Defense Bills Defy Obama’s First Veto Threat
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
In a challenge to White House efforts to reshape military spending, and in defiance of President Obama’s first veto threat, both the House and the Senate have advanced bills that include money for a key program the administration is trying to end.
The Senate’s version of the 2011 defense bill, which the Armed Services Committee unanimously approved last week, would permit the government to spend up to $1.75 billion for seven F-22 fighter planes, extending the production line into next year.
The administration wants no more than 187 of the aircraft. On June 24, Obama threatened to veto the House version of the defense bill (HR 2467) over a provision that would add $369 million for the advance procurement of parts for 12 of the planes.
The Senate committee’s chairman and ranking member, Carl Levin , D-Mich., and John McCain , R-Ariz., both voted against the F-22 funding. They were defeated in a 13-11 committee vote, exemplifying the widespread bipartisan resistance in Congress to some of Obama’s plans for the military.
Levin and McCain said that the fight over the F-22 was far from over and predicted that amendments would be offered during floor consideration.
“We will fight that more on the floor,” McCain said of the additional money for the F-22.
Levin defended his committee’s bill as “at least 90 percent supportive” of the budget initiatives put forth by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in April. The Senate’s measure would agree with Gates’ plan to terminate many troubled defense programs, including large portions of the Army’s Future Combat System, the VH-71 presidential helicopter and several components of ballistic missile defense.
“I don’t think anybody’s looking for a battle here with the White House at all,” Levin said. But, he added, “obviously, we’re not in lockstep.”
Senate floor action is expected next month.
Additional Disputes
Several military funding disputes between Congress and the White House will be debated as the defense authorization bill makes its way toward Obama’s desk.
One concerns the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. After learning that the House added $603 million to support development of an alternative F-35 engine and restricted the remaining funding for the new fighter to pressure the Pentagon to go along, the White House threatened to veto any Defense authorization bill that would “seriously disrupt” the program.
The Senate committee voted 12-10 to add $438.9 million for the alternative-engine program and also added money for 18 F-18 planes for the Navy, rejecting the administration’s plan to procure only nine.
James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the committee’s second-ranking Republican, said he would support several amendments related to missile defense when the bill reaches the floor, including language to increase funding for two planned missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe.
The committee’s bill did not change existing restrictions, imposed by Congress, that barred construction of the sites. It did support the president’s plan to reduce total missile defense funding by about $1.2 billion from last year’s level.
The committee’s bill would also give a 3.4 percent pay raise to the military, equal to the House’s bill and more than the 2.9 percent increase requested by the administration.
Guantánamo Bay Detainees
The Senate’s defense authorization bill includes a provision to alter the rules of evidence for the forthcoming trials of detainees held at the U.S. facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“President Obama has stated that he believes some detainees should be tried by military commissions,” Levin said. “But in order for that to happen, to survive legal challenge, those commissions and their procedures have got to be changed to be consistent with American principles of justice.”
Referring to guidelines spelled out in the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Levin said his language would modify several provisions of the law — for example, coerced testimony would be inadmissible in court if the language is enacted. The bill would also modify the admissibility of hearsay testimony, the use of classified evidence, detainees’ access to exculpatory evidence and jurisdiction over detainees, Levin said.
Levin, McCain, and Lindsey Graham , R-S.C., a former military lawyer, are working with the White House on the military commissions process, McCain said. He added that many detainee issues are not addressed in the bill. As an example, the bill contains no provisions to deal with the transfer of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay to the United States.
“There’s more to come on this whole issue of detainee treatment,” said McCain, predicting a contentious floor debate over the issue of transferring the prisoners to U.S. soil.
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.
30 June 2009
Pentagon Seeks to Grow Foreign Commandos, General Forces for Afghanistan
Pentagon Seeks to Grow Foreign Commandos, General Forces for Afghanistan
June 24, 2009 -- A key congressional committee has blessed two previously unreported Defense Department pilot programs designed to boost the global pool of commandos and general-purpose forces available to support operations in Afghanistan.
On June 16, the Defense Department sought explicit authorization to spend $44 million to train and equip foreign forces -- from Eastern Europe to Georgia to Mongolia to the tiny Kingdom of Tonga -- in direct support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The requests were advanced in a pair legislative proposals designed to bridge what Pentagon lawyers believe to be a gap in the military’s legal authority to conduct such activities.
The House Armed Services Committee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, said the Defense Department currently enjoys the authority to carry out the two projects, which -- if sustained in the final authorization bill -- could clear the way for the Pentagon to pursue initiatives the Office of the Secretary of Defense says are endorsed by all combatant commanders.
In its report accompanying the FY-10 defense authorization bill, the committee “strongly approves of the purpose for which these proposals were drafted” and “believes existing security cooperation authorities are sufficient to meet this requirement.”
Among the provisions lawmakers say are adequate to cover the Pentagon's newly proposed activities are the so-called section 1206 global train and equip authority; section 1208 authority, which permits the Pentagon to provide financial support to foreign irregular forces, groups or individuals working with U.S. special forces; provisions for foreign military financing and foreign military sales; funding for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and coalition support funds.
Collectively, these authorities are sufficient to cover the two initiatives the Pentagon wants to pursue in FY-10, according to the House panel.
The first would spend as much as $12 million “to field a self-sustaining, deployable special operations group for employment in NATO or coalition special operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan, according the Pentagon's legislative proposal.
The Obama administration, according to the Pentagon's analysis of the legislation it proposed, believes
“that the demand for skills unique to special operations forces will continue to increase in an era when the joint force is likely to engage adversaries who blend conventional and irregular methods of warfare.
“At this point, however, there are simply not enough of those forces to meet current or projected future requirements, and the United States -- while clearly the world leader -- is at its capacity in this regard. To increase the capability of special operations coalition forces to successfully resolve future crises or contingency missions, as well as for the sake of our own overextended special operations forces, it is incumbent upon the United States to help our partners expand this critical capability.”
The Pentagon, accordingly, wants to use up to $12 million to support efforts by foreign governments “to assess, select, train and resource self-sustaining, fully capable special operations forces that can deploy where and when needed, essentially interchangeable with United States forces.”
In particular, the Pentagon is looking to bolster the special forces of a dozen nations, including NATO members admitted after 1998 -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia -- and nations seeking to join the alliance, including
Croatia, Albania and Georgia.
“These nations are among our strongest partners in the war on terror and have all developed at least a nascent special operations capability,” according to DOD, which is seeking more explicit authority for this task than exists in current law.
In FY-10, the Pentagon plans to limit this effort to nations in U.S. European Command's area of responsibility which “contains the majority of potential force providers for the current fight,” according to the legislative proposal.
“If successful, this proposal could be opened to support plans in other [regional combatant commands] where willing partners wish to develop their SOF to deploy in a significant way to U.S. operations,” states the Pentagon proposal.
Under a second program, the Pentagon is looking to spend $32 million to train and equip the general-purpose forces of nations that are willing to assist with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but lack necessary materiel and expertise.
“Coalition operations are critical in Afghanistan today, and will likely remain a relevant construct for the foreseeable future,” DOD states in its analysis of the proposed legislative text.
In FY-10, the Pentagon wants the flexibility to spend the funds on equipment like global positioning systems, handheld tactical radios, tactical-vehicle radios, rifles, canteens, pistols, night-vision goggles and uniforms.
To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon wants to provide training in dealing with roadside bombs, urban operations, convoy operations and close air support “as well as cultural awareness and theater rules of engagement.”
“Not every nation can afford this training and equipment,” according to the Pentagon, which provided lawmakers examples of nations that have required assistance, including: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Mongolia and Tonga.
“This activity not only frees up American service members, but -- just as importantly -- broadens and deepens our worldwide ties with nations who have opted to join the struggle against terror,” the Pentagon analysis states. -- Jason Sherman
June 24, 2009 -- A key congressional committee has blessed two previously unreported Defense Department pilot programs designed to boost the global pool of commandos and general-purpose forces available to support operations in Afghanistan.
On June 16, the Defense Department sought explicit authorization to spend $44 million to train and equip foreign forces -- from Eastern Europe to Georgia to Mongolia to the tiny Kingdom of Tonga -- in direct support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The requests were advanced in a pair legislative proposals designed to bridge what Pentagon lawyers believe to be a gap in the military’s legal authority to conduct such activities.
The House Armed Services Committee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, said the Defense Department currently enjoys the authority to carry out the two projects, which -- if sustained in the final authorization bill -- could clear the way for the Pentagon to pursue initiatives the Office of the Secretary of Defense says are endorsed by all combatant commanders.
In its report accompanying the FY-10 defense authorization bill, the committee “strongly approves of the purpose for which these proposals were drafted” and “believes existing security cooperation authorities are sufficient to meet this requirement.”
Among the provisions lawmakers say are adequate to cover the Pentagon's newly proposed activities are the so-called section 1206 global train and equip authority; section 1208 authority, which permits the Pentagon to provide financial support to foreign irregular forces, groups or individuals working with U.S. special forces; provisions for foreign military financing and foreign military sales; funding for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and coalition support funds.
Collectively, these authorities are sufficient to cover the two initiatives the Pentagon wants to pursue in FY-10, according to the House panel.
The first would spend as much as $12 million “to field a self-sustaining, deployable special operations group for employment in NATO or coalition special operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan, according the Pentagon's legislative proposal.
The Obama administration, according to the Pentagon's analysis of the legislation it proposed, believes
“that the demand for skills unique to special operations forces will continue to increase in an era when the joint force is likely to engage adversaries who blend conventional and irregular methods of warfare.
“At this point, however, there are simply not enough of those forces to meet current or projected future requirements, and the United States -- while clearly the world leader -- is at its capacity in this regard. To increase the capability of special operations coalition forces to successfully resolve future crises or contingency missions, as well as for the sake of our own overextended special operations forces, it is incumbent upon the United States to help our partners expand this critical capability.”
The Pentagon, accordingly, wants to use up to $12 million to support efforts by foreign governments “to assess, select, train and resource self-sustaining, fully capable special operations forces that can deploy where and when needed, essentially interchangeable with United States forces.”
In particular, the Pentagon is looking to bolster the special forces of a dozen nations, including NATO members admitted after 1998 -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia -- and nations seeking to join the alliance, including
Croatia, Albania and Georgia.
“These nations are among our strongest partners in the war on terror and have all developed at least a nascent special operations capability,” according to DOD, which is seeking more explicit authority for this task than exists in current law.
In FY-10, the Pentagon plans to limit this effort to nations in U.S. European Command's area of responsibility which “contains the majority of potential force providers for the current fight,” according to the legislative proposal.
“If successful, this proposal could be opened to support plans in other [regional combatant commands] where willing partners wish to develop their SOF to deploy in a significant way to U.S. operations,” states the Pentagon proposal.
Under a second program, the Pentagon is looking to spend $32 million to train and equip the general-purpose forces of nations that are willing to assist with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but lack necessary materiel and expertise.
“Coalition operations are critical in Afghanistan today, and will likely remain a relevant construct for the foreseeable future,” DOD states in its analysis of the proposed legislative text.
In FY-10, the Pentagon wants the flexibility to spend the funds on equipment like global positioning systems, handheld tactical radios, tactical-vehicle radios, rifles, canteens, pistols, night-vision goggles and uniforms.
To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon wants to provide training in dealing with roadside bombs, urban operations, convoy operations and close air support “as well as cultural awareness and theater rules of engagement.”
“Not every nation can afford this training and equipment,” according to the Pentagon, which provided lawmakers examples of nations that have required assistance, including: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Mongolia and Tonga.
“This activity not only frees up American service members, but -- just as importantly -- broadens and deepens our worldwide ties with nations who have opted to join the struggle against terror,” the Pentagon analysis states. -- Jason Sherman
Leaders to fight own panel's decision to buy more F-22s
Leaders to fight own panel's decision to buy more F-22s
By Megan Scully CongressDaily June 26, 2009
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday they plan to fight a decision by their own committee to add seven F-22 Raptor fighter jets to its version of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill when the measure heads to the floor next month.
During a closed-door markup, the committee voted 13-11 to authorize $1.75 billion to buy the Raptors, reversing the Pentagon's decision to end production of the stealthy fighters with the four in the fiscal 2009 war supplemental spending bill signed by President Obama Wednesday.
The House-passed version of the bill includes a $369 million down payment for 12 F-22s in fiscal 2011, but does not include any funding to buy Lockheed Martin Corp. aircraft next year.
Despite broad support for the fighter program, Levin said he believes they have a "fair chance" of stripping the additional fighters from the authorization bill and keeping the fleet at the 187 F-22s now planned.
The White House threatened earlier this week to veto any authorization measure that includes funding for more F-22s, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called unnecessary particularly as the Air Force begins to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and relies more heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles.
But any efforts to strip the $1.7 billion out of the Senate committee bill would likely be met with stiff resistance from dozens of senators.
In January, 44 senators sent President Obama a letter just days before his inauguration imploring him to continue production of the F-22. They argued that the program, which employs 25,000 workers at 1,000 suppliers in 44 states, provides $12 billion in economic activity annually in the United States.
"Our debate and vote [on the F-22s] took place with full awareness of the administration's veto threat, and the result of the vote speaks for itself," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Armed Services panel, said in a statement.
The planes are assembled at Lockheed Martin's plant in Marietta, Ga.
Meanwhile, McCain said he hopes the Senate will overturn the bill's authorization of $438.9 million for a second engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter. But Levin said he supports funding the alternate engine.
The White House has likewise threatened to veto the bill if it continues the second engine program, arguing that it is too costly and would delay fielding of the aircraft.
Former President George W. Bush made similar arguments in repeated attempts to terminate development of an alternate engine, only to be rebuffed by Congress.
Despite some differences with the administration, Levin said the bill endorses roughly 90 percent of the Pentagon's fiscal 2010 budget request.
Indeed, the panel approved the Pentagon's request of $9.3 billion for missile defense programs -- $1.2 billion less than this year's funding level -- and the termination of several programs, including the Multiple Kill Vehicle, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the second Airborne Laser.
As requested by the administration, the bill ends C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane production and cancels the manned ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems modernization program in favor of a new ground combat vehicle. But the bill also directs the Defense secretary to create a new program to develop a self-propelled howitzer to replace the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, which was developed as part of FCS.
The bill also approves the administration's decision to pull the plug on the VH-71 presidential helicopter and end the Transformational Satellite Communications program.
But the bill adds nine more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets than requested for next year. In its fiscal 2010 budget request, the Navy requested nine Super Hornets and 22 EA-18 Growler electronic attack aircraft, which are based on the same Boeing airframe.
Boeing, the plane's manufacturer, has been lobbying to expand the Super Hornet fleet. It sees an expansion as a way to mitigate the effects of a shortfall in strike-fighters within the Navy that is expected to peak in 2017 at 69 aircraft and continue until 2025, when the service's Joint Strike Fighters become fully operational.
But the Senate bill does not authorize another multiyear procurement for the Super Hornets, which Boeing had advocated. The House version of the bill gives the Navy the authority to pursue a multiyear contract with Boeing.
The company's proposed multiyear deal "did not meet the threshold of a multiyear" contract, which requires 10 percent cost savings, Levin said.
By Megan Scully CongressDaily June 26, 2009
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday they plan to fight a decision by their own committee to add seven F-22 Raptor fighter jets to its version of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill when the measure heads to the floor next month.
During a closed-door markup, the committee voted 13-11 to authorize $1.75 billion to buy the Raptors, reversing the Pentagon's decision to end production of the stealthy fighters with the four in the fiscal 2009 war supplemental spending bill signed by President Obama Wednesday.
The House-passed version of the bill includes a $369 million down payment for 12 F-22s in fiscal 2011, but does not include any funding to buy Lockheed Martin Corp. aircraft next year.
Despite broad support for the fighter program, Levin said he believes they have a "fair chance" of stripping the additional fighters from the authorization bill and keeping the fleet at the 187 F-22s now planned.
The White House threatened earlier this week to veto any authorization measure that includes funding for more F-22s, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called unnecessary particularly as the Air Force begins to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and relies more heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles.
But any efforts to strip the $1.7 billion out of the Senate committee bill would likely be met with stiff resistance from dozens of senators.
In January, 44 senators sent President Obama a letter just days before his inauguration imploring him to continue production of the F-22. They argued that the program, which employs 25,000 workers at 1,000 suppliers in 44 states, provides $12 billion in economic activity annually in the United States.
"Our debate and vote [on the F-22s] took place with full awareness of the administration's veto threat, and the result of the vote speaks for itself," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Armed Services panel, said in a statement.
The planes are assembled at Lockheed Martin's plant in Marietta, Ga.
Meanwhile, McCain said he hopes the Senate will overturn the bill's authorization of $438.9 million for a second engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter. But Levin said he supports funding the alternate engine.
The White House has likewise threatened to veto the bill if it continues the second engine program, arguing that it is too costly and would delay fielding of the aircraft.
