The Insider

Soft Power, Hard Facts
By Sebastian Sprenger
March 26, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense leaders have largely embraced the idea that future conflicts will be defined by the tenets of irregular warfare, counterinsurgency and stability operations.

Less established is thinking about what it would mean for U.S. forces to win in such conflicts.

Gen. Mattis, the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, released a "vision" for irregular warfare yesterday that seeks answers to this question. Mattis, for example, wants to know by what "measures of effectiveness" commanders should go when planning and conducting IW-type operations.

In addition, Mattis raises the question as to what IW-related standards U.S. forces should be trained.

According to Military Operations Research Society President Army Lt. Col. Michael Kwinn, hard numbers and analysis techniques could produce answers in this inherently hard-to-quantify business.

Kwinn is also a professor of systems engineering at Westpoint. He told us today the discipline of operations research has a "huge role" in irregular warfare. For one, he said, OR can help the military figure out "if we are winning" by providing feedback on key metrics.

Determining suitable metrics is an "art form," Kwinn said. In Bosnia, for example, U.S. officials used the price of bread as a criterion for measuring the effectiveness of operations there, he said.

As the idea of irregular warfare continues to evolve, there is a place for "facts, as opposed to thoughts and gut feeling" in that concept, Kwinn said.

For the Record
By Marjorie Censer
March 26, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Although the Army decided not to attend this afternoon's House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee hearing on the Future Combat Systems program, subcommittee chairman Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) -- who was not happy about the Army's decision -- entered the March 17 testimony of Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the Army acquisition executive, and Maj. Gen. John Bartley, program manager for FCS, into the formal record.

(Abercrombie also expressed some annoyance that the Army canceled its appearance only yesterday -- through a staff member in his office.)

The two generals had submitted the testimony for the originally scheduled hearing last week. Citing ongoing budget talks, the service opted not to send its two representatives to today's event, called in response to a highly critical Government Accountability Office report on FCS.

In the prepared testimony, Thompson and Bartley argue that GAO uses outdated tools and methodologies for analyzing the program.

In fact, they say the FCS initiative serves in many ways as “a model for the flexibility and rapid adjustment that OSD and Congress have called for in defense acquisition.

Gone are the days when a defense program could be planned against a well defined enemy, and then developed and managed through a rigid, sequential set of milestones offering limited flexibility and stretched over long development timelines. The FCS acquisition model is responsive to the constantly changing operational environment.

As an example, the two say that GAO's analysis of software -- which relies on “counting source lines of code (SLOC) as a direct indicator of software cost” -- is no longer an accurate measure.

Additionally, the Army representatives push back against the GAO claim that the program is likely to see a greater tension between its rising costs and increasingly strained available funds.

“We differ from that conclusion because the program employs an integrated cost containment strategy to ensure that life-cycle costs are managed,” the testimony says, adding that the “Army's cost estimates have been consistent and updated as the program added or removed systems.”

Stay tuned for a full story on the hearing, and the testimony.

The O.C.O.
By Dan Dupont
March 25, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Washington Post runs a brief item today that you probably have seen, addressing the Obama administration's apparent decision to eschew such terms as "long war" and "global war on terror."

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror," a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' ((GWOT.)) Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

But Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman, says that's not the case.

"There was no memo, no guidance," Baer said yesterday. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

That may be so, but the new term is finding its way out there -- and all the way to the top. Though that doesn't mean it's all that well understood.

On Monday, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke at a missile defense conference in DC, and addressed the topic of supplemental appropriations funding:

So right now we've got an '09 supp on the Hill, or are trying to get one to the Hill. We've got the '10 president's budget that we're trying to move forward on. We've got the '11 budget that we're working inside the department. We have two war supplementals, we used to call them -- OCO is the new acronym; I haven't got a clue what that one stands for -- but the money associated with running the wars.

