Armchair Generalist

Condi Rice: Can She Be That Dumb?

I don't know if there is any Bush administration official who pains me as much as Condi Rice does. She's an educated woman, lots of opportunity to learn how things work in the Pentagon, State Department, and White House, and yet she says the most ridiculous, stupid things. She was quizzed by a Stanford student who noted that the United States had not used torture during World War II.

Q: Even in World War II facing Nazi Germany, probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced –

RICE: Uh, with all due respect, Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.

Q: No, but they bombed our allies –

RICE: No, just a second, just a second. Three-thousand Americans died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Q: 500,000 died in World War II –

RICE: Fighting a war in Europe.

Q: — and yet we did not torture the prisoners of war.

RICE: We didn’t torture anybody here either.

As Rob Farley points out - and, by the way, you don't have to be a history professor to know this - German submarines sunk a good number of American ships within the territorial waters of the United States. So in fact, the Germans did attack the US homeland, and yet our government didn't torture German POWs to find out where the "next attack" would be.

With all due respect, Dr. Rice, you're an embarrassment. And you did authorize waterboarding of at least three al Qaeda terrorists, which - by everyone's account except for you and your Bush administration colleagues - is defined as torture. Perhaps some day, a court will actually hold you accountable for those actions.

Unscrupulous Advocates

I really want to ask Loren Thompson exactly what level he would stoop to in his efforts to advocate Air Force acquisition programs. How much would he ignore in his protestations that OSD is not giving struggling program offices a chance to mature their technologies? Well, now I know. He wrote to the National Defense magazine in an effort to combat what he saw as "bad press" when that journal critically reviewed the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. Here's what was stated by Grace Jean in the March article:

Just a year ago, the Pentagon’s science advisors warned that a lack of progress in the development of directed-energy weapons has resulted in a significant decline in interest and support for these technologies. The panel of advisors, known as the Defense Science Board, pointed out that not a single directed energy system has been fielded to date, and that there are fewer programs currently under way than there were a decade ago.

One of the toughest technical challenges is producing lasers with enough lethal energy to surpass conventionally powered weapons, says Philip Coyle, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information and a former director of weapons testing at the Pentagon. “It’s really hard to beat the amount of energy in a rifle bullet, let alone even more powerful weapons systems,” he says. To do so with a laser requires a large and heavy system that is not conducive to the rigors of the battlefield.

Military laboratories and contractors have spent decades trying to boost the power in laser systems while trying to pare down the package, with limited success.

“It’s not easy and nobody has really succeeded yet,” says Coyle.

Despite limited gains and successes, the program still has not convinced members of Congress or OSD leaders that this is a viable and operational capability that should be further funded. And when we say funded, it has already had $4.3 billion poured into the effort. Thompson leaps to the defense:

While lasers are not always a cost-effective alternative to conventional “kinetic” weapons, they are distinctly unique. They deliver lethal energy at the speed of light — about 300,000 kilometers per second — and are not subject to physical constraints such as gravity and atmospheric drag. In many applications they cost much less per kill than using missiles or munitions. They also are more precise and more versatile than other weapons. For instance, depending on power levels, the same laser device can be used to destroy a target, nonlethally disable it, or simply track it. 

The performance of the airborne laser program needs to be understood against this backdrop. It is true that the program has been delayed several years by technical challenges, and that it consumes more funding than all of the government’s other directed-energy weapons programs combined. But it has made steady progress toward operational status, and will provide revolutionary capabilities when it gets there.
----------
It may turn out to be the only weapon that can successfully destroy ballistic missiles headed for the United States before they release multiple warheads and penetration aids. If the system achieves successful shoot-down of a live target this year it is a huge breakthrough, and if it doesn’t then it deserves to be tested a second time. It doesn’t make sense to spend 15 years and $4.3 billion on a vital capability, and then throw it all away because of one failed test.

Thompson uses Edison's search for a durable light bulb and the development of the Internet as similar examples of how research and development efforts took time to show their true potential. But those are inappropriate examples, not only because the federal government didn't pour billions into those programs. Just because we can put a large, expensive chemical laser in the sky does not mean that it ought to be developed as a military capability. For the ABL to be successful, it basically has to be flying near the launch point of the ballistic missile to catch it during the boost phase. So do the math - for every nuclear-owning weapon state, we have to have a number of Boeing 747s flying loops around that state, waiting for the launch to occur. Does this sound like a reasonable operational concept?

