Armchair Generalist

Powerpoint is All Right

There was a recent flap over an Army lieutenant colonel who was on a deployment to Afghanistan when he was fired and sent home for an article he submitted - without command authorization. Oops. In the article, he blasted the Powerpoint Rangers whom he saw working so hard in Kabul. Tom Ricks allowed the gentleman to reflect and amend his earlier observations, and I caught this point about Powerpoint:

One of the main themes of the article involved the use of PowerPoint. I don't hate PowerPoint. In fact, I use it often. I do object to its use as a crutch or a replacement for serious thinking. Also, the overuse of PowerPoint can give the illusion of progress, when it is really only motion in the form of busy work. It can confuse the volume of information with the quality of information.

A second theme was the way in which organizations function and why they don't e.g. stovepipes, ad hoc or absent processes, run-away egos or adding bodies as a solution to every problem.

Just to make the point, don't hate the tool, hate the messengers. If you're an officer trying to look busy and want to impress the boss with misleading statistics, sure, Powerpoint's your tool. But that should reflect more on the poor training and intentions of the officer, not the abilities of the tool.

Michael O'Hanlon Is Confused

Michael O'Hanlon is confused, and that's not a new thing. He's confused a great deal of the time, and yet the Washington Post reporters still flock to ask his opinion on national security issues. No matter how many times he's wrong, misguided, or confused, he will get quoted. It's an amazing thing. In this case, he's concerned that President Obama should not be telling the American people that combat operations in Iraq are over. 

"Maybe he's entitled to the partial victory lap, but this is not the right moment for it," said analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who has been critical of both Democratic and Republican approaches to the war. "If I were him, I'd wait until we have an Iraqi government, and do it with the Iraqis together."

O'Hanlon said he was "confused about the planned Oval Office speech." It could raise unrealistic expectations among the public about the chances for calm in Iraq, he said. And the timing of the pullout of combat troops may be seen as having more to do with the president's political needs than with real signs of progress on the ground.
 -------
"The president and this administration are making good on our commitment to end the war in Iraq responsibly and to help build a stable, self-reliant and sovereign Iraq," Blinken said. Biden, who made his his sixth trip to Iraq to participate in the "change of mission" ceremony, planned to give Iraqi leaders a preview of the president's speech, he said.

Ending combat in Iraq may help offset some concerns about Afghanistan, officials said. Even after deploying an additional 30,000 troops there - taking the total to nearly 100,000 - the reduction in Iraq means that about 30,000 fewer troops are serving "in harm's way" abroad, one administration official said. And the reduction frees up financial resources, including domestic funding for roads, bridges and schools - a point Obama will underscore. 

What O'Hanlon seems not to understand is that, yes, reducing troop numbers in Iraq and changing their combat mission there is inherently aligned with the president's political agenda. War is an extension of politics. Thus has it ever been. Adding troops to Afghanistan and pushing a more aggressive combat mission there is a political act. Now, as far as the timing of this announcement, come on. Announcing the end of combat operations in May 2003 was "not the right moment for it." Announcing the end of combat operations in 2010 after multiple national elections are held and a substantial investment in training and equipping Iraqi security forces? Much better.

O'Hanlon can't seem to make any positive comments about a Democratic administration, no matter how good the decision is. And yet he was always so effusively positive about the past administration, no matter how poorly its decisions were made. He's very confused. The troops returning home aren't confused about their enthusiasm to get the hell out of Iraq.

Grave Doubts

The UK Guardian reports that the Bush administration expressed "grave doubts" to Tony Blair about the suitability of Gordon Brown as the Prime Minister of England. 

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Brown is said to have "harangued" Rice, then secretary of state, over US policy on aid and development in Africa. Rice reportedly alerted the White House which passed on its concerns to Blair.

