The Insider

By John Liang
August 12, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will conduct a live, Internet-broadcast "conversation" next week, the Pentagon announced earlier today.

The event will take place at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 16 at the National Defense University's Abraham Lincoln Hall at Ft. McNair in Washington. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate, according to the announcement.

(UPDATE 8:25 a.m., Aug. 15: Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, will moderate the discussion)

The event will be streamed live on the Defense and State department websites.

By John Liang
August 12, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Credit Suisse analysts, in a research note sent out this morning, write that Huntington Ingalls Industries' work on the Navy's aircraft carriers "bear watching." Further:

With DoD budgets under review, carrier centerlines (delivery frequency) are being discussed. Any delay to CVN-79 (already started, and accounting for ~10%/13% of our projected sales/EBIT for 2011-13) could be significant. Also, there are reports that HII is ~10% over target cost on CVN-78 (Ford), but HII noted this is typical of lead ships and financial targets are unchanged, which is supported by NN margin in Q2. Still, both carriers are a watch item for us.

During a conference call with Wall Street analysts yesterday, Mike Petters, HII's president and chief financial officer, pushed back against rumors that the Pentagon might consider stretching out the procurement plan for Gerald Ford-class carriers, or even cancel one altogether. As InsideDefense.com reported:

"There's a lot of speculation regarding the shipbuilding budget, including not only the timing of the next carrier in the Ford class, the John F. Kennedy, but also long-term," he said. "The ultimate outcome is only certain once the defense budget is finalized and signed into law."

He noted that HII has already started cutting steel on the Kennedy, and he argued that a carrier build cycle of six or seven years would increase shipbuilding costs and harm suppliers.

Asked about reports that the lead ship in the new carrier class, the Ford (CVN-78), was $562 million over budget due to construction inefficiencies, Petters only said that the company was performing well and on track.

"I'm not going to comment on any particular story out there," he said.

By Jordana Mishory
August 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Want to know what's happening minute-by-minute on today's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle test?

Well, DARPA has a tweet for that.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been live-Tweeting (@DARPA_News) today's launch of the HTV-2. The program, which can get to speeds of Mach 20, is part of the Pentagon's Conventional Prompt Global Strike effort designed to strike worldwide targets in less than an hour.

After counting down to the launch, at about 7:45 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, DARPA_News tweeted: "We have lift-off of the Minotaur IV launch vehicle carrying the 2nd #HTV2 flight test vehicle." One minute later, DARPA let the Twitterverse know that in a few minutes the vehicle will leave the visual range of Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA tracking, where the launch took place.

"Confirmation of a successful #HTV2 separation from the Minotaur IV launch vehicle," DARPA tweeted right before 8 a.m. PST. This was followed by news that Pacific Tracker acquired the signal, and that the mission is on track with the vehicle entering the "glide phase." During this phase, the HTV-2 "performs maneuvers to test aerodynamic performance," according to a DARPA fact sheet.

But around 8:20 PST, a hiccup: "Range assets have lost telemetry with #HTV2. More to follow."

During the vehicle's first test in April 2010, the vehicle lost communication about nine minutes into the flight and crashed into the Pacific Ocean.

UPDATE (12:26 p.m.): DARPA's latest Tweet: "Downrange assets did not reacquire tracking or telemetry. #HTV2 has an autonomous flight termination capability. More to follow."

By John Liang
August 10, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee member Patty Murray (D-WA) is among the three Senate Democrats appointed yesterday by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to the 12-member "supercommittee" charged with proposing major deficit-reduction measures later this year. Accompanying her will be Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced today that Sens. Jon Kyl (AZ), Pat Toomey (PA) and Rob Portman (OH) were his picks for the supercommittee.

House Speaker John Boehner (OH) this morning announced his choices: Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (MI) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (MI).

UPDATE (Aug. 11, 12:30 p.m.): House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has chosen Reps. James Clyburn (SC), Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Xavier Becerra (CA).

By John Liang
August 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM

The Pentagon recently updated its written guidance for using private security contractors in contingency operations to also include "humanitarian or peace operations, or other military operations or exercises."

The July 22, 2009, Defense Department instruction was changed on Aug. 1. Under the "applicability" clause, officials added the following:

The requirements of this Instruction shall not apply to a nonprofit nongovernmental organization receiving grants or cooperative agreements for activities conducted within an area of other significant military operations if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State agree that such organization may be exempted. An exemption may be granted by the agreement of the Secretaries on an organization-by-organization or area-by-area basis. Such an exemption may not be granted with respect to an area of combat operations.

