My Failure
     One of the fundamental rules of a successful blog is to post often and consistently.  I admit that recently I have failed to do so.  I apologize for the failure.  The reason (not an excuse) is that I have been writing a book which will be published in the next thirty days.  The title of the book is Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots.  It questions whether the All-Volunteer Force is working and whether it will work in the future.  The book outlines an alternative to the All-Volunteer Force which provides sufficient manpower to support our national security, closes the civil-military gap, and saves the American taxpayer $75 billion per year.  The alternative also allows us to render moot the question "what if we had a war and no one showed up on our side?"  Going forward I intend to post entries to this blog at least twice per week.
     I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Army Times which was published in the 19 August 2013 edition:

When "Chain" Fails
     I find the debate regarding UCMJ authority over sexual assault cases in the military ironic.  The argument advance by the uniformed service chiefs that the "chain of command" can fix the problem asks the American people and Congress to ignore that they and their predecessors have failed to fix the problem for at least the past twenty years.  The Tailhook scandal happened in 1991, Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1995, and the Air Force Academy scandal in 2003.  Their argument is further weakened by the fact that, in many cases, members of the "chain of command" served as enablers or perpetrators of sexual assault.
     Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's bill to give independent military prosecutors, rather than commanders, the power to decide which sexual assault crimes to try would correct a long-standing weakness in the military justice system that discourages victims from reporting attacks resulting in low prosecution rates.  The current system under the stewardship of the "chain of command" has failed not only victims and their families but also the institution.  For decades we have heard sanctimonious statements about zero tolerance and innovative programs only to have sexual violence in our military increase.  This ongoing failure to fix the problem adversely affects the readiness and capability of our Army as soldiers lose trust in those who have the responsibility to lead them.  High-quality women are less inclined to enlist or reenlist in an institution that systematically fails them.
     Rather than asking Congress to allow the "chain of command" to retain the UCMJ authority over sexual assault cases, senior uniformed bureaucrats might consider asking for forgiveness from the thousands of victims of sexual violence that the "chain of command" has failed to serve.

Interpreting Egypt

Yesterday's Sunday morning talk shows were particularly interesting as US government officials and pundits employed twisted talk and tortured logic to call the ousting of the first democratically elected president of Egypt anything other than a coup.  Webster's dictionary defines a coup as "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics".  President Morsi was elected by more than 51% of the voters, his party won the parliamentary elections, and the constitution he championed was supported by 64% of the voters.  After just one year in office he was ousted because he was unable to effectively unite a fractured nation after decades of authoritarian (and US supported) rule.  Most observers would agree that Morsi was not having great success in dealing with Egypt's problems.

The US government's response to these events have significant implications with few good options.  First, the US is required by law to suspend the $1.5 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military as a result of the coup thus reducing US influence in Egyptian affairs even more.  Second, it makes reconciliation and negotiation with the Afgan Taliban more difficult as we ask them to lay down their arms and join the Afgan political process.  The Taliban's lesson from Egypt is that if they do so successfully the US may mount or condone a coup.  Is Karzi in Afganistan any more effective or inclusive than Morsi in Egypt in terms of governing?  Finally, the twisted talk and tortured logic may resonate with the American public but it sounds like hypocrisy to much of the Arab world.......the US supports emerging democracy in other countries only if they elect candidates we support.

Stonewalling

Last month I wrote about the CIA giving Afghan President Karzai large sums of cash on a regular basis for a long time.  Both the CIA and the Karzai government acknowledged these payments and the CIA said they would continue.  You may have thought that someone in the U.S. government, perhaps the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would look into this.  Well, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn), the ranking member, has sent three written requests (May 2, May 14 and June 13) to the White House seeking information about the payments.  The White House has not yet replied to any of his three written requests for information.

In his letters, Corker states “I write again to request an explanation of the incoherent United States policy in Afghanistan made evident by the claims of cash payments to President Karzai.”  Regarding reducing corruption, he goes on to say “I am deeply concerned that these alleged cash payments undermine these efforts and enhance corruption in Afghanistan.  Even if these alleged payments may have short-term value for the United States from a national security or intelligence perspective, they may be severely counterproductive in the long run.”

Given the responsibilities and authority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this seems like a reasonable request.  The problem could be that there is no “good” answer.

 

Learning Disabled

While more than 60,000 American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq falls further into sectarian chaos, President Obama has decided to  militarily involve the United States in a civil war in Syria.  His rationale rests on Syrian civilian casualties and refugees, his longstanding statements that Assad “must go,” and the use of chemical weapons by Assad.  He is also seeking to offset the support to Assad provided by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah and bring a balance to the battlefield.