No date is give for the meeting with Rice, who became secretary of state at the start of Bush's second term in January 2005. Blair announced in the early autumn of 2006 that he would stand down before the time of the Labour conference in 2007, suggesting that Rice's comments were passed on in 2005 or 2006.
 -------
 Brown eventually became prime minister at the end of June 2007. A month later he visited Bush at Camp David, causing mild offence by briefing that he would not handle relations with the White House in the same way as his predecessor.

In contrast to the jeans sported by Blair for a Camp David meeting with Bush, Brown made a point of wearing a suit and tie for his joint press conference. Bush addressed Brown as Gordon who then replied "Mr President". Brown described their discussions as "full and frank". 

Yes, good thing no world leader ever expressed "grave doubts" about the US government's leadership between 2001-2009... Hat tip to Ray!

SOCOM Stops Hunting WMD Terrorists

It's a sad thing when Admiral Eric Olson, the commander of the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), admits that his dance card is so full that he can't commit forces to what President Obama calls the gravest national security risk - nuclear terrorism. It's not as grim as the article first sounds. It's more of a case where a general/flag officer decides that he has to obtain increased technology to augment the lack of personnel available.

Fewer elite commandos are available for the hunt and their expertise has been degraded by “the decreased level of training,” Admiral Eric Olson said. They now have only a “limited” capability for this mission, he said.

Meanwhile, the threat of extremists acquiring and using chemical, biological or nuclear arms “is greater now than at any other time in history,” Olson told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a written response to a question posed by lawmakers after a hearing March 16 on his command’s budget.
 ----------
 In his unreleased guidance, Gates cited the need to “fully fund” technologies for disposing of explosive ordnance, destroying “ultra-high performance” concrete that might shelter WMD production or storage sites and disabling “control systems” for “state-run weapons production facilities.”

The proposed budget for the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency that develops these capabilities increases to $113 million in 2015 from $61.3 million in fiscal 2010.

The agency’s fiscal 2011 plan calls for continuing to develop and field “new technologies to improve” the commandos’ “ability to detect, disable, interdict, neutralize and destroy chemical, biological and nuclear production, storage and weaponization facilities.”

SOCOM hasn't really been paying attention to WMD terrorism for the past decade. They used to be much more focused on counterproliferation issues - but that was when we had Saddam as a threat. Since no WMDs were found in Iraq in 2003, business has been kind of slow in the counterproliferation area (for SOCOM at least). Now that business is drying up in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't have WMD sites, SOCOM and DTRA need to invent a new threat. It would be nice to actually find terrorists who are developing CBRN production, storage, and weaponization facilities. Until then, we can all pretend that we need these new technologies that don't work to defeat a threat that doesn't exist.

Another WMD Terrorist Caught

And I'm shocked, shocked to find out that it's a middle-aged, disgruntled white man from a red state who sent President Obama a "white powder" letter.

A man from the Denver area pleaded guilty Thursday to sending letters containing white powder to President Barack Obama, members of Congress from Colorado and Alabama, and Argentine consulates.

Jay DeVaughn, 41, of Aurora faced 13 federal counts of mailing threatening communications.
 --------
 He mailed a letter to Obama that was intercepted Sept. 10, 2009, according to court documents. The letter called health care reform championed by Obama and passed by Congress a "joke" and contained a plastic bag of white powder and a reference to anthrax.

The white powder in all the letters was harmless, but emergency personnel were called when the various offices received the mail, authorities said. 

Still no massive bioterrorist attack as predicted by the Graham-Talent comedy team.

Taliban's Poison Gas Attacks

 Last week we saw the Taliban's continued attacks against young girls' education in Afghanistan with poison gas. It's a particularly vile thing to do, but it's educational to note the amateur hour approach that they used.

 A total of 46 students and nine teachers were treated in hospital after what Mohammad Asif Nang, an official at the education ministry, described as "an apparent poisoning" attack by "the enemies of women's education".

According to staff, parents and onlookers, girls began fainting in the school's main classroom block at about 10.30 this morning, during the first of three daily shifts designed to triple the number of girls at the school.

