EDITOR’S NOTE: I know it’s not “tech” but I thought I’d throw this Op-​​Ed I wrote your way as food for thought before I post some techy stuff later today. Hope you like the new layout!

It was a shock­ingly inac­cu­rate state­ment that dis­cred­ited an accom­plished colum­nist. No mat­ter where you stand on The New York Times edi­to­ri­al­ist Maureen Dowd’s polit­i­cal bent, it’s hard to deny her reach and talent.

But in the reac­tionary defense of her anointed one — President Obama — on last weekend’s Times op-​​ed page, she strayed far from real­ity and embraced a mythol­ogy made soft by the facts.

Yes, the president’s Oct. 29 trip to Dover Air Force base in the dark of night to greet a C-​​17 car­ry­ing fallen Americans killed in Afghanistan was a vivid exam­ple of the real­ity of that war and should pause to those who call for increased com­mit­ment there. And it was hon­or­able of Obama to see for him­self the human cost of his deci­sions — as every com­man­der and chief should.

But to reflex­ively defend the photo op engi­neered to cre­ate news about the president’s “sober­ing reminder” by claim­ing that the man who got us into Afghanistan in the first place never faced them is just plain bunk.

I had the honor to speak with nearly a dozen fam­i­lies of Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago as part of a project with the Military Times news­pa­pers. We wrote a wide-​​ranging inves­tiga­tive piece on the con­duct of the ser­vices dur­ing the killed-​​in-​​action noti­fi­ca­tion process and the sup­port they pro­vided along the way.

It was an intim­i­dat­ing assign­ment, but one I cher­ish to this day. For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spo­ken with the fam­ily of a fallen ser­vice­mem­ber, I was forced to con­front the world I obliquely reported from afar — to hear the qua­ver­ing voices of moth­ers whose sons had been oblit­er­ated by road­side bombs.

And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as pres­i­dent? The same man Dowd falsely accuses of declin­ing to con­front the real­ity of his war dead.

In my con­ver­sa­tions with those who sac­ri­ficed a son, a hus­band, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were uni­ver­sally grate­ful for George W. Bush’s sin­cere — and pri­vate — con­ver­sa­tions with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a mil­i­tary base. As a rou­tine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with fam­ily mem­bers who’d lost loved ones as part of his stop at mil­i­tary installations.

These were not sim­ply pro-​​war, anti-​​war, pro-​​Bush or anti-​​Bush fam­i­lies — they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; oth­ers were stead­fast, despite their unimag­in­able sac­ri­fice, for vic­tory there. But to a man and women, these griev­ing Americans appre­ci­ated the president’s heart­felt com­pas­sion and deep under­stand­ing of their sac­ri­fice — and of the weight of the deci­sion to send poten­tially more of America’s young to their deaths.

(more…)

There should be lit­tle doubt by this point that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an hon­est bro­ker. His actions since he’s been in office sug­gest he has no per­sonal or polit­i­cal agenda. He’s shown he deeply cares about the troops. So when he does a deep dive on the Air Force’s fighter air­craft require­ment and emerges with 187 as the right num­ber of Raptors — all things con­sid­ered — Americans can feel con­fi­dent that he’s doing the right thing. And tax­pay­ers can actu­ally start to believe that their hard-​​earned dol­lars might not ulti­mately be wasted. Procurement reform just might be possible.

(Cue scary music.) Then Congress shows up and smashes all hope. To wit, AP reports:

Lockheed Martin Corp.‘s F-​​22 pro­gram got an unex­pected lift Wednesday after House law­mak­ers approved $369 mil­lion to con­tinue pro­duc­tion of the radar-​​evading fighter jets.
The sur­prise amend­ment, likely to reopen a debate over the neces­sity of the Cold War planes that cost $140 mil­lion each, was approved by the House Armed Services Committee. Republicans largely backed the mea­sure and were joined by a hand­ful of Democrats in a 31–30 vote.
The extra fund­ing was adopted as part of the 2010 Defense Department spend­ing bill mark-​​up. The bill still needs to make its way through the full House and Senate.

Notice how it’s called a “mark-​​up” and not “mark-​​down” or even “mark-​​sideways”? Same as it ever was …

Read the full AP report here.

– Ward

EDITOR’S NOTE: The com­bined report­ing and brain power of the entire Military​.com/​Defense Tech/​DoD Buzz team was brought to bear last week to com­pile a report card for President Barack Obama’s first 100 days as it related to the mil­i­tary and national secu­rity. I invite you to read the excerpt here and con­tinue with the com­pre­hen­sive story on Military​.com. And I’d also be inter­ested to read your opin­ion on his per­for­mance so far.

