The Insider

Name Change
By John Liang
February 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Changing the Navy's official name to include the Marine Corps would not have much adverse budgetary effect, according to a brief Congressional Budget Office report released last week.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced a bill on Jan. 3 that would redesignate the Department of the Navy the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. CBO's Jan. 31 analysis states:

CBO anticipates that the bill would have very little effect on most U.S. Naval or Marine Corps installations since signage, service flags, and other items bearing the emblems or names of the Navy or Marine Corps generally do not reference the Department of the Navy and would not need to be replaced. In addition, since the commanding officers of U.S. military installations and other senior-level positions within the department change on a relatively frequent and routine basis, the budgetary impact of the bill would be small if purchasing of materials, such as stationery, were coordinated with those changes of command and appointments. CBO anticipates that the cost of implementing this bill would be less than $500,000 a year, over the next several years, from appropriated funds.

Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, during his Senate confirmation hearing in September 2010, reluctantly suggested that a name change might be warranted, as Inside the Navy reported at the time:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) a former Marine, Naval Academy graduate and Navy Secretary, pushed the subject when he questioned Amos during his Sept. 21 nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Webb argued that the change would overturn more than 200 years of tradition.

Amos noted that general officers have historically avoided being drawn into the debate, which he called a "political effort."

"It's probably not appropriate for the commandant of the Marine Corps as a service chief to weigh in," he said.

However, he added, "Do I need to dig into this a little bit more here and reveal myself?"

Webb prodded him, asking if there might be budgetary benefits for the Marine Corps in such a change.

Amos responded with a gloss of the Corps' history, noting that at one time the Marine Corps commandant was not even considered a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"This whole process has been evolutionary since the beginning of the Department of the Navy," he said. "I think if you talk to the Marines out there … where we are in 2010 today, because of where we have evolved, we are a pretty formidable force for our nation. And I think just viscerally … the average fleet Marine would look at the secretary [of the Navy] and say, 'Yeah, I'd like him to be called the secretary of the Navy and the secretary of the Marine Corps.'"

While he acknowledged Webb's concerns about breaking tradition, he added, "We paid a pretty healthy price in the last nine to 10 years of combat and we feel pretty relevant right now."

View the full story.

Strategic Intent
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno released his "strategic intent" today, calling on the service to refocus on its core warfighting skills while improving its ability to distribute and reassemble its forces rapidly, building the mass needed for the central mission of fighting and winning the nation's wars.

"The temptation is to attempt to be prepared for everything, but fiscal realities demand greater strategic clarity," Odierno writes. "All our initiatives must contribute to maintaining a force that is prepared to deploy, fight and win despite uncertainty about where, when, and against whom it may be deployed."

Army officials must continue to invest in the specific skills, equipment and forces needed to effectively fulfill the service's mission but also "must be good stewards of our resources in an era of increasing fiscal austerity," he writes.

McCain on Hagel, WSARA
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today criticized the Defense Department's “culture of inefficiency” and questioned whether the White House's nominee to be defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), has the chops to grapple with problems in the Pentagon's process for buying major weapons.

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 has led to improvements, but there is more work to be done, according to McCain. "Whether Senator Hagel would serve as the right leader at the Department of Defense to foster needed cultural change in the Department’s procurement practices is unclear," McCain said in a floor statement. "What we do know," he added, "is that the right person must embrace the following principles."

DOD must set realistic requirements early and manage changes to those requirements aggressively; improve the department's ability to price risk; improve its workforce for cost estimating, technical- and systems-engineering and developmental testing; use appropriate contract types; better incentivize productivity and innovation; and take other steps, McCain said. His full statement is online.

Carter in Turkey, Paris
By Christopher J. Castelli
February 4, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter arrived in Turkey on Sunday for "close consultations on a number of core issues," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a Feb. 3 statement. Carter will meet with Minister of National Defense Ismet Yilmaz and other senior defense officials to "help advance mutual defense cooperation, including NATO-led efforts to address the potential missile threat resulting from the conflict in Syria," Little said, and "reaffirm America's strong commitment to Turkey as an ally in confronting international terrorism" in the wake of last Friday's suicide-bomb attack at the U.S. embassy.