Some victims had to be carried out while others stumbled to the school gates, where about 18 slumped to the ground unconscious, said Abdul Haq, a 15-year-old boy who witnessed the incident.
 -------
 Western medical experts have taken blood samples from alleged victims while investigating previous incidents but have been unable to find clear evidence of poisoning. They have also questioned how such an apparently powerful gas could be spread with such apparent ease round large school buildings.

This hasn't been the first gas attack on a school, and it's unclear what kind of non-persistent industrial chemical was pumped into the schools. But it's a far cry from the feared terrorist use of chemical warfare agents that most DHS scenarios warn about.

UPDATE: George Smith suggests that the Taliban used fumigants. Good suggestion as any.

ADM Mullen Declares War on National Debt

In a stunning announcement yesterday, Admiral Mike Mullen told the Detroit Economic Club that the national debt had replaced nuclear terrorism as the greatest threat to national security.

The single biggest threat to national security is the national debt, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday, underscoring the importance of good fiscal stewardship and a need to stimulate economic growth.

American taxpayers are going to pay an estimated $600 billion in interest on the national debt in 2012, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told local leaders and university students here.

Mullen explained to the group that the Joint Staff and OSD had undertaken an analysis of the enemy and discovered that the 9% average annual growth in the defense budget between 2000 and 2009 had made the Defense Department the largest source of discretionary spending contributing to the national debt. As such, he intends to focus his full energy and plans on defeating the Defense Department.**

"Our plan is two-fold," he explained. "We intend to ask Congress to increase spending on major defense acquisition programs so that we can defeat the national debt within the DOD budget. We will develop a counterinsurgency operation by employing military veterans who have been released from active duty. Their skills and life experiences will be key to infiltrating and taking out the major state actors who are increasing defense funding and thus the national debt and its threat to America. We expect this to be a long-term contingency operation, possibly running up to 2016 before we see positive results."

Mullen alluded to the "Oil Spot" theory in the execution of this plan. "We intend to attack OSD acquisition first, and take out the key people who are ignoring the spiraling costs and extended schedules of the major defense acquisition programs. We can ignore OSD policy, they're just the propaganda arm of the defense budget. As we hold our position, we'll expand by attacking into the Congressional staffers' strongholds in the Armed Services Committees. That battle will rival Fallujah 2004, I think. It will be bloody. We don't expect to win over the defense industry partners, they're long-term fanatics and well-funded, but we think we can negotiate with them from a position of strength at that time."

More on this new military initiative against the national debt as it continues.

** Following paragraphs are actually creative fiction (Hey, the punch lines just write themselves. Truly)

Casual Fridays

TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

Best Sci-Fi Movies

The io9 site has a pretty good list of 25 sci-fi movies that should be on everyone's "must watch" list and a short discussion on why they made the list. I only have a few changes in mind. Not crazy about insisting people watch the ones before 1965 - let's keep it within the same generation. And some of them are a little too new. But it's a pretty good list.

Metropolis (1927, dir. Fritz Lang)

The Day The Earth Stood Still 1951, dir. Robert Wise)

Forbidden Planet (1956, dir. Fred M. Wilcox)

Planet Of The Apes (1968, dir. Franklin J. Schaffner)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

Logan’s Run (1976, dir. Michael Anderson) [my add]

Close Encounters (1977, dir. Stephen Spielberg) [my add]

Star Wars – A New Hope (1977, dir. George Lucas) [my add]

Alien (1979, dir. Ridley Scott)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980, dir. Irvin Kerschner)

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981, dir. George Miller)

Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)

Blade Runner (1982, dir. Ridley Scott)

E.T. (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)

Tron (1982, dir. Steven Lisberger)

Terminator (1984, dir. James Cameron) [my add]

Back To The Future (1985, dir. Robert Zemeckis)

Brazil (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)

RoboCop (1987, dir. Paul Verhoeven)

Akira (1988, Katsuhiro Otomo) [my add]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991, dir. James Cameron)