Former President George W. Bush made similar arguments in repeated attempts to terminate development of an alternate engine, only to be rebuffed by Congress.
Despite some differences with the administration, Levin said the bill endorses roughly 90 percent of the Pentagon's fiscal 2010 budget request.
Indeed, the panel approved the Pentagon's request of $9.3 billion for missile defense programs -- $1.2 billion less than this year's funding level -- and the termination of several programs, including the Multiple Kill Vehicle, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the second Airborne Laser.
As requested by the administration, the bill ends C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane production and cancels the manned ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems modernization program in favor of a new ground combat vehicle. But the bill also directs the Defense secretary to create a new program to develop a self-propelled howitzer to replace the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, which was developed as part of FCS.
The bill also approves the administration's decision to pull the plug on the VH-71 presidential helicopter and end the Transformational Satellite Communications program.
But the bill adds nine more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets than requested for next year. In its fiscal 2010 budget request, the Navy requested nine Super Hornets and 22 EA-18 Growler electronic attack aircraft, which are based on the same Boeing airframe.
Boeing, the plane's manufacturer, has been lobbying to expand the Super Hornet fleet. It sees an expansion as a way to mitigate the effects of a shortfall in strike-fighters within the Navy that is expected to peak in 2017 at 69 aircraft and continue until 2025, when the service's Joint Strike Fighters become fully operational.
But the Senate bill does not authorize another multiyear procurement for the Super Hornets, which Boeing had advocated. The House version of the bill gives the Navy the authority to pursue a multiyear contract with Boeing.
The company's proposed multiyear deal "did not meet the threshold of a multiyear" contract, which requires 10 percent cost savings, Levin said.
28 June 2009
First Round of QDR Insights, FY-11 Budget Decisions Being Drafted
June 26, 2009 -- The Defense Department is drawing up the first round of "insights" from the Quadrennial Defense Review that are being translated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense into new guidance for the military services to adjust their weapon system investments in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
Pentagon sources say these “early insights” from QDR tabletop exercises and analysis will both frame questions for senior leaders to consider as the congressionally mandated assessment continues into the autumn as well as spin off clear directives this summer for the military services to revise their FY-11 to FY-15 investment blueprints.
“They're writing planning guidance right now,” said a Pentagon official involved in the review. “They're trying to publish something to help the services refine their [FY-11 to FY-15 investment] programs by mid-July, maybe sooner.”
Pentagon officials in the office of the under secretary of defense for policy leading the QDR have promised by July to begin providing “recommendations for balance and divestment across the defense program.”
The five groups guiding the QDR are forming early insights for rebalancing U.S. military activities across different areas: irregular warfare; high-end asymmetric operations; military support to civilian agencies in domestic and foreign operations; shifting global posture; and so-called “cost drivers” -- elements of the Pentagon's budget which Defense Department leaders effectively do not control, such as health care costs.
A key issue in the forthcoming planning guidance will be how these insights are translated into changes in weapon system investment plans and how the services structure their forces, Pentagon officials said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in January promised the FY-11 budget would include “dramatic” changes to the Pentagon's investment accounts, continues to explain the overarching aims of his efforts to reshape the U.S. military.
Speaking to reporters on June 18 -- the first day of a two-day meeting with all of the U.S. military's brass to review the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and discuss progress on the QDR -- Gates said he is effectively looking to make changes on the margins of the Pentagon's investment accounts.
“What I am trying to do is simply get a place at the table, when resources are passed out, for those who are fighting today's wars, and to institutionalize what we've learned about counterinsurgency, so that we don't forget it like we did after Vietnam,” Gates said.
The defense secretary also took issue with the notion that his effort to reshape U.S. military forces would gut investments in the bulk of weapon programs that constitute current U.S. military inventories.
“So this notion that I'm tilting the scale dramatically against conventional capabilities, in order to fight irregular or whatever, asymmetric wars or whatever you want to call it, is just not accurate,” Gates said.
The types of challenges the U.S. military must be prepared to face are nuanced and not easily compartmentalized, he said.
“Conflict in the future,” Gates said, “will slide up and down a scale, both in scope or scale and in lethality. And we have to procure the kinds of things that give us -- the kinds of equipment and weapons that give us the maximum flexibility, across the widest range of that spectrum of conflict.”
The defense secretary added: “It's the versatility of our force and our ability to be able to respond, to a wide range of conflict, that ... I think is important, in trying to build the programs for this department, for the future. But there is a huge investment in trying to protect our technological edge for the future.” -- Jason Sherman
6262009_june26c
Pentagon sources say these “early insights” from QDR tabletop exercises and analysis will both frame questions for senior leaders to consider as the congressionally mandated assessment continues into the autumn as well as spin off clear directives this summer for the military services to revise their FY-11 to FY-15 investment blueprints.
“They're writing planning guidance right now,” said a Pentagon official involved in the review. “They're trying to publish something to help the services refine their [FY-11 to FY-15 investment] programs by mid-July, maybe sooner.”
Pentagon officials in the office of the under secretary of defense for policy leading the QDR have promised by July to begin providing “recommendations for balance and divestment across the defense program.”
The five groups guiding the QDR are forming early insights for rebalancing U.S. military activities across different areas: irregular warfare; high-end asymmetric operations; military support to civilian agencies in domestic and foreign operations; shifting global posture; and so-called “cost drivers” -- elements of the Pentagon's budget which Defense Department leaders effectively do not control, such as health care costs.
A key issue in the forthcoming planning guidance will be how these insights are translated into changes in weapon system investment plans and how the services structure their forces, Pentagon officials said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in January promised the FY-11 budget would include “dramatic” changes to the Pentagon's investment accounts, continues to explain the overarching aims of his efforts to reshape the U.S. military.
Speaking to reporters on June 18 -- the first day of a two-day meeting with all of the U.S. military's brass to review the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and discuss progress on the QDR -- Gates said he is effectively looking to make changes on the margins of the Pentagon's investment accounts.
“What I am trying to do is simply get a place at the table, when resources are passed out, for those who are fighting today's wars, and to institutionalize what we've learned about counterinsurgency, so that we don't forget it like we did after Vietnam,” Gates said.
The defense secretary also took issue with the notion that his effort to reshape U.S. military forces would gut investments in the bulk of weapon programs that constitute current U.S. military inventories.
“So this notion that I'm tilting the scale dramatically against conventional capabilities, in order to fight irregular or whatever, asymmetric wars or whatever you want to call it, is just not accurate,” Gates said.
The types of challenges the U.S. military must be prepared to face are nuanced and not easily compartmentalized, he said.
“Conflict in the future,” Gates said, “will slide up and down a scale, both in scope or scale and in lethality. And we have to procure the kinds of things that give us -- the kinds of equipment and weapons that give us the maximum flexibility, across the widest range of that spectrum of conflict.”
The defense secretary added: “It's the versatility of our force and our ability to be able to respond, to a wide range of conflict, that ... I think is important, in trying to build the programs for this department, for the future. But there is a huge investment in trying to protect our technological edge for the future.” -- Jason Sherman
6262009_june26c
10 MORE DDG-51s WOULD COST LESS THAN SEVEN DDG-1000
The cost of adding 10 more DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers to the fleet would be less than adding a seven-ship class of next-generation DDG-1000s modified for equal capability in ballistic missile defense, anti-air warfare and anti-submarine warfare, according to a letter from the Navy’s top officer to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).
The May 11 letter, obtained by Inside the Navy and authored by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, compares the acquisition costs for the DDG-51 destroyer and a modified DDG-1000 destroyer based on a multi-hull procurement in constant fiscal year 2010 dollars.
The cost of procuring a modified DDG-1000, including research, development, test and evaluation, as well as ship construction, would be $2.87 billion in FY-10, while the cost of a DDG-51 would be $2.25 billion, according to the letter. Additionally, the average follow-on cost for ship construction, from FY-11 to FY-16 for a modified DDG-1000 would be $2.25 billion, while the average follow-on cost for a DDG-51 would be $1.9 billion.
For the purposes of the calculations, the modified DDG-1000 would have the Advanced Gun System and associated magazines removed and additional missile-launch tubes installed in their place. The ship would employ Standard Missile-2, SM-3 and SM-6 missiles and otherwise engage in ballistic missile defense and area defense anti-air warfare at least equivalent to that of the Flight IIA DDG-51, which is equipped with the Advanced Capability Build 12 Aegis combat system. No modifications would be done for the two ships to be equal in anti-submarine warfare.
Still, the letter notes that the “technical risk and acquisition costs” associated with the DDG-1000 are not as well-defined as those for the DDG-51 hull and combat system, which has been procured for decades.
“Therefore, the additional capacity and capability gained through continuation of DDG-51s with lower technical risk and defined cost, coupled with the risks associated with the DDG-1000, make the restart of the DDG-51 line the preferred choice for affordable warfighting capability and capacity,” Roughead’s letter states.
Last summer, the Navy announced its intentions to truncate the multibillion-dollar DDG-1000 program at three ships, contending that anti-ship cruise missile, ballistic missile and submarine threats are of new and growing significance and that the vessel does not have the right capabilities to counter them. Instead, the Navy wants to revert to building more of the proven DDG-51s.
In an Oct. 24, 2008 letter from Kennedy to Roughead, the senator, who chairs the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, requested an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the the DDG-51 and DDG-1000, expressing concern that the Navy had not sufficiently justified the truncation decision.
“I believe this would entail providing complete cost data on a DDG-51, as envisioned by the Navy after restart of the production line, and on a DDG-1000 that has modifications the Navy believes are critical to perform the ballistic missile defense, area defense anti-air warfare and blue-water anti-submarine warfare missions driving the Navy’s desire to shift between platforms,” Kennedy wrote in his request.
The Navy’s FY-10 budget request reflects the change, as it seeks the remainder of funds for the third DDG-1000 and to purchase a DDG-51. House authorizers have been supportive of the move, but there has been some resistance from Senate authorizers, including Kennedy. Massachusetts is home to Raytheon, which makes the DDG-1000 combat system and stands to lose billions in potential revenue from the DDG-1000 curtailment.
The letter additionally compares the annual operation and support costs for a DDG-51 and a modified DDG-1000 in constant FY-10 dollars. The total costs of maintenance, manpower and operations, assuming a crude oil price of $50 per barrel, would be $63.8 million for the DDG-51 and $59.1 million for the DDG-1000. At $100 per barrel, it would be $69.9 million for the DDG-51 and $67.6 million for the DDG-1000, and at $150 per barrel it would be nearly equivalent at $75.9 million for the DDG-51 and $76 million for the DDG-1000.
The difference rests largely in manpower costs, which are $37.3 million annually for a DDG-51 but estimated to be just $17.3 million for a DDG-1000. A DDG-51 has 254 enlisted and 24 officers on its crew, while a DDG-1000 would have just 108 enlisted and 15 officers on its crew due to increased automation and by growing shore support to complete activities traditionally performed aboard.
However, the report notes that the numbers do not account for the increased ashore maintenance costs associated with DDG-1000’s decreased crew size, and therefore “comparing the individual element of manning costs between the two ships can be misleading.”
“Navy is committed to increasing the shore infrastructure to perform this maintenance; however, those added maintenance costs generally negate the savings generated by the smaller crew size,” Roughead writes.
The figures are calculated on a 35-year service life basis, including periodic depot maintenance and upgrades, and assume an annual fuel usage rate of 87,373 barrels for DDG-51 and 121,233 barrels for DDG-1000.
The letter also reveals more details about the comparative anti-submarine warfare capabilities of each ship. The main differences, it states, are the bow-mounted sonars, periscope detection radar planned for the DDG-1000, and the DDG-1000’s lower ship noise characteristics to evade detection.
“There is a known performance difference at the sensor level between the hull-mounted sonars on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 ships due to physical size and source-level differences between the ships,” Roughead writes, noting that the DDG-51 has greater detection capability in blue-water environments.
But when factoring in the periscope detection radar and stealthiness, “the DDG-1000 could be expected to perform as well as, or possibly better than, the DDG-51 under certain scenarios and acoustic conditions.”
However, at the campaign level, he continues, when the DDG-1000 is utilized in fleet anti-submarine warfare activities in conjunction with other ships and aircraft, “the magnitude of the performance difference is unclear.”
As such, Roughead notes that there is a “probability that the difference in performance levels at the campaign level would be low” and assesses the two ships as equal in this area, with no modification necessary to the DDG-1000 for the purposes of the analysis. -- Rebekah Gordon
NAVY-22-25-1
The May 11 letter, obtained by Inside the Navy and authored by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, compares the acquisition costs for the DDG-51 destroyer and a modified DDG-1000 destroyer based on a multi-hull procurement in constant fiscal year 2010 dollars.
The cost of procuring a modified DDG-1000, including research, development, test and evaluation, as well as ship construction, would be $2.87 billion in FY-10, while the cost of a DDG-51 would be $2.25 billion, according to the letter. Additionally, the average follow-on cost for ship construction, from FY-11 to FY-16 for a modified DDG-1000 would be $2.25 billion, while the average follow-on cost for a DDG-51 would be $1.9 billion.
For the purposes of the calculations, the modified DDG-1000 would have the Advanced Gun System and associated magazines removed and additional missile-launch tubes installed in their place. The ship would employ Standard Missile-2, SM-3 and SM-6 missiles and otherwise engage in ballistic missile defense and area defense anti-air warfare at least equivalent to that of the Flight IIA DDG-51, which is equipped with the Advanced Capability Build 12 Aegis combat system. No modifications would be done for the two ships to be equal in anti-submarine warfare.
Still, the letter notes that the “technical risk and acquisition costs” associated with the DDG-1000 are not as well-defined as those for the DDG-51 hull and combat system, which has been procured for decades.
“Therefore, the additional capacity and capability gained through continuation of DDG-51s with lower technical risk and defined cost, coupled with the risks associated with the DDG-1000, make the restart of the DDG-51 line the preferred choice for affordable warfighting capability and capacity,” Roughead’s letter states.
Last summer, the Navy announced its intentions to truncate the multibillion-dollar DDG-1000 program at three ships, contending that anti-ship cruise missile, ballistic missile and submarine threats are of new and growing significance and that the vessel does not have the right capabilities to counter them. Instead, the Navy wants to revert to building more of the proven DDG-51s.
In an Oct. 24, 2008 letter from Kennedy to Roughead, the senator, who chairs the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, requested an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the the DDG-51 and DDG-1000, expressing concern that the Navy had not sufficiently justified the truncation decision.
“I believe this would entail providing complete cost data on a DDG-51, as envisioned by the Navy after restart of the production line, and on a DDG-1000 that has modifications the Navy believes are critical to perform the ballistic missile defense, area defense anti-air warfare and blue-water anti-submarine warfare missions driving the Navy’s desire to shift between platforms,” Kennedy wrote in his request.
The Navy’s FY-10 budget request reflects the change, as it seeks the remainder of funds for the third DDG-1000 and to purchase a DDG-51. House authorizers have been supportive of the move, but there has been some resistance from Senate authorizers, including Kennedy. Massachusetts is home to Raytheon, which makes the DDG-1000 combat system and stands to lose billions in potential revenue from the DDG-1000 curtailment.
The letter additionally compares the annual operation and support costs for a DDG-51 and a modified DDG-1000 in constant FY-10 dollars. The total costs of maintenance, manpower and operations, assuming a crude oil price of $50 per barrel, would be $63.8 million for the DDG-51 and $59.1 million for the DDG-1000. At $100 per barrel, it would be $69.9 million for the DDG-51 and $67.6 million for the DDG-1000, and at $150 per barrel it would be nearly equivalent at $75.9 million for the DDG-51 and $76 million for the DDG-1000.
The difference rests largely in manpower costs, which are $37.3 million annually for a DDG-51 but estimated to be just $17.3 million for a DDG-1000. A DDG-51 has 254 enlisted and 24 officers on its crew, while a DDG-1000 would have just 108 enlisted and 15 officers on its crew due to increased automation and by growing shore support to complete activities traditionally performed aboard.
However, the report notes that the numbers do not account for the increased ashore maintenance costs associated with DDG-1000’s decreased crew size, and therefore “comparing the individual element of manning costs between the two ships can be misleading.”
“Navy is committed to increasing the shore infrastructure to perform this maintenance; however, those added maintenance costs generally negate the savings generated by the smaller crew size,” Roughead writes.
The figures are calculated on a 35-year service life basis, including periodic depot maintenance and upgrades, and assume an annual fuel usage rate of 87,373 barrels for DDG-51 and 121,233 barrels for DDG-1000.
The letter also reveals more details about the comparative anti-submarine warfare capabilities of each ship. The main differences, it states, are the bow-mounted sonars, periscope detection radar planned for the DDG-1000, and the DDG-1000’s lower ship noise characteristics to evade detection.
“There is a known performance difference at the sensor level between the hull-mounted sonars on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 ships due to physical size and source-level differences between the ships,” Roughead writes, noting that the DDG-51 has greater detection capability in blue-water environments.
