The Insider

By Suzanne Yohannan
December 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Lawmakers conferencing the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill have decided to maintain a 2007 energy law provision that bans federal purchases of carbon-intensive alternative fuels, rejecting an attempt by the House to repeal the ban as it applies to the Defense Department.

The conferees' rejection of the House measure to block DOD compliance with section 526 of the energy law is referenced in the House-Senate conference report for the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, released last night by the House Armed Services Committee. The House "recedes" in its attempt to exempt DOD from the section 526 alternative fuel procurement requirement, the conferees say in their final report.

Section 526 bars federal agencies from purchasing alternative fuels with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional fuel. DOD is currently studying the lifecycle GHG emissions of fuels it purchases containing Canadian tar sands, in light of section 526 requirements.

But industry and other critics have sought to repeal the provision, charging it hampers demand for nonconventional fuels like tar sands, oil shale and coal-to-liquid fuels. Supplies of these fuels, especially Canadian tar sands, are expected to increase given two pipelines already approved by the State Department in recent years, and the possible approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline.

"Failure to repeal Section 526 will increase the nation's dependence on imported oil, while jeopardizing thousands of American jobs that depend on the continued flow of Canadian oil," the American Petroleum Institute (API) said in a press release earlier this year.

But earlier this year, former military officials publicly criticized the 526 repeal proposal, saying it would impede the military's move toward clean energy and maintain the military's reliance on oil and gas.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, opposed repeal during House floor debate last May on the defense bill. Section 526 bars "tax dollars from being used to purchase fuels that have a higher pollution emission than conventional fuels," Smith said. "As the largest federal agency, exempting DOD from 526 is a step backward in this effort."

The House sought to revoke section 526, as it applies to DOD, when it passed the defense bill in May. But the provision was rejected by the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, with a committee spokesperson saying the panel lacked jurisdiction over the issue.

The conference report now goes to the House and Senate for votes on its final passage.

By John Liang
December 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM

National Guard Association of the United States President Gus Hargett is lauding the decision by House and Senate conferees to include language in the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization conference report that would allow the head of the National Guard to become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a statement released today, Hargett, a retired major general, says:

The passage of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill conference report last night brings the National Guard to the cusp of its greatest legislative victory in more than a century. Not since the Militia Act of 1903 created the modern, dual-mission National Guard have we seen approval of legislation that could have such a significant positive impact on our force.

But this is so much more than about giving the Guard a voice at the Pentagon by adding the chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's about ensuring our civilian leaders have access to expertise on the Guard's domestic-response capabilities in a crisis.

On this, the 375th birthday of the National Guard, we thank the conferees for honoring the will of the House and the Senate by keeping the fundamentals of National Guard Empowerment intact in their final report.

We also thank the principle sponsors -- Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Lindsey Graham in the Senate and Representative Candace Miller and Representative Nick Rahall in the House -- for their support, their leadership and their determination. We know they were inspired by the daily sacrifice and service of our Guard men and women around the globe, and for that all who lead the National Guard are deeply humbled.

Presuming the House and Senate follow historic precedent and approve the conference report, I respectfully urge President Barack Obama to honor his 2008 campaign promise to us and with his stroke of a pen provide the National Guard with a seat at the table.

By John Liang
December 13, 2011 at 12:50 AM

House and Senate lawmakers this evening agreed on the conference report for the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) released the following statement:

For five decades, Congress has without fail passed an annual defense authorization act in the interests of protecting our nation and doing right by our troops and their families. The conference report we have just adopted gives us the opportunity to continue that unbroken line, and I am confident it will pass both houses with strong bipartisan support.

I want to thank my partner in the Senate, Senator McCain, as well as Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith, for their extraordinary hard work and cooperation. Assisted by staffers who have worked way beyond the call of duty, we have demonstrated that even at a time of political polarization, and even when dealing with complex and sometimes controversial issues, members of Congress can come together to legislate and do our duty to the people we serve.

