The Insider

U.S., Australian and Japanese officials met Tuesday in Washington for the fifth "Security and Defense Cooperation Forum" plenary session, according to a State Department press release issued this afternoon:

The meeting included discussions on trilateral political-military and defense cooperation in areas such as humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, regional capacity development, and maritime security, among other issues. The officials also exchanged views on the state of regional security affairs.

The three delegations discussed the recent North Korean nuclear test. They agreed that this highly provocative act was a clear violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2087, as well as North Korea’s own commitments under the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks. The three delegations further affirmed that North Korea’s actions undermine regional security, increase the risks of proliferation, and further isolate it from the international community.

The SDCF is a regular cooperative dialogue between Australia, Japan, and the United States, and has been held since 2007. Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and Assistant Secretary of Defense Mark Lippert co-chaired the forum.

Defense secretaries and ministers from Australia, Japan, and the United States have met twice on the margins of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. They plan to do so again in May 2013.

The Senate Armed Services Committee just voted along party lines to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as the next defense secretary.

No date has yet been set for the full Senate to debate Hagel's nomination.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said today that the Army would have to begin closing bases if it is made to bear the full brunt of sequestration.

"If they implement the size of the cuts we have now, they have to do a BRAC because it becomes inefficient if we don't, especially for the Army," Odierno told a group of reporters after a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the potential effects of sequestration.

"BRAC" is the acronym for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process known to drive fear into the hearts of lawmakers across Capitol Hill, especially if their districts are home to large bases or maintenance depots.

"We have billions of dollars of impact on surrounding communities," he said. "As we cut forces, as we reduce programs, it will impact all of the small businesses that surround all of our installations. I think if we have to execute full sequestration, and the fact that we're going to take out significant structure in the guard, the reserve and out active component, then we're going to have to look at a BRAC."

Odierno has not been cavalier in his use of the "B word" thus far, but used it today to ratchet up the pressure on Congress to come to a deal to avoid sequestration.

"I am disappointed so far in what's happening," he remarked about Washington's failure to come to a compromise. "I think for a lot of reasons, people have just not paid enough attention. I'm concerned that we haven't taken action and I'm concerned that there's really no discussion going on."

Lt. Gen. John Campbell has been nominated to become the Army's next vice chief of staff. Campbell is the Army's deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7. Should he receive his fourth star, Campbell would replace Gen. Lloyd Austin, who has been nominated to lead U.S. Central Command.

Other nominations announced today include:

*Army Lt. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, for appointment to the rank of general and for assignment as the commanding general, U.S. Army Pacific Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Brooks is currently serving as the commanding general, U.S. Army Central Command/Third U.S. Army, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

*Air Force Lt. Gen. Robin Rand for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and for assignment as deputy commander, U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Fla. Rand is currently serving as commander, Twelfth Air Force (Air Forces Southern), Air Combat Command, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

*Air Force Maj. Gen. James M. Holmes for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and for assignment as vice commander, Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas. Holmes is currently serving as the assistant deputy chief of staff, operations, plans and requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

*Air Force Col. Dorothy A. Hogg has been nominated for appointment to the grade of major general and for assignment as chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps, Office of the Surgeon General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Falls Church, Va.

*Marine Corps Col. David G. Bellon has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Bellon is currently serving as the chief of staff, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, New Orleans, La.

*Marine Corps Col. Raymond R. Descheneaux has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Descheneaux is currently serving with Marine Aircraft Group 49, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J

*Marine Corps Col. James. W. Bierman Jr. has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Bierman is currently serving as the military secretary to the commandant of the Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

*Marine Corps Col. Robert F. Castellvi has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Castellvi is currently serving as the chief of staff, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

*Marine Corps Col. David J. Furness has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Furness is currently serving as the director, Expeditionary Warfare School, Quantico, Va.

*Marine Corps Col. Michael S. Groen has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Groen is currently serving as the director, Strategic Initiatives Group, Washington, D.C.

*Marine Corps Col. Kevin M. Iiams has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Iiams is currently serving as the wing standards officer, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, Cherry Point, N.C.

*Marine Corps Col. John M. Jansen has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Jansen is currently serving as the commanding officer, Marine Aircraft Group 11, San Diego, Calif.

