News analysis and commentary from Phillip Carter -- now located at http://www.intel-dump.com

"For military analysis, stop by Intel Dump"
-Time

"(One) of the more interesting war blogs on the Internet."
-The Washington Post

"[A]n excellent source for real-time military analysis"
-Slate

 
Book Update - The Mission

I finished Dana Priest's new book The Mission late last night, fueled by a pot of Peet's coffee. Great read -- I highly recommend the book.

However, I'm not sure I agree with the author's major arguments. Ms. Priest argues, among other things:

1. The U.S. military has gradually squeezed out diplomatic efforts abroad. This has occurred because military funding has remained constant while funding for diplomatic agencies (State Dept, USAID, Commerce, etc) has declined. I agree with the author's argument here, and think this is a dangerous trend. We ought to be engaging foreign governments, economies, and societies -- not just their militaries.

2. In this vacuum, military commanders (the "CinCs") have initiated a number of "military diplomacy" programs. These include the use of Special Forces to train foreign soldiers, sharing of intelligence, promotion of foreign military sales, etc. In the absence of diplomatic workers from traditional agencies like State and USAID, these soldiers have become the biggest group of American government personnel operating abroad. I agree with the author here too; the soldiers have filled a diplomatic vacuum created by tremendous funding disparities. Ironically, this occurred even in the Clinton Administration, where human rights and international engagement had a kindred spirit in the White House.

3. Soldiers are ill-trained and ill-equipped to do this job on behalf of America. Using soldiers abroad has led to a number of breakdowns in American foreign policy, such as the failure to establish a lasting and self-sustaining peace in the Balkans. Moreover, soldiers have contributed to conflict and human-rights problems in various ways, especially through the training of foreign troops. Here, I strongly disagree with Ms. Priest. U.S. soldiers have left a powerful and lasting legacy in places like Bosnia. They may remain there for some time. But the mission is a success story. 10 years ago, snipers dueled over the streets of Sarajevo, killing civilians with impunity. Today, civilians can walk through Sarajevo without fear. A similar, if not-yet-perfect, situation exists in Kosovo, where U.S. soldiers secure the future of Serbs and Albanians alike.

Bottom Line: Soldiers don't make the best diplomats in the world. They should not replace political, social and economic diplomacy, as they have done because of funding disparities between the Pentagon and other federal agencies. But soldiers do a pretty good job at policing the peace. And while the American infantry isn't automatically ready to assume such missions, it can be trained to do so. With good training and leadership, American soldiers can make and keep peace in some of the world's worst places -- just as they have done in Bosnia and Kosovo. On occasion, mistakes will be made. However, American soldiers have proven their ability to stop the killing -- a goal that thousands of diplomats could never attain in the Balkans.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:25

 
Muslim U.S. Army National Guard soldiers says he won't go
Case raises issues of religious freedom; soldier will lose if he fights this one

Sunday's New York Daily News reports that a New York-based reservist named Ghanim Khalil has said "Hell no, I won't go." It's more complicated than that. Basically, he has stated that he will not go if called to fight in Iraq, because he does not believe in the cause for which he would be fighting. Khalil, who is a supply specialist in the New York National Guard, has no mobilization orders -- but he's been told "it's only a matter of time."

"If I'm asked to go to the Middle East, I will not," Khalil, of Staten Island, said at a news conference yesterday before he headed over to the anti-war rally near the United Nations.

"I believe if this war occurs, it is a violation of human rights," added Khalil, a Muslim with Pakistani roots.

"As a Muslim, I have objections" to the war, he said. But he called his protests universal, saying people of all faiths have spoken out against Persian Gulf War II.
* * *
National Guard spokesman Col. Dan Stoneking wouldn't comment on Khalil specifically, saying, "All Americans have First Amendment rights," but that reservists who won't serve would be sanctioned.

Analysis: This is a ridiculous case on so many levels.

1. I think Mr. Khalil has been influenced by some people close to him to make this stand, probably because it will bolster the alleged moral credibility of the anti-war movement if they have a few martyrs. I go to law school with such an individual, who "made his bones" in the peace movement by encouraging Marines to go AWOL during the first Gulf War. If that's the case, Mr. Khalil ought to think carefully about what he is doing. It is technically possible that he could be court-martialed for his conduct. He will serve the jail time; not them.

2. As a matter of religious freedom, Mr. Khalil is on very shaky ground. The First Amendment has been tested by conscientious objectors who sought to avoid Vietnam service, and they were instead drafted as medics and other types of soldiers. More recently, in the all-volunteer force, the First Amendment was tested by an Air Force rabbi who wanted to wear his yarmulke in uniform. The Court held that the Air Force was not infringing his religious freedom by ordering him to conform to uniform regulations. In general, the Supreme Court defers to military judgment on matters like this. (See Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 US 503, Decided on March 25, 1986) And in this case, religion or not, the Court would probably uphold Mr. Khalil's conviction for failing to report for duty.

3. I'm not sure there's a legitimate religious issue here. First, Saddam Hussein's no Islamist -- he runs a secular regime in Baghdad with little if any tie to the Muslim religion. If America were about to wage war on Saudi Arabia -- or even Iran -- things might be different. Second, Islam itself contains no proscriptions on warfare in its entirety, the way the Quaker religion does for example. Islam embraces "just war" just as Christianity and Judaism do. Thus if our ends are morally just, then Mr. Khalil ought to have no religious objection to them. Personally, I consider the goal of liberating the oppressed Iraqi people to be a pretty just end.

4. This isn't a conscription Army -- Mr. Khalil voluntarily joined the National Guard. He's probably gotten some benefits, like the GI Bill or tuition assistance, and has at least enjoyed the pay from the National Guard since joining. It's not like America's problems with Iraq are new. He should've seen the writing on the wall before and never joind the military if he thought it was so bad.

5. It's not like Mr. Khalil is an infantryman -- he's a supply specialist. If he sees any fighting at all, it will be by accident. If his Guard unit hasn't been called up yet, it may not be called. If his unit was called, it's just as likely to be called for some homeland-defense mission as an overseas deployment. I might cede him some credibility if he were a high-speed Airborne Ranger in the 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, or something like that. But then again, I doubt someone with convictions like Mr. Khalil could make it through that kind of selection and training process.

Post Script: As a U.S. Army officer and Jew, I dealt with this issue several times in my military career. A number of fellow soldiers -- from sergeant to colonel -- asked me in a variety of contexts how I would act if American went to war against or on the side of Israel. A related quesiton was whether I would desert the U.S. Army for the Israeli Defense Force should Israel be attacked. (American military personnel have done this, so it's not a baseless question) My answer was always that I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and that I would remain true to that oath. The questions usually went away as I got to know these individuals. But I think they reflected a larger insecurity in America's uniformed ranks towards Jews and Muslims, and unease over each faith's true allegiances. Thus, I sympathize with Mr. Khalil -- but I cannot support his position in any way.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:17

 
Lawyers at War

International law professor Ruth Wedgwood has something to say to the American Bar Association in this morning's Wall Street Journal: stop impeding America's war on terrorism. Ms. Wedgwood, who is often consulted by the Bush Administration on dicey matters of international law (such as the treatment of enemy combatants), knows what she's talking about. I read the ABA report, and think for the most part it's a flawed document. The ABA, like many lawyers, cannot break with their paradigm that everything is a problem of law; that terrorism must be dealt with by courts and attorneys. Nearly every recommendation in the ABA report hinges on that assumption.

The American Bar Association has entered the fray over the president's detention of enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. At its recent meeting in Seattle, ABA delegates helpfully urged the administration to do what it is already doing -- namely, allowing Americans captured with the Taliban or al Qaeda to seek "meaningful judicial review" of their legal status. In addition, suggested the ABA, any U.S. citizens or residents captured as combatants should be granted access to defense counsel in a way that "accommodates the needs of the detainee and the requirements of national security."

Unfortunately for the rest of us, this second step involves a balancing act that isn't so easy. Americans hold liberty dear, but they also are acutely aware that the need for intelligence on anticipated attacks by al Qaeda is urgent, and the supply is scarce. The prime source of intelligence will be captured combatants; and lawyers, alas, will inevitably turn off that flow of time-critical information.
* * *
The president has employed his constitutional power as commander-in-chief to treat al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as combatants, to keep them from returning to the battlefield. Under the established law of armed conflict, he can civilly intern a captured combatant until the end of active hostilities. Military commanders are entitled to interrogate all combatants at length, to learn as much as possible about al Qaeda's cells, weapons and future plans for attack.

In a conventional war, a habeas corpus petition by enemy soldiers would likely be dismissed out-of-hand. With an enemy who does not wear any distinctive insignia or uniform (contrary to the laws of war) and who makes the world a 24/7 battlefield, the inquiry can be more delicate. But not always. Consider the situation in Virginia, where the federal appeals court cut the Gordian knot after three rounds of appeals related to Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi-American found on the Afghan battlefield carrying an AK-47.

Hamdi, now in the Norfolk naval brig, was born in Baton Rouge and raised in Saudi Arabia. He traveled to Afghanistan to take weapons training with the Taliban and was captured by the Northern Alliance "in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict." Hamdi admitted to military intelligence teams that he'd trained and deployed with the Taliban, and carried an automatic weapon until his capture.

The Fourth Circuit found no reason to reject the factual or legal basis of the president's decision to detain Hamdi as a combatant, in light of his out-of-court admissions and the recorded circumstances of his capture. The appellate court rebuffed the district judge's hunting-call for more battlefield details, including whether Hamdi had actually fired his gun in battle or was merely held in ready reserve.

The proposed "excavation" of battlefield scenes from a half-world away might be characteristic of a criminal investigation, but wasn't adapted to the "rubble of war," ruled Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson and his colleagues. There are, after all, no crime-lab investigators on an Afghan battlefield ready to record whether a combatant's clothing has powder residue. So, too, the demand for review of all classified screening criteria for the transfer of combatants, all raw intelligence interviews of Hamdi, and the names and addresses of all interviewers, was held to be an unwarranted excursion into the president's domain.

The principle of separation of powers unavoidably has a large footprint in wartime. It is the president who is constitutionally charged with successfully prosecuting a war and protecting the American people against renewed attacks.
* * *
Al Qaeda has learned quickly. Its planners are smart enough to use American "mules" once they realize that stateside recruits are immune from effective interrogation. The government could create an expeditious surrogate procedure, using military commissions and counsel to establish the status of any citizen combatants, thus simplifying the federal courts' task of habeas review. But in the meantime, the dilemma remains. We have stationed anti-aircraft batteries around government buildings. We have tasked environmental clean-air sampling stations around the country to watch for biological reagents. Yet intelligence remains a key to citizen safety.

The federal courts will take this issue case-by-case and may vary their procedure according to the clarity of the government's affidavit. But journeys to Afghanistan and planning sessions with al Qaeda leave little room for doubt that someone has signed up with the bad guys.

Analysis: Terrorism is a round peg that cannot easily be pounded easily into the square holes of law or war. It requires innovative solutions, sometimes from the war paradigm and sometimes from the criminal-law paradigm. Forcing the President to choose all his options from the law paradigm will tie his hands in a way we can't afford. America cannot afford to let terrorists have a tactical advantage like that the criminal courts or 4th Amendment would confer -- we must have the ability to gather intelligence and pro-actively stop terrorism.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:02

 
Firefighters' masks fail to stop chemical agents

This disturbing report from Noah Shachtman at Defense Tech:

FIREFIGHTERS' MASKS CAN'T STOP GAS
The gas masks used by almost every fire department in the country can't keep chemical agents like sarin and mustard gas from getting in. Many firefighters have no idea their equipment is deficient, according to CBS News.

When he received the report (of the masks' shortcomings), the chief of the Arlington Virginia Fire Department, Ed Plaugher, says he was, "devastated - literally devastated."

Plaugher led the Sept. 11 response at the Pentagon. Even though his rescue teams presumed there might be poison gas, they rushed in anyway, certain their gear would protect them. That confidence is gone.

"The failure of the test is a very, very big deal for us, because it means we have to re-evaluate and re-ramp the way that we attack an incident like this," says Plaugher.

What he means is delay. Today, if the alarm rings and a gas attack is suspected, the Arlington teams will not rush in.

Sequel: Want to know another not-too-secret fact? Standard-issue military gear won't protect against many of the industrial chemical hazards that firefighter's gear is designed to protect against. Military protective masks are designed to protect against battlefield chemical/biological weapons, but not against industrial/urban hazards like what might happen if you accidentally blew up a chemical factory in Baghdad. Are there suits that will protect you against everything? Yes, but they're expensive, hard to use, and delicate. (If you saw the movie Outbreak, you know what I mean)
posted by Phillip Carter at 21:56

 
Women Warriors

Sunday's New York Times Magazine ran a great photo essay on female warriors who may lead the way to Baghdad if we go to war with Iraq. In many ways, the article reprises the cover article I wrote in December for the Washington Monthly on women in combat. I encourage you to check both out.

Since the Gulf victory in 1991, a series of largely unnoticed policy changes have opened new opportunities for women to fight alongside, and even to lead, front-line troops. The Navy and Air Force, with some fanfare, allowed women into the cockpits of fighters and bombers. But less well known is how vastly the Army has expanded the role of women in ground-combat operations. Today, women command combat military police companies, fly Apache helicopters, work as tactical intelligence analysts, and even serve in certain artillery units--jobs that would have been unthinkable for them a decade ago. In any war in Iraq, these changes could put thousands of women in the midst of battle, far more than at any time in American history.

This new role for female U.S. troops is the product of three different forces. One is congressional pressure to integrate the military by gender as it previously had been integrated by race. Another is the ongoing enlistment shortage; the military remains reluctant to admit women yet is unable to recruit enough competent men to staff an all-volunteer Army. But the most important reason has been pressure from women within the Army who need combat experience to advance their careers, nearly all of them in the officer corps. And yet this experiment has been conducted largely below the threshold of public awareness.

The wisdom of this integration is sure to be tested in any sizable ground war with Iraq. If female soldiers perform poorly, they could put their comrades' lives at risk, strengthen the hand of conservatives who oppose women serving as soldiers, and provoke a backlash from the American public. But if, in the heat of battle, women fight bravely and effectively, it could spark a different sort of debate among the military and the public at large over why regulations and military culture still conspire to keep women from many prime assignments in the nation's service.
posted by Phillip Carter at 19:58

 

Some thoughts on duct tape and plastic wrap

Knowing my background in anti-terrorism and force protection, some friends and family members have asked for my opinion on whether they should buy a stockage of duct tape and plastic wrap -- and whether they should build a safe room in their house. I usually qualify my advice by saying I was an MP, not a Chemical Corps officer. I know the general details of biological and chemical warfare, but not the intimate details that make these deadly things work. That said, I think this is good advice, and I wish there was more of it out there.

1. Will duct tape and plastic wrap protect my house? Maybe. If you can use these materials to make an air-tight box in your house, then in theory, you can keep out any biological or chemical agent. Try it on a small scale -- take a decidedly non-airtight cardboard box and use these materials to seal it. Then put that box into a tank of water and see if any air bubbles escape. Do this again until you get it right. It's not easy work. Though very strong, duct tape is still somewhat porous; you need to layer these materials to achieve a complete seal. Plastic wrap is notoriously weak too; it rips and tears quite easily. If you can do this well enough to build an air-tight box that withstands the water-tank test, you're better than me. In any case, it's theoretically possible to build an air-tight container in your house to protect yourself against chemical or biological agents. It just takes a lot of effort -- and the type of engineering skill that usually comes with an MIT degree and lots of experience.

But there are a myriad of issues to be resolved next.

2. How will you get fresh air in/out of this safe room? Without some filter mechanism, it will be impossible to refresh the air in your safe house. You can deal with this in several ways. One might stock oxygen tanks inside, though that may cause interesting overpressure issues if you release those pressurized tanks within your sealed room. (The overpressure may blow the seals on your tape) With some engineering expertise, you could add an air-filtration system with a HEPA filter and a carbon filter to screen out all chemical and biological agents (much like a gas mask does). But this would be difficult and costly.

3. How do you eat? Assuming you have a perfectly sealed box and you can recirculate the air, you'll also have to eat and drink at some point. In theory, you can just stock some canned goods and bottled water and you're good to go. But how much do you stock? This is manageable, but it must be planned ahead of time. If the threat is real and your house is contaminated, you can't expect to step out of the box for a quick trip to the fridge. (Theoretically, you also have to plan for the removal of human waste, but I'll leave that to you)

4. How do you know when to get in/out of the box? The answer here is far from clear -- this is the hardest question of all. Except for certain high-threat locations like the Pentagon and White House, we have no national chem/bio surveillance system which would tell us there's been a nerve-gas or anthrax attack. Scary, huh? Chemical weapons would be detected by large numbers of casualties, and possibly through the signature of the delivery device. Police, fire and specialized National Guard units would outline the contaminated area and attempt to seal it off as best they could. But that would take time. If you're in that area, you may or may not get any warning of the chemical agent. You simply aren't going to get the real-time warning you need to get into the box fast enough to make a difference, unless you happen to have your own personal M8A1 Chemical Agent Alarm.
- Biological agents are even trickier -- no one may know they're there until they start killing people in many cases. Until recently, the military didn't have a system for real-time detection and warning of biological agent. It does not -- the so-called BIDS system. But it's not perfect, and it's not fielded all that widely. If news helicopters flew over Los Angeles and sprayed anthrax spores or some other nasty bug, we would not get the warning in time to hop into our sealed boxes. Indeed, we may not learn of this incident until the first casualties start walking into local emergency rooms.

5. How would you know it's 'all clear'? Again, you wouldn't. No system exists today to go around to every neighborhood and decontaminate it after an attack. Even if such a system existed, how would you know your neighborhood had been decontaminated? In theory, TV or radio stations might broadcast such information, but would you be willing to trust the local news station with your life? In the military, we train to decontaminate personnel and critical equipment. But some areas themselves may stay contaminated until the agent dissipates naturally. This is especially true of so-called "persistent nerve agents" like VX, which occurs as a gelatin-like substance and is one of the most lethal substances in existence. In the right weather, this stuff can persist for days or weeks. Luckily, however, this stuff is fairly static. If we know where the device was blown and we know the wind, we can predict where the agent will go. If you stay out of this hazardous area, you'll live. But if you're in the contaminated area and you're in your box, you may be stuck in a really bad place for some time.

Recommendation: Save your money and avoid the long lines at Home Depot -- don't buy the duct tape or plastic wrap. Even if you could solve all of these problems, it's still unlikely you'd get enough advance warning from the government to get into your "safe" house in time. Instead, your best bet is to listen to the news. If an attack happens, look for information about where it hit and where it's predicted to spread. Then do everything you can to avoid that area. I know it sounds simple. But often times, the simplest plans are the best ones.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:44

 
Reserve call-ups strain city/county public safety departments

Today's Los Angeles Times carries a front-page article on the strain that extensive call-ups of American military reservists puts on police, fire, and civic agencies at the state and local level around the country. Here in California, more than 8,000 reservists (including me) have been called to active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Many of these tours have lasted for a few months; some have lasted a year or longer. With war looming in Iraq and occupation duty on the horizon after that, it's not clear when these callups will end. Conceivably, many soldiers will be called a second time if this trend continues.

