Armchair Generalist

Being All You Can Be - In the Army

Spencer Ackerman is doing some light reading - Matt Gallagher's Iraq war memoir "Kaboom" - and relates this passage in the book. It's pretty amusing stuff - my emphasis added. 

A major theme of the book is how field-grade officers are more often than not an obstacle to innovative and effective warfare. It’s something anyone who’s spent time with platoon leaders and company commanders over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan has heard very often: generals can get it or not get it; young officers can get it or not get it; majors and lieutenant colonels, particularly the staff officers… they’re just not going to get it. (Colonels are the wild card.) The oppressive and inescapable weight of Army bureaucracy is going to, as Robert Komer put it so well so long ago, do its thing, and that thing is to impose regularity — often for understandable reasons, if not always good or sensible ones — and lock into place the way Things Have Been Done. (It’s easy to overstate this, and to his credit, Gallagher, a thoughtful and self-critical writer, doesn’t.)

Ultimately Gallagher decides not to make the Army his career. But before he leaves, he offers this observation on page 272:

An unprecedented number of junior officers were leaving the army, despite all kinds of bonuses and perks being tossed our way, not to mention the tanking economy back home. It had a lot to do with the prospect of multiple deployments, certainly, but at least in my case, that wasn’t a deal breaker. The prospect of becoming a field-grade bureaucrat spouting thoughtless drivel to a new generation of junior officers was. I believed that many of the men at the top of the totem pole truly wanted the army to become a learning institution, but in my experience, the giant clog in the middle wouldn’t allow for it. An institution as large as the army didn’t change overnight, and the “that’s the way it was for me, so that’s the way it’ll be for them” mentality persisted.

Lots of caveats here: eventually all men become what they hate, and the next generation of junior officers stuck in horrific wars that don’t look like the ones we’ve fought will curse the counterinsurgent field-grade officers Who Want It Done Like It Was Done In Iraq and Afghanistan. And no one who’s ever spent time immersed in an institution is naive enough to think a true meritocracy will ever exist on Planet Earth. And I’ve met lots of field-grade officers at places like Ft. Leavenworth who eagerly embrace Gallagher’s critique — often because a couple years ago they were Gallagher. (Not that it’s relevant, but I have to link to this after writing that sentence.)

All I can add is, word. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I had a simpler explanation for this phenomena - when you're an LT or a captain, you're dumb enough to think that good intentions and initiative are enough to justify your actions, as long as you work with your NCOs. Since you're usually not working on anything really big, you can get away with that, even if you fail at a particular task. Majors and lieutenant colonels, on the other hand, are counting on getting to colonel or at least to retirement, so they're just a little more cautious - about everything. And that impedes things. 

A good colonel will know whether or not he's going to be promoted further, and he/she will use their wisdom for good and to mentor the younger officers. Most of the time, they'll even stop thinking about their second career (after retirement) and do the Right Thing. They're funny like that. I suppose I'll have to check this book out, but I'm getting worn out on the Iraq memoir trail. Great stories, good tactical analyses, but they don't really contribute to the development of better operational concepts or strategy. Well, other than the repetitious cycle of everyone doing the same thing year after year without actually progressing.

Carafano - the Pulsers' Main Jester

When you're a conservative activist stuck with printing an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, it means you're really pitching a story that no one in a reputable newspaper will believe. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation wants to warn us about the peril of a nuclear weapon detonating over the Pentagon. It would be really, really bad.

An enemy detonates a nuclear weapon over the Pentagon. In four seconds, the blast wave reaches the Jefferson Memorial. It collapses in an instant. Scorching hot winds, at 300 miles an hour, scour every person and vehicle off the Memorial Bridge.

The fireball, bright as a thousand suns, quickly reaches the Capitol building. The structure shakes, yet stands. But inside, everything flammable -- from clothes to curtains -- bursts into flames.

Soon, 40 square miles are covered by roaring flames. Fingers of fire stretch as far as eight miles from the blast.

The D.C. area is home to 5.3 million people. All who haven't died within the first hour of the attack are in desperate need.

It's not a happy scenario. And Washington's doing nothing to improve it. In fact, President Obama plans to invest less, not more, in preparing our military to provide help in the wake of a catastrophic disaster on U.S. soil.

Looking at some nuclear blast radius calculators, I'm guessing that Carafano decided to use a 100-kiloton nuclear weapon to make his point. Now there aren't many countries who can field a nuclear weapon of that size, and certainly no terrorist group could get such a device. The usual scenario of a 10 kt nuke has a much smaller footprint and wouldn't kill millions at the onset of the blast. But that's irrelevant for Carafano's purposes. He wants to gripe - about all things - that the Obama administration cut down the number of National Guards troops dedicated to responding to a potential WMD event within the United States from 16,000 to 13,000. 