Thompson gets quoted heavily in major news papers in addition to writing frequently on Air Force (and other defense) topics for his think tank, the Lexington Institute. His advocacy goes a step too far when he ignores the substantial cost of research and development to date, the lack of a sound operational concept, and competing defense requirements during wartime. President Obama and SecDef Gates were right to push this program back into early R&D. Had I been within earshot of those two, I would have pushed for killing it entirely - but Congress probably wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Run Away, Run Away!

Don't mail unmarked baking products in envelopes... From Lewiston, Maine:

Police say a white powder that led to the shutdown of a bank processing center last week was nothing more than baking powder and sugar.

About 100 employees were evacuated from the TD Banknorth center in Lewiston for several hours after a worker opened an envelope containing the suspicious powder.

Police told the Sun Journal in Lewiston that state crime laboratory analysts determined the contents of the envelope, which had a blank sheet of paper in it, no return address and a New Jersey postmark.

People do strange things for thrills.

UPDATE: As PJC notes in comments, Boston officials find a "suspicious white powder" in a letter that turned out to be laundry detergent. I wonder how long it took them to figure out the obvious.

Poor Public Health Policy in Play

It appears I must abandon my pledge not to blog on swine flu issues - while I can't offer any medical points of view, I certainly can talk to the policy aspects. As our self-induced drama over the swine flu continues, administration officials are already starting to move into action - because any semblance of action is better than, you know, actually developing an effective plan based on risk management principles. From NPR this morning:

Normally it takes six months to make a regular flu vaccine. An effective vaccine protects most people from getting the flu. It would be the primary weapon against a flu pandemic — if it can be made, distributed and gotten into people's arms in time.

Bruce Gellin, the nation's top vaccine official, says the plan is to make enough swine flu vaccine for all 304 million Americans by September — only five months from now. Gellin is deputy assistant secretary for Health and Human Services for vaccinations, immunizations and infectious diseases.

Gellin says the first decision points on whether to go ahead will be in early June. That's when manufacturers would be told to switch over from making regular seasonal flu vaccine to a special swine flu vaccine. Fortunately, he says, the nation's flu vaccine makers will be finished by then with making all the components for next season's regular flu vaccine.

Now there are all sorts of things wrong with this decision, and the article does a fairly good job of discussing the issues. My major point is this: the influenza flu causes on average about 40,000 deaths within the United States, about three orders of magnitude over swine flu (so far). So we're going to tell all the flu vaccine producers to drop everything to switch to this new fear. Have we forgotten the swine flu case of 1976 so quickly?

Experts are haunted by what happened with the nation's last campaign to vaccinate against swine flu back in 1976. It was halted after 45 million Americans got flu shots, because several hundred people came down with Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare paralyzing disease. Some of them died.

And in the end, the threatened swine flu pandemic never materialized.

History repeats itself? Well, maybe the administration can bill the swine flu production as part of the economic stimulus. That might be more beneficial than actually planning to use it. Policy makers ought to be cautiously examining the overall public health needs and priorities. We've had years to develop plans for a pandemic flu outbreak - it's hard to believe that these points have not been discussed and that we're going to let blind panic of a few outbreaks drive our public policy.

UPDATE: And of course, the most hilarious thing would be to defend the policy of not planning for a pandemic flu outbreak after years of discussion on this topic.

Educating the Media

Bad enough when policy wonks and post-9/11 security consultants want to confuse bioterrorism with pandemic flu response. It's really easy - epidemiologists can track contagious diseases and plan public health responses to counter them. The public can take steps to reduce exposure to specific, known diseases. Bioterrorists are expected to use small doses of unknown organisms that may or may not spread from a single or multiple sources. You use law enforcement and intelligence sources to stop bioterrorists.

Not hard to understand that there is one fundamental common area between bioterrorism and public health - the medical response aspect - but the differences are far more distinct. This is clear to almost everyone not trying to exploit public fears of bioterrorism - which explains the attitudes of some reporters in the White House press pool quizzing the acting CDC director.