Concurrence
By John Liang
March 25, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House and Senate Budget committees today marked up their versions of the fiscal year 2010 concurrent budget resolution. The House Budget Committee released legislative text that included language on defense:

It is the policy of this resolution that --
(1) there is no higher priority than the defense of our Nation, and therefore the Administration and Congress will make the necessary investments and reforms to strengthen our military so that it can successfully meet the threats of the 21st century;
(2) acquisition reform is needed at the Department of Defense to end excessive cost growth in the development of new weapons systems and to ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen;
(3) the Department of Defense should review defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter Cold War-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to 21st century threats;
(4) sufficient resources should be provided for the Department of Defense to aggressively address the 758 unimplemented recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) since 2001 to improve practices at the Department of Defense, which could save billions of dollars that could be applied to priorities identified in this section;
(5) the Department of Defense should review the role that contractors play in its operations, including the degree to which contractors are performing inherently governmental functions, to ensure it has the most effective mix of government and contracted personnel;
(6) the Department of Defense report to Congress on its assessment of Cold War-era weaponry, its progress on implementing GAO recommendations, and its review of contractors at the Department as outlined in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) by a date to be determined by the appropriate committees;
(7) the GAO provide a report to the appropriate congressional committees by December 31, 2009, on
5 the Department of Defense’s progress in implementing its audit recommendations;
(8) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not proven to work through adequate testing and that are not operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no funding should be provided for the research or development of space-based interceptors;
(9) cooperative threat reduction and other nonproliferation programs (securing "loose nukes" and other materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the evolving threat;
(10) readiness of our troops, particularly the National Guard and Reserves, is a high priority, and that continued emphasis is needed to ensure adequate equipment and training;
(11) improving military health care services and ensuring quality health care for returning combat veterans is a high priority;
(12) military pay and benefits should be enhanced to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families;
(13) the Department of Defense should make every effort to investigate the national security benefits of energy independence, including those that may be associated with alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions;
(14) the Administration’s budget requests should continue to comply with section 1008, Public Law 109–364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and that to the extent practicable overseas military operations should no longer be funded through emergency supplemental appropriations; and
(15) when assessing security threats and reviewing the programs and funding needed to counter these threats, the Administration should do so in a comprehensive manner that includes all agencies involved in our national security.

The House budgeteers also added the $50 billion-per-year "placeholder estimates" requested by the Obama administration, "marking the first time the budget includes both a full-year estimate for overseas operations for the budget year and estimates for future costs, thus providing a more realistic look at the likely costs and their effect on the deficit," according to a committee statement.

The Senate Budget Committee released a statement on its version, with the following defense-related language:

The Chairman’s Mark matches President Obama’s core defense budget and the President’s request for additional war costs. Unlike Bush administration budgets, which repeatedly left out or understated likely war costs, President Obama’s budget includes a far more honest accounting of the likely costs of overseas contingency operations including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Chairman’s Mark follows this approach, which will enhance oversight of war funds and save vital defense resources.

Destined
By Sebastian Sprenger
March 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Last December, Defense Department officials published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that set out guidelines for use of the military during domestic crises.

As it turns out, the rule is slated to replace DOD directive 3025, titled “Military Support to Civil Authorities.” That's according to James Reeves, who is the who is chief of the homeland defense/civil support capabilities-based assessment division in U.S. Northern Command's J-8 directorate.

Reeves and his team just finished up work on a capabilities-based assessment covering the areas homeland defense and civil support.

The CBA, signed by NORTHCOM commander Gen. Victor Renuart on March 11, assumed that the rule/directive would soon become official DOD policy, Reeves said. The new directive would tweak the way defense officials go about buying equipment for civil support missions, he told us. The current directive is “a little more restrictive” in that context, he said.

"It ((doesn't)) prevent anyone from going and acquiring capabilities for civil support, but you had to go up to the ((Office of the Secretary of Defense)) level and seek permission. The new directive changes that so that the department can resource for CS capabilities."

The public comment period for the rule ended on Feb. 2.

Next-Gen Doctrine
By Kate Brannen
March 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

In addition to a foreword by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy, the new edition of the Army's stability operations field manual features an introduction essay by Janine Davidson. Davidson will join Kathleen Hicks, the Pentagon's new deputy under secretary of defense in charge of planning, strategy and force development, next week as deputy assistant secretary for plans in the same office. Currently an assistant professor at George Mason University and a former Air Force pilot, Davidson has worked at the Pentagon before, overseeing stability operations initiatives such as the Irregular Warfare Roadmap, the Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative and the Consortium for Complex Operations.

In her essay, Davidson praises not only the ideas captured by the manual, but also the "comprehensive approach" used by the writing team.

"Because the process of writing this manual led to the building of new relationships within and outside government, and collaborative debate about how best to conduct stability operations, the process might prove to be almost as important as the final product," writes Davidson.

Meanwhile the doctrine itself "fills a profound intellectual void by describing the complex 21st century landscape and articulating the military's unique role in bringing order to chaos," she writes.