But when factoring in the periscope detection radar and stealthiness, “the DDG-1000 could be expected to perform as well as, or possibly better than, the DDG-51 under certain scenarios and acoustic conditions.”
However, at the campaign level, he continues, when the DDG-1000 is utilized in fleet anti-submarine warfare activities in conjunction with other ships and aircraft, “the magnitude of the performance difference is unclear.”
As such, Roughead notes that there is a “probability that the difference in performance levels at the campaign level would be low” and assesses the two ships as equal in this area, with no modification necessary to the DDG-1000 for the purposes of the analysis. -- Rebekah Gordon
NAVY-22-25-1
No Congressional QDR Panel
Low-Priority?
Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee announced with some fanfare plans to create a National Defense Panel in the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill whose members would critique the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.
Senators, in their version of the bill so far, made no such requirement.
The issue never even came up during Senate Armed Services Committee deliberations this week, committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa tells us.
"The issue wasn't discussed during markup so we can't speak as to why the committee didn't include it," she wrote in an e-mail. "We can point out, however, that the law already requires the secretary of defense to establish an 'independent panel' to review the QDR's report," she wrote.
Of course, this doesn't mean the National Defense Panel will never become a reality. But it shows that the need for the group is at least debatable among lawmakers.
-- Sebastian Sprenger
Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee announced with some fanfare plans to create a National Defense Panel in the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill whose members would critique the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.
Senators, in their version of the bill so far, made no such requirement.
The issue never even came up during Senate Armed Services Committee deliberations this week, committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa tells us.
"The issue wasn't discussed during markup so we can't speak as to why the committee didn't include it," she wrote in an e-mail. "We can point out, however, that the law already requires the secretary of defense to establish an 'independent panel' to review the QDR's report," she wrote.
Of course, this doesn't mean the National Defense Panel will never become a reality. But it shows that the need for the group is at least debatable among lawmakers.
-- Sebastian Sprenger
Army Set to Unveil New Leader-Development Strategy for Complex, Hybrid War
June 26, 2009 -- The Army is set to unveil a new strategy aimed at attuning leaders at all echelons to the complex requirements of conflicts similar to those in Iraq and Afghanistan, where cultural sensitivity and interagency cooperation greatly influence military success.
Work on the new “Leader Development Strategy for an Expeditionary Army” began early this year at the behest of Training and Doctrine Command chief Gen. Martin Dempsey. The document, which could be unveiled as early as next week, is expected to include annexes with detailed guidance for the development of officers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers and civilian leaders.
TRADOC spokesman Harvey Perritt would only say officials plan to release the strategy “shortly.” He said today it was yet unclear whether the final document would bear the signature of Dempsey or Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff.
InsideDefense.com obtained a draft version of the strategy, dated June 16.
The document builds on two fundamental assumptions: that cultural, economic and military problems will continue to converge in future conflicts; and that adversaries will wage war by marrying irregular tactics with traditional and high-tech warfare.
In an “increasingly competitive” security environment, the ability for Army leaders to quickly adapt to change on the battlefield is crucial, Dempsey argues in the 11-page draft document. “We may not be able to dominate everywhere and within and across all domains as we have for the past quarter century,” the document states. “However, we must remain capable of . . . gaining and maintaining superiority at all times and in places of our choosing,” it adds.
An “emerging insight” from current operations and recent wargames is that soldiers at relatively low command echelons contribute significantly to the outcome of campaigns, the document states. This is in contrast to Cold War-era thinking, which stipulated that operationally significant decision-making is reserved only to high-level command elements.
“Our Army is a hierarchical organization, but it must become 'hybrid' in the sense that it develops leaders willing to decentralize authority at every opportunity,” the document states. “If we are to prevail in the future operating environment, this must be as true in our highest strategic headquarters as it is in our lowest tactical headquarters, and it must be applied equally to institutional policies and combat operations,” it adds.
As a result, leaders should be exposed to non-military “instruments” of power sooner than is currently the case, the document reads.
The draft strategy is wary of the effects of extended tours of duty and a “backlog” in professional military education on leader development. “We are not building an adequate 'bench' of senior leaders for the future,” it reads.
It singles out two specific “gaps” in the Army's current leader-development strategy -- preparation for traditional combat operations against “near-peer competitors” and preparation to support civil authorities at home.
The draft strategy announces an upcoming change in the Army Field Manual 5-0, “Planning and Orders Production.” Officials will insert a section on “design” into the field manual, positioning it as a precursor to the formal Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), according to the strategy.
“Design is a problem-framing methodology that provides leaders with the cognitive tools to understand a problem and appreciate its complexities before seeking to solve it,” the strategy explains.
Work on the revised field manual is slated to wrap up later this summer or in the fall, Perritt, the TRADOC spokesman, said. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6262009_june26a
Work on the new “Leader Development Strategy for an Expeditionary Army” began early this year at the behest of Training and Doctrine Command chief Gen. Martin Dempsey. The document, which could be unveiled as early as next week, is expected to include annexes with detailed guidance for the development of officers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers and civilian leaders.
TRADOC spokesman Harvey Perritt would only say officials plan to release the strategy “shortly.” He said today it was yet unclear whether the final document would bear the signature of Dempsey or Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff.
InsideDefense.com obtained a draft version of the strategy, dated June 16.
The document builds on two fundamental assumptions: that cultural, economic and military problems will continue to converge in future conflicts; and that adversaries will wage war by marrying irregular tactics with traditional and high-tech warfare.
In an “increasingly competitive” security environment, the ability for Army leaders to quickly adapt to change on the battlefield is crucial, Dempsey argues in the 11-page draft document. “We may not be able to dominate everywhere and within and across all domains as we have for the past quarter century,” the document states. “However, we must remain capable of . . . gaining and maintaining superiority at all times and in places of our choosing,” it adds.
An “emerging insight” from current operations and recent wargames is that soldiers at relatively low command echelons contribute significantly to the outcome of campaigns, the document states. This is in contrast to Cold War-era thinking, which stipulated that operationally significant decision-making is reserved only to high-level command elements.
“Our Army is a hierarchical organization, but it must become 'hybrid' in the sense that it develops leaders willing to decentralize authority at every opportunity,” the document states. “If we are to prevail in the future operating environment, this must be as true in our highest strategic headquarters as it is in our lowest tactical headquarters, and it must be applied equally to institutional policies and combat operations,” it adds.
As a result, leaders should be exposed to non-military “instruments” of power sooner than is currently the case, the document reads.
The draft strategy is wary of the effects of extended tours of duty and a “backlog” in professional military education on leader development. “We are not building an adequate 'bench' of senior leaders for the future,” it reads.
It singles out two specific “gaps” in the Army's current leader-development strategy -- preparation for traditional combat operations against “near-peer competitors” and preparation to support civil authorities at home.
The draft strategy announces an upcoming change in the Army Field Manual 5-0, “Planning and Orders Production.” Officials will insert a section on “design” into the field manual, positioning it as a precursor to the formal Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), according to the strategy.
“Design is a problem-framing methodology that provides leaders with the cognitive tools to understand a problem and appreciate its complexities before seeking to solve it,” the strategy explains.
Work on the revised field manual is slated to wrap up later this summer or in the fall, Perritt, the TRADOC spokesman, said. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6262009_june26a
26 June 2009
Pentagon Seeks to Grow Foreign Commandos, General Forces for Afghanistan
June 24, 2009 -- A key congressional committee has blessed two previously unreported Defense Department pilot programs designed to boost the global pool of commandos and general-purpose forces available to support operations in Afghanistan.
On June 16, the Defense Department sought explicit authorization to spend $44 million to train and equip foreign forces -- from Eastern Europe to Georgia to Mongolia to the tiny Kingdom of Tonga -- in direct support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The requests were advanced in a pair legislative proposals designed to bridge what Pentagon lawyers believe to be a gap in the military’s legal authority to conduct such activities.
The House Armed Services Committee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, said the Defense Department currently enjoys the authority to carry out the two projects, which -- if sustained in the final authorization bill -- could clear the way for the Pentagon to pursue initiatives the Office of the Secretary of Defense says are endorsed by all combatant commanders.
In its report accompanying the FY-10 defense authorization bill, the committee “strongly approves of the purpose for which these proposals were drafted” and “believes existing security cooperation authorities are sufficient to meet this requirement.”
Among the provisions lawmakers say are adequate to cover the Pentagon's newly proposed activities are the so-called section 1206 global train and equip authority; section 1208 authority, which permits the Pentagon to provide financial support to foreign irregular forces, groups or individuals working with U.S. special forces; provisions for foreign military financing and foreign military sales; funding for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and coalition support funds.
Collectively, these authorities are sufficient to cover the two initiatives the Pentagon wants to pursue in FY-10, according to the House panel.
The first would spend as much as $12 million “to field a self-sustaining, deployable special operations group for employment in NATO or coalition special operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan, according the Pentagon's legislative proposal.
The Obama administration, according to the Pentagon's analysis of the legislation it proposed, believes
“that the demand for skills unique to special operations forces will continue to increase in an era when the joint force is likely to engage adversaries who blend conventional and irregular methods of warfare.
“At this point, however, there are simply not enough of those forces to meet current or projected future requirements, and the United States -- while clearly the world leader -- is at its capacity in this regard. To increase the capability of special operations coalition forces to successfully resolve future crises or contingency missions, as well as for the sake of our own overextended special operations forces, it is incumbent upon the United States to help our partners expand this critical capability.”
The Pentagon, accordingly, wants to use up to $12 million to support efforts by foreign governments “to assess, select, train and resource self-sustaining, fully capable special operations forces that can deploy where and when needed, essentially interchangeable with United States forces.”
In particular, the Pentagon is looking to bolster the special forces of a dozen nations, including NATO members admitted after 1998 -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia -- and nations seeking to join the alliance, including
Croatia, Albania and Georgia.
“These nations are among our strongest partners in the war on terror and have all developed at least a nascent special operations capability,” according to DOD, which is seeking more explicit authority for this task than exists in current law.
In FY-10, the Pentagon plans to limit this effort to nations in U.S. European Command's area of responsibility which “contains the majority of potential force providers for the current fight,” according to the legislative proposal.
“If successful, this proposal could be opened to support plans in other [regional combatant commands] where willing partners wish to develop their SOF to deploy in a significant way to U.S. operations,” states the Pentagon proposal.
Under a second program, the Pentagon is looking to spend $32 million to train and equip the general-purpose forces of nations that are willing to assist with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but lack necessary materiel and expertise.
“Coalition operations are critical in Afghanistan today, and will likely remain a relevant construct for the foreseeable future,” DOD states in its analysis of the proposed legislative text.
In FY-10, the Pentagon wants the flexibility to spend the funds on equipment like global positioning systems, handheld tactical radios, tactical-vehicle radios, rifles, canteens, pistols, night-vision goggles and uniforms.
To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon wants to provide training in dealing with roadside bombs, urban operations, convoy operations and close air support “as well as cultural awareness and theater rules of engagement.”
“Not every nation can afford this training and equipment,” according to the Pentagon, which provided lawmakers examples of nations that have required assistance, including: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Mongolia and Tonga.
“This activity not only frees up American service members, but -- just as importantly -- broadens and deepens our worldwide ties with nations who have opted to join the struggle against terror,” the Pentagon analysis states. -- Jason Sherman
6242009_june24k
On June 16, the Defense Department sought explicit authorization to spend $44 million to train and equip foreign forces -- from Eastern Europe to Georgia to Mongolia to the tiny Kingdom of Tonga -- in direct support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The requests were advanced in a pair legislative proposals designed to bridge what Pentagon lawyers believe to be a gap in the military’s legal authority to conduct such activities.
The House Armed Services Committee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, said the Defense Department currently enjoys the authority to carry out the two projects, which -- if sustained in the final authorization bill -- could clear the way for the Pentagon to pursue initiatives the Office of the Secretary of Defense says are endorsed by all combatant commanders.
In its report accompanying the FY-10 defense authorization bill, the committee “strongly approves of the purpose for which these proposals were drafted” and “believes existing security cooperation authorities are sufficient to meet this requirement.”
Among the provisions lawmakers say are adequate to cover the Pentagon's newly proposed activities are the so-called section 1206 global train and equip authority; section 1208 authority, which permits the Pentagon to provide financial support to foreign irregular forces, groups or individuals working with U.S. special forces; provisions for foreign military financing and foreign military sales; funding for Iraq and Afghanistan security forces; and coalition support funds.
Collectively, these authorities are sufficient to cover the two initiatives the Pentagon wants to pursue in FY-10, according to the House panel.
The first would spend as much as $12 million “to field a self-sustaining, deployable special operations group for employment in NATO or coalition special operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan, according the Pentagon's legislative proposal.
The Obama administration, according to the Pentagon's analysis of the legislation it proposed, believes
“that the demand for skills unique to special operations forces will continue to increase in an era when the joint force is likely to engage adversaries who blend conventional and irregular methods of warfare.
“At this point, however, there are simply not enough of those forces to meet current or projected future requirements, and the United States -- while clearly the world leader -- is at its capacity in this regard. To increase the capability of special operations coalition forces to successfully resolve future crises or contingency missions, as well as for the sake of our own overextended special operations forces, it is incumbent upon the United States to help our partners expand this critical capability.”
The Pentagon, accordingly, wants to use up to $12 million to support efforts by foreign governments “to assess, select, train and resource self-sustaining, fully capable special operations forces that can deploy where and when needed, essentially interchangeable with United States forces.”
In particular, the Pentagon is looking to bolster the special forces of a dozen nations, including NATO members admitted after 1998 -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia -- and nations seeking to join the alliance, including
Croatia, Albania and Georgia.
“These nations are among our strongest partners in the war on terror and have all developed at least a nascent special operations capability,” according to DOD, which is seeking more explicit authority for this task than exists in current law.
In FY-10, the Pentagon plans to limit this effort to nations in U.S. European Command's area of responsibility which “contains the majority of potential force providers for the current fight,” according to the legislative proposal.
“If successful, this proposal could be opened to support plans in other [regional combatant commands] where willing partners wish to develop their SOF to deploy in a significant way to U.S. operations,” states the Pentagon proposal.
Under a second program, the Pentagon is looking to spend $32 million to train and equip the general-purpose forces of nations that are willing to assist with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but lack necessary materiel and expertise.
“Coalition operations are critical in Afghanistan today, and will likely remain a relevant construct for the foreseeable future,” DOD states in its analysis of the proposed legislative text.
In FY-10, the Pentagon wants the flexibility to spend the funds on equipment like global positioning systems, handheld tactical radios, tactical-vehicle radios, rifles, canteens, pistols, night-vision goggles and uniforms.
To support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon wants to provide training in dealing with roadside bombs, urban operations, convoy operations and close air support “as well as cultural awareness and theater rules of engagement.”
“Not every nation can afford this training and equipment,” according to the Pentagon, which provided lawmakers examples of nations that have required assistance, including: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Mongolia and Tonga.
“This activity not only frees up American service members, but -- just as importantly -- broadens and deepens our worldwide ties with nations who have opted to join the struggle against terror,” the Pentagon analysis states. -- Jason Sherman
6242009_june24k
25 June 2009
REPUBLICANS DEPICT IRAN AS MILITARY THREAT
ew annual report sought
AMID TEHRAN CRACKDOWN, REPUBLICANS DEPICT IRAN AS MILITARY THREAT
As Iran cracks down on protests in Tehran over its presidential election and the White House seeks to calibrate its response, House Republicans have advanced legislation requiring the Pentagon to prepare a new annual report on Iran’s military, which is stirring mixed reactions.
The proposed requirement is tucked in the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO). Inside the Pentagon has learned the provision was included at the urging of the panel’s Republicans.
“In order to deal effectively with a potential threat from Iran, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee worked with Chairman Skelton to include a provision that would require policy-makers at the Department of Defense to provide some insight into the capabilities and intentions of Iran’s military,” Josh Holly, a spokesman for the committee’s Republicans, confirmed to ITP.
Congress already produces a similar report about China’s military, which “has been very effective and it’s a model worth replicating -- and adjusting for obvious differences -- in order to provide a better view of Iran’s military,” Holly added.
The bill directs the Pentagon to prepare classified and unclassified editions of the report by March 1 each year, covering the current and future course of military developments in Iran’s army, air force and navy and the Iranian revolutionary guard corps, as well as the tenets and future of Iran’s grand strategy, security strategy and military strategy, and of military organizations and operational concepts.
But retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College and warned against attacking Iran during the Bush administration, is critical of the proposed requirement, which he sees as counter to the Obama administration’s focus on dealing diplomatically with Iran.
“The White House strategy for Iran in based upon the concept of engagement. Supporters of Israel and many Republicans are fighting that strategy from as many directions as possible,” he told ITP.
Gardiner said he would put the committee’s call for the new report into the class of efforts intended to make Iran look “as bad as possible.”