Never mind that two of the three CCMRFs that he's referencing weren't even in existence for Bush's second term of office. It's the principle of the thing - when the terrorist super-nuke goes off, where will we get those extra 3000 troops? I just don't know. How did we ever get through Hurricane Katrina or Haiti? Oh, yeah. There were other forces brought in. What a concept.

This is a particularly unacademic discussion by Carafano. He comes up with this ridiculously low-probability scenario (and for once, he didn't use it to justify missile defense), and he wants to gripe about a difference of 3000 troops to make a point against the Democratic administration. He picked a really weak example to preach about, and that's why you aren't reading about this topic in a real newspaper. 

But then again, I didn't count on Time Magazine picking up on this ridiculous story. For shame.

Active Duty Generals and Politics Don't Mix

This is a lesson that LTG Benjamin Mixon, commander of US Army Pacific (USARPAC), should not have had to be told. It's one thing to be a conservative-minded knuckle-dragger like USMC General James Conway and say, my personal opinion is that I don't like gays. It's entirely another thing to use one's command influence to encourage others to support your position and to print that statement in the Stars and Stripes.

The recent commentaries on the adverse effects of repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy were insightful.

It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.

Amazingly, SecDef Bob Gates really didn't find this advice as helpful.

Gates and [ADM Mike] Mullen denounced Mixon’s letter during a Pentagon press conference.

“I think that for an active duty officer to comment on an issue like this is inappropriate,” said Gates.

"I feel the same way and actually it is being addressed inside the chain of command in the Army,” Mullen added. “I’ve spoken specifically to [U.S. Army chief of staff] Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., about this.  And Gen. Mixon specifically is – the issue is being addressed with him."

Mixon, reached via email Thursday, would not comment on the matter. "You will have to address all your questions to Army (public affairs)," he said.

This was a bone-headed statement from a general officer who should have found a better way to leave active duty service. The conservative bloggers have already started blaming Gates and Mullen as the villains in this drama, and no doubt more claims of the DOD favoring "political correctness" over the morale and welfare of our troops will surface. But the short of it is this - no one in the Pentagon cares if you support or don't support gays being allowed to serve in the military (for the record, I do). You don't, however, contradict the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a public forum on a politically radioactive topic such as this. Although Mixon had a strong professional career and was (one can guess) a smart officer, for some reason he made a really bad decision here. You can expect LTG Mixon's notice of resignation any time soon, I would expect.

The FBI's WMD Charges

Once again, the FBI demonstrates its willful ignorance by charging the Michigan militia group Hutaree with "attempting to use WMDs" because it had pipe-bombs.

According to the indictment, the leader of Hutaree, David Brian Stone (known as RD), was plotting to kill an unspecified member of law enforcement, then attack law enforcement vehicles in the funeral procession motorcade with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Militia members say that Stone also is the group's pastor. According to the indictment, his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, provided materials to manufacture such devices. David Stone had researched the devices on the Internet and emailed diagrams of them to someone he thought could build them, the indictment alleges.

It's stupid to equate conventional explosives to nuclear bombs, nerve agents, and anthrax, but hey, the law's on the books, the FBI's done it before, and will continue to do so until forced to do otherwise. The WMD charge isn't going to add more than a few years onto their sentences, if that. I understand the use of the term "CBRNE" for antiterrorism and consequence management, but it's not a WMD.

In other news, the local Fox network in Michigan talks to the "mainstream" Michigan militia leaders, who assure us that their military-garbed, all-white "gun enthusiast" groups are in no way associated with those Christian militia nuts in the Hutaree group. But I look forward to Karl Rove's and Marc Thiessen's calls to move these nine members to military confinement and to begin "enhanced interrogation" methods to make sure there aren't more of these guys out there.

The Virtual Wall Was Always A Dumb Idea

I missed this note about the more than one billion dollars spent on the "virtual wall" that the former administration initiated for our southern border. Seems like this administration is ready to stop wasting more federal funds against an idea whose time hadn't come yet.

Homeland chief Janet Napolitano beat the Government Accountability Office report to the punch when she announced Tuesday that she's freezing funding for the Secure Border Initiative Network.

Homeland Security hired The Boeing Co. 3 1/2 years ago to build a string of towers along the 2,000-mile border. The towers were to integrate off-the-shelf products — cameras, radar, connections to ground sensors — so that Border Patrol agents could see who and what was coming across in real time.

Boeing made big promises about SBInet's capabilities.

"Ninety to 100 percent of all illegal crossers, this camera system was going to identify and characterize this threat," said Rich Stana, who wrote a report on the project last year for the GAO.

