Inside the Headquarters

We’ve been told the Marine Corps’ three-star Mafia has been looking over a letter from Commandant James T. “Not in my Corps” Conway. It is what they call a White Letter. Few are issued. They are reserved for matters of top import to the Boys’ Gun Club.

It seems this letter about leadership deficiencies targets junior officers, staff non-commissioned officers as well as sergeants and corporals. Our source insists the letter is well-meaning, but the message is heavy, even accusatory, looking to lay blame: “Hey small-unit leaders, you are disengaged from your Marines. Fix it.” We’re told included with the letter is a leadership engagement campaign plan is to help “fix” the problem, if there is a problem, as Conway may see it. (But will the boxed set be available on Amazon?)

Of particular concern are harmful personnel issues including the increase in suicides. January alone witnessed roughly 20 Marines who took Plan B.

It is always to CMC’s credit that he solicits a sanity check. But it is interesting the Marine Corps would shotgun what seems to be a delicate and crucial issue. We hear there are grumblings from the second tier: We’re told the reaction in this three-star sweep has been negative and one of strong concern.

Counterpoint: It has been noted these same, targeted small-unit leaders may have some post traumatic stress disorder adding to their load. If accurate, their PTSD and possible guilt from the war may cause them to isolate themselves from their units, this according to one retired Marine who led a unit in Afghanistan. This adds to an already complex situation. Such a scenario may suggest a different approach from the “Holly Graf Guide to Leadership and Morale” strategy the Marine Corps is considering.

Conway has been slugging it out in Washington three years now. It’s a tough route, and we would not want his job. Could it be Conway who has become disengaged?

We have been reading the reports on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with waning interest. They call it “Lightning II.” We call it “Déjà vu.” Pick your poison. It is another DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer-to-Nowhere. It is the littoral combat ship that more than doubled in price. It is the bankrupt and canceled presidential helicopter.  Just change the name and the general facts remain about the same.

The Joint Strike Fighter reportedly is the Pentagon’s most expensive system. Defense leaders bought into the dream. Yeah, it was pricey, but DoD would come out ahead in the long run. (Their opinion, not ours.) The Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and nine allied nations all were going to the same bird. It made sense for everyone to have the same plane. (This seemed more a liability than combined advantage from the start.) And birds could be delivered quickly. (Read: Check’s in the mail.)

DoD’s Dream Machine seems to be anything but. The F-35 has been fraught with (you guessed it) cost overruns and delays. Reports say building the plane has been “difficult,” and it is running billions over budget. Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates has described the situation as “troubling.” Worse, production is behind schedule. The Air Force delivery has been pushed from 2013 to 2015.

Our guess is things will get worse before they improve (or the program dies). We guess no one will see a full squadron of F-35s until well after 2015. Cost overruns will continue. (See programs above.) Given the size or the F-35 program, economies of scale will come into play: the size of the program will send costs further out of control at a faster rate.

Is the Joint Strike Fighter the Defense Department’s version of “too big to fail”?

The phrase, “For Official Use Only” is the faux veil behind which government agencies, including the Defense Department, hide. All too often those with authority declare, “Make it FOUO.” The intent often is to hide information. But it is a designation not a classification.

Essentially, FOUO is meaningless.

We often see FOUO documents sitting in our cyber box here at Inside the Headquarters. Far from the Pentagon Papers, they are average Defense Department fare. It is easy to find what out the creator was trying to hide, but it is more humorous than newsworthy, and a tad pathetic.

Yet FOUO spells security, for many. Of those with whom we spoke, few understood its meaning and equated it with a classification.

Classified material, like “secret” and “top secret,” have specific handling instructions. Only those with the clearance and a need to know can view such documents.

But FOUO? The intent is to classify a document that is unclassified. It is to bury it from public view without codified protections. But FOUO material is subject to the same Freedom of Information Act guidelines as other documents.

Recently a war game and all related documents were assigned FOUO. The move instilled a culture of fear and mistrust. Organizers were trying to bury one word by waving the FOUO wand. It has worked thus far. (We won’t reveal their “secret” yet.)

The culture of fear seems to be gripping many departments in Washington. FOUO feeds this “Revolution of No.”