In a Feb. 21 report, the Congressional Research Service noted:

As of December 31, 2010, there were more than 27,000 private security contractor personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, representing 17% of DOD's total contractor workforce in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since December 2009, the number of PSC personnel in Afghanistan has exceeded the number in Iraq.

Further, the CRS report outlines the legislative actions lawmakers could take to "help minimize the harm that armed private security contractors could have on U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and future operations." Specifically:

Define the Role that Private Security Contractors Can Play in Support of Military Operations Taking Place in Unsecured Environments

Many analysts believe that the use of armed private security contractors in combat or stability operations poses significant risks to U.S. government interests, including undermining efforts to win hearts and minds during counterinsurgency and other contingency operations. Defining the role that PSCs can -- and should not -- play in supporting military operations could help minimize the risk that contractors will be placed in situations where their actions will undermine U.S. efforts. Below are three different options for defining the role of PSCs.

Prohibit armed security contractors from being deployed in combat zones

Proponents of this approach argue that in combat zones, the mechanisms for oversight and accountability of contractors are likely to deteriorate and that, therefore, the use of deadly force should be restricted only to the military. The military possesses a more robust chain of command and is focused on achieving the mission, without consideration for profit motives or contractual requirements. Opponents of this approach argue that DOD simply does not have the forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that restricting the use of armed security contractors deprives the military of the flexibility to hire and dismiss defensive security contractors that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.

Restrict armed security contractors to performing static security

Such an approach would permit DOD to use armed security contractors in and around the perimeter of a static location and would bar contractors from performing convoy and some personal security. Contractors would also be barred from serving as quick reaction forces that move to the site of an engagement to extract or protect an individual or convoy. Proponents of this approach argue that most of the high-profile incidents involving armed contractors shooting at local nationals have occurred during convoy or personal security movements outside of the perimeter of a secure location. Accordingly, this approach specifically restricts the use of armed contractors only in those situations where there is likely to be a shooting incident that involves civilians. Opponents of this approach argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also argue that this approach limits the flexibility that allows DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.

Restrict armed security contractors to static security, with an exception for local nationals perform critical functions to the extent necessary to operate effectively and maintain control of its mission and operations.

Proponents of this approach maintain that using contractors in this way could still give DOD the benefits of using armed security contractors, including serving as a force multiplier, employing local nationals, and leveraging particular expertise and knowledge of contractors. Opponents of this approach could argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility of DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.

Allowing local national contractors to participate in convoy and personal security would minimize the impact of such a restriction on military forces. Proponents argue that reserving an exception for local nationals gives the military more flexibility in using PSCs without adding significant risk. As discussed above, using local national contractors is an important element in DOD’s counterinsurgency strategy. Local nationals understand the language and are subject to local jurisdiction. Few of the high-profile incidents between PSCs and local citizens involved local national security contractors who were working for the U.S. government. Opponents of this approach will still argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility that allows DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment. Such a restriction could also hamper DOD in future military operations, particularly in the early days of a conflict when events are particularly fluid and the need to rapidly deploy security personnel could be acute. To address this last issue, Congress could empower a Combatant Commander to waive this restriction in initial phases of an operation, for a period not to exceed one year.

Use armed security contractors only in a supporting role for mobile security

Using primarily uniformed personnel (51% or more of total personnel) on each convoy security movement promotes a workforce mix that could give DOD actual command and control of security operations and contractor behavior. Alternatively, a minimal troop presence could be required, sufficient to maintain substantial command and control of contractor personnel. Such an approach appears to be in line with the Office of Management and Budget policy letter on inherently governmental which states that agencies should “ensure that federal employees perform critical functions to the extent necessary to operate effectively and maintain control of its mission and operations."

Proponents of this approach maintain that using contractors in this way could still give DOD the benefits of using armed security contractors, including serving as a force multiplier, employing local nationals, and leveraging particular expertise and knowledge of contractors. Opponents of this approach could argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility of DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.

By John Liang
August 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM

The Pentagon recently issued guidance that "establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for civil aviation intelligence." According to a July 29 Defense Department instruction:

a. There shall be a single lead DoD intelligence representative for the DoD civil aviation intelligence mission.

b. There shall be a single focal point in DoD for intelligence on foreign civil aviation-related entities associated with illicit activities or posing a threat to the United States, its allies, or its interests.

c. Civil aviation intelligence and other air domain awareness capabilities shall, to the extent possible and practicable, be compatible with or complimentary to maritime domain awareness capabilities with the long-term goal of integration.