Boeing built a 28-mile test section in the Southern Arizona desert. It didn't work. The company regrouped, redesigned and redeployed one set of towers near the first set. It is building another section right now. The entire border was supposed to be covered a year ago, but after three years — and $1.4 billion — the system is still full of bugs.

"Well, it sort of works," Stana said.

It "sort of works." I'm sure that al Qaeda's nuclear-bomb carrying terrorists will be glad to hear that. The recent GAO report is here. I don't think it's half as damaging as it could have been. Maybe the sponsoring congressperson told them go to easy on the project.

Along with defects revealed by system testing, Border Patrol operators participating in an April 2009 user assessment identified a number of concerns. During the assessment, operators compared the performance of Block 1 capabilities to those of existing technologies. While Border Patrol agents noted that Block 1 offered functionality above existing technologies, it was not adequate for optimal effectiveness in detecting items of interest along the border. Users also raised concerns about the accuracy of Block 1’s radar, the range of its cameras, and the quality of its video. Officials attributed some of the identified problems to users’ insufficient familiarity with Block 1; however, Border Patrol officials reported that the participating agents had experience with the existing technologies and had received 2 days of training prior to the assessment. The Border Patrol thus maintained that the concerns generated should be considered operationally relevant. 

Could that be any more clinically sterile? "Not adequate for optimal effectiveness in detecting items of interest." I guess that's the fancy way of saying "it sort of works." This was a billion dollar lemon that Boeing contractors oversold to the government, and propelled by congressmen interested in showing their dedication to homeland security, pushed for a really bad idea to be funded. This was always a dumb idea, trading off technology for promises of security.

Statistics Are Fun, If Not Misleading

Matt Yglesias looks at this CATO-developed chart comparing US defense funding in 1998 and 2008 against European defense funding in the same years. He says, "As this chart from Chris Preble makes clear, Europe isn’t disinvesting in military capabilities, the United States is just rushing ahead with massive defense spending for unclear reasons."

Well, Matt, for one thing, it might be an understatement to say that the United States is "just rushing ahead with massive defense spending for unclear reasons" when the period of performance you're talking about featured two long-term military contingency operations, defense acquisition programs with ever-upward spiraling costs and schedules, and one considers the inflationary aspects of the past decade. But more importantly, you might want to consider the CATO analyst's assumptions.

These charts aren’t perfect because there are some inconsistencies in the data. Different countries include different things under “defense” and this can lead to misunderstating what they spend relative to others, including the United States. For example, the figures for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium and Portugal include military pensions, but other countries do not. The stats for other countries (Turkey, Albania, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia) count coast guards and/or gendarmerie (aka national police) under defense spending, but in the United States some of those costs are covered under the Department of Homeland Security (especially the Coast Guard; we obviously don’t have a federal police force).

And when one includes the annual funding from the Department of Homeland Security and the Veterans Affairs, yeah, that just might distort one's view of the comparison of these apples, oranges, and pineapples. I was just mildly suprised to see how Denmark's and the Netherlands' defense funds are greater than Italy, Germany, or Spain. That aside, I think the argument still fails because it doesn't consider whether the NATO countries were adequately funding their military forces in 1998, let alone today. All it says is that the United States spends alot on defense, and one might suggest we could do with less spending. To which all of us serious defense analysts would say, "well, duh!!"

Bush Apologists Never Quit

Peter Feaver, former NSC advisor in the Bush administration, trots out the latest screed on why we evil liberal bloggers ought to stop saying "Bush lied, people died."

 Some of the key premises on which the Bush administration based the 2002-2003 Iraq policy turned out to be wrong. And the conduct of the war had its share of problems. I think most experienced Bush hands would agree that the administration did not adapt fast enough to the evolving Iraqi insurgency. There are plenty of hard lessons for current and future administrations in the truth about Iraq. There is no need for the policy community to be mired in debating untruths.

Such a fine line between "incompetent," "distorted the facts," and "lied." A commenter suggests that a dishonest government is worse than an incompetent one, but I'll say that the Bush administration was both. The Bush apologists like to fixate on the issue of whether the intelligence community was right or wrong about assessing the maturity and capabilities of Saddam's WMD program, and how the policy makers were just going with the intelligence statements. But that continues to miss the point.

No where in the NIEs or other intelligence assessments was it stated that Iraq's WMD program - or it's potential products - represented an unacceptable threat to U.S. interests. Intel guys like to avoid making statements like that, because that's what policy makers are supposed to do - and they did make those statements. The Bush administration is on the record for developing a political climate where it became acceptable to invade a country to show that American might had not diminished after 9/11. The neocons thought that creating an American-style democracy in the Middle East was not only possible, but that it could be done on the cheap.