On Saturday, Carter spoke at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, stressing the "vital" partnership between DOD and the U.S. defense industry:

So we regard industry as our partners in protecting the country and so as we make this strategic transition, we must do it in a way that ensures that our industry remains strong, technologically vibrant and financially successful. "We don't, I always tell people, we don't make anything in the Pentagon. And so in that sense, our interests in the Pentagon are aligned with long-term investors and we will accordingly promote policies, industrial policies and spur long term innovation, efficiency, profitability and productivity growth. We understand and we expect that the strategic transition upon which we are embarked and many of you are in embarked will cause adjustments in our industry, adjustments to the structure of our industry. This is normal. We understand that and in the main, we will rely upon market forces to make the most economically efficient adjustments in the defense industry.

On Feb. 1, Carter held meetings in Paris with several senior French defense officials, including Minister of Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian. Carter "commended the French for their progress in -- and decisive commitment to -- their operations in Mali," Little said. "He noted the progress of French forces, which have delivered significant blows to terrorist networks in northern Mali. And he provided assurances of continued U.S. support for this important mission."

The Obama administration's $32 million aid proposal for African troops fighting Islamic extremists in Mali could provide urgently needed armored vehicles, communications gear, body armor and other equipment along with training and logistical support, Inside the Pentagon recently reported.

Carter and French officials also discussed Afghanistan and French defense strategy, the future of which will be defined soon in a French government white paper, Little said. "The discussions reinforced the strong U.S.-French defense relationship and military-to-military cooperation between the two allies," he said.

Big Data
By John Liang
February 4, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Georgetown University's law school plans to hold a symposium later this month on "big data" and its impact on national security:

Big Data is transforming national security capabilities. Despite massive data-storage capacity and sophisticated analytical tools for processing data from myriad sensors, the rate of data collection is outstripping our ability to analyze it. Compounding this challenge is an outdated and piecemeal legal and policy framework governing how data is collected, stored, shared, and used. "Swimming in the Ocean of Big Data" will demystify Big Data, address its challenges and potential, and chart a legal and policy framework for an evolving technology.

National Security Agency General Counsel Rajesh De will be the keynote speaker, according to the announcement.

Appropriations Vice Chair
By John Liang
February 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM

While all eyes were on the Senate Armed Services Committee during yesterday's hearing on former Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R-NE) nomination to become the next defense secretary, the House Appropriations Committee announced the names of its subcommittee vice chairs.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) will serve as vice chairman of the defense subcommittee, taking over as chairman in the absence of current Chairman Bill Young (R-FL), according to a committee statement. Frelinghuysen replaces retired Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA).

"The Committee's Vice Chairs are a group of committed, knowledgeable Members, each with a deep understanding of the Appropriations process and a desire to get our federal budgets back into balance," Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said in the statement, adding: "I expect they will serve capably and dutifully, playing a very important role in what will be a challenging but hopefully fruitful Appropriations year."

Unmanned Airspace
By John Liang
February 1, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Inside the Air Force reports this morning that the Federal Aviation Administration likely will move forward later this month with an effort to establish six test sites across the country where unmanned aircraft would be integrated into the national airspace.

The FAA is expected to advance its plan following President Obama's Feb. 12 State of the Union Address, according to a congressional aide. ITAF further reported:

Sean Snyder, a military legislative assistant to Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), told Inside the Air Force on Jan. 29 that he expects the next step in the process of integrating Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) into the national airspace to begin as soon as late February. That step requires the FAA to accept information from states with potential test site locations, enabling the agency to select six sites. Hanna, a member of the Unmanned Systems Caucus along with Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), crafted legislation that allowed for the establishment of the sites.

"I think we're looking at mid-to-late February at the earliest and I think the big things that are going to help move that forward are if Congress can put together some legislation that would help to ease the privacy concerns," Snyder said.

FAA spokesman Les Dorr did not return a request for an update on the integration process by press time (Jan. 31) but has told ITAF on multiple occasions that the agency continues to work on a screening information request for the six test sites.

Privacy concerns related to integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace sprung up in late 2012 and have rapidly moved to the forefront of the UAS integration discussion. ITAF previously reported that those issues cropped up for the FAA after it was hit with several lawsuits and received Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Now, in an effort to further smooth the path for UAS integration, some members of Congress are considering putting together legislation that would address the public's privacy concerns, Snyder said.

Read the full story.