Our primary responsibility, this and every year, is to pass a bill that provides for the national defense, ensures that our troops and their families are cared for, and delivers maximum value for taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

This agreement authorizes $662 billion for national defense discretionary programs, which is $26.6 billion less than the budget request. That includes $23 billion less than the base budget request, $2.4 billion less than the overseas contingency operations request, and $1.1 billion less than the Department of Energy’s request for national security programs. It includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for all members of the uniformed services and authorizes more than 30 types of bonuses and special pays to encourage enlistment and re-enlistment.

The detainee provisions have generated a great deal of discussion. There were ample assurances in the Senate bill that there would be no interference with civilian interrogations and law enforcement. Those provisions:

* Left it to the president to determine who is connected to al Qaeda and therefore subject to presumed military detention;

* Provided that those procedures not interfere with ongoing intelligence, surveillance or interrogations by civilian law enforcement;

* Left it to the executive branch to determine whether a military detainee is tried by a civilian or military court;

* Gave the executive branch broad waiver authority.

However, to address the perception of some that the Senate bill somehow constrained civilian law enforcement, the conference report provides a number of additional assurances that there will be no interference with civilian interrogations or other law enforcement activities:

* We have added language that says:

'Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless of whether such covered person is held in military custody.'

* We have changed the title of the section in question from ‘Requirement for Military Custody’ to 'Military Custody for Foreign al Qaeda Terrorists.'

* We have changed the waiver provision so that waiver authority now rests with the president, rather than the secretary of defense.

* And we have changed language that protects interrogations to make clear that it is civilian interrogation generally that is protected from interruption, and not just a single interrogation session.

Conferees adopted Senate language bill language making clear that we are not modifying existing law on the issue of who is an enemy combatant. Existing law on transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries is maintained, but with added flexibility for the executive branch in the form of a waiver. And existing law on transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States is maintained for another year.

After a decade of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates under the Authorization for the Use of Force of Sept. 18, 2001, it is long past time to provide a statutory basis relating to military detention under that authorization.

There are some other major accomplishments of the bill. The conferees have adopted the Senate’s strong provisions applying sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank virtually intact. Provisions from the Senate bill included in the conference report give us confidence that sanctions will not result in a windfall for Iran through increases in the price of oil. At the same time, these provisions will add major pressure on Iran to end its quest for nuclear weapons.

The conference report also includes the strong Senate provisions relating to counterfeit electronic parts in the defense supply chain. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s investigation revealed a flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly traceable to China. That flood endangers our national security, threatens the safety of our troops, wastes taxpayers' money and costs American jobs. This legislation will help stem that tide.

The conferees have also adopted Senate language reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT) programs. These programs are important for the health of small business and for our ability to grow the economy through innovation. And they are important for our national security. The Department of Defense is the largest user of these programs, and innovations that they produce have made significant contributions to our defense.

Finally, the conference report contains no earmarks.

By Christopher J. Castelli
December 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced today that Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy is stepping down. Here's his statement:

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy has today announced her intention to step down and return to private life. In her discussions with me, Michèle made clear that her decision to leave is motivated by personal and family considerations. I am very pleased that she has agreed to stay on until early next year to enable a smooth transition.

Michèle has been an invaluable advisor to me during my six months as secretary of defense, and has been an outstanding departmental leader for nearly three years at a time of great consequence for our nation's defense. From guiding our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, to helping set the department's priorities and global posture through the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review as well as the strategy review that has been underway this year, Michèle has made a strong and lasting positive imprint on this department and on our nation's security.

Michèle is a treasured colleague, and the entire Department of Defense will be sad to see her go, but she has built an incredible team that is a testament to her leadership. I will personally miss her valued counsel, but I understand the stresses and strains that holding senior administration positions can have on families. I look forward to having the opportunity to paying full tribute to Michèle and wish her and her family all the best in the next stage of their lives. I'm confident that she will have many years of service in her future.

By Gabe Starosta
December 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM

The Defense Department announced on Friday that it has come to an agreement with Lockheed Martin for the fifth lot of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and that lot -- which will include 30 planes -- will cost DOD about $4 billion. In a contract announcement, DOD states that Lot 5 of F-35 low-rate initial production will be made up of 21 conventional-takeoff-and-landing jets for the Air Force, six carrier variants for the Navy and three short-takeoff-vertical-landing aircraft for the Marine Corps. The contract also includes mission support equipment, flight test instrumentation for those 30 aircraft and flight test equipment for the United Kingdom.