Feaver has a track record of trying to explain away the Bush administration's - ah, "distorted" views and actions with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's nice that he (and others) can make a career out of it, but that won't change the facts of the situation. But in the meantime, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Tony Blair have made millions since they've left office and haven't been held to account for their actions. And they probably won't, until enough years have passed for the true academic historians to make the case.

More Of This, Please

It's a Good Thing to see the president mixing with the troops and addressing foreign policy issues, now that the health care reform package is completed. Transcript of his speech at Bagram Air Base is at the White House website.

We can’t forget why we’re here.  We did not choose this war.  This was not an act of America wanting to expand its influence; of us wanting to meddle in somebody else’s business.  We were attacked viciously on 9/11.  Thousands of our fellow countrymen and women were killed.  And this is the region where the perpetrators of that crime, al Qaeda, still base their leadership.  Plots against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the Afghan and Pakistani people are taking place as we speak right here.  And if this region slides backwards, if the Taliban retakes this country and al Qaeda can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake.  The Afghan people will lose their chance at progress and prosperity.  And the world will be significantly less secure.
------------
Our broad mission is clear:  We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  That is our mission.  And to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in Afghanistan are also clear:  We’re going to deny al Qaeda safe haven.  We’re going to reverse the Taliban’s momentum.  We’re going to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces and the Afghan government so that they can begin taking responsibility and gain confidence of the Afghan people.  

And our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the Taliban while creating the conditions for greater security and a transition to the Afghans; but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the Afghan people, and combats corruption; and a partnership with Pakistan and its people, because we can’t uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity unless we succeed on both sides of the border.  Most of you understand that.  

Also see coverage at Talking Points Memo.

Though on the one hand the trip showed the difficulty the U.S. still faces in finding a functioning local partner in Afghanistan, the trip could also be viewed as something of a victory lap for Obama, who just saw his major domestic policy goal, health care reform, signed into law. Though the reform plan remains controversial, polls have shown that the public has a good impression of Obama's efforts to secure it.

Obama's plans for the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, controversial when he announced them in December, is showing similar results for the president. A CNN poll released last week showed that public opposition to the war has dropped, while support for Obama's handling of the conflict have risen dramatically.

I don't agree with the Afghanistan strategy, even though he's just executing the plan on which he campaigned. It's still heartening to see him stand up and clearly state his understanding of the issue and his support of the troops. He is so damned better at speeches than Bush. And to be clear, the troops do seem to like him. But I'll say again, if he doesn't start downscaling the Afghan footprint in 2011, he'll have a lot of trouble getting that second term.

UPDATE: I agree 100% withProf Walt's thoughts on this issue.

President Obama Reads My Blog

Okay, maybe not the president himself, but some staffer came by this morning to take a look at what I was saying about the president's work on sealing the START deal. Hey, come back anytime, dude. Let's do lunch sometime.

Chemical Spill at Umatilla Depot

The US Army Chemical Materials Agency had an accident on March 19 at Umatilla Chemical Depot. A worker was exposed to a drop of mustard agent, despite his wearing protective clothing. It's an article of interest if not just to demonstrate that one can be exposed to mustard and still be doing pretty good. Obviously, it is something to be avoided, if possible.

The incident began Wednesday afternoon when a pair of workers in masks, gloves, boots, aprons and cotton coveralls were inside an air-locked industrial plant weighing a propane-tanklike canister filled with mustard gas before an upcoming test of the Army's latest incineration process.

The men finished and moved to leave when the Army's sensitive sampling monitors warned a chemical agent was in the air. The men were rushed to doctors, where they were watched until a small blistering rash appeared on one man's back.

"It's not like the movies where acid splashes on you and you go 'Ow, ow, ow,' " [Greg] Mahall [CMA spokesperson] said. "It will sit on you for two to four hours before starting to blister."

Around the country, the Army has had dozens of false alarms and true accidental releases of poisons from aging chemical weapons, including four in as many months at a munitions depot in Kentucky last year. But exposure incidents are rare.

"In the history of Umatilla, it's never happened before," Mahall said. "In the entire Army program, we've only had one other, a worker in Utah who made a full recovery."

The worker's exposure appears to have been slight, and Army officials have sent blood samples to a lab to make sure they identified it correctly. Investigators are reviewing videotapes of the incident to understand what happened, though it's expected to be weeks before they know for certain.

The article notes that the man who was affected is back at work, probably being ribbed by his colleagues for being "bitten" by the agent. There was no release of agent outside of the depot. All is well, pending an investigation to see what happened within the normal safety process.

UPDATE: All is well.

Keep Pouring Money Into War Ops

Last week, DOD initiated a request for $33 billion for operations in Afghanistan this year - more defense emergency funds to push its nation-building initiative. Hey, it's just money that would have been wasted on health care or creating American jobs... no big deal.