*Marine Corps Col. Kevin J. Killea has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Killea is currently serving as the branch head, Department of Aviation Weapons Requirements Branch, Washington, D.C.

*Marine Corps Col. David A. Ottignon has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general.Ottignon is currently serving as the executive assistant to the secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.

*Marine Corps Col. Thomas D. Weidley has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Weidley is currently serving as the assistant chief of staff, G-3, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific, Camp Smith, Hawaii.

*Marine Corps Col. Terry V. Williams has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Williams is currently serving as the executive assistant to deputy commandant for installation and logistics, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

The Senate Armed Services Committee just announced it will vote on the president's nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) tomorrow. According to a committee statement:

This is to advise it is the Chairman's intention to ask the Committee, in an open meeting tomorrow, February 12, 2013, at 2:30pm, to consider the nomination of:

Honorable Charles T. Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense.

It is the Chairman's intention to vote on the nomination after the Members have an opportunity for discussion.

The location is to be determined and Member offices will be advised of it as soon as possible.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) sent a letter today to Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), responding to one that Inhofe and other Republican senators sent earlier this week insisting on additional financial disclosure information from Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel.

In his letter, Levin outlines the Armed Services Committee's rules and practices for nominees and states the request by Inhofe and other GOP senators "appears to insist upon financial disclosure requirements that far exceed the standard practices of the Armed Services Committee and go far beyond the financial disclosure required of previous Secretaries of Defense."

"Our committee has a well-defined set of financial disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all nominees for civilian positions in the Department of Defense," Levin wrote, and proceeded to list the requirements nominees are expected to provide, including:

* a copy of the Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report required by the Ethics in Government Act -- OGE Form 278;

* a response to a standard committee questionnaire, which includes questions on future employment relationships, potential conflicts of interest, personal financial data, and foreign affiliations; and

* a formal ethics agreement, which outlines the steps the nominee will take to avoid any potential conflict of interest, including a commitment by the nominee to divest DOD contractor stocks within 90 days of appointment to office, avoid buying DOD contractor stocks while in office, and resign from non-Federal boards and activities.

"We have applied these disclosure requirements and followed this process for all nominees of both parties throughout the 16 years that I have served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee," Levin's letter states. "I understand that the same financial disclosure requirements and processes were followed for at least the previous 10 years, during which Senator Sam Nunn served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. During this period, the committee has confirmed eight Secretaries of Defense (Secretaries Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry, Cohen, Rumsfeld, Gates, and Panetta), as well as hundreds of nominees for other senior civilian positions in the Department."

But what really sticks in Levin's craw is this:

There are two unprecedented elements to the financial disclosure demanded by the February 6, letter:  (1) the disclosure of "all compensation over $5,000 that [Senator Hagel has] received over the past five years"; and (2) the disclosure of any foreign funding of eight private entities from which Senator Hagel has received compensation since leaving the Senate (including the date, source, and specific amount of each foreign contribution).  Each of these demands goes well beyond what the committee has required of any previous nominee.

With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose all compensation over $5,000 that he has received over the past five years, the standard financial disclosure form which the committee requires all nominees to provide calls for the disclosure of all entities from which the nominee has received compensation in excess of $5,000 (including clients for whom the nominee personally provided more than $5,000 in services, even if the payments were made to the nominee’s employer, firm, or affiliated business) during that the previous two years.  The two-year disclosure requirement that has been consistently applied by the committee is established in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act and applies not only to all nominees for Senate-confirmed positions, but also to all candidates for federal elective office.

With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose foreign funding for private entities from which he has received compensation, the February 6 letter asserts that this information is needed because "If it is the case that [Senator Hagel] personally [has] received substantial financial remuneration -- either directly or indirectly -- from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is at the very minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment of your nomination."

In fact, the committee questionnaire addresses the issue of foreign affiliations in a manner that is equally applicable to all civilian nominees coming before the committee.  Among other questions, the committee questionnaire asks whether, during the last ten years, the nominee or his spouse has “received any compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government.”    Senator Hagel’s answer to this question was “No.”