Two-thirds of the work to be performed under Lot 5 will be done in Fort Worth, TX, where Lockheed has its primary F-35 production line. The rest of the work will take place at several locations around the United States, except for a small portion to be done in the United Kingdom by BAE Systems. The Lot 5 work “is expected to be completed in January 2014,” the announcement states.

DOD says $2.6 billion of the contract value, or about 66 percent, will come from Air Force accounts; $937 million, more than 23 percent, from Navy accounts; and $426 million, close to 11 percent, from the Marine Corps. The United Kingdom is also paying a tiny fraction of the contract value, around $4 million.

The estimated cost of the non-aircraft portion of the Lot 5 contract is unknown, but a simple division of $4 billion by 30 aircraft would give the Joint Strike Fighter's fifth production lot a unit cost of more than $133 million. The actual cost -- assuming no cost or schedule overruns -- is likely to be slightly less than $133 million because of the inclusion of mission-support equipment in the contract.

By John Liang
December 9, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Montana's two senators are calling on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to ensure that the 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles based in their state will not be subjected to budget cuts.

In a Dec. 7 letter to Panetta, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jon Tester (D-MT) call for the ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base -- which houses 150 out of the 450-missile ICBM fleet -- to be left intact. The senators wrote in response to a Nov. 14 missive Panetta sent to Congress that outlined the significant cuts that would take place if the bipartisan "supercommittee" failed to agree on trimming billions of dollars from the government budget. One of the victims would be the nation's ICBM fleet.

In their letter this week, the senators write:

We believe eliminating the ICBM wing would be disastrous for national security and fail to deliver significant budget savings over the next ten years. We hope to work with you to make the cuts required by our nation's financial constraints without jeopardizing national security or gutting critical national assets such as the ICBM force and we urge you to include robust funding for the ICBM wing in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget.

We appreciate the fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense in the coming years, but ICBM reductions are not a smart way to achieve budget savings. ICBMs are by far the most cost-efficient leg of the nuclear triad. The ICBM fleet provides a critical deterrent because of its considerable survivability. Unlike an attack on the submarine or bomber leg of the triad, an enemy would be required to strike deep within the continental United States in order effectively eliminate ICBM strike capability. Such a visible, highly dispersed force creates a powerful disincentive for any adversary while also providing clear reassurance to our allies, many of whom have chosen not to pursue their own nuclear arsenal because of the security provided by America's nuclear umbrella.

Also, the ICBM force is in the final stages of a decade-long modernization effort. It will be extremely cost effective to maintain the Minuteman III fleet through 2030 as is now planned. It is doubtful that the Department could achieve $8 billion in savings -- as estimated in your November 14th letter -- by eliminating the ICBM force. The large costs associated with closing down large installations, such as environmental remediation and other costs associated with dismantling nuclear infrastructure, would likely offset most potential savings.

In a statement accompanying the letter, Baucus and Tester said:

"Cutting Malmstrom's ICBM force is a no-go in my book, and I'll keep fighting to make sure we keep our ICBMs," Baucus said. "We must make smart budget cuts to get our fiscal house in order, but cutting our ICBM force would jeopardize our national security, and wouldn't make a scratch on the surface of our national deficit. I'll keep pushing on Secretary Panetta and the Department of Defense to include funding for our ICBMs in the 2013 budget."

"Malmstrom's ICBMs are part of our nation's most powerful and cost-efficient nuclear deterrent. If the Defense Department is serious about identifying meaningful ways to save taxpayer dollars, it needs to look at our decades-old overseas bases we no longer need," said Tester, who is spearheading an effort in the Senate to close obsolete overseas bases. "This nation needs real solutions to get our deficit under control, but eliminating a cost-efficient military asset that keeps our nation safe isn't the way to go."

By John Liang
December 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Two senior administration officials this week publicly drove home the point that the ongoing export control reform initiative aimed at streamlining the United States Munitions List (USML) is on track to be completed by late next year, and that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta supports the effort as strongly as his predecessor Robert Gates, Inside U.S. Trade reports today. Further:

Anthony Aldwell, deputy director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, told a Dec. 6 session of an export control conference organized by the Practicing Law Institute that Panetta has not been as visible as Gates on the initiative, but that he fully backs the effort.

