The Insider

The Army's Human Terrain Team program, which has repeatedly come under fire since its creation, is getting a shout-out from a counterinsurgency officer in Afghanistan. Army Col. John Agoglia, director of the Kabul-based Counterinsurgency Training Center-Afghanistan, told us in an interview last week he plans to soon integrate the teams' research into his organization's training curriculum.

Agoglia said he hasn't personally worked with any HTT personnel. But, he added, "the brigade commanders I've talked to felt they're getting very good information from them."

Under the HTT program, anthropologists deploy alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to facilitate troops' interactions with the local population.

But before CTC-A trainers can tap into the information gathered by HTT teams, officials must build the requisite information sharing infrastructure, including ways of exchanging secret information, Agoglia said.

"We need to get our pipes set up and we need to get our information sharing capabilities improved," the colonel said. "And then we'll start looking at what they have and start pulling them into the training we're doing at the center."

Wired magazine's Danger Room blog has chronicled some of the issues surrounding the HTT program here, here, and here.

A Human Terrain Team handbook, issued by the Army's Training and Doctrine Command in September, is posted here.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the global financial crisis will force the Pentagon to “squeeze” its budget. In addition, the Pentagon's No. 1 officer passed up an opportunity during yesterday's press conference to support the Air Force's bid to buy additional F-22A fighters.

ADM. MULLEN: I think it's very clear from, obviously, President- elect Obama's public statements, also Secretary Gates, to look at -- to take a very, very intense, focused, comprehensive view at what we're buying -- and from that perspective, I think that's very healthy.

And I say that -- also, I'm obviously discouraged by the lack of cost control that we've got in so many -- in so many of our programs. And we are going to have to get a grip on that, or we will not be able to buy them. It's very clear to me. We won't be able to buy them, and we won't be able -- or we won't be able to buy them in the quantity we need.

I am -- I'm very concerned about the global financial crisis and its impact globally on security. I think it will impact on security over a period of time, and we have to recognize that. I think it's important for all of us in the Defense Department to squeeze our budgets, to draw in where we can, and for leaders to commit to that and certainly recognize that there are challenges out there which we'll continue to have to resource.

Q: Do you think, for instance, of the biggest military needs -- say the F-22, the most expensive fighter plane ever made?

ADM. MULLEN: There's been an awful lot of discussion about that. It's not a matter of do we need it.... We have it. It's a question of how many do we need for the future. And Secretary Gates has been pretty clear. This administration has been very clear about where it's been, where he is, and certainly has, you know, left it open to see what the additional numbers should be. The chief of staff of the Air Force has talked about a number that is another -- what? -- 50 or so more than the 183 right now.

So I think we're going to -- we're going to work our way through that. I do -- I am concerned that it is such an expensive system.

I think it is -- in the aviation world, our future is in the Joint Strike Fighter, but the Joint Strike Fighter is a new system. New systems usually struggle, you know, meeting exact deadlines. And I think it's very important we have capability to bridge to that system with respect to the broad range of capabilities for the country.

The 2010 QDR just might be preceded by a brand-new, sweeping national security review.

Experts say President-elect Barack Obama’s team is likely to conduct a new kind of national security review that spans the entire U.S. government. Call it what you will -- NSR, quadrennial NSR, or QNSR; it could be a very big deal.

“With the rise in importance of stability operations and the Obama team’s desire to increase the role of ‘soft power,’ this is an idea that is likely to get a warm reception,” says Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Such a review could be done without delaying the schedule for the QDR, he said.

Opinions differ, however, on how soon such a review can be mustered, as Inside the Pentagon reports today.

Also today: Our coverage of telling essays by Michèle Flournoy, who co-chairs Obama’s DOD transition team, and Robert Gates, who will continue to lead the Pentagon. (Her essay is here; his is here.)

And see this story on the three-step process that Flournoy recommended for developing the new national security strategy. She outlined it this past summer in a book published by the Center for New American Security.

In the spirit of the term "All Politics Is Local," Boeing today released a statement about an Arizona State University report that found the company's missile defense work had contributed $193 million per year to Arizona's economy. According to Boeing:

The study looked at payroll, non-payroll purchases and expenditures, and vendor commitments in the state to determine the overall impact of Boeing's work on the GMD program.