Maybe this is a tad obvious, but women who VOLUNTEER to serve in the ALL-VOLUNTEER force are volunteering to serve in the military service of choice. Most understand this. Many who have not served get it, too.

But not everyone is trackin’. Recently, a column in the Washington Times newspaper portrayed female servicemembers as victims of the big, bad military conspiracy.

In “Leaving Home and Hearth for Battle: When Women must Fight, America’s Families Lose,” Suzanne Fields wrote, “… some of them are victims of military bureaucrats and high-ranking policymakers who are blind to the values of our culture and deaf to the ancient call of history.”

Huh?

Yeah, we thought Phyllis Schafly, too. Fields used a recent report of a soldier facing legal action because she could not deploy. Her family care plan had fallen through. Actually, her mother brought the child back cross-country and reneged on her promise. While details of this soldier and her unit’s circumstances have been well-publicized, it seems there may have been more going on here with Spec Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother and Army cook, than reports conveyed. (But we digress.)

The Army treated Hutchinson who declined to deploy to Afghanistan with her unit like it would any other soldier. Fields (and it seems most news outlets) found this an outrage, because Hutchinson happens to have a child. (It seems no consideration was given to her fellow soldiers who would have to suck up her workload.) Hutchinson’s story is the basis of Field’s argument that “Motherhood Trumps Military Commitments Every Time.”

Fields seems to argue that women with children be removed from the armed forces. The ancient call of history seems to be that of motherhood. In fact, back in the olden days, parents and grandparents could not fathom a mother serving in any capacity other than mother. (We really can’t fathom she believes this. This post-World War II ideal is not accurate.)

The author drags in the deaths of women (not just mothers) in theater and blames a wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement between Congress and the Army. Similarly she blames the swell of female servicemembers (Read: Lambs led to slaughter.) on this deal with lawmakers. (There has been no significant increase in percentages of females serving in the past decade.)

Eat More Chicken … Discharge all Moms. You will be doing America a favor.

Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates announced the Navy will be opening service on board submarines to women. It is a move decades behind women’s service aboard surface ships and gender neutralizes nearly all Navy specialties (excluding Navy SEALS and a handful of others).

As required by Title 10, Gates forwarded his notification to Congress, informing lawmakers of the Navy’s intent. Congress has 30 days to act, but once the clock runs out the Navy is free to move forward.

On the heels of Gates’ announcement, the Army felt the need to emerge from the Navy’s wake. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr., declared his service will take a hard look at women’s roles in combat and review current Army policies in that area.

Wow, do you think this is the first time they’ve looked at women in warfare? This from the man canned from combat and “promoted” to his current position? Casey is no luminary, but he seems well-meaning. Maybe the Army will reach the same conclusion about combat exclusion that most already have. But will there be proposed changes in ground combat guidelines, and will they pass the notification test?

One service we did not hear from was, you guessed it—The Boys’ Gun Club. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. “Not in My Corps” Conway made no announcement like Casey. In fact, we probably won’t hear from him. His precious Corps has wars to fight, he says. But his over protection of his service may be the thing that’s killing it.

Homosexuals? Women? There has been little progress. (We’re not talking social experiments.) The “I’ve got a war to fight” excuse may be wearing thin. Does the Marine Corps offer something the Army doesn’t? Of course it does, namely light, quick-reaction infantry, but few understand what that something is. The Army is narrowing the gap. It is a bad day in Marineland when the commandant seems bitter and out of touch. Jim, friends on the Hill may be harder to keep, even with guys like Son of Murtha in your legislative office.

That aside, we say, “Nice move,” on the part of the Navy, and, “Way to ride the Navy’s wave,” Army (though it did seem a tad desperate). Both should gain some ground on what seems to be an increasingly isolated and oblivious Marine Corps.

Well, the news out of Afghanistan on this latest “offensive” has been good. Resistance has been light, though sniper activity is on the rise. Regardless, the Marines (and of course NATO and Afghan forces to keep everyone happy) may be adding more tallies to their “Win” column.

So how does the Marine Corps win wars? After seeing what they call the “routing sheet” we are stumped. What percent of these warriors have met this tank ditch? How many have labored under this value-sucking system of 8 ½’x11” sheets with oddly spaced lines and a nonsensical and inconsistent codes (unbroken by the Navajo Code Talkers, they say). It is a demon that destroys creativity and strikes fear in the hearts of once-valued risk takers.