Aldwell said that Panetta made a "very strong statement that he is fully behind" the export control reform initiative in a meeting he recently held with "prominent" chief executive officers of U.S. companies and Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Eric Hirschhorn.

He also said Panetta will be more public about his support in the near term. "I think you will see him a little more active [on the export control reform initiative] as we get into the new year," Aldwell said.

Gates unveiled the export control reform initiative in an April 2010 speech. In his remarks, he emphasized that the administration would safeguard critical military items, but also wants to facilitate increased trade in defense items with close allies and move away from controlling items that are widely available.

A day earlier at the same conference, Kevin Wolf, assistant secretary of Commerce for export administration, said Panetta is "equally on board" with the national security vision of the export control reform initiative as Gates. "He's expressed his support for [the initiative] equally," Wolf said.

Private-sector sources speculated that a more active role by Panetta will help quell objections from members of Congress who fear that the reform effort will compromise U.S. national security through easing controls. Some lawmakers have objected to scaling back the USML on these grounds.

By John Liang
December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Fluornoy is in Beijing this week holding talks with her Chinese counterparts. Those discussions "have been going in a very positive direction," Navy Captain John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, said at a Pentagon briefing this afternoon.

"This is a country that we have been trying very hard to develop a good, constructive military relationship with," Kirby said, adding: "We're taking steps in the right direction, and it is moving in the right direction."

Inside the Pentagon reports this morning about a new high-level document in which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warns that the U.S. armed services must achieve unprecedented synergy to ensure access to contested waters, skies, land, space and networks in the face of emerging weapons.

Dempsey's admonition comes in the Defense Department's new Joint Operational Access Concept, which names no adversary but focuses on "anti-access" and "area-denial" threats -- terms that DOD associates closely with China. The threats include advanced long-range weapons designed to keep forces away and short-range arms designed to limit freedom of action. ITP further reports:

Inside the Pentagon obtained an unsigned copy of version 1.0 of the 75-page concept document, dated Nov. 22, which was recently blessed by senior military leaders and is due to be signed by Dempsey.

The concept casts the access problem as global, underscoring the growing importance of the Pentagon's AirSea Battle initiative, which aims to counter anti-access and area-denial threats. The proliferation of these weapons, changes in the U.S. overseas defense posture and the emergence of space and cyberspace as contested domains will drive "future enemies, both states and nonstates," to favor using anti-access and area-denial strategies against the United States, the document states.

Inside the Army reported last month that the service has turned to its red-teaming experts at Training and Doctrine Command to kick off what could turn into an existential debate about the Army's role in dealing with China and its reported arsenal of capabilities for keeping U.S. influence in the region at bay, according to officials. ITA further reports:

The request to study the issue comes as the Obama administration is putting in place a wholesale reorientation of its defense posture toward China and its environs following the planned drawdown of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Depending on who is asked in defense circles, the reason for the new focus is a either an intricate line of arguments concerning so-called "anti-access, area-denial" capabilities and the need to operate freely in the "global commons," or it's fears about Chinese military prowess that could curtail U.S. ambitions.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in October that the future of U.S. national security in this century will be determined largely in the Asia-Pacific region, where the American military must maintain its presence despite China's development of new weapons that threaten U.S. power projection capabilities. As InsideDefense.com reported:

In what was billed by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as Panetta's first policy speech since taking office in July, the defense secretary called for a greater focus on the region to remain competitive with a rising China, echoing a key theme from his recent classified planning guidance.

"And then we must contend with rising powers, and rapidly modernizing militaries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region -- where the security and economic future of our nation will largely rest in the 21st century," Panetta said. "The rise of China will continue to shape the international system, and we will have to stay competitive and reassure our allies in the region. That means continuing to project our power and maintaining forward-deployed forces in the Asia-Pacific region."

Left unsaid by Panetta but stated in the prepared version of his speech was a reference to long-range weapons that could challenge U.S. power-projection capabilities in the Western Pacific: "Yet our traditional approach to power projection, in that region and elsewhere, is being threatened by the spread of new military capabilities that would deny military forces freedom of action."