For a number of complex reasons, a disproportionate number of these reservists work in the public sector -- especially in local police and fire departments. Police and fire departments like to hire military veterans because of their physical aptitude, military training, education, experience, and professional maturity. Many departments, like the LAPD, award extra points to veterans in the hiring process. These agencies also have generous reserve-duty policies, sometimes paying their personnel for the time they serve in the reserves (on top of their reserve salaries). Police officers and firefighters often rely on reserve service for much-needed extra money in the early years of their careers. For their part, police/fire departments encourage reserve service because the military provides leadership training/experience their personnel can't get as easily in the civilian world.

However, there's a basic tension here -- the public-safety needs of the state/local community vs. the military personnel needs of the U.S. government.

"Are these people better off guarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, or can they do more service to the country as police officers back in their communities?" asked Lynchburg Police Chief C.W. Bennett, who is struggling to make do with three of his most experienced officers gone or about to go. "We have to make some tough decisions about where these people can do the most good."

The Chief is right -- someone needs to be thinking about why we're calling up so many reservists, and whether these men/women can do more good if they're left in the departments they work in. Current Army mobilization policies (FORSCOM Regulation 500-3-3) do not allow for the exemption of reservists from mobilization for external work reasons, i.e. "the city needs me." Compelling personal reasons can sometimes exempt a soldier, but that's about it. I know a lot of people who do important public-sector work in the anti-terrorism community who don't serve in the military reserves for this reason.

There's a second issue: why does the Pentagon need to call up so many reservists in the first place? The answer is that after Vietnam, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Creighton Abrams decided to restructure America's military to require a massive reserve callup in any future war. The theory was that a reserve callup would test the political resolve of America's leaders, and force them to account for the war to America's people. (Vietnam was fought largely by conscripts and the existing Army -- with little reserve mobilization at all.) Consequently, critical support units like military police, logistics, intelligence, civil affairs, etc., were moved to the reserve component. The Air Force pushed a number of its tactical fighter wings to the Air National Guard and Air Force reserve.

Today, this has come around to bite the Pentagon in the backside. With our current commitments to Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Egypt, and a dozen other places, America barely has the forces it needs to fight the war in Afghanistan and the buildup in Kuwait. Moreover, the active force structure relies on critical support units (see above) that exist only in the reserves . Consequently, the President must call up a substantial number of reservists to fight the war on terrorism, and any subsequent/related war on Iraq.
posted by Phillip Carter at 15:46

 
Signing off until Monday

I'm going camping north of Santa Barbara this weekend, and will be taking a break from 'blogging for the next three days. Despite the current sophisticated state of cellular telephony, laptops, and high-speed Internet service, I've made a conscious choice to leave my laptop behind and get away for a few days. I may take a book, but that's about it.

I promise to do a full Intel Dump on the weekend's events when I return. I'm sifting through materials on the new "Terrorist Threat Integration Center" and will have some thoughts on that (and more) when I return.
posted by Phillip Carter at 18:55

 
Book Recommendation: The Mission
Washington Post reporter Dana Priest’s new book on the American military

I just picked up Dana Priest’s new book The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America’s Military. (W.W. Norton & Co., 2003) This book is the latest of its popular/political/journalistic genre to hit the racks on America’s military. By my count, we’ve had David Halberstam’s War in a Time of Peace, Eliot Cohen’s Supreme Command, Max Boot’s Savage Wars of Peace, Wes Clark's Waging Modern War, and several others in the past 1-2 years. Ms. Priest is an outstanding reporter for the Washington Post; she now covers the White House. I will withhold judgment on the book itself, having just finished the first chapter. However, I already sense an argument against many of the ways that Presidents Clinton and Bush used the military during the last five years. It’s a very provocative argument, and a book that I look forward to reading.

Here are a couple of sample passages from the Prologue:

Long before September 11, the U.S. government had grown increasingly dependent on its military to carry out its foreign affairs. The shift was incremental, little noticed, de facto. It did not even qualify as an “approach.” The military simply filled a vacuum left by an indecisive White House, an atrophied State Department, and a distracted Congress. After September 11, however, the trend accelerated dramatically with the war in Afghanistan and the likelihood of U.S. military operations elsewhere. Without a doubt, U.S.-sponsored political reform abroad is being eclipsed by new military pacts focusing on anti-terrorism and intelligence-sharing.

All this comes at a time when decision-makers understand less and less about their military. Our elected leaders often treat men and women in uniform with either suspicion or excessive reference, failing to ask probing questions or push hard enough for reform. Yet it is the responsibility of those civilians to set the military’s direction, to use it as a tool when appropriate and otherwise to refrain from using it. At a minimum, Americans should understand the consequences of substituting generals and Green Berets for diplomats, and nineteen-year-old paratroopers for police and aid workers on nation-building missions.
* * *
The heightened reliance on generals, grunts and Green Berets arose when the prospect of big, direct confrontation and smaller unconventional wars between the superpowers ended. For a while, U.S. political and military leaders flailed about trying to redefine the country’s national interests. Military budgets and force sizes shrank, but even so, the Defense Department had more money and more people than any other foreign-focused government agency. With fewer threats, strategic-level commanders also had time and resources to worry about other things. More important, they had the inclination. Many officers, connoisseurs of history, viewed peacetime as an intermission between big wars. They wanted to use this intermission to prevent the next big conflict, which their think tanks predicted would be fought asymmetrically with low-tech weapons: suicide bombers, toxic chemicals, and deadly viruses wielded by worldwide terrorist cells funded by drugs, diamonds and dirty money. The key to prevention, many came to believe, was to create multinational “neighborhood watch” groups – regional coalitions of nations – that would discourage the bad guys in the ‘hood from straying too far and that would stop them if they tried something stupid.

No figures were more convinced of this approach than the generals who led the U.S. military’s regionally focused unified commands. With discretionary money and time, these commanders-in-chief, or “CinCs” (pronounced “sinks”), set out on their own parallel course to “shape” the world, as instructed by the president and the secretary of defense. Fairly soon, the CinCs grew into a powerful force in U.S. foreign policy because of the disproportionate weight of their resources and organization in relation to the assets and influence of other parts of America’s foreign policy structure – in particular, the State Department, which was shriveling in size, stature, and spirit even as the military’s role expanded.
* * *
Although the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was clear in purpose, we are now seeing that the hardest, longest, and most important work comes after the bombing stops, when rebuilding replaces destroying and consensus-building replaces precision strikes. As the U.S. Army’s experience in Kosovo shows, the mind-set, decision-making, and training of infantry soldiers rarely mixes well with the disorder inherent in civil society. The mismatch of culture and mission can distort the goal of rebuilding a country. In the hands of poorly-formed, misguided troops, it can create disaster.

Such a mismatch was evident even to Pfc. Ian Smith, a nineteen-year-old from Ventura, California, who sat at the computer stall next to mine one evening in Vitina (Kosovo). Downloading music to his laptop, he leaned back in his yellow plastic chair and offered an unsolicited assessment of his Kosovo mission: “If you want to put a country back on its feet, you can’t send the military. You have to send reformers,” he said, meaning the civilians he imagined do these sorts of repairs.
Smith, however, had already lowered his expectations about the “reformers.” “This year all the NGOs (humanitarian organizations) are gone. So we take firewood from the people who need it,” meaning the majority Albanians, “and give it to people who need it,” meaning the minority Serbs. He rolled his eyes. “The only way to make a difference is when there’s a TV in every house, a phone in every house. Make it a first-world country and they’ll feel advanced. If they see a difference, that’s the key.”
Smith’s infantry brethren are now in Afghanistan. They, too, believe they are on an unnamed, open-ended mission on behalf of the United States – even if the rest of America hasn’t yet figured it out.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:57

 
Army passes on its 'lessons learned' from smallpox vaccinations
Some side effects, but all can be managed

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on a particularly candid press briefing by the Army on its recent campaign to inoculate 500,000 soldiers against smallpox. Though well planned/executed, the military vaccination effort has run into predictable problems with medical logistics and medical effects. Most of these were anticipated (e.g. side effects), and the military planned for their occurrence. But some were not. It's important to note that the military enjoys several advantages over the civilian population in this effort -- it's more healthy (on average), younger, and more tightly controlled than civilian society. In theory, these problems will be magnified in any civilian vaccination effort.

"The risks [of the vaccine] are still pretty darn low," Col. John D. Grabenstein, deputy director for military vaccines, told a scientific panel created to advise the government's smallpox vaccination program. "Sick leave is rare and short ... and just about everything is occurring at rates lower than historically predicted," he added.
* * *
Even the military, with all its built-in efficiencies, has had some problems with its vaccination program. Tens of thousands of military personnel have experienced fever, malaise and swollen lymph nodes after being vaccinated, and "there has been a rash of rashes," Grabenstein said, about 12 for every 1,000 people inoculated. Almost all are harmless, but as many as seven people have developed what may be generalized vaccinia, a systemic spread of the vaccine's live vaccinia virus in lesions over the body, he said.

In addition, two soldiers were hospitalized with encephalitis, a serious inflammation of the brain, and an airman developed myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart.

But even these severe cases "have had a full recovery and are not slowing down the military vaccination program," Grabenstein said.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:54

 
'Lessons learned' from an old soldier
Air war architect from Gulf War I suggests path for Gulf War II

Few airmen earn the right to call themselves a "soldier" or "warrior". Among the services, the Air Force is regarded as the most corporate and least martial. However, some airmen stand out, like Colonel John Boyd and General Charles "Chuck" Horner. These men, through their actions in combat and peace, earned the title of warrior. With help from a brilliant plans staff, Chuck Horner conceived and directed the air war over Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91. This campaign is understood today to have revolutionized warfare, and to have set the conditions for the massively successful ground assault. When Chuck Horner speaks, I listen.

Today, he writes an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times with a few lessons for military planners engaged in the current campaign:

We knew how Iraq operated its air defenses in 1991, and we attacked vital communication and command nodes. Once they were isolated, individual surface-to-air missiles and aircraft were destroyed so viciously that surviving Iraqi SAM operators and fighter pilots were debilitated by shock and awe, incapable of employing their weapons effectively. Then, we flew at altitudes beyond the range of the Iraqi guns and short-range SAMs and used precision weapons to destroy many targets.

Although we ultimately forced Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, our approach was not an effective one for changing leadership.
* * *
Another lesson from the Gulf War is to integrate modern air power with ground forces. In 1991, air power destroyed artillery and armor, limiting Iraq's capacity to repel our ground forces. More than 40 Iraqi divisions were defeated with the loss of about 150 Americans, half of whom were killed by our own weapons. Recent action in Afghanistan -- when air and land forces again were closely integrated -- reaffirms the effectiveness of this approach.

In order not to leave Iraq worse off than it is today, we should use our forces efficiently: Don't engage those elements of the Iraqi military that do not resist. In 1991, 88,000 Iraqis chose to surrender. Allow them to do so again. For our own security, advanced surveillance aircraft can monitor the movement of bypassed Iraqi units. If they move to threaten our forces, they would be put down by precision weapons.
* * *
We must keep the Iraqi people informed and reassure them that we will return their country to their control. People who have fled Iraq can communicate with the folks at home to tell them what to expect. Television, radio and leaflet messages will also be important.

Any strategy must recognize the important and difficult issues that will exist after a war. Our land forces will play a major role in areas such as providing food, water and medical care until relief agencies can take over.

There will also be an immediate need to maintain law and order to prevent criminal acts and retribution.

Air power will have the lead role in winning the conflict, but land power will have the more critical role of helping Iraq rebuild itself.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:45

 
Can the President wage war on Iraq?
The latest skirmish: a civil lawsuit to enjoin the Bush Administration from war

In Massachusetts, 12 plaintiffs filed suit today in federal court seeking to enjoin President George Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from waging war on Iraq without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. The plaintiffs include members of Congress (John Conyers, Jesse Jackson Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott, Jose Serrano), as well as ordinary citizens affected by the war -- including active and reserve military personnel.

"A coalition of plaintiffs... hereby bring this action challenging, under Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution, the authority of Defendant President George W. Bush and Defendant Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld (hereinafter “Defendants”) to wage war against Iraq, absent a clear declaration of war by the United States Congress."

The parties have also requested an expedited hearing for their case, given that the President has said it will be "weeks not months" before he conducts decisive action against Iraq.

"... Each of the Plaintiffs faces imminent harm from the war threatened by the Defendants. The Plaintiff service people have the most to lose – their lives and limbs – in an illegal war. The Plaintiff parents risk the loss or injury of their children in the service when an undeclared war commences. The Plaintiff Congressional Representatives are threatened with losing their constitutional right and authority to be the decision makers, representing their constituencies, as to whether the United States will enter a war with Iraq. The Plaintiffs meet the standards for issuance of a preliminary injunction, as the accompanying memorandum of law demonstrates."

Analysis: Of course, this is a political tactic. It's an ironic twist on Clausewitz, who wrote that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Here, you have a situation where law is a continuation of politics by other means. (This begs the question: is law really a form of warfare?) Congress has taken up this issue, and to the chagrin of these anti-war activists, passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. Congress has also passed a resolution to authorize the use of force in America's war on terrorism.

The courts have never -- and probably will never -- hold that the President needs an explicit declaration of war before committing US troops abroad. That would unconstitutionally infringe on his power as Commander in Chief of the military. In several wartime cases, the Supreme Court has held that Presidential decisions to commit troops to combat without such a declaration have been lawful. There's no reason why they would change that holding in this case. (But see, plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their arguments) Unless this suit finds a very receptive federal judge, it will die in U.S. District Court. And even if it proceeds, it will not succeed.

Update: The AP reports that "There has been no response yet from the Bush administration. The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction and an expedited hearing. An expedited hearing was granted, and a federal judge will hear the case next Thursday."
posted by Phillip Carter at 18:50

 
Human shields cling to bridge in Baghdad
If the U.S. bombs the bridge and kills them, is it a war crime?

The Associated Press reports that 14 peace activists from several different nations have reached Baghdad after a lengthy tour of Europe via double-decker bus. The group almost didn't make it, and their leader (former US marine Ken Nichols) was deported by Turkey before reaching Iraq. After days of speculation over whether the U.S. would stop this traveling circus, the peaceniks have reached their destination. Now that they're there, they have "wrapped their arms around posts on a bridge over the Tigris River on Thursday, symbolizing their intent to act as human shields in any U.S. war on Iraq."

The 14 activists, mostly from Italy, were one of the first groups here using the "shield" title, which suggests they might place their bodies at potential targets to deter bombing. But they acknowledged their mission is only a gesture meant to try to deter an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. "I have no intention of being a martyr," Canadian Roberta Taman said. "I'm here because I believe that the world wants peace and that we can achieve peace."

The campaigners, organized as the Iraq Peace Team, have been draping banners over public facilities in Baghdad this week - an electricity station, a water treatment plant and, on Thursday, the Martyrs Bridge over the Tigris. "Bombing This site Is A War Crime," the banners read.

Is that right? Would it be a war crime for the U.S. to hit the bridge over the Tigris?

The answer is not as clear cut as either the activists -- or the Pentagon -- would like.

1. The first issue is whether the larger war itself would be lawful. Lawful acts of combat in the context of an unlawful war would obviously not be lawful. The U.S. reads existing UN Security Council resolutions to already give the U.S. the authority to attack Iraq, notwithstanding the Security Council's current hesitation to authorize any action. These resolutions, including several passed in 1990-91 in the First Gulf War, are so-called "Chapter VII" resolutions of the UN Security Council which authorize military force for implementation. However, the French and German view is that these resolutions do not suffice to create international authorization for a war, and that a US-led war without explicit (and new) UN authorization would be unlawful. This is a dramatic oversimplication, but you get the idea. The very lawfulness of any US action in Iraq might be questioned.

2. Commanders have a duty to observe two principles of the law of war which are relevant here. The first is "distinction", which means the distinction between military and civilian targets. Commanders are required to take all practical measures to hit military targets and to not hit civilian targets. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal under the laws of war, and intentional (or negligent) collateral damage may be as well. The second principle is "proportionality." Military commanders should use the amount of force necessary to accomplish the mission and defend friendly forces -- but not more.

- Is the bridge a lawful military target? If Iraqi troops or military/strategic assets use it, the answer is pretty easily yes. If it's used for logistical or infrastructural supply of Iraqi troops, the answer could still be yes. If yes, then the bridge can be hit.

- If the bridge can be hit, what about the known existence of civilians at that site? Here it becomes tricky. In theory, commanders are to avoid intentionally or negligently causing civilian casualties. However, "human shields" would create an easy way for despots to make their adversaries commit war crimes. So international law deals with this by putting the blame to the side that uses human shields. If Iraq condones or allows these persons to be human shields, then Iraq accepts the blame (and legal liability in a war-crimes tribunal) for their deaths. In the first Gulf War, Iraq used human shields quite extensively. The U.S. knew about them, and bombed some of those sites anyway because the military value of those targets outweighed the collateral damage. Nonetheless, the legal and moral responsibility for those deaths lay with Saddam Hussein.

- Are there any 'proportionality' issues here? Probably not. Assuming the bridge is a lawful military target (and critical infrastructure usually is), the U.S. can use the appropriate bomb to bring it down. I'm no expert on air-dropped munitions, but I suspect that means a precision-guided munition of some kind that can hit the bridge and bring it down with one or two bombs. Such a weapon would kill whoever was on the bridge, and probably hurt/kill anyone with their arms wrapped around it too. There isn't a way to accomplish this legitimate military end (blowing the bridge) without causing casualties in the immediate vicinity. The absence of any viable/practical alternative means to cause that end means this would almost certainly be a proportional strike.

3. The peace activists themselves may be relieving both the Americans and the Iraqis here of any legal liability by their actions. In American law, this doctrine is called "assumption of risk." It requires two elements: 1) that the victim know about the risk and 2) that the victim voluntarily assume that risk as an act of free will. The actions of these activists argue strongly that they have assumed the risk of being killed by American ordnance. Such an event would be tragic. But the U.S. cannot be held liable for this, and military lawyers advising Gen. Tommy Franks know this. It's unlikely this human-shield effort will have any effect whatsoever -- except to cause more suffering for the families of these activists if they are hurt or killed.
posted by Phillip Carter at 18:10

 
Bush Administration sends war plan back to planners for revision
Plan failed to minimize civilian casualties; set conditions for American occupation

Today's Washington Times reports that the White House has turned down an initial plan for the air war in Iraq. Why? As written, the plan would have targeted parts of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure and other things which would inflict too much harm on the Iraqi people. This, in turn, would cause tremendous civil-military problems for the U.S. in the post-war occupation phase, giving Iraqi civilians more reason to resent the U.S. instead of seeing the U.S. as its liberator.

The Bush administration's desire to spare dual military-civilian targets in Iraq has produced an air war plan that is too timid and does not properly prepare the battle space for ground troops, according to interviews with military officers.
* * *
The officers said the plan, as of a few weeks ago, would largely spare infrastructure targets, such as bridges, and most, if not all, telephone communications.

The officers said the plan deviates in significant ways from the 1991 38-day air campaign during Operation Desert Storm, in which telephone communications, power systems and bridges were targeted from the first day to isolate Saddam Hussein and his military forces.

The reason for the change: The Bush administration wants to spare hardships to Iraqi civilians and to show that the real target of the bombing campaign is Saddam.

It hopes that Iraqi citizens, in return, accept U.S. military rule during an interim period leading to the establishment of a democratic government. Bush officials also want, to the extent possible, to avoid civilian casualties.