 Q    Secretary Napolitano, I believe Japan and South Korea have both now announced that they're going to begin testing on passengers coming in from the U.S.  Why is the U.S. not doing that with passengers coming in from Mexico?  And then also, do you have any indications -- I know it's still very early yet -- but any indications that perhaps this might have been caused by bioterrorism, this new strain of flu?
---------
DR. BESSER:  Yes, the question about the strain that we're seeing here, we analyzed that strain and are continuing to do further analysis of that strain and we expect to see the emergence of new flu strains.  That's something that we are continually watching for to ensure that we're ready should a strain emerge that there's not immunity and protection in the community for it.  This strain is not unlike other new strains that have emerged.  It's an assortment -- it's got genetic components from a number of sources, including human, swine, and avian sources.  And that's something that you see with new strains.
 
And so there's nothing that we have seen in our work that would suggest anything but a naturally occurring event.
 
Q    But from a security perspective, nothing to rule it out either -- the possibility of bioterrorism?
 
MR. BRENNAN:  We are looking at all different aspects here, but as the doctor said, there is no evidence whatsoever that we have seen.  But clearly, in order to make sure that we're doing everything possible, we're looking at all potential explanations here -- but no evidence whatsoever on the bioterrorism --

Yes, why not run with a big headline "US GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO RULE OUT BIOTERRORISM" - what idiots infest our White House reporter pool... As Jon Stewart said on Monday night, "He said NO the first time!"

US Chem Demil Marches On

The US Army Chemical Materials Agency announced hitting the 60 percent destruction mark in its efforts to eliminate the US chemical weapons stockpile. It won't make the 2012 deadline, but it is making steady progress using a safe and efficient technology - incineration.

"We have increased our efficiency at destroying the nation's chemical weapons stockpile while maintaining the highest safety and environmental compliance standards," said Conrad Whyne, CMA Director. "This accomplishment is the result of a true team effort between our storage and destruction staff consisting of both government and contractor personnel, and I commend the dedication of the members of our highly skilled work force," he added.

"It took eight years to destroy the first 10 percent of agent, including agent destroyed before the CWC entered into force. Back then, the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) was our first operating facility, and we were still mastering operations," said Col. Robert Billington, CMA Project Manager for Chemical Stockpile Elimination. "Since then, we have systematically applied the lessons learned from JACADS and our other operating sites to continually improve our efficiency," he said.

You may not recognize the significance of the colonel's last sentence there - Congress specifically told the Army that it had to test and operate the JACADS facility, and then develop and implement "lessons learned" prior to beginning the next chemical incineration plant. You might say, well that makes sense - but what it had was the effect of delaying the schedule by about six or seven years while the demil critics took the Army to court over this exact issue.

But the good news - steady progress, no accidents, eventually we'll get rid of all the materials. Sure, India, South Korea, and Albania have completed their chemical weapons destruction - but they had a very, very small stockpile as compared to the US stockpile of 30,000 tons. And if Congress - Senator McConnell in particular - would have gotten out of the way, we would have been done by now as well.

Do Not Panic - All Is Well

I have heard news organizations interviewing "bioterrorist experts" for their views on the swine flu. There is this school of thought that bioterrorism and pandemic flues are similar topics because medics are involved in both cases. That's a really poor policy position to take. I'm not going to comment about the swine flu, because I'm not a medic. But I'm not going to listen to a "bioterrorist expert" tell me about pandemic flues either.

As Kotare says, keep it in perspective, people.

Run Away, Run Away!

Another "white powder" scare in Tampa, Florida. It may be - as shocking as this sounds - that first responders are beginning to learn not to overreact to these incidents.

A suspicious white powder found in an envelope at the Hillsborough County Courthouse this afternoon is not anthrax, Tampa Fire Rescue officials said.
--------
The envelope was found about 12:45 p.m. in the clerk of the court's felony division on the second-floor of the annex building at Jefferson Street and Kennedy Boulevard. The first and second floors at the north end of the annex were evacuated, but employees have been cleared to return.

Sixty people work in the area but only the clerk who opened the envelope was considered at risk for exposure, (Capt Bill) Wade said.

Yes, it's only taken years to figure out that you don't have to close the building and decontaminate everyone inside of it when an envelope of "suspicious white powder" is found.