We say very few have spent much time with this cursed convention.

A routing sheet is a cover document for some body of work. It summarizes the information contained within. So why not write a summary? Why? We have routing sheets! Maybe they facilitate staff work and coordination? Hardly. This trail of tears is a means to an end: Those who stand in the path of progress shine (and they alone). These few choke the life out of the bold and the beautiful demanding another space here and one fewer line there. Collaboration via the hallway, phone call, or late-night tryst? Not in this route-sheet hell. It better be on the routing sheet (so heinous an act that the Geneva Conventions dare not mention them). Formatting alone may take more than a week, but the information (the reason that led the doe-eyed and bleating to this slaughter) is ignored.

At first you may shout, “Content! Has anyone read the content?” but you quickly learn few care about the substance and value of your work and see it as a means to your end. On the up side the routing sheet ensures you are either more crafty accomplishing the Corps’ work or you are never again so weak-minded as to take up the fight. (Sadly, the latter may prove true.)

The Routing Sheet. How many will be lost to this crime against substance and efficiency? It may keep the masters and mistresses of the gate relevant, but the talent heads to Wharton.

We don’t hear much about those labeled “missing in action.” They are categorized as “remains not recovered.” The Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office is the silent warrior in this war to find the fallen whose remains have not made it home.

One of the biggest challenges with resting places remains North Korean. By DPMO estimates, 4,000 lie waiting in that country, though this number seems low, especially for the Unsan/Chongchon area listed at 1,559 possible remains. Thousands of U.S. servicemen, mostly Army, died en masse early in the war.

Numbers aside, North Korea has offered to allow recovery teams back inside the country.

The U.S. has declined Pyongyang’s offer citing the need for the nation to agree resume discussion on halting its nuclear future. Though DPMO is a Defense Department entity, it seems odd to hold prisoner its mission even with crucial nuclear talks. Our guess is the North Koreans may decline the U.S. demand and DPMO will lose this rare opportunity.

Thirty-three missions to North Korea between 1996 and 2005 yielded the positive identification of 20 sets of remains. This number may seem insignificant compared to the numbers who wait. And wait. It is needle-in-a-haystack work and searchers rely on information from survivors, records, families, and locals even nearly 60 years later.

Having worked with a few interviewers from DPMO, this office seems to care about its mission about finding the deceased. I would think after some time, the remains become living people and DPMO is on a rescue mission. To hold DPMO and those who wait patiently in far-off places prisoner to much larger political realities, no matter their import seems a disservice to the Defense Department today, in the past and to service members and veterans. And the missing and their families.

Maybe lawmakers will find this issue matters to their constituents.

The U.S. presence on Okinawa has been fraught with challenges since the U.S. invasion of the island near the end of World War II. The 82-day battle for Okinawa began April 1945 and called upon all U.S. services to take an island that would be the last territory the U.S. would return to Japan in 1972. Post-war recovery from the devastation went well. Agreements dating to 1960 give the U.S. rights to Japanese land and facilities. In return, the U.S. has promised to protect Japan.

But who would protect Okinawa from the Americans?

Okinawans have not been happy with U.S. presence (and with good reason), and tensions on the populous island have been high for some time. In 1996, the U.S. agreed to move some of its forces. In 2006 the ruling parties throughout Japan were swept out of office and with them much of the tolerance for the Americans.

That year, the U.S. finally moved 8,000 military personnel to the U.S. territory Guam. But the precious air base at Futema has remained another matter. The U.S. had planned to move the base to the less populous city of Nago, still on Okinawa.

But there is a new sheriff in Nago. Mayor Susumu Inamine ran on a platform opposing the new base. This has put Okinawa on a collision course with the 4-month-old government of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. On the larger stage, few seem worried that this latest battle for Okinawa will hurt U.S.-Japan strategic relations. While many Japanese want stronger ties with economic powerhouse China, revered elder statesman (and U.S. friend) Yasuhiro Nakasone warns of the looming threat posed by China.