 President Obama has just stepped onto a slippery slope with a military and diplomatic quagmire at its bottom.  There is no evidence that his decision is part of a regional grand strategy  or that we have identified the ways and means that will achieve an (as yet unidentified) end.  This is a civil war and both sides have contributed to the 90,000 deaths and Mr. Assad retains the support of a significant portion of the Syrian population.  Further U.S. involvement morphs this civil war into a proxy war between the U.S., Europe, and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the other.  The latter group has significantly greater national interests in Syria than the former.  Furthermore, this alignment makes Russian support of U.S. efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program more unlikely and reduces Israel’s security.  Finally, arming the rebels has the effect of prolonging and  intensifying the fighting and makes a diplomatic or political solution less likely.

 President Obama and his advisors have stepped into this dark, slippery slope by ignoring both history and current reality.   Our history in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt and Libya says that we have not been very successful bending outcomes to support our interests.  And the current reality is that we are a debtor nation reducing funding for Head Start and cancer research while now deciding to spend scarce dollars in support of an unstructured rebel force in Syria without any end state having been identified.  When reacting is substituted for strategic thinking learning suffers. 

News Gets Worse From Afghanistan

Just when the American people might have thought that they already had experienced the limits of poor judgment and arrogance in our endless and expensive occupation of Afghanistan, the bar was raised, according to the New York Times article “Karzai says CIA will keep cash coming” in Sunday’s Dispatch.

The American and Afghan governments admit that the CIA has given Afghan president Hamid Karzai bags of cash every month for years amounting to tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. All the while, the U.S. government has criticized the Afghan government for corruption. This is the same U.S. government that is struggling with a huge budget deficit and cutting funds to Head Start and cancer research.

The Afghan war already has claimed the lives of 2,138 American service members and cost $1 trillion. Must what remains of American moral authority join lives and treasure lost in Afghanistan, the “Graveyard of Empires”? In my professional judgment, there is no vital national security interest nor the prospect for a win in Afghanistan for the United States.

We should exit Afghanistan as soon as possible, thus conserving blood, treasure and moral authority.

Writers Didn’t Walk in Soldiers’ Boots

The following is an oped published in the Columbus Dispatch on February 9, 2013.

I respond to the three syndicated columns published (Gail Collins, Jan 25; Linda Chavez, Jan 26; and Kathleen Parker, Jan 29) after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that he was lifting the rule barring women from serving in combat. 

I have reviewed the biographies of the three columnists and found no indication that any of them served in the military.

Nonetheless, each of them wrote unabashedly about the effect women in combat would have on unit cohesion, readiness and combat effectiveness.

This is the intellectual equivalent of prostitutes receiving technical advice from nuns.  It also reflects a reality that most Americans view the military in general and the way it is manned in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance and guilt. 

American women have served in combat since the Civil War. The fact that most women do not have the upper body strength or endurance of most men is not a sufficient reason to deny all women the opportunity to serve in combat, if they meet standards and volunteer.

Second, women’s career advancement in the military is limited by the fact that they are excluded from the combat arms.  Third, women serve with distinction in combat-support and combat-service-support functions today and the pregnancy red  herring raised by the writers is not an issue that precludes their service in these critical functions; there is no reason to believe it will be more or less an issue in the combat arms.

Finally, women make up 14 percent of our military today.  In 1973 when the draft ended, it was 2 percent.

Without the participation of women, the all-volunteer-force concept is dead. Women deserve the equality of opportunity that comes from eliminating the combat-exclusion rule.

Panetta’s announcement only moves the issue from the theoretical to the operational.  In the meantime, we may be wise to let informed professionals frame the issues and propose a way forward rather than have uninformed dilettantes add confusion and hyperbole.

A Great Choice

I am not particularly big on making predictions but I will predict that Chuck Hagel will go down in history as one of the best Secretaries of Defense of modern times.  He has the right mix of confidence, experience, intellect, and commitment to tackle the tough issues facing the Pentagon.  Principal among those issues is reducing military spending, withdrawing from Afghanistan, reducing the size of the force, and creating administrative discipline in the military bureaucracy.  He will not suffer fools and will not be intimidated or politically undercut by the general and flag officer priesthood of the Pentagon and he will give the Commander in Chief honest advice....whether he wants it or not.  The fact that he is a twice wounded enlisted veteran of the Vietnam war gives him credibility with the troops that few of his "chicken hawk"detractors can match.  If he is confirmed there will be exciting times at the five sided Puzzle Palace across the Potomac.