Related coverage from Inside the Air Force:

FAA: Congress May Have To Wait Until 2013 For UAS Test-Site Solicitation
Inside the Air Force - 12/14/2012

House, Senate Pressure FAA To Speed Up UAS Test Site Selection
Inside the Air Force - 11/30/2012

The Congressional Research Service released a report this week delving into the legal issues surrounding the use of unmanned aircraft in the national airspace:

Under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, P.L. 112-95, Congress has tasked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), sometimes referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, into the national airspace system by September 2015. Although the text of this act places safety as a predominant concern, it fails to establish how the FAA should resolve significant, and up to this point, largely unanswered legal questions.

For instance, several legal interests are implicated by drone flight over or near private property. Might such a flight constitute a trespass? A nuisance? If conducted by the government, a constitutional taking? In the past, the Latin maxim cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum (for whoever owns the soil owns to the heavens) was sufficient to resolve many of these types of questions, but the proliferation of air flight in the 20th century has made this proposition untenable. Instead, modern jurisprudence concerning air travel is significantly more nuanced, and often more confusing. Some courts have relied on the federal definition of "navigable airspace" to determine which flights could constitute a trespass. Others employ a nuisance theory to ask whether an overhead flight causes a substantial impairment of the use and enjoyment of one's property. Additionally, courts have struggled to determine when an overhead flight constitutes a government taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

View the full CRS report, originally obtained by Secrecy News.

And access InsideDefense.com's comprehensive coverage of remotely piloted vehicle issues.

Hagel Vote
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee will likely vote next Thursday on whether to back the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as defense secretary, Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told reporters today following Hagel's confirmation hearing.

Levin declined to predict when the full Senate might vote on the nomination, and said he had heard "third hand" that two GOP senators support Hagel's nomination: Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Thad Cochran (MS).

Levin said he thought Hagel performed well during today's hearing.

Levin also said Congress could still take action to avoid the looming budget cuts known as sequestration. It remains unclear when Congress will receive the Pentagon's fiscal year 2014 budget request, he said.

Gavel Down
By John Liang
January 31, 2013 at 10:58 PM

After two rounds of questions, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) brought the nomination hearing of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to be the next defense secretary to a close at 5:45 this afternoon. The hearing began at 9:30 this morning, and only broke twice for floor votes.

Hagel withstood a barrage of questions from skeptical committee Republicans, many of them touching on the former senator's support for Israel.

Committee members have until 5 p.m. Friday to submit any remaining questions for the record, and Hagel has until 5 p.m. next Monday to answer them.

View Hagel's prepared testimony and other pre-written documents from the hearing.

Hagel on Subs
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 31, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Former Sen. Hagel (R-NE) today stopped short of committing to acquiring 12 new nuclear ballistic missile submarines to replace the Navy's aging Ohio-class boomers. Asked at his confirmation hearing whether he would prefer 12 or 10 new boomers, Hagel said he would want to talk with the chief of naval operations before taking a position on the issue.

Hagel also steered clear of a question on whether the next block buy for the Virginia-class attack sub program should include 10 or nine subs. Hagel acknowledged the importance of both boomers and attack subs and said he is committed to modernizing the Navy.

Blunt Talk
By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) turned the discussion at today's hearing to the industrial base, asking Hagel whether he would commit to helping ensure its stability in the face of uncertain financial conditions.

Blunt also noted a quote from an interview Hagel gave in 2011 in which Hagel referred to "bloat" in the Pentagon's budget. Hagel, in response, noted that the interview concerned the overall budget situation before the Budget Control Act and its threat of sequestration. Noting that he "never supported sequestration," Hagel talked about the problem of "waste, fraud and abuse" in Pentagon spending and said "that's certainly an area that we're going to have to take a look at."

As for specific areas that might be targeted for savings, Hagel cited missions and responsibilities that have been "pushed down on the military the last 12 years" -- things that in the past were under the purview of the State Department and other agencies. "So the military has taken on a tremendous volume of assignments and funding that goes along with that," Hagel said. "That needs to be sorted through."

Halftime
By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Summing up the first round of questions: Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has been hit hard on past comments about Israel and nuclear disarmament, as expected. He's been grilled by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Hagel's opinions on the Iraq surge, with McCain declaring that his former Senate colleague was refusing to answer a question about whether Hagel was right on that surge. And he's faced a couple of questions on sequestration, with limited discussions of cyber threats, auditability and a few other matters thrown in. Almost no discussion so far of Pentagon procurement issues or weapon systems.

The committee plans to be back soon, with another break for voting due at around 2:15. A second day of questioning remains a possibility.

Cyber Threats
By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today called cyber threats as big a deal as any other threats facing the United States.

