Partisan Promotions

It's things like this that make me suspect an anti-Army attitude in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

According to the Washington Post, the two Army National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) analysts who made the case that Iraq's aluminum tubes were meant for nuclear centrifuges  received annual performance bonuses for each of the past three years. They had not sought or obtained information available from the Energy Department or other sources that would have shown that the tubes were used for military rocket-motor cases.

The NGIC assessment of the aluminum tubes was described by the president's intelligence commission as a "gross failure." The agency was "completely wrong," said the panel, when it judged in September 2002 that the tubes Iraq was purchasing were "highly unlikely" to be used for rocket-motor cases because of their "material and tolerances."

The commission found that aluminum tubes with similar tolerances were used in a previous Iraqi rocket, called the Nasser 81, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had published details about that system in 1996, as had the U.S. Department of Energy in 2001. The commission's report said "the two primary NGIC rocket analysts said they did not know the dimensions" of the older Nasser 81 rocket and were unaware of the IAEA and Energy Department reports.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun reports that Lieutenant General John Riggs was demoted last year on his way out to retirement to a two-star rank due to an unsatisfactory command during his five years as a three-star. The official reason is that, while acting as the director of the Objective Force Task Force (Army transformation), he allowed a female contractor to draft congressional testimony, respond to congressional correspondence, and communicate with Capitol Hill staffers. The contractor was serving as a "deputy director," which amounted to an improper "personal services contract" - the position should have been filled by a government employee. This resulted in a "memorandum of concern" written by General John Keane, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, to him, a memorandum that was not placed in his personnel file. This took place in October 2003.

In January 2004, he made his "mistake." He stated in an interview with the Sun that the Army was too small to meet its global requirements and must be substantially increased. Of course, this was contrary to official OSD statements - DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz storms in to see General George Casey, former Director of the Joint Staff and then-Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and complains. Casey tells Riggs to "stay in his lane" and not talk, and oh by the way, what about your retirement plans? He drops his retirement papers in early March. In late April, Casey tells Riggs that acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee had reviewed the retirement and determined his service was not satisfactory, resulting in the demotion. On May 1, Riggs leaves the Army - no ceremony, no parades, no "thanks for your 39 years of service." Casey goes on to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq.

In a series of interviews, Riggs said he still wrestles with why he was demoted but believes his outspokenness was part of the equation.

"Do I think it is?" he said. "I thought it must have something to do with it. You've got to do it the Rumsfeld way, or you're not going to go forward.

"When you ask a general officer, 'What do you think?' you should be able to answer candidly. I think he's politicized the general officer corps by making the personal selections of everyone."

Brownlee dismissed the contention that his actions amounted to a political vendetta. "I know that's what some of them will assert," said Brownlee, an Army combat veteran in Vietnam who was the top staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It was not political."

During his 18 months as acting Army secretary, Brownlee could not recall any other general that he reduced in rank.

Riggs is appealing his case to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. His supporters include Generals Eric Shinseki, John Keane, Larry Ellis, Jay Garner, and 38 other general officers. I don't know Riggs personally or professionally, but this stinks to high heaven.

Comments

[Jeffrey Lewis]

Republicans? Anti-Army?

Uh-huh.

Check out Chapter Three of Frances Fitzgerald's Way Out There in the Blue

.

She offers a pretty compelling argument that Democrats and Republicans have long been divided between focusing on Europe viz Asia and Latin America, Army versus Navy and Airpower.

That debate help explains why Republicans were so strongly opposed to Clinton's peacekeeping efforts, as well as the last QDR's "heavy emphasis on long-range precision strike" and "shift of military focus to Asia and the Pacific ..."

Given my own work's emphasis on the changing nature of security threats (away from deliberate state-on-state intervention), I've long believed Democrats need to be the party of the Army, centered on a strategy of peacekeeping and nation-building.

[J.]

I wasn't going to blame Republican party overall, though certainly those neo-cons and OSD leadership that are anti-Army are Repubs. But you raise an interesting point, in that a possible strategy for Dems to show their national security interests would be through their support of Army issues. Not a bad point at all, in fact, it's very good.

[DK]

The fact that Rumsfeld and company could not find a serving active duty General to serve as Army Chief of Staff tell you something.
Also, recall that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and entire company skipped General Shinseki's retirement ceremony. I hope the appeal portend more favorable for Gen Riggs, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In an organization where ceremony is part of what drives the espirt, these actions are unpardonable.
Excellent post!

