Gopal Ratnam
Defense News
31 January 2005
The Pentagon’s sweeping review of military strengths and capabilities to face a variety of threats could become a de facto national security strategy, but without the participation of other U.S. government agencies,according to analysts.
Senior U.S. defense officials directing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) are preparing the military for four broad threats: irregular, catastrophic, disruptive and traditional.
But doing so could stretch the military services and expand the scope of the Department of Defense, said Gordon Adams, professor at the Elliott School of International Relations at George Washington University.
Taking on such a broad range of threats also should involve the Departments of Treasury, Commerce, Justice and State, which usually contribute to the national security strategy, Adams said.
There are some moves afoot to address the weak hand dealt to the other agencies in the national security decision-making process.
Retired Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, the departing head of the Pentagon’s transformation office, has proposed creating “a Goldwater-Nichols Act for the rest of the government.”
“A new national security culture has to be created, not just for the military, but the entire national security apparatus,” he said.
The 1986 act bolstered the influence the Joint Chiefs of Staff have in defense policy.
In the absence of such authority for other U.S. government agencies, “it is being left to the military to conduct every mission,” said Adams, who served as the director of national security affairs in the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration. The Pentagon could end up with “a strategy for the entire government, a smorgasbord of solutions.”
At a Jan. 26 conference organized by the Precision Strike Association in Arlington, Va., the man overseeing the QDR, Christopher Ryan Henry, briefly addressed the role of the Pentagon in relation to other agencies.
The U.S. military is “optimized for traditional warfare,” or fighting against a conventional enemy state, said Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary
of defense for policy. “We have a significant overmatch” in that area, but in the other areas the Pentagon only has a supporting role, he said.
Conceding that other agencies have a key role is not enough, Adams said. The other agencies should play a role too, he said.
Military mission creep is not surprising, said Richard Betts, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, and a former member of the White House National Security Council.
“The Pentagon has been more or less taking on and usurping a bigger
chunk of foreign policy since Sept. 11,” Betts said. “This would be
consistent with that profile.”
Senior defense officials also expect the QDR to leave a lasting impact on the Pentagon, beyond just budgets and force structure.
During the review, now under way, officials led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides hope to change the management
culture, prepare the military services to take on a variety of foes, reshape the force structure, get the services to fight better together — all as defense budget growth is expected to slow.
The once-in-four-years review mandated by Congress offers the “potential for looking at ways we might shape the force and prepare the Department of Defense for the next two decades,” Henry said.
Henry, his deputy Jim Thomas, and their boss, Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, play key roles in the review. Feith announced his resignation Jan. 26 and said he would leave by summer; no replacement was announced by press time.
Defense officials want this QDR to be more effective than previous ones, Henry said. Past QDRs were not closely linked to the ongoing budget top. They recommended encouraging strong competition for new ideas from the services.
To avoid extensive analysis backed by Power Point presentations and
“stovepipe thinking,” Rumsfeld and his advisers favor a “top-down
approach. … We are changing the management model from the past,”
Henry said.
Four Fights
The review will center on evaluating the services’ ability to fight
unconventional foes without demanding more money and diluting their
traditional strengths, Henry said. “People think we need to migrate from traditional warfare to other [areas], but that’s not true,” Henry said. “It’s one of adapting.”
We are not looking at reinvestment or changing investment patterns,” he said. Defense spending, which reached an 18-year peak in 2006, “has to come down,” he said.
In fact, one of the guiding principles of this QDR will be to “generate resource-neutral QDR recommendations,” he said.
The review will encourage each service to work jointly with — even depend on — the others, he said. Each must plan with the mindset that “I do what I do best and rely on other services to provide the rest,” Henry said. In a departure from the previous QDRs, the current one will be tied to the annual defense budget process and the next round of military base closures, as well as “spawn road maps” that will influence defense decisions for the next several years, Henry said.
Unlike earlier reviews that were presented to Congress in September, this one will consider the implications for base closures and the money it will free up. The review will be completed in February 2006 along with the 2007 defense budget.
Some analysts wonder how much of the Pentagon’s expansive plans can be implemented.
Though there is a broad consensus that the U.S. military is “over-invested in capabilities for traditional threats and under-invested in areas that are non-traditional … the challenge is to get beyond the rhetoric to really frame the key trade-offs for decision makers,” said Michèle Flournoy, analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington.
She was a senior Pentagon official in charge of QDR efforts during the Clinton administration.
“Everyone can think of their favorite things to invest in, but few can think of what can be given up,” she said.
Defense officials must find ways to assess the effectiveness of anti-terrorist and counter-insurgency warfare, she said. Unlike the models available to predict success in conventional warfare, no such tools are available for the new kinds of wars, she said.