Accordingly, the under secretary of defense for intelligence has the following responsibilities:

a. Establish DoD civil aviation intelligence policy consistent with DoD 5240.1-R ["Procedures Governing the Activities of DoD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons," December 1, 1982].

b. Be the principal DoD representative for interagency civil aviation intelligence policy.

c. Provide policy support and advocacy for DoD implementation of civil aviation intelligence matters.

d. Coordinate plans, program, fiscal resources, and activities that support the civil aviation intelligence mission, when necessary, with the Director of National Intelligence.

e. Oversee DoD civil aviation intelligence plans, programs, and operations.

By John Liang
August 5, 2011 at 4:10 PM

The Office of Naval Research is seeking industry proposals "for an energy dense air-independent, rechargeable/refuelable energy system for the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Innovative Naval Prototype (LD UUV INP)," according to an announcement posted yesterday on Federal Business Opportunities. Further:

The goal of this program is to develop and demonstrate power system technologies capable of the performance specifications and characteristics contained in Tables 1-4 of the [broad area announcement]. Proposals shall describe a complete system concept, provide a detailed scope of work for the development of the core technology(ies) and conduct integrated bench-top system testing to achieve a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of no less than 4 (Phase I Base). In addition to the specific S&T performance capabilities, proposers are expected to conduct a safety analysis (Preliminary Hazard/Safety Analysis (PHSA), reference in Appendix B) of the system energy technology concept. Any proposal that does not provide a specific full system solution, as well as a safety analysis, will not be considered.

PLEASE NOTE: NUCLEAR POWER OPTIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS EFFORT

Inside the Navy reported in April that the service has been working on concept documents that will guide the future of unmanned underwater vehicles and antisubmarine warfare, according to the official in charge of the projects. Further:

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead released his Guidance for 2011 document in October, stating that the service would "develop a streamlined, appropriately resourced model for concept generation and concept development at the operational level of war."

Since 2008, Naval Warfare Development Command has been developing concepts through a program known as "Concept Generation and Concept Development," or CGCD, and some major projects that will guide the future of many programs are under way.

Capt. David Tyler, director of concepts and capability development at NWDC, told Inside the Navy in an April 7 interview that the first project CGCD was involved in is the Leveraging the Undersea Environment concept.

"That set a pretty high bar for this whole concept development process, and as a result it also generated some actions, so we've been working quite a few of the ideas that have fallen out of that," he said.

A couple of concepts have been significant efforts at NWDC and "consumed a good part of my daily life here this year," Tyler said. One of those is the UUV enabling concept; the other is the distributed managed systems for antisubmarine warfare enabling concept (DMS for ASW).

The UUV enabling concept is about 70 percent complete, he said. "We've been working it through a series of workshops and war games and tabletops, trying to take a look at those UUVs we expect to have in the near-term, what are the capabilities we'd like to have on those things, what type of sensors or what do we need them to be able to do in the mid-term and long-term," said Tyler. "So we're trying to link all these technological advances together and, at the same time, make sure that they're meeting the warfighter's needs."

Once the concept is complete it will guide future UUV programs -- something the service did not have for its unmanned aircraft efforts. "You can see what's happening in the air, with the result of [Operation Enduring Freedom] -- that war really put a lot of unmanned vehicles in the air, almost jumping out in front of any visionary approach to how they use unmanned vehicles," Tyler said. "We're going about it a little smarter, I think, in the undersea environment, planning a little bit longer path ahead and investing smarter in the systems that we think we'll need to meet the warfighter demands."

By Jordana Mishory
August 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is seeking a list of candidates to replace Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter, who has been tapped to be the new deputy defense secretary.

“I've obviously asked for a whole list of individuals that we think can replace [Carter] and that have an industry knowledge that I think is important to that job,” Panetta told reporters today.

His comments come two days after President Obama announced plans to nominate Carter to be the Pentagon's No. 2 official. Panetta called Carter “serious-minded and very capable.”

“That's the primary interest that I have is making sure that the deputy understands this department and can help me manage this department, and I think that Ash will do an outstanding job at that,” Panetta said.