She also counters the manual's critics, saying they "see the new doctrine as another dangerous step on the slippery slope toward U.S. imperialism."

She argues that FM 3-07 offers a set of options or tools but does not dictate to civilian leaders whether or where to use those tools.

Unfortunately, Davidson writes, the United States does not have the civilian capacity to carry out some of today's operations, making it necessary for the military to fill the gap.

"This manual is therefore a call to policymakers and legislators to either rebalance the national security portfolio by adequately resourcing these critical civilian agencies or to accept that soldiers and marines will continue to fill the gap -- and therefore will need to know how to do so," she writes.

And even if adequate expeditionary civilian capacity is reached, there will be times when it will be too dangerous for civilians to deploy, writes Davidson. This makes it necessary for the next generation of soldiers to understand the complexity of these missions and, according Davidson, FM 3-07 will help them do so.

We wrote about the field manual last year in Inside the Army. The version of the manual without the contributions from Flournoy and Davidson is here.

Obama's Defense Remarks
By John Liang
March 24, 2009 at 5:00 AM

While President Obama's press conference tonight was overwhelmingly about the economy, he did say his administration was " changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget," and fielded one defense-related question:

Q Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and Veterans Administration's budgets when so many items that seem destined for the chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry, so many?

Q When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem politically untenable, from major weapons systems -- as you mentioned, procurement -- to wounded warrior care costs, or increased operations on Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, a couple of -- a couple of points I want to make.

The budget that we've put forward reflects the largest increase in veterans funding in 30 years. That's the right thing to do. Chuck asked earlier about sacrifices. I -- I don't think anybody doubts the extraordinary sacrifices that men and women in uniform have already made. And when they come home, then they have earned the benefits that they receive.

And unfortunately, over the last several years, all too often the VA has been under-resourced when it comes to dealing with things like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, dealing with some of the backlogs in admission to VA hospitals.

So there are a whole host of veterans' issues that I think every American wants to see properly funded, and that's what's reflected in our budget.

Where the savings should come in -- and I've been working with Secretary Gates on this and will be detailing it more in the weeks to come -- is how do we reform our procurement system so that it keeps America safe and we're not wasting taxpayer dollars? And there is uniform acknowledgment that the procurement system right now doesn't work. That's not just my opinion; that's John McCain's opinion; that's Carl Levin's opinion.

There are a whole host of people who are students of the procurement process that will say if you've got a whole range of billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar systems that are -- where we're seeing cost overruns of 30 percent or 40 percent or 50 percent, and then still don't perform the way they're supposed to or are providing our troops with the kinds of tools that they need to succeed on their missions, then we've got a problem.

Now, I think everybody in this town knows that the politics of changing procurement is tough, because, you know, lobbyists are very active in this area. You know, contractors are very good at dispersing the jobs in plants in the Defense Department widely.

And so what we have to do is to go through this process very carefully, be more disciplined than we've been in the last several years. As I've said, we've already identified, potentially, $40 billion in savings, just by some of the procurement reforms that are pretty apparent to a lot of -- a lot of critics out there. And we are going to continue to find savings in a way that allows us to put the resources where they're needed but to make sure that we're not simply fattening defense contractors.

One last point. In order for us to get a handle on these costs, it's also important that we are honest in what these costs are. And that's why it was so important for us to acknowledge the true costs of the Iraq war and the Afghan war, because if -- if those costs are somehow off the books and we're not thinking about them, then it's hard for us to make some of the tough choices that need to be made.

Bath Math
By Christopher J. Castelli
March 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Navy’s continuing interest in buying fewer Zumwalt-class DDG-1000 destroyers has once again upset the senators from Maine, which is home to Bath Iron Works shipyard. Check out the letter they sent Friday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Inside the Pentagon recently reported the Navy is looking seriously at further truncating the DDG-1000 program. Rather than three ships, the service might buy two or one.

Shot Down
By Thomas Duffy
March 23, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) spoke this morning at a conference co-sponsored by the Missile Defense Agency and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. And if you were there and you are a supporter of the Airborne Laser program, you didn't have a good morning.

After calling for tighter missile defense testing requirements and the need to shift MDA back into the Pentagon's normal acquisition process, Tauscher -- who last week accepted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's offer to become under secretary of state for arms control and international security -- set her sights on the “tough budget choices” facing Congress and the Defense Department. Both Congress and DOD have avoided these choices over the years when dealing with certain weapon systems, she said, noting that this year will be different. And what program did she use as an example? The ABL.

