses soldiers in combat, but their deaths can be attributed to the mission and blamed on a shadowy enemy. Aren’t all lives equal?

The Army’s report is a resource. My guess is its recommended actions will do little to decrease the number of suicides. If the suicide rate decreases the factors may remain as complex and elusive as those “explaining” the increase. (How many angels can dance on the head of the pin?)

How much attention should the services give to suicide?

US News and World Report had a piece on the ultimate political reality show: Sarah Palin and Rod Blagojevich.

It is an over-the-top “reality show” with a love story between the two thrown in. (Guess Sarah dumps husband Todd.) We find the two former governors to be more the political exceptions; two people with no interest in actually governing their states, as US News notes. But TV has hit some noteworthy lows, so it could register as entertaining for the reality series crowd. Or it could amount to a short-lived smash-and-grab. But isn’t that what it’s all about? (So how many of you out there are reality TV junkies?)

Clearly, the best reality show goin’ is in Afghanistan, and with Marine Gen. Jim “I like Brawlin’” Mattis probably soon at the U.S. Central Command helm, anything is possible. Sure documentaries have been done in theater and numerous stories for print and broadcast by “embeds” have graced TV screens, magazines and newspapers. The ultimate nod was Academy Award wonder, “The Hurt Locker.”

As tasteless as some reality bottom feeders can be, our Afghanistan reality show could be the low-brow “Big Brother” meets the tired, but reliable, “Amazing Race.”

Cameras would follow our boys and girls ‘round the clock. There is so much we don’t know. Do the doe-eyed and bleating argue? Fight each other? Read? Surf the Web? Make YouTube videos? Get sick? Laugh? Cry?

Do they talk about upcoming missions? (No WikiLeaks here.) We’d have the director work his way from the forward operating bases to force commander Army Gen. David “King David” Petraeus. He appears gracious, brilliant. But how miffed is he at his unexpected tour of duty? What does his wife think? We need the wife.

An episode or two with Afghan president Hamid Karzai could be a hoot. Who is that man’s tailor? Really. I want him or her on camera. Filming Karzai meeting with other elected officials (and his tailor) would be more reality than viewers could take.

Could we get the Taliban to appear regularly? Taliban leaders would love the exposure and it could help relations on all sides. If the show took off, the director could spend some quality time with the brawler himself, Jim Mattis. He’s a four-star and single. There must be some stories there. But is this man ready for prime time? No need for episodes at the Pentagon and White House. The uber-scripted are an uber buzz kill. Ratings would tank.

“Reality Afghanistan” could be compelling. Having worked with a couple of producers out of Los Angeles back when I was shillin’ for the Defense Department, these guys are looking for the next great thing. Could this be it or has it already been discussed – too many times?

Should we have a reality show of the Armed Forces? What is your vision for the ultimate showcase of US units in any service anywhere in the world? (Hey, our ship-bound Navy brethren could be interesting. All those people forced into close-quarters for long periods? Explosive!)

Continuing with our concerns over Befuddled in Afghanistan, The Washington Post has reported yet another rift in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Amarullah Saleh, Karzai’s top man for intelligence, has come out strongly opposing the president’s attempts to negotiate with insurgents. He sees the effort as a mistake and one that could lead to civil war. (Our guess is civil war would be a bigger problem for the fledgling nation than its current strife.) He sees talking with the Taliban as erasing nine years’ progress. He’s probably right.

The U.S. military leaders on the ground, like provincial reconstruction team commanders, have long discussed the concept of “good” Taliban, and the U.S. has warmed to the idea in the last year or two. U.S. officials have been cautious but want some sort of reconciliation with whatever factions possible. It seemed to have worked in Iraq, they say.

But pick your poison. It is believed a weakened Karzai could hurt the chances of success for U.S. forces. So, do you convert insurgents and alienate a large portion of the Karzai government endangering the operation, or do you keep the fragile government intact and kick the questionable insurgents to the curb to fight them later? (Yes, a little bit of both. We’re thinking like locals.)

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, there remains the delicate question of control. The U.S. has had little control in Afghanistan for some time. It bears the cost and the risk, but not the control. While U.S. interests in the nation may be overstated, the number of lives at risk on the ground cannot be overemphasized.