Inside the Pentagon reported Sept. 29 that the Defense Department would likely boost investment in Air Force and Navy capabilities associated with countering China in accordance with the classified Defense Planning Guidance that Panetta signed in late August. DOD's latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military warns that China is "pursuing a variety of air, sea, undersea, space counterspace, information warfare systems and operational concepts" to achieve anti-access and area-denial capabilities. The Air Force and Navy are developing an AirSea Battle concept to address that challenge. The Navy also recently launched a review to identify warfighting investments that could counter Chinese military methods for disrupting key battlefield information systems.

By John Liang
December 7, 2011 at 8:40 PM

House and Senate appropriators will hold a joint conference committee meeting on the remaining fiscal year 2012 spending bills -- including defense -- tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., according to a House Appropriations Committee statement.

"This bicameral, bipartisan Conference Committee is the next step in completing all Appropriations work for the year. Members and Senators of both parties are working hard together to craft a package that funds the federal government in a responsible and timely fashion, and good progress is being made. It is our hope and expectation that we will have an agreement on this critical, must-pass legislation by the end of next week," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) said in the statement.

The meeting will probably last about 20 minutes if all goes as planned, according to a committee spokeswoman. Actual deliberations will be behind closed doors, and no announcement or results are anticipated before early next week, she said, adding that conferees want to file the bills either Monday or Tuesday, so results could be disclosed at that time.

The conferees, according to Rogers' statement, will be:

Republicans:

Appropriations Full Committee Chairman Hal Rogers

Rep. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman Emeritus

Rep. Jerry Lewis, Chairman Emeritus

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson

Rep. Kay Granger

Rep. Mike Simpson

Rep. John Culberson

Rep. Ander Crenshaw

Rep. Denny Rehberg

Rep. John R. Carter

Democrats:

Appropriations Ranking Member Norm Dicks

Rep. Peter Visclosky

Rep. Nita Lowey

Rep. Jose Serrano

Rep. Rosa DeLauro

Rep. James Moran

Rep. David Price

Rep. Sanford Bishop

By John Liang
December 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM

The Air Force is revising its position on contamination found at its operational ranges, calling for the cleanup of contaminants where warranted rather than waiting until pollution migrates off-range, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning.

At the same time, the revision does not alter positions the military has taken on EPA and the Defense Department's cleanup authorities for such properties, according to an Air Force official. DEA further reports:

Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment & Logistics Terry Yonkers said at a Nov. 29 forum that he committed to reassessing the Air Force's position on operational range contamination during discussions with EPA last year over a lengthy, ongoing debate on a cleanup accord for Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. The Air Force has had a policy of monitoring for contaminants and addressing pollutants only when they reach a range's boundaries, he said.

"I committed to reevaluating our position on our operational ranges. It really made little sense to me to wait for the contamination to reach the range boundary before reacting," he said in a keynote speech at the DOD-sponsored annual Partners In Environmental Technology Technical Symposium in Washington, DC.

Yonkers said he has directed cleanup managers to "close the loop" on ongoing preliminary assessments and site investigations and move to cleanup in cases where it is warranted. "This includes monitoring for perchlorate, RDX and other residuals from military munitions that may be migrating off our range boundaries," he added.

In a follow-up interview, Yonkers said the service has not been as methodical as in its other cleanup programs in investigating contamination on operational ranges. "The idea is to find what we can find and then clean it up, and not wait for it to migrate off the base boundary," he said.

At the same time, the Air Force is not altering its general positions on cleanup authorities or changing written policy, a second Air Force official said during the interview.

By John Liang
December 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM

The Defense Department announced this week that it plans to host "a public meeting to initiate a dialogue with industry regarding the use of open-source software in DOD contracts." The meeting is set for Jan. 12, 2012.

In a Dec. 5 Federal Register notice, the Pentagon states:

DOD is interested in obtaining input from the public with regard to the risks to the contractors and the Government associated with using open source software on DOD contracts in the following areas:

What are the risks that open source software may include proprietary or copyrighted material incorporated into the open source software without the authorization of the actual author, thereby exposing the Government and contractors who use or deliver the open source software to potential copyright infringement liability?

