Inside the Headquarters

Virginia senator and Man-about-Oktoberfest Jim “Women Can’t Fight” Webb http://webb.senate.gov/ has proposed what has been on the minds of bar flies for years: “Ditch the antidepressants and pass me a cold one.”

The suggestion is typical of the 1968 Naval Academy graduate, who is lauded by some for his performance as a Marine in the all-but-forgotten tussle in Vietnam.

We are not anti alcohol, but we are anti Webb. It was during hearings before the Senate Armed services’ personnel subcommittee, which Webb now heads, that he learned servicemembers in theater are medicated with antidepressants and other drugs for mental maladies.

Webb agreed with leaders that the force is under stress and gave his solution: get rid of the meds, lift the drinking ban in theater and let them drink to relieve stress.

We agree with Webb. The drinking ban is ridiculous. But replacing prescription medication with alcohol (as a means of self-medication as Webb appears to suggest) is a bad idea. This is the man who railed against the presence of women at his precious academy and quit as Navy secretary after 10 months because he did not get the funding he wanted. Are defense drinking guidelines his latest cause? He may have the force of 2010 confused with that of the late ‘60s when, if the lore and B movies are accurate, self-medication was the rule.

We also agree with Webb’s concerns about meds at the front. There was a time when those suffering from mental health concerns would be sent packing, and it has been reported many still are. But it seems you may have individuals who may or may not take their medication sporting the latest firepower. While this probably is not a good idea, liquoring them up like the supporting cast in a John Wayne flick (or Webb novel) may not be the way to go either. What Webb may have been getting at (and we hate to agree with him again) is command climate. Life in a war zone isn’t the greatest, so why not give those who serve some normalcy. Webb sees that in an occasional brewski. Our guess is this crowd self-medicates at home, so why break the routine?

Here’s to you senator, and to the Men of Genius like you. Deceased Pennsylvania congressman John “Blurtha” Murtha would be proud.

The Marine Corps seems to have it own Tea Party movement: There is a bill in the House of Representatives to rename the “Department of the Navy” to the “Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.” While it might garner some additional awareness for the Boys’ Gun Club, proponents of the change seek parity with the Navy.

But there’s a down side to this equalizer, and bill backers don’t seem to see the Marine Corps may lose more than it gains.

The Marine Corps and the Navy both fall under the Department of the Navy. That top cover has been a sweet deal for the Marines. Equal footing could cost the Marine Corps people and money. The lean Marine Corps? No more! The Navy Department is saddled with tremendous administrative responsibilities, many the Corps has been able to avoid.

Legal and contracting are just two areas that could shift resources away from Corps Commandant Gen. James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway’s precious (and simple) priorities. Do movement supporters know what ball-and-chain possibly awaits? If we were the Navy, we’d say, “Great. Here’s the table of organization and required funding. You get the cubes in the basement. Welcome aboard.”

Point man of this assault on the Hill is North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones whose district includes sprawling Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Joining him is former Corps commandant Gen. Al “Only When There’s Trouble” Gray and Gen. Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM chief. Also involved are the Marine Corps Mafia (uh, League) and the Marine Parents Association.(Who?).  Star power comes in the form of R. Lee Ermey, a Marine Corps veteran and cable TV host who played the drill instructor (shot and killed by a recruit) in the movie “Full Metal Jacket.”

The bill, HR 24, has 370 cosponsors and was introduced in January 6, 2009. It appears it has been in committee since. Senate bill S 504 has two cosponsors and remains in committee. Though these bills may be going nowhere, this group may want to rethink its oddly placed priorities. Proponents of the change are whining the well-worn “recognition for our sacrifices” refrain. We believe they were paid for their service and already receive tremendous credit. We would hope they move on, otherwise the Boys’ Gun Club may become a bit less expeditionary.

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha slipped away without fanfare February 8 at a Northern Virginia Hospital from complications following gall bladder surgery.

Better known as the King of Pork than for his Marine Corps roots, Murtha was our target for good-natured comments here at Inside the Headquarters. “Live like no one is watching” is what we will take away from John Murtha, though we think the venerable lawmaker lived like everyone was watching for the sake of the people he represented.