The bill says the report would look at Iran’s strategy toward other countries in the region, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, including a “detailed analysis” of Iranian conventional and unconventional forces facing those countries and U.S. forces in the region.
The report would describe the size, location, and capabilities of Iran’s conventional forces; Iran’s military doctrine; funding for Iran’s military; and nuclear and missile forces. It would also discuss Iran’s unconventional forces, including special operations troops, the Iranian revolutionary guard corps-quds force and support for Hezbollah, Hamas and groups in Iraq.
“As the current political instability underscores, the United States and the international community do not know enough about Iran’s military,” Holly argued. “The Iranian regime continues to aggressively defy the international community with its ballistic missile and nuclear programs.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell yesterday dismissed the idea that recent domestic turmoil in Iran might lead to security threats for the region.
“I don’t know that [Defense Secretary Robert Gates] views, frankly, the elections and the fallout and the unrest and the crackdown that has followed as necessarily a regional security threat. This seems to be mostly focused internal to Iran,” Morrell told reporters. “So I don’t know that we’ve seen evidence that has led to any greater external threat posed by Iran at this point.”
“While I know DOD gets frustrated with congressional demands for reports, this action by the Congress highlights the very real problem that we know very little about Iran’s decision-making, strategy and doctrine,” said Kori Schake, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign, a Hoover Institution fellow and the distinguished chair in international security studies at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
“Building some intellectual capital in those areas would be a good investment, both in the defense community and beyond,” she told Inside the Pentagon. Cold War-era reports on Soviet military power were “really helpful,” Schake noted. “While Iran is no Soviet Union, the reports would better inform the public, Congress, other governments, and challenge the Iranian government to answer our description of their behavior.”
In March, the director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, told Congress that Iran is bolstering the three pillars of its strategic deterrence: surface-to-surface missiles, long-range rockets and aircraft for retaliation; naval forces to disrupt maritime traffic through key waterways; and unconventional forces and surrogates to conduct worldwide lethal operations.
“Although many of their statements are exaggerations, Iranian officials throughout the past year have repeatedly claimed both greater ballistic missile capabilities that could threaten US and allied interests and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using unconventional small boat operations, anti-ship cruise missiles, and other naval systems,” Blair wrote. -- Christopher J. Castelli
PENTAGON-25-25-5
AMID TEHRAN CRACKDOWN, REPUBLICANS DEPICT IRAN AS MILITARY THREAT
As Iran cracks down on protests in Tehran over its presidential election and the White House seeks to calibrate its response, House Republicans have advanced legislation requiring the Pentagon to prepare a new annual report on Iran’s military, which is stirring mixed reactions.
The proposed requirement is tucked in the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO). Inside the Pentagon has learned the provision was included at the urging of the panel’s Republicans.
“In order to deal effectively with a potential threat from Iran, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee worked with Chairman Skelton to include a provision that would require policy-makers at the Department of Defense to provide some insight into the capabilities and intentions of Iran’s military,” Josh Holly, a spokesman for the committee’s Republicans, confirmed to ITP.
Congress already produces a similar report about China’s military, which “has been very effective and it’s a model worth replicating -- and adjusting for obvious differences -- in order to provide a better view of Iran’s military,” Holly added.
The bill directs the Pentagon to prepare classified and unclassified editions of the report by March 1 each year, covering the current and future course of military developments in Iran’s army, air force and navy and the Iranian revolutionary guard corps, as well as the tenets and future of Iran’s grand strategy, security strategy and military strategy, and of military organizations and operational concepts.
But retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College and warned against attacking Iran during the Bush administration, is critical of the proposed requirement, which he sees as counter to the Obama administration’s focus on dealing diplomatically with Iran.
“The White House strategy for Iran in based upon the concept of engagement. Supporters of Israel and many Republicans are fighting that strategy from as many directions as possible,” he told ITP.
Gardiner said he would put the committee’s call for the new report into the class of efforts intended to make Iran look “as bad as possible.”
The bill says the report would look at Iran’s strategy toward other countries in the region, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, including a “detailed analysis” of Iranian conventional and unconventional forces facing those countries and U.S. forces in the region.
The report would describe the size, location, and capabilities of Iran’s conventional forces; Iran’s military doctrine; funding for Iran’s military; and nuclear and missile forces. It would also discuss Iran’s unconventional forces, including special operations troops, the Iranian revolutionary guard corps-quds force and support for Hezbollah, Hamas and groups in Iraq.
“As the current political instability underscores, the United States and the international community do not know enough about Iran’s military,” Holly argued. “The Iranian regime continues to aggressively defy the international community with its ballistic missile and nuclear programs.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell yesterday dismissed the idea that recent domestic turmoil in Iran might lead to security threats for the region.
“I don’t know that [Defense Secretary Robert Gates] views, frankly, the elections and the fallout and the unrest and the crackdown that has followed as necessarily a regional security threat. This seems to be mostly focused internal to Iran,” Morrell told reporters. “So I don’t know that we’ve seen evidence that has led to any greater external threat posed by Iran at this point.”
“While I know DOD gets frustrated with congressional demands for reports, this action by the Congress highlights the very real problem that we know very little about Iran’s decision-making, strategy and doctrine,” said Kori Schake, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign, a Hoover Institution fellow and the distinguished chair in international security studies at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
“Building some intellectual capital in those areas would be a good investment, both in the defense community and beyond,” she told Inside the Pentagon. Cold War-era reports on Soviet military power were “really helpful,” Schake noted. “While Iran is no Soviet Union, the reports would better inform the public, Congress, other governments, and challenge the Iranian government to answer our description of their behavior.”
In March, the director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, told Congress that Iran is bolstering the three pillars of its strategic deterrence: surface-to-surface missiles, long-range rockets and aircraft for retaliation; naval forces to disrupt maritime traffic through key waterways; and unconventional forces and surrogates to conduct worldwide lethal operations.
“Although many of their statements are exaggerations, Iranian officials throughout the past year have repeatedly claimed both greater ballistic missile capabilities that could threaten US and allied interests and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using unconventional small boat operations, anti-ship cruise missiles, and other naval systems,” Blair wrote. -- Christopher J. Castelli
PENTAGON-25-25-5
Digital Security In An Analog Bureaucracy
Digital Security In An Analog Bureaucracy
President Obama is making cyber-security a top priority, but he faces several hurdles within his own administration.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
by Shane Harris
y the time Barack Obama took office, he was convinced that the Internet was an extraordinary tool for communicating, organizing, and raising money, and that it also posed a critical vulnerability for national security.
During the campaign, Obama's computer systems were hacked, and the intruders made off with valuable information. As the president recounted in a speech in May, "Between August and October [2008], hackers gained access to e-mails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans. And we worked closely with the CIA, with the FBI and the Secret Service, and hired security consultants to restore the security of our systems." Republican nominee John McCain's campaign computers were also compromised.
Newsweek first reported the cyber-breach in November 2008. Technology experts at Obama's campaign headquarters had detected what they thought was a computer virus, according to the magazine. But a day later, the FBI and Secret Service warned the campaign: "You have a problem way bigger than you understand. You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system."
Newsweek reported that FBI and White House officials told the Obama campaign that "a foreign entity or organization" had launched the attack to gather information about the evolution of the campaign's policy positions, "information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration." A former senior intelligence official told National Journal that Chinese sources were responsible. Separately, the government's top counterintelligence official said that hackers based in China have stolen information from U.S. businesses to get a leg up in negotiations. The hack of Obama's computers fits a general pattern of cyber-espionage.
In recalling the episode in his speech last month, Obama said, "It was a powerful reminder: In this Information Age, one of your greatest strengths -- in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet -- could also be one of your greatest vulnerabilities." The occasion of the speech was the much-anticipated unveiling of the administration's Cyberspace Policy Review. The document is the product of an inventory that Obama ordered of security policies, plans, and studies, and it is an opening step in what the president called "a new, comprehensive approach to securing America's digital infrastructure."
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama has made cyber-security a top priority, and he's putting presidential clout behind the effort. "This new approach starts at the top, with this commitment from me," he said. "From now on, our digital infrastructure -- the networks and computers we depend on every day -- will be treated as they should be: as a strategic national asset."
In protecting the Internet, Obama seeks to safeguard the very integrity of global commerce, communications, and the operation of government. "In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber-security," he said.
Obama cited startling statistics, ranging from intellectual-property theft -- estimated at $1 trillion worldwide last year -- to cybercrime perpetrated on everyday users of the banking system. "In one brazen act last year," he said, "thieves used stolen credit card information to steal millions of dollars from 130 ATMs in 49 cities around the world -- and they did it in just 30 minutes."
Obama also recognized that the nation's energy production and delivery systems are vulnerable because many of them are run by computers connected to the Internet. "We know that cyber-intruders have probed our electrical grid and that in other countries, cyberattackers have plunged entire cities into darkness," Obama said, marking the first time that a U.S. president has ever publicly acknowledged such serious intrusions.
Cyber-Czar
Obama also promised to put a high-level official in charge of coordinating cyber-security across the government. During the campaign, he said that this person would "report directly to me." But when Obama unveiled his cyber-policy review, he announced that the official would have "regular access to me."
"That is not the same as an adviser. And this is a difference that can mean a lot in Washington circles," said Eugene H. Spafford, a professor at Purdue University who's the executive director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security. He compared the position with the "largely ineffectual" job of cyber-security coordinator set up in the first months of the Bush administration. The person in that post, Richard Clarke, was an early evangelist for a national response to cyber-security, but he was also seen as lacking the budgetary authority and full backing of the president necessary to make real headway on the issue.
The new cyber-czar will occupy an unusual spot in the White House pecking order. He or she will report to the national security adviser, James Jones, as well as the director of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers. This bifurcated arrangement was reportedly the result of Summers's request, made during internal debates, that the new cyber official not have broad policy-making powers over the Internet, for fear that it might restrain economic growth and innovation. It remains to be seen how limited the new czar's powers will be, but many in the business community have supported Summers's stance.
"Given the constant temptation for meddling in technology policy by both political parties, a czar can easily become a central figure in the drive to regulate someone, somewhere, rather than simply tend to government-modernization knitting," said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Still, major business trade associations applauded the new moves from the White House. Phil Bond, the president of TechAmerica, which represents many of the companies that help run the Internet, called Obama's emerging plan "a historic step in the right direction." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised Obama for making good on his campaign promise to give cyber-security a high profile. "Cyber-threats are real, growing, and causing significant challenges for businesses," said Ann Beauchesne, the chamber's vice president for national security and emergency preparedness.
But the cyber-chief will have to do more than elevate the status of the issue, or launch a public awareness campaign about cyber-threats, another key part of Obama's policy. The czar will have to take on big, entrenched bureaucracies to significantly advance the president's agenda.
Turf Dispute
Today, two large departments exert the most influence over cyber-security policy and actual cyber-defense. The Defense Department is responsible for protecting military assets and, through the National Security Agency, classified intelligence and other sensitive information. The Homeland Security Department is charged with ensuring that civilian agencies and departments are protected and coordinates the safeguarding of critical infrastructures, such as electrical systems, with the private sector.
The Defense Department has no plans to relinquish its authority. On the contrary, it is setting up a Cyber Command to be headed by Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, who currently directs the NSA. Alexander also commands the Joint Functional Component Command, an elite group of computer operators responsible not only for defending Pentagon networks but also for hacking into an adversary's systems for the purpose of cyber-warfare.
Meanwhile, at the Homeland Security Department, officials also intend to continue their role in civilian government security and their work with the private sector. During his confirmation hearing, Obama's nominee for a senior DHS post said that the appointment of a cyber-czar wouldn't diminish the department's responsibilities.
"There was no realignment of roles and missions in the department, and it is the view in the White House that [DHS] will continue to play a central role in the protection of America's cyber infrastructure," said Rand Beers, the nominee for undersecretary in the National Protection and Programs Directorate. But Beers said that the czar would have to help settle bureaucratic disputes. "I'm sorry to say we need help from the White House for people to play in the same sandbox."
Homeland Security and the NSA have sparred in the past over operational control of cyber-security. The agency has the expertise and experience for that job, but DHS officials have asserted that they have the legal authority to safeguard government networks and coordinate broader protection with the private sector. Nothing in the president's new plan settles these turf fights.
This is the 20th and final report in a series looking at an issue on President Obama's agenda. The entire series can be found at NationalJournal.com/agenda.
President Obama is making cyber-security a top priority, but he faces several hurdles within his own administration.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
by Shane Harris
y the time Barack Obama took office, he was convinced that the Internet was an extraordinary tool for communicating, organizing, and raising money, and that it also posed a critical vulnerability for national security.
During the campaign, Obama's computer systems were hacked, and the intruders made off with valuable information. As the president recounted in a speech in May, "Between August and October [2008], hackers gained access to e-mails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans. And we worked closely with the CIA, with the FBI and the Secret Service, and hired security consultants to restore the security of our systems." Republican nominee John McCain's campaign computers were also compromised.
Newsweek first reported the cyber-breach in November 2008. Technology experts at Obama's campaign headquarters had detected what they thought was a computer virus, according to the magazine. But a day later, the FBI and Secret Service warned the campaign: "You have a problem way bigger than you understand. You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system."
Newsweek reported that FBI and White House officials told the Obama campaign that "a foreign entity or organization" had launched the attack to gather information about the evolution of the campaign's policy positions, "information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration." A former senior intelligence official told National Journal that Chinese sources were responsible. Separately, the government's top counterintelligence official said that hackers based in China have stolen information from U.S. businesses to get a leg up in negotiations. The hack of Obama's computers fits a general pattern of cyber-espionage.
In recalling the episode in his speech last month, Obama said, "It was a powerful reminder: In this Information Age, one of your greatest strengths -- in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet -- could also be one of your greatest vulnerabilities." The occasion of the speech was the much-anticipated unveiling of the administration's Cyberspace Policy Review. The document is the product of an inventory that Obama ordered of security policies, plans, and studies, and it is an opening step in what the president called "a new, comprehensive approach to securing America's digital infrastructure."
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama has made cyber-security a top priority, and he's putting presidential clout behind the effort. "This new approach starts at the top, with this commitment from me," he said. "From now on, our digital infrastructure -- the networks and computers we depend on every day -- will be treated as they should be: as a strategic national asset."
In protecting the Internet, Obama seeks to safeguard the very integrity of global commerce, communications, and the operation of government. "In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber-security," he said.
Obama cited startling statistics, ranging from intellectual-property theft -- estimated at $1 trillion worldwide last year -- to cybercrime perpetrated on everyday users of the banking system. "In one brazen act last year," he said, "thieves used stolen credit card information to steal millions of dollars from 130 ATMs in 49 cities around the world -- and they did it in just 30 minutes."
Obama also recognized that the nation's energy production and delivery systems are vulnerable because many of them are run by computers connected to the Internet. "We know that cyber-intruders have probed our electrical grid and that in other countries, cyberattackers have plunged entire cities into darkness," Obama said, marking the first time that a U.S. president has ever publicly acknowledged such serious intrusions.
Cyber-Czar
Obama also promised to put a high-level official in charge of coordinating cyber-security across the government. During the campaign, he said that this person would "report directly to me." But when Obama unveiled his cyber-policy review, he announced that the official would have "regular access to me."
"That is not the same as an adviser. And this is a difference that can mean a lot in Washington circles," said Eugene H. Spafford, a professor at Purdue University who's the executive director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security. He compared the position with the "largely ineffectual" job of cyber-security coordinator set up in the first months of the Bush administration. The person in that post, Richard Clarke, was an early evangelist for a national response to cyber-security, but he was also seen as lacking the budgetary authority and full backing of the president necessary to make real headway on the issue.
The new cyber-czar will occupy an unusual spot in the White House pecking order. He or she will report to the national security adviser, James Jones, as well as the director of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers. This bifurcated arrangement was reportedly the result of Summers's request, made during internal debates, that the new cyber official not have broad policy-making powers over the Internet, for fear that it might restrain economic growth and innovation. It remains to be seen how limited the new czar's powers will be, but many in the business community have supported Summers's stance.
"Given the constant temptation for meddling in technology policy by both political parties, a czar can easily become a central figure in the drive to regulate someone, somewhere, rather than simply tend to government-modernization knitting," said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Still, major business trade associations applauded the new moves from the White House. Phil Bond, the president of TechAmerica, which represents many of the companies that help run the Internet, called Obama's emerging plan "a historic step in the right direction." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised Obama for making good on his campaign promise to give cyber-security a high profile. "Cyber-threats are real, growing, and causing significant challenges for businesses," said Ann Beauchesne, the chamber's vice president for national security and emergency preparedness.
But the cyber-chief will have to do more than elevate the status of the issue, or launch a public awareness campaign about cyber-threats, another key part of Obama's policy. The czar will have to take on big, entrenched bureaucracies to significantly advance the president's agenda.