“I know many of you have concerns about the Afghan security forces,” Mr. Gates said in his opening statement. “I share those concerns, as do our military commanders.”

Gates noted that the Afghan army has made “real progress” over the last year, and that many Afghan soldiers are making enormous sacrifices for their country. But Gates emphasized that the US can get out of Afghanistan faster if the training piece of the mission is done right, and that will likely take time. And while much praise goes to the Afghan army, the police force – seen as widely corrupt – will be a much harder fix.

“As you consider this request, I would emphasize that successfully accomplishing the training mission represents both our exit strategy and the key for long-term stability in Afghanistan,” Gates said.

But as a reminder of the cost of training indigenous militaries, the $33 billion funding request includes $1 billion still needed to strengthen Iraqi security forces, a force many consider to be all but fully trained as the US prepares to remove all its combat forces by August.

Gates said the money will help to “ensure that the Iraqis are fully prepared to assume internal security responsibilities.” 

I wonder how they deem that this extra money will work. We haven't seen much success in creating a nation friendly to the United States by pouring money into Iraq in an attempt to change their views. Is this supposed to work better in Afghanistan, a nation with an even weaker infrastructure and long-time lack of a national military structure?

Nuclear Mondays

What else could one comment on this week other than the agreement between the US and Russian governments on a new START agreement? It's not a big drop in the number of nukes, but it is continued progress along the NPT objectives. Says President Obama:

In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time.  Today, we’ve taken another step forward by -- in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children.  We’ve turned words into action.  We’ve made progress that is clear and concrete.  And we’ve demonstrated the importance of American leadership -- and American partnership -- on behalf of our own security, and the world’s.

The NY Times notes that the Russians were pushing hard on missile defense issues, and Obama pushed back hard. Good on him. Comments from the Global Security Newswire:

"After a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," Obama told reporters this morning.

Under the treaty, each side will reduce its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed warheads, according to a White House fact sheet released today. That is down nearly 30 percent from a 2,200-weapon limit the states were to meet by the end of 2012 under the 2002 Moscow Treaty.

Washington and Moscow will also agree to cap their fielded and reserve strategic delivery vehicles at 800, a reduction from a possible ceiling of 1,100 bombers, missiles and submarines the two presidents discussed last summer. Each nation can keep on deployment no more than 700 of the systems, the White House said.

The administration announcement said the agreement would also contain a "protocol" describing "additional rights and obligations associated with treaty provisions," and "technical annexes" that typically define limited systems and detail how they might be counted or verified.

The accord will include a verification regime that will be "simpler and less costly to implement than the old START treaty," the White House said today. "In part, this is possible due to the experience and knowledge gained from 15 years of START implementation."

Anticipation is rising about what additional details might appear in the treaty after a year of behind-closed-door negotiations in Geneva. The two sides reportedly spent many negotiating hours grappling with differences over how to address missile defenses and how treaty implementation should be verified.

This is a good treaty, designed to show that we can in fact maintain a strategic deterrent with a smaller number of nuclear weapons. The increasing effectiveness of precision munitions help in replacing the former "tactical" roles of nuclear weapons. The question, of course, is whether the Republicans in the Senate will allow this reasonable treaty through the process of ratification. Or will they hold their breath and stomp around, obstructing foreign policy issues? We'll see.

Cheryl rounds up the commentson the process so far, since I am late in commenting here. Also check out this newsy video for a short recap of coverage of START.

New General for 20th Support Command

I received word that the 20th Support Command (CBRNE) is getting a new commander soon. For the first time since the unit's inception, an Army Chemical Corps general officer is getting command of the unit whose mission includes WMD elimination in a future "failed state" like North Korea. The three previous commanders, going back to the unit's inception, were not chemical officers - FORSCOM was using the unit as a stepping stone for up-and-coming general officers with combat arms backgrounds. Something changed - maybe they didn't have any promotable colonels or one-stars looking for this position. Here's the official notice:

Army Brig. Gen. Leslie C. Smith, commandant, U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear School/deputy commanding general, Material and Technology, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., to commanding general, 20th Support Command (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield Explosive), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey J. Snow, commanding general, 20th Support Command (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield Explosive), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., to director, Iraq Training and Advisory Team-Army, U.S. Forces-Iraq. 

I wish I could say that this was a Good Thing, but I just don't know. I wouldn't personally picked Smith to command this unit, considering the stories I heard about the 83rd Chemical Battalion that he commanded in Iraq during 2003. I wonder who's getting the schoolhouse at Leonard-Wood. I'll bet the Army decides to put a colonel in charge, as it has done in the past. While the colonel may be put on the promotable list, he/she will be the lowest ranking branch commandant in the Army. But hey, it's not like CBRN defense and countering WMD is important or anything.