The vast changes being contemplated in a fiscally tight environment would require senior defense officials to “get the buy-in” of military commanders as well as “significant engagement with Congress, so people feel ownership,” she said. “But this particular leadership doesn’t have a good track record.” •
Vago Muradian contributed to this report.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Gopal Ratnam, "With QDR, Pentagon Takes Lead in U.S. Strategy", Defense News, 31 January 2005.
This site is designed for use by researchers, educators, and students who seek access to its 2000+ military policy articles for research and/or educational purposes. Provided on a not-for-profit basis per 'fair use' rules.
17 February 2005
U.S. Reviews Rebuilding, Gives More Power to Iraqis
Sue Pleming
Reuters
February 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - The United States is revising its $18.4 billion Iraq (news - web sites) rebuilding plan and in a major
policy shift will hand over some contracting power to Iraqi ministries for U.S.-funded work, said U.S. officials on Tuesday.
The changes, which could cut what some U.S. contractors had expected to earn in Iraq, reflect a new drive after Sunday's election to give Iraqis more control over reconstruction, lower the U.S. profile and curb spiraling security costs.
A senior State Department official said a "reallocation" of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq should be completed in the next month and it was hoped this would be the final reshuffle of monies agreed by Congress in 2003 for Iraq's reconstruction.
"This is called being agile, responding to the conditions on the ground," said the official.
Last September, the State Department switched $3.4 billion in U.S. funds from water and power projects to boost security. In December, it shuffled nearly half a billion more to cover cost over-runs,
No decisions have been taken over which sectors will be touched this time but the $10.4 billion already obligated, or contractually agreed on, with U.S. contractors will likely not be greatly affected.
The remainder of the $18.4 billion earmarked for various sectors but not yet contractually tied up would
be touched first and companies promised large amounts of work in earlier contracts would likely not reach their top values.
This means construction and engineering giants such as Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons, Perini, Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root
and others with prime deals in Iraq, will not make as much as they anticipated.
Officials conceded some companies might be disappointed, but pointed out others overwhelmed by security risks in Iraq could be
relieved. One firm quit at the end of last year.
"This has not been the golden egg people thought it was going to be," said one official, referring to the heady days when the U.S.
government staged roadshows for eager firms.
POWER TO IRAQIS
Insurgent attacks have stalled many giant U.S. funded projects and the U.S. focus in recent months has been to move away from
big-ticket, long-term deals to smaller ones.
Aside from more job creation for Iraqis, a new plan is to give ministries with a proven track record the authority to hand out contracts
using U.S. funds.
So far, big contracts have been awarded by U.S. government agencies which follow strict procurement rules that critics say are
ill-suited to a conflict zone like Iraq.
In the next few weeks, about $50 million of U.S. taxpayer money will be allocated to Iraq's Housing and Construction Ministry for
projects ranging from bridges to roads. Other ministries will follow if this pilot project is a success.
"The ministries will hire the contractors and supervise the work and the idea is it will have many benefits. Number one, they can do it
more cheaply and two, it will lessen the expatriate footprint and lower security costs," said the State Department's Iraq
reconstruction coordinator, Robin Raphel.
In a bid to curb abuse, the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Iraq Project and Contracting Office (PCO) will be responsible for paying
Iraqi contractors chosen by the ministry.
Talks between the State and Defense departments have been animated over these plans, with some Pentagon staff nervous they
would be held responsible for mistakes made by the ministries. "We don't want to be the fall guys," said one defense official.
But PCO chief in Baghdad, Charlie Hess, said he was pleased with the new arrangement. "It's a logical step forward," he said. "One
criticism all along is that we have not done this fast enough and this will help," said Hess, speaking via telephone from Baghdad.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Sue Pleming, "U.S. Reviews Rebuilding, Gives More Power to Iraqis", Reuters, 01 February 2005. Original URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20050201/ts_nm/iraq_rebuilding_dc&printer=1
Reuters
February 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - The United States is revising its $18.4 billion Iraq (news - web sites) rebuilding plan and in a major
policy shift will hand over some contracting power to Iraqi ministries for U.S.-funded work, said U.S. officials on Tuesday.
The changes, which could cut what some U.S. contractors had expected to earn in Iraq, reflect a new drive after Sunday's election to give Iraqis more control over reconstruction, lower the U.S. profile and curb spiraling security costs.
A senior State Department official said a "reallocation" of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq should be completed in the next month and it was hoped this would be the final reshuffle of monies agreed by Congress in 2003 for Iraq's reconstruction.
"This is called being agile, responding to the conditions on the ground," said the official.