U.S. troops are dying almost daily on patrols. How effective are these patrols? Do they keep the lid on a volatile situation? Gather intelligence for an offensive that we believe may be further delayed as Karzai’s support crumbles? Improve training? Win the so-called hearts and minds? Could the units tell us?

With the Karzai government imploding again would it matter? Watch this four-way paso doble between the U.S., Karzai, the minority factions and the insurgents – five-way if you split U.S. civilian leadership from military.

How crucial is a stable Karzai to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan?

We don’t purport to know how to achieve progress in Afghanistan, but our guess is neither does anyone else. That does not stop them from yapping, though.

Military and civilian officials may utter complete sentences, but say nothing meaningful about the U.S. situation in Afghanistan. Have we learned anything about the U.S. plight there? Not really. We’re not saying anyone has attempted to mislead taxpayers or the thousands waiting for a promised military operation to commence, but haven’t you wondered, “Hey, what is the deal?”

We spoke with one defense official. The topic enraged him. We used the slang “goat rope” to describe Afghanistan in our very leading question. He responded “ALL CAPS.”

We were surprised and wanted to know more.

“The problems with the U.S. approach in Afghanistan started back in 2002 when we entered the country,” he said. “We lost focus then, and we have yet to regain it.”

When he was a commander there in 2004, he told the Army commanding general the enemy was growing noticeably stronger, despite U.S. military efforts and the work of the provincial reconstruction teams. The Army commander denied it. Many media reports since seem to parrot information they are fed, including possibly inaccurate information on Taliban strength. (Speculation. We have no proof of this.)

Another problem he explained was the U.S. penchant for “reinventing the wheel,” a continuing practice that can create confusion among military leaders, idle forces and politicos, not to mention the Afghan army we are led to believe is ready to fight. (Failing organizations reinvent or reorganize. Just an observation.)

Our source continued, “No one has explained to the American people that we are looking at 30-40 years there. No politician is willing to lay out the truth.” Election year or otherwise, we doubt anyone will tackle this topic.

Who can handle the truth? Our guess is the American people want the facts. It seems they are beginning to sense much of the information regarding Afghanistan in contradictory pabulum.

If one looks at headlines over the past couple of days, the lack of focus seems apparent. Of course everyone wants to tell his or her own story, but skim these offerings day after day and there is no theme other than allied conflict and confusion.

How would this read a year from now? Our official is dismissive. “Pull out and let them fight it out,” he said.

What is the truth about Afghanistan?

To add some pizzazz to the Navy’s Rim of the Pacific biennial exercise, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab conducted Enhanced Company Operations – the uber amphibious experiment.

But you wouldn’t know it looking at the media whimper from the front.

If this experiment goes well, it could change the way Marines fight. Sounds important to us, but not so much to the Honolulu Advertiser and others.

Limited Objective Experiment 4 takes a reinforced company from a ship over the horizon and brings it ashore via air and landing craft. Can the new company landing team reinforced with an artillery platoon and a sweet communications suite do the job of the much larger battalion landing team? (Can pigs fly? In this case, maybe.) Scores of experiment observers and lab officials will review their data July 15 and determine their recommendations on the future of the company landing team.

Deploying smaller units, like the reinforced company, can mean more deployed units with greater global coverage. Smaller units can go on board a wider variety of ships. For LOE-4, the Marines were on the Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), aka the BHR, or our fave, the Bonnie Dick.

Oddly our boys at the Warfighting Lab may have some systemic comm. challenges. While the hot ticket at ol’ SNOOZEPAC is the Marine experiment, the story from the front was about a robotic cart.

The Honolulu Advertiser headlined the lab’s Ground Unmanned Support Surrogate that would support the Marines during the “four days of exercises.” Sure, author Dan Nakaso mentioned the Huey and Cobra cover for the CH-53D and LCAC landing. But GUSS reigned supreme. Technology can be more interesting for readers. And with a name like GUSS, what’s not to love?