Analysis: This story illustrates just how far the U.S. is willing to go to scrupulously observe the laws of war, and to minimize civilian death and suffering in war. No nation in history does more than the United States to observe the laws of war in combat. Our military fights under strict rules of engagement, in extremely focused way. We attach lawyers to every level of command down to the regiment/brigade -- these attorneys advise commanders on how to fight lawfully. We train our soldiers in detail on the laws of war before deployment so they'll know the right thing to do. Our military has the technology to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and to focus our combat power very tightly on those military targets. Finally, we have CNN to keep us honest; any mistakes will be instantly and graphically reported to the world, and our civilian/military leaders will be held accountable for those acts.
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:16

 
WP: U.S. special operations forces enter Iraq

Tom Ricks, perhaps the best military reporter around, reports in this morning's Washington Post that American Special Forces teams have entered Iraq to conduct long-range reconnaissance and direct action in preparation for a U.S. led campaign.

The troops, comprising two Special Operations Task Forces with an undetermined number of personnel, have been in and out of Iraq for well over a month, said two military officials with direct knowledge of their activities. They are laying the groundwork for conventional U.S. forces that could quickly seize large portions of Iraq if President Bush gives a formal order to go to war, the officials said.

The ground operation points to a Pentagon war plan that is shaping up to be dramatically different than the one carried out by the United States and its allies in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Instead of beginning with a massive aerial bombardment, the plan envisions a series of preliminary ground actions to seize Iraqi territory and effectively encircle Baghdad before a large-scale air campaign hits the capital, defense officials and analysts said.

"It's possible that ground movements could come in and occupy large portions of Iraq almost unimpeded," said one person familiar with Pentagon planning. In northern Iraq, the source said, "we might get to the outskirts of Tikrit without firing a shot." Tikrit, a city north of Baghdad, is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ancestral home and a major base of his power.

Analysis: Ricks has extremely good sources, and I can't think of a reason why he got this story wrong. This strategy also matches U.S. doctrine, which makes it more likely that it's true. Before any war, you want to do as much as possible to get accurate, on-the-ground, eyes-on intelligence about the enemy. Special Forces teams are uniquely suited to do this mission, given their extensive training, experience and maturity from multiple deployments, language skills, ability to be covert, and skill with using sophisticated electronic surveillance and communications gear.

What does this mean for the larger question -- are we going to war? I think the answer has always been yes, but now that war is more imminent. The Pentagon would not commit these American soldiers if it did not see action in a relatively short amount of time. Committing any ground troops entails substantial risk, and my gut insticts tell me the U.S. would not do this unless it planned a war within months.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:56

 
More on smallpox vaccine controversy

UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman has some interesting thoughts today on this weblog regarding the smallpox-vaccine controversy. Mark's one of the smartest policy guys I've met in my (short) lifetime, and he's especially good at assessing the cost/benefit calculus of a particular policy to decide whether it's rational or not. One of his arguments really struck a chord with me:

Part of the problem seems to be that workers who have reactions to the shots severe enough to keep them out of work for a while would have to rely on the notoriously inadequate worker's compensation system to cover their health care costs and lost earnings. (Perhaps if their lobbyists had been somewhat more generous to Republican campaign funds, someone in the Administration would have considered their interests before proposing a plan affecting their interests.) Now you might say -- the editors of the Wall Street Journal do say, in an editorial dated (11 Feb 03) -- that the country needs to have these people vaccinated, and that they ought to be patriotic enough to do the right thing. But on the other hand you might say that if the country needs them vaccinated, then the country damned well ought to pay the full cost of the vaccination, rather than leaving the risk on people few of whom are rich enough to benefit from a cut in dividend taxation.
* * *
Even that won't do the job entirely. The California Nurses' Association, for example, is resisting the vaccinations at least in part because it opposes the Administration's plan to invade Iraq. That strikes me as an intolerable mixing of roles; the CNA ought to defend its members' interests, and is free to express its political opinions, but nobody put them in charge of foreign policy. But I doubt that ideological nonsense of that sort is a major problem here. The problem is a plan that may be poorly conceived and has certainly been poorly explained, combined with a failure to consult the opinions, or consider the interests, of the heath care workers that they and their representatives could reasonably interpret as an expression of contempt."

Agreed. This is a problem I detect in a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-vaccine/anti-whatever groups. They meld the causes when the causes don’t exactly lend themselves to it. The California Nurses Assoc. and California Medical Assoc. are on solid ground if they oppose the vaccines on medical grounds, on workers-comp grounds, and possibly even on personal-autonomy grounds. But when the CMA and CNA oppose such policies on illogical grounds, or patently political grounds, they spend their political capital in a way that does nothing for their constituency or the people of California. They have a good argument -- the Bush Administration needs to do more to justify mass smallpox vaccinations. That may entail scaring people with scenarios like that from Dark Winter. But that's what policy leadership means -- explaining to people the why behind what they're being asked to do.
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:17

 
Bloomberg.com: Units Headed to Gulf Lack Proper Chemical-Warfare Training

Tony Capaccio reported on yesterday's Bloomberg news wire that U.S. Army units headed towards the Gulf had not completed all of their required "NBC" training. (NBC = nuclear, biological and chemical) In an internal audit of training records, the Army Audit Agency found that several units, including the Army's 4th Infantry Division (in which I served from 1999-2001) failed to train on a number of critical NBC tasks with the required frequency and intensity, including:
- Wear, maintenance and exchange of "Mission Oriented Protective Posture" chemical-protective gear
- Maintenance of various pieces of chemical-warfare equipment, such as nerve-agent detectors
- Firing the M4 and M16 rifle while wearing the MOPP suit and protective mask
- Use of chemical-defense equipment like the M8 alarm and CAM (Chemical Agent Monitor)

Army auditors randomly examined 25 units at Fort Lewis, Washington, and Fort Hood, Texas, headquarters of the U.S. I Corps and III Corps, respectively. The Fort Hood units included the 4th Infantry Division and 13th Corps Support Command, which are deploying to the Gulf region.

"Units generally did not have effective chemical defense programs," the Army Audit Agency said in a 50-page report obtained by Bloomberg News. "Our review showed that unit commanders aren't making nuclear, biological and chemical training a priority," the audit said.
* * *
The audit found that soldiers in 18 of the 25 units reviewed at Fort Hood and Fort Lewis "weren't proficient in operating chemical and biological defense equipment."

"With the exception of masks, soldiers couldn't effectively operate basic chemical defense equipment," the report found.

That's in part because chemical specialists assigned to combat units "didn't have the level of expertise necessary to train other soldiers in the proper operation of chemical and biological defense equipment," the audit said.

Nearly one-fourth of 380 standard-issue gas masks, chemical agent alarms and decontamination devices had defects or were otherwise not unusable because specialists "didn't make sure soldiers either performed operator preventive maintenance checks and services or properly completed the services," it said.

Some Fort Hood and Fort Lewis units that were graded as having a high readiness level "didn't ensure solders received chemical and biological defense training" to make them capable of firing weapons while in protective gear, the audit said.

Soldiers in 18 of the 25 units "didn't meet the weapons qualification standard," it said.

Analysis: This is very disturbing news, though it's not surprising to me as an officer who served in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood. NBC training is tough, messy, difficult training, and it's not the kind of thing you want to do in the Texas heat. That said, it was our job as leaders to train our soldiers to standards. Good leadership isn't about pandering to your troops and going easy on them -- it's about training them to standard so they come alive from combat. Sadly, many Army units suffer from weak leadership. At Fort Hood, this came from the top down. The Fort Hood commander created a general climate of coddling for soldiers. In trying to strike a balance between quality of life and combat readiness, he erred way too far on the side of quality of life. Junior leaders had to seek a general's permission to train at nights or on weekends; training resources were tightly managed so leaders had difficulty getting bullets, fuel, spare parts, etc., to train.

That said, some units overcome those obstacles to do the right thing and train their soldiers. In the 4th Military Police Company, we trained often on this task and embedded NBC training into every training event -- even gunnery. I vividly remember shooting Scout Gunnery in August 1999 while wearing my full MOPP suit and ProMask, and losing 10 pounds in one week. (That was a hot week) As MPs, we would play a key role in working with Chemical units to mark and seal off contaminated areas, and also to direct contaminated units to decontamination sites. So we trained hard on this, because we knew it meant our lives in combat. And as leaders, we enforced standards ruthlessly. For me personally, a lot of that owed to my experience in Korea with the 2nd Infantry Division, where I lived for a year with the constant threat of chemical-tipped artillery.

However, the 4th Infantry Division faced two further challenges:
1) 4ID was in the process of digitization during this time period, and consumed by several major exercises at the same time. There is a finite amount of training time available to any commander -- even those who push the envelope. We pushed as much training in as possible, but we were never really able to train on anything 100%. Instead, we would multi-task a lot, such as embedding NBC training in our convoy-defense training.
2) Fort Hood and the Army had an extreme shortage of chemical officers and sergeants to manage this training in their units. Much of this owed to a failure to recruit/train/retain quality junior officers, with an acute shortage in the Chemical Corps branch. The same problem existed for enlisted personnel. This meant that a lot of units had no "subject matter expert" they could use to plan/manage/supervise this training.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:56

 
House-Senate Conference Committee Agrees to Limit Pentagon TIA Project

Today's New York Times reports that a House-Senate conference committee agreed to a legislative amendment that would forbid the Pentagon from pursuing its Total Information Awareness project without further consultation with Congress. News of this project leaked late last year, and stirred great controversy on both sides of the aisle among those who feared it might lead to constant/total surveillance of the American population by the Department of Defense.

The negotiators' decision meant almost complete failure for a last-minute Pentagon effort, begun Friday, to protect the program from the Wyden amendment by establishing advisory committees to oversee the program.

The total information concept would enable a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information, all from their individual computers. It could link such different electronic sources as video feeds from airport surveillance cameras, credit card transactions, airline reservations and records of telephone calls. The data would be filtered through software that would constantly seek suspicious patterns. The Defense Department had already begun to discuss the use of the system with the F.B.I. and perhaps other agencies. Now, without a new law specifically authorizing its use and a new, specific appropriation to pay for it, the program could not be used against United States citizens. But it could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted wholly against non-United States citizens.

The negotiators did agree to extend from 60 to 90 days the time the Defense Department would have to provide a detailed report to Congress, including its costs, goals, impact on privacy and civil liberties and prospects for successes against terrorists. Unless that report was filed, all further research on the project would have to stop immediately. But President Bush could keep the research alive by certifying to Congress that a halt "would endanger the national security of the United States."

Analysis: Adam Clymer's a very experienced reporter, and one of the NY Times' all-stars. But in this case, I think he's completely misreading the legislation. I'm very familiar with "reporting requirements," as these things are known. Title 10 of the U.S. Code is full of them. The Pentagon is required to report to Congress on a wide variety of things, from progress on hiring minorities to the details of military research. In many cases, those requirements are worded to say that the Pentagon may not do something until it reports to Congress, like this TIA reporting requirement. Ultimately, that does not prevent the Pentagon from acting. It merely adds a layer of legislative oversight to the process -- something our Constitution explicitly delegates to Congress in Art. I.

This reporting requirement will not stop TIA from moving forward, nor will it stop the Pentagon and other federal agencies from pursuing similar policies. What it will require is for them to 1) develop mitigation plans for managing the programs' effects on civil liberities, and 2) report to Congress in detail on those plans.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:31

 
Has the Gulf War ever really ended?
America has been continuously conducting combat missions over Iraq for 12 years

The Associated Press reports that American aircraft have bombed a surface-to-surface missile site near Basra in Southern Iraq. This system had the potential to launch Ababil missiles over the border into Kuwait, where thousands of U.S. troops now mass in preparation for war.

The U.S. pilots attacked the Iraqi missile system near the southern city of Basra at about 1700 GMT Tuesday, according to a statement from the U.S. Central Command. The statement said the Iraqis had moved the missile system into the southern no-fly zone.
* * *
Eight U.S. warplanes dropped a total of 16 bombs on the Iraqi missile system near Basra Tuesday, Pentagon officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. bombs struck an Iraqi Ababil-100 missile launcher, a command van and resupply vehicles, senior defense officials said.

The Ababil is a solid-fueled missile developed after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq says it doesn't fly farther than the 93-mile limit on Iraqi missiles imposed by U.N. sanctions. The U.S. and the U.K. say the Ababil probably either has a longer range or could easily be modified to fly farther. U.S. officials say the Ababil also can be used to carry chemical or biological warheads.

All of this begs the question: have we ever stopped bombing Iraq? The answer is no. Since 1991, American aircraft have continuously flown combat missions over Iraq. These include Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch, which enforced no-fly zones in the south and north respectively. U.S. aircraft have also flown other missions over Iraq, including surveillance and other flights. We have bombed Iraq steadily over the last 12 years. Arguably, we have remained in a steady (albeit low) state of war with Iraq for 12 years.

This raises another question: how will we know when we start the second Gulf War? In theory, we should see a marked increase in the number of sorties and the amount of ordnance dropped, or perhaps in the type of targets which are hit. But that may or may not happen. It's conceivable that we will slowly ratchet up the U.S. air campaign from its current state to catch the Iraqis off guard, and to destroy certain critical sites (e.g. air-defense assets) before the "real" air campaign starts. It's also conceivable that we might use the cover of these current missions to insert Special Forces and other forces on the ground.
posted by Phillip Carter at 17:21

 
Congress is the Culprit: Why USAA cares about the USA PATRIOT Act

I did some quick research into why USAA gave me an alarming message (see below) after I submitted my application for a Roth IRA. It appears that Sec. 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) directs the Secretary of the Treasury develop regulations requiring ID verification for anyone opening any bank account in the US. Presumably, this is to prevent people from opening sham accounts for illicit purposes, such as to funnel money to terrorist organizations.

SEC. 326. VERIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, as amended by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(l) IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTHOLDERS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regulations setting forth the minimum standards for financial institutions and their customers regarding the identity of the customer that shall apply in connection with the opening of an account at a financial institution.

(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS- The regulations shall, at a minimum, require financial institutions to implement, and customers (after being given adequate notice) to comply with, reasonable procedures for--
`(A) verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable;
`(B) maintaining records of the information used to verify a person's identity, including name, address, and other identifying information; and
`(C) consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list.
* * *
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:06

 
FBI/CIA: Al Qaeda still a major threat

Testifying before Congress today, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director George Tenet told the nation that Al Qaeda still represented a viable and dangerous threat to American citizens at home and abroad. Together, they painted a devastating series of pictures of possible terrorist action in the United States. Both predicted that terrorists would use weapons of mass destruction in their future attacks, and that they would attack "soft targets" in addition to traditional "hard targets" like political buildings.

"The network is extensive and adaptable,"Tenet said. "It will take years of determined effort to unravel this and other terrorist networks and stamp them out."

"The enemies we face are resourceful, merciless and fanatically committed to inflicting massive damage on our homeland, which they regard as a bastion of evil," Mueller said. "In this war, there can be no compromise or negotiated settlement."
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:32

 
USA PATRIOT Act and Roth IRAs???

I'm opening a Roth IRA this morning so that I can start squirreling away money for my old age. While opening this account online with USAA (who I use for all my financial business), I got the following notice:

The USA PATRIOT Act requires verification of identity. Therefore, please provide the information requested. Omissions or an inability to verify this information may cause a processing delay.

Now I'm really, really curious. I know the USA PATRIOT Act contained some provisions related to financial crime and terrorism, but I'm extremely curious as to how that requires verification from persons opening a Roth IRA account. More to follow...
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:23

 
NYT: US Military Ready to Provide Aid to Iraqi Civilians

Defense reporters Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker report today that the Pentagon has a plan for pushing large amounts of humanitarian aid, medical aid, and relief supplies to Iraqi civilians in the event of a war. This news comes out of an exclusive interview with CENTCOM Commander Tommy Franks, in which the general indicated the U.S. had prepared a plan for dealing with Iraqi humanitarian needs. Franks and others say this plan includes several million meals which would be delivered to Iraqi civilians in the event of any armed conflict.

"Humanitarian supplies are being positioned in order to address this sort of an issue," General Franks said, noting that one of the factors driving the shape and size of his forces was the need to deal with aid to the Iraqi people. In some cases, the military will provide leadership and some suggestions, and in other cases the military will offer its help coordinating the work of other organizations. General Franks made clear that his command had not convened any type of general session involving the major aid groups.

This is an extremely important play by the United States. I think this is part of the US plan to mitigate the risks of civilian casualties and humanitarian disaster, which would have an enormous impact on popular (domestic and international) support for the war. In war, it's always important to seize the moral high ground as well as the tactical high ground.

One way this could play out is in any urban campaign. If the U.S. were planning to enter Baghdad, they might use such a strategy to lure as many civilians as possible out of the city with humanitarian aid first. You just couldn't find through a populated Baghdad; it'd be enormously difficult and costly in blood. But if you could use humanitarian aid to lure civilians out of cities - or even out of Iraq - you could have a much freer hand when it came to targeting Iraqi forces. This would also have the tangential benefit of reducing the will to fight among Iraqi forces. I think it's likely such a move would provoke mass desertions among the rank and file of the Iraqi army. Once these soldiers learned that their families had fled Baghdad, and that there was food/water/medical aid available, they might desert in large numbers like in the first Gulf War.

The U.S. military does more than any other nation in history to protect the lives of civilians and distinguish between civilian and military targets. It attaches lawyers down to the lowest levels of command to advise leaders on the law of war; it employs sophisticated technology and tactics to minimize collateral damage with all weapons systems. This another development in that tradition, and I'm not surprised by it. Civil-military operations are integrated into plans at every level, and considering how vital the Iraqi population is to this campaign's success/failure, it's only natural that our Iraq plans would include such a robust plan for addressing the needs of Iraqi civilians.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:01

 
ABA Adopts Report on Enemy Combatants

Yesterday, the members of the American Bar Association voted 368-76 to approve a panel report on the Treatment of Enemy Combatants. This is the latest in a long line of reports, white papers and recommendations from the ABA to give Constitutional protections to the U.S. citizens and non-citizens captured in America's war on terrorism. Predictably, this report criticizes the Administration for its decisions so far in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, as well as in the treatment of the 600+ prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

I've scanned the report and will dissect it later as I have time. But I have some initial thoughts on this latest statement from the ABA:

1. The ABA has convinced itself that this is a problem of law -- not war. That may not be the right answer. Everything in the ABA report is predicated on the assumption that this is a problem for America's legal system -- with its Constitutional safeguards -- to respond to. But if you question those assumptions, and look at terrorism as a problem of war, many of these arguments don't hold water. If terrorists are criminals, then they ought to be tried in court. But if terrorists are combatants, seeking to wage war on the United States and its allies through unconventional means, then you have an entirely different matter. It may well be that terrorism exists both as a matter of law and war -- or that it exists on the seam of law and war. In any case, I think the ABA is assuming too much here.

2. In several places, the ABA report refers to "international law" as if it was some coherent body that could produce a magical answer. That's not entirely true. International law is typically divided into positive international law (treaties, charters, etc), and customary international law (literally the customs practiced by the collective body of nations). Divining the meaning of international law is really difficult. In this case, it's not entirely clear how international law would treat terrorists. The 3rd Geneva Convention Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War contains a definition of combatants in Art. 4, however that definition is anachronistic today. It was written after WWII for a style of warfare practiced in WWII, and it does not apply to the 4th Generation Warfare practitioners we face today. The Geneva Convention is the most definitive document in international law for defining combatant status, and even it does not fit this situation clearly. I think it's hard to say exactly what "international law" commands us to do here, and the ABA ought not essentialize this body of law down to a soundbite the way it has.