Ghost In The Shell (1995, dir. Mamoru Oshii)

Twelve Monkeys (1996, dir. Terry Gilliam) [my add]

Gattaca (1997, Andrew Niccol) [my add]

The Fifth Element (1997, Luc Besson) [my add]

The Matrix (1999, dir. the Wachowskis)

Equilibrium (2002, dir. Kurt Wimmer) [my add]

Primer (2004, dir. Brad Bird)

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004, dir. Michel Gondry)

Serenity (2005, dir. Josh Whedon) [my add]

Children Of Men (2006, dir. Alfonso Cuarón)

Moon (2009, dir. Duncan Jones)

District 9 (2009, dir. Neill Blomkamp)

Inception (2010, dir. Christopher Nolan)

UPDATE: Don't ever cut and past from a Word 2007 document into a web browser. What a mess. Good suggestions from the comments, "Equilibrium" was a great film, as was "Fifth Element." In an effort to keep this to 25 titles, I'll have to let "Starship Troopers" and "E.T." get honorable mentions. Other films will no doubt join this list.

UPDATE 2: Due to continued beatings on "Galaxy Quest," (Never give up! Never surrender!) I give in and put it on the "honorable mention" list. "Akira" goes in, we do need some foreign films in this list. Gods, I forgot "Serenity"! Out goes "Back to the Future."

Very Serious People Discuss Afghanistan

Read Fred Kaplan's article on how the US government still isn't developing a regional approach to solving the Afghanistan challenge and how Pakistan isn't really helping.

Doin' Right Ain't Got No End

The Washington Post reveals that the CIA is recommending Yemen as the next objective on the War on Terror. Fortunately, they don't have any WMD programs there - just bad mixes of liquid explosive molded into underwear for suicide bombers. But once again, it's as if we're seeing the former Bush administration in charge of the response. The only tool in the kit seems to be military power. Notably, the CIA wants to move more assets into country.

Proponents of expanding the CIA's role argue that years of flying armed drones over Pakistan have given the agency expertise in identifying targets and delivering pinpoint strikes. The agency's attacks also leave fewer telltale signs.

"You're not going to find bomb parts with USA markings on them," the senior U.S. official said. Even so, the official said, the administration is considering sending CIA drones to the Arabian Peninsula "not because they require the deniability but because they desire the capability."

A senior Yemeni official indicated that the government would not welcome CIA drones. "I don't think we will ever consider it," the official said. "The situation in Yemen is different than in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It is still under control."

Introducing a covert CIA capability might also improve the U.S. ability to carry out attacks - perhaps from a U.S. base in Djibouti - if the Yemeni government were to curtail its cooperation. 

So seriously, we're going to bring the techniques from Afghanistan that haven't worked for the past five years, and see if they might work in another Muslim country where the popular opinion of American leadership is already pretty low? Yeah, that's just genius. I'm reminded of  Capt "Redlegs" Terrill in "The Outlaw Josey Wales":

Captain Terrill: "We got ’em now. We’ll get these two first, then we’ll get the others."
Fletcher (startled): "What others? Wales and the kid are the last ones."
Captain Terrill (dismissively): "Nahh. Texas is full of rebels. Lot’s of work to do down in Texas."
Fletcher (sternly): "We get Josey Wales and it ends."
Captain Terrill (grimly and with finality): "Doin’ right ain't got no end."

Really, time for a new approach to combat terrorism that works. Less short-term kinetic focus, more long-term "smart power" please.

Bring the Pain

Over at the Danger Room, Noah Shactman critically reviews the LA Sheriff's Department plans to use a version of the US military's Active Denial System in its prison system as a form of non-lethal crowd control. The title of his post is "Pain Ray, Rejected by the Military, Ready to Blast L.A. Prisoners." Yeah, that's not leading the readers on at all. I have to take exception with his one statement in particular.