Casual Fridays

There's something wrong with seeing George Takei doing a cheesy commercial like this. I must have seen this damned thing a dozen times last night on NBC.

Has anyone seen the "Alice in Wonderland" movie? Thinking about seeing that this weekend. 

Stalling on Yucca Mountain

Just a quick note to nod approvingly at the attempts by a few House representatives to criticize the Obama administration's determined attempts to ignore science and its own vows to crack down on nuclear terrorism, as the Dept of Energy attempts to withdraw its license to open Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository.

Specifically, the fiscal 2011 budget blueprint calls for eliminating the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office. That office was established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and oversees the Yucca project.

Dissolving the office would require an amendment to that legislation by Congress, the New Jersey lawmaker asserted.

Chu said the department's legal counsel had given him a green light to close the office. He said his staff would work with Frelinghuysen to clear up any possible legal entanglements.

The ranking member also inquired if Chu could legally restructure the work force assigned to Yucca. Chu replied that any moves would be made after delivery of the NRC decision.

The secretary said that unforeseen complications had contributed to the White House's decision to halt the project.

As an example, he cited the requirement for a titanium shield to prevent leakage of radioactive waste, which was not include in the budget plan and would have cost more than $5 billion. In addition, the requirement for the site's longevity was extended from 10,000 years to 1 million years, Chu told lawmakers.

Simpson said his main complaint was the White House's decision to withdraw the license application "with prejudice," which would prevent a future administration or Congress from picking up the same application.

The Idaho lawmaker said any future application for the site would need to be altered in some way, such as size, and could prove more costly and time-consuming.

Even if the license application is withdrawn and never resubmitted there would be a cost associated with an "orderly closeout," according to Burnell. "We don't know how much that would be at this point," he said.

For the existing application, Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office said it has spent about $10.5 billion on the project, local governments have spent about $530 million and the commission has devoted about $450 million, Burnell told GSN.

"A new application for a different disposal site could lead to at least similar costs but if the existing application is resubmitted, it's possible some of the sunk cost could be recovered," he said.

The White House asked to withdraw the Yucca application with prejudice because it wanted to "give a very clear signal that this administration does not intend to proceed" with the site, according to Chu.

Simpson asked if the department planned to blow up the Yucca site or possibly cover it with cement.

Chu replied: "None of the above."

It's perhaps understandable that Harry Reid uses his position as the Senate Majority Leader to block the opening of this repository, based on his troubled re-election bids and the small number of NIMBY consituents pushing back against the very reasonable and safe storage that this project represents. It's understandable, but ought not to be tolerated. Maybe after the 2010 mid-term election is past and Reid loses his position (what a shame that would be), Obama can muster up the courage to open this $10+ billion storage site up and get back to sound science and risk management principles. As it is, this is a ridiculous example of political drama frustrating the execution of good policy.

Pulsers in the Pentagon

I'm starting to worry that former Bush administration officials still in the Pentagon are infecting people with the idea that EMP is a threat to military operations. Unless they're counting on being in a nuclear war, I just don't see it happening. But I see this in the Joint Operating Environment 2010:

A current example of the kind of technological surprise that could prove deadly would be an adversary’s deployment and use of disruptive technology, such as electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapons against a force without properly hardened equipment. The potential effects of an electromagnetic pulse resulting from a nuclear detonation have been known for decades. The appearance of non-nuclear EMP weapons could change operational and technological equations. They are being developed, but are joint forces being adequately prepared to handle such a threat? The impact of such weapons would carry with it the most serious potential consequences for the communications, reconnaissance, and computer systems on which the Joint Force depends at every level. 

This paragraph was in the 2008 JOE as well. The worrying about impact on joint forces is ridiculous. I can't see any interest by any adversarial country who's thinking, hey, I'm going to make EMP weapons so that insurgents and small armed forces can run out and immobilize the MRAPs. Then we'll have those Americans just where we want them... Seriously, it's pretty easy to harden electronics. We used to do it all the time. All we have to do, if the DOD is serious about this, is add a few dollars to those mission-critical systems. Done and done. And yet we also have DepSecDef William Lynn voicing his concerns about hybrid missile threats:

Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn talked about a “new and more complex era of hybrid threats” in which potential U.S. adversaries might combine high-tech and low-tech tools to mount a surprise attack. And to make his point, he drew on a history lesson: German plans during World War II to develop a longer-range version of the A4 ballistic missile, better known as the V-2 rocket (pictured here in postwar testing).

“Had the war lasted longer,” Lynn said, “The Wehrmacht may have been able to hit New York.”

