North America

I've been learning from this discussion of what constitutes a front-line soldier in our current wars.

Here's an observation in a different direction from my CNAS colleague Cmdr. Herb Carmen, a naval aviator who most recently commanded those high-morale video pioneers, the VAW-116 Sun Kings, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. 

Looking at your post about the smackdown video today fits my own reflection. The real heart of the matter isn't whether someone is unworthy because they are a JAG officer or a combat support soldier or a "black shoe" or a Hawkeye pilot. And it's okay for anyone to identify with their micro-community and culture.  After all, it's simply pride in one's service and experiences.

What I'm learning quickly, by working at CNAS and not being in a uniform, is that the guy with the beard or the intern may have just as an important perspective as the guy who just arrived from command. The most unassuming fellow passenger on the Metro might be a senior executive. The guy in cargo shorts I just shared a sea story with just might be a new Assistant Secretary at the Pentagon, or he might be the guy at the bike store who knows about the local trails.

It's not who says what, but what they say. And the problem with this video is that one guest attacks and the other counterattacks. At that point, the battle of ideas is over. So it's irrelevant that one guest is a POW and the other is a JAG officer. They've both lost me because they use their attacks on one another's service as an argument of ideas. I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have Andrew school me on Rupert Smith than have someone say I have nothing to add to the strategic dialogue in Afghanistan because I wear gold sleeves on my uniform.

(The "Andrew" here is Andrew Exum, better known as Abu Muqawama. Who you calling a mook?)

I agree with Herb's conclusion that in the TV debate, both sides failed in the war of ideas. But then, TV generally is not a medium for serious discussion. More importantly, I endorse his notion that it is substance, not appearances, that in the end are important. As General Al Gray used to say, "Don't look good -- be good."

mashleymorgan/Flickr

USA Today tells the unseemly tale of retired American generals who go to work for the defense industry, but also work as paid "mentors" to the military, which gets them helpful inside information -- and all the while collecting generous pensions. My view: If you are going to do this mentoring, do it for free, as an act of patriotism and gratitude. Otherwise it looks like a racket of insiders spreading the wealth around other insiders.

There will be a bunch of outraged responses about 30 years of dedicated service and how dare people question their ethics. My test on this is easy: Would George C. Marshall have accepted such payments? I doubt it. (Remember, he declined to write a memoir that would have made him wealthy because he thought it would have been improper to get into the failings of some of his comrades.)    

By the way, if the New York Times can win a Pulitzer for its story about generals going on TV too much, this one should win two.

Department of Defense

My CNAS colleague Amanda Hahnel went to a dinner Monday night with most of the computer geeks in Northern Virginia. (A lot of defense and intelligence computers are humming away out there, so that's a big crowd.) The dinner speaker was Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the U.S. Army. This is Amanda's report:

I found myself a bit out of place last night as I went to TechCelebration, the Northern Virginia Technical Council's big annual event. I'm not going to lie; sitting at a table with hardcore technology geeks is a little intimidating for someone who has trouble fixing basic computer problems.

I was excited to hear General George Casey speak about the future of the Army ... and he sort of did. Gen Casey broke his speech down to answer two distinct questions: How is the Army doing? And where is the Army going? Most people would assess present capacities and shortcomings before offering a future plan of action, but Gen Casey took a different tack.

He described what he believes to be the future operating environment, one filled with ideological struggles with opponents that need to be defeated. He looked at how globalization, technology, and demographic trends will all result in an increase in urban conflict. He went a bit further to predict that we would have "a decade or so of persistent conflict" with violence to achieve political and ideological goals. Mostly things you can read in the JOE.

The nugget of his speech that really struck me though, being a "natural security" nerd, was when Casey said that the "middle class in China is larger than the entire population of the United States; this will increase pressure on resources." A few sentences later he listed this as a source of future conflict.

While Gen Casey was certainly not saying we are about to go to war with China, I thought it was quite telling that he is watching global resources of raw materials as a source of conflict.

ELIZABETH DALZIEL/AFP/Getty Images

Last week I participated in a Georgetown University forum on the military in observation of Veterans' Day. One of the panelists (I wasn't taking notes, but I believe it was Iraq vet William Quinn) said that the military today is sharp, but that the blade is thinner. I think that is a good way of putting it.