The jail’s energy weapon is a small-scale version of the Active Denial System, the experimental crowd control device that the U.S. military brought to Afghanistan — and then quickly shipped back home, after questions mounted about the wisdom of blasting locals with a beam that momentarily puts them in agony. The pain weapon seemed at odds with the military’s efforts to appear more humane and measured in the eyes of the Afghan populace.

First of all, the military hasn't rejected the ADS, only its operational use in Afghanistan, and that was probably because they haven't ironed out the concept of operations enough to satisfy the nervous policy-makers in Washington DC. Second, using terms like "blasting locals with a beam that momentarily puts them in agony" really isn't a fair statement of the system's actual operation. It's not a firehose with only one setting - maximum force. And the key here really is "momentary." There is no persistent damage, and if the crowd disperses or drops to the ground, the operator can in fact turn the system off. It is, in the end, better than using burning CS powder, capsaicin pepper spray, or Claymore-like TASER systems on a crowd that includes combatants mixed with noncombatants.

Last, let's differentiate between statements about how "population-centric" counterinsurgency policy intends to provide a "more human and measured" focus on the Afghan population and the current record of how US military troops tend to view self-protection options at checkpoints and actual COIN operations. They tend to lead with the lethal force option and gripe when commanders impose overly-restrictive rules of engagement on their activities, because they don't like being shot at. So let's not mislead anyone about appearances and actual practice.

Non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons have applications in both law enforcement and military operations. In both cases, successful use of such weapons requires detailed training, careful oversight, and focused application in the right circumstances. When that doesn't happen, then we see the news stories about the misuse of non-lethal technology. But there's nothing wrong about trying to use options other than guns, batons, and tear gas to minimize casualties while enforcing order - in the prisons by guards or in urban settings by the military.

The Independent General

It's a good thing that Marine Corps General James Conway is ready to retire from his post as commandant of the Marine Corps. He's obviously uncomfortable with this administration's efforts, as evidenced by many recent, public comments. I admire most Marine Corps general officers, but Conway is really trying to be the exception to the rule. Here he is making the case that our military operations in Afghanistan should remain open-ended and without concern about little things like progress and wasted billions of dollars.

Gen Conway, who just returned from Afghanistan, said he is concerned the date may signal to the Taliban that the US was preparing to wind down the war.

"In some ways we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself, in fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, we only have to hold out for so long,'" Gen Conway told a Pentagon news conference.

"I honestly think it will be a few years before conditions on the ground are such that turnover will be possible for us," he said of Marines in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.

Really, general? You really want to undercut the SecDef and President's public comments on this issue on your way out the door? Bad enough that we have to listen to this crap about "emboldening the enemy by announcing an end-date" again. Funny, we're leaving Iraq after two stated deadlines (one from Bush, one from Obama) and it hasn't fallen apart (yet). Conway really expands the civil-military relationship gap by his refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of political decisions over military affairs. He's certainly not alone in this myopic view that, if the military were only allowed to perform without restrictions, they could wrap things up nicely. But nine years later, with about every existing metric still pointing toward failure, it's hard to believe that things will get better in the next few years if "American will doesn't falter."

And then there's Conway's decision to advocate for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a system that can definitely be cast as the poster-child for the drastic need for DOD acquisition reform. And we're already aware of Conway's dislike of Teh Gays (to which Peter Feaver says "eh"). If General Conway is so hard-set against the administration's national security policies, then it's way past time that he step down from his four years as commandant of the Marine Corps and take up the private life. Then he can go on Faux News and preach all he wants to that adoring crowd.

Trouble on the South Border

A while ago, during a conference at the Army's war college, Prof Andrew Bacevich made a comment that the United States had a greater national security interest in the drug wars south of the border than in Afghanistan. He probably got a lot of criticism for that statement, but was he wrong? I don't think so. This AP article talks about the bullets that are flying over the river into El Paso.

At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the world's most dangerous places. And all American police can do is shrug because they cannot legally intervene in a war in another country. The best they can do is warn people to stay inside.