By John Liang
August 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM

The United States wants to increase the "transparency" of its nuclear weapons "on a reciprocal basis with Russia," Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller said earlier today.

Speaking at U.S. Strategic Command's annual deterrence symposium, Gottemoeller said the administration is "in the process of thinking through how this and other such transparency measures might be implemented." Among the issues and questions Gottemoeller said U.S. officials are mulling:

  • Exactly what kinds of information do we think would be useful and appropriate to share and to seek from each other?

  • How much detail are we prepared to share regarding numbers, types, and locations of weapons and related infrastructure?

  • What classes and types of nuclear weapons should be included?

  • What transparency measures should we consider for the total stockpile, in addition to non-strategic nuclear weapons?

  • For the United States, what is the best way to consult with Allies on their views to the extent any transparency measures would involve items located on their territories?

  • What are the legal mechanisms necessary to permit the sharing of sensitive information?

Gottemoeller said the United States would "consult with our NATO allies and invite Russia to join with us to develop an initiative, including examination of potential reciprocal actions that could be taken in parallel by the United States and Russia."

Gottemoeller also said conversations with Russia "must include defining what exactly constitutes a non-strategic nuclear weapon and whether or not a single overall limit on all nuclear weapons would be possible."

The need to develop a non-nuclear weapon capable of striking worldwide targets in under an hour won't go away regardless of how the Pentagon budget is cut over the next few years, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said Wednesday. As Inside the Pentagon reports today:

Gen. Robert Kehler told reporters that the Conventional Prompt Global Strike concept is designed to respond to an "extremely high-value, time-critical target" that could pop up in a location where other forces aren't available to respond. The only weapon in the current U.S. arsenal that can respond in that scenario is a nuclear one.

"That's not a good position to be in. We would like to have a capability to go after a time-critical target in a very short amount of time with a conventional warhead," Kehler said during a teleconference.

He said the goal behind the effort is to give the president more options. "That need will remain" despite potential cuts, Kehler said. "What I can't predict is, in the overall budget outcome here, how we might have to prioritize at the end of the day. And I'm not backing away from a need here; it's just very hard for me to speculate today on what the ultimate outcome is."

The new debt ceiling deal agreed to in the final hour by Congress and signed into law Tuesday by President Obama puts caps on security spending in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, as well as an overall budget cap on federal spending through the next decade. The debt deal also calls for a super committee of 12 lawmakers to develop legislation by Thanksgiving that would find at least $1.5 trillion in future deficit reductions. Many of these dollars could come from the Defense Department. If the committee is unable to come to a consensus and achieve at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, the bill automatically triggers spending cuts for FY-13 through FY-21 -- with 50 percent of these cuts to come from defense accounts.

Kehler said he doesn't know what the debt ceiling agreement means for the department, or the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, and has not seen any specific fiscal guidance.

By John Liang
August 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Lawmakers aren't letting up their pressure on the Obama administration to sell F-16C/D fighter aircraft to Taiwan. In an Aug. 1 letter, 181 House representatives write:

We are writing to express our concerns about the military imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. In order to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, we believe it is critical for the United States to sell the government of Taiwan all the F-16C/Ds it requires. We respectfully request that your administration move quickly to announce its support for such a sale and submit the required Congressional Notification for a sale as soon as possible.

Successive reports issued by U.S. and Taiwanese defense authorities outline the threat Taiwan continues to face, including the continued military buildup by the People's Republic of China. For example, Beijing has more than 1,400 missiles aimed at Taiwan and continues to add to this total. China is forging ahead and deploying next-generation military technology. Military experts both in Taiwan and in the United States have raised alarms that Taiwan is losing its qualitative advantage in defensive arms that have long served as a primary military deterrent.

Due to impending changes within Taiwan's force structure, we respectfully urge a timely resolution to the aircraft sale issue. Within the next decade Taiwan will retire 70% of its fighter force and without new fighter aircraft and upgrades to its existing fleet of F-16s, Taiwan's situation could become quite precarious.

As you know, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (TRA) states that it is U.S. policy "to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . of grave concern to the United States." We remain deeply concerned that delays in the decision on the sale of F-16s to Taiwan and subsequently notifying Congress of their sale could very well result in closure of the F-16 assembly line. In addition to enhancing Taiwan's security, approval of the sale would support thousands of American jobs -- especially well-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector.