Last September, the State Department switched $3.4 billion in U.S. funds from water and power projects to boost security. In December, it shuffled nearly half a billion more to cover cost over-runs,
No decisions have been taken over which sectors will be touched this time but the $10.4 billion already obligated, or contractually agreed on, with U.S. contractors will likely not be greatly affected.
The remainder of the $18.4 billion earmarked for various sectors but not yet contractually tied up would
be touched first and companies promised large amounts of work in earlier contracts would likely not reach their top values.
This means construction and engineering giants such as Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons, Perini, Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root
and others with prime deals in Iraq, will not make as much as they anticipated.
Officials conceded some companies might be disappointed, but pointed out others overwhelmed by security risks in Iraq could be
relieved. One firm quit at the end of last year.
"This has not been the golden egg people thought it was going to be," said one official, referring to the heady days when the U.S.
government staged roadshows for eager firms.
POWER TO IRAQIS
Insurgent attacks have stalled many giant U.S. funded projects and the U.S. focus in recent months has been to move away from
big-ticket, long-term deals to smaller ones.
Aside from more job creation for Iraqis, a new plan is to give ministries with a proven track record the authority to hand out contracts
using U.S. funds.
So far, big contracts have been awarded by U.S. government agencies which follow strict procurement rules that critics say are
ill-suited to a conflict zone like Iraq.
In the next few weeks, about $50 million of U.S. taxpayer money will be allocated to Iraq's Housing and Construction Ministry for
projects ranging from bridges to roads. Other ministries will follow if this pilot project is a success.
"The ministries will hire the contractors and supervise the work and the idea is it will have many benefits. Number one, they can do it
more cheaply and two, it will lessen the expatriate footprint and lower security costs," said the State Department's Iraq
reconstruction coordinator, Robin Raphel.
In a bid to curb abuse, the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Iraq Project and Contracting Office (PCO) will be responsible for paying
Iraqi contractors chosen by the ministry.
Talks between the State and Defense departments have been animated over these plans, with some Pentagon staff nervous they
would be held responsible for mistakes made by the ministries. "We don't want to be the fall guys," said one defense official.
But PCO chief in Baghdad, Charlie Hess, said he was pleased with the new arrangement. "It's a logical step forward," he said. "One
criticism all along is that we have not done this fast enough and this will help," said Hess, speaking via telephone from Baghdad.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Sue Pleming, "U.S. Reviews Rebuilding, Gives More Power to Iraqis", Reuters, 01 February 2005. Original URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20050201/ts_nm/iraq_rebuilding_dc&printer=1
11 February 2005
QDR Process Expected To Be More Inclusive
Gopal Ratnam
Defense News
07 February 2005
Senior Pentagon officials this week will hammer out the framework — the Terms of Reference — that will guide the Quadrennial Defense Review in what is hoped will be a more collaborative process between civilian and militaryleaders.
The review, once widely expected to be a top-down process, with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides setting the parameters and the uniformed military officers following them, is yielding to more collaboration.
Sources say that Rumsfeld, realizing the review could be bogged down
without the active support of the uniformed services, has offered them a seat at the table.
At a key Jan. 27 meeting among Rumsfeld, his aides and military
officers, service chiefs and combatant commanders were briefed on a draft Terms of Reference and were asked to submit their ideas and proposals by Feb. 4, said the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Mike Hagee.
The Terms of Reference will guide the QDR and once formally adopted
would mark the official start of the strategic review.
“Based on the discussion, the collaborative discussion that we had
between civilian leadership, the combatant commanders and the service chiefs, he [Rumsfeld] has asked us to personally get back to him with our thoughts on the current Terms of Reference,” Hagee said.
“The direction changed,” Hagee said, speaking about the scope of the
Terms of Reference, but he declined to say what the changes were.
A widely disseminated Pentagon chart that lays out four broad threats that U.S. military forces would have to address in the future has become a de facto template for the QDR.
The chart calls for U.S. forces to be prepared to handle irregular,
catastrophic, disruptive and traditional threats. Some refer to the
chart as the “four-way matrix.”
One Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Terms of Reference is a classified document, said the terms are being debated. Service officials want broader capabilities to take on the most complex threats, instead of focusing on specific potential conflicts.
“There are some who want to use the four-way matrix to drive services into corners, that the Army, Navy and Air Force would do certain things, but we live in a joint world, where puts and takes are not service specific, but cut across a wider waterfront,” the official said.
“This is very complicated because it’s not about one service and its
toys, it’s about putting everything together in the right way to get things done across a wider spectrum,” the official said.
The draft Terms of Reference mentioned specific countries as potential adversaries under each of the four threat categories, said Michèle Flournoy, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington. Before joining the think-tank, Flournoy was a Pentagon official in charge of QDRs.
The Terms of Reference is classified secret in part because it names
specific adversaries.
The draft is also significant for what it left out, she said.