3. For obvious reasons, the ABA report emphasizes the right of counsel for detained enemy combatants. However, the government has compelling reasons not to allow access to counsel in many cases. In declarations submitted to the Hamdi and Padilla courts, the government argues persuasively that allowing access to counsel would upset the interrogation environment which is so critical for pulling information out of these dangerous men. This information is vital human intelligence which may help prevent future terrorist attacks. If the government were just holding these men without access to counsel for no reason, I think matters might be different. But that's not the case. The government has a legitimate, compelling interest in secluding these men and denying them access to the outside world. That may change at some point, perhaps when the government deems these men to have no further intelligence value. But until then, we owe it to the American citizenry to learn all we can from these terrorists while they are in custody. Allowing access to counsel would only frustrate that goal.

Bottom Line: The ABA is making a political issue out of the treatment of enemy combatants. But in doing so, they are making some extremely shaky arguments that rest on faulty assumptions about international law and 21st Century warfare.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:48

 
Wall Street Journal: Dark Winter and Smallpox

If you've been reading this 'blog for a while, you might remember in December when I wrote about "Dark Winter". This was an exercise carried out in 2001 to wargame what would happen if terrorists hit the U.S. with smallpox. The results were devastating. Among the lessons learned:

- Leaders are unfamiliar with the character of bioterrorist attacks, available policy options, and their consequences.
- After a bioterrorist attack, leaders' decisions would depend on data and expertise from the medical and public health sectors.
- The lack of sufficient vaccine or drugs to prevent the spread of disease severely limited management options.
- The US health care system lacks the surge capacity to deal with mass casualties.
- To end a disease outbreak after a bioterrorist attack, decision makers will require ongoing expert advice from senior public health and medical leaders.
- Federal and state priorities may be unclear, differ, or conflict; authorities may be uncertain; and constitutional issues may arise.
- The individual actions of US citizens will be critical to ending the spread of contagious disease; leaders must gain the trust and sustained cooperation of the American people.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has read these notes, and taken them to heart. Today, the paper's lead editorial argues that exercises like Dark Winter make a compelling case for mass vaccination -- especially of recalcitrant health-care workers who are putting their own personal worries over the larger public good.

The point here isn't to scare people . . . well, maybe it is; 15 months after the anthrax attacks, bioterror is a real threat. Protecting against smallpox in advance may make it less likely that an enemy would resort to its use. Dark Winter also underscores how vulnerable U.S. society will remain even with precautions, meaning that the best homeland defense continues to be taking the battle to terrorists abroad and to the states that harbor them.

As for union objections, the Bush Administration is preparing a compensation fund for anyone injured by the vaccine. But keep in mind that emergency workers already have insurance and worker's comp, and that health-care workers are already exposed to unusual risk of germs and illness as part of their daily lives.

No homeland defense plan will work without the cooperation of all Americans, especially its leading institutions. The unions and public-health officials resisting smallpox vaccination will have a lot to answer for if there is an attack and Americans remain unprepared.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:23

 
Justice Department wins another round in the fight against terrorism

The Associated Press reports today that Enaam Arnaout pled guilty today in Chicago to one count of giving material support to a terrorist organization in violation of federal law. Aranout was charged with providing various forms of financial, logistical and other support through his charity, Benevolence International Foundation, to terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.

Arnaout, 41, admitted in court papers that his Benevolence International Foundation had furnished funds to buy boots and uniforms for the Muslim fighting forces while claiming to aid only widows, orphans and the poor.

He did not acknowledge any relationship with bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. But federal prosecutors said ample evidence remains that Arnaout helped al-Qaida in several ways -- including transferring funds around the world to finance its operations.

He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and federal prosecutors said they might ask the judge to give Arnaout a break if he follows through on his promise to cooperate.

Analysis: This is a success story. To stop terrorists like Al Qaeda, we must deny them the ability to fund themselves, move money around the world, and use their financial network to support their terrorist activities. The financial effort is as important as the combat in Afghanistan -- or luggage screening in airports. A friend asked me a few months ago why the U.S. expends so much effort going after men like Mr. Arnaout for supporting terrorism -- financially or otherwise -- instead of going after the actual terrorists like Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Zawahiri. The answer is that these men represent the vulnerable underbelly of international terrorism. Networked, cellular organizations like Al Qaeda cannot exist without their financial and logistical infrastructure. If you destroy their financial infrastructure, you deny Al Qaeda the ability to operate abroad. That operationally neutralizes Al Qaeda.
posted by Phillip Carter at 13:59

 
Predicting casualties in war -- art, science, or guesswork?

Victor David Hanson, a historian whose books I really liked, has an interesting piece in the National Review on war pessimism. In it, Hanson cautions us to be wary of large casualty estimates, even those produced by the Pentagon. Furthermore, Iraq's military has never fought well, especially against well-equipped and well-trained opponents like the U.S. Indeed, the most viable threat we face is from Saddam's irrational acts like loosing a Scud missile on Saudi Arabia, not from any of his front-line forces.

What can we expect from the possible invasion of Iraq? Everything in war is of course uncertain — an awful time when the lives of thousands of soldiers hang in the balance, and brutal, dirty events can spiral out of control the moment the shooting starts. Yet we should be careful in once more believing the pessimistic commentators in newspaper ads and on television who are now warning of several "hundred thousands" of dead, of chaos, of mass starvation, and of internecine killing.

Oxford student Josh Chafetz notes that short, low-casualty wars have been the norm for the U.S. since Grenada and he doesn't think things are likely to change this time around in Iraq. He goes on to make a larger argument about military planning and casualty estimates that I strongly disagree with:

"The military always tries to figure out the worst case scenario casualty figures, and then opponents of military action jump all over those figures. But that's really stupid -- no one should ever plan anything based simply on the worst case scenario. The only sensible way to plan is based on a calculus: consider each potential outcome, weight it by the likelihood of its actually occurring, and add them. Then do the same on the other side of the balance. If the weighted calculus of casualties is worse than the weighted calculus of not fighting, then don't fight. If vice-versa, then do. Obviously, no one knows what the numbers or weights are -- we can only make guesses, and we can argue about the assumptions underlying those guesses. But it's just plain foolish to pretend that only the worst case scenario should be taken into account. And yet, when people go on TV and say that "tens of thousands of Americans will die in an invasion of Iraq" -- just like they said about Afghanistan and Gulf War I and ... -- that's exactly what they're doing."

I agree there’s a political blowback problem here. But I’m not sure many understand the reason why military planners like to consider the worst-case scenario. It’s not a prediction of what will happen; it’s a prediction of what might happen if everything goes wrong. The intent here is not to scare the commander (or President), but to enable him to assume the risk of the operation knowing the worst-case consequences. When the initial estimates are too risky, the doctrinal response is for a commander to direct certain risk-mitigation measures, such as having all troops wear their chemical gear continuously instead of just upon attack. Thus, the high-risk estimates do serve a purpose in redflagging operations which might be too risky to execute as planned.

It is true that they are seized on by anti-war activists who are looking for one more reason to oppose the war. But there’s another reason why you might want these estimates known. If and when actual casualties exceed expectations, the bubble of public support for any military operation will almost certainly burst. We saw this clearly in Somalia. President Bush initially dispatched those troops as humanitarian workers, with promises of zero/few casualties. That held true until President Clinton changed the mission to something more aggressive. When he did that, he never went to the American people to explain this risk, or even inform them of the risk. Thus, when we suffered 18 casualties on 3 Oct 1993, the American public was shocked. Public support for the Somalia mission evaporated, and we redeployed from there without accomplishing our mission.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as a cost/benefit calculation the way Josh describes it. For one thing, you cannot calculate likelihood with any certainty in war, as you acknowledge. I served as an operational planner in the 4th Infantry Division, with the most sophisticated modeling and planning software you can imagine. Our guesses were only slightly better than a SWAG (sophisticated wild ass guess). The worst-case scenario is not the only estimate driving planning – in fact, it’s usually not the main assumption in any plan. But these worst-case estimates remain important for commanders and civilian decision-makers to see. Without knowing the risks, commanders cannot make informed decisions, and may send America's sons and daughters into harm's way without fully acknowledging and accepting the risk of that decision.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:49

 
'Prof Quotes'

As a young reporter for the UCLA Daily Bruin, I often had to scramble around at the last minute for a "prof quote". You know 'em -- these are the 1-2 sentences of analysis that most major news stories have about any technical subject, from anthropology to women's rights, to try and explain the subject and make the article seem more informed. Often times, I talked to professors who were experts in only a related field, like a law professor on crime or a medical doctor on a biology topic, because those were the experts who answered the phone. Some professors actually make their careers by being accessible to reporters who need 'prof quotes' -- I know a few who pass their personal cell phone numbers to big-time journalists so they get the call when news breaks. I wish I could say this was a college reporters' practice and that real reporters don't do it, but I can't. Chances are, if you pick up the New York Times, Washington Post or Los Angeles Times on any given day, you'll find dozens of "prof quotes".

You can find some of the most absurd, amusing and bemusing of these at a site called Profquotes.com. This site contains a wide variety of outtakes from the classroom. Here's a few I liked:

"There are two things you need to be a really good English major. First, a good, working knowledge of the Bible. And second, a really dirty mind."
Prof. Condren, English 10A, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA

"That Y chromosome screws you up, the X chromosome is better -- I can put you in touch with several doctors... "
Mary Lindemann, World History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

"If we want to get a consistent answer out of a psycho, then we only ask them once."
Dr. Walters, Complex Analysis, University of Northern British Columbia

"This assumption is actually wrong. It's the basis of everything you learn in this subject. It's wrong, but it makes the math easier."
G. Archer, Structural Analysis, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA
posted by Phillip Carter at 21:37

 
USA Patriot Act - Part II
Draft of "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" Leaked to Public

A draft version of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act was obtained by the Center for Public Integrity and leaked to several media outlets on Friday. (I learned of this from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy) This act essentially cleans up a lot of messy areas of the original USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), signed into law on 26 Oct 01 by President Bush. This Act goes much further though, taking a number of steps to limit private remedies for anti-terrorism police abuses, and increasing the surveillance authority of government agents. It also contains some pro-civil liberties provisions, such a change to the FISA Court appellate-review process that would add a lawyer to represent the FISA Court in government appeals.

I haven't had time to read the full bill; it's a 12-megabyte file. But my initial reaction is the same as Orin Kerr's -- the press will have a field day with this one. They will focus on the "sexy" provisions like:

Section 301-306, “Terrorist Identification Database”: These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on “suspected terrorists,” expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.

Section 405, “Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism”: While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity.

By focusing on these provisions, the press will obscure the real issues at play here. One of the key failures identified by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in its post-9/11 report was the lack of cooperation and information flow between the FBI and CIA -- or more broadly, between the law enforcement and national security establishments. Breaking down that "wall of separation" is absolutely essential for combatting terrorism. Groups like Al Qaeda will seek to exploit the seam between law and war for their own advantage if we let them. The majority of this act appears targeted at that problem, and increasing the authority of government officials on both sides of this wall to do their jobs. More to follow...
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:17

 
Justice Department requests delay of Moussaoui trial

The Washington Post reports that lawyers for the Justice Department have asked U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to delay the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (the '20th hijacker') while they appeal a recent ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Brinkema had ordered the U.S. government to allow Moussaoui's lawyers to interview Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda currently held by the U.S. government. The Justice Department (along with the White House and Pentagon) contend that such an interview would significantly harm the interrogation of bin al-Shibh currently underway at an undisclosed location. To date, those interrogations have yielded various valuable pieces of intelligence.

Some court-watchers speculate that the Justice Department will transfer Mr. Moussaoui to the Defense Department for trial by military commission. However, I stand by my earlier prediction that they will not try Mr. Moussaoui -- or anyone else -- by military tribunal because of the political blowback that would entail. Instead, I think the government will transfer Mr. Moussaoui to Guantanamo Bay or some other location for indefinite detention as an enemy combatant.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:46

 
Does an increase in Threat Condition help the enemy?

Fellow law student Chris Baker raises a thorny problem with America's system for broadcasting terrorist threat levels to the population. (The threat was raised today by Attorney General John Ashcroft from 'elevated' to 'high').

DHS does an admirable job of highlighting the System's utility in advising citizens of individual protective measures they may take in response to elevating threat levels, but I think they have missed capturing what I consider to be an equally important effect. In elevating the threat condition, we give notice to terrorists planning imminent attacks that our integrated intelligence assets have "clued in" to their intentions; as such, we cause terrorist cells to perhaps take additional precautions to ensure their own force protection, and may actually either deter or delay an attack outright, or cause such a disruption in the terrorists' planned course of action so as to make them more vulnerable or more easily detectable by our enforcement agencies.

I think Chris' analysis is on target. The main goal of this warning system is to synchronize U.S. defensive postures, that is, to tell all of our agencies at the federal/state/local level that they need to implement the appropriate measures for the level we're at. However, we assume risk by broadcasting our defensive posture to the enemy. I think the synchronization benefits may outweigh that risk, but it's something that decision-makers ought to think about. Additionally, we need to be circumspect about the measures we take to implement this defensive posture, like putting more guards around high-value targets. Our enemy has prying eyes, and we need to deny him the information he needs to be successful. The element of surprise can be important. If a terrorist stumbles into a situation he wasn't prepared for, like something that's more protected than he thought, it could ruin his whole day. Generally speaking, it's always good to ruin a terrorist's day with that kind of surprise.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:06

 
BREAKING NEWS: U.S. raises terrorism threat level from "elevated" to "high"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government on Friday raised the national terrorism threat level to "orange," indicating a "high risk of terrorist attacks."
The move is only the second time since the September 11 terror attacks that the level has risen above "yellow," or elevated risk.
* * *
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge outlined how the public might be affected by the heightened security level.
"...increased security personnel at points of entry," Ridge said. "In fact, limited points of entry and exit, enhanced identification checks, restrictions to travel around federal facilities and airports ... will be implemented."
Ashcroft described the threat. "Recent intelligence reports suggests that al Qaeda leaders have emphasized planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States," he said.

Analysis: This is big news. The U.S. would not raise the threat condition, something which triggers a number of control measures around the country, without some credible intelligence that an attack was going to happen. It's especially troubling that we have intelligence indicating an Al Qaeda attack on "soft targets". The paradox of anti-terrorism planning is that the more you protect the hard targets (e.g. the White House, Pentagon, airports, nuclear sites, etc), the more you make the soft targets (Mall of America, schools, large apartment buildings, etc) into targets. The best way to combat terrorism against soft targets is through aggressive reconnaissance and surveillance of the area of operations. Most of that gets done at the local level by local cops, working with intelligence feeds from the federal level (FBI and CIA).

There may be a significant tie-in here between the looming war with Iraq and the threats we're picking up in intelligence intercepts. Al Qaeda's operational doctrine calls for the opening of a "second front" on American civilians in the event of an attack on an Arab state like the one we're currently planning. Specifically, we have predicted two terrorist courses of action for this scenario. 1) Terrorists will attack the deployment infrastructure of the military to stem the flow of troops, such as seaports that are loading military equipment bound for the Persian Gulf. I guarantee you: these are well protected right now. 2) Terrorists will strike American civilian targets to undermine our will to fight; to raise the blood cost of war in Iraq. I still think that we must disarm Iraq by force if necessary. But we also must take pro-active measures at home to safeguard the American population against this threat, which is logically tied to our campaign in the desert.
posted by Phillip Carter at 12:04

 
Total Information Awarness Update
Pentagon announces an oversight panel of legal scholars to safeguard civil liberties

The Defense Department announced today that it would form an advisory board to monitor the Total Information Awareness project. "The TIA internal oversight board will oversee and monitor the manner in which terrorist tracking tools are transitioned for real world use. ... A primary focus of the board will be to ensure that the TIA-developed tools to track terrorists will be used only in accordance with existing privacy protection laws and policies." (DoD Announcement) Presumably, this advisory board is a response to heavy criticism of TIA from all over the political spectrum, including legislative proposals in Congress which would sharply limit the funding for TIA until the Pentagon reported to Congress on the way it would protect civil liberties in the development of this program.

I was impressed by the membership of the panel. Indeed, I think the membership of this panel exceeds even the Sept. 11 Commission for star value -- these are the all stars of Constitutional Law and civil liberties:
- Newton Minow (chairman), director of the Annenberg Washington Program and the Annenberg Professor of Communications Law and Policy at Northwestern University
- Floyd Abrams, renowned 1st Amendment civil rights attorney
- Zoe Baird, director Markel Foundation (and Clinton Administration nominee for Attorney General)
- Griffin Bell, former U.S. Attorney General and Court of Appeals judge
- Gerhard Casper, president emeritus for Stanford University and Professor of Law (a very eminent Constitutional Law scholar)
- William T. Coleman, former chairman and CEO of BEA (world's leading application and infrastructure company) and now Chief Customer Advocate
- Lloyd Cutler, former White House Counsel
Not only is this an all-star panel, but it's a balanced panel. At least three of the members are Democrats, and all are on the record as having strong views on the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. This move can only bolster the credibility of the Bush Administration on this issue.

Notwithstanding this announcement, the Pentagon maintains that TIA is 1) not a threat to civil liberties, 2) not a tool for collecting information on all US citizens, and 3) not going to result in the creation of a massive database for spying on US citizens.

"Development of these anti-terrorism tracking tools would allow the agencies to better execute their missions. TIA does not plan to create a gigantic database. Further, TIA has not ever collected or gathered and is not now collecting or gathering any intelligence information. This is and will continue to be the responsibility of the US foreign intelligence/counterintelligence agencies, which operate under various legal and policy restrictions with congressional oversight. This technology development program in no way alters the authority or responsibility of the intelligence community. Furthermore, TIA has never collected, and has no plan or intent to collect privately held consumer data on U.S. citizens. It is a research program designed to catch terrorists before they strike."

Bottom Line: I've gone on the record as a TIA supporter because I believe in the need to gather information and analyze it to produce actionable intelligence. TIA has the potential to be a valuable tool for law enforcement and intelligence officials. The bio-medical component also has tremendous potential for the prevention of terrorism -- as well as American public-health efforts in general. I agree with the critics that TIA needs to be monitored for any risk to civil liberties, and I think this Pentagon plan is exactly the right prescription.
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:44

 
WSJ: Soldiers' Gear Improves With 'Lessons Learned' in Afghanistan

Today's Wall Street Journal ran a pair of articles on a subject I've cared about for a long time -- soldier equipment. I'm not talking about high-tech stuff like helicopters, tanks, and HMMWVs. I'm talking about low-tech stuff that every soldier -- and especially every infantryman -- needs to survive and win in combat. Boots, rifles, rifle scopes, field rations, CamelBak canteens, night-vision goggles -- these are the items that can make the difference between life and death in combat. I wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times in February 2002 that criticized the Pentagon and Congress for building a budget that failed to provide these basic items. As an Army officer, I often had to buy my own AA batteries to run my night-vision goggles and GPS receivers. And my unit fought with our headquarters to fund such items as CamelBak water carriers and extra bullets for training.

The articles today focus on how the Army dealt with gear problems in Afghanistan. It's a success story, largely due to the initiative of Army Master Sgt. Rudy Romero. This NCO wrote a 3-page e-mail to an old boss asking him to lunch, and sharing some 'lessons learned' from his recent combat tour in Afghanistan. MSG Romero's e-mail contained no BS; no equivocation -- it spelled out the truth about Army gear, Army tactics, and Army leadership. It got noticed. MSG Romero's e-mail was forwarded around the Army several times, and eventually wound up in the Pentagon. There, it found an audience with the Sergeant Major of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army, who directed the Army to fix these problems as fast as possible.