Noting that the program is eight years behind schedule and $4 billion over cost, Tauscher said ABL is the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over despite failing each time.

Supporters of the program are trying to ride to its rescue, though. Today, seven House members sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to support ABL. Noting they are concerned about reports that ABL will suffer a severe cut or even termination in the fiscal year 2010 budget, the lawmakers told Gates that ABL is “critical to the future of our national security capabilities.”

They lay out their case near the end of the letter:

The ABL is performing well and is scheduled to shoot down a boosting ballistic missile by the end of the year. Should the ABL be severely under-funded or canceled, the promise of speed-of-light and extreme precision in the hands of the warfighter will disappear, as will the fragile industrial base that supports it. In short, we will have wasted the resources that have been well invested since the Clinton administration.

The letter was signed by Reps. Norm Dicks (D-WA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Todd Akin (R-MO), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and, Buck McKeon (R-CA).

IED Watch
By John Liang
March 20, 2009 at 5:00 AM

With insurgents in Afghanistan increasing their use of improvised explosive devices, a senior coalition commander on the ground in that country was asked what can be done to counteract these IEDs.

Dutch Maj. Gen. Mart de Kruif, the commander of Regional Command South in Afghanistan, briefed Pentagon reporters earlier this morning via satellite. De Kruif, who commands about 23,000 troops from 17 nations, is responsible for security and stability operations in the southern region of Afghanistan.

Getting more protection against IEDs is not just a matter of putting more armor on vehicles, according to the Defense Department transcript of de Kruif's remarks:

The first step is having an approach in which you win the hearts and minds of the people. So that means that every day, although we have an IED threat, our forces will go out and have a 24/7 presence amongst the Afghan people. Because by the end of the day, it is the Afghan people who will deny the use of IEDs by the insurgency.

And I just wanted to mention to you that more than 70 percent of the IEDs in Kandahar city are turned in to us or the ANSF by the Afghan people. So this just shows you how -- to put it mildly -- how fed up the Afghans are, the local nationals, with IEDs.

The second step is that you've got into the IED system, that you need to know where the facilities are, where they train the IED cells and where they produce the IEDs. That is mainly a work which is conducted by special forces now. And we are definitely increasing the capacity we have of special forces in RC South, mainly focusing on getting more information of the IED system.

The next step is that you get better capabilities regarding the detection of the IEDs. We are, over the next couple of months, significantly increasing the capabilities we have with new systems to detect IEDs on the ground.

And then last but not least, yes, if we are not able to find an IED, we should protect our people. So the availability of well-protected vehicles like the MRAPs are essential. And one of the highlights which we integrate in our planning from the start is that we would have enough MRAPs available for the U.S. forces coming in.

Let me make one other remark. It's not only ISAF who needs to improve its IED capabilities. But we are now in the process of significantly increas((ing)) the capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces in their counter-IED capabilities. So we are moving forward the right way. But we all know that beating the IED system will be a very long and difficult fight.

Not There Yet
By Kate Brannen
March 20, 2009 at 5:00 AM

An April 2 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States has been canceled because the report is not yet complete, according to an e-mail from Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) office.

William Perry, chairman of the commission, and James Schlesinger, the vice chairman, were scheduled to appear before the committee.

The meeting will be rescheduled once the commission completes its report, according to Levin's office.

The commission delivered an interim report on Dec. 15. Inside the Pentagon reported on it here.

Defense Stimulus
By John Liang
March 20, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Pentagon today issued details on $5.9 billion in funding for nearly 3,000 military construction projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, out of which $300 million would go "to develop energy-efficient technologies," according to a Defense Department Web page.

That $5.9 billion amount "represents the bulk of the approximately $7.4 billion in defense-related funding provided by the ARRA signed by President Barack Obama on Feb. 17, 2009," according to a DOD statement released today:

DOD Recovery Act funds will be spent at DOD facilities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The primary purpose of these funds is to create jobs and stimulate economic activity across the country. All projects focus on making much-needed improvements to military installations and include hospitals, child development centers, and housing for troops and their families.

The two largest DOD projects to be constructed under the ARRA will be new hospitals at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Fort Hood, Texas.

Representing less than 1 percent of the entire $787 billion ARRA package, the $7.4 billion investment in defense-related projects will further the legislation's stated goal of stimulating the American economy, while improving the quality of life for service members, their families, and DOD civilian workers.

ARRA funds are also being used to support DoD high priority programs such as care for wounded warriors and energy security. Facility improvement projects include many energy conservation measures. $300 million of ARRA funds will be used on military energy research programs so that the DOD can continue to lead the way in the national effort to achieve greater energy independence.

On the Radio
By Kate Brannen
March 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense experts predicted a fierce battle this budget season during a discussion of the state of the military this morning on WAMU's Diane Rehm Show.

Andrew Exxum, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and founder of the blog Abu Muqawama, alluded to three wars that are currently being fought: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the "really nasty battle that's getting ready to be waged between Secretary Gates and members of Congress and defense contractors."

He highlighted the debate around the Air Force's F-22, parts of which he said are built in 48 different states -- giving 96 senators a vested interest in keeping it alive.

"The F-22 will be justified not just in terms of something for national defense, but also in terms of a massive federal jobs program," said Exxum.

Gates will use the grim economic environment to make difficult choices in the hopes of creating a more strategic budget, the experts agreed.

"For the first time in this budget, you're going to see one that actually sets long-term priorities for the kinds of wars that he thinks this nation is going to fight," said Thom Shanker, Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times. "It's not going to be each service getting its fair, equitable share of the budget. And I think it's going to be released as a single, big package."

Robert Work, vice president of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, agreed.

"Generally, when you have real change inside the Pentagon it is in times when resources are constrained," he said.

The last two Quadrennial Defense Reviews occurred during defense build-ups, he said, "so hard choices have not had to been made."

"I do not think, that in this case, a bet against Secretary Gates would be a wise one," said Shanker. "This is his last public job ever. He has nothing to lose."

That the cuts are coming is not in dispute, but Robert Haddick, defense analyst at Small Wars Journal and a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, wants to know why.

"The question I would have is if these cuts do in fact occur the way it was described in the Boston Globe article, what is the reason? Is it because these systems are actually lemons or not able to deliver on the missions that are assigned to them? Or is the purpose of cutting these programs to free up money to add to ever more headcount to general purpose ground forces?" asked Haddick.

Deterrence, Revisited
By Sebastian Sprenger
March 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton mentioned an interesting document in his prepared remarks for a congressional hearing this week -- the "Global Deterrence Plan," approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates last fall.

In his prepared testimony, the general described the classified document as a "significant step toward integrating deterrence activities across government agencies and with Allied partners."

Officials are tight-lipped about exactly what role non-military government agencies and partner nations would have to play in a concept traditionally mentioned in one breath with America's atomic weapons might.

An article by Chilton in the spring issue of the Air Force's Strategic Studies Quarterly offers some additional perspective.

In his piece, titled "Waging Deterrence in the 21st Century," Chilton describes deterrence as a "inherently a whole-of-government enterprise." He calls for an "innovative process" that would help "consider and include interagency deterrence courses of action, to make whole-of-government decisions on what courses of action to implement, and to coordinate their execution upon selection."

As for the role of allies, Chilton writes this:

U.S. friends and allies share our interest in deterrence success. Because of their different perspectives, different military capabilities, and different means of communication at their disposal, they offer much that can refine and improve our deterrence strategies and enhance the effectiveness of our deterrence activities. It is to our advantage (and theirs) to involve them more actively in "waging deterrence" in the twenty-first century.

One of the most important contributions that our friends and allies can make to our deterrence campaigns is to provide alternative assessments of competitors’ perceptions. Allied insights into how American deterrence activities may be perceived by both intended and unintended audiences can help us formulate more effective plans. Allied suggestions for alternative approaches to achieving key deterrence effects, including actions they would take in support of—or instead of—US actions, may prove invaluable.

As in the case of interagency collaboration, we need to develop innovative processes for collaborating with our friends and allies to enhance deterrence.

Future Hearing
By Marjorie Censer
March 19, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee has rescheduled its hearing on the Future Combat Systems program for next week.

The hearing -- now slated for 2 p.m. on March 26 -- was originally planned for Tuesday but was postponed because of illness on the part of subcommittee chairman Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).

Scheduled to attend to represent the Army are Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the Army acquisition executive, and Maj. Gen. John Bartley, program manager for FCS. GAO representatives will also attend.

The hearing will address the GAO report released earlier this month, which criticized the FCS program for its immaturity and increasing cost.