It did not address the post-conflict stability operations, which has
become a major, if unexpected, role for the U.S. military in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, said Flournoy.
Though many military officers prefer to see such roles included in the review, senior Pentagon officials prefer to deal with such
post-conflict stability operations separately, she said.
The Terms of Reference also addresses the Pentagon’s role vis-à-vis
other arms of the government, such as the State and Homeland Security Departments, the Central Intelligence Agency as well as non-governmental organizations.
The QDR is a congressionally mandated review of U.S. military strategy, force structure and budgets that happens every four years.
The current review will be completed by February 2006 and will shape
the defense budget for 2007 and beyond. Analysis and studies that flow from QDR recommendations could affect strategy and force structure for 20 years.
Of the four major threats being contemplated, the U.S. military is
“optimized” for traditional conflict or taking on an organized military of an enemy state, but not as well equipped in the three other areas, said Christopher “Ryan” Henry, the U.S. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.
Henry, his deputy Jim Thomas and their boss Douglas Feith, the U.S.
undersecretary of defense for policy, are playing a key role in the QDR process.
At a Feb. 3 event organized by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Henry said the Pentagon would cooperate, not compete, with other federal agencies to handle non-traditional threats.
“We don’t see a turf battle between us and the Department of Homeland
Security,” Henry said. “There is a recognition that we have a common
problem that we have to address. We both have different areas of
responsibilities, and in some we cooperate.”
While the Pentagon is primarily in charge of securing America’s
airspace, it works with the Coast Guard — a DHS organization — to protect the sea approaches to the United States, Henry said.
He also laid out a possible plan for involving allies and partners in
enlarging the homeland security umbrella.
In the future, defense policy-makers might consider the “concept of
forward defense,” he said. Instead of focusing on defending just the U.S. homeland, “you could start to think about the defense of [multiple] homelands.”
Working with allies, partners and other foreign governments, “if we
could have the area of sovereignty be the same as the area of governance, we could do a lot to eliminate threats posed to this country,” he said. For example, in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001, large parts of the country were in the hands of al-Qaida, not the Afghan government, he said.
By helping foreign governments extend their control over all parts of their territory through the concept of “defense of homelands, we can build partner capacity” and lower threats to the U.S. homeland, he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Gopal Ratnam, "QDR Process Expected To Be More Inclusive", Defense News, 07 February 2005.
Defense News
07 February 2005
Senior Pentagon officials this week will hammer out the framework — the Terms of Reference — that will guide the Quadrennial Defense Review in what is hoped will be a more collaborative process between civilian and militaryleaders.
The review, once widely expected to be a top-down process, with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides setting the parameters and the uniformed military officers following them, is yielding to more collaboration.
Sources say that Rumsfeld, realizing the review could be bogged down
without the active support of the uniformed services, has offered them a seat at the table.
At a key Jan. 27 meeting among Rumsfeld, his aides and military
officers, service chiefs and combatant commanders were briefed on a draft Terms of Reference and were asked to submit their ideas and proposals by Feb. 4, said the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Mike Hagee.
The Terms of Reference will guide the QDR and once formally adopted
would mark the official start of the strategic review.
“Based on the discussion, the collaborative discussion that we had
between civilian leadership, the combatant commanders and the service chiefs, he [Rumsfeld] has asked us to personally get back to him with our thoughts on the current Terms of Reference,” Hagee said.
“The direction changed,” Hagee said, speaking about the scope of the
Terms of Reference, but he declined to say what the changes were.
A widely disseminated Pentagon chart that lays out four broad threats that U.S. military forces would have to address in the future has become a de facto template for the QDR.
The chart calls for U.S. forces to be prepared to handle irregular,
catastrophic, disruptive and traditional threats. Some refer to the
chart as the “four-way matrix.”
One Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Terms of Reference is a classified document, said the terms are being debated. Service officials want broader capabilities to take on the most complex threats, instead of focusing on specific potential conflicts.
“There are some who want to use the four-way matrix to drive services into corners, that the Army, Navy and Air Force would do certain things, but we live in a joint world, where puts and takes are not service specific, but cut across a wider waterfront,” the official said.
“This is very complicated because it’s not about one service and its
toys, it’s about putting everything together in the right way to get things done across a wider spectrum,” the official said.
The draft Terms of Reference mentioned specific countries as potential adversaries under each of the four threat categories, said Michèle Flournoy, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington. Before joining the think-tank, Flournoy was a Pentagon official in charge of QDRs.
The Terms of Reference is classified secret in part because it names
specific adversaries.
The draft is also significant for what it left out, she said.
It did not address the post-conflict stability operations, which has
become a major, if unexpected, role for the U.S. military in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, said Flournoy.