Turf Dispute
Today, two large departments exert the most influence over cyber-security policy and actual cyber-defense. The Defense Department is responsible for protecting military assets and, through the National Security Agency, classified intelligence and other sensitive information. The Homeland Security Department is charged with ensuring that civilian agencies and departments are protected and coordinates the safeguarding of critical infrastructures, such as electrical systems, with the private sector.
The Defense Department has no plans to relinquish its authority. On the contrary, it is setting up a Cyber Command to be headed by Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, who currently directs the NSA. Alexander also commands the Joint Functional Component Command, an elite group of computer operators responsible not only for defending Pentagon networks but also for hacking into an adversary's systems for the purpose of cyber-warfare.
Meanwhile, at the Homeland Security Department, officials also intend to continue their role in civilian government security and their work with the private sector. During his confirmation hearing, Obama's nominee for a senior DHS post said that the appointment of a cyber-czar wouldn't diminish the department's responsibilities.
"There was no realignment of roles and missions in the department, and it is the view in the White House that [DHS] will continue to play a central role in the protection of America's cyber infrastructure," said Rand Beers, the nominee for undersecretary in the National Protection and Programs Directorate. But Beers said that the czar would have to help settle bureaucratic disputes. "I'm sorry to say we need help from the White House for people to play in the same sandbox."
Homeland Security and the NSA have sparred in the past over operational control of cyber-security. The agency has the expertise and experience for that job, but DHS officials have asserted that they have the legal authority to safeguard government networks and coordinate broader protection with the private sector. Nothing in the president's new plan settles these turf fights.
This is the 20th and final report in a series looking at an issue on President Obama's agenda. The entire series can be found at NationalJournal.com/agenda.
23 June 2009
DOD MULLS OPTIONS FOR SHIFTING UP TO $75 BILLION TO RESHAPE MILITARY (Updated)
Ochmanek develops proposals
DOD MULLS OPTIONS FOR SHIFTING UP TO $75 BILLION TO RESHAPE MILITARY (Updated)
[ Editor's note: The original version of this story said DOD was exempt from OMB's recent directive that all federal agencies must prepare FY-11 budget alternatives that freeze spending at FY-10 levels and another that assumes a 5 percent cut. An OMB spokesman, who told InsideDefense.com on June 12 that DOD was exempt from both, today said DOD is exempt only from the latter assignment. ]
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering options to reshape the military that could squeeze up to $75 billion from current budget plans to pay for new capabilities and units designed to deal with high-end asymmetric threats and irregular operations, according to Pentagon officials.
Three previously unreported proposals -- prepared by David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, and presented to Gates during a June 5 meeting on the Quadrennial Defense Review -- set forth low-, medium-, and high-cost options for buying new capabilities and units over the next five years, these officials say.
In approximate terms, the low-cost option would cost $25 billion, the medium-cost option $50 billion and the high-cost option $75 billion, according to military officials.
“That amount of money, even for the smallest option, is not available,” said a Pentagon official. That has led many Defense Department officials to conclude that any major changes to “reshape” the military services, in Gates’ oft-used term, will be paid for out of hide.
The proposals for new capabilities are being drawn up as the services and the office of program analysis and evaluation are wrapping up a series of studies commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These include an examination of the military’s current mix of ground forces, an amphibious warfare study and a review of tactical aircraft plans.
Officials say the objective of the proposals drawn up by Ochmanek for “rebalancing” the force appear to be aimed -- at this juncture -- at stimulating debate rather than winning support for an immediate decision.
“I don’t think the intent is to choose option one, option two, or option three,” said a Pentagon official. “I think the intent is to expose ideas.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget last week signaled that the fiscal year 2011 budget will be tight, directing most federal agencies to prepare alternative budgets that freeze spending at FY-10 levels as well as a version that imposes a 5 percent cut. The Pentagon, which in May received its FY-11 fiscal guidance, is exempt from the portion of the recent OMB directive requiring a budget alternative that assumes a 5 percent reduction.
Gates last month said that simply supporting the current modernization plan will require annual increases of 2 percent real growth -- after accounting for inflation -- over the next few years, more than the White House forecast in the outyears for the Defense Department in its FY-10 budget proposal last month.
“This is not just a cut drill,” said a defense analyst tracking the QDR. The analyst added that funding will have to be harvested from existing programs and force structure to finance the new capabilities that Gates and the Obama administration say are necessary to deal with future challenges.
These challenges include anti-access strategies and capabilities that China is developing. Also carrying hefty price tags are efforts to improve the U.S. ability to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to bolster special operations forces and general purpose forces for irregular warfare.
In January, Gates told Congress he intends for the QDR to have a “dramatic impact” on the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2011 budget request.
In April, Gates handed down a revised fiscal year 2010 request he called a “reform” budget. It encompassed changes to more than 50 programs, including program terminations, restructurings and efforts to improve military support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last month, the Pentagon’s No. 3 official said Gates aims to use the QDR to continue “reshaping” the military services.
“This QDR is going to continue the process of rebalancing that Secretary Gates has really begun in the FY-10 budget,” Michèle Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters on May 20. -- Jason Sherman
PENTAGON-25-24-1
DOD MULLS OPTIONS FOR SHIFTING UP TO $75 BILLION TO RESHAPE MILITARY (Updated)
[ Editor's note: The original version of this story said DOD was exempt from OMB's recent directive that all federal agencies must prepare FY-11 budget alternatives that freeze spending at FY-10 levels and another that assumes a 5 percent cut. An OMB spokesman, who told InsideDefense.com on June 12 that DOD was exempt from both, today said DOD is exempt only from the latter assignment. ]
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering options to reshape the military that could squeeze up to $75 billion from current budget plans to pay for new capabilities and units designed to deal with high-end asymmetric threats and irregular operations, according to Pentagon officials.
Three previously unreported proposals -- prepared by David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, and presented to Gates during a June 5 meeting on the Quadrennial Defense Review -- set forth low-, medium-, and high-cost options for buying new capabilities and units over the next five years, these officials say.
In approximate terms, the low-cost option would cost $25 billion, the medium-cost option $50 billion and the high-cost option $75 billion, according to military officials.
“That amount of money, even for the smallest option, is not available,” said a Pentagon official. That has led many Defense Department officials to conclude that any major changes to “reshape” the military services, in Gates’ oft-used term, will be paid for out of hide.
The proposals for new capabilities are being drawn up as the services and the office of program analysis and evaluation are wrapping up a series of studies commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These include an examination of the military’s current mix of ground forces, an amphibious warfare study and a review of tactical aircraft plans.
Officials say the objective of the proposals drawn up by Ochmanek for “rebalancing” the force appear to be aimed -- at this juncture -- at stimulating debate rather than winning support for an immediate decision.
“I don’t think the intent is to choose option one, option two, or option three,” said a Pentagon official. “I think the intent is to expose ideas.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget last week signaled that the fiscal year 2011 budget will be tight, directing most federal agencies to prepare alternative budgets that freeze spending at FY-10 levels as well as a version that imposes a 5 percent cut. The Pentagon, which in May received its FY-11 fiscal guidance, is exempt from the portion of the recent OMB directive requiring a budget alternative that assumes a 5 percent reduction.
Gates last month said that simply supporting the current modernization plan will require annual increases of 2 percent real growth -- after accounting for inflation -- over the next few years, more than the White House forecast in the outyears for the Defense Department in its FY-10 budget proposal last month.
“This is not just a cut drill,” said a defense analyst tracking the QDR. The analyst added that funding will have to be harvested from existing programs and force structure to finance the new capabilities that Gates and the Obama administration say are necessary to deal with future challenges.
These challenges include anti-access strategies and capabilities that China is developing. Also carrying hefty price tags are efforts to improve the U.S. ability to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to bolster special operations forces and general purpose forces for irregular warfare.
In January, Gates told Congress he intends for the QDR to have a “dramatic impact” on the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2011 budget request.
In April, Gates handed down a revised fiscal year 2010 request he called a “reform” budget. It encompassed changes to more than 50 programs, including program terminations, restructurings and efforts to improve military support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last month, the Pentagon’s No. 3 official said Gates aims to use the QDR to continue “reshaping” the military services.
“This QDR is going to continue the process of rebalancing that Secretary Gates has really begun in the FY-10 budget,” Michèle Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters on May 20. -- Jason Sherman
PENTAGON-25-24-1
New National Defense Panel
NDP Vision
The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, made public today, spells out what committee members have in mind for the National Defense Panel, which would be charged with critiquing the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.
As envisioned in the bill, the panel will consist of 12 "recognized experts" in national security matters. The House and Senate Armed Services committee chairmen will each appoint three members; the committees' ranking members each get to pick two. The defense secretary also may appoint two members.
The NDP's first meeting must be no later than 30 days after all the commission members are appointed, according to the legislation. The meeting would still take place if the defense secretary's appointment slots are unfilled at that time, the bill states.
An initial report outlining "findings" is due to Congress and the defense secretary by April 15, 2010, according to the legislation. A final report -- with findings plus recommendations -- is due by Jan. 15, 2011.
One month later that year, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must file a report with "comments" on the NDP's final product.
As for data sharing between the Pentagon and the commission, the bill authorizes panel members to "secure directly from [DOD] . . . such information as the panel considers necessary to carry out its duties," the legislation reads. Information must be provided "promptly," it adds.
One of the NDP's duties is to dissect the intellectual backdrop against which Pentagon leaders are conducting the QDR, according to the bill. Members also should assess findings, assumptions, strategies and cost implications outlined in the QDR report, paying "particular attention" to the issue of risk.
The panel must critique any force structure proposals included in the QDR report and offer an "independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures." It is unclear from the bill text who would bring these alternatives into play.
Finally, panel members must estimate the cost of any force structure moves -- either those advanced by DOD through the QDR, or any alternatives.
-- Sebastian Sprenger
The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, made public today, spells out what committee members have in mind for the National Defense Panel, which would be charged with critiquing the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.
As envisioned in the bill, the panel will consist of 12 "recognized experts" in national security matters. The House and Senate Armed Services committee chairmen will each appoint three members; the committees' ranking members each get to pick two. The defense secretary also may appoint two members.
The NDP's first meeting must be no later than 30 days after all the commission members are appointed, according to the legislation. The meeting would still take place if the defense secretary's appointment slots are unfilled at that time, the bill states.
An initial report outlining "findings" is due to Congress and the defense secretary by April 15, 2010, according to the legislation. A final report -- with findings plus recommendations -- is due by Jan. 15, 2011.
One month later that year, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must file a report with "comments" on the NDP's final product.
As for data sharing between the Pentagon and the commission, the bill authorizes panel members to "secure directly from [DOD] . . . such information as the panel considers necessary to carry out its duties," the legislation reads. Information must be provided "promptly," it adds.
One of the NDP's duties is to dissect the intellectual backdrop against which Pentagon leaders are conducting the QDR, according to the bill. Members also should assess findings, assumptions, strategies and cost implications outlined in the QDR report, paying "particular attention" to the issue of risk.
The panel must critique any force structure proposals included in the QDR report and offer an "independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures." It is unclear from the bill text who would bring these alternatives into play.
Finally, panel members must estimate the cost of any force structure moves -- either those advanced by DOD through the QDR, or any alternatives.
-- Sebastian Sprenger
Draft White Paper from Army Chief Sees Hybrid Warfare as New 'Aim Point'
Draft White Paper from Army Chief Sees Hybrid Warfare as New 'Aim Point'
June 22, 2009 -- Army officials must "completely change" their thinking as they make the conduct of hybrid warfare the service's central "aim point" from which all programs and plans flow, according to a May 29 draft of a white paper by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey.
In Pentagon jargon, the term hybrid warfare describes conflicts exhibiting characteristics of both traditional, force-on-force operations and irregular, guerrilla-style warfare. Pentagon officials believe hybrid warfare will be the predominant kind of conflict in the foreseeable future.
A focus on hybrid warfare -- Casey's white paper puts the type of conflict somewhere right-of-center on a notional axis of peace on left and war on the right -- would bring with it increased flexibility to take on a variety of missions, the draft document argues. “From this aim point, we can more readily adapt along the spectrum of conflict, weighting offense, defense and stability operations according to mission requirements,” it states.
In that context, capabilities designed to defeat regular adversaries must be “adaptable” for use against “irregular” enemies, the paper states.
While service officials have begun taking to heart the implications of hybrid warfare on their thinking, more must be done to move the Army away from an “aim point” born during the Cold War, Casey argues.
“Our current institutional processes and programs devolved from a different aim point and an expired operational concept,” the document states. “The culture of the Army has not totally assimilated our new aim point and doctrine, ones focused at the middle of the spectrum of conflict and on full-spectrum operations,” it adds.
A “balanced Army,” as the document calls it, rests on the service being “versatile, expeditionary, agile, lethal, sustainable and interoperable.”
Versatility depends in large part on a functioning Army Force Generation process and the modular fighting forces it provides, according to the white paper.
“It is our strategic estimate, supported by our experience over the last two decades, that for the foreseeable future we need a multi-weight force, composed of infantry [brigade combat teams] augmented with protected vehicles, Stryker BCTs and armored BCTs -- forces of high mobility and robust protection” to meet 21st-century security challenges, the document states.
The document floats the idea of “relaxing the linkage” between Army units and their equipment. Citing recent experiences, Casey sees merit in independently moving equipment around the globe and giving it to forces arriving in a given crisis region as needed.
“We can extend this versatility by rethinking the composition of our Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS), ensuring that they contain a wide range of capabilities, to include those that increase the survivability of infantry BCTs within an improvised explosive device environment,” the white paper states. “In this way, we can ensure our forces are fully prepared for the broadest range of challenges.”
Positioning hybrid warfare as the Army's “aim point” should not be confused with optimizing the service for irregular warfare, the draft white paper states. “While we realize the importance of irregular warfare, the Army does not view it as a distinct, unique category of conflict -- warfare is warfare,” the document reads.
According to a spokesman, Casey was traveling at press time and could not be reached for comment on the draft paper. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6222009_june22b
June 22, 2009 -- Army officials must "completely change" their thinking as they make the conduct of hybrid warfare the service's central "aim point" from which all programs and plans flow, according to a May 29 draft of a white paper by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey.
In Pentagon jargon, the term hybrid warfare describes conflicts exhibiting characteristics of both traditional, force-on-force operations and irregular, guerrilla-style warfare. Pentagon officials believe hybrid warfare will be the predominant kind of conflict in the foreseeable future.
A focus on hybrid warfare -- Casey's white paper puts the type of conflict somewhere right-of-center on a notional axis of peace on left and war on the right -- would bring with it increased flexibility to take on a variety of missions, the draft document argues. “From this aim point, we can more readily adapt along the spectrum of conflict, weighting offense, defense and stability operations according to mission requirements,” it states.
In that context, capabilities designed to defeat regular adversaries must be “adaptable” for use against “irregular” enemies, the paper states.
While service officials have begun taking to heart the implications of hybrid warfare on their thinking, more must be done to move the Army away from an “aim point” born during the Cold War, Casey argues.
“Our current institutional processes and programs devolved from a different aim point and an expired operational concept,” the document states. “The culture of the Army has not totally assimilated our new aim point and doctrine, ones focused at the middle of the spectrum of conflict and on full-spectrum operations,” it adds.
A “balanced Army,” as the document calls it, rests on the service being “versatile, expeditionary, agile, lethal, sustainable and interoperable.”
Versatility depends in large part on a functioning Army Force Generation process and the modular fighting forces it provides, according to the white paper.
“It is our strategic estimate, supported by our experience over the last two decades, that for the foreseeable future we need a multi-weight force, composed of infantry [brigade combat teams] augmented with protected vehicles, Stryker BCTs and armored BCTs -- forces of high mobility and robust protection” to meet 21st-century security challenges, the document states.
The document floats the idea of “relaxing the linkage” between Army units and their equipment. Citing recent experiences, Casey sees merit in independently moving equipment around the globe and giving it to forces arriving in a given crisis region as needed.
“We can extend this versatility by rethinking the composition of our Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS), ensuring that they contain a wide range of capabilities, to include those that increase the survivability of infantry BCTs within an improvised explosive device environment,” the white paper states. “In this way, we can ensure our forces are fully prepared for the broadest range of challenges.”
Positioning hybrid warfare as the Army's “aim point” should not be confused with optimizing the service for irregular warfare, the draft white paper states. “While we realize the importance of irregular warfare, the Army does not view it as a distinct, unique category of conflict -- warfare is warfare,” the document reads.
According to a spokesman, Casey was traveling at press time and could not be reached for comment on the draft paper. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6222009_june22b
22 June 2009
Rep. Abercrombie: Quadrennial Defense Review a 'PR Exercise'
June 18, 2009 -- The chairman of the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee today blasted the Quadrennial Defense Review as neither valuable nor reliable.
Speaking at a breakfast with reporters in Washington this morning, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) said he and others on Capitol Hill had high hopes for the original QDR because of the support of retired Gen. Colin Powell.