Last July, a few weeks after he got back from Afghanistan, Master Sgt. Rudy Romero wrote a quick e-mail to one of his old commanding officers. "How's everything going sir? Let's get together for lunch. I know a pretty good place if you like Mexican," he began.

He followed that with three pages of advice from his tour in Afghanistan with the Army's 101st Airborne division -- everything from the best gloves to take (fleece from AutoZone) to the best socks (Gore-Tex, available in camping stores). He also told his former boss to ditch the Army-issue ammunition sacks and instead buy bags from London Bridge Trading Co.

The 37-year-old soldier figured that sooner or later his former commander would be deployed to Afghanistan and that sharing his experience might make the tour easier. Little did he know that his military version of "Hints from Heloise" would make its way to the Pentagon's top brass and inspire significant changes in the way the Army is equipping its troops for possible future battles, including Iraq.
* * *
A month after he hit the "send" button, Sgt. Romero got a call from Sgt. Major Tilley telling him that the Army wanted him to go to its U.S. Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., where engineers were busily at work developing the gear that soldiers take into battle. Sgt. Romero grabbed two of his buddies at Fort Campbell, Ky., and headed out a few days later.
* * *
Sgt. Romero had lots of advice for the people who design the Army's tan desert boots, which troops wore in Afghanistan.

Although the boots worked just fine on the soft sands of Iraq, they fell to pieces after a couple of months in Afghanistan, where the ground is rocky. The engineers took note, and the Army is buying new boots with special composite soles that should stand up better in Central Asia.

His biggest complaint was that Army gear weighs too much. "We were easily carrying 80 lbs. Throw on the ruck [Army backpack] and you're sucking," he wrote.

To make their point, the three men explained how soldiers in Afghanistan consumed their Meals Ready to Eat, the plastic-wrapped all-in-one food packets that weigh about two pounds and last around three years. Before going into battle they "field stripped" the meals to cut down on their carrying weight. "We kept the high carb stuff for energy and threw out everything else," Sgt. Romero told the nutritionist responsible for developing the meals.

Based in part on his suggestions, the Army is designing a lightweight Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol Ration.

The three raised another practical concern: Too many of the Army's new gadgets use different kinds of batteries, further increasing the load. Some soldiers, Sgt. Romero explained, buy commercial GPS locators from camping stores and discard their military-issue devices simply because the civilian ones use the same batteries as their night-vision goggles. The engineers, who had heard similar complaints before, said they would keep that in mind but made no promises.

Today Sgt. Romero's e-mail is still posted on several military Web sites and in a half-dozen or so Internet chat rooms.

I received MSG Romero's e-mail through a military list-serv I belong to. It struck me as the kind of no-nonsense review we ought to be doing after every engagement, to learn vital lessons and fix things for next time. Soldiers like MSG Romero are truly America's greatest asset -- they are the heart and soul of our combat power. I've excerpted his last paragraph:

"SOLDIERS DID GREAT YOU CAN ALWAYS DEPEND ON THEM. THEY ARE EXTREMELY BRAVE AND WANT TO FIGHT. GOTTA DO REALISTIC TRAINING, THEYLL DO IT JUST LIKE WE TEACH THEM, THEY'LL PATCH A BULLET HOLE JUST LIKE YOU TAUGHT THEM IN EIB, BUT THEY WONT TAKE OFF THE SOLDIERS VEST TO CHECK FOR MORE BULLET HOLES ETC."
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:18

 
Justice Department mulls transfer of Moussaoui case to military tribunal
Constitutional tension between 6th Amendment and President prerogative to wage war

Today's New York Times reports that the Justice Department has started to seriously consider transferring the Zacarias Moussaoui "20th hijacker" case to the Defense Department, for prosecution under the President's 13 Nov 01 military commissions order. Last week, Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to allow defense questioning of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a high-ranking Al Qaeda official currently in U.S. custody and under interrogation. This gets more complicated because Moussaoui is defending himself (with some legal assistance), and thus could be the one questioning a former colleague-in-arms (or intimately involved with the communications).

Moreover, the government has a strong interest in continuing to isolate bin al-Shibh:
A federal law enforcement official said the Defense Department and intelligence agencies also did not want to interrupt the "psychological games that are being played" with Mr. bin al-Shibh, who is reported to be undergoing intensive interrogations overseas.

Unfortunately, Judge Brinkema's hands were tied. The Constitutional jurisprudence in this area is fairly clear -- the 6th Amendment rights of criminal defendants trumps any other considerations the government may have. That's the way our system is built: it stands for the rights of the accused above all else, nearly all of the time.
Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers have argued that the Constitution's fair-trial protections entitle them to access to Mr. bin al-Shibh, because he could have information that might bolster Mr. Moussaoui's defense. In her ruling, officials said, Judge Brinkema made clear she agreed.

This creates obvious tension between the 6th Amendment rights of Moussaoui and the Art. II duties of the President to prosecute this war as he judges necessary. I'm not sure how the case will be resolved. Moussaoui fits the President's 13 Nov 01 order well. He is a non-citizen; he has admitted his association with Al Qaeda; he was involved with the Sept. 11 conspiracy. Out of all the men in custody now (Lindh, Reid, Padilla, Moussaoui, Hamdi), Moussaoui is the best fit for a military commission. Ironically, the next best candidate is probably Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

That said, I'm not sure the Administration can afford the political blowback from implementing the military commissions system. The mere suggestion has stirred more controversy than the Administration was ready for, and I think its implementation would solidify a lot of opposition to the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in general. Lots of critics draw a connection between the USA PATRIOT Act, the recent FISA Court decisions, targeted killings, and now this possible military tribunal. (I don't agree with that connection, but that's the argument) Given the heat they've taken for this, I'm not sure the Bush Administration is willing to expend more political capital and potentially jeopardize the momentum they've developed on homeland security and Iraq.

Prediction: The Administration will remove Mr. Moussaoui to Guantanamo Bay and hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant there, without trial. This avoids the political blowback of a commission, and accomplishes the goals of the Administration.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:45

 
One More Tea Leaf Saying War is Imminent

The LA Times and other papers report that Turkey has decided to allow U.S. troops on its soil, and to invade Iraq from Turkey, and to improve U.S. bases in Turkey towards that end. That's a pretty significant set of diplomatic permission, and I think it's one more critical piece of support the U.S. needs to start the ground campaign against Iraq.

The United States is planning to spend several hundred million dollars to modernize Turkish bases. The renovations could start quickly after today's vote.

Turkey fears that a war in Iraq could reverse its fragile economic recovery and has agreed with the United States on a package that would cushion the country from the effects of war. The package would range between $4 billion and $15 billion, depending on the length of the war and its economic impact.

The separate vote at the end of the holiday would allow U.S. soldiers to be based in Turkey and would allow Turkish soldiers to move into Iraq if there was a war.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:51

 
Screaming Eagles Get Deployment Orders

The Pentagon announced today that it was deploying the Army's 101st Airborne Division. If the 4th Infantry Division represents the Army's high-tech fist, then the 101st represents its legs. The 101st division is airmobile; its infantry move by helicopter and are capable of hopping around the battlefield in lightning-quick strikes to secure key objectives. In the first Gulf War, the 101st leaped ahead of armored forces to secure critical intersections, terrain and Iraqi sites. Military officials today would not discuss specifics; they only hinted the 101st was headed to war.

"The president of the United States has made no decision about any future military operations," said Maj. Carl Purvis, reading from a prepared statement. "These deployments are prudent steps to increase military capabilities and enhance flexibility."

The 101st "will provide Central Command substantial operational flexibility and combat power, as well as the ability to conduct long-range helicopter attacks and air assault operations should those capabilities be required to successfully prosecute the global war on terrorism," the statement said.

I see the 101st being used in two major ways -- both of which are absolutely critical. The first 101st mission would be to secure critical/dangerous WMD (weapon of mass destruction) sites in Iraq, faster than any ground force could get there. The 101st could theoretically fly in from Turkey or Kuwait, seize such sites, and secure them until armored forces could arrive to reinforce them. If the U.S. intends to fight in a non-linear manner, without fighting its way deep into Iraq, this scenario becomes more likely. And since disarmament is our raison d'etre in Iraq, this mission makes a lot of sense.

The second major mission is to deal with 'civilians on the battlefield.' As light infantry, the 101st troops train at the Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana and they get extensive training in dealing with complex humanitarian situations. If there's a bunch of Iraqi refugees in the way of a major U.S. operation, the 101st could be airlifted quickly into the situation to isolate and safeguard the civilians. The 101st would then secure the civilians until ground forces caught up with humanitarian aid and transportation capability to move the civilians out of the way.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:35

 
North Korean Spies in Santa Monica?

News broke yesterday that the FBI had arrested John Joungwoong Yai and his wife Susan Youngja Yai in Santa Monica on charges of spying for the North Korean government. The Justice Department's complaints have not spelled out the details yet -- largely to keep the North Koreans in the dark about what we know about their intelligence efforts. Indeed, one unnamed official said the Yai's were not successful in obtaining classified documents, for which they received $18,179 in cash from the North Koreans before contractual performance. Still, it's a disturbing turn of events -- especially since it's literally in my backyard.

One can speculate about what kinds of classified documents they could've been after. The RAND Corporation has its headquarters in Santa Monica. As a federally-funded research center for defense issues, RAND has a ton of classified stuff that a North Korean might want to see. Just south of Santa Monica in the area around Los Angeles International Airport, you have a high concentration of defense contractors such as Raytheon, TRW, and others. He might have been angling for a job with one of those contractors, to sell the North Koreans information on new U.S. satellite designs or something else in one of those firms.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:12

 
Pop Quiz -- Iraq and Terrorism

1. Does an American attack on Iraq make a major terrorist attack against the United States:
(A) Less likely than risk of an attack today.
(B) As likely as the risk of an attack today.
(C) More likely than the risk of an attack today.

There is compelling evidence (derived from analysis of intelligence reports) to suggest the answer is (C). An American-led campaign against Iraq would significantly raise the probability of a terrorist attack on the U.S. It would also aid Al Qaeda in the logistical and infrastructural tasks (like recruiting and retention) it needs to do to rebound from the American campaign in Afghanistan. Desert Storm II would probably aggravate Islamists more than they are today, and broaden the anti-American sentiment that already lies dormant throughout the Middle East. CNN reports that the FBI is on guard for such a threat, ratching up its intelligence activities and ordering its agents to be prepared for rapid deployment.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:25

 
Is Iraq hiding weapons of mass destruction? See the evidence for yourself...

Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a convincing case to the UN today on why America and the world must disarm Iraq. Unfortunately, I fear this evidence will not convince many recalcitrant members of the UN Security Council -- particular France and Germany. But you can decide for yourself. Sec. Powell's slides are available here on the Washington Post website.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:15

 
MILITARY PROCUREMENT MAY WORK SLOWLY, BUT IT WORKS. SORT OF.
Check out Stop the Bleating for an interesting discussion of the Line Of Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) missile. This would put an amazing capability into the hands of our infantrymen, and it's a project that absolutely must be funded. In simple bang-for-buck terms, it allows you to kill lots of enemy vehicles with a lot less money than Apache Helicopters or M1A2 tanks would require.
posted by Phillip Carter at 12:02

 
WSJ: American Prisons Provide Fertile Ground for Islamic Terrorists

Today's Wall Street Journal leads with an article about Imam Warith Deen Umar, who teaches and preaches Islam in New York's state-prison system. The article details how this practice, coupled with the natural inclination of prisoners towards criminal enterprise, has turned the American prison population into a fertile recruiting ground for Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda. This isn't just conjecture -- it's actually happening. Alleged 'dirty bomber' Jose Padilla was such a case. He was a disenchanted American citizen, who through his experience in prison, converted to Islam and decided to become a terrorist.

Ordinarily, religious fervor in prison is no big deal. Indeed, prisons often co-opt religion as a means of social control, to help prisoners take responsibility for their actions and add order to their lives. However, the Islamic penetration of American prisons has tapped into something that could pose great danger to America's safety. Prisoners have natural advantages over terrorists from other countries:
1) They're American citizens, which confers legal advantages in dealing with America's legal system
2) They know the streets and the operational environment, and are less likely to be detected for making a stupid mistake that owes to cross-cultural difficulties (no Middle East accented English, for example)
3) They are already inclined towards dangerous, criminal activity, and likely have the means/tools/connections to conduct more of it.
4) They often have little to lose in the way of social standing or connections, and possibly stand to gain great stature through terrorism.

Imam Umar doesn't just accept terrorism as a distant cousin of the Islam he preaches; he embraces terrorism as a meaningful weapon against the West:
"Even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud" the hijackers, he wrote in an unpublished memoir. The Quran, he said, does not condemn terrorism against oppressors of Muslims, even if innocent people die. "This is the sort of teaching they don't want in prison," he said. "But this is what I'm doing."

The greatest irony of all is that New York -- a state terribly ravaged by terrorism -- is inviting this man into its prisons and paying him to spread the message of fundamentalist Islam. California and many other states are doing the same thing, co-opting Islam and other faiths as a way of promoting social control within their prisons' walls.

Prison officials in New York and many other states long have welcomed Muslim imams and clergy of other faiths. Religion provides structured activity that reduces security problems in prison, they say. It encourages inmates to accept responsibility for their actions and turn their backs on crime upon their release.

But there is another side to Islam behind bars. While Imam Umar says the focus of his preaching usually "is on work, family and getting an education," he also says that prison "is the perfect recruitment and training grounds for radicalism and the Islamic religion."

A prison chaplain since 1975, he has seen Islam grow among inmates, mirroring the vast increase in the incarceration of African-Americans, some of whom adopt the religion as inmates. As the most influential Muslim prison chaplain in New York, which has the fourth-largest state system in the nation, he and some of his trainees adopted the fundamentalist offshoot of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. Rooted in Saudi Arabia, it stresses a literal reading of the Quran and intolerance for people and sects that don't follow its absolutist teaching.

Ready for the kicker? The U.S. Constitution forbids prisons from exercising more than general oversight over Imam Umar's activities -- or those of any other religious fundamentalist (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other) who preaches behind prison walls:

The chaplains have operated with little supervision from state prison officials, who say the constitutional protection of religious freedom prevents them from closely monitoring religious services.
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:37

 
We're going to Baghdad -- but when?

William Saletan's Slate column estimates that the probability of war with Iraq has jumped to 91 percent. Judge for yourself whether he's read the tea leaves right; I think he has. The only question now is when.

Today's Chance of Invasion: 91 percent

Turkish leader tells his party 1) Iraq "isn't taking the necessary steps" for peace; and 2) "The decisions we make for war are not because we want a war, but so we can contribute to peace" by taking part in and influencing "the operation" in Iraq. Translation: U.S. will get its northern front. Despite Blair's lobbying, Chirac reiterates inspectors should get to decide how long they need. Iraq says it will "explore" proposal by European Parliament members to let non-Iraqis (rather than Iraqi agents) serve as witnesses to scientists' interviews. Britain says Iraq has thoroughly bugged inspectors but gives no documentation.

Yesterday: 88 percent
posted by Phillip Carter at 13:47

 
DoD budget aims for careful balance between current operations and future transformation

The Pentagon unveiled its massive FY2004 budget yesterday with great fanfare. (Some have called this budget 'Reagan-esque'.) This budget attempts to deal with an extraordinarily complex world situation, apportioning resources between recapitalization of old facilities/equipment, personnel costs, current operations (buying ammo for the current fight), and investments in transformation. Achieving just the right mix between these funding priorities is very difficult. And for the Army, I think the mix may have dangerous consequences over the next several years. The Pentagon appears to be taking significant risk with certain fleets (M1 tanks and M2/M3 fighting vehicles) in order to fund transformation.

“The Army has terminated 24 systems including the Crusader artillery system, the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades, and multiple launch rocket system conversions. The service also restructured its medium tactical vehicle program, battle command systems and Javelin missile system.”

If I’m reading this right, the Army has essentially scrapped the Interim Force concept of recapitalizing its current fleet of M1s and M2/M3s in order to fully fund transformation. We’re accepting a significant near-term risk in order to do that. I think it’s the right decision, but it will present problems for operational commanders now in the hotseat. As their fleets age, maintenance will become more of a distracter, and that may take money away from current operations.

Also, the decision to not recapitalize means that many parts of the Army will jump from Legacy to Objective Force without any interim step. The nice thing about interim steps is that they make transition easier and less turbulent. For instance, soldiers can get used to digitized vehicles with retrofitted M1s before they get the high-speed M1A2 or M1A1D. This makes it easier to train once the new vehicles show up down the road.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:12

 
When the US tells you to leave, something's about to happen

Today's Washington Times reports that the State Department has quasi-ordered diplomats and citizens to leave the Persian Gulf region in preparation for a war with Iraq. This is one of the last steps before imminent miltiary action. In general, the pulling out of "NEOs" (short for non-combatant evacuation operations, but used as a noun in the military for civilians stuck in harm's way) signifies an escalation in the chances of war.

Foreign diplomats in Iraq have begun leaving the country, and the United States has urged its citizens in other Persian Gulf states to consider departing amid a war looming in the region.

The State Department issued travel warnings for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia late last week, cautioning about "increased security concerns" and authorizing "the departure of family members and non-emergency personnel" at the U.S. embassies "on a voluntary basis."

"Private American citizens ... should evaluate rigorously their own security situations and are strongly urged to consider departing," the department said.
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:08

 
U.S. plans deployment of additional forces to Korea

Today's Wall Street Journal broke the story that the Pentagon was making plans to redeploy an aircraft carrier battle group and US Air Force bomber forces to the vicinity of Korea within the next two weeks. This story was picked up by the Associated Press and will probably hit local news tomorrow.

WSJ: The Pentagon has decided to send additional forces to Asia as part of an effort to send a clear message to North Korea that even though the U.S. is focused on a pending war with Iraq it still can muster significant firepower in Asia.

The decision comes after U.S. aerial surveillance detected suspicious activity at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear facility. Some analysts fear the North is moving 8,000 spent but previously sealed fuel rods to a site where they can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium, something the North has threatened to do. Whether the activity is aimed at removing the rods or merely alarming the U.S., it's the latest of several provocations by Pyongyang that analysts say could backfire on the communist regime by driving neighbors China and South Korea to adopt the U.S.'s hard-line stance toward the North.

It wasn't immediately clear how much firepower the U.S. is dispatching to the region. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's decision to send additional forces came after a request from Adm. Thomas Fargo, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, for two dozen bombers and fewer than 10 Air Force attack jets. Adm. Fargo also requested that the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier move into the region if the USS Kitty Hawk, which is based in Japan, moves to the Gulf.

This story is a big deal. First, it should be seen for what it is: an economy of force measure to hold North Korea in place with a visible and credible threat of force. But the "economy of force" part is critical. We're putting a big stop sign in front of North Korea, essentially freezing things in place in that part of the world with as much combat power as we can spare. In the meantime, our military will focus on the main tasks at hand: the 'hot' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is significant that we have decided not to deploy more ground troops to Korea. But for Iraq, we might have sent a brigade of infantry to reinforce the Army's 2nd Infantry Division there, or a brigade of armor to fall in on prepositioned equipment sitting in Pusan. However, the reports say otherwise. The U.S. is sending just enough force to communicate the threat, while not taking away from the missions in Southwest Asia.