Though many military officers prefer to see such roles included in the review, senior Pentagon officials prefer to deal with such
post-conflict stability operations separately, she said.
The Terms of Reference also addresses the Pentagon’s role vis-à-vis
other arms of the government, such as the State and Homeland Security Departments, the Central Intelligence Agency as well as non-governmental organizations.
The QDR is a congressionally mandated review of U.S. military strategy, force structure and budgets that happens every four years.
The current review will be completed by February 2006 and will shape
the defense budget for 2007 and beyond. Analysis and studies that flow from QDR recommendations could affect strategy and force structure for 20 years.
Of the four major threats being contemplated, the U.S. military is
“optimized” for traditional conflict or taking on an organized military of an enemy state, but not as well equipped in the three other areas, said Christopher “Ryan” Henry, the U.S. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.
Henry, his deputy Jim Thomas and their boss Douglas Feith, the U.S.
undersecretary of defense for policy, are playing a key role in the QDR process.
At a Feb. 3 event organized by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Henry said the Pentagon would cooperate, not compete, with other federal agencies to handle non-traditional threats.
“We don’t see a turf battle between us and the Department of Homeland
Security,” Henry said. “There is a recognition that we have a common
problem that we have to address. We both have different areas of
responsibilities, and in some we cooperate.”
While the Pentagon is primarily in charge of securing America’s
airspace, it works with the Coast Guard — a DHS organization — to protect the sea approaches to the United States, Henry said.
He also laid out a possible plan for involving allies and partners in
enlarging the homeland security umbrella.
In the future, defense policy-makers might consider the “concept of
forward defense,” he said. Instead of focusing on defending just the U.S. homeland, “you could start to think about the defense of [multiple] homelands.”
Working with allies, partners and other foreign governments, “if we
could have the area of sovereignty be the same as the area of governance, we could do a lot to eliminate threats posed to this country,” he said. For example, in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001, large parts of the country were in the hands of al-Qaida, not the Afghan government, he said.
By helping foreign governments extend their control over all parts of their territory through the concept of “defense of homelands, we can build partner capacity” and lower threats to the U.S. homeland, he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Gopal Ratnam, "QDR Process Expected To Be More Inclusive", Defense News, 07 February 2005.
07 February 2005
Pentagon sites: Journalism or propaganda?
CNN
Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy
04 February 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Defense plans to add more sites on the Internet to provide information to a global audience -- but critics question whether the Pentagon is violating President Bush's pledge not to pay journalists to promote his policies.
The Defense Department runs two Web sites overseas, one aimed at people in the Balkan region in Europe, the other for the Maghreb area of North Africa.
It is preparing another site, even as the Pentagon inspector general investigates whether the sites are appropriate.
The Web sites carry stories on subjects such as politics, sports and entertainment.
Information warfare
The sites are run by U.S. military troops trained in "information warfare," a specialty that can include battlefield deception.
Pentagon officials say the goal is to counter "misinformation" about the United States in overseas media.
At first glance, the Web pages appear to be independent news sites. To find out who is actually behind the content, a visitor would have to click on a small link -- at the bottom of the page -- to a disclaimer, which says, in part, that the site is "sponsored by" the U.S. Department of Defense.
"There is an element of deception," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The problem," he said, is that it looks like a news site unless a visitor looks at the disclaimer, which is "sort of oblique."
The Pentagon maintains that the information on the sites is true and accurate. But in a recent memo, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz insisted that the Web site contractor should only hire journalists who "will not reflect discredit on the U.S. government."
The Defense Department has hired more than 50 freelance writers for the sites.
Some senior military officers have told CNN the Web sites may clash with President Bush's recent statements. "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Bush told reporters on January 26. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." (Full story)
Bush made those comments after it came to light that the administration had paid several commentators to support U.S. policies in the U.S. media.
Many Democrats have called for an end to what they call administration propaganda within the United States.
But many lawmakers view the rules for handling information overseas as a separate issue.
On Thursday, Lawrence Di Rita, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, asked the Pentagon inspector general to examine Defense Department activities, including the Web sites in question, to see that they fall within the guidelines Bush laid out.
Di Rita said the department wanted "to make sure that we are staying well within the lines, and I believe we are."
Rosenstiel said there is a reason why rules exist to separate journalism from government information. "Anytime that the government has to assure you, 'Believe me, take my word for it, I'm telling you nothing but the truth,' you know you should be worried," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy, "Pentagon sites: Journalism or propaganda?", CNN, 04 February 2005. Original URL:
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Pentagon%A0sites%3A+Journalism+or+propaganda%3F+-+Feb+4%2C+2005&expire=-1&urlID=13112713&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FALLPOLITICS%2F02%2F04%2Fweb.us%2Findex.html&partnerID=2001
Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy
04 February 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Defense plans to add more sites on the Internet to provide information to a global audience -- but critics question whether the Pentagon is violating President Bush's pledge not to pay journalists to promote his policies.