Are contractors facing performance and warranty deficiencies to the extent that the open source software does not meet contract requirements, and the open source software license leaves the contractors without recourse?

To what extent should the DFARS be revised to specify clearly the rights the Government obtains when a contractor acquires open source software for the Government, and why?

In August, InsideDefense.com reported that the office of the director of national intelligence had launched a new research project to boost the intel community's ability to anticipate everything from political crises to resource shortages by developing new tools that fuse data from a wide range of open sources, including issues trending on Twitter, Internet search engines and the financial markets. Further:

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA) last week initiated the Open Source Indicators program, publishing a broad agency announcement on Aug. 23 soliciting “innovative research proposals” from industry and academia for technologies powerful enough to anticipate events before the media reports them.

"OSI’s methods, if proven successful, could provide early warnings of emerging events around the world," Jason Matheny, OSI program manager at IARPA, said in an Aug. 24 statement.

Changes in communication, consumption and movement can precede -- as well as follow -- "significant societal" events, according to the announcement. Such shifts can be indirectly observed in publicly available sources such as Internet search engine queries, blogs, micro-blogs, Wikipedia edits, financial markets and even traffic webcams, the BAA states.

"Published research has found that some of these data sources are individually useful in the early detection of events such as disease outbreaks, political crises, and macroeconomic trends," according to the announcement.

The Open Source Indicators program will be focused on the development of methods for "continuous, automated analysis of publicly available data in order to anticipate and/or detect significant societal events, such as political crises, humanitarian crises, mass violence, riots, mass migrations, disease outbreaks, economic instability, resource shortages, and responses to natural disasters."

At its core, the research program is geared toward specific technical challenges, including how to identify a change in population behavior from public data; developing new data extraction processes; and utilizing statistical analysis to connect the dots between data that generate an event warning.

The program will focus on Latin America, excluding the Caribbean, an area that includes 21 nations, has "abundant publicly available data" and "timely reporting of events."

By Jason Sherman
December 5, 2011 at 11:33 PM

The Pentagon, on behalf of Iraq, today awarded Lockheed Martin an $835 million contract to build 18 F-16C/D Block 52 fighter aircraft, consummating a deal that has been in the works for more than a year.

The Pentagon full contract announcement issued this evening stated:

Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $835,000,000 firm-fixed-price, time-and-material and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a Foreign Military Sales Program which will provide the government of Iraq with the following: 18 F-16 C/D Block 52 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (12C models and 6 D models); support equipment; technical orders; integrated logistics support; and contractor logistics support. The location of the performance is Fort Worth, Texas. Work is expected to be completed May 30, 2018.  ASC/WWMK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-12-C-6012).

On Sept. 10, 2010, the Pentagon notified Congress of the potential deal, which at the time it valued at $4.2 billion:

The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing the capability of Iraq. The proposed aircraft and accompanying weapon systems will greatly enhance Iraq’s interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO nations, making it a more valuable partner in an important area of the world, as well as supporting Iraq’s legitimate need for its own self-defense.

The proposed sale will allow the Iraqi Air Force to modernize its air force by acquiring western interoperable fighter aircraft, thereby enabling Iraq to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces.

By John Liang
December 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the United States shouldn't have ground forces permanently deployed in Europe, according to an issue paper published this week by the Association of the United States Army.

The document "discusses the benefits of U.S. forces based outside the continental United States, and notes how the transformed [U.S. Army Europe] uniquely extends American national security interests by building relationships," an AUSA statement reads.

USAREUR "is a critical component of the Army's global force," the issue paper states, adding:

The retention of an effective land force in Europe directly affects the United States' ability to execute national strategic imperatives and appropriately share the burden of collective security. U.S. forward-deployed forces are not vestiges of the Cold War. They are available, relevant and experienced forces that provide combat power, crisis response capability and -- just as critical -- allied-nation training and partnerships. As the United States broadens its focus to prevail against future hybrid threats, the Army's ability to provide depth and versatility to the joint force and respond quickly to a contingency with trained and ready allies will only become more critical. U.S. Army Europe is one of the premier instruments for rapid, multinational power projection. Maintaining this force at an effective level is not a cost; it is an investment in the enduring security of the United States and the world.