GUSS is an unmanned cart-vehicle designed to carry up to 1,800 pounds. It can carry two immobilized Marines. Will the units be able to maneuver effectively while GUSS keeps pace and stays out of the way? If this is to be a GUSS-fest unfortunately the four beauties were not named – Cougar, Deuce, Princess and Pumpkin. The boys at the lab named them and prefer those monikers not be repeated. Their secret is safe with us. (Can you guess the first in the series?) GUSS and the other smoldering technology are crucial to the exercise, but it is the clichéd “sum of the parts” of LOE 4 that will be the boon or bain of Enhanced Company Operations.

We trust, good sirs, there will be future dispatches telling us how the Yanks (and not their vehicles) are doing.

Every two years, the U.S. Navy hosts what it claims to be the largest multinational maritime exercise in the world. This years’ RIMPAC 2010 is a 32-ship and 14-nation soiree in the warm Hawaiian waters.

Themed, “Combined Agility, Synergy and Support,” RIMPAC includes ships and units from Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and the United States.

A reported 20,000 participants will play in gunnery, missile, anti-submarine, and air defense exercises, as well as maritime interdiction and vessel boardings (Arrrggghhh, mateys!) and more. There’s an amphibious exercise, the hottest ticket at these games (courtesy of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab-PAC), but more on that in another post.

Despite the size, locale and agenda, these games seem anything but exciting. Take away the French, and really, what’s left?

SNOOZEPAC is 38 days of too many visitors gorging themselves on foreign and U.S. naval delicacies. Air assets become personal taxis transporting their fares from vessel to vessel. (Maybe that’s how it got its rep as the world’s largest floating cocktail party.)

A Third Fleet official says the training provides opportunities these nations might not otherwise have. (Whose fault is that?) The gunnery range opportunities alone for the U.S. ships is said to be worth the price of admission. The helo-taxis would be flying anyway, so why not operate with other nations? Few get to land on Pacific Rim vessels. (Few may want to.)

In the end, RIMPAC may be more foreign policy tool than military mixer. It comes at a good time. The U.S could use some goodwill with Japan on the heels of the Okinawa controversy and F-22 refusals. Relations have been tense with our allies who are dying in wars their nations barely support.

Sure this is not a show on par with what Washington, D.C., normally offers, but it brings in a reported $43 million to the local economy. It may be SNOOZER of an exercise, but the 14 nations seem to think the training (or liberty) is hot and the locals are pleased with an infusion of cool cash.

Rumor update: Gen. Jim Mattis has canceled his trip to RIMPAC. Could CENTCOM be more than a dream?

According to sources far from U.S. Central Command and Joint Forces Command, there is strong speculation USJFCOM commander, Gen. Jim Mattis may soon be anointed CENTCOM king. Our sources are preparing for Mattis’ arrival at an upcoming Pacific area event and but are guessing he may be tied up in confirmation hearings or duties with the new job.

The CENTCOM job opened up when Army Gen. David Petraeus took a demotion to head the (growing) forces in Afghanistan. The former Afghan commander, Army Gen. Stan McChrystal and his staff were outed as a roving band of anti-establishment rebels by Rolling Stone magazine.

The Mattis retirement announcement earlier this year, was dubbed as a face-saving ploy (by Inside the Headquarters) in case he was not selected to be the next Marine Corps commandant. Well, he was passed over for the Corps’ top job, and we can only speculate on the reason. You may recall his penchant for “brawlin’” and shootin’ people, pastimes that can spell the death knell for even the most talented. His strong personality may have counted against him, too.

Mattis is said to be up against fellow CMC shortlister and current CENTCOM acting commander, Lt. Gen. John Allen. Word has it he and Petraeus work extremely well together. It seems a Petraeus-Mattis pairing is a winner, too.

It is believed Petraeus had more than a little input into who his successor and new boss would be. Would CENTCOM agree to a demotion to go to Afghanistan, get shot at and work for some loser he can’t stomach? Doubtful. Selfless Dave can only take so much. (You may recall he did pass out testifying before Congress.) As much as Petraeus may like Allen, having his number two may be unwise. Our guess is Mattis is the prime choice, (it’s been unusually quiet in his camp of late) a move that may have the DC power brokers nervous.

The decision could be announced soon. This week? Today? Maybe Mattis will have to delay those Waikiki and retirement plans.