“So the assumption -- possibly a bit naïve by myself and others -- was that Gen. Powell . . . had such amazing credibility at the time, and the atmosphere in the Congress was such that everybody recognized there had to be some changes in the direction and modernization and so on,” Abercrombie said.
“We thought that that's what it was going to be,” he continued. “Well, what it turned out to be -- I remember when we first got it, I looked at it and I thought, 'This is a PR stunt.'”
The QDR, a congressionally mandated assessment that includes a review of force structure, strategy and equipment, kicked off earlier this year with guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to consider how the military might “rebalance” its capabilities to deal with an increasingly complex set of national security challenges. These include not only traditional military allies and terrorist groups, but forces like climate change and the global financial crisis.
Of the first QDR, Abercrombie said “it was generals of four stars staring into the middle distance.”
“There was nothing, and it's all rhetorical flourishes, and here we go,” he added. “It's all Thunderbird stuff, booms and all that.”
The subcommittee chair went a step farther, contending that the QDR harms the budgetary process because it acts as “a stall.”
Abercrombie said President Obama -- busy with domestic and foreign policy issues -- is deferring in the area of defense “to the ongoing enterprise.
“And Mr. Gates, I think, should have used that as an opportunity to make the transition from the previous administration, to serve the president better by not putting off this stuff and trying to fool people into thinking that somehow this PR exercise that the QDR is, is going to present some kind of definitive pathway to strategic proposals by the Defense Department,” he continued.
Despite the criticism, Abercrombie had positive words for Gates' overall efforts.
“I think he's done an excellent job at trying to make this transition and has a desire, a genuine desire to deal with questions that previously were not dealt with adequately,” he told reporters, adding that Gates has made many changes -- in areas like the presidential helicopter program -- the committee has long supported.
“I think he's taken extraordinarily positive steps in terms of trying to come to grips realistically and forthrightly with some of the imperatives associated with defense now, both from a fiscal point of view and from a policy point of view,” Abercrombie said today. “I couldn't be more enthusiastic about the idea that he's trying to come to grips with this.” -- Marjorie Censer
6182009_june18a
Speaking at a breakfast with reporters in Washington this morning, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) said he and others on Capitol Hill had high hopes for the original QDR because of the support of retired Gen. Colin Powell.
“So the assumption -- possibly a bit naïve by myself and others -- was that Gen. Powell . . . had such amazing credibility at the time, and the atmosphere in the Congress was such that everybody recognized there had to be some changes in the direction and modernization and so on,” Abercrombie said.
“We thought that that's what it was going to be,” he continued. “Well, what it turned out to be -- I remember when we first got it, I looked at it and I thought, 'This is a PR stunt.'”
The QDR, a congressionally mandated assessment that includes a review of force structure, strategy and equipment, kicked off earlier this year with guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to consider how the military might “rebalance” its capabilities to deal with an increasingly complex set of national security challenges. These include not only traditional military allies and terrorist groups, but forces like climate change and the global financial crisis.
Of the first QDR, Abercrombie said “it was generals of four stars staring into the middle distance.”
“There was nothing, and it's all rhetorical flourishes, and here we go,” he added. “It's all Thunderbird stuff, booms and all that.”
The subcommittee chair went a step farther, contending that the QDR harms the budgetary process because it acts as “a stall.”
Abercrombie said President Obama -- busy with domestic and foreign policy issues -- is deferring in the area of defense “to the ongoing enterprise.
“And Mr. Gates, I think, should have used that as an opportunity to make the transition from the previous administration, to serve the president better by not putting off this stuff and trying to fool people into thinking that somehow this PR exercise that the QDR is, is going to present some kind of definitive pathway to strategic proposals by the Defense Department,” he continued.
Despite the criticism, Abercrombie had positive words for Gates' overall efforts.
“I think he's done an excellent job at trying to make this transition and has a desire, a genuine desire to deal with questions that previously were not dealt with adequately,” he told reporters, adding that Gates has made many changes -- in areas like the presidential helicopter program -- the committee has long supported.
“I think he's taken extraordinarily positive steps in terms of trying to come to grips realistically and forthrightly with some of the imperatives associated with defense now, both from a fiscal point of view and from a policy point of view,” Abercrombie said today. “I couldn't be more enthusiastic about the idea that he's trying to come to grips with this.” -- Marjorie Censer
6182009_june18a
18 June 2009
Gates Mulls Options for Shifting Up To $75 Billion to Reshape the Military
June 17, 2009 -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering options to reshape the military that could squeeze up to $75 billion from current budget plans to pay for new capabilities and units designed to deal with high-end asymmetric threats and irregular operations, according to Pentagon officials.
Three previously unreported proposals -- prepared by David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, and presented to Gates during a June 5 meeting on the Quadrennial Defense Review -- set forth low-, medium- and high-cost options for buying new capabilities and units over the next five years, these officials say.
In approximate terms, the low-cost option would cost $25 billion, the medium-cost option $50 billion and the high-cost option $75 billion, according to military officials.
“That amount of money, even for the smallest option, is not available,” said a Pentagon official. That has led many Defense Department officials to conclude that any major changes to “reshape” the military services, in Gates’ oft-used term, will be paid for out of hide.
The proposals for new capabilities are being drawn up as the services and the office of program analysis and evaluation are wrapping up a series of studies commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These include an examination of the military’s current mix of ground forces, an amphibious warfare study and a review of tactical aircraft plans (DefenseAlert, May 27).
Officials say the objective of the proposals drawn up by Ochmanek for “rebalancing” the force appear to be aimed -- at this juncture -- at stimulating debate rather than winning support for an immediate decision.
“I don't think the intent is to choose option one, option two, or option three,” said a Pentagon official. “I think the intent is to expose ideas.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget last week signaled that the fiscal year 2011 budget will be tight, directing most federal agencies to prepare alternative budgets that freeze spending at FY-10 levels as well as a version that imposes a 5 percent cut. The Pentagon, which in May received its FY-11 fiscal guidance, is exempt from the recent OMB directive (DefenseAlert, June 16).
Gates last month said that simply supporting the current modernization plan will require annual increases of 2 percent real growth -- after accounting for inflation -- over the next few years, more than the White House forecast in the outyears for the Defense Department in its FY-10 budget proposal last month.
“This is not just a cut drill,” said a defense analyst tracking the QDR. The analyst added that funding would have to be harvested from existing programs and force structure to finance the new capabilities that Gates and the Obama administration say are necessary to deal with future challenges.
These challenges include anti-access strategies and capabilities that China is developing. Also carrying hefty price tags are efforts to improve the U.S. ability to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to bolster special operations forces and general-purpose forces for irregular warfare.
In January, Gates told Congress he intends for the QDR to have a “dramatic impact” on the Pentagon's fiscal year 2011 budget request (DefenseAlert, Jan. 27).
In April, Gates handed down a revised fiscal year 2010 request he called a “reform” budget. It encompassed changes to more than 50 programs, including program terminations, restructurings and efforts to improve military support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (DefenseAlert, April 6).
Last month, the Pentagon's No. 3 official said Gates aims to use the QDR to continue “reshaping” the military services.
“This QDR is going to continue the process of rebalancing that Secretary Gates has really begun in the FY-10 budget,” Michèle Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters on May 20. -- Jason Sherman
6172009_june17d
Three previously unreported proposals -- prepared by David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, and presented to Gates during a June 5 meeting on the Quadrennial Defense Review -- set forth low-, medium- and high-cost options for buying new capabilities and units over the next five years, these officials say.
In approximate terms, the low-cost option would cost $25 billion, the medium-cost option $50 billion and the high-cost option $75 billion, according to military officials.
“That amount of money, even for the smallest option, is not available,” said a Pentagon official. That has led many Defense Department officials to conclude that any major changes to “reshape” the military services, in Gates’ oft-used term, will be paid for out of hide.
The proposals for new capabilities are being drawn up as the services and the office of program analysis and evaluation are wrapping up a series of studies commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. These include an examination of the military’s current mix of ground forces, an amphibious warfare study and a review of tactical aircraft plans (DefenseAlert, May 27).
Officials say the objective of the proposals drawn up by Ochmanek for “rebalancing” the force appear to be aimed -- at this juncture -- at stimulating debate rather than winning support for an immediate decision.
“I don't think the intent is to choose option one, option two, or option three,” said a Pentagon official. “I think the intent is to expose ideas.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget last week signaled that the fiscal year 2011 budget will be tight, directing most federal agencies to prepare alternative budgets that freeze spending at FY-10 levels as well as a version that imposes a 5 percent cut. The Pentagon, which in May received its FY-11 fiscal guidance, is exempt from the recent OMB directive (DefenseAlert, June 16).
Gates last month said that simply supporting the current modernization plan will require annual increases of 2 percent real growth -- after accounting for inflation -- over the next few years, more than the White House forecast in the outyears for the Defense Department in its FY-10 budget proposal last month.
“This is not just a cut drill,” said a defense analyst tracking the QDR. The analyst added that funding would have to be harvested from existing programs and force structure to finance the new capabilities that Gates and the Obama administration say are necessary to deal with future challenges.
These challenges include anti-access strategies and capabilities that China is developing. Also carrying hefty price tags are efforts to improve the U.S. ability to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to bolster special operations forces and general-purpose forces for irregular warfare.
In January, Gates told Congress he intends for the QDR to have a “dramatic impact” on the Pentagon's fiscal year 2011 budget request (DefenseAlert, Jan. 27).
In April, Gates handed down a revised fiscal year 2010 request he called a “reform” budget. It encompassed changes to more than 50 programs, including program terminations, restructurings and efforts to improve military support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (DefenseAlert, April 6).
Last month, the Pentagon's No. 3 official said Gates aims to use the QDR to continue “reshaping” the military services.
“This QDR is going to continue the process of rebalancing that Secretary Gates has really begun in the FY-10 budget,” Michèle Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters on May 20. -- Jason Sherman
6172009_june17d
House Bill Boosts Special Ops Funding, Creates QDR Commission
June 17, 2009 -- The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill adds $308 million to the Defense Department's request for special operations efforts and establishes a congressional commission for critiquing the Quadrennial Defense Review, according to a summary of the bill released by the panel this morning.
The National Defense Panel's task would be to conduct an “independent review of the QDR's effectiveness and issue recommendations on how to improve the decision making process for determining national priorities,” the summary reads.
The panel would be the second congressional group on the QDR created by the House bill. The legislation also extends by 12 months the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, led by former defense secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger.
“This additional year will allow the commission to review and submit a report on the strategic security issues addressed by the pending Nuclear Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review, and any relevant congressional actions,” according to a June 11 statement by the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, where the provision originated.
The House bill also requires a review by the Government Accountability Office to determine whether defense officials conducted the QDR according to statutory guidelines. Should auditors determine that officials deviated from those guidelines, DOD officials must explain why, according to the legislation.
Another QDR-related provision requires a report from the Pentagon on the force-structure requirements used to “guide” the process.
The bill authorizes $9 billion for special operations efforts, including money for U.S. Special Operations Command projects outside the FY-10 defense budget request. Additional money goes to improved surveillance capabilities, communications systems and modifications to air and ground vehicles, according to the summary.
The legislation also “revises” the statute governing special operations activities. The new verbiage places “greater emphasis on unconventional warfare, irregular warfare, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency,” according to the summary.
The Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) program, managed by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO), would get a funding boost of $100 million. The multi-agency office is managed by the assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities.
The IWS program helps conduct irregular warfare and counterinsurgency “programs” against “hostile human networks,” the summary states.
The funding plus-up would be taken from the budget for a core activity of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization -- the fight against the network of individuals behind IED attacks.
While the summary lauds JIEDDO's plans to spend more in this area, “the committee believes the [IWS] program is better positioned” for the work, the document states.
The bill also expands SOCOM's so-called Section 1208 program by $15 million, bringing its annual spending authority to $50 million. Officials use the program to bolster foreign militias helping U.S. forces in counterterrorism operations.
In the area of acquisition, the bill authorizes defense officials to create 10 pilot programs for buying information technology systems more quickly than the regular acquisition process would allow.
Officials have long decried the slow speed of the defense acquisition process for information systems. The field is particularly affected because improvements in information technology capabilities appear on the market more frequently than in other sectors.
In another information technology-related provision, House Armed Services Committee members want to authorize the temporary assignment of military IT experts to the private sector, and vice versa.
New reporting requirements include an annual assessment of Iran's military capabilities and a new section in the Pentagon's annual China report regarding military cooperation with Beijing.
The bill is expected to go to the House floor on June 25, according to House Armed Services Committee spokeswoman Lara Battles. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6172009_june17c
The National Defense Panel's task would be to conduct an “independent review of the QDR's effectiveness and issue recommendations on how to improve the decision making process for determining national priorities,” the summary reads.
The panel would be the second congressional group on the QDR created by the House bill. The legislation also extends by 12 months the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, led by former defense secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger.
“This additional year will allow the commission to review and submit a report on the strategic security issues addressed by the pending Nuclear Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review, and any relevant congressional actions,” according to a June 11 statement by the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, where the provision originated.
The House bill also requires a review by the Government Accountability Office to determine whether defense officials conducted the QDR according to statutory guidelines. Should auditors determine that officials deviated from those guidelines, DOD officials must explain why, according to the legislation.
Another QDR-related provision requires a report from the Pentagon on the force-structure requirements used to “guide” the process.
The bill authorizes $9 billion for special operations efforts, including money for U.S. Special Operations Command projects outside the FY-10 defense budget request. Additional money goes to improved surveillance capabilities, communications systems and modifications to air and ground vehicles, according to the summary.
The legislation also “revises” the statute governing special operations activities. The new verbiage places “greater emphasis on unconventional warfare, irregular warfare, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency,” according to the summary.
The Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) program, managed by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO), would get a funding boost of $100 million. The multi-agency office is managed by the assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities.
The IWS program helps conduct irregular warfare and counterinsurgency “programs” against “hostile human networks,” the summary states.
The funding plus-up would be taken from the budget for a core activity of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization -- the fight against the network of individuals behind IED attacks.
While the summary lauds JIEDDO's plans to spend more in this area, “the committee believes the [IWS] program is better positioned” for the work, the document states.
The bill also expands SOCOM's so-called Section 1208 program by $15 million, bringing its annual spending authority to $50 million. Officials use the program to bolster foreign militias helping U.S. forces in counterterrorism operations.
In the area of acquisition, the bill authorizes defense officials to create 10 pilot programs for buying information technology systems more quickly than the regular acquisition process would allow.
Officials have long decried the slow speed of the defense acquisition process for information systems. The field is particularly affected because improvements in information technology capabilities appear on the market more frequently than in other sectors.
In another information technology-related provision, House Armed Services Committee members want to authorize the temporary assignment of military IT experts to the private sector, and vice versa.
New reporting requirements include an annual assessment of Iran's military capabilities and a new section in the Pentagon's annual China report regarding military cooperation with Beijing.
The bill is expected to go to the House floor on June 25, according to House Armed Services Committee spokeswoman Lara Battles. -- Sebastian Sprenger
6172009_june17c
Democrats Vote to Cut U.S. Missile Shield Spending
By william matthews Defense News
After a rancorous argument over missile defense, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee voted June 16 to limit the number of missile interceptor silos in Alaska to 30, scrapping 14 more that were planned when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.
Then they voted not to increase spending on the years-late, billions-over-budget airborne laser. Or to spend $400 million on a missile defense site in Europe.
The House committee spent most of the day again debating missile defense, a $9.2 billion morsel in the $680.4 billion defense budget for 2010. The protracted debate bogged down progress toward putting the finishing touches on the House version of the 2010 Defense Authorization Act.
And all the while, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Republicans on the committee want more spending on missile defense. Democrats don't.
Democrats have a dozen more members on the committee, so even on the occasions when two voted with the Republicans, it didn't matter.
Missile defense is budgeted $9.3 billion for 2010 - $1.2 billion less than in this year's military spending plan.
To Republicans, led by Reps. Michael Turner of Ohio and Trent Franks of Arizona, the decrease in spending threatens to leave the United States vulnerable just as North Korea and Iran are pushing aggressive ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
To Democrats, led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., years of lavish spending on poor-performing, ill-conceived programs is being brought under control.
The airborne laser, the kinetic energy interceptor and silo-based interceptors in Alaska and Poland are being reined in.
The sharpest debate came over 14 interceptor silos that are under construction in Alaska. If they are finished, they will bring the number of missile interceptors – missiles that shoot down attacking missiles – to 44.
But Democrats argued that 30 interceptors are enough. They said that for the first time, military commanders were consulted by Congress this year and the commanders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded that 30 interceptors "will provide a strong defense against North Korea," Tauscher said.
Turner and Franks said that was before North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon and launching of a handful of missiles.
Almost daily news reports on North Korea and Iran indicate that the threat of missile attacks on the United States is increasing, not decreasing, they said.