Here is how I think that blade can be strengthened. My point of departure is the thought that if the military is broken again, it won't be like in the 1970s, when the ranks of the post-Vietnam military were racked by drug use, violence, racism and insubordination. Rather the cracks will be in the families of soldiers -- wives who can't take it any longer, kids who grow up seeing their fathers only intermittently.

At last night's terrific forum, I said that if you want to improve the deployability of the military, don't buy an airplane, build and staff an first-rate extended-hours day care center. Building on that thought, I wonder if we should privilege the families of deployed soldiers in new ways:

• Issue them a colored card for the length of the deployment that sends them to the front of the line. Ask local civilian merchants and service providers to honor it as well. (I can see advertisements in the local newspapers: "Special discount for  Blue Card Holders!" or "Kids eat free for Red Cards!")
• Maybe open up the mess halls (yes, I know they are called DFACs, but that's my least favorite military acronym) once or twice a week, and let mothers bring their kids. I speak as a veteran of a family of six kids, where my poor outnumbered mother was forever striving to fill us up, especially when there were four teenagers in the house.
• Give them the base gym exclusively for two hours, twice a week, with
  day care services on site.
• Maybe offer "meals on wheels" -- that is, delivered meals-two or three times a week for deployed families. We can do it for the elderly, why not for stressed out military moms?    
• At the end of the deployment, hold a ceremony at which spouses turn in those colored cards, and are publicly thanked, while their soldiers watch them.

I'd especially like to hear from military spouses. Would these help ease the strain of the next deployment? And what else would?

The U.S. Army/Flickr

For all you national security law junkies, here's a firsthand report from my CNAS colleague Jennifer Bernal on the American Bar Association's two-day long annual hoedown on National Security Law. (I know, what was second prize?):

There was one panel that I made not sure not to miss: 'Narco-violence Along the Border,' correctly -- in my opinion -- flagged as 'an emerging issue in national security law.'

I work on issues related to this narco-violence at CNAS, so I found the fact that this issue was prominently featured at the ABA conference both striking and encouraging. Now, as with most unsettling geopolitical phenomena, one can argue at different levels whether and how the situation in Mexico poses a national security threat to the United States. (The 'failed state' argument that an unstable southern neighbor is inherently detrimental to U.S. security versus the view that only considers direct attacks on the U.S. homeland, and so on.) What is certain is that the drug war in Mexico now routinely spills across the border. (It's why cities in places like Arizona are now tremendously unsafe, with drug-related kidnapping rates that have tripled in the past eight years.)

As the panel moderator put it: To what extent should we deal with drug-trafficking groups with the same methods we use with terrorist ones? How should the U.S. government handle the line between law-enforcement and intelligence- and military-oriented responses? Given a national legal framework that depends on formal categories (citizen vs. non-citizen, state vs. non-state) and the ways in which drug violence and associated problems repeatedly defy them, the answers are complicated indeed.

Unfortunately, the panel fell flat of my expectations by omitting to address these questions completely. The preceding discussion, 'Legislative Update on Developments in National Security Law,' was as jargon-y as you would expect from its title, setting my expectations for the upcoming one. Yet -- and as ironic as this sounds -- what was missing from the panel on narco-violence was a discussion of, well, law. What we got instead was a very thorough run-down of the situation in Mexico. The panelists discussed mounting death tolls (more than 5,600 casualties in 2008 alone), the alarming amount of manpower and firepower wielded by cartels, the chaotic nature of the confrontations between them, as well as the ways in which the U.S. exacerbates the conflict (drug demand and gun supply). Most of this information was on point, but it never evolved into a policy discussion.

Fact: most people don't know as much as they should about Mexico. (This became painfully obvious during a low moment in the panel when the speaker asked the audience a number of very basic questions about the country, to astounding general silence.) There's value to informing people. Yet I would have hoped for more from a discussion hosted by the ABA. Even what is arguably the biggest and most obvious legal question when it comes to policies to curb U.S. drug demand, the de-criminalization of marijuana, emerged as an afterthought in the very last question of the Q&A. Really?

Certainly, even just getting the facts right is important. It's also why I'll take this chance briefly to discuss two particular items of misinformation that I hear cited at just about every turn. I don't mean to claim that they're the most important, only that they keep coming up and require clarification.

(Read on)

James Gordon Meek, a reporter for the New York Daily News, happened to run into President Obama and the First Lady Arlington National Cemetery the other day. His account is well worth reading. Meek was visting the grave of a friend who was killed in Iraq when they began conversing.