India Destroys Its Chemical Weapons

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is doing cartwheels due to India's formal announcement that it has eliminated its inventory of chemical weapons. Technically, this is the third country to do so - South Korea and Albania being the first two - but in my opinion, countries with a tiny percentage of what Russia and the United States have really don't count that much. But it's the principle of the thing, I guess...

India on March 26 notified the Technical Secretariat to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that it had completed operations, according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.

"I wish to sincerely, warmly, and emphatically congratulate India on this laudable achievement, which is the result of a consistent and unwavering commitment shown by India since entry into force of the convention," he told the agency's Executive Council. "This attainment further strengthens the convention as an effective instrument for promoting the objectives of peace and security."

I'll continue to be contrary and say, I don't think it's the treaty that convinces nations to abandon their chemical weapons. The treaty gives nations an excuse to do the right thing, once they figure out that conventional smart munitions give them all the capability that they need in today's and tomorrow's combat operations. Chemical and biological weapons are third-generation defense systems - they could still be used in minor nation-versus-nation battles, but all of the modern nations have moved on to weapons that are more lethal and more precise. Nukes - well, they'll never be obsolete for strategic warfare, but I don't think we'll ever see a "tactical" nuclear weapon used in combat.

Let the OPCW have its day. I don't think we'll ever see the last dozen nations sign on to the treaty in our lifetime, not until Israel gives up its "alleged" nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. But India did - let's see if Pakistan follows suit with some transparency of its own.

Chuck Bartowski Knows Kung Fu

The season finale for "Chuck" aired last night. It was a killer - he quit the Buy More store, his big sister got married, his family is okay, he got to dance with his girl, and - oh yeah - he just became Neo when he uploaded the second generation intersect. Last line of the show: "Guys - I know kung fu!"

Next season should be very interesting. If you haven't watched this show, catch up on it before the next season starts. Adam Baldwin alone is worth the price of admission, but this show has a great cast, good humor, and good plots. Nerds rejoice! We CAN have the money, the girl, and the fun.

Marine Corps - Always Independent, But Not Always Good

There's a story in the Marine Corps News that the USMC's Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) has decided that it needs a mobile laboratory to support its various support missions in homeland security and combat operations. They're quite pleased with themselves.

“The mobile laboratory is an analytical suite on a mobile platform,” said Dr. Erick Swartz, who is the resident scientist here. “It is designed to analyze gases but more specifically, liquids and solids that give off a gas.”

With such a state-of-the-art piece of equipment, training on how to use it is vital to its implementation. Being able to recognize the contaminants in a contaminated area, identification and detection platoon (IDP) Marines are imperative to CBIRF’s mission. Only Marines with IDP can operate the mobile laboratory and go through extensive training on its usage.

“First, Marines must master sampling techniques in a contaminated area,” Swartz explained. “Then, they must pass technical classes, including organic chemistry, in which they have to get at least an A- to pass. This class really teaches them to speak like a scientist. Once Marines complete the class, they are able to recognize different materials from alcohols to organic phosphates,” he added.

Okay, first of all, who thought it would be a good idea to make combat killers like Marines into scientists? This just is not a brilliant beginning point. Second, it's not as if this laboratory capability is either unique or required for the Marine CBIRF. All three services have theater medical laboratories that are actually staffed with scientific professionals. And in addition, the Edgewood Chemical-Biological Center (ECBC) has a fly-away mobile lab capability for both homeland security and combat support. But no... the Marines can't trust anyone but their own men and women, so they have to have a service-unique capability that is duplicated in both private sector and government agencies.

Leading the way in progressive research, CBIRF is exploring a new way to use the mobile lab with sorbent sampling tubes, which collect most gases and vapors from the air. While the tubes are the size and shape of a pen, they fit onto a Marine’s chemical protective over garment.

“The sorbent tubes let us analyze what contaminant the Marines are exposed to,” Swartz explained. “So, the mobile lab allows us to monitor Marines, when they come through the decontamination line.”

Yeah, ah, "leaders in progressive research" and "Marine Corps" - two things that don't go together, because the Marines have no laboratory at which to conduct research and development. Instead, they have a few good guys that say, "hey, what if we did this..." Then they find out it doesn't work so well, and then insist to everyone that they were always on the right track.