Responding to a question posed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) during his confirmation hearing, Hagel said a cyber attack could paralyze an entire nation "in a second."

Hagel also moved beyond the "larger threat" posed by cyber attacks themselves to the issue of who does what within the U.S. government to combat them. Noting the large number of agencies that play in this area, along with a host of competing and conflicting legal and regulatory issues to be sorted out, Hagel said Congress and the administration face a dilemma they've "never had to face before" in dealing with other national security threats, and pledged to work hard on the matter if he is confirmed.

Sequester 'Disaster'
By Jason Sherman
January 31, 2013 at 3:42 PM

The consequences of sequester on the Defense Department would be a “disaster,” Hagel said in response to the first question of the hearing, from Chairman Levin:

Make no mistake, this is not an exaggeration. When managers are not given the flexibility and opportunity and the tools to manage with complete uncertainty as to what's ahead, that's disaster.

Inhofe on Hagel
By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered a tough opening statement at today's hearing, accusing the nominee of believing in a worldview predicated on "appeasing our enemies," among other things.

The full statement, as prepared:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming Senator Hagel before this committee and appreciate his continued willingness to serve the United States and the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Before I continue with my opening statement, I’d like to raise concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. Senator Hagel only provided four speeches to the committee even though his financial disclosure form reveals that he received honoraria for giving 12 speeches in the last year alone. Late last night just hours before the today’s hearing began the committee received nearly 230 pages of additional speeches given by the nominee.

In my judgment, the Committee cannot vote on this nomination until we have received full and adequate disclosure and have sufficient time to review and consider the contents of materials provided. I understand from discussions with my colleagues that there are additional requests for information that have not received a response.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The President’s nomination of Senator Hagel to serve as the next Secretary of Defense comes at a critical juncture for our military and national security interests. Senator Hagel is a good man who has a record of service and sacrifice that deserves respect. And while his service is commendable, the fate of his nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. It is the votes he has cast and the statements he has made over the many years of his career that will inform us of his judgment, his view of America’s role in the world and his view of the military required to support this role.

As I told him during our meeting in my office, after a long and careful review of his record, we are just too philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our country for me to support his nomination.

His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of sound judgment and steadfast support for policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than core beliefs.

On the defense budget and sequestration, Senator Hagel’s views are contrary to the judgment of our top civilian and military leaders. According to Secretary Panetta, the impact of sequestration to our military would be “catastrophic” and “devastating” to the military. General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that we are “on the brink of creating a hollow force” and that sequestration would pose “unacceptable risk.” Senator Hagel, instead, has stated that the Defense Department is “bloated” and that “the Pentagon needs to be pared down.” I couldn’t disagree more. We need a Secretary of Defense who will stand up and work with Congress to avert this unacceptable outcome.

On many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests around the world, Senator Hagel’s record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream. Too often, it seems, he is willing to subscribe to a worldview that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends.

In 2000, when an overwhelming majority of Senators sent a letter to President Clinton affirming American solidarity with Israel in the face of Palestinian aggression, Senator Hagel was one of just four who refused to sign.

In 2001, he was one of just two Senators who voted against a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization.

He voted against a resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps – a group responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—a terrorist organization.

And, on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with Iran—a regime that continues to repress its people, doggedly pursue a nuclear weapons capability, and employ terrorist proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, to threaten the security of Israel and the region.

Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement. At a time when North Korea’s belligerent actions threaten our allies with their nuclear capabilities, the security of our own nation and that of our allies requires us to be vigilant with our own nuclear weapons and defense systems.

The Senate ratified the New START treaty on the condition that the president would carry out a nuclear modernization program. The Global Zero report, of which Hagel was involved, does not fully support even the President’s commitment to nuclear modernization. How can we in Congress be confident he will carry out these important modernization efforts?

Of late, however, Senator Hagel has expressed views in meetings with my Senate colleagues and through the press that appear glaringly at odds with many of his long-held positions, particularly on issues dealing with Israel, Iran, and our nuclear arsenal. This apparent willingness to walk-back or alter his positions for the sake of political expediency on such important issues is deeply troubling and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike.

Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date demonstrates he will be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of President Obama’s first term. Retreating from America’s unique global leadership role and shrinking the military will not make Americans safer. On the contrary, it will embolden our enemies, endanger our allies, and provide opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill the global leadership vacuum we leave behind. It is for these reasons, that I believe he is the wrong person to lead the Pentagon at this perilous and consequential time.”