Can the Japanese and Americans put their differences aside? The Marines are watching this closely. The Third Marine Expeditionary Force is the only such force in the Far East and calls Okinawa home. It needs the air assets a base like Marine Corps Air Station Futema affords to train and remain, well, expeditionary. Without Okinawa, can it remain, the “on-call force” it has been? Will III MEF be lookin’ for new digs? (We’re sure their homepage highlighting the Iwo Jima flag raising is a hit with locals.)

Okinawa is home to more the 75 percent of the U.S. forces in Japan. Once a cash cow, the American GI has lost its luster. The very dark but emotionally charged side to this story is a number of high-profile criminal incidents involving military member acts against locals – violent stuff, like rape and murder.

The U.S. forces can be blamed for wearing out their welcome. Should the U.S. look at Plan B, or continue to grovel?

Haiti and homosexuals-at-the-front have knocked a much-beleaguered Afghanistan off the topic du jour. One could see this hiatus as providing a much-needed time of reflection. Others could see this as an opportunity for military leaders under Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal to do their thing without the microscope and cameras.

It seems the political front has hoped for better news from McChrystal. As recently as late summer, the Afghan commander painted a bleak picture of the challenge facing allied forces and saw the situation on the ground deteriorating.

But McChrystal and hope spring eternal. His comments, though benign, garnered huge headlines and registered more than 1,800 hits on Google News.

Star Date, Feb. 5. The top dailies reported:

• U.S. General Offers Upbeat Views On Afghan War (The New York Times)
• McChrystal Sees Signs Of Progress In Push To Stabilize Afghanistan (The Wall Street Journal)
• Gen. McChrystal Sees Progress In Afghanistan (The Los Angeles Times)
• McChrystal Sees Progress In War (The Washington Post)
• U.S. War Commander Sees Progress in Afghanistan (USA Today)

Beauty is in the eyes of the reporter, and no one wants to be out-scooped, but McChrystal did not say much. He said he no longer believes the situation on the ground is deteriorating, but admitted no corner has been turned. He was clear his evidence was anecdotal.

Are reporters and officials so desperate for a sign from McChystal? (Even more so than wise King David Petraeus in Iraq?) McChrystal like military leaders from other nations admits the Taliban continues to make gains, but given meetings with tribal leaders and visits to markets in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, he sees indicators that lead him to feel confident to test the hope card..

Were these musings of a thoughtful commander? Political patronage? A prelude to the big news yet to come? The truth is in the eyes of the reader.

(Gates-Mullen Testimony Coming to a Theater Near You)

Disclosure: We have no dog in the gay warrior fight. The topic itself is about as interesting as the latest round of revisions to the federal civilian personnel system.

Activism has made this topic a major item on President Barack Obama’s Bucket List. (He and those before him probably thought it an easy bone to toss to the masses. Each has found it more like taking Afghanistan.)

The landmark Civil Rights acts of 1964 and (and its Fair Housing brother in 1968) mandated protection from discrimination. Americans were protected by race, religion, gender and ethnicity. Areas included voting, employment, real estate transactions. One could not discriminate based on these protected classes. Persons with disabilities were added in 1988.

There is no federal legislation addressing sexual orientation, though there is an executive order barring such discrimination in federal employment. At least 16 (maybe 20) states have enacted legislation that includes protections for sexual orientation. Many who oppose such legislation maintain protection is largely covered in existing Civil Rights laws. Some question special protection based on one’s sexual preference.

But LGBT supporters say they face discrimination based on their orientation everywhere, everyday and need protection.

So, given federal law, can the Armed Forces as an employer say no to gays? Well the executive order says no, but with or without Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the armed forces make their own calls on who to recruit, who to graduate from boot camp and who to commission.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made some uncharacteristically inappropriate comments (“Hey, I love gays. It’s the service chiefs – like Conway – who are the problem.” Ok, he didn’t say that, but…that’s the message I heard.) Maybe the White House pushed for the endorsement, but Mullen is his own guy, so who knows?

Defense Secretary and Occasional Superhero Robert M. Gates is calling for a year-long study (sigh). Let’s make it worth the time. Not that anyone has mentioned this, but what do you do with transgenders? Transexuals? What if someone wants a sex change? We think Corps Commandant James T. Conway and his boys should take these on.

In terms of “winning” and “losing”, the gay community may win this battle but the services will win the war. Any real change will be on DoD’s terms, not on the advocacy of any number of LGBT leagues.