I'm no Korea expert; I only spent a year there as part of the 2nd Infantry Division. But knowing the little I do, I still think it's the most dangerous place on Earth. Saddam's trying to get weapons of mass destruction; North Korea already has them. Saddam is fortifying his units in hasty defensive position; North Korea is dug in harder than the Germans at Normandy. The situation is also infinitely more complex there, given the close proximity of China, Russia and Japan. This is a reasonably prudent measure to ensure things don't heat up anymore on the Korean peninsula.
posted by Phillip Carter at 20:44

 
One more reason to dislike the French --
Major French newspaper says the Columbia disaster should teach America humility

The International Papers roundup at Slate has this to report about our French "allies":

France's Libération provided a coda to Columbia's fate in an op-ed titled "Humility": The shuttle disaster, coupled with the Sept. 11 attacks, showed that the Bush years could not be considered happy ones. "While everywhere in the world public opinion worries about the consequences of war in Iraq, some think they see a bad omen in this latest drama." The disaster should be a lesson in humility and show the United States "that whatever its financial might, its scientific know-how, its technological prowess, its training of men, it cannot control all, dominate all, foresee all, parry all."
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:11

 
U.S. Govt Reneges on Promises to Combat Vets;
Vets now appealing to Supreme Court after lower court refuses claim

In the early days of the Korean War, things did not look good for the United States or United Nations forces. They were beaten back all the way south to Pusan, confined to a small footprint and almost forced to retreat to Japan. America's military had a draft, but it also looked to volunteers to rapidly build a force that would be capable of fighting the hardened North Korean (and later Chinese) armies. In doing so, military recruiters made a number of promises to new enlistees -- such as the promise of free lifetime medical care. Many years later, with the danger and exigency of war gone, the U.S. government reneged on its promise. The veterans sued, and were told last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals that their case was compelling -- but not good enough to win benefits from the government.

Until the mid-1950s, recruits were enticed to join the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force by recruiters' pitches that included oral and written promises of free lifetime medical care — promises that turned out to lack congressional approval. Government lawyers say repaying just out-of-pocket payments for the retirees would cost $15 billion.

Lower courts heard that and turned down the pleas, but said it was hard to reject aging officers laden with medals for valor, and represented by a national hero who wore his Medal of Honor while arguing that retirees deserved free military-hospital care.

"We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life," said the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in ruling against them.

The trial court and the Federal Circuit both decided that Congress cannot be forced to pay for the military recruiting incentive it had not authorized in advance. Judges noted that the military did provide medical care for many years despite the absence of a law but cut back when military hospitals closed and resources grew tight. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit early last year ruled unanimously for the veterans but the full court overturned that decision Nov. 18.

"The government concedes such promises were made in good faith and relied upon," the Federal Circuit noted in an 8-4 refusal to order the back payments Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson estimated at $15 billion.

This is one of the worst instances of bureaucratic and legal doublespeak I've seen. These veterans served their nation in combat and they deserve to have those promises upheld, despite whatever legal or bureaucratic red tape stands in the way. Today's Washington Times reports that the vets are taking their case to the Supreme Court. I sincerely hope the Court will find the decency and justice to do the right thing in this case.

Not all 1.9 million current military retirees would be covered if the Supreme Court ordered the government to make good on the promise. By one theory, it would apply solely to the 23,435 now living who retired before 1956, when Congress clamped a "space available" caveat on military health care. More than 500,000 other current retirees joined the services before the limit was imposed and were among those included in the Justice Department estimate of up to 1.5 million.
* * *
The appeals court advised retirees to seek help from Congress, a recommendation seconded by major veterans organizations, which predict the courts won't fix the problem. As updated in 2002, federal law provides retirees a combined plan called Tricare, with an emphasis on Medicare. Retirees in the court case consider that less than equal to military hospital care.
* * *
It is not known if the Supreme Court will review what has come to be known as "the Day case," but in the meantime Col. Day and his nationwide troop will take to the streets and to three colorful billboards recently posted in the Maryland suburbs.

They plan to demonstrate at the Capitol on Feb. 12, and last week introduced the billboards at 6100 Central Ave. in Capitol Heights, on U.S. Route 1 a mile north of Beltsville, and on Kenilworth Avenue south of U.S. Route 50.

"This battle is not over," Col. Day said. "We were all aware that whichever way the Court of Appeals ruled, that the case would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Much to my surprise, it is G.I. Joe that is appealing."
posted by Phillip Carter at 06:37

 
CNN: Advances in Battlefield Medicine

Military casualties -- like civilians unfortunate enough to be shot or wounded on America's streets -- have just minutes/hours to get medical attention in order to survive. Soldiers will go to extraordinary lengths to evacuate their buddies, and military medics/docs will do everything in their power to treat/save them. Often, field medics make the difference between life and death. Few who have seen (or read) Black Hawk Down can how SFC Kurt Schmid tried to suture CPL Jamie Smith's femoral artery in the middle of combat. (See Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down, p. 210-214) Indeed, this tradition of perseverance and innovation in military medicine has bled over into the civilian sector, leading to major improvements in American trauma care since WWII.

Combat medics do everything they can to save the lives of American soldiers wounded in combat; we can't give them enough when it comes to research & development funding. Recently, the Pentagon has developed new tools for combat medics to pack in their rucksacks as they go into combat in Iraq. These include:

- One new tool in medic's bag is a fast-working bandage. The new bandage contains the agent that makes blood clot. Laboratory animal tests show that when the bandage is applied for just two minutes, the clotting agent stops the bleeding.
- Another tool special forces will be bringing to Iraq is a one-handed tourniquet, enabling soldiers to quickly stop blood flow from a wound while still keeping one hand free.
- The military is also working on personal digital assistant which can help track medical information on soldiers in the field.

posted by Phillip Carter at 20:52

 
America grieves for 7 fallen heroes

Few words can capture the tragedy of this morning. I am participating in my reserve unit's training in Central California and I was dumbstruck when I heard the news this morning on my radio. Our seven astronauts died serving all of us, striving for a better tomorrow. We owe it to them to discover the cause of their crash, and to persevere. Tragic events like this should give us pause, but they should not deter us from walking in the footsteps of those who have fallen.

President Bush's remarks struck me as particularly moving:
"My fellow Americans, this day has brought terrible news and great sadness to our country. At 9 o'clock this morning Mission Control in Houston lost contact with their space shuttle Columbia. A short time later, debris was seen falling from the skies above Texas.

The Columbia is lost. There are no survivors.

On board was a crew of seven: Colonel Rick Husband, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, Commander Laurel Clark, Captain David Brown, Commander William McCool, Dr. Kalpana Chawla and Ilan Ramon, a colonel in the Israeli Air Force.

These men and women assumed great risk in the service to all humanity. In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the earth.

These astronauts knew the dangers and they faced them willingly, knowing they had a high and noble purpose in life. Because of their courage and daring and idealism, we will miss them all the more.

All Americans today are thinking, as well, of the families of these men and women who have been given this sudden shock and grief. You are not alone. Our entire nation grieves with you, and those you love will always have the respect and gratitude of this country.

The cause in which they died will continue. Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on.

In the skies today, we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there's comfort and hope.

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength not one of them is missing.'

The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth, yet we can pray that all are safely home.

May God bless the grieving families, and may God continue to bless America."
posted by Phillip Carter at 18:25

 
.Com Bust Kills Ailing Law Firm
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison shutters after 77 years in business

Partners at the San Francisco law firm of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison decided yesterday to wind down the firm, bringing to an end a 77-year-old Bay Area institution that rose flamboyantly and rapidly on the Internet boom.

The decision came after efforts to merge with Morgan Lewis & Bockius — a 1,100-lawyer firm whose largest offices are in Philadelphia, Washington and New York — failed on Wednesday, said William Sullivan, who is head of the national securities practice at Brobeck.
* * *
"It is a stunning and incredible tragedy," said Barry S. Levin, chairman of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, another San Francisco firm. "A lot of people are going to want to understand how a firm of the stature of Brobeck could end up dissolving. Whether it's the Internet boom or growing too fast for the volume of work or too much emphasis on one practice area, I don't know."

Brobeck employs just over 500 lawyers around the country, down from more than 900 in 2000; it lost nearly one-third of its lawyers last year. Although the firm was founded in 1926 — making it ancient in the San Francisco legal market — it became far more prominent in the late 1990's during the dot-com boom. It grew rapidly by hiring law school graduates eager to live in San Francisco and work on the fringes of the high-technology economy.

Its partners took home nearly $1.2 million each, on average, in 2000. The firm was also one of the first to offer lawyers fresh out of law school salaries on par with those paid by New York law firms — as much as $125,000.

But those hefty salaries left Brobeck with high costs, and as some of the firm's clients stopped selling their stock, merging or in some cases operating, the firm found itself in an increasingly difficult position. While Brobeck has as clients a number of big companies, including Cisco Systems, Compaq and Gap, it tried to diversify its customer base too late, lawyers at other firms said.
posted by Phillip Carter at 22:06

 
American Justice -- Shoe bomber sentenced to life in prison

Judge William Young today presided over a contentious sentencing hearing for convicted Al Qaeda terrorist Richard Reid, who was too scared, too incompetent or too sweaty to ignite his explosive shoes on American Airlines Flight #63 over the North Atlantic. At the end of the hearing, Judge Young took the disheveled terrorist to task:

"You're a big fellow," the judge said. "But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders."

The judge then pointed to the American banner flying behind his bench and, his voice rising too, issued his own warning:

"See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will."

Following that comment, Reid stood up, shaking his fist and yelling at the judge as he was hauled out of the courtroom by 4 U.S. Marshals.

"That flag will be brought down on the day of judgment," Reid shouted, "and you will see in front of your Lord, my Lord, and then we will know."

Unmoved by this outburst, Judge Young sent Reid to prison with the following thought.

"We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before.
"You," he added, "are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."
posted by Phillip Carter at 21:53

 
Apology: The news tip about Chief Justice Rehnquist was wrong, and my "publish" command to delete that post did not go through my Internet connection. Thus, I've had an absolutely wrong and boneheaded post online for the last 9 hours. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Needless to say, I have taken my source to task.
posted by Phillip Carter at 21:47

 
Politics and Judicial Confirmation II

See also the comments by UCLA Professor Stuart Banner at the Volokh Conspiracy on Jeff Sutton's hearing today before the 6th Circuit. Among other things, Prof. Banner clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and recently published a book on capital punishment in America. He's one of the smartest law professors I've ever talked to, and his comments are quite insightful.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:26

 
Politics and Judicial Confirmation

Chris Baker's comments at Half Baked on today's Senate Judiciary Committee deserve notice. He rightly points out the problem with holding lawyers accountable for every client they've ever represented, or every stand they've taken. After all, Chris reminds us, lawyers are paid to be advocates. They ought not be second-guessed by the Senate Judiciary Committee for strong advocacy or unpopular defenses -- even awful clients deserve to be represented by good counsel on their day in court.

Excerpt from AP Story:

Democratic senators criticized Sutton for attempts to limit federal civil rights protections and gut or weaken protections for state employees with disabilities and older workers. The Columbus, Ohio, lawyer argued successfully in a Supreme Court case in 2000 that Congress exceeded its authority by permitting state workers to sue their states under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

``How can we be sure you're not going to continue that agenda when you're on the court?'' asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Sutton said he has represented all types of people and organizations as a lawyer — including murderers — guaranteeing that some Judiciary Committee members will disagree with his clients. "I don't stand a chance in trying to become a judge if one looks at all of my clients and decides whether they agreed with their views," he said.

``I'm trying very hard to show you that I would be an objective judge and that the client I would have is ... the rule of law, not a former client,'' Sutton added.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:24

 
Slate: Chance of war rises from 80 to 84 percent

Bush says 1) U.S. intelligence shows Saddam is hiding WMD, silencing scientists, and helping al-Qaida; and 2) Powell will present this intelligence to Security Council Feb. 5. Bush indicates Saddam has blown "his final chance." Britain agrees Iraq is in "material breach" of U.N. resolution. Blair will lobby European leaders to support war. Russia says it could end up supporting war but now sees no "grounds for the use of military force."

Again, William Saletan is my favorite of all the media tea-leaf readers. It's still an unexact science, especially considering that he does not have access to any of the classified information that official decisionmakers are working from. But so far, his notes have been on target.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:43

 
"Amateurs talk tactics... professionals talk logistics"

So says a U.S. Marine Corps major working in the Kuwaiti desert, where the Marines are busy putting troops and equipment together into force packages for a possible war in Iraq. This is the nuts & bolts work of preparing for war. (See this Washington Post article) You draw your equipment, do Preventive Maintenance Checks & Services (PMCS), fix any deficiencies, and then start using the equipment to build familiarity and work out any problems out of the box. Leaders continue to do pre-combat checks and pre-combat inspections right up until the minute the troops cross the line-of-departure for combat. This is the unglamorous work of military professionals -- what soldier and Marines do before the shooting starts. But when you pull the trigger in combat, it is this detailed work that makes the difference between a click and a boom.

For the past week, about 500 Marine logistics specialists have worked around the clock, unloading, repairing and assembling enough equipment to supply a division of 17,000 for a month-long operation. This phase of the U.S. military buildup in Kuwait, although unglamorous, is among the most important should the troops be sent to war, Marines here said.
* * *
Hundreds of Marines, many of whom arrived in Kuwait just three days ago, spent the day testing their gear and taking inventory to make sure everything they will need is in place. They are joining several thousand Marines already in Kuwait from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Pendleton, Calif.
* * *
The Marines have staged thousands of tons of equipment in areas where it can be more quickly transported to deploying troops than if it were stored at bases in the United States. Civilian container ships loaded with such pre-positioned gear steamed into the Persian Gulf from the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean and arrived at a port near Kuwait City early last week. Marine logistics specialists met the ships and hauled away the cargo, which included: stuffed shipping containers and steel mesh "shark cages" for bundling in smaller equipment, Abrams tanks, Amtrak Amphibious Assault Vehicles, seven-ton trucks, M-198 howitzer artillery pieces and hundreds of Humvee four-wheel drive vehicles. They brought the equipment to this staging area, called the Arrival Assembly Operations Element, in the northern Kuwaiti desert.
* * *
Maj. David Nathanson, 33, of Newark, a logistics officer for the 7th Marine Regiment, had this to say: "The work often falls outside the spotlight, but behind the scenes is a huge effort that can make all the difference. Without all the right parts, a tank is just 70 tons of steel."
posted by Phillip Carter at 13:37

 
KUSP Radio (Santa Cruz NPR Affiliate) - "Talk of the Bay" - Wednesday, January 29th, 6:30 p.m.

Joe Hall, host of Talk of the Bay, has asked me to join Mark Eitelberg, a Professor at the Naval Post Graduate School, for a half-hour discussion of Rep. Charlie Rangel's proposal to institute a draft for America's military. Professor Eitelberg is one of the nation's leading authorities on America's All-Volunteer Force. Over the past 27 years, he has directed several dozen-research projects on the voluntary military; he's now a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. I'm still flattered by Mr. Hall's invitation, especially given Prof. Eitelberg's credentials. I think he invited me because of my December Washington Monthly article on women in combat, and my recent service in America's all-volunteer Army.

In any case, please tune in -- I think it will be a good program. KUSP has streaming audio capability on their website, so you should be able to listen from anywhere via the Internet.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:40

 
Imminence, Iraq and Terrorism

I thought that President Bush did an excellent job tonight in laying out the arguments for why America must press the fight against Iraq and terrorists. (Speech text available here) Imminence of threat is not something you can gauge precisely; it's something that can only be precisely known in hindsight. When failure to perfectly judge imminence might mean thousands -- or millions -- of dead Americans, the President correctly errs on the side of caution. Pre-emption is the logical response to a threat which serves no notice of attack.
...
"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror the gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

"This threat is new; America s duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this Nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."
...
"Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush punctuated this part of his speech with a message for America's men and women in uniform:

"Tonight I also have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in and near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lie ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you."

"Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This Nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come."
posted by Phillip Carter at 20:16

 
Slate: Chances of War Jump to 80%

William Saletan, an experienced reporter who serves as Slate's chief political correspondent, rates daily the chances of a war with Iraq. His numbers have hovered between 50-70 percent for most of the last few months. Today, the rating jumped to 80%. Of all the tea-leaf readers, I think Mr. Saletan is one of the best. This jump makes me think some sort of action is imminent.

"Dispute sharpens and solidifies between Blix and Iraq. Blix: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament which was demanded of it. … [Iraq's Dec. 7 declaration] does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions." Iraq's U.N. ambassador: "Iraq has fully complied with all its obligations. … All the remaining disarmament issues referred to in Mr. Blix's statement were actually explained in our declaration." U.S. says it will publicly disclose intelligence showing Iraq is hiding WMD from inspectors. Peace spin: Security Council skeptics still aren't budging. War spin: Iraq is eliminating the alternatives to war."
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:13

 
Norman Schwarzkopf: Give Peace a Chance

Tom Ricks reports in today's Washington Post that retired-General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S./Allied forces in Gulf War I, thinks America ought to wait before launching a new offensive on Iraq. Schwarzkopf has broken from the Army's official establishment before, both in publishing his detailed autobiography and in refusing to join a number of official think-tanks, forums and after-action reviews following the Gulf War. In retirement, he has often provided the voice of an iconoclastic and irascible senior officer who has seen a lot -- and who zealously guards his right to say what he thinks.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
* * *
In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:54

 
NYT: Service Academies Defend Use of Affirmative Action

Today's NY Times runs an article (that the Wall Street Journal ran last week) saying that the Bush Administration's brief in Grutter v. Bollinger may contradict its use of race in admissions to the four service academies. However, I don't think this is correct as a matter of law. First, the Solicitor General's Brief in Grutter allows for diversity per se as a compelling government interest. Second, the SG's brief does not say that all uses of race are impermissable -- only that Michigan's program is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The programs at America's military academies will probably survive, for three reasons:

1) The government interest at stake (see below) is considerably more compelling than that in achieving diversity per se in higher education. Unit cohesion is the bedrock of military effectiveness, and a diverse officer corps contributes immeasurably to unit cohesion in a military which is more racially diverse than society at large.

2) The West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, and Coast Guard Academy admissions systems are arguably more narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest than the ones at Michigan. Admissions officers at each academy spend more time on each application and carefully screen the applications of all students who may be offered admission. Moreover, there's a clear nexus between the goal (diverse military officer corps) and the means used (selection for the academy), since one necessarily leads to the other. It's not like admitting minority students to law school and hoping they work in public-interest law (instead for Gibson Dunn). Students who graduate from the academy automatically go onto serve, thus fulfilling the government's interest in this situation.

3) The Constitution explicitly grants powers to Congress to make regulations for the military (Art. I, Sec. 8), and to the President to command the military (Art. II). The Supreme Court typically defers to the military on a wide range of issues because it recognizes the primacy of the other two branches in making military policy. It would probably do so here as well.
* * *
At each academy, which the federal government operates, admissions officers cited two main reasons for racial diversity in admissions, one singular to the military and one widely heard in higher education.

The familiar argument, as expressed by Col. Michael L. Jones, dean of admissions at West Point, is: "We like to represent the society we come from in terms of the student body's undergraduate experiences. So having a diverse student body allows personal growth in areas where people may not have gotten it otherwise. We want people to understand the society they will defend."

The military argument is that with racial minorities making up from 28 percent of the enlisted personnel in the Air Force to 44 percent in the Army, almost all-white ranks of officers would hurt morale.