Lynn then made an intriguing reference to another secret Nazi rocket program. “In a desperate attempt to attack targets in the U.S. with existing capabilities, they launched Project Laffarenz,” Lynn said. “What the Germans lacked in range they tried to make up for in inventiveness.”

In the deputy secretary’s telling, Project Laffarenz involved using U-boats to tow a battery of V-2s across the Atlantic on submersible barges. “Once within striking distance of the East Coast, the V-2 carrying containers would be flooded with water, righting launch tubes,” he said. “The Germans got as far as building a carrying container at the Baltic port at Elbing before the allied assault stopped any deployment.”

You know, the way the Heritage Foundation thinks that Iran's going to sell a nuclear-armed Scud missile to al Qaeda, who's going to put it on a freighter and bring it to the United States to turn our civilization back to the Renaissance era... Strangely enough, the DOD website link on the Danger Room post no longer leads to Lynn's speech. Lynn (and Gen. Cartwright) were at a missile defense conference in Washington DC, telling industry heads how this administration valued the program. In fact, the Obama administration wants missile defense to the point that it's going to spend nearly a billion dollars more than the Bush administration in FY11 ($9.9 billion), despite mounting technical challenges and failures by its contractors (again we see - difference between a liberal hawk and a conservative hawk - nothing, really). I do think that the US government should be concerned about hardening electronics in military and commercial satellites and at critical points of the electronic infrastructure. China or Russia, real nuclear powers, could do something serious if they wanted to. But it won't require a national missile defense system to defeat terrorist EMP weapons or a "rogue nation" missile launch.

In other news, the Heritage Foundation is proposing "EMP Recognition Day." Yeah, really. They want Congress to pretend that the Heritage Foundation's worst fantasies about terrorist nuclear attacks will occur. Because that's what serious, responsible think tanks do - they fear-monger and mislead politicians in attempts to justify huge weapon procurement systems that we can't afford and don't need. But if terrorists do cause an EMP attack that wipes out American civilization, I look forward to Jessica Alba bringing messages to my company.

What Fools

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols."  - Aldous Huxley

I hope that Virginians realize that they can't have Republican state politicians who are both sane and looking out for their best interests. Instead we have wackos who want to fight the War between the States again. Hey, Cuccinelli - guess what? The South will lose again. 

New Joint Operating Environment Document

The US Joint Forces Command has released a new version of the Joint Operating Environment. This document examines trends and outlooks twenty-five years into the future. Although most future documents are speculative at best, this document is somewhat interesting in the level of analysis and discussion offered. JFCOM is getting better graphic artists involved - it's certainly a pretty document. Here's a press release from JFCOM:

"The JOE is a living document; routine revisions ensure it remains relevant by reflecting current and emerging trends," said Army Lt. Gen. Keith M. Huber, USJFCOM deputy commander. "The purpose of the JOE is to encourage strategic dialogue - we put out JOE 2008, people responded, we listened and made changes and improvements based on that feedback."

While feedback from JOE 2008 helped inform the new edition, current events and the analysis of those trends and challenges also yielded new areas of discussion.

"JOE 2010 includes new sections on the global economic situation, radical ideologies and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Navy Rear Adm. Lawrence S. Rice, USJFCOM strategy and policy director. "Recent events, particularly the global economic situation, and their potential impact on the future operating environment made these areas worth exploring.  We look to current events to project emerging trends.

"We also put more emphasis on cyber threats and science and technology development.  These areas are expanding rapidly with implications for the future joint force," said Rice.

I haven't had time to read through the document yet, but I'm not terribly impressed by the "proliferation of WMD" section (having jumped to my favorite section). It seems pretty unchanged from the 2008 version - but then again, one might think that things don't change too rapidly from one year to the next in my line of work. That's unfortunate, if only because it would be nice for the theatrics over nuclear weapons and the hype over nuclear terrorism to die down a little. But I don't think that's going to happen this year. The JOE 2010 says:

Third, continued proliferation of WMD will make the U.S. increasingly the subject of the deterrence operations of others. As such, the U.S. may find itself in situations where its freedom of action is constrained by an enemy’s threat or actual use of WMD unless it can develop ways to circumvent the enemy’s deterrent logic. 

U.S. nuclear forces will continue to play a critical role in deterring, and possibly countering, threats to our vital interests in the future joint operating environment. Additionally, U.S. security interests will be advanced to the degree that its nuclear forces are seen as supporting global order and security. To this end, the U.S. must remain committed to its moral obligations and the rule of law among nations. It must provide an example of a responsible and ethical nuclear power in a world where nuclear technology is available to a wide array of actors. Only then will the existence of powerful U.S. nuclear forces, in support of the global order, provide friends and allies with the confidence that they need not pursue their own nuclear capabilities in the face of growing proliferation challenges around the world.