[Bobby]

>>I've long believed Democrats need to be the party of the Army, centered on a strategy of peacekeeping and nation-building.<<

>>But you raise an interesting point, in that a possible strategy for Dems to show their national security interests would be through their support of Army issues. Not a bad point at all, in fact, it's very good.<<

Fellas, I'm the first to admit that the Army is far too "Republicanized" for what should be an apolitical institution-- in fact, I've been mentally working on a blog about precisely that topic (maybe this will inspire me to put my thoughts to keyboard). But what you're talking about would take an effort of truly epic proportions.

For starters, any Democratic effort to capture Army "sympathies" (if not votes) would have to acknowledge the inherent social conservatism of the people who go into the Army-- just as the media has an understandably liberal bias because of who is likely to go into journalism, or big business has an understandably capitalist bias, the Army has a naturally socially conservative streak (coming from the values that make it appealing to a young man or woman to join). So to the extent that they vote for non-Army type issues, you'd be competing with the Republicans on their positions on, say, abortion or prayer in school or gay rights. That's problem number one.

Then, too, there's a sizable community that believes the Global War on Terror (or, before it, Kosovo, and before that, Bosnia, and before that, Panama, etc.) is just another codeword for American imperialism, an excuse to continue the oppression of the people of the Third World. To the extent that these people are in either of the two mainstream parties, they're Democrats. This, in turn, turns off soldiers who don't like to be told that what they're doing is evil or imperialist (that is, especially those who serve multiple enlistments, are likely to believe in American exceptionalism). There's just a natural tension between these two factions, and many soldiers would hate to be identified with this organization for that reason alone.

Even winning over their votes with positions on a "strategy of peacekeeping and nation-building" isn't likely to go very far. At least relative to the "glorious" maneuver warfare, the Army *detests* peacekeeping and nation-building, and would likely see this as further confirmation of a liberal conspiracy to undermine their true mission ("To fight and win the nation's wars"). There has never been a serious move within the Army's uniformed ranks to embrace peacekeeping or nation-building, regardless of its relevance on the modern battlefield. And any attempt to frame the issue in such a way would likely lose votes, rather than win them.

All of which is to say it's not a lost cause and I think the Army would *gain* by shifting more to the center, but I just don't see that shift as being as natural as, say, Nixon's "Southern strategy" to bring the southern states into the Republican Party once and for all. But to make it work, you have to understand the dynamics of how the men and women in uniform think, and not just how you would want them to think.

I'd also recommend you take a look at the Triangle Institute for Strategic Studies who did an excellent survey and analysis of military culture a few years back.

[J.]

Bobby - having been in uniform for seven years, I don't claim to be an expert but was deep in the military culture. I harbor no illusions about "winning over" the Army officers. What I suggest is that the Dems could go far by demonstrating that the Repub party is doing harm to the Army, and that the Dems do have a national security platform that is reasonable and palatable to the American public. The poor treatment of Army GOs is only one symptom; pork projects like Sen Chamblis (R-GA) forcing the DOD to buy $5 billion of C130s that we don't need is another.

I understand your point that the Dem platform for a national security strategy has to be outlined - I think Kerry/Edwards had a good start on their webpage. Obviously the Dems need to demonstrate in actions that they are smart on military issues in Congress and they need to publicize that message - and that does not mean blind obedience to the faulty strategy that is in place today for Iraq.

But win over the Army officers? no, not today, not in two years, maybe not in ten years. I just suggest that if the Dems were smart, they could capitalize on the Repub's and the Bush administration's rough treatment of the Army. I didn't say it would be easy.

[CKR]

Somewhat peripheral, but coming by way of Jeffrey's comment.

It has seemed to me that the primary source of attacks on the Los Alamos National Laboratory has been Republican members of the House of Representatives, like Christopher Cox of California.

The warmongers don't like the Army or the developers of nuclear weapons. What gives?

[J.]

I can't address the LANL issue - I think there's just some real frustration with how the labs are managed. Not my area. As to Congress' view and/or the OSD view of the Army, part of it is the Army's culture of not kissing up to the leadership - they make their case for what they need, they don't get all of what they need, they salute and drive on. The AF, Navy, and MC all play the game much better as far as wining and dining the legislators and ensuring their acquisition programs get funded. It's an institutional thing - see Stephen Scroggs' book, "Army Relations with Congress: Thick Armor, Dull Sword, Slow Horse" for an excellent discussion.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

"But win over the Army officers? no, not today, not in two years, maybe not in ten years."

You had to go and burst my bubble, didn't you?