"There's really not a lot you can do right now," El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said. "Those gun battles are breaking out everywhere, and some are breaking out right along the border."

Police say the rounds were not intentionally fired into the U.S. But wildly aimed gunfire has become common in Juarez, a sprawling city of shanty neighborhoods that once boomed with manufacturing plants. It's ground zero in Mexico's relentless drug war.

There is an amusing side to this story (in a twisted kind of way). Of all people, Governor Rick "Let Us Secede From the Union" Perry is losing his cool and is calling for the federales to come save him from the border war. He thinks that there are bombs going off in El Paso (actually not happening). Again, back to the AP article:

And Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement demanding more security.

"It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border to protect our homeland," Perry said.

Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security - in the form of federal agents and even troops - could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.

No, it's not that simple, Gov. Perry. You don't get to bad-mouth the federal government only when it's politically convenient. You don't get to refuse federal stimulus funds and make wild statements about "state rights" and then turtle up when the shots start firing. As governor, you have the ability to move National Guard troops down to the border - go do it. Send some Tea Party militias and Minutemen people, too. Make sure they're well-armed - well, I guess you don't need to do that, they already are. So where are your balls, big man? Are you running a self-sufficient Republic or is Texas actually part of the Union?

Just another example of Republican governors who can't stop running to the federal treasury while badmouthing the current administration's attempts to govern. Same shit, different day.

I Want My Shoes Back

Homeland Security Watch has a good interview with the man who developed this documentary film. Key to his criticism is this observation:

Why did Gevalt make this movie?  What does he hope it accomplishes?

“My hope is that someone in Washington knows what the point of all this is.  What are we doing here, at the strategic level?  What are we looking for?  What are we supposed to do?  What are we not supposed to do?  It would strike me that the biggest single problem that faces this agency [TSA] is whether or not they are operating as a deterrent or … to interdict.  Are they there to stop [a terrorist] or are they just there to shoe them away and have them go bomb the subway or something?”

The people at TSA I know are as serious about making sure flying is safe as are the whistleblowers and other critics in the movie.

Gevalt acknowledges that, but…

“How much are you willing to spend, how much should the government spend, how much does it make sense to spend in terms of time, employees, money, everything that costs you to build this kind of scarecrow?

There's a recent anecdote in the Philly Inquirer about a woman who was harrassed by a TSA screener. The officer rifled through her wallet, pulled out several checks that she intended to deposit in a bank, and accused her of embezzlement. He then called the police and her husband to tell him that she was probably thinking of emptying out the bank account and leaving him. Hopefully this jackass has been fired and TSA has apologized to this woman, but I don't think TSA thinks that its employees did anything wrong.

It's the fundamental lack of policy analysis, of examining what your agency's goals are and measuring your progress against those goals, and the willingness to admit the need for change that has made DHS and DOD so inefficient and so wasteful in the exercise of national security. They don't want to do the analysis - it's hard to do it right, it's embarrassing to people with vested interests, and Congress would rather continue the facade of acting tough rather than making the necessary incremental corrections.

I'm hard-pressed to say that we are any safer flying today than we were before 9/11. It seems like the same dullards are screening luggage at the security points - they just switched uniforms. It's been two years since I flew last, and with all luck, it may be another year. It's just not worth the hassle.

The Army's Site Exploitation Doctrine

The FAS Secrecy News notes a few new doctrinal documents coming from the Army that relate to WMD issues. The first is a regulation on the Army's implementation of and compliance with arms control policy (fascinating stuff...). I kid, it is important to understand how the military supports nonproliferation agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and other arms control treaties. The second is a manual on "Site Exploitation Operations," which is more interesting to me from a policy implementation point of view.

Let me briefly explain. Back in the heady days of 2001-2002, the Department of Defense wanted to have intelligence agencies work closely with the military on exploiting sites that might have WMD materials or technology located there. At the least, they might grab some interesting documents or videotapes that would demonstrate the horrible threat of WMD terrorism (and later, Saddam's WMD program). What a surprise, things didn't quite work out that way. The emphasis was on creating these special exploitation units that were top-heavy with WMD specialists instead of intel experts and translators.