In a statement issued yesterday, the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council "welcomes" the lawmakers' letter:

The government of Taiwan has attempted to purchase 66 new F-16 C/D model fighters from the United States since 2006, but has found itself in the precarious position of the U.S. refusing to even consider the sale. These new fighters would replace Taiwan’s aging fleet of Vietnam War-era F-5s and Mirage 2000s, which are to be retired from active service in the coming decade.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has committed the Obama Administration to decide by October 1 what -- if anything -– the U.S. is prepared to do in order to help modernize Taiwan's air force. That includes making a decision on providing replacement F-16 C/Ds, as well as on upgrading Taiwan’s 145 existing F-16 A/Bs.

US-Taiwan Business Council President Rupert Hammond-Chambers noted that "again, the United States Congress has stepped forward to express its support for the US-Taiwan security commitment, which is an essential component of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The military threat from China toward democratic Taiwan continues to go unaddressed by the Obama Administration, thereby sending exactly the wrong signal to Beijing about American resolve in Asia."

Hammond-Chambers went on to note that "the F-16 production line in Texas is in need of new export orders if it is to remain open beyond fall 2013. Over 16,000 jobs nationally are dependent on F-16 production, with a heavy concentration in Florida and Ohio. The bleak unemployment picture in the United States underscores the significance of accepting Taiwan’s request, and of ensuring a future for the many domestic communities that rely on foreign sales of F-16s."

Congressional sources have said they expect the White House may -- as soon as this year -- propose upgrading Taiwan's F-16A/Bs, acquired in the early 1990s, and not act on the request for new F-16C/Ds, InsideDefense.com reported in April.

By Gabe Starosta
August 3, 2011 at 9:01 PM

The Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that suffered an integrated power package failure yesterday, causing a fleet-wide F-35 grounding today, is the same jet that caused another grounding back in March.

The aircraft, a conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant known as AF-4, is a test plane from the system development and demonstration phase of the program, making it one of the older F-35s flying today. The Defense Department and prime contractor Lockheed Martin are negotiating Lot 5 of low-rate initial production, putting AF-4 several lots behind the newest planes coming off the line.

F-35 joint program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova told InsideDefense.com today that during the F-35 fleet's grounding earlier this year, which was caused by a generator failure and oil leak on AF-4, the integrated power package “saved the day” and helped make up for the generator's lack of power. Yesterday, the IPP “experienced a failure,” according to a statement released by the program office. No additional details were provided.

Asked whether more problems had been found on AF-4 than on other F-35s, DellaVedova said, “I don't know if they've found more problems, but it is the same airplane, so you can make that connection. It was the same airplane that started the grounding” in March.

AF-4, along with several other F-35 aircraft, are being tested at Edwards Air Force Base, CA.

By John Liang
August 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM

The impact of the resolution of the federal debt ceiling on the defense budget will likely be both "complicated" and "ugly," American Enterprise Institute analysts Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly write in a post today on the AEI website:

What we know pretty well: For the upcoming 2012 fiscal year and the annual congressional appropriations bills, we know that $684 billion has been allocated for "security" agencies. These include the military, Homeland Security, Veterans, nuclear security, the intelligence community, and the 150 or so foreign aid budget accounts. That represents a $44 billion reduction from the Obama administration's original budget requests, which totaled $728 billion.

While under the budget deal Congress still can apportion the $44 billion of cuts as it sees fit, it's unlikely that House speaker John Boehner's rhetorical promises to protect the military at the expense of other "security" accounts can be fulfilled. The politics of that would be messy, at best, and very few of these other accounts offer up the kind of "big ticket" cut possibilities that defense does and are required to hit the $44 billion mark.

More likely, the cuts will be more or less proportionate to existing budget ratios within the security account, meaning the administration's original request of $553 billion for the military (also affirmed in the House budget resolution crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan) will probably be dunned for about 76 percent of the total cut--about $34 billion. Thus the 2012 defense topline will come in around $520 billion, give or take a billion or so that might be pulled from foreign aid or the intelligence community.

That's lower than the numbers being used by both the White House and defense committee members in the House - they're talking about defense spending of $530 billion - and much lower than the more optimistic talk coming out of the speaker's corner or the I-know-nothing stuff coming out of the Senate. And while it's true, strictly speaking, that we will have to wait until the appropriations process is complete, months from now, the logic of what is going to happen is clear: the defense budget is going to get schwacked.