The Defense Department runs two Web sites overseas, one aimed at people in the Balkan region in Europe, the other for the Maghreb area of North Africa.
It is preparing another site, even as the Pentagon inspector general investigates whether the sites are appropriate.
The Web sites carry stories on subjects such as politics, sports and entertainment.
Information warfare
The sites are run by U.S. military troops trained in "information warfare," a specialty that can include battlefield deception.
Pentagon officials say the goal is to counter "misinformation" about the United States in overseas media.
At first glance, the Web pages appear to be independent news sites. To find out who is actually behind the content, a visitor would have to click on a small link -- at the bottom of the page -- to a disclaimer, which says, in part, that the site is "sponsored by" the U.S. Department of Defense.
"There is an element of deception," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The problem," he said, is that it looks like a news site unless a visitor looks at the disclaimer, which is "sort of oblique."
The Pentagon maintains that the information on the sites is true and accurate. But in a recent memo, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz insisted that the Web site contractor should only hire journalists who "will not reflect discredit on the U.S. government."
The Defense Department has hired more than 50 freelance writers for the sites.
Some senior military officers have told CNN the Web sites may clash with President Bush's recent statements. "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Bush told reporters on January 26. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." (Full story)
Bush made those comments after it came to light that the administration had paid several commentators to support U.S. policies in the U.S. media.
Many Democrats have called for an end to what they call administration propaganda within the United States.
But many lawmakers view the rules for handling information overseas as a separate issue.
On Thursday, Lawrence Di Rita, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, asked the Pentagon inspector general to examine Defense Department activities, including the Web sites in question, to see that they fall within the guidelines Bush laid out.
Di Rita said the department wanted "to make sure that we are staying well within the lines, and I believe we are."
Rosenstiel said there is a reason why rules exist to separate journalism from government information. "Anytime that the government has to assure you, 'Believe me, take my word for it, I'm telling you nothing but the truth,' you know you should be worried," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy, "Pentagon sites: Journalism or propaganda?", CNN, 04 February 2005. Original URL:
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Pentagon%A0sites%3A+Journalism+or+propaganda%3F+-+Feb+4%2C+2005&expire=-1&urlID=13112713&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FALLPOLITICS%2F02%2F04%2Fweb.us%2Findex.html&partnerID=2001
03 February 2005
Sunnis Complain They Were Deprived of Chance to Vote
Borzou Daragahi
Newhouse News Service
1 February 2005.
Borzou Daragahi
Newhouse News Service
1 February 2005.
Despite gunfire and explosions nearby, Maisem Khalil Yacoub and her husband, Sabah al-Tayee, locked their two children safely at home Sunday and ventured out to vote. But after three hours of walking fruitlessly from one closed election center to another at one point coming within 300 feet of gunfire the two returned home dejected. "There has been injustice," said Yacoub, a 35-year-old cemetery employee and resident of the Adhamiya neighborhood, a Sunni Arab section of Baghdad. "This is a very obvious and unacceptable marginalization of the Sunnis' role in the new government."
As the results of Iraq's first democratic election in decades are tallied, Sunni candidates and voters are decrying irregularities that they say drove down the proportion of Sunni Arab votes and in some cases prevented those eager to participate from casting ballots. Shiites and Kurds went to the polls in droves. Most analysts and observers believe that Sunnis, favored under the rule of Saddam Hussein and now swelling the ranks of the insurgency, voted in far smaller numbers because of security worries and antipathy toward the election process. Still, anecdotal evidence suggests Sunnis especially those living in mixed cities and neighborhoods turned out in higher numbers than expected, and officials from several Sunni political parties said many of their followers wanted to vote but were prevented by a lack of polling places, ballots and security.
"Where they could vote, they did vote," said Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Movement, which claims support among Sunni Arabs. "Where they couldn't vote because they didn't give them election centers or they were too far or ... where they didn't give them security they didn't vote."
Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission acknowledged the problems. "The elections took place under difficult conditions, and this undoubtedly deprived a number of citizens in a number of areas from voting," Hussein al-Hindawi, who heads the commission, told Reuters on Tuesday. The commission also issued a statement urging those with complaints to submit accounts by Thursday. The Iraqi Election Information Network, an independent group that claims to have deployed approximately 10,000 election monitors throughout the country, is scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday.