Well, we appreciate his service very much," Obama told me.

I then told him I'm a reporter for the Daily News -- but was just there to visit friends.

"Well, James," he said, looking me in the eye, "just because you're a journalist doesn't mean you can't honor your friends here."

I also liked the president's comments yesterday when he stopped off at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska.

Two days ago, we gathered at Fort Hood and we honored 13 Americans taken from us: soldiers and caregivers; mothers and fathers; husbands and wives; sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. We grieved with families who have endured unimaginable loss. And we found inspiration in the wounded, their spirits unbowed, and in those who braved the bullets so that others might live.

Yesterday, we gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to salute proud veterans who served on foreign fields long ago and wounded warriors from today. And as citizens of a grateful nation, we are humbled by such service.

Today, we gather here, at Elmendorf. And we see the same spirit. It's the spirit that I saw in the outstanding airmen and soldiers I met with a few moments ago. It's the spirit that I see in all of you."

It has been quite a week for Obama and the military. Maybe he can pull off this lousy couple of months he has had on the national security front.

Photo: TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

And I don't mean Sarah Palin. Judith "WMD" Miller has an opinion piece in today's Los Angeles Times. No, I ain't linking to it.

I guess the leper colonies of Africa refused her application to volunteer.

ANDREW ROSS/AFP/Getty Images

I'm having a rough week with the Air Force, which is one of our military services.

Here is a note from Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap. As he says, he is a longtime friend -- I've known him since he was a pup. But, expressing his personal views, he strongly disagrees with my comment yesterday about a smackdown between a PoW and a JAG:

You know I am a huge fan of yours, but I must say I'm saddened by your blog "Before you shoot your mouth off." Allow me to share some personal views.

I am not defending the former Army JAG (Mr. Kenniff), but it is a mistake to paint all JAGs as "REMFs."  The reason isn't hard to discern: re-establishing the rule of law has taken center stage as a key element of our counterinsurgency strategy, and that mission causes JAGs and paralegals to frequently find themselves in extremely dangerous places.  

Regardless, I don't think anyone serving in harms' way in Iraq (or Afghanistan) should be mocked based upon mistaken assumptions about their career field or the duties they perform. 

I have enormous respect for Shoshana Johnson for her service, and especially for the courage she showed as a POW.  And I don't think her career field should matter. She was a food service specialist with a vehicle maintenance company. By the definition your blog seems to use, does that make her a REMF? 

Actually, I don't believe that in today's wars there really are rear areas or, for that matter, REMFs as that term was originally conceived. 

I don't know Kenniff but I do respect that he spent a year in Iraq (as I also respect the month or so that Johnson spent there).  I don't know anything about Kenniff's service, but can you imagine anyone who spent a year in Iraq who did not come under at least indirect fire on more than one occasion? I can't. 

More to the point: I recently had the honor of awarding the Purple Heart to one of our young JAG officers who had her knee blown apart by an IED in Iraq (another JAG was also injured in the same attack, albeit less seriously). She also suffered a number of other lacerations, including a serious cut on her face. (As an aside, her mother told me she gave up pursuing a modeling career in New York to become lawyer). 

She showed enormous courage both at the time of the attack and subsequently. I was in the AOR that day, and spoke to her shortly after she arrived at the evac hospital at Balad. Despite her injuries, all she wanted to do is give me a MISREP (mission report), and tell me about the courage of others.

Her Veterans Day message (published in an internal JAG Corps online service) is attached. An earlier news report is found here.

People may think she is a REMF, but her particular duties required her to go outside the wire frequently. (Moreover, as I say, she is not the only JAG or paralegal wearing a Purple Heart.)

She has spent months in rehabilitation, and has many more to go.  Surgeons saved her leg, and she is very determined to walk again.  We are all praying for her. 

Tom, she was doing what her country asked her to do, and as a result she spent her 27th birthday in a hospital bed at Brooks Army Medical Center. (Cruelly, while in surgery there for her wounds, her money and her bank card were stolen from her hospital room.) And, unlike Shoshana Johnson, she doesn't have a book deal or Larry King appearances lined up. 

She does, however, have a wheelchair. She may be a "REMF" to your readers, but she is a hero to me.

Your friend and fan,

Charlie Dunlap

 Steve Thurow/ U.S. Air Force