"We want to build an officer corps," said Dave Vetter, the Naval Academy dean of admissions, that "reflects the military services of which we are a part." Colonel Jones said, "Officers of color are important as role models in the Army."
* * *
posted by Phillip Carter at 06:29

 
Breaking News -- President Bush plays his trump card on Iraq

Bob Woodward reports in tomorrow's Washington Post that the Bush Administration has decided to declassify enough intelligence to paint an accurate picture of Iraq's treachery. A senior State Department official said the information the administration plans to release will show what the Iraqis are "doing, what they're not doing, how they're deceiving."

Analysis: This is the Administration's "ace in the hole" -- this is what the world has been waiting for. A lot of smart folks have predicted this would happen as public opinion began to ebb. Given last week's statements by France and Germany, this week's statements in Davos, and mounting protests around the country, the timing seems right. There's simply no way the Administration would lay so much on the line, ship so many troops over to CENTCOM, make so many statements in the UN, and press the world so hard unless it had such information in its possession. We won't know for certain how bad this stuff is until it's revealed, and then until UN inspectors verify this on the ground. But it will definitely put Saddam between a rock and a hard place. And ultimately, this intelligence may provide the tool to pry open his vaults.

U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public
Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War

By Bob Woodward - Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A01

The Bush administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been actively moving and concealing banned weapons systems and related equipment from United Nations inspectors, according to informed sources.

After a lengthy debate over what and how much of the intelligence to disclose, President Bush and his national security advisers have decided to declassify some of the information and make it public, perhaps as early as next week, in an effort to garner more domestic and international support for confronting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force, officials said.

"The United States possesses several pieces of information which come from the work of our intelligence that show Iraq maintains prohibited weapons," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview published yesterday in an Italian newspaper. "Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material."

The information was gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies from what officials characterized as an array of sources and methods. The administration believes it shows that senior Iraqi officials and military officers who report to members of Hussein's inner circle have personally directed the movement and camouflage of the weapons or have knowledge of the operations, the sources said.

The concealment efforts have often taken place days or hours ahead of visits by U.N. inspection teams, which have been operating in Iraq during the past two months, according to these accounts. In many cases, the United States has what one source called "compelling" intelligence that is "unambiguous" in proving that Iraq is hiding banned weapons.
* * *
posted by Phillip Carter at 20:57

 
Powell Defends U.S. Foreign Policy in Davos

Secretary of State Colin Powell has arguably had more to do with crafting American foreign policy than anyone else in the last two decades. Serving first as National Security Adviser, then as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (for two terms), and now as Secretary of State, Mr. Powell's vision of the world has shaped America's actions towards the world since the Reagan presidency. Now, Mr. Powell has gone on the offensive, speaking to a hostile forum of powerful Europeans and Americans at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Taking great umbrage at claims of American "imperialism," Mr. Powell eloquently corrected those in Davos who painted the U.S. as a latter-day colonialist empire:

Excerpt from Secretary Powell's Speech:
"I believe--no, I know, with all of my heart, that the United States can. I believe no less strongly that the United States has earned the trust of men, women and children around the world. Let's just go to Afghanistan. 10,000 American soldiers are in that country helping to create conditions of security. A new government, a new representative government, is in place. We see new roads, new hospitals, new schools, where girls can attend and gain the skills they will need to lead productive, meaningful lives.

"Afghanistan is one example of what we have accomplished in the global war against terrorism. The United States, together with the countries represented by many of you in this room, is making it more difficult for terrorists to move about, for them to find sanctuary, for them to communicate, for them to transfer money, for them to acquire weapons to carry out attacks against innocent people.

"We should be very proud of what has been accomplished in Afghanistan since we met in New York last year.

"I want to say one more thing about Afghanistan, which is reflective about the manner in which America carries out its responsibilities in the world. The American troops who are there went there in peace, working alongside now thousands of troops from more than a dozen countries, and they're all working together to help train Afghan police and military forces that will take their place, and as soon as our troops are needed no longer, they will depart.

"Afghanistan's leaders and Afghanistan's people know that they can trust America to do just this, to do the right thing. The people of Bosnia, the people of Kosovo, of Macedonia, they too know that they can trust us to do our jobs and then leave. We seek nothing for ourselves other than to help bring about security for people that have already suffered too much.

"The same holds true for the people of Kuwait. 12 years ago, we helped liberate their country, and then we left. We did not seek any special benefits for ourselves. That is not the American way. "
* * *
Excerpt from Q&A Session
"I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of, or apologize for, with respect to what America has done for the world," he said in response to a question asking why the United States always falls back on the use of "hard power" instead of the "soft power" of diplomacy. Mr. Powell noted that the United States had sent its soldiers into foreign wars over the last century, most recently in Afghanistan, without having imperial designs on the territories it secured.

"We've put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives," he said, his voice growing hoarse. "We've asked for nothing but enough land to bury them in."
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:25

 
You can uncross your fingers now...

I don't know about you, but I breathed another sigh of relief when the Super Bowl ended without any major security incidents. To most watching on TV, the security was transparent. For those in attendance, they felt it. But from a distance, I can tell you the security for this event rivaled that at the Olympics for depth and breadth. Various federal agencies were out in full force, including the FBI and Secret Service. The National Guard provided assets from its Civil Support Team, who were equipped to detect and respond to any release of chemical or biological agents. And a phalanx of National Guard, Calif. Highway Patrol, San Diego police, and others stood vigil around the stadium for the entire event. With few exceptions, the game went off without a hitch. Thank God for small miracles.
posted by Phillip Carter at 21:43

 
Total Information Awareness -- The Bio/Medical Component

In case you thought TIA just meant a merger of criminal, credit and diplomatic databases, think again. TIA may also mean the integration of medical data, something which may go further into the human psyche/body than any of the other areas which TIA is supposed to cover. Monday's New York Times reports that the CDC -- in collaboration with the Pentagon -- has developed a computerized public-health surveillance system for the United States. This system would monitor all sorts of indicators in the health arena, from symptoms in emergency rooms to prescriptions for particular kinds of antibioitics. It has enormous potential for public health, as well as anti-terrorism. But like TIA, it may require some careful calibration to avoid civil liberties problems.

"The emerging health monitoring network, officials and experts say, will provide information that could save lives if terrorists strike with deadly germs like smallpox or anthrax. In detecting attacks, a head start of even a day or two can greatly lower death rates by letting doctors treat rapidly and prevent an isolated outbreak from becoming an epidemic."
* * *
For decades, disease surveillance has valued accuracy over speed. Nurses, doctors and public health officers gather raw data, often using paper forms sent by mail. In the background, federal, state and private laboratories use advanced technologies to determine the causes of disease and confirm diagnoses. But the process tends to take days or even weeks.
Moreover, the system is narrow, revealing little about the nation's overall health. While the federal disease control center has more than 100 surveillance systems, most are designed to track a single organism or condition, like heart disease or flu virus. In addition, most are independent of one another.
The system has serious gaps. While laboratories usually comply with federal rules to report certain illnesses to health authorities, physicians often do not.
The military and the national weapons laboratories, increasingly worried about germ attacks, tried a new approach in the late 1990's. To learn of impending trouble quickly, they decided to scrutinize populations for clues of diseases before they were officially diagnosed. Experts zeroed in on how clusters of such symptoms as fever, cough, headache, vomiting, rash and diarrhea could suggest — but not prove — the presence of particular diseases, some of them lethal. The method was called syndromic surveillance.
* * *
An early military system was the Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics, or Essence. It drew medical data from some 400,000 members of the military and their dependents who lived in the Washington area — a major potential terrorist target, but hard for civilians to scan medically because of "the numerous city, county and state jurisdictions," according to a Defense Department statement.
After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency put $12 million into an experimental program, Essence 2, which tracked millions of civilians in the Washington area for signs of bioterrorism. The program now reports to Admiral Poindexter, whose Total Information Awareness program was dealt a setback by the Senate late last week, its future now in doubt. Joe Lombardo, a civilian who runs Essence 2, which is based at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland, said that although Admiral Poindexter's office finances the system, Essence 2 shares no data with his computer surveillance project. Essence 2, he said, gathers electronic records from drugstore chains, hospitals and physician groups. Mr. Lombardo said about a dozen people were developing the technology and collecting and analyzing the data.

Analysis: If TIA develops a new way for gathering, analyzing and making sense of public-health data, it could be the greatest leap forward in public health since the use of soap and antisepsis. Right now, the CDC's methods for gathering/disseminating this data are antiquated at best. A coherent, automated, universal system would go a long way towards solving problems like acute lethal pediatric disorders and food poisoning, not to mention bioterrorism. I truly hope that a balance can be struck here between civil liberties concerns and the good that Total Information Awareness can bring. This type of database won't just tell us about aberrational outbreaks of food poisoning; it can be used by medical researchers and epidemiologists to deduce all sorts of important conclusions from its data. We all stand to benefit a great deal from this kind of project.
posted by Phillip Carter at 19:02

 
Total Information Awareness -- Threat to Civil Liberties or Method of Ensuring Accurate Law Enforcement?

Last week, the Senate amended an authorization bill to include a reporting requirement for the Pentagon. The Defense Department may only proceed with its "Total Information Awareness" project if it submits a report to Congress on the details of the project, and the measures it's taking to protect civil liberties in the project. TIA is the massive database project sponsored by the Pentagon which would bring together information from all sources (private, public, intelligence, criminal, etc) to support national-security and criminal-investigative authorities. On Friday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert echoed the Senate's sentiments, saying he would endorse a similar amendment in the House.

Hastert, R-Ill., is concerned about the privacy implications of the research program, called Total Information Awareness, Hastert spokesman Pete Jeffries said. He said it remains unclear who will fight for the project when House and Senate lawmakers meet next month to decide its future. "Its fate is questionable," Jeffries said.

This makes it all but certain that such a reporting requirement will be added. In general, I agree with reporting requirements and the goals of Congressional oversight -- particularly for the Defense Department. (Some reporting requirements are quite odious though. A cursory read of Title 10, United States Code, will reveal hundreds of extraneous reporting requirements for the Pentagon that devour thousands of manhours to complete -- and are probably never read by Congress.)

However, TIA may be a good thing when it's eventually developed. I think the debate over TIA has been skewed, first by the William Safire NY Times column which broke the story, and subsequently by civil libertarians who have cast the issue as one of "Big Brother" instead of as a means to more accurately focus law enforcement. Here are the reasons why I think TIA is a good thing, and why the critics are wrong.

1. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) does "deep" research, not near-term or short-term research. They develop ideas & concepts that may come to fruition in 30 years. Many of these ideas, in their infancy, are susceptible to misinterpretation because they are so powerful, and because the science they propose is so revolutionary. But we ought not discourage the basic research sponsored by DARPA because of its possible effects a generation in the future. We ought to instead develop control measures for that risk, and ensure the research does not lead to such harm.

Example: Among other things, DARPA created the Internet in the 1960s as a way for four universities (Berkeley, MIT, Stanford and UCLA) to communicate about sensitive defense-related research and technology. The interconnected network was designed to withstand a nuclear attack, because it would reroute itself around any destroyed links. Thirty years ago, no one could have predicted the evolution of DARPA-Net to the Internet of today. But imagine what would have happened if civil libertarians then had criticized it because of its potential for surveillance, or if movie studios had criticized it because they foresaw some Intellectual Property problems. The Internet might never have been built. TIA may have the same potential for the future, or it may have problems we don't know about. Scuttling it or any other DARPA project now, before it's designed or built, may chill research and innovation with the long-term potential to improve our lives.

2. American law enforcement agencies have a real problem with racial profiling; TIA may solve part of that problem. They often use race as a proxy for sweeping up terrorists because they lack any meaningful information about who is or is not a terrorist. Part of the problem stems from "indicators", as the Intelligence Community calls them. Indicators are pieces of information which mean things, and when analyzed, can indicate the presence or absence of something. Terrorists leave pieces of information which can indicate terrorist activity. But often, these indicators are relatively inocuous by themselves -- taking out large sums of cash, buying airplane tickets, taking self-defense lessons -- these things mean nothing by themselves, and indeed are activities that lots of innocent people do as well. Without knowing which indicators are important, and a system for tying together indicators from all sources, there is simply no way to put together the dots. A better system of gathering information and analyzing information will produce more accurate law enforcement. It will tell law enforcement what things to look for. Instead of looking for things like race, they will look for precise details of behavior that are the most probable indicators of terrorism. In theory, this will lead to greatly reduced need for racial profiling.

3. A related problem is the gathering/collation/cross-referencing of information. There currently exists no single system in America for gathering criminal-investigative information from local, state and federal agencies -- let alone combining such information with data from the Intelligence Community, State Department, or foreign agencies. This was cited, among other things, as a key failure in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on the failures of the Intelligence Community to prevent 9/11. TIA may represent the answer to this problem, by providing a relational database with sufficient breadth, depth and sophistication to bring together data from all these sources. As a footnote, Oracle already makes such databases for the private sector, and they are used quite well by credit bureaus and other private actors. This system would build on that technology, but attempt to make the system even more reliable (we all know that credit reports can have flaws sometimes). Gathering this information is absolutely critical. Terrorists fly below our radar because they show up as ordinary members of society. The clues they leave are usually innocuous, and tend to fall within the jurisdictions of separate agencies. (This is intentional -- al Qaeda doctrine teaches terrorists to exploit seams like federal/state, foreign/domestic, military/civilian, and to cross these lines when expedient.) America must have a system for gathering this information from all sources and putting it together. The amount of data is too large for a human analyst to deal with -- only a sophisticated computer database can put all this information together to find the right indicators of terrorist activity.

4. The system still has checks. TIA will not produce some Minority Report-like world where three pre-cogs sit in a vat and make decisions that lead automatically (without trial or evidence) to lifetime incarceration. TIA doesn't even provide enough information for "probable cause", as I understand the technology. Instead, TIA enables law enforcement to focus their scarce resources on where it really counts. Instead of surveilling the entire Arab-American population (a uniformly dumb idea), TIA would enable the FBI to surveil only those persons with certain indicators of terrorist activity (like repeated trips to certain countries or ties to certain individuals on the State Department's watchlist.) Ultimately, the government must still prove its case in court to incarcerate someone, and it must still try them before a jury or judge in most cases. The Article III courts stand as a bulwark against any slippery-slope problem here.

This is a tough issue, but one I think we need to resolve in favor of Total Information Awareness. The technology promises benefits that can barely be imagined right now, with costs that can be controlled and mitigated. In any case, I welcome your thoughts & feedback on these ideas.
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:41

 
Q&A with Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Houston)

Howard Bashman of Appellateblog poses 20 questions to Judge Smith and gets surprisingly candid answers. A sampling of questions includes:
1. What are your most favorite and least favorite aspects of being a federal appellate judge?
4. If you had to abandon your seat on the Fifth Circuit but in exchange could serve as a judge on any other U.S. Court of Appeals, which one would you choose and why?
9. Why have you decided not to adhere to the "Law Clerk Hiring Plan" that supposedly has the overwhelming support of federal appellate judges, and has your decision made it easier or more difficult to attract the sort of law clerks that you are seeking?
13. A lawyer with five years' experience is going to deliver his or her first appellate oral argument in any court before a three-judge panel that includes you. What advice do you have for this lawyer?
Appellateblog plans to host several more of these Q&A sessions with federal judges in the near future. Stay tuned.

I did a similar Q&A with Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 1996. A copy is available here if you're interested in reading his thoughts on everything from ideology to writing style.
posted by Phillip Carter at 16:41

 
FBI Teams Up With College Police -- Agencies join to investigate students who may be terrorists

Dan Eggen reports in today's Washington Post that the FBI has enlisted college police departments in its efforts to fight terrorism in the United States. Student visas were used by several of the 9/11 hijackers to enter the United States, and federal authorities have long looked to radical student organizations as an incubator for domestic/foreign terrorism. However, this move resurrects decades-old memories of FBI agents snooping on political groups on campus as part of J. Edgar Hoover's anti-dissidence strategies.

On at least a dozen campuses, the FBI has included collegiate police officers as members of local Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the regional entities that oversee counterterrorism investigations nationwide.
* * *
The FBI and many campus police officers view the arrangements as a logical, effective way to help monitor potential terrorist threats and keep better tabs on the more than 200,000 foreign nationals studying in the United States. Several of the Sept. 11 hijackers were enrolled as students at American flight schools, and one entered the country on a student visa but never showed up at the school.
* * *
...the effort has touched a nerve among some faculty and student groups, as well as Muslim activists, who fear that the government is inching toward the kind of controversial spying tactics it used in the 1950s and 1960s. With few restrictions, the FBI at the time aggressively monitored, and often harassed, political groups, student activists and dissidents.
* * *
Distrust of the FBI runs high among some faculty who remember the counterculture demonstrations of the 1960s. Under J. Edgar Hoover's 15-year COINTELPRO program, the bureau engaged in broad and questionable tactics aimed at monitoring and disrupting student activist groups.
* * *
The FBI has long had liaison relationships with police and security departments at some universities, particularly larger institutions with higher crime rates or heavy involvement in sensitive research areas, officials said. But the Sept. 11 attacks prompted the bureau to strengthen its links to local and state police departments, including those on college campuses.

I'm not wired into the Los Angeles-area Joint-Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), nor do I know exactly what the UCPD is doing in this area. But I know this issue carries a tremendous amount of baggage here in the UC system, because of extensive surveillance and police activity carried out against students in the 1960s and 1970s. I also know there's a cogent need for such surveillance today, given the number of immigrant students here and the sensitivity of some of the research done at UC. I'm pretty confident the FBI is striking a proper balance here, but this is something to keep an eye on.

posted by Phillip Carter at 16:27

 
Blogs of Note -- Just added these to the links area

Is That Legal? -- Thoughts and commentary from Eric Muller, a law professor at the University of Wyoming.
Rule 11 - A 'blog from a recent grad of the University of Michigan's law school; good ConLaw analysis.
Sheep Free Zone - Provocative commentary about legal and military stuff from Matt Bower, a former-Marine officer and law student.
Defense Tech - "The future of the military, law enforcement, and national security" by Noah Shachtman, who has written for a number of magazines and newspapers on these subjects.
Craig's Blog - Commentary on a wide variety of topics.

I recommend visits to these and the other 'blogs I have linked.

posted by Phillip Carter at 15:46

 
Why America needs to call up so many reservists to fight

Sunday's NY Times contains a good article by Thom Shanker on the push within the Pentagon to realign the mix of forces in the active and reserve parts of the U.S. military. Neither President Bush nor Secretary Rumsfeld enjoys the political and social consequences of calling up large numbers of reservists for extended tours of duty. However, the all-volunteer force was set up in such a way after Vietnam to require these callups, because a cabal of bitter generals decided then to hamstring future political leaders by placing certain key types of units in the reserves. The idea was that any future war would need a reserve callup, thus involving men/women from every part of America, thus requiring the President to have more political support than LBJ had in Vietnam.

Excerpt:
While American military victories in conflicts including Iraq and Afghanistan helped exorcise other ghosts of Vietnam, the heavy reliance on the National Guard and Reserve remains a legacy of the armed service's frustration with that war.

Angered that President Lyndon B. Johnson, and then President Richard M. Nixon, declined to call up the reserves during the Vietnam War for fear of generating greater opposition to it, Gen. Creighton W. Abrams, the Army chief of staff, shaped the post-Vietnam mix of active and reserve forces to make sure that when America next went to war with its new all-volunteer force, hometown America would have to go along too.

This dependence on reserve components only grew after the end of the cold war and the decision to cut the military. The Pentagon and Congress wanted to keep as much tooth in the active force as it could afford, and pushed missions in the logistics tail to the reserves.