This manual appears to have been recrafted to support tactical development of intelligence requirements in support of counterinsurgency operations. Specifically, SE operations are:

• To answer information requirements (usually the commander’s critical information requirements).
• To facilitate subsequent operations (already planned or not yet anticipated).
• To facilitate criminal prosecution by host-nation or international authorities (related to war crimes).

WMD CBRNE facilities are still considered an exploitable site, but so are locations where war crimes are suspected to occur, terrorist training camps, POW locations, R&D facilities, government buildings, government officials' residences, etc etc. It must be a reaction to years of being an occupying power in Iraq and having to be investigators as well as security forces. But there's still the remnants of Chemical Corps concerns in the manual.

Combat in and around sites with hazardous chemicals or materials may expose friendly forces to the unintended release of toxic materials from the site. The danger to friendly forces is dramatically increased if the enemy threatens to release toxic biological or chemical agents or explode a radiological dispersal device. During planning, commanders and staffs consider tactics, techniques, and procedures for offensive combat operations in a CBRNE environment if toxic industrial chemicals or materials are suspected.  

Now we've never seen toxic outbreaks at an sensitive site exploitation mission, but the Chemical Corps has to try to remain relevant somehow. They can dream. Wow, I wish they would stop using the antiterrorist term "CBRNE." It's really not a relevant term in the counter-WMD community.

Deep Thoughts

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Why is Faux News funding the building of a terror mosque near the 9/11 site?

Planning a Military Vaccine Test Facility

An article in the Fredrick News-Post Online discusses the DOD equivalent of the HHS plans for a national vaccine facility. The Fort Detrick medical campus will start construction of a $584 million, 460,000 square foot research facility that will test medical countermeasures on poor, helpless animals prior to their submission for FDA approval. Construction starts in 2013, with plans to start operations in 2018.

George Ludwig, civilian deputy principal assistant for research and technology at Fort Detrick, said the project will represent a new level of research there.

"It fulfills the development process for medical countermeasures," Ludwig said. "Most of the work that's currently being done on post right now is the early stage development -- understanding the basic biology of the threat agents, understanding what types of countermeasures might be available, and developing prototypes of those countermeasures. The next step in that process is actually the FDA approval process, so once you have a product that's ready for approval, then you have to prove it's effective."

Ludwig said researchers at the facility will likely start out working on vaccines for filoviruses such as Ebola and Marburg, as well as new anthrax vaccines.

"A lot is going to depend on what's available when the facility opens in 2018," he said.

I've never understood the obsession with Ebola and Marburg - they aren't airborne contagions, people get it from exposure to the bodily fluids of other infected people, and the diseases are largely regulated to Africa. I think Alibek mentioned that the Soviets tried to weaponize Ebola, but I'm pretty sure that no one else has. I've never liked the medical community's inability to differentiate bioterrorism as a distinct challenge from natural infectious diseases. They view it as all the same challenge and ignore the source of the disease. That's okay for the medics, but not okay for the decision makers who are supposed to ensure we're doing the right thing with federal funds.

As for a next generation anthrax vaccine, I thought that industry was pretty close to a strong candidate for that requirement. I suspect industry involvement here... Here's a year-old article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that discusses the need for "public-private partnerships" in the vaccine development area. It also features endorsements from UPMC's CEO and Bob Kadlec, both looking to promote the need for investing in vaccine development.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center CEO Jeffrey Romoff is expected to propose that his health system create and run the world's leading facility for manufacturing vaccines by 2013, potentially a $1 billion venture.
 ---------
 The need for better vaccine manufacturing goes beyond a flu outbreak, said Dr. Russell Philip, retired major general of the Army Medical Corps and senior scientific adviser to the Sabin Vaccine Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to creating vaccines for third-world countries.