In his cam­paign for pres­i­dent, Barack Obama pledged a swift end to the war in Iraq, a new com­mit­ment to the defeat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strong empha­sis on vet­er­ans’ care and mil­i­tary fam­i­lies and a crit­i­cal look at Pentagon spend­ing, strat­egy and con­duct in the war on terrorism. 

Since his inau­gu­ra­tion 100 days ago, Obama has made good on his promise for sweep­ing change in the mil­i­tary, a new tone in the White House’s rela­tion­ship with troops and a per­sonal invest­ment in eas­ing the bur­den of mil­i­tary service. 

But so far his record has been met with con­tro­versy, both for its marked con­sis­tency with the poli­cies of George W. Bush and for its rad­i­cal break from the past that some see as reckless. 

Obama was quick to apol­o­gize for American con­duct in the war on ter­ror­ism and rela­tions with some of its allies dur­ing his trip to Europe in early April. He called for “mutual respect” toward Iran, which com­man­ders in Iraq say sup­plies deadly road­side bombs to insur­gents. And he has agreed to the release of report­edly grue­some pho­tos of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scan­dal, an action that some insid­ers claim will worsen morale in a mil­i­tary ser­vice only now recov­er­ing from the tar­nished pub­lic per­cep­tion stem­ming from that ter­ri­ble chapter.

(more…)

I know I’m going to catch flak from the technophiles out there, but I wanted to for­ward along to you all the story I wrote yes­ter­day on the Navy award­ing its high­est civil­ian honor to Rep. John Murtha (D-​​Pa.). No, this is not specif­i­cally “defense tech,” but it does relate to some­one who has a lot of influ­ence on who gets it.

Anyway, I reported yes­ter­day in a story that has hit the Drudge Report today that for­mer SecNav Donald Winter awarded Murtha with the Navy’s Distinguished Civilian Service medal. This has rubbed some vet groups the wrong way, since Murtha’s anti-​​war out­rage boiled over in May 2006 when he dis­closed pri­vate brief­ings from Marine offi­cials who told him civil­ians had been killed by grunts in Haditha in 2005 and there was an inves­ti­ga­tion going on about why.

As you all know, Murtha called the Marines (and one Navy corps­man) “cold blooded” killers and has refused to recant his posi­tion or apol­o­gize for his remarks despite the Marines’ acquit­tal in mil­i­tary courts on all counts.

Well, I just got off the phone with a Navy offi­cial who gave me a few more details on how the award was bestowed and why.

Bottom line, it was a uni­lat­eral deci­sion by then SecNav Donald Winter, who, just days before he left office, gave these awards to key mem­bers of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel. In other words, he gave them to the folks who gave the Navy money and gear. The offi­cial was unable to pro­vide me with a list of exactly whom these medals were awarded to (pretty spe­cial award, huh?).

The Navy offi­cial told me a typ­i­cal civil­ian can be nom­i­nated for the award and the nom­i­na­tion goes before a board where it’s for­warded to the SecNav who makes the final call. But that didn’t hap­pen this time.

Also, I asked for offi­cial Navy reac­tion to the out­cry from some vets groups and the peti­tion drive to rescind the award from Murtha and he said, “I’m not going to go down that spi­ral with you.”

Q: Does the Navy stand by the award?…

A: “The Secretary of the Navy has the author­ity to present this award, and he did so.”

Case closed…

And, even more mys­te­ri­ously, you’d think that if the Navy was going to bestow its high­est civil­ian award on not just one, but sev­eral civil­ians at one time, they’d have a pretty big cer­e­mony or some­thing, right? Well, the offi­cial couldn’t pro­vide me with any infor­ma­tion on when the awards were given, where the cer­e­mony — if any — was held, or whether the awards were sim­ply mailed to the recip­i­ents with a nice letter.

The offi­cial said he’d get back to me when he found that out, so I’ll update you when he does.

– Christian

From Defense Link:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said today that he will not be stay­ing with Secretary Gates in the Obama Administration. I con­grat­u­late President-​​Elect Obama for retain­ing Bob Gates as sec­re­tary, and I salute Bob Gates for his con­tin­ued com­mit­ment, England said.
However, its time for me to leave. When I came into gov­ern­ment in early 2001, I antic­i­pated serv­ing for two to four years. After almost eight years, its now time for me to turn over the reins to a suc­ces­sor. Also, its most appro­pri­ate for the new admin­is­tra­tion to name its own deputy.
England said he will stay for some time past Jan. 20, if requested, to assure a smooth tran­si­tion.
England added, Its been an aston­ish­ing time to serve the nation under President Bush and along­side Secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Bob Gates, each of whom I greatly admire. I thank the brave men and women of our mil­i­tary, and their fam­i­lies, for their ser­vice and sac­ri­fice, and for the honor of serv­ing them.