But mass mobilizations in the past year and a half raised concerns at the Pentagon and, just as important, on Capitol Hill. Many look to streamline the system to more nimbly counter the unpredictable terrorist threat. Others are going further, asking whether the number of active-duty personnel is too small — which translates directly into budgets — if the American military cannot fulfill global commitments without relying so heavily on the Guard and Reserve.

The biggest problem with using the reserves is time. The military's mobilization system was designed around a number of assumptions, including the assumption that we'd have weeks/months to mobilize troops and ship them to Central Europe or Korea for an all-out war. Recent experience has shown us these assumptions are unreliable; that our wily adversaries (like Al Qaeda) can slip away in the time it would take to mobilize the reserves. Another huge problem is training/resourcing. The reserves aren't resourced to train or maintain their equipment to the same level as the active force. But when they're called up, they're expected to be able to fight alongside the active force. This works well for certain support units -- Military Police, medical, supply, transportation -- because those units' soldiers often work in the same field as their military job, and the skills are less perishable. But it's virtually impossible to maintain proficiency on complex, collective tasks in large combat units like infantry battalions and brigades in the reserves.
posted by Phillip Carter at 13:10

 
Military Justice - Prediction for US/Canadian fratricide case

Fellow UCLA law student and former-USMC infantry officer Chris Baker has a good analysis of what should happen in the case of the two U.S. Air Force pilots charged with accidentally bombing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

"...even though we owe our armed forces a tremendous amount of deference in the case of soldiers and airmen engaging in "self defense", there are several issues to suggest that these pilots were overly aggressive in disobeying an early-warning aircraft's order to "hold fire", and dropping a laser guided bomb from an altitude where they were virtually immune from the type of fire they claimed to be receiving. Accordingly, a court martial to determine the guilt or innocence of the pilots is in order."
posted by Phillip Carter at 11:36

 
Democracy at work: Congress uses reporting requirements to constraint Pentagon action

The Senate today added a rider to its appropriations bill which has the effect of stopping the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" project dead in the water. Reporting requirements exist throughout Title 10 and various defense authorization acts; they generally require the Pentagon to submit a written or testimonial report to Congress on some activity. In some cases, these requirements are written so that the Defense Department may not act in a certain way without first reporting to Congress. This is how the new Senate amendment works -- it requires the Pentagon to submit a report before it takes any further action to develop the TIA project. This report must include certain things, such as the way the DoD plans to minimize TIA's impact on civil liberties.

"The Senate measure requires the Pentagon to report to Congress on the goals of the program within 60 days of the bill's final passage, including recommendations from the Attorney General on minimizing the impact on civil liberties.
"The measure also would keep the Pentagon from deploying the program or transferring it to another department, such as the FBI (news - web sites) or the new Homeland Security department, without congressional authorization."

This has three main effects: 1) It stops the Pentagon program until the report is done; 2) It requires the Pentagon to consider certain things that Congress cares about (civil liberties) and revise its program to meet these concerns, and 3) Gives Congress an opportunity to review this program and make oversight decisions about it and its funding. This is the essence of how democracy works in practice in Washington. The will of the people is being expressed by Congress and used to constrain the actions of a government agency. It's rare that you see this work so well.
posted by Phillip Carter at 10:45

 
Denver Post: Pentagon plans for mass burial of U.S. soldiers killed by chem/bio agents
An unpleasant, but necessary, control measure to prevent further loss of life

In a special piece for today's Denver Post, Greg Seigle reports that the Pentagon has developed plans to cremate or bury en masse the bodies of American soldiers killed in combat by biological or chemical agents in Iraq. Such a plan existed in the 1st Gulf War, but was thankfully never implemented. It breaks with a half-century-old tradition of returning American soldiers after they've fallen in action for burial at home. American military officials acknowledge a powerful desire to bring every fallen soldier home, but also say the need to protect against future casualties outweighs any risk of further contamination. This is an extremely difficult issue, because it raises strong emotions on both sides. But ultimately, I think this decision is the right one. Accounting for every fallen man or woman is important, and giving closure to families is important. But we have to look after the welfare of all soldiers -- especially those still living. If burying casualties in the field means preventing future loss of life, then we must make that painful choice.

WASHINGTON - The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.
Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes.
But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors.
Army spokesmen said the option to bury or even burn bodies contaminated by chemical or biological weapons is being considered, along with the possibility of placing contaminated corpses in airtight body bags and sending them home for closed-casket funerals.
* * *
The U.S. had a plan for mass burials during the Gulf War in 1991, said Lt. Gen. William "Gus" Pagonis, the chief logistician for that conflict and the man who conceived the plan.
"The bulldozers were all lined up and ready to go," to deposit contaminated bodies in "mass graves," Pagonis said.
"You'll use whatever equipment is necessary to avoid contaminating more people," Pagonis said in a recent interview. "You don't want anybody else to die."
* * *
Army spokesman Capt. Ben Kuykendall said the Pagonis plan is similar to the option currently under consideration - except that bodies infected by biological agents might be both cremated and buried.
If soldiers are killed by "something like smallpox in which bodies cannot be decontaminated, we would have to cremate them right there," Kuykendall said. He said he recently discussed the option in detail with Brig. Gen. Steve Reeves, program executive officer for the Army's chemical and biological defense office. Reeves declined to comment.
"You would have to protect the living, so you'd have to get rid of the (contaminated) bodies as quickly as possible," Kuykendall said. "You don't want to contaminate any survivors who are not already contaminated."
* * *
Military veterans said they hope those commanders will never have to make such a choice.
Mass burial is "a sensitive issue, and we don't want to think about it because our hopes and prayers are that it won't happen," said Tom Corey, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America who was wounded in Vietnam and now uses a wheelchair.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:44

 
AP Report: Schools buying terrorism insurance-- A questionable use of scarce school resources to combat terrorism

The Associated Press national desk ran a story this morning that local school districts around the country are buying terrorism insurance. Personally, I think this is a less-than-bright idea. When it comes to our nation's schools, I want my resources directed at prevention and consequence-management -- not at insuring the buildings and real property which can always be rebuilt with public money after the event. Of all the ways to allocate scarce resources in the fight against terrorism insurance, this is one of the dumbest. It transfers scarce millions of dollars from cash-strapped school districst to private insurance companies, and takes away from resources which might otherwise be directed at preventing terrorism or stockpiling supplies in case an event happens. The insurance doesn't pay for those supplies, nor does it buy trained personnel who can respond to an event. It just compensates the victims after the fact, and repurchases lost goods. After an attack, the government will do that anyway, or at least loan the district money through FEMA at a below-market rate.

Excerpt:
Many school districts are pricing policies and debating whether they need coverage, even though terrorism experts say there has never been an attack on a U.S. school by foreign terrorists.
New York City, the nation's largest district, and Chicago, the nation's third largest, have rejected the coverage because they're self-insured and say it would be too costly.
Two other large districts — the Miami area's Dade County, and Clark County, in and around Las Vegas — figured they needed the insurance and bought it before the law was passed.
* * *
Besides cost considerations, school districts are making decisions based on factors such as proximity to urban areas, how tall and close buildings are and how well they can secure their schools, according to Jim Sandner, president of Chicago-based Brokers' Risk Placement Service, which provides insurance to more than 1,000 districts nationwide.
Terrorism experts say it's unclear what foreign threats — if any — the nation's schools face.
* * *
With states facing budget crunches, price may be the deciding factor in determining whether to get the insurance. School districts contacted by The Associated Press said they've faced hikes from 5 to 20 percent of their current insurance premiums to add terrorism coverage.

In general, public finances at the local schools level is a zero-sum game. School districts have a finite amount of resources -- resources which are especially limited in fiscally austere times like our current recession. (California's schools can't afford a lot of things these days, including salary increases already promised to teachers and capital improvements on decaying schools) Terrorism may pose a threat to schools or it may not. But if it does pose a threat to schools, then schools have to allocate money to this threat in the most efficient way possible.

Priority #1 ought to be PREVENTION, not insurance. It might be wise for schools to invest in more school police to look for suspicious things, or to react to increased threat warnings with extra patrols. (School districts could also develop agreements with local police departments to contract for security services in high-threat times) After prevention, priority #2 ought to be CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT. This includes all the activities which can save lives after an attack. When schools are concerned, saving lives through prevention and consequence-management are more important than anything. Terrorism insurance may sound good to policy makers and parents, but it won't do a thing to save their children if a terrorist attacks. Buying preventive law enforcement and consequence-management supplies will save lives. That's where the money ought to go.
posted by Phillip Carter at 08:28

 
Name Change:

After receiving some constructive criticism, I've decided to name my 'blog "Intel Dump".

Intel dump is a perjorative military term that refers to an impromptu or scheduled situation briefing. In the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, our intelligence officer used to stand up and give an "Intel Dump" of the day's battlefield activities at regular intervals. Her brief covered the enemy situation, the friendly situation, and other major events that affected our mission. These intel dumps gave me the information I needed to go out and do my mission (or gave me the questions I needed to ask.) The term entered my vocabulary, and I now use it to refer to any sort of comprehensive briefing or rundown of events. It seemed appropriate for my weblog, where I try to provide thoughtful analysis of various legal, military and security issues. (And more importantly, it wasn't taken yet!)
posted by Phillip Carter at 19:44

 
History Lesson: America has never truly favored military conscription; it's only chosen it out of necessity

Slate has a great essay today by historian David Greenberg on America's love/hate relationship with the draft. The story caught my eye because it contradicts a popular American myth: that we universally embraced mandatory military service until Vietnam and the advent of the all-volunteer force. Greenberg writes that this is far from the case. Indeed, conscription has been the exception in US history, not the rule, only implemented in times of national emergency (Civil War, WWI, WWII), and continued for the mid-20th Century more out of inertia than anything else. Ultimately, Greenberg argues that this history makes Congressman Rangel's draft proposal all the more unviable.
...
Despite these fine words, though, conscription has always been—and probably will always be—a tough sell. The reason isn't that Americans crave an unjust system, although they haven't shown too much regret over the draft's inequities. Rather, the draft's perennial unpopularity stems from an abiding national regard for freedom from state coercion. For all Rangel's rhetorical bows to the "citizen soldier" and "shared sacrifice," his proposal addresses America's historic concern for equality but skirts its even more primary veneration for liberty.

Indeed, the notion of the citizen soldier of the Revolutionary War to which Rangel hearkens—the common man trading plowshare for sword to fight an imminent threat—actually points up the flaws in the argument for conscription. The Revolution's vaunted Minute Men were, after all, volunteers who needed no official prodding to take up arms against a threat to their liberty. The Continental Army certainly had its manpower problems—in the winter of 1776, Tom Paine decried the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot"—but even in those trying times, states rejected George Washington's plea for national conscription. When individual states did hold drafts, they allowed wealthy conscripts to hire substitutes, who were predominantly poor and unemployed. Service was hardly a shared experience."

Whatever problems hobbled the Continental Army, the new nation's founders remained convinced that state encroachment on personal freedom was the greater danger. The Constitution's drafters conferred on Congress the power to "raise and support armies" but not to conscript citizens—an omission notably at odds with the practice in Europe. Virginia's Edmund Randolph, one of the few founders to raise the issue during the constitutional debates, argued that a draft would "stretch the strings of government too violently to be adopted." Such sentiments carried the day even when British troops invaded American soil two decades later. During the War of 1812, President James Madison sought a draft. But even though Secretary of War James Monroe promised it would be just a temporary, emergency measure, Congress opposed it, in Sen. Daniel Webster's words, as "Napoleonic despotism." It never got off the ground.

See the full article for more about the history of American military conscription. It's one of the better pieces I've read on the subject.
posted by Phillip Carter at 19:37

 
Farewell to a great American citizen

Bill Mauldin, Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist, Dies at 81
By Mike Anton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Bill Mauldin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist whose characters--two downtrodden GIs, Willie and Joe--spoke to a generation of soldiers who fought in World War II, died early today. He was 81.
Mauldin died at a nursing home in Newport Beach where he had lived since mid-2001 while battling Alzheimer's disease. More recently, he had contracted pneumonia. The cause of death was respiratory failure.
A self-described "hillbilly from New Mexico," Mauldin rose from small-town obscurity to cult hero as a baby-faced Army sergeant working for the armed forces newspaper Stars & Stripes in Europe.
His darkly funny and irreverent cartoons captured the mood of a changing military made up of citizen soldiers who questioned the leadership skills of their own officers even as they battled the enemy. Mauldin went on to become one of the best-known and best-loved newspaper columnists in America.
Mauldin's Willie and Joe, infantrymen who survived on a diet of ironic humor, were dirty and unshaven, slogging through mud and snow and sleeping in foxholes filled with water. They dodged the enemy's bullets as well as the poor morale brought on by incompetent officers.
* * *
Mauldin's characters offered a counterpoint to the clean-cut, gung-ho fighting man put forth by the Army publicity machine. There was no gauzy sentimentality in Willie and Joe, no chest-thumping heroics. They were just doing their job and wanted nothing more than to finish it and go home. It was an apt description of America's new military-a civilian force of millions, many of whom bucked the system while marching on Germany and Japan.
* * *
To millions of veterans, Mauldin was simply one of them--a soldier who fought World War II with a pen instead of a rifle.
"Peanuts" creator Charles Schulz would often have Snoopy announce on Veterans Day that he was going to Mauldin's house for root beers. Schulz always sent Mauldin the originals, although Mauldin was puzzled why. Finally, the two met. "I was a machine-gunner in France during World War II," Schulz explained. It was all he had to say.
posted by Phillip Carter at 14:03

 
NYT: U.S. Is Deploying a Monitor System for Germ Attacks

Judith Miller (author of the book Germs) reports on the front page of today's NY Times that the federal government plans to adapt thousands of EPA monitoring stations across the United States to detect the presence of biological agents. This is very encouraging news. It represents an effort to predict the enemy's future threat and deny that avenue of approach through pro-active initiatives. By fielding a system of biological detectors, we have lowered the catastrophic calculus of a biological attack using airborne pathogens. This, in turn, lowers the probability of a terrorist using this terrible means of attack.

Some caution is in order, however. This system is not perfect -- far from it. It has four main flaws:
1) It is not geographically comprehensive; 3,000 detectors is not enough to cover the United States entirely.
2) The system only detects airborne pathogens in its immediate area, or in other words, what's circulating in the air. It cannot detect latent amounts of biotoxins in places like mail envelopes, offices, or other enclosed spaces. The system would pick up something like a crop-dusting plane spraying anthrax on Manhattan, but it might miss the recent anthrax attacks altogether.
3) As reported, the system will not detect releases of chemical agents into the air -- only biological agents. This means an attack with Sarin (non-persistent nerve agent), like in the Tokyo subway system in 1995, would go undetected. Similarly, the system is limited to airborne pathogens, which excludes the range of chemical and biological agents which can be released through other mediums like liquid or gelatin.
4) The system has a 12-24 hour lag time between pathogen sample and confirmation by the CDC that the samples are indeed contaminated. The system does not detect and analyze samples in real-time, such that it could pinpoint an anthrax attack on New York or L.A. within minutes. In that sense, this system must be understood as less of a counter-terrorism tool than a consequences-management tool. This will not enable authorities to quickly ID and respond to an attack. But it will help dramatically with cordoning areas after an attack, directing medical resources, and taking care of the wounded.
* * *
Officials said that although the system would not by itself protect Americans against a germ attack, early detection of such a strike would give the government more time to mobilize medical resources that could save thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of lives. The faster those exposed to most deadly pathogens are vaccinated against a disease, or treated with antibiotics to combat it, the lower the death rate.
Under the system, the E.P.A. monitoring stations will send samples of a tissue-like paper from newly upgraded machines that filter air to the closest of some 120 laboratories across the country associated with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results will be available within 24 hours, and possibly within 12 hours.
Although officials declined to say which or how many E.P.A. monitoring stations would ultimately be used, experts on the government's program said the first environmental monitoring stations in the new system, called Bio-Watch, were in New York. The city has more than seven such stations. The stations, which are all outdoors, now mainly monitor for air pollution.
* * *
Officials said today the introduction of the system by the newly created Department of Homeland Security was not linked to a specific terrorist threat. The intelligence community, one senior official noted, has "no credible evidence that Al Qaeda has acquired biological weapons, or any weapon of mass destruction at this time."
* * *
While environmental monitoring does not provide instant detection of the release of a dangerous germ, the new system is aimed at giving health officials more time to send doctors, vaccines, antibiotics and medical equipment to the scene of a bioterror attack. Doctors and terrorism experts have long said that the lack of such a system is one of the most glaring deficiencies in the nation's biodefenses.

Bottom Line: This is a major step forward for the United States in the fight against terrorism. Adopting a system like this has an enormous deterrent effect on future acts of terrorism, because it makes it less likely for those attacks to achieve spectacular success. We must look for more systems like this which will deny avenues-of-approach to our enemies, including perhaps a system which can detect chemical, biological and nuclear material as it moves into our ports or on our rails.
posted by Phillip Carter at 07:22

 
The Soldier's Place in Society

America's finest sons and daughters are deploying for war as anti-war protesters lead rallies in various U.S. cities for their cause. Can the two be reconciled? Yes, they can. America's military is the only military organization in the world which swears its oaths to a legal idea -- the Constitution. Most nations swear their allegiance to the sovereign or to the nation. But every American soldier raises his/her right hand and swears to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That makes the American military unique. Its soldiers fight for the rights of protesters who would not themselves go into harm's way. It's a very powerful idea, and one we ought to remind ourselves of often.

Two generations ago, an eloquent military chaplain penned the following prayer.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves beneath the flag,
whose coffin is draped by the flag, and
who allows the protester to burn the flag."

--Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC
[A Guadalcanal Veteran of WWII, 11th Marines, and the Chaplain for the 1st Marine Division Association]
posted by Phillip Carter at 09:59

 
4th Infantry Division heads to Persian Gulf

The Pentagon announced on Monday that it was sending Task Force Ironhorse, a composite force built around the Army's 4th Infantry Division, to the Persian Gulf. I served in 4ID for nearly three years, mostly as a Military Police platoon leader in the Army's experimental digitized force. This division is nothing short of awesome -- it is qualitatively and quantitatively more lethal and powerful than any other division in the Army. The core of 4ID's strength is its digitization. Nearly every vehicle -- tanks, Bradleys, tracked artillery pieces, Humvees -- has a system called "Force XXI Battle Command for Brigade and Below" installed inside. This is like a laptop system which is wired to a GPS and FM radio. Every one is connected via a secure FM "tactical internet". Everyone has the real-time ability to see themselves, see the enemy, and see the terrain. It's an awesome capability. At the higher levels of command, this capability enables senior commanders to see through the fog of war and make decisions about what's actually happening in real-time.

The Army hasn't sent 4ID anywhere in a long time, because it's been testing equipment for the Army and developing new ways of fighting. This movement is significant. It means that America means business in a big way. We don't send our elite fighting forces, particularly when they're heavy/mechnized like 4ID, unless we intend to fight. 4ID is so advanced that it can execute the combat operations of 3 Army divisions from the Gulf War. This is a major commitment of combat power.

I'm somewhat sentimental about this deployment, since many of the soldiers I led and trained still serve in the 4th Infantry Division. These are America's finest sons and daughters; every single one is a great American citizen. I am confident they will serve with distinction in the Gulf, and will hold them in my thoughts until they return.
posted by Phillip Carter at 13:58