Seriously though- don't you think that the Generals, who have extensive education and understand the emerging threats we may face and who see first hand the ways in which the Bush Administration is crippling our abilities to deal with these threats (and more generally the ways in which they harm our national defense) would be a lot easier to win over? They may be conservative, but what exactly is conservative about today's Republican Party?

[J.]

I think the Army generals may have the wisdom and experience to know the Repubs aren't necessarily their friends. It's the majority of captains, majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels that (I believe) are more partisan and don't trust Dems, no matter how batty the Repubs are or how good the Dems are. I'm not saying it's logical, just that they're not thinking it through. And they're the ones perpetuating the culture.

[tj]

"The AF, Navy, and MC all play the game much better as far as wining and dining the legislators and ensuring their acquisition programs get funded."

The other services have an advantage in the fact their primary war fighting ability comes through their expensive projects like aircraft and ships which are build by a defense industry which heavily lobbies our elected leadership. Although the Army also has very expensive projects their primary means of fighting is via men on the ground not equipment. But even in the Army it seems to me recently those reaching the highest levels are from the armor branch, the same branch which the defense industry can profit from producing equipment for it rather then see the money used to pay for more men, training, and smaller equipment to support those infantry, and light units.

[J.]

That's an interesting point, and certainly the Army's big ticket items, most commonly combat equipment, does capture Congressional attention. However, I'd point out that any of the combat arms guys - infantry, armor, artillery - usually get the top leadership positions, along with a few engineers and ordnance guys. Prior to Shelton and Shoemaker, even the snake-eaters were not that prolific as top advisors. I'd still say the Army doesn't play the game to the point that the other services do - point in mind, that the M1A3 tank modifications were severely cut back, as well as Crusader, Commanche, and now even Future Combat Systems.

[tj]

"I'd still say the Army doesn't play the game to the point that the other services do - point in mind, that the M1A3 tank modifications were severely cut back, as well as Crusader, Commanche, and now even Future Combat Systems."

I would agree which further proves my point. Those systems are what the defense industry wants and are lobbying for. The Army is caught in a catch-22 they can't support both the manpower and the major weapon's systems so with a limited budget the army leadership, rightly so, choses men over machines and in so doing hurts themselves against the other services and the defense industry all lobbying for more big ticket items which also happens to help out the congressmen who's districts are supported by the defense industry.

[Bobby]

I agree with the Naval-Air Force's "natural alliance" with what might be called the military-industrial complex, but I wouldn't go so far as to include the Marines. Their only big ticket item of note is the V-22 Osprey, and that's more of the exception than the rule, I think. They actually have quite the reputation for a "beans and bullets" mentality, and technology be damned kind of attitude. For example, they're still using the AH-1 Cobra and M60 Main Battle Tank, which the US Army has rejected even for our National Guard. In any case, my experience has been that an average Marine is far better trained than his equivalent Army counter-part (not that I like it, mind you).

I also think the Army has made a lot of our own mess with the Pentagon civilians-- SECDEFs since Les Aspen have been directing us to get lighter (Bill Clinton *campaigned* on it), more Joint and more expeditionary, and we've rejected it because those aren't the kind of operations that we want to fight.

A lot of that plays out in why the Generals that *should* see that the RNC is not necessarily pro-military *don't*-- they see this kind of war (counter-insurgencies, peacekeeping operations, and low intensity conflicts) as being an anomaly and the not the norm for the kind of military operations that we should prepare to fight for. You see it in our training, doctrine, organization, and technology investments. This is my second tour on a general's staff, so I get some face-time with big brass and I'm almost always disappointed by their failure to cope with the emerging threat and what we need to do to face their assymetric operations (LTG Barno was the exception, but his background helps explain why).

In any case, I agree that it would be in the Army's interest to de-politicize and move closer to the political center. I just don't see it happening given the outright hostility that soldiers have to the Democratic Party, not to mention the natural tendency of a small (but very vocal) wing of the Democratic Party to (unintentionally) offend soldiers with their rhetoric and issues.

But, hey, more power to you: I am myself a crusader of lost causes!

[Scott]

I knew and worked for General Riggs, he was an honest and decent man, this whole thing is crap, what kind of world do we live in when your pounded for simply giving your oppinion on a particular matter. The top levels of the OSD out to resign for being anti american...

[David B. Nolan, Esq.]

I wish to subscribe.

Dave Nolan
703-780-1864

[J.]

Dave - the "subscription" is through RSS if you have a web page. Not an automatic function for non-webpagers.