Tauscher, who is chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, insisted that, "No one has validated the number 44. No one could tell us the rationale for 44" interceptors versus 30.
She said the plan to build 44 silos was set sometime after 2002 during years that the Missile Defense Agency was free to operate with few checks from the Republican administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Under Tauscher's leadership for three years, the subcommittee has shifted the emphasis from ground-based interceptors intended to protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles to mobile- and ship-based interceptors intended to counter medium-range missiles.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., said Alaska's extra missile interceptors are strategically unimportant, but money should be spent on them anyway.
"Neither Iran nor North Korea will launch from their soil against us," Bartlett said. Missiles launched from those countries could be traced immediately and two things would probably happen: The United States would shoot down the missile, Bartlett said, and then the U.S. would "vaporize" the attacking country.
If either country attacks, it will be with a nuclear weapon smuggled into the United States, he said. Congress should be spending money to improve defenses along U.S. coasts, he said.
But the amount needed to finish building the 14 silos is $120 million. Having spent $780 billion on an economic stimulus bill to create jobs, spending $120 million on missile defense that will preserve thousands of jobs is "a trivial amount of money," Bartlett said.
The Democrats disagreed.
After a rancorous argument over missile defense, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee voted June 16 to limit the number of missile interceptor silos in Alaska to 30, scrapping 14 more that were planned when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.
Then they voted not to increase spending on the years-late, billions-over-budget airborne laser. Or to spend $400 million on a missile defense site in Europe.
The House committee spent most of the day again debating missile defense, a $9.2 billion morsel in the $680.4 billion defense budget for 2010. The protracted debate bogged down progress toward putting the finishing touches on the House version of the 2010 Defense Authorization Act.
And all the while, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Republicans on the committee want more spending on missile defense. Democrats don't.
Democrats have a dozen more members on the committee, so even on the occasions when two voted with the Republicans, it didn't matter.
Missile defense is budgeted $9.3 billion for 2010 - $1.2 billion less than in this year's military spending plan.
To Republicans, led by Reps. Michael Turner of Ohio and Trent Franks of Arizona, the decrease in spending threatens to leave the United States vulnerable just as North Korea and Iran are pushing aggressive ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
To Democrats, led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., years of lavish spending on poor-performing, ill-conceived programs is being brought under control.
The airborne laser, the kinetic energy interceptor and silo-based interceptors in Alaska and Poland are being reined in.
The sharpest debate came over 14 interceptor silos that are under construction in Alaska. If they are finished, they will bring the number of missile interceptors – missiles that shoot down attacking missiles – to 44.
But Democrats argued that 30 interceptors are enough. They said that for the first time, military commanders were consulted by Congress this year and the commanders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded that 30 interceptors "will provide a strong defense against North Korea," Tauscher said.
Turner and Franks said that was before North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon and launching of a handful of missiles.
Almost daily news reports on North Korea and Iran indicate that the threat of missile attacks on the United States is increasing, not decreasing, they said.
Tauscher, who is chairman of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, insisted that, "No one has validated the number 44. No one could tell us the rationale for 44" interceptors versus 30.
She said the plan to build 44 silos was set sometime after 2002 during years that the Missile Defense Agency was free to operate with few checks from the Republican administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Under Tauscher's leadership for three years, the subcommittee has shifted the emphasis from ground-based interceptors intended to protect against intercontinental ballistic missiles to mobile- and ship-based interceptors intended to counter medium-range missiles.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., said Alaska's extra missile interceptors are strategically unimportant, but money should be spent on them anyway.
"Neither Iran nor North Korea will launch from their soil against us," Bartlett said. Missiles launched from those countries could be traced immediately and two things would probably happen: The United States would shoot down the missile, Bartlett said, and then the U.S. would "vaporize" the attacking country.
If either country attacks, it will be with a nuclear weapon smuggled into the United States, he said. Congress should be spending money to improve defenses along U.S. coasts, he said.
But the amount needed to finish building the 14 silos is $120 million. Having spent $780 billion on an economic stimulus bill to create jobs, spending $120 million on missile defense that will preserve thousands of jobs is "a trivial amount of money," Bartlett said.
The Democrats disagreed.
17 June 2009
Pentagon to Probe Cyberdefense in QDR as Attacks on Military Computers Rise
June 15, 2009 -- The Quadrennial Defense Review will address cybersecurity in a variety of ways as the threat of network attacks against the Pentagon grows, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said today.
The department faces attacks against military and defense networks that could disrupt military networks, Lynn said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event in Washington on the Defense Department's role in cybersecurity. Pentagon computers are “probed thousands of times a day” and “scanned millions of times a day,” he added, noting that the frequency and sophistication of these attacks are increasing “exponentially.”
Last year, DOD experienced one of the most significant attacks on its military networks, he told the audience. Malicious software infected several thousand computers and forced U.S. troops and defense personnel to give up their external memory devices and thumb drives, “changing the way they use computers every day,” he remarked.
Although such attacks have not cost lives, “they are costing an increasing amount of money,” Lynn said. “In a recent six-month period alone last year, the Defense Department spent more than $100 million defending its networks.”
The government recently completed a 60-day cyber review, led by White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, of the government's computer infrastructure.
Because the country as a whole is unprepared for cyber challenges, network defense will play a central role in the QDR, Lynn said. During the review, DOD will assess current capabilities against requirements and make recommendations for the future. Lynn also said the United States needs doctrine to govern “how we protect cyberspace as a domain, how our forces are designed and trained to protect our networks.”
The QDR will look at three types of activities involving war-gaming and scenario-playing, he said.
“One is just the kind of conventional military scenarios, and we've added a cyber component to those so that we understand what the implications of Georgia and other harbingers of what we think the future might bring,” he said. Last year, Russia launched an attack on the country in which Georgian government computers were hit.
“Second we have a red team that's led by Andy Marshall, the director of net assessment at the Pentagon, and. . . Gen. Jim Mattis,” the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, he said. “And they are doing a red team analysis of those same scenarios and may have an even heavier emphasis on cyber scenarios.”
DefenseAlert first reported on the red team analysis on May 13.
Moreover, the Pentagon is consulting its own cyber experts to think about some “stand-alone cyber scenarios” that may be incorporated into the review, he said.
However, he said, DOD is pursuing a number of other initiatives prior to the completion of the QDR.
As an example, the fiscal year 2010 budget will triple the number of graduating cyber experts from 80 to 250 a year, Lynn told the audience.
In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to develop a cyber security range in the next fiscal year that would allow government agencies to test cyberdefense scenarios, he noted.
The Pentagon is also still considering the creation of a sub-unified cyber command under U.S. Strategic Forces Command, Lynn said.
“As of today, [Secretary] Gates has not made the final decision on this command,” he said. “Such a command would not represent the militarization of cyberspace. It would in no way be about the Defense Department trying to take over the government's cybersecurity effort.”
Gates is still “evaluating proposals,” Lynn said, while the Joint Staff is “working out the details of how this command would work and what the reporting relationships are.” -- Fawzia Sheikh
6152009_june15a
The department faces attacks against military and defense networks that could disrupt military networks, Lynn said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event in Washington on the Defense Department's role in cybersecurity. Pentagon computers are “probed thousands of times a day” and “scanned millions of times a day,” he added, noting that the frequency and sophistication of these attacks are increasing “exponentially.”
Last year, DOD experienced one of the most significant attacks on its military networks, he told the audience. Malicious software infected several thousand computers and forced U.S. troops and defense personnel to give up their external memory devices and thumb drives, “changing the way they use computers every day,” he remarked.
Although such attacks have not cost lives, “they are costing an increasing amount of money,” Lynn said. “In a recent six-month period alone last year, the Defense Department spent more than $100 million defending its networks.”
The government recently completed a 60-day cyber review, led by White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, of the government's computer infrastructure.
Because the country as a whole is unprepared for cyber challenges, network defense will play a central role in the QDR, Lynn said. During the review, DOD will assess current capabilities against requirements and make recommendations for the future. Lynn also said the United States needs doctrine to govern “how we protect cyberspace as a domain, how our forces are designed and trained to protect our networks.”
The QDR will look at three types of activities involving war-gaming and scenario-playing, he said.
“One is just the kind of conventional military scenarios, and we've added a cyber component to those so that we understand what the implications of Georgia and other harbingers of what we think the future might bring,” he said. Last year, Russia launched an attack on the country in which Georgian government computers were hit.
“Second we have a red team that's led by Andy Marshall, the director of net assessment at the Pentagon, and. . . Gen. Jim Mattis,” the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, he said. “And they are doing a red team analysis of those same scenarios and may have an even heavier emphasis on cyber scenarios.”
DefenseAlert first reported on the red team analysis on May 13.
Moreover, the Pentagon is consulting its own cyber experts to think about some “stand-alone cyber scenarios” that may be incorporated into the review, he said.
However, he said, DOD is pursuing a number of other initiatives prior to the completion of the QDR.
As an example, the fiscal year 2010 budget will triple the number of graduating cyber experts from 80 to 250 a year, Lynn told the audience.
In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to develop a cyber security range in the next fiscal year that would allow government agencies to test cyberdefense scenarios, he noted.
The Pentagon is also still considering the creation of a sub-unified cyber command under U.S. Strategic Forces Command, Lynn said.
“As of today, [Secretary] Gates has not made the final decision on this command,” he said. “Such a command would not represent the militarization of cyberspace. It would in no way be about the Defense Department trying to take over the government's cybersecurity effort.”
Gates is still “evaluating proposals,” Lynn said, while the Joint Staff is “working out the details of how this command would work and what the reporting relationships are.” -- Fawzia Sheikh
6152009_june15a
Lawmakers: Grow the Army
The House Armed Services Committee's just completed fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill calls for an additional 30,000 increase in active-duty end strength for the Army in FY-11 and F-12.
In the meantime, with the Senate’s mark-up of the FY-10 budget request a week away, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee, told Army generals yesterday that he planned on mounting “a serious effort” to increase the service's active force end strength by 30,000 service members.
“There may be a requirement for us to have a temporary authorization of additional soldiers to fill some of the holes we have in our formations and to take the stress off the force in what is going to be a critical 12- to 18-month period," Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told the subcommittee.
This may signal a change in the Army's tune. Just last month, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said a further increase in troops wasn't necessary.
Though he did not reject outright the idea of a temporary increase, Casey said what he's “not ready to sign up for just yet is whether we need to increase the active Army beyond 547,000,” he said.
“It comes down to it's about a billion dollars to have that increase, and that's a lot of money,” Casey said.
-- Kate Brannen
In the meantime, with the Senate’s mark-up of the FY-10 budget request a week away, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee, told Army generals yesterday that he planned on mounting “a serious effort” to increase the service's active force end strength by 30,000 service members.
“There may be a requirement for us to have a temporary authorization of additional soldiers to fill some of the holes we have in our formations and to take the stress off the force in what is going to be a critical 12- to 18-month period," Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told the subcommittee.
This may signal a change in the Army's tune. Just last month, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said a further increase in troops wasn't necessary.
Though he did not reject outright the idea of a temporary increase, Casey said what he's “not ready to sign up for just yet is whether we need to increase the active Army beyond 547,000,” he said.
“It comes down to it's about a billion dollars to have that increase, and that's a lot of money,” Casey said.
-- Kate Brannen
Army Officials Stress Importance of Network to Modernization Plans
June 17, 2009 -- Senior Army officials told senators yesterday that the network being developed under the Future Combat Systems program is the most critical component of the service’s modernization efforts.
“Simply put, the network is the centerpiece of the Army’s modernization effort and any shortfall in funding will put that effort at risk,” Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli said in his opening statement before the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee.
Important guidance for the restructured FCS program, including the network, has yet to be issued, according to senior service officials.
Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the Army acquisition executive, told the subcommittee that the long-awaited acquisition decision memorandum that will allow the Army to stop work on the FCS manned ground vehicles and begin contract negotiations is in its “final stages.”
The Pentagon and the Army want to make sure “the wording is exactly right -- that it captures the decisions of the secretary of defense, that it gives us the flexibility to be able to move forward, to restructure the program and cancel the FCS program as we know it yesterday -- terminate the manned ground vehicle portion of that -- but keep the other parts of the program that we want to move forward with,” said Thompson. He cited the network and the FCS spin-out capability sets as parts of the original FCS program that the Army intends to keep and even expand.
Thompson also made his case for keeping fiscal year 2010 money for contract termination costs in the budget. Otherwise, work on the network and the spin-out sets will be delayed because of a need to reallocate FY-09 funding, he said.
Earlier yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee agreed to cut $327 million in FCS termination costs from the budget, leaving $100 million.
At the same Senate hearing, Paul Francis of the Government Accountability Office suggested which aspects of the FCS program should be integrated into the Army’s new efforts and which should be discarded. His testimony pulled from GAO recommendations made throughout the program’s history.
While the effort was admirable in some ways, said Francis, the FCS program’s scope was too big and the challenges too great. Such a large and complex program required greater government oversight, he added.
To help increase government responsibility for programs like FCS, the Army is adding 5,400 people to its acquisition work force, David Ahern, director for portfolio systems acquisition under the Pentagon acquisition chief, said at the hearing.
He said the FCS program management office’s role will be expanded, particularly in the areas of contract management and oversight, systems engineering and integration. Up until now, Boeing, the FCS prime contractor, did most of this work.
Chiarelli highlighted a completed after-action review of the FCS program’s development and acquisition strategy. He said this study, combined with lessons learned from seven years at war, will be valuable in the development of the new vehicle.
“I would be very surprised if we didn’t see a family of vehicles,” said Chiarelli of the new effort. He said developing multiple vehicles in the new program is “entirely possible.”
Another part of the Army’s wide-ranging modernization efforts is finding a role for its 16,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, said Chiarelli, adding that the Army intends to integrate them into formations in the future. However, he noted that MRAPs make up just 8 percent of the Army’s 200,000 vehicles, so it is important to determine where the vehicles make the most sense, he said.
At yesterday’s meeting of a blue-ribbon panel the service hosted to gather input from outside sources on the new ground combat vehicle, a group of non-commissioned officers pointed out the MRAP vehicle’s limitations, said Chiarelli. The officers explained that while MRAPs are good infantry carriers, the nine seconds it takes for the vehicle’s ramp to come down can make soldiers feel vulnerable, he said. For Chiarelli, this confirms the importance of finding the right role and the appropriate operating environment for the vehicles.
The Army’s modernization efforts also include a review of the service’s force mix, the generals told the Senate subcommittee. They said increasing the number of Stryker brigades is a possibility.
“As we look at a balanced force to handle things across the spectrum of conflict, it is a possibility that we would want to build more of the Stryker brigades than the seven that we have today,” said Thompson. The number of Stryker brigades will also be studied during the Quadrennial Defense Review, he added.
“At some point in time, the existing vehicles -- even Strykers, as good as they are -- will reach their design limits,” said Thompson.
Thompson said the Army requires steady funding to keep its entire fleet of combat vehicles relevant and capable in different areas.
“It's been over 20 years since we started the Armored Systems Modernization Program and we're now going to start our sixth iteration of trying to modernize the ground combat vehicle capability in the Army, and that bothers me greatly,” he said. -- Kate Brannen
“Simply put, the network is the centerpiece of the Army’s modernization effort and any shortfall in funding will put that effort at risk,” Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli said in his opening statement before the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee.
Important guidance for the restructured FCS program, including the network, has yet to be issued, according to senior service officials.
Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the Army acquisition executive, told the subcommittee that the long-awaited acquisition decision memorandum that will allow the Army to stop work on the FCS manned ground vehicles and begin contract negotiations is in its “final stages.”
The Pentagon and the Army want to make sure “the wording is exactly right -- that it captures the decisions of the secretary of defense, that it gives us the flexibility to be able to move forward, to restructure the program and cancel the FCS program as we know it yesterday -- terminate the manned ground vehicle portion of that -- but keep the other parts of the program that we want to move forward with,” said Thompson. He cited the network and the FCS spin-out capability sets as parts of the original FCS program that the Army intends to keep and even expand.
Thompson also made his case for keeping fiscal year 2010 money for contract termination costs in the budget. Otherwise, work on the network and the spin-out sets will be delayed because of a need to reallocate FY-09 funding, he said.
Earlier yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee agreed to cut $327 million in FCS termination costs from the budget, leaving $100 million.
At the same Senate hearing, Paul Francis of the Government Accountability Office suggested which aspects of the FCS program should be integrated into the Army’s new efforts and which should be discarded. His testimony pulled from GAO recommendations made throughout the program’s history.
While the effort was admirable in some ways, said Francis, the FCS program’s scope was too big and the challenges too great. Such a large and complex program required greater government oversight, he added.
To help increase government responsibility for programs like FCS, the Army is adding 5,400 people to its acquisition work force, David Ahern, director for portfolio systems acquisition under the Pentagon acquisition chief, said at the hearing.
He said the FCS program management office’s role will be expanded, particularly in the areas of contract management and oversight, systems engineering and integration. Up until now, Boeing, the FCS prime contractor, did most of this work.