By John Liang
December 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM

While enacting a bill that would call on the president to sell F-16C/D fighter jets to Taiwan "would affect direct spending," a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis "estimates that those effects would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues and would have insignificant effects on spending subject to appropriation." Further, according to CBO:

Under current law, sales of U.S. defense articles and services to foreign governments are carried out under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program -- a direct spending program administered by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Once the Department of State has approved a sale, DSCA enters into an agreement with the foreign government to procure the necessary items. The foreign government pays the full cost of all items and a fee to cover DSCA's administrative costs.

Taiwan is eligible for sales under the FMS program and has requested new F-16 jets to replace older models they currently own. In September, the Administration decided against selling those F-16s to Taiwan and instead offered to refurbish the existing jets. Under the bill, the President would be required to sell Taiwan the jets it requested. Because Taiwan would pay the full cost of the jets plus a fee to cover DSCA's administrative costs, CBO estimates that enacting bill would have no significant effect on direct spending. CBO also expects that any costs incurred by the Department of State to approve the sale would be less than $500,000, assuming availability of appropriated funds.

On Nov. 17, the House Foreign Relations Committee marked up the bill. Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said in a statement that day that "this is straightforward legislation." Furthermore:

It simply requires that the president carry out the sale of no fewer than 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft to Taiwan. As Members are aware, under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act the U.S. is obligated to make available defense articles and services necessary for Taiwan's self-defense. In order to meet this requirement, the U.S. must provide Taiwan with equipment necessary to help the island nation defend its own airspace.

While the recent agreement by the U.S. to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16s is a step in the right direction, Taiwan also urgently needs new advanced combat aircraft to help meet the growing menace from communist China. Accordingly, it is long past due for the Executive Branch to cease its dithering on this issue and sell Taiwan the new F-16s it has sought since 2006.

By John Liang
December 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta this week said he was worried that Americans had lost their trust in the government in the wake of a congressional supercommittee's inability to rein in government spending. In a speech at the National Press Club yesterday, Panetta said: "Today I worry that in many ways we have lost the trust of the American people in that system of government because they are not seeing that dedication, that hard work, that sense of sacrifice that is important to our democracy." Further, according to his prepared remarks:

I've been railing about the threat of budget sequestration.  I know the challenges of the budget.  I've worked with the budget.  I know what budgets are all about.  But when there's a mechanism like sequestration, which is this kind of blind meat-axe approach to putting that in place if you don't do the right thing, there's something wrong.  There's something wrong if you have to fall back on that kind of mechanism.  And I’ve said that if it happens, it could do lasting damage, obviously, to defense policy in this country.  And it will.

But I also have to tell you that sequester is not a good thing for the domestic side of the budget either.  I mean, the fact is, if you want to be secure in this country, it isn't just about national defense.  It isn't just about weapons.  It's also about the quality of life that you have in this country.  And if we are not investing in that quality of life, ultimately that impacts on our ability to have strong national security.

So the failure of the super committee to come together and to make the decisions that should have been made is a failure that can result in damaging this country and damaging that dream that all of us have for a better life for our children.

Having worked on confronting these budget challenges for much of my life, there is no question we have to confront the deficit.  There is no question that we have to provide the kind of compromises that will result in dealing with reducing the deficit and trying to ensure that we have the resources we need in order to invest in the areas that count for the future.  This is a time really for statesmanship and it’s a time not for partisanship, but for statesmanship.  It’s a time for real dedication to what this country needs to do and not just sound bites and politics.  This is a time for very tough choices.

InsideDefense.com reported yesterday from New York that the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal will be cut by at least $40 billion, followed by cuts of roughly $50 billion annually for a decade, to comply with spending caps Congress and the White House agreed to in August:

Michael McCord, the Pentagon's deputy comptroller, also said the White House Office of Management and Budget has issued "pass-back" fiscal guidance to the Defense Department for FY-13, setting the stage for a final round of high-level decisions about which programs and force structure elements will be preserved and which will be cut in the new budget proposal.