"The government needs to be able to develop and manufacture vaccines against bioterrorism agents," said Russell, who will testify. "And the current system in the government is depending on an increasingly fragile and reluctant biotech industry. And the products that are needed by the government are not economically attractive to the large pharmaceutical companies.
 ---------
 UPMC worked on its proposal for a public-private partnership for several years, according to Rep. John Murtha's office. Murtha, D-Johnstown, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, held hearings and consulted with UPMC on the need to increase vaccine capacity in the United States.

At a hearing Murtha called in Washington last year, officials testified a public-private partnership, possibly with an academic institution, could be a viable option that likely would cost several billion dollars.

Coincidence? Or planned convergence of pharmaceutical interests seeking hundreds of millions of federal funds to develop vaccines based on a culture of fear-monging? 

DADT Survey to Spouses? Really?

I really want to know who came up with this brilliant idea - asking the military spouses what they think about their husband/wife having to work with homosexual men and women.

Feedback from military spouses is an important aspect in the review, Ham said. The panel wants to know if spouses will be less likely to support their servicemember continuing his service if the law changes, [Gen. Carter] Ham said.

“We know for our married servicemembers, the most important influence on whether or not that servicemember decides to continue his service is his spouse,” he said. “So we need to know what the effects would be if the law was changed.”
---------
“We know that for our married servicemembers, their spouses’ views, the spouses’ satisfaction with the quality of service and the family readiness directly attributes to military readiness,” the general said. “Secretary Gates was focused at the very start to make sure that we understood what impact a possible repeal would mean to our family members.”

Can you believe this? "Excuse me, wife of SGT Smith. We'd really like to know if you feel that your marriage is threatened by the fact that your husband may or may not be working with Teh Gays." Her response: "Gee, maybe I'll get the chance to talk to him about it, you know, when he returns between his third and fourth deployment to the Middle East. Thanks for asking."

Fraking morons. Yes, the spouse has an influence on a military servicemember's opinion, but I don't think this is the primary disruption of their married life. Are they wasting time to push a decision after the mid-term elections, or are they just deliberately trying to tank the issue?

Gassed In Boston

In the constant fear that an American subway could be the next "Aum Shinrikyo" CBRN terrorist event, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is going to gas its Boston subway in an effort to analytically study how gases flow in the oldest subway in the United States. It is widely expected that the air flow in any subway system would quickly disperse gases and particles throughout the system, but it is perhaps unclear how bad the contamination would be. So in come the scientists and the engineers and their fancy, shiny instruments.

Scientists will release the odorless gas and particles in more than 20 stations and subway cars over the next week, “covering the entirety of the underground portion’’ of the train system, the department said.

While gauging the effect of a potential attack is the main priority, the study will also help researchers learn more about the “airflow characteristics’’ of smoke and accidental spills of chemicals and fuels, the department said. In addition, the study will assist in the design of new chemical and biological agent detection systems, according to the statement.

Scientists conducted phase one of the Boston study in December. Teresa Lustig, program manager for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, said yesterday that the similar study was conducted in the Washington subway in 2007 and 2008.

She said that when scientists release gas and particles on subway cars this week, they will be escorted by Transit Police, who will be able to explain to riders that the experiment is sanctioned by the government and safe.

Surrrre it's safe. Just trust the gov'ment. Nothing wrong with inhaling this nontoxic gas, which they did not mention in the article. Nuttin' to worry about friend, just keep on commuting.  Hat tip to Pat!

BTW, as clarification, I think these tests are great. Good to have hard data against which one can improve models and simulations, improve operating procedures, and develop options. Deploying video cameras with the detectors significantly aids in identifying false positives from real incidents. But it's an expensive option for an unlikely event.

UPDATE: BGG comes to the rescue, finding this article that identifies the gases used in a similar Dec 09 test in the Boston subway as sulfur hexafluoride and perfluorocarbon gas, and sodium fluorescein particles. Thanks, BGG!