Aside: Probably a fair share of cel­e­brat­ing over at Lockheed right now (and not just because they landed a ginor­mous satel­lite con­tract), England was one of the staunchest oppo­nents of the F-​​22.
–John Noonan

Jake Tapper: Gates a “Done Deal“

Sources tell ABC News that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be stay­ing on in the top Pentagon job, for at least the first year of the Obama admin­is­tra­tion. “It is a done deal,” a source close to the process tells ABC News.

Update from Colin: Two sources told me they believe Richard Danzig will be named Deputy Defense Secretary. He will choose the new faces to man the Pentagon, ensur­ing the Obama peo­ple get folks who are loyal to them and reflect their pol­icy incli­na­tions. Apparently, Danzig will hold that slot for up to a year. Then, if all goes well, he will replace Gates.

ALSO:President-​​elect Obama will intro­duce his national secu­rity team to the pub­lic early next week, a sea­soned team that will include: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-​​NY), as Secretary of State; retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as National Security Adviser; retired Adm. Dennis Blair as Director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Gates, while a reg­is­tered inde­pen­dent, has served numer­ous Republican admin­is­tra­tions. President George W. Bush nom­i­nated Gates to replace the Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elec­tions, when the war in Iraq was spi­ral­ing out of control.

The for­mer Eagle Scout is expected to be rolled out imme­di­ately after the Thanksgiving Holiday week­end as part of a larger national secu­rity team expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-​​NY, as Secretary of State; Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

[EDITOR: Okay, I swear, this is the last time a make a polit­i­cal pre­dic­tion. I dis­missed the rumor of Gates’ being retained as ridicu­lous for weeks. Man am I eat­ing crow now. I still say Danzig will even­tu­ally be SecDef…but, wait, there I go again! –Christian]

–John Noonan

There’s been a lot of talk about the impend­ing col­lapse of “the big three” automak­ers over the last two weeks — of course, what peo­ple really are talk­ing about is GM…but panic sells bet­ter, right?

One angle we’ve explored at Military​.com is the effect a col­lapse of one or more of the American automak­ers would have on the defense industry…specifically mil­i­tary vehi­cles like Humvees, Medium trucks, Strykers, tanks and Bradleys.

The answer from our sources: “not much.”

Now, I have a lot of respect for Sen. Karl Levin, the Democratic icon and chair­man of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But his pan­der­ing to the panic and his Michigan con­stituents about how GM’s fail­ure would put American national secu­rity at risk just isn’t sup­ported by the facts.

Former NATO com­man­der Wes Clark tried to tie the two together the other day with an oped in the New York Times where he said stuff like this:

In a lit­tle more than a year, the Army has pro­cured and fielded in Iraq more than a thou­sand so-​​called mine-​​resistant ambush-​​protected vehi­cles. The lives of hun­dreds of sol­diers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achiev­able, by the efforts of the American auto­mo­tive indus­try. And unlike in World War II, America didnt have to divert much civil­ian capac­ity to meet these mil­i­tary needs. Without a vig­or­ous auto­mo­tive sec­tor, those needs could not have been quickly met.

Huh? AM General makes the Humvee and isn’t part of the big three domes­tic mar­ket except for its “Hummer” line of vehi­cles. The armor inno­va­tions didn’t come at all from GM, Ford or Chrysler. MRAPS aren’t made by them either. Where does Clark come up with this?

And even the $3,000 watch-​​wearing, pri­vate jet flyin’ CEOs are claim­ing the Pentagon will suf­fer if there are no more Suburbans made.

Chrysler’s chief exec­u­tive, Robert Nardelli, told the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that a crip­pled auto indus­try “would under­mine our nation’s abil­ity to respond to mil­i­tary chal­lenges and would threaten our national secu­rity.“

My sources are telling me — and oth­ers — that the Big Three pulled out of the defense mar­ket a long time ago, not see­ing it as a prof­itable, sta­ble mar­ket for their goods. In fact, none of the JLTV downs­e­lectees have any ties to the domes­tic auto busi­ness — how’s that for inno­va­tion Wes?

Levin has spread his fear dust all over the coun­try, claim­ing: This is a national secu­rity issue as well as an econ­omy issue, Levin said. But first and fore­most, its a jobs issue,” accord­ing to a report on Crains Detroit Business.

Surely, there could be some down­side to the cri­sis for sup­pli­ers to the defense indus­try. But another source of mine said he’s done some pre­lim­i­nary searches of DoD con­tracts and couldn’t find a sin­gle instance where “this just jumps out at you.” He men­tioned that “you need to go way down the sup­ply chain for some wid­get to find a connection”…but that is very preliminary.