The demands of the February 6 letter go beyond this standard disclosure regime and would subject Senator Hagel to a different requirement from all previous nominees, under which he alone would be required to somehow ascertain whether certain entities with whom he has been employed may have received foreign contributions.  In particular:

* Senator Hagel serves without compensation as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council -- a "think tank" that includes among its other Directors and Honorary Directors seven former Secretaries of States and four former Secretaries of Defense.  The Atlantic Council's public website provides a diverse list of corporate contributors, including both domestic companies (such as Chevron, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy, and Exxon Mobil) and foreign entities (such as Polish Telecom, Saab, All Nippon Airways, and the Istanbul Stock Exchange).  Over the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous nominations of individuals who were associated with similar think tanks, universities, and other non-profit entities.  Even in the many cases where a nominee received compensation from such a non-profit entity, we did not require the nominee to disclose the sources of funding provided to the non-profit entity.

* Senator Hagel has also served as an Advisory Board Member, Senior Advisor, Director, Special Advisor, or Board Member to seven domestic for-profit entities identified in the February 6 letter since he left the Senate in January 2009.  His financial disclosure report and committee questionnaire indicate that he left four of these entities (Wolfensohn & Company, National Interest Security Company, Elite Training & Security, and Kaseman, LLC) in 2010 and has received no compensation from them during the two-year reporting period covered by the Ethics in Government Act.  Nonetheless, the February 6 letter demands that Senator Hagel provide ten years of corporate financial data on foreign investments or funding received by these entities.  The forms and committee questionnaire indicate that Senator Hagel continues to serve as an Advisory Board Member for Corsair Capital, a Senior Advisor to McCarthy Capital, and a Special Advisor to the Chairman of M.I.C. Industries and that he has received compensation for his service to these three entities.  I am doubtful that, as mere advisor to these companies, Senator Hagel has either access to the corporate financial information that is sought in the February 6 letter or the authority to release such information if he were able to get access to it.  In any case, over the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous nominations of individuals who were employed by for-profit entities of every variety.  We have considered board members, officers, directors, and employees of companies doing business across the full range of our economy.  In this time, we have never required the nominee to attempt to ascertain and disclose the names of investors in such an entity.

"The committee cannot have two different sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees, one for Senator Hagel and one for other nominees," Levin writes.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing this afternoon on the president's nomination of John Brennan to become the next CIA director. Brennan submitted prepared answers to questions posed by the committee prior to the hearing.

One of those questions involves the use of unmanned aircraft systems to carry out strikes against suspected terrorists -- about whether Brennan would "support legislation to authorize the use of force outside of 'hot' battlefields and codify the standards for the conduct of targeted strikes, including the use of remotely piloted aircraft." His answer:

As you know, the United States has publicly acknowledged that it sometimes uses remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al-Qa'ida terrorists in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives. These strikes are conducted in full compliance with the law. In fact, extraordinary care is taken to ensure that they conform to the law of war principles of (1) necessity -- the requirement that the target have definite military value; (2) distinction -- the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted; (3) proportionality -- the notion that the anticipated collateral damage of an action cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage; and (4) humanity -- a principle that requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

As I have noted publicly, using remotely piloted aircraft for targeted strikes can be a calibrated choice because of their ability to fly hundreds of miles over the most treacherous terrain, strike their targets with astonishing precision, and then return to base. Moreover, they dramatically reduce the danger to U.S. personnel and to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury and death far beyond the intended target.

We must, however, use these technologies carefully and responsibly. The President has, in fact, demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards and that, at every step, we be as thorough and deliberate as possible. Consequently we apply rigorous standards and a rigorous process of review, which I provided a general sense of in the April 2012 speech cited in your question. As I noted there, we are working to refine, clarify, and strengthen this process and our standards.

Finally, on your question about whether I would support legislation to authorize the use of force outside of "hot" battlefields, I believe we currently have the authority to take action in such circumstances against al-Qa'ida and associated forces. As Jeh Johnson, the former General Counsel of the Department of Defense, indicated in a lecture at Yale Law School in February of last year, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force does not contain a geographical limitation. Consequently I do not believe additional legislation along these lines is necessary.

View the rest of Brennan's prepared responses.