Unfortunately, we must also think the unthinkable – attacks on U.S. vital interests by implacable adversaries who refuse to be deterred could involve the use of nuclear weapons or other WMD. For both deterrence and defense purposes, our future forces must be sufficiently diverse and operationally flexible to provide a wide range of options for response. Our joint forces must also have the recognized capability to survive and fight in a WMD, including nuclear, environment. This capability is essential to both deterrence and effective combat operations in the future joint operating environment. 

Boringly predictable, overuse of rhetoric, failure to appreciate the actual capabilities of transnational extremist groups as opposed to their desires. I have never understood why military and political documents use the term "WMD, to include nuclear." Why not just say "nuclear"? It's what you mean to emphasize. The only thing that matters to DOD are nuclear weapons and this myth that "continued proliferation" is occurring (who exactly outside of Iran and North Korea?), with terrorist groups on the verge of obtaining their own nukes. Not much difference between this administration's military analysis or the last - the level of discourse remains the same. 

I'd much rather prefer the rational statement that the number of nuclear-weapon owning states will stabilize, that no one is really looking to become another Israel or Iran, but that the increase in nuclear technologies does create a risk of increasing the amount of radioactive material that needs to be secured. As for the terrorist threat, I really wish people would stop insinuating that every general terrorist group holding a beat-up AK-47 - and there are lots of them out there - are potential nuclear terrorists. There's really only one major terrorist group that we're concerned about, and they're not doing so well right now.

UPDATE: Upon re-reading the JOE 2008, I've discovered that they actually shortened the discussion on WMDs. Imagine my surprise. Here's a particularly important paragraph they left out:

In effect, there is a growing arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia in the east. Both Taiwan and Japan have the capability to develop nuclear weapons quickly, should their political leaders decide to do so. Unfortunately, that nuclear arc coincides with areas of considerable instability - regions that because of their economic power and energy resources are of enormous interest to the United States.

So I'm thinking that someone in OSD got cold feet from the flak they got previously about naming Israel as a nuclear power, so JFCOM was forced (perhaps) to pull this paragraph. I might guess that the current sensitivities over Pakistan's and India's nuclear weapons may have affected this document as well. Pretty pathetic display of courage and academic honesty.

Run Away, Run Away!

There's one down side to millions of people sending in mail to federal census processing centers. Sooner or later, someone's going to open a letter, white powder will fall out, and someone will shout "OH MY GAWD, IT'S ANTHRAX!" That day was yesterday for officials at Baltimore, Maryland.

Census bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner says the white powder inside the envelope turned out to be coffee creamer. The completed Census form in the envelope also had a coffee stain on it.

Buckner says the scare disrupted the workday for employees at the data center in Essex. As soon as the white powder was discovered around 9:20 a.m. Tuesday, the area around it was quarantined, and about 520 employees were moved elsewhere in the building. Workers returned to their posts after it was found to be safe, a process that took about two hours. The facility was never shut down or evacuated. 

Just another day in the terror-filled imagination of Americans. At least there was no forced mass decontamination drill. Maybe people are getting more used to these false alarms.

Marines Crowding Guam

Yesterday, the WaPo decided to take a look at the Marine's plans for expansion at Guam, notably dredging a virgin coral reef to make room for nuclear-powered naval vessels and tearing up some woodland to develop another firing range for the troops. They need room for about 23,000 Marines and their dependents who are moving from Okinawa. There are, however, some environmental concerns in undertaking those actions. The people of Guam can be bought, but they're not cheap.

"The government of Guam and the Guam Waterworks cannot by themselves accommodate the military expansion," said Nancy Woo, associate director of the EPA's western regional water division. She said Guam would need about $550 million to upgrade its water and sewage systems. White House officials said the EPA findings are preliminary.

Guam government officials put the total direct and indirect costs of coping with the buildup at about $3 billion, including $1.7 billion to improve roads and $100 million to expand the already overburdened public hospital. On this island -- where a third of the population receives food stamps and about 25 percent lives below the U.S. poverty level -- that price tag cannot be paid with local tax revenue.
----------
"We don't mind being the tip of spear, but we don't want to get the shaft," said Simon A. Sanchez II, chairman of Guam's commission on public utilities. "We have been asking for help from Day One, but we have not got any meaningful appropriations."

It's a funny thing. With all the hype about China, you'd think that DOD and Congress would be a little more forward about funding a vital piece of infrastructure like Guam. But maybe our adventures in the Middle East have been causing DOD to slow-roll its costs of building up the Pacific, where the next great conventional war is projected to start. My two cents, we should have made nice with the Philippines and never left. Lots of room, a huge naval and air base, and central to the Pacific action.