Many Iraqi and U.S. officials, as well as international observers, expected Sunnis to heed the boycott calls of their clerics. Insurgents have for months targeted election officials and candidates in Sunni stretches of the country in an attempt to derail the vote. Few voting centers opened in cities like Ramadi and Fallujah, and few voters showed up in cities like Samarra or Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown. But Sunni Arab politicians said they had anticipated a last-minute surge in participation from their constituents. Large numbers of voters who planned to heed the boycott calls had second thoughts when they realized that provincial councils in ethnically mixed Mosul and Kirkuk were also at stake, that Shiites were going to vote in droves, and that insurgent efforts to derail the vote would come to naught, the politicians said. "Just in the last two weeks it began to dawn on them what was going to happen," said bin Hussein. "In the last few days we were surprised to hear some prayer leaders asking Sunnis to vote."
Mishan Jabouri, leader of the Sunni-heavy Homeland Party, said he had pleaded with officials of the U.S. embassy and the electoral commission to prepare for voters turning up in Sunni strongholds where he expected a surge in voter enthusiasm. "I said, 'Please try to open an election center in Ramadi. Please, there are not enough ballots in Hawija, not enough in Beiji, not enough in Mosul.'" In one complaint filed by an official of the Homeland Party in Hawija, a violent Sunni Arab stronghold southwest of Kirkuk, voters reported that ballots ran out at 11:30 a.m. and extra ballots didn't arrive until 3:30 p.m., two hours before the close of voting. Party officials say 8,000 too few ballots were delivered. "The election commission did not distribute ballots according to needs of each center, especially in Arab areas," wrote Mustafa Ahmed al-Tamawi, a party official in Kirkuk.
---------------------------------------------
Citation: Borzou Daragahi, "Sunnis Complain They Were Deprived of Chance to Vote," Newhouse News Service, 1 February 2005.
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
Peter Grose
New York Times
September 4, 1967
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.
Significance Not Diminished
The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.
The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.
American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.
Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.
Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.
NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Grose, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror", New York Times, 04 September 1967.
New York Times
September 4, 1967
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.
Significance Not Diminished
The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.
The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.
American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.
Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.
Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.
NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Grose, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror", New York Times, 04 September 1967.
Army says it'll meet recruitment target: General says, 'We will make our 80,000,' but Guard, Reserves lagging
Richard Whittle
Dallas Morning News
February 2, 2005
WASHINGTON – The regular Army will easily meet its goal of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers this fiscal year, the service's vice chief declared Wednesday, even as the Army Reserve and National Guard face shortfalls.
"We will make our 80,000," Gen. Richard Cody told the House military personnel subcommittee. "We're on a glide path right now."
Gen. Cody acknowledged, however, that the "unpredictable nature of the Iraqi insurgency" had forced the Army to revamp its plans for Iraq several times and created serious manpower and equipment strains.
The Army initially expected to be able to reduce its presence in Iraq to four or five brigades by September 2004, Gen. Cody said, but there are 20 brigades there now – roughly 116,000 soldiers.
The stress on personnel has been greatest for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, he said, which are providing 40 percent of the troops in Iraq.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard previously reported that they missed their recruiting goals in the first months of fiscal 2005, which began Oct. 1.
As of Dec. 31, the Army Guard was 20 percent short of its goal of recruiting 11,320 new enlisted members in the first three months of fiscal 2005, falling 2,211 short, according to Pentagon figures.
The Army Reserve fell 527 short of its goal of 4,003 new members in the enlisted ranks.
Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, also warned in a memo to the Army chief of staff that leaked in December that his branch was "rapidly degenerating into a broken force" that would be hard-pressed to meet its future requirements.
Gen. Helmly told the committee he had been addressing the "long-range perspective" when he wrote the memo. His goal was to get the Army to "re-look old policies and practices that govern us" and give him more power to beef up the Reserves.
By March, the Army Reserve will have added 800 new recruiters to its previous force of 1,000, and new enlistment bonuses that Congress approved last year are helping, Gen. Helmly said.
Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard, told the panel that despite strains on individuals from frequent mobilizations in recent years, "we have plenty – plenty – left in the reservoir."
Noting that the 350,000-strong Guard takes in 60,000 to 70,000 new members annually, Gen. Blum said the Army Guard should be able to keep 25 percent of its force deployed "indefinitely."
Gen. Cody said the war is also exacting a heavy price on the Army's equipment. Keeping up with the demand has been a challenge because of the changing nature of the war, he added.
"This Army started this war not fully equipped," he said. "So it's taken us time to build."
E-mail rwhittle@dallasnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Richard Whittle, "Army says it'll meet recruitment target: General says, 'We will make our 80,000,' but Guard, Reserves lagging", Dallas Morning News, 02 February 2005.
Original URL:
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/world/stories/020305dnintrecruit.956bc.html
Dallas Morning News
February 2, 2005
WASHINGTON – The regular Army will easily meet its goal of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers this fiscal year, the service's vice chief declared Wednesday, even as the Army Reserve and National Guard face shortfalls.