Yes, a col­lapse of one of the Big Three would suck. But a “national secu­rity issue?” That’s a stretch…

– Christian

Senator Clinton isn’t the only female in the hunt for a major cab­i­net posi­tion in the Obama admin­is­tra­tion. Word on the street is that Michelle Flournoy is under strong con­sid­er­a­tion for the Secretary of Defense post.
Ms. Flournoy, a grad­u­ate of Harvard and Oxford, made her bones as a DoD worker bee with the Clinton Administration. She went on to teach at the National Defense University and –in 2007– co-​​founded the respected Center for New American Security. She’s also one of the two prin­ci­pal defense brains assigned to President-​​elect Obama’s tran­si­tion team.
Flournoy knows her busi­ness, has a strong back­ground in both asym­met­ri­cal and tra­di­tional state threats, and seems to believe in a mod­er­ate approach to any with­drawal of American troops from Iraq. She’s expe­ri­enced, qual­i­fied, and her cen­trist posi­tions on defense issues would (seem­ingly) make her a safe choice to head up the DoD.
Unfortunately, Ms. Flournoy’s rea­soned approach to Iraq –with­drawal that takes into con­sid­er­a­tion the effi­cacy of the Iraqi gov­ern­ment and logis­ti­cal real­i­ties– could lock horns with Obama’s ide­o­log­i­cal “with­draw now, regard­less” plan.
Any draw­down that falls short of Obama’s cam­paign promise of expe­dited removal of US troops from the­ater risks upset­ting the eas­ily per­turbed, zeal­ous fac­tion of the Democratic base. That makes Ms. Flournoy almost as polit­i­cally risky as con­tin­u­ing the tenure of cur­rent SECDEF, Robert Gates.
–John Noonan

The Wall Street Journal had an inter­est­ing OpEd yes­ter­day sort of dove tail­ing with Colin’s story from Friday that broke the news of Democratic party Brahman Barney Frank’s call for a 25 per­cent cut in defense spending. 

Now, Frank is not a DoD bud­get deci­sion­maker, but his views tend to jibe closely with the lib­eral lead­er­ship of the House and even some in the Senate. 

The Journal ana­lyzed what Obama and his sup­port­ers have said about what they’d do with defense bud­gets, so it’s worth a close read for a worst case scenario.

We’ve been fight­ing two wars, strain­ing peo­ple and equip­ment. Weapons have gen­er­ally become more com­plex and expen­sive. President Clinton’s “pro­cure­ment hol­i­day” punted the mod­ern­iza­tion prob­lems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spend­ing amounts to just 4% of gross domes­tic prod­uct. By con­trast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spend­ing under Jimmy Carter, the fig­ure was 4.7%.

All this should argue for at least a mod­est recap­i­tal­iza­tion effort by an Obama admin­is­tra­tion, assum­ing it really believes a strong mil­i­tary is “nec­es­sary to sus­tain peace.” A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spend­ing should rise to close to $800 bil­lion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP bench­mark. That’s unre­al­is­tic in light of the finan­cial cri­sis. But hold­ing the line at cur­rent lev­els is doable — and nec­es­sary.

But what if a President Obama doesn’t actu­ally believe in the impor­tance of a strong mil­i­tary to keep the peace? Or has an atten­u­ated idea of what qual­i­fies as a “strong” mil­i­tary? Or con­sid­ers mil­i­tary strength a lux­ury at a moment of finan­cial cri­sis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a sec­ond Great Society?

Does any­one really know where Mr. Obama’s instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited for­mer Marine Gen. James Jones as a mem­ber of his wise man’s cir­cle — which was reas­sur­ing but odd, given that the gen­eral made a point of appear­ing at a McCain cam­paign event sim­ply to dis­tance him­self from the Democratic can­di­date.

The Obama cam­paign has also pro­duced a lengthy defense blue­print on its Web site. It reads more like a social man­i­festo, promis­ing to “improve tran­si­tion ser­vices,” “make men­tal health a pri­or­ity,” and end “don’t-ask, don’t-tell.” All very well, except the doc­u­ment is notably vague on nam­ing the kinds of weapons sys­tems Mr. Obama would actu­ally sup­port.

And so the ques­tion remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced cen­trist or the man from Ben and Jerry’s?

From the writ­ing I’m see­ing on the wall, we can basi­cally for­get end-​​strength increases. There’s no polit­i­cal cap­i­tal in increas­ing the size of the mil­i­tary, but there’s plenty of bacon in hardware.

(more…)

A lit­tle uncon­ven­tional I know, but I fig­ured I’d toss out the invite to come over to Military.com’s Election Center blog to dis­cuss the speeches tonight at the Republican con­ven­tion, includ­ing the keynote address from John McCain.

We’ll be doing it live from the press stand at the event. So if you wanna get all riled up, come on over.

– Christian