This is just stupid, Marines. Get a grip. In 1995, the CBIRF was a unique thing. But more a decade later, the Army has finally come to terms with the need for a CBRN response force, and it's out there. Time to either join the joint community or phase out your team. It's not as if we're limited in capability anymore, and the threat is not exactly imminent. But the Marine Corps' pride won't let logic dictate its destiny.

Who Are You Going to Believe?

SHORTER Military Position: "Yes, the techniques used in SERE training are analogous to torture, if applied in actual interrogations."

SHORTER Porter Goss: "Sure, it was torture, but we're professionals - so it's okay."

I honestly don't understand this fixation some have that the CIA personnel will suffer if the US government identifies who, what, and when torture was used against US detainees. If they fucked up, they fucked up. Nail the lawyers, but really, nail the people who authorized its use.

I think Duncan Black nailed the right's argument with his deep thought: "The United States did not torture but torture is necessary." And as for ridiculous hypotheticals like "what if we had bin Laden and he knew where the terrorist nuclear bomb was hidden inside the United States," really, people who voice this as a serious argument ought to just be ridiculed.

Casual Fridays

So are you ready for "Dallas: 24th Century"? The creators of Battlestar Galactica have the families Graystone and Adams nie Adama living their frakked-up lives on the twelve colonies in "Caprica." Eric Stoltz plays the patriarch of the Graystones and sort of a Bill Gates of the world of Caprica. He's trying to design a robotic soldier for the Defense Department - he calls it a Cybernetic Life Node - or CyLoN.

Esai Morales plays a lawyer, Joseph Adama, who has a Tauren crime family for a client. He has one son named William who aspires to fly a battlestar some day. He did have a wife and daughter, but they died in a tragic religious terrorist bombing along with the Graystone's daughter. See, there are these weirdos who think that there's only one god...

The scifi part comes in with Graystone's big invention, the holodeck. Or actually, he invented holo-goggles that allow you to effectively act in a virtual world. The store that sells you the goggles creates an avatar for you to walk, talk, and interact with others. So of course, the porn industry exploited the technology first. Second was those irresponsible kids creating a virtual rave area where you can have any kind of sex, kill people, conduct human sacrifices, anything that's out of bounds. It's an interesting concept, but not entirely original. Still, it's effected well.

Graystone's kid Zoe just happens to be a computer genius - takes after her dad - and a rebellious student in a private school. She created an avatar that also holds all of her information and acts independently. The avatar lives on after the originator dies, so that presents some interesting situations. Joseph Adama gets involved with Daniel Graystone because they need each other to get through their kids' deaths - but Graystone needs more help for his company. The kind of help you go into dark restaurants to find and don't report on tax forms.

This show has potential, but I was a little troubled by the pilot. First of all, the Tauren crime family is clearly patterned after the Italian mob. Bunch of ethnic guys swearing in their mother tongue, dressing in dark coats and old style hats, carrying out hits on government people. If it were not so blatent, it might not be insulting but in a way, it is. Honestly, are there no other ways to depict crime families than the Supranos? And the first Cylon model was just a little too close to the Cylons that are coming out in the upcoming war. I would have expected something a little closer to C3PO instead of a first-gen Cylon without its metal shell.

The producers want to shock us with the difference and similarities between our planet and Caprica. They need to spend less time throwing it up for shock value and more time integrating scifi concepts into good drama.

Ft Detrick's Bug Problems

I am not really tied into the medical CB defense community, so I didn't know that Fort Detrick research labs were missing a few vials of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE) virus. No one has found the vials yet, but there isn't a major outcry over the missing material. Still, because of the recent Ivins case, the Army is undertaking a very thorough inspection.

The investigation of the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases is "in the final stages of its mandatory review process before being closed," said Christopher Grey, a spokesman for the criminal investigation division. The command "has found no evidence to date of any criminality related to the unaccounted-for items," he said.

Since last year, investigators have been trying to discover what happened to three small vials of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus that were unaccounted for, according to Caree Vander Linden, the spokeswoman for the lab.