Chiarelli highlighted a completed after-action review of the FCS program’s development and acquisition strategy. He said this study, combined with lessons learned from seven years at war, will be valuable in the development of the new vehicle.
“I would be very surprised if we didn’t see a family of vehicles,” said Chiarelli of the new effort. He said developing multiple vehicles in the new program is “entirely possible.”
Another part of the Army’s wide-ranging modernization efforts is finding a role for its 16,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, said Chiarelli, adding that the Army intends to integrate them into formations in the future. However, he noted that MRAPs make up just 8 percent of the Army’s 200,000 vehicles, so it is important to determine where the vehicles make the most sense, he said.
At yesterday’s meeting of a blue-ribbon panel the service hosted to gather input from outside sources on the new ground combat vehicle, a group of non-commissioned officers pointed out the MRAP vehicle’s limitations, said Chiarelli. The officers explained that while MRAPs are good infantry carriers, the nine seconds it takes for the vehicle’s ramp to come down can make soldiers feel vulnerable, he said. For Chiarelli, this confirms the importance of finding the right role and the appropriate operating environment for the vehicles.
The Army’s modernization efforts also include a review of the service’s force mix, the generals told the Senate subcommittee. They said increasing the number of Stryker brigades is a possibility.
“As we look at a balanced force to handle things across the spectrum of conflict, it is a possibility that we would want to build more of the Stryker brigades than the seven that we have today,” said Thompson. The number of Stryker brigades will also be studied during the Quadrennial Defense Review, he added.
“At some point in time, the existing vehicles -- even Strykers, as good as they are -- will reach their design limits,” said Thompson.
Thompson said the Army requires steady funding to keep its entire fleet of combat vehicles relevant and capable in different areas.
“It's been over 20 years since we started the Armored Systems Modernization Program and we're now going to start our sixth iteration of trying to modernize the ground combat vehicle capability in the Army, and that bothers me greatly,” he said. -- Kate Brannen
16 June 2009
Pentagon to Probe Cyberdefense in QDR as Attacks on Military Computers Rise
June 15, 2009 -- The Quadrennial Defense Review will address cybersecurity in a variety of ways as the threat of network attacks against the Pentagon grows, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said today.
The department faces attacks against military and defense networks that could disrupt military networks, Lynn said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event in Washington on the Defense Department's role in cybersecurity. Pentagon computers are “probed thousands of times a day” and “scanned millions of times a day,” he added, noting that the frequency and sophistication of these attacks are increasing “exponentially.”
Last year, DOD experienced one of the most significant attacks on its military networks, he told the audience. Malicious software infected several thousand computers and forced U.S. troops and defense personnel to give up their external memory devices and thumb drives, “changing the way they use computers every day,” he remarked.
Although such attacks have not cost lives, “they are costing an increasing amount of money,” Lynn said. “In a recent six-month period alone last year, the Defense Department spent more than $100 million defending its networks.”
The government recently completed a 60-day cyber review, led by White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, of the government's computer infrastructure.
Because the country as a whole is unprepared for cyber challenges, network defense will play a central role in the QDR, Lynn said. During the review, DOD will assess current capabilities against requirements and make recommendations for the future. Lynn also said the United States needs doctrine to govern “how we protect cyberspace as a domain, how our forces are designed and trained to protect our networks.”
The QDR will look at three types of activities involving war-gaming and scenario-playing, he said.
“One is just the kind of conventional military scenarios, and we've added a cyber component to those so that we understand what the implications of Georgia and other harbingers of what we think the future might bring,” he said. Last year, Russia launched an attack on the country in which Georgian government computers were hit.
“Second we have a red team that's led by Andy Marshall, the director of net assessment at the Pentagon, and. . . Gen. Jim Mattis,” the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, he said. “And they are doing a red team analysis of those same scenarios and may have an even heavier emphasis on cyber scenarios.”
DefenseAlert first reported on the red team analysis on May 13.
Moreover, the Pentagon is consulting its own cyber experts to think about some “stand-alone cyber scenarios” that may be incorporated into the review, he said.
However, he said, DOD is pursuing a number of other initiatives prior to the completion of the QDR.
As an example, the fiscal year 2010 budget will triple the number of graduating cyber experts from 80 to 250 a year, Lynn told the audience.
In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to develop a cyber security range in the next fiscal year that would allow government agencies to test cyberdefense scenarios, he noted.
The Pentagon is also still considering the creation of a sub-unified cyber command under U.S. Strategic Forces Command, Lynn said.
“As of today, [Secretary] Gates has not made the final decision on this command,” he said. “Such a command would not represent the militarization of cyberspace. It would in no way be about the Defense Department trying to take over the government's cybersecurity effort.”
Gates is still “evaluating proposals,” Lynn said, while the Joint Staff is “working out the details of how this command would work and what the reporting relationships are.” -- Fawzia Sheikh
The department faces attacks against military and defense networks that could disrupt military networks, Lynn said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event in Washington on the Defense Department's role in cybersecurity. Pentagon computers are “probed thousands of times a day” and “scanned millions of times a day,” he added, noting that the frequency and sophistication of these attacks are increasing “exponentially.”
Last year, DOD experienced one of the most significant attacks on its military networks, he told the audience. Malicious software infected several thousand computers and forced U.S. troops and defense personnel to give up their external memory devices and thumb drives, “changing the way they use computers every day,” he remarked.
Although such attacks have not cost lives, “they are costing an increasing amount of money,” Lynn said. “In a recent six-month period alone last year, the Defense Department spent more than $100 million defending its networks.”
The government recently completed a 60-day cyber review, led by White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, of the government's computer infrastructure.
Because the country as a whole is unprepared for cyber challenges, network defense will play a central role in the QDR, Lynn said. During the review, DOD will assess current capabilities against requirements and make recommendations for the future. Lynn also said the United States needs doctrine to govern “how we protect cyberspace as a domain, how our forces are designed and trained to protect our networks.”
The QDR will look at three types of activities involving war-gaming and scenario-playing, he said.
“One is just the kind of conventional military scenarios, and we've added a cyber component to those so that we understand what the implications of Georgia and other harbingers of what we think the future might bring,” he said. Last year, Russia launched an attack on the country in which Georgian government computers were hit.
“Second we have a red team that's led by Andy Marshall, the director of net assessment at the Pentagon, and. . . Gen. Jim Mattis,” the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, he said. “And they are doing a red team analysis of those same scenarios and may have an even heavier emphasis on cyber scenarios.”
DefenseAlert first reported on the red team analysis on May 13.
Moreover, the Pentagon is consulting its own cyber experts to think about some “stand-alone cyber scenarios” that may be incorporated into the review, he said.
However, he said, DOD is pursuing a number of other initiatives prior to the completion of the QDR.
As an example, the fiscal year 2010 budget will triple the number of graduating cyber experts from 80 to 250 a year, Lynn told the audience.
In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to develop a cyber security range in the next fiscal year that would allow government agencies to test cyberdefense scenarios, he noted.
The Pentagon is also still considering the creation of a sub-unified cyber command under U.S. Strategic Forces Command, Lynn said.
“As of today, [Secretary] Gates has not made the final decision on this command,” he said. “Such a command would not represent the militarization of cyberspace. It would in no way be about the Defense Department trying to take over the government's cybersecurity effort.”
Gates is still “evaluating proposals,” Lynn said, while the Joint Staff is “working out the details of how this command would work and what the reporting relationships are.” -- Fawzia Sheikh
MILITARY LEARNING LESSONS FROM MUMBAI ATTACKS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY
The U.S. military is examining the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, that took place late last year so that the United States will be better protected in case of similar attacks, according to U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command chief Gen. Victor Renuart.
On Nov. 26, 2008, terrorists traveling from Pakistan hijacked an Indian fishing trawler and entered Mumbai on a rubber dingy. Three days later, 10 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks resulted 164 deaths and 308 people being wounded.
“I think we’re foolish if we don’t analyze each of these kinds of events to see if there’s a gap or a seam that we might have in our own surveillance or intelligence analysis or even in our execution,” Renuart told Inside the Air Force during a May 20 telephone interview. “There are things that we’ve learned from Mumbai that I think many agencies in government to include [Department of Homeland Security] of course are working to ensure that we don’t have a similar gap in ours.”
Renuart did not go into specific lessons learned from the attacks, but said “prudent military operational planning” will look into the United States’ system for handling such actions, including the terrorists’ means of access and the homeland’s ability to conduct operational security, “to make sure we don’t leave the same vulnerability in the United States.”
The United States “absolutely” has contingency plans to address such an attack, and NORTHCOM would execute “any U.S. national decision to interdict something at sea” through its naval or air components in partnership with the Coast Guard and DHS, according to Renuart.
In the event of a similar attack, Renuart’s NORAD role is to provide the warning of a threat and create a “picture in the maritime domain to decide if a threat is real and how best to address it.” At that time, the general transitions to his NORTHCOM responsibility to make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on required enforcement actions, he said.
“We do have the capability to use forces from, for example, my NORAD alert force in an air-to-surface role should that be the decision of the secretary or the president,” the general said, noting the importance of using multirole air-and-ground surveillance aircraft for homeland defense missions. -- Jason Simpson
AIRFORCE-20-21-6
On Nov. 26, 2008, terrorists traveling from Pakistan hijacked an Indian fishing trawler and entered Mumbai on a rubber dingy. Three days later, 10 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks resulted 164 deaths and 308 people being wounded.
“I think we’re foolish if we don’t analyze each of these kinds of events to see if there’s a gap or a seam that we might have in our own surveillance or intelligence analysis or even in our execution,” Renuart told Inside the Air Force during a May 20 telephone interview. “There are things that we’ve learned from Mumbai that I think many agencies in government to include [Department of Homeland Security] of course are working to ensure that we don’t have a similar gap in ours.”
Renuart did not go into specific lessons learned from the attacks, but said “prudent military operational planning” will look into the United States’ system for handling such actions, including the terrorists’ means of access and the homeland’s ability to conduct operational security, “to make sure we don’t leave the same vulnerability in the United States.”
The United States “absolutely” has contingency plans to address such an attack, and NORTHCOM would execute “any U.S. national decision to interdict something at sea” through its naval or air components in partnership with the Coast Guard and DHS, according to Renuart.
In the event of a similar attack, Renuart’s NORAD role is to provide the warning of a threat and create a “picture in the maritime domain to decide if a threat is real and how best to address it.” At that time, the general transitions to his NORTHCOM responsibility to make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on required enforcement actions, he said.
“We do have the capability to use forces from, for example, my NORAD alert force in an air-to-surface role should that be the decision of the secretary or the president,” the general said, noting the importance of using multirole air-and-ground surveillance aircraft for homeland defense missions. -- Jason Simpson
AIRFORCE-20-21-6
13 June 2009
U.S. Surge into Afghanistan Expected to be Complete by Late Summer
June 12, 2009 -- The White House's plan to surge nearly 21,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan, including a significant infusion of special operations forces, is expected to wrap up by late summer, according to a senior defense official.
“The strategy is being implemented as we speak,” the official said, noting that different elements of the “force flow” of U.S. troops into Afghanistan are on different time lines.
The majority of U.S. “counterinsurgency-focused” general-purpose forces -- consisting of Army and Marine Corps units -- into southern Afghanistan will be in place by July 30, the official said. Shortly thereafter, elements of the 82nd Airborne will deploy to the country in September to provide training and support to the Afghan National Security Forces.
Members of the 82nd will be attached to Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) upon deployment to Afghanistan. Following those troop deployments, civilian support personnel from “some other elements of the U.S. government” will begin to surge into the country to support ongoing civilian-military operations.
Aside from counterinsurgency and training personnel, Pentagon planners also expect to increase the number of special operations forces in Afghanistan to grow by a total of 50 percent by August, the official said, adding that part of the special operations force increase was already in place as well.
“So we have elements of this reinforced strategy, significant elements, in place by late this summer,” the official said, noting that the influx of civilian support personnel into the theater may take longer.
The troop surge is part of the Obama administration's new strategy for combat operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, dubbed “AFPAK” by DOD and administration officials.
On the special operations surge, the official said the force increase will consist of a combination of “enablers and maneuver elements” going to Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A).
Overall, the Pentagon plans to increase special operations forces at CJSOTF-A by 17 operational detachments, the officials said. Operational detachments usually consist of small teams of 12 to 16 special operations troops each.
To complement the increases in military and civilian personnel, DOD plans to initiate an “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance surge” led by the deployment of the Air Force's new MC-12 Project Liberty aircraft, the official said.
“Intelligence is really the coin of the realm in these types of operation. Most of these operations are intelligence-driven, particularly in the counterterrorism arena, but also in more surgical, counterinsurgency operations,” the official said.
In addition to funneling more ISR platforms into Afghanistan, the official noted, a similar kind of surge is being eyed for Pakistan to increase pressure on Taliban and al Qaeda operatives there.
“I think it is fair to say anywhere there is a growing al Qaeda problem, there is an intelligence surge. There may not always be a military surge, but there is generally an intelligence surge,” said the official.
The U.S. forces set to be deployed into southern Afghanistan will face resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces, which have stepped up violent operations in the region over the past few months, according to DOD officials.
This week in Washington, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus noted that violence in the region of southern Afghanistan known as Regional Command-South has hit levels unseen since the initial U.S. invasion in 2001.
Accordingly, reversing the momentum of the Afghan insurgency “won't come without a fight,” the official said. “So the coming months will likely witness some intense fighting.”
The most violent areas in RC-South where U.S. forces are set to deploy “have been . . . security vacuums where the Taliban have had free reign in the past,” the official said.
“The Taliban have put up significant fights in the past to try and defend their sanctuaries . . . and so it came with a fight,” the official said. “So I think that we should anticipate that these [U.S. and coalition] forces will see some significant fighting this summer.”
That said, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has set a 12-to-18 month window in which U.S. and coalition forces “have to show results” in the region, according to the official. -- Carlo Muñoz
“The strategy is being implemented as we speak,” the official said, noting that different elements of the “force flow” of U.S. troops into Afghanistan are on different time lines.
The majority of U.S. “counterinsurgency-focused” general-purpose forces -- consisting of Army and Marine Corps units -- into southern Afghanistan will be in place by July 30, the official said. Shortly thereafter, elements of the 82nd Airborne will deploy to the country in September to provide training and support to the Afghan National Security Forces.
Members of the 82nd will be attached to Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) upon deployment to Afghanistan. Following those troop deployments, civilian support personnel from “some other elements of the U.S. government” will begin to surge into the country to support ongoing civilian-military operations.
Aside from counterinsurgency and training personnel, Pentagon planners also expect to increase the number of special operations forces in Afghanistan to grow by a total of 50 percent by August, the official said, adding that part of the special operations force increase was already in place as well.
“So we have elements of this reinforced strategy, significant elements, in place by late this summer,” the official said, noting that the influx of civilian support personnel into the theater may take longer.
The troop surge is part of the Obama administration's new strategy for combat operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, dubbed “AFPAK” by DOD and administration officials.
On the special operations surge, the official said the force increase will consist of a combination of “enablers and maneuver elements” going to Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A).
Overall, the Pentagon plans to increase special operations forces at CJSOTF-A by 17 operational detachments, the officials said. Operational detachments usually consist of small teams of 12 to 16 special operations troops each.
To complement the increases in military and civilian personnel, DOD plans to initiate an “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance surge” led by the deployment of the Air Force's new MC-12 Project Liberty aircraft, the official said.
“Intelligence is really the coin of the realm in these types of operation. Most of these operations are intelligence-driven, particularly in the counterterrorism arena, but also in more surgical, counterinsurgency operations,” the official said.
In addition to funneling more ISR platforms into Afghanistan, the official noted, a similar kind of surge is being eyed for Pakistan to increase pressure on Taliban and al Qaeda operatives there.
“I think it is fair to say anywhere there is a growing al Qaeda problem, there is an intelligence surge. There may not always be a military surge, but there is generally an intelligence surge,” said the official.
The U.S. forces set to be deployed into southern Afghanistan will face resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces, which have stepped up violent operations in the region over the past few months, according to DOD officials.
This week in Washington, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus noted that violence in the region of southern Afghanistan known as Regional Command-South has hit levels unseen since the initial U.S. invasion in 2001.
Accordingly, reversing the momentum of the Afghan insurgency “won't come without a fight,” the official said. “So the coming months will likely witness some intense fighting.”
The most violent areas in RC-South where U.S. forces are set to deploy “have been . . . security vacuums where the Taliban have had free reign in the past,” the official said.
“The Taliban have put up significant fights in the past to try and defend their sanctuaries . . . and so it came with a fight,” the official said. “So I think that we should anticipate that these [U.S. and coalition] forces will see some significant fighting this summer.”
That said, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has set a 12-to-18 month window in which U.S. and coalition forces “have to show results” in the region, according to the official. -- Carlo Muñoz