It represents a $10 billion cut (more in inflation-adjusted, purchasing-power dollars) from the 2011 budget of $530 billion. That's the one the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about so vociferously, forecasting a "crisis" if he wasn't given $540 billion.

What we know less well: Things get less certain in 2013 and beyond. The debt ceiling deal holds "security" spending for 2013 to $686 billion. Back in February when it rolled out the 2012 defense budget, the Obama administration forecast that military spending for 2013 would be $571 billion. It's a more than reasonable assumption that the military will be forced to swallow another couple of spoonfuls of cuts to keep within that topline for the same reasons noted above. Hence, $50 billion might be a good guess, based upon the budget arithmetic and likely appropriation politics.

What we should fear: The so-called "second tranche" of deficit reduction, in the hands of a soon-to-be-named "supercommittee" of lawmakers backed by the threat of an automatic sequestration "trigger" should it fail to agree on sufficient further cuts, would almost certainly push the military past what incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey described as a "very high risk" threshold of cuts. The deficit reduction law seeks another $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in cuts and, if the supercommittee fails to meet the target, mandates additional reductions (split between domestic and security accounts).

Who winds up being on the supercommittee "matters a lot," Schmitt and Donnelly write, adding: "But even more important may be the larger political debate." Specifically:

If Republicans aren't more committed to their professed strong America and Reaganite principles this second step in deficit reduction could be the one that takes the U.S military over the cliff, toward Dempsey's "very high risk" future.

By Christopher J. Castelli
August 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled Thursday afternoon to hold his first Pentagon press conference since taking office in July, Defense Department spokesman Col. David Lapan told reporters today.

Already it's been a busy week for the department's chief. Panetta issued a message this morning on DOD's budget, a subject likely to come up tomorrow.

And yesterday Panetta praised DOD acquisition chief Ashton Carter, the White House's choice to succeed Bill Lynn as deputy defense secretary. Noting Carter is "a top strategic thinker," Panetta added, "I look forward to having Ash as my partner as we drive solutions to the strategic management challenges facing the Department of Defense."

By Thomas Duffy
August 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Following several tumultuous weeks of wrangling between Congress and the White House over raising the country's debt ceiling, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today issued the following message to all Defense Department personnel explaining his stance on cuts to the Pentagon's budget:

As I begin my second month in office as Secretary of Defense, I wanted to take the opportunity to share my thinking with you on one of the key challenges we face as a Department: how to ensure that our military has everything it needs to protect our national security at a time of considerable fiscal challenge in our country.

I know that many of you have been watching with concern the deficit reduction negotiations in Washington. As President Obama has said, our growing national debt, if not addressed, will imperil our prosperity, hurt our credibility and influence around the world, and ultimately put our national security at risk. As part of the nation’s efforts to get its finances in order, defense spending will be – and I believe it must be – part of the solution.

The reductions in defense spending that will take place as a result of the debt ceiling agreement reached by Congress and the President are in line with what this Department’s civilian and military leaders were anticipating, and I believe we can implement these reductions while maintaining the excellence of our military. But to do that, spending choices must be based on sound strategy and policy. In the past, such as after the Vietnam War, our government applied cuts to defense across the board, resulting in a force that was undersized and underfunded relative to its missions and responsibilities. This process has historically led to outcomes that weaken rather than strengthen our national security – and which ultimately cost our nation more when it must quickly rearm to confront new threats.

I am determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past. In order to make the key decisions on how to best implement spending reductions, the President said in April when he unveiled his fiscal framework that “we’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world.” As a Department, we are following that approach. We are asking ourselves: What are the essential missions our military must do to protect America and our way of life? What are the risks of the strategic choices we make? And what are the financial costs? Achieving savings based on sound national security policy will serve our nation’s interests, and will also prove more enforceable and sustainable over the long-term.

We expect that the responsible transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan will help reduce total U.S. defense spending over the coming years. But I will do everything I can to ensure that further reductions in defense spending are not pursued in a hasty, ill-conceived way that would undermine the military’s ability to protect America and its vital interests around the globe. For example, the debt ceiling agreement contains a sequester mechanism that would take effect if Congress fails to enact further deficit reduction. If that happens, it could trigger a round of dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our ability to protect the nation. This potential deep cut in defense spending is not meant as policy. Rather, it is designed to be unpalatable to spur responsible, balanced deficit reduction and avoid misguided cuts to our security.