Although the quantity of the missing virus sample is small, the investigation shows how seriously military authorities take a possible security breach at the Army lab, which is responsible for developing countermeasures to such potential biological agents as anthrax and Ebola. The investigation was first reported yesterday in the Frederick News-Post.

The virus that causes Venezuelan equine encephalitis is mosquito borne and usually causes a mild flulike illness but can also cause brain inflammation and death. It has potential for use as a biological weapon but is far less lethal than some other agents the lab works with.

And that's the real thing to keep in consideration. This isn't anthrax, it's a relatively non-lethal biological agent, but is highly infectious and easily aerosolized. As such, it's a good candidate for military applications but not really a mass casualty tool, if one is looking for lots of bodies. As a virus, once a person is infected, there is no cure - one can be treated for the symptoms, but just as the flu, you have to ride out the effects.

This is yet another illustration of the difficulty of implementing biosecurity controls. This isn't like counting nukes or chemical munitions. Biological material can be grown, and on the other hand, it can die off. So what happens if the bugs in a few test tubes die off, and the scientist just shrugs and cleans them out without noting the action in his lab books? A few years later, and people wonder, what happened to the material in test tubes 45-48? Too late to find out, memories slip, records don't show anything. This isn't a crisis situation, but it is a tough nut to crack

Afghanistan is Not Iraq

General David Petraeus continues his campaign to convince the US public that he knows what he's doing in Afghanistan. And the short of it is, the strategy used in Iraq is not exactly the one we need in Afghanistan.

Petraeus was quick to note the “enormous difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.” Afghanistan, for example, lacks Iraq’s huge oil revenues and its “muscle memory” of strong central government institutions.

These, as well as culture differences between the two countries, require a different approach to conducting counterinsurgency operations, he said.

“You have to apply [them] in a way that is culturally appropriate for Afghanistan,” he said. For example, a key strategy shift that accompanied the troop surge in Iraq – in which U.S. troops lived within the Iraqi communities they helped to secure – won’t necessarily work in Afghanistan, Petraeus said.

“You don’t move into a village in Afghanistan the way that we were able to move into neighborhoods in Iraq,” he said. “You have to move on the edge of it, or just near it, but you still have to have a persistent security presence.”

Petraeus expressed confidence that the operations under way in Afghanistan ultimately will succeed, but he tempered expectations. “It will be very difficult, and you won’t see the dramatic turnaround that we have seen in Iraq,” he said.

One big difference between the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there’s a nearly universal understanding of why the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Petraeus said. “There is absolutely no debate about the fact that that is where the 9/11 attacks came from,” he said.

There's no doubt that Afghanistan has to be handled differently than Iraq, even though (in theory) the same basic practice of counterinsurgency is key to operations within both theaters. It will be very difficult, especially with our government's inability to integrate civil (non-military) strategies into the theater and the corrupt government in that nation. It's easy to say "SysAdmin," harder to actually find government civilians willing to go into a war zone. So the best Petraeus can do, in the meantime, is to remind us that this is from where the planners behind 9/11 came. Well, no shit.

Realizing why we went into Afghanistan - over seven years ago - doesn't really excuse why we don't have a plan for getting out of that region. What Petraeus won't tell is whether there is a better strategy to contain terrorists operating from Af-Pak other than occupying the country with more than a hundred thousand foreign troops. One could argue - one OUGHT to argue - that a strategy of containment from outside the country, combined with good intelligence operations (I know, it's a stretch) might be far less expensive and far more productive than the current strategy.

Cheney's Legacy

Hat tip to Ray!

DOD's Cyber Command

News is that SecDef Bob Gates is preparing to organize the DOD's cyber operations under a new organization. The US Strategic Command has a good chunk of this mission, and according to this MSNBC article, it would retain this responsibility.

While no final decisions have been made, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to recommend the creation of a new military command to face the growing threat from cyber warfare, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Tuesday.

According to the official, the program would not be on the level of a separate combatant command. Instead, the likely recommendation would be to create a "sub-unified command" that would focus entirely on combating cyber warfare but exist under the current Strategic Command.

A senior Pentagon official revealed that cyber attacks against military computer networks have "increased significantly ... more than doubled" in the past six months. The attacks were said to include "thousands of probes a day" against Web sites associated with the Defense Department.
-----------
Gates is expected to make a final decision and recommendation on the Cyber Command following the release of a White House strategy on cyber defense. There have been increasingly frequent warnings that the nation's information networks are at risk and have been repeatedly probed by foreign governments, criminals or other groups.