Major economic impacts for 2007 include:

* Created 1,936 direct and indirect jobs in the state
* Distributed a payroll of $94 million
* Generated $137 million in Arizona household earnings
* Contributed $12.7 million in state and local government tax revenue.

Arizona State economics professor Lee McPheters, who has studied Boeing and other high-tech firms, said GMD gives Arizona's economy a major boost.

"Looking at the average earnings across all the jobs created by GMD, both direct and indirect, the GMD program serves not only to expand the size of the economy in Arizona, but also to raise the average standard of living of its residents," said McPheters.

Who paid for the study, might you ask?

Boeing.

The Pentagon has not been able to rapidly adapt to a “war footing,” according to the Center for Public Integrity's new large-scale assessment of the Bush administration, titled “Broken Government.”

The nonpartisan organization's project is a digital report intended to provide “a comprehensive assessment of executive branch failures over the course of the Bush presidency.” It looks beyond the Defense Department to areas including education, health care, financial management and the environment, among many others.

In the Defense Department section, the Center for Public Integrity says the department “has often been unresponsive or slow to react to the needs of soldiers and Marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in the United States when they return.”

In particular, it notes the Pentagon's initially slow procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, something that’s in the news this week, again.

InsideDefense.com has reported extensively on DOD efforts to adapt its acquisition efforts to meet soldier requirements. Most recently, we wrote about Defense Secretary Robert Gates' call for changes to the Pentagon's acquisition system to make it more responsive to the needs of soldiers in theater.

The CPI report singles out Gates, who will stay on under President-elect Barack Obama, for praise.

“Gates made accountability and responsiveness to the current conflicts his signature,” the online project says. “For example, he made MRAP procurement the number one DOD acquisition priority.”

Just because the world's economy is down doesn't mean that the aerospace and defense industry is too, according to the Aerospace Industries Association.

As AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey told attendees at the association's annual year-end luncheon at the lavish Mayflower Hotel in downtown Washington today:

I’m happy to report that, despite the challenges to our economy, our industry had a strong year in 2008. Total sales are on pace to reach $204 billion, a new record for the fifth straight year. It also represents the seventh year of growth in the last eight years, which is even more remarkable when you consider the widespread financial difficulties in our economy. This figure represents an increase of 2.1 percent, which is less growth than we’ve seen in recent years. The main reason for the drop was not the tough economic atmosphere, but the work stoppage at Boeing that trickled down through the industry. We are more than satisfied that there was continued progress throughout the aerospace industry in 2008.

Like last year, our industry saw modest growth in every sector – civil aircraft, military aircraft, missiles, space and related products. This is noteworthy because over the years these sectors were often on different, distinct cycles. When civil aviation was up, military was usually down, and vice-versa. To see this balanced growth across the sectors again is a good sign for our industry.

As for the upcoming year, Blakey said the industry "is in good position to weather the financial storm" for several reasons:

One is that funding levels for two of our three sub-sectors – defense and space – are largely set for the next fiscal year. The defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2009 was part of the continuing resolution that passed in October. The same bill also provides funding for NASA through March at largely the same levels as fiscal 2008.

While ideally we would like to see increased investment in space exploration, it at least keeps a stable base for NASA funding. Much of the groundwork for the fiscal 2010 budget is being laid right now. And the long lead times on federal budgets mean that we anticipate funding levels to remain steady -- without any major adjustments -- for the next 18 months, or even longer.

That said, defense and aerospace are not necessarily "immune" to the current recession, according to Blakey:

There is some speculation out there that the defense budget will be a source for cutbacks in future years to pay for other needs.

Defense R&D funding is expected to decrease, and supplemental budgets are poised to go down. In civil aviation, orders have decreased, passenger traffic is down and the contracting credit market makes aircraft financing deals more difficult. On top of that, anticipated fleet recapitalization by U.S. airlines does not look like it will materialize in the near-term. And, of course, the bad economic environment has traveled around the globe, and the bulk of existing aircraft customers are foreign airlines.

And lest Congress sees the multibillion-dollar defense budget as a potential till from which to pay for other government programs:

Aerospace and defense should not become a bill-payer for other areas of the federal budget, which would hurt our economy in the long-term for some temporary relief elsewhere.

Our industry provides a strong economic foundation for much of our nation’s advanced technology and innovation, and that would suffer if we don’t make adequate, sustained investment. All this effort is to underscore the message that aerospace is a cornerstone of our economy, and it deserves sustained support from our elected leaders.