Indeed, this outcome would be completely unacceptable to me as Secretary of Defense, the President, and to our nation’s leaders. That’s because we live in a world where terrorist networks threaten us daily, rogue nations seek to develop dangerous weapons, and rising powers watch to see if America will lose its edge. The United States must be able to protect our core national security interests with an adaptable force capable and ready to meet these threats and deter adversaries that would put those interests at risk. I will do all I can to assist the Administration and congressional leaders to make the commonsense cuts needed to avoid this sequester mechanism.

Our military has always taken on and succeeded in every mission it has been assigned – from the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at home and abroad. You – the men and women of the military – have never said “I can’t do it.” Nor have the civilians who support you. That is the military ethos – to salute and press on. The ethos of this nation’s leaders and policy makers must be to ensure that the missions assigned to the military meet critical national security priorities. It is our responsibility to determine those priorities and to ensure that you will always have the training and equipment to succeed in those missions.

I am aware that as Washington discusses strategy and policy, you and your families are discussing the implications of decisions that may be made. I promised in my first message as Secretary that I will fight for you. That means I will fight for you and your families as we face these budget challenges.

The force has been stretched by a decade of combat. We owe you and your families the support you have earned – both on the battlefield and on the home front. To be sure, the current budget constraints will make it all the more challenging to modernize and recapitalize the force. Platforms from the build-up of the 1980s are reaching the end of their shelf life and must be replaced, and units and equipment that have been stressed by a decade of combat must be reset. Going forward, we must ensure that the military gets the effective and affordable weapons it needs by redoubling our efforts to enforce procurement discipline.

We also must continue to tackle wasteful and duplicative spending, and overhead staffing. We must be accountable to the American people for what we spend, where we spend it, and with what result. While we have reasonable controls over much of our budgetary information, it is unacceptable to me that the Department of Defense cannot produce a financial statement that passes all financial audit standards. That will change. I have directed that this requirement be put in place as soon as possible. America deserves nothing less.

The United States faces a series of tough choices ahead on the budget as we seek to balance the need for fiscal solvency with the need to protect our security. We can – and must – address the budget and protect the country. As we do, we will be guided by the principle that we will do what’s right for our nation now and for its future. By better aligning our resources with our priorities, this Department can lead the way in moving towards a more disciplined defense budget. Only in that way can we ensure that we fulfill the fundamental duty for those of us in public service – which is to do everything we can to give future generations of Americans a better and safer life.

By John Liang
August 2, 2011 at 3:55 PM

The Defense Department, nearing the end stage for many of its active base cleanups, has set out new goals for accomplishing cleanup responses at most of those bases, including munitions sites, whose cleanups were begun much later than DOD's traditional industrial sites, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning:

While the goals replace an earlier marker DOD would have soon faced of having either cleanup remedies in place or responses complete at all of its industrial waste sites by 2014, the new goals capture a wider range of sites than that goal did and call for response completes only -- a further step in the process than remedy in place.

With the 2014 goal "fast approaching," it was time to set new goals, Maureen Sullivan, DOD director of environmental management, explained in an interview with Defense Environment Alert. "[T]he program was so mature that it is time to look at the next hard mark, which is response complete," she said.

The response complete (RC) goals are to have 90 percent of DOD's industrial waste sites, known as Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites, and its Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites at active bases achieve RC by the end of fiscal year 2018, according to a July 18 DOD memo obtained by Defense Environment Alert. In addition, 90 percent of IRP sites at formerly used defense sites (FUDS) must achieve RC by the end of FY-18 as well, it says.

Further, by the end of FY-21, 95 percent of IRP and MMRP sites at active bases and IRP sites at FUDS must achieve RC, the memo says.

"These RC goals will enable [DOD] Components to advance sites through the final cleanup phases to site closeout," the memo says. The memo was signed by DOD Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Installations & Environment John Conger, and was sent to the service assistant secretaries for environment. . . .

The new goals, however, do not cover BRAC sites or FUDS MMRP sites. DOD, however, last year did agree with a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report calling on the department to set a goal for achieving RC or remedy in place at FUDS munitions sites. GAO pointed out that despite an existing legal requirement, DOD has not yet established a goal for having remedies in place or responses complete at these sites (Defense Environment Alert, April 27, 2010).

The just-released goals become effective in the next fiscal year and, while not binding legal requirements, "are required to facilitate the DoD Components' efforts to meet their legal requirements," Conger says in the memo. Conger says the goals will not require DOD to spend any additional funds than were currently programmed.