This probably means the formation of a defense agency similar to the National Security Agency or Defense Logistics Agency. Not a bad decision - there's too much work in forming a new combatant command, forcing the services to give up bodies for joint billets and such. This is a long overdue move - while each service has their own information operations/cyber operations/whatever, it would make a great deal of sense for DOD to do it all the same way. Amazing that the US govt have to enforce it through the formation of a new agency, but there you are.

Reuters has a short article on this also, noting that DOD won't have the responsibility for non-military cyber security. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing - maybe it's easier to plan and resource a military-only operation, but I'm not sure if I trust DHS to maintain defenses against and responses to cyber attacks against civil infrastructure. As long as DOD has public internet sites, it's integrated into the same systems that are vulnerable to hackers.

Justifying Torture

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

In which Jon Stewart ridicules those talking asshats who defend the Bush administration's use of torture. And - Marc Thiessen - it was torture, not "interrogation with enhanced techniques." The Obama administration ought to be as honest as well in discussing this issue.

Questioning Amphib Warfare Concepts

DOD Buzz notes that SecDef Gates has thrown down the gauntlet to the Marine Corps in a challenge to its claim that the need for amphibious warfare is still relevant today. From the DOD transcript:

The United States must not take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that we remain preeminent at sea. But rather than go forward under the same assumptions that guided our shipbuilding during the Cold War, I believe we need to develop a more rigorous analytical framework before moving forward – the type of framework that will be provided by the Quadrennial Defense Review. That is one reason I delayed a number of decisions on programs such as the follow on manned bomber, the next generation cruiser, as well as overall maritime capabilities. The purpose was to develop an analytical construct through which we can more precisely determine what will be needed in coming years. To determine what kind of tactics and strategies future adversaries, both state and non-state actors, are likely to pursue.

In this respect, it is important to keep some perspective. For example, as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040. I might also note that we have a number of Expeditionary Strike Groups and will in the not-too-distant future will be able to carry the F-35.
-----------
I have also directed the QDR team to be realistic about the scenarios where direct U.S. military action would be needed – so we can better gauge our requirements. One of those that will be examined closely is the need for a new capability to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore – in other words, the capability provided by the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious action again. In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?

Overall, we have to consider the right mix of weapons and ships to deal with the span of threats we will likely face. The goal of our procurement should be to develop a portfolio – a mixture of weapons and capabilities whose flexibility allows us to respond to a spectrum of contingencies on and beyond the horizon.

Make no mistake, this is a direct challenge to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that is so overbudget today. It's good to see that Gates appears to believe, as I do, that this program needs some serious examination as to its concept of operations and desired capabilities, even if he doesn't call it out by name.

Watch For This Guy

The San Francisco Chronicle notes the nomination of Michael Nacht to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security Affairs (ASA[GSA]). Among his portfolio is the responsibility to address weapons of mass destruction. He has some good endorsements.

Harold Smith, a visiting scholar at the Goldman School who spent five years at the Pentagon as assistant to the secretary of defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs under President Bill Clinton, said Nacht will be a good fit for the new position.

"I'm really not worried about a World War III. I am worried about cybersecurity, nuclear terrorism," Smith said. "Those things are the real threats to the country."

Michael May, a professor emeritus at Stanford University and director emeritus of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said Nacht's background and temperament match nicely with his potential position.

"Michael is a very honest and knowledgeable individual," he said. "He is very much a voice of moderation, he understands past U.S. policies and he's going to keep the ship of state going relatively safely."

Born in New York in 1942, Nacht has a diverse background that includes stints with NASA. He once told a Berkeley alumni magazine he was "one little ant in the army that put a man on the moon." He also was a founding co-editor of the influential journal International Security and holds degrees in aeronautics, statistics, operations research and political science.

His government experience includes a position as assistant director for strategic and Eurasian affairs at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and a three-year term as a member of the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee.

I've heard him speak twice, and I will tell you that he is a very frank and open individual when it comes to discussing national security topics. Watch him closely, he's going to do some good things for the DOD.