"We will make our 80,000," Gen. Richard Cody told the House military personnel subcommittee. "We're on a glide path right now."
Gen. Cody acknowledged, however, that the "unpredictable nature of the Iraqi insurgency" had forced the Army to revamp its plans for Iraq several times and created serious manpower and equipment strains.
The Army initially expected to be able to reduce its presence in Iraq to four or five brigades by September 2004, Gen. Cody said, but there are 20 brigades there now – roughly 116,000 soldiers.
The stress on personnel has been greatest for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, he said, which are providing 40 percent of the troops in Iraq.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard previously reported that they missed their recruiting goals in the first months of fiscal 2005, which began Oct. 1.
As of Dec. 31, the Army Guard was 20 percent short of its goal of recruiting 11,320 new enlisted members in the first three months of fiscal 2005, falling 2,211 short, according to Pentagon figures.
The Army Reserve fell 527 short of its goal of 4,003 new members in the enlisted ranks.
Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, also warned in a memo to the Army chief of staff that leaked in December that his branch was "rapidly degenerating into a broken force" that would be hard-pressed to meet its future requirements.
Gen. Helmly told the committee he had been addressing the "long-range perspective" when he wrote the memo. His goal was to get the Army to "re-look old policies and practices that govern us" and give him more power to beef up the Reserves.
By March, the Army Reserve will have added 800 new recruiters to its previous force of 1,000, and new enlistment bonuses that Congress approved last year are helping, Gen. Helmly said.
Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard, told the panel that despite strains on individuals from frequent mobilizations in recent years, "we have plenty – plenty – left in the reservoir."
Noting that the 350,000-strong Guard takes in 60,000 to 70,000 new members annually, Gen. Blum said the Army Guard should be able to keep 25 percent of its force deployed "indefinitely."
Gen. Cody said the war is also exacting a heavy price on the Army's equipment. Keeping up with the demand has been a challenge because of the changing nature of the war, he added.
"This Army started this war not fully equipped," he said. "So it's taken us time to build."
E-mail rwhittle@dallasnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Richard Whittle, "Army says it'll meet recruitment target: General says, 'We will make our 80,000,' but Guard, Reserves lagging", Dallas Morning News, 02 February 2005.
Original URL:
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/world/stories/020305dnintrecruit.956bc.html
02 February 2005
4 Iraqi detainees killed, 6 injured in riot at detention facility
Associated Press
31 January 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. guards opened fire Monday on prisoners during a riot at the main detention facility for security detainees, killing four of them, the U.S. command said. Six other prisoners were injured.
The riot broke out shortly after noon at the Camp Bucca internment facility near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq after a routine search for contraband in one of the camp's 10 compounds, the command said in a statement.
"The riot quickly spread to three additional compounds, with detainees throwing rocks and fashioning weapons from materials inside their living areas." the statement said. "Guards attempted to calm the increasingly volatile situation using verbal warnings and, when that failed, by use of non-lethal force."
"After about 45 minutes of escalating danger, lethal force was used to quell the violence," the statement added.
The statement said the riot "resulted from both the use of force to control the situation and from violence by other detainees within the camp during the riot."
The command said names of those who died are being provided to the Iraqi government and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"The cause of the riot and use of lethal force is currently under investigation by the chain of command and the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigations Division, which is standard procedure whenever a detainee death occurs," the statement added.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
"4 Iraqi detainees killed, 6 injured in riot at detention facility", Associated Press, 31 January 2005. Original URL:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0131iraq-riot31-ON.html
31 January 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. guards opened fire Monday on prisoners during a riot at the main detention facility for security detainees, killing four of them, the U.S. command said. Six other prisoners were injured.
The riot broke out shortly after noon at the Camp Bucca internment facility near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq after a routine search for contraband in one of the camp's 10 compounds, the command said in a statement.
"The riot quickly spread to three additional compounds, with detainees throwing rocks and fashioning weapons from materials inside their living areas." the statement said. "Guards attempted to calm the increasingly volatile situation using verbal warnings and, when that failed, by use of non-lethal force."
"After about 45 minutes of escalating danger, lethal force was used to quell the violence," the statement added.
The statement said the riot "resulted from both the use of force to control the situation and from violence by other detainees within the camp during the riot."
The command said names of those who died are being provided to the Iraqi government and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"The cause of the riot and use of lethal force is currently under investigation by the chain of command and the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigations Division, which is standard procedure whenever a detainee death occurs," the statement added.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
"4 Iraqi detainees killed, 6 injured in riot at detention facility", Associated Press, 31 January 2005. Original URL:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0131iraq-riot31-ON.html