Murtha’s stated opposition to the Iraq war was a mere distraction from his role as power broker and wheeler-dealer. This Earl of Earmarks brought federal funds and jobs to his beloved Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

Murtha is said to be the first Vietnam combat veteran to serve in Congress, elected in 1974. His Marine Corps service started during the Korean War, after which he joined the reserves. He is said to have volunteered for active duty in 1966 and headed off to Vietnam. He received two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

Murtha had seemed especially cantankerous of late where the military services were concerned. We preferred to call him “Blurtha” because we never knew what he might toss out next. Was he the consummate, calculating, Crazy-Like-a-Fox of the House?

We have written about John Murtha 12 times since October 2007 and could have penned volumes. We started with his out-of-the-blue criticism of the U.S. Africa Command. His harsh remarks about Marine actions at Haditha, Iraq, an incident that left 24 Iraqis and one Marine dead, fell just short of accusing U.S. forces of massacring innocent civilians.

On the lighter side was Murtha’s unabashed love of spending tax payer money. As chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Murtha dispensed many a defense dollar, and steered much of it to his economically challenged district. He was the friend of lobbyists and union bosses and established his own military-industrial complex at home in Johnstown – funded courtesy of the taxpayer. He was even ready to take on the controversial Guantanamo Bay detainees – and the jobs and money that would come along with them.

John Murtha leaves behind his wife of 55 years, a daughter, two sons and three grandchildren. He also leaves behind a district. Though the 12th District of Pennsylvania had been moving away from him in recent years, it will certainly feel the loss.

It is deja vous all over again. And again. Last year, we replayed President Bill Clinton’s support of gay men and women in the military, and we are replaying last year’s efforts again this year.

The story of lifting the ban and allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces is a tale of woe bordering on the absurd. At the same time, both sides’ arguments have merit. This emotionally charged controversy is not without its costs.

The Pentagon soon will make its latest recommendations to Congress.  (How many ways can one slice this thing?) We will hear the most recent set of great ideas as Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates tries to appease the president, the service chiefs and anyone with a dog in this fight.

There has been talk of a phased approach, but it appears Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway may be driving this train. His direct statement remains unchanged, “Our Marines are currently engaged in two fights, and our focus should not be drawn away from those priorities.” (‘Nuf’ said.) As a follow-on the Marine Corps released, “When the time is right, we have full confidence that we will be asked to provide the best military advice concerning the readiness of the Corps as it relates to this issue.” (Read: Go away. Leave us alone. We’re busy.)

The topic of gays in the military has been in and out of the spotlight since 1993, when males recoiled, fearful of being sexually assaulted by gay males. (Explaining that sexual assault is a crime was lost on this crew.) Seventeen years later, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell remains a polarizing policy. Phased approach? They’ve had 17 years to work this out.

It may, in fact, be as simple as no one wanting to deal with “it”. As many may have deduced, this is not so different from the desegregation of the Armed Forces after World War II (before landmark civil rights legislation) and allowing girls in the regular force tree house. Were leaders so concerned about assaults on Blacks or women? (Probably not.) Both groups were used (no matter the personal damage) for a greater good.

An interesting piece in the New York Times by one male Army captain telling the story of another (West Pointer) who is being tossed for his sexual preferences is worth the read. We were surprised to see the issue of male-male consensual relations within the Army discussed. Though this story of homosexual betrayal has little bearing on this odd little war, it discusses behaviors and consequences many may not have considered.

There are costs to everyone.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the military “exploits” its role when escorting members of Congress.

Read the report closely and it seems the opposite may be true.

“The Military Helps Fund Congressional Trips” focuses on the military’s funding of congressional junkets. We’re not quite sure what reporters expected, and it seems the venerable WSJ may be the last to know the not-so-secret habits of globetrotting members and the officers who keep them happy.

Sponsoring congressional delegations to educate lawmakers about military needs and capabilities is not a new practice. Members visit U.S. installations, attend exercises and make trips to numerous far-flung hot spots. (When we say “hot,” we’re not talking incoming fire.)

According to the article the services spent about $4,300 on each of the 43 trips the Journal reviewed. Chump change! It is crucial for service liaisons to keep members of Congress informed of the capabilities and needs of the services. Playing personal tour guide and baggage handler is a part of the job. The detailed financials show a penchant for liquor purchases. One former Army liaison officer provided foot rubs for one member. (We heard this from the panicked colonel at an event several years ago. We heard the same from the officer who later escorted this same member.)

As wasteful as the WSJ makes the trips appear, Co-Dels, as some call them are superb ways to keep crucial members up to date on the needs and capabilities of the military. Members are typically those from the armed services and finance committees. Essentially, officers from the congressional liaison offices work to inform and educate (ok, and entertain) those charged with funding national defense. Using these trips as a means to gain access to those who vote on everything defense is smart and similar to commercial ventures courting lawmakers important to their interests. (Who says the services don’t lobby?)

To successfully entertain Congress may mean the difference between funding for a new class of ship and cancellation of something considered vital to a service’s future–like the recent cancellation of the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

Liquor for votes? It’s more honorable than sleeping with the enemy.

Recently, I was researching a topic for an upcoming Military Officer magazine feature. While delving into the brief history of military females’ work with all-male combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan, I found:

Women killed while performing the hazardous duty for which they volunteered were listed as “supporting combat operations.” However, a male killed in the same incident could be listed as “conducting combat operations.”

This seemed worth a closer look.

Flashback to an al Anbar Province checkpoint, Feb. 7, 2007. Marine Cpl. Jennifer M. Parcell, a Lioness volunteer, was searching an Iraqi woman when she (the Iraqi) detonated an explosive vest. Parcell was killed along with Sgt. Maj. Joseph Ellis. It was reported an interpreter and two Iraqi police were also killed.

The Defense Department normally releases casualty information as provided by the services. Parcell’s read:

Cpl. Jennifer M. Parcell, 20, of Bel Air, Md., died Feb. 7 while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Parcell was assigned to Combat Logistics Regiment 3, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

Ellis’ read:

Sgt. Maj. Joseph J. Ellis, 40, of Ashland, Ohio, died Feb. 7 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Ellis was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Why the difference? Discussions with a Defense Department representative as well as Headquarters Marine Corps Public Affairs failed to reveal an answer. Was the delineation made by unit? MOS? They had no idea, and this seemed forgotten history by Pentagon standards.

The releases in question were written by Headquarters Marine Corps, but it is unclear if the “supporting” vs. ”conducting” choice was made by the unit or by Washington. The implication was this information came from theater. We’re not so sure.

Ellis was the enlisted leader of a combat unit; Parcell was a support Marine in a support unit who volunteered for a dangerous duty that combat and non-combat personnel also perform. While her checkpoint work was rare, though not unique, the characterization of the two deaths under the same circumstances is curious.

Regardless of past practices, it appears the Marine Corps dropped “conducting combat operations” in favor of “supporting” in mid-2008. “Everyone is in support of the 0311,” noted the Headquarters Marine Corps Marine rep. As far as we can tell, unless it is a non-hostile death, everyone is listed as “supporting” combat operations, even the 0311.

Why the distinction in the first place? Why the change? No one could provide answers. Did someone else notice the number of mostly male Marines who were “supporting” and not “conducting” and question the distinction? Was it a family member? The Corps commandant? A member of Congress?

The other services don’t seem to make this distinction.

This incident and others raise the question about defining combat operations in today’s operating environment. Though some may see this as beating the clichéd dead horse, there have been meaningful few answers. We have asked some of our favorite war heroes for their input. Those answers in a later post.

Thoughts?

We hear about death. We read of casualties out of Afghanistan and Iraq, be they from combat operations, non-hostile incidents or the suicide bomber du jour.

For the living, frontline deaths can mean irreplaceable loss. Unspeakable grief. The shattered cope in different ways.
One surviving parent has asked to be buried with her son who was killed in Iraq, Nov. 12, 2008.

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ answer has been, “No.”

Army Spc. Corey Shea was buried in the Massachusetts National Cemetery, a veterans’ resting place. As with the 130 national cemeteries run by the VA’s National Cemetery Administration, only spouses and children can be buried with the deceased. Denise Anderson, Shea’s mother, has asked for a waiver from the VA. She is not the first: such requests have been made and approved since 2005.

According to Anderson, Shea, her only son, died without a spouse or children. She does not want him to be alone.

According to the VA, Anderson must be at her “time of need” to have her request to be granted. “Time of need” seems to mean, dead. For the 42-year-old Anderson that could be another 40-50 years. Maybe she’ll get past it with time, but there seems to be little comfort in this limbo. The VA noted her son has been buried deeply enough to accommodate her remains, should her request be approved … after she’s, well, dead. Is this a sacred responsibility or bastardized Abbott and Costello routine?

Lawmakers have stepped in as they often do. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. John Kerry are backing the Corey Shea Act that would allow for biological and adoptive parents to be buried with unmarried veteran sons or daughters who have no minor children. It would cover a servicemember who “… dies as the direct result of hostile action with the enemy, while in combat, while going to or returning from a com bat mission if the cause of death was directly related to hostile action …”

The bill is detailed, so one can only imagine the importance of the documented circumstances of the death. As we will see in a post next week, this combat category “thing” can be an issue, for males as well as females.

The bill covers the 130 cemeteries but excludes Arlington, which falls under the Army.

Veterans groups have not said much on the proposal, though AMVETs is concerned this will negatively impact the benefits of those already permitted. We unclear on their concerns since the remains in question occupy vertical space and not an additional gravesite.

Anderson cannot be alone and a reasonable remedy seems within reach.

Requests for amplifying information on VA decedent benefits from the department’s public affairs office have gone unanswered. One VA official pointed us to the VA Web site. We had already exhausted that vague, marginal resource.

What say you on the “policy,” lawmaker efforts, or the VA’s handling of this request as reported?

In a recent Foreign Policy Blog entry (that was reprinted by the Early Bird) defense writer and man-about-the-Pentagon Tom Ricks shared his take on the recently passed Defense Appropriations Bill.

In “Defense Spending: I’m A Hawk, But Give Me A Break” Ricks hits some budget breakers but seems to single them out for dollar value and not their intrinsic evil. (Ok, that may be an overstatement.) Regardless, 2010 is really no different than past years and some appropriations again push past the blinding flash of excess coinage.

Ricks writes:

$4.4 billion for two Navy destroyers and one littoral combat ship. Yow. Maybe it is time to start buying warships from South Korea, or at least invite competitive bids? Folks, this is billions, not millions. Imagine what $4.4 billion could do to rebuild our highways, or send deserving kids to college, or rebuild New Orleans.

It seems God has grinned upon the Boys in Blue, and the Navy slowly will build itself to at least 313 ships from its woeful 180 or so now—no matter how hard they make it. At this period in warfare, even given perennial missions of power projection and sea control, we doubt the Navy has a clear strategic vision of how to employ its fleet. (And it has a published strategy.) That said, Congress approved just more than $1 billion for the littoral combat ship (which clocks in at around $600 million per copy) and two destroyers, as Ricks writes. BUT $1.3 billion is going to the Zumwalt class (DDG-1000), the Canceled Stealth Ship to Nowhere, thanks to some slick lawmaker deals. Roughly $1.5 billion goes to the Arleigh Burke class (DDG-51). The Boys are returning to the Burke’s proven platform following the Zumwalt-class disastrous run. (Seen “enabling” below.)

The problem with LCS and DDG-1000 extends beyond the dollars. It is systemic. Congress continues to enable Navy program mismanagement. The Boys took the $240 million LCS and redesigned it to nearly triple the estimate. The same applies to the failed Zumwalt. (“Mission? Let’s just make it do everything, even if it is an unstable platform! Cost? Irrelevant.”) The shipyards located in prominent lawmaker districts play into this funding dart game as well. Ricks charges the money may be better used rebuilding New Orleans. Don’t be fooled! The City that Time and God Forgot is slicker than Congress and the services put together and was in worse shape before Katrina.

Thoughts? More info to come as we match legislative fact to fiction.

Many may gripe about Congressional defense pork. You know, funding that some consider jobs programs in lawmakers’ districts’ (so constituents can, well, survive).

Without help from the Earls of Earmarks, the services have created their own Billion Dollar Monster. Oddly enough it is not a product but a service, and one the services can perform quite well.

The Defense Department is spending nearly a billion dollars in the much-touted (though rarely understood) realm of strategic communication.

According to recent reports, strat comm budgets have exploded. Where the U.S. Central Command spent “just” $40 million in 2008, it apparently plans to shell out $244 million during 2010. Proposed 2010 spending across DoD was reduced from $1 billion to $626 million, possibly because no one could define the need.

In terms of dollars, this is a small fish is a vast sea, but it may be a classic tail-wagging-dog scenario, a “need” created by an industry looking to bilk deep-pocketed DoD. CENTCOM, OSD, and each of the services, have been sold on strategic communication as the cure-all elixir for all communications woes (perceived or otherwise). Uncovering unrealized needs? These shills wrote the book.

Strategic communication has long been a public affairs function. Great PAOs have been great strategists. Mediocre PAOs have been marginal communicators for their masters. And mediocrity is what the Defense Department is getting. Contractors have convinced their uniformed clients their people can communicate strategically and mo’ better. This has made little sense to many, and even PA-hating infantry types ask, “Why isn’t this public affairs?” (The tenets of public affairs, internal information, external information, and community relations, can be shaped to fit any commander’s intent.)

Substandard PAOs and disinterested commanders have created a communications void. Contractor involvement has enabled a vicious cycle of lackluster PA performance and increased corporate profits. Short-term consultant assistance could be useful, but have been the exception. Companies put their PA-trained chickens into place and let them lay those golden eggs.

What simple concept will be repackaged and sold next?

Can the Defense Department begin to jettison these strategic communication contracts?

Though the defense appropriations bill, which again has proved pork is king (and Pennsylvania lawmaker John Murtha is its prince), lawmakers may have gotten one small item very right: It looks like $300 million is headed to Maryland and Virginia to help unsnarl two big transportation dilemmas.

The last Base Realignment and Closure go-around gave the axe to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The venerable old soldier-of-a-hospital and its surrounding acreage have become crowded and barely accessible in Washington, D.C.’s northwest quadrant. The new Walter Reed will move out a few miles to the National Naval Medical Center campus, Bethesda Md. Reports say it is set to open in 2011 and brings with it a reported 2,500 new jobs, though we’re unclear if that is in addition to current staffing.

As the D.C. region continues to become home to more residents and businesses, travel can be a challenge any time of day. Bethesda is convenient to Interstate 495, but the multi-lane access via Wisconsin Ave. is essentially a game of chicken. More entrances and access lanes will be needed.

A portion of the funding will go to improve four intersections around the base, install a pedestrian tunnel under Rockville Pike to connect the Medical Center Metro to the joint campus. Maryland transportation officials may find they have underestimated the area’s transportation needs. Opening a new hospital is no small feat.

On a larger scale, a considerable swath of the U.S. Army is relocating to the Army’s Fort Belvoir. Though just a few miles outside Washington, the immense base has been a backwater and a challenge to reach via crowed U.S. 1 and Interstate 95. Many of its entrances sit closed, casualties of stepped-up post-Sept 11 security. The result has been longer commutes and escalating frustration.

Add another 20,000 or so cars each day and you have one very unhappy workforce.

Area Rep. Jim Moran, who tends to overstate, has been brutally accurate in his assessments of the Belvoir snarl. Though rush hours may not increase the 3-4 hours he predicts, an absolute traffic nightmare is in the offing. Maryland’s needs pale in comparison. Estimates for bucks to ease Belvoir’s transportation woes have exceeded $400 million. Moran expects traffic to snail out to I-95, 2 miles or so from the post.

In a region where many plan their lives around traffic, not so many may be willing to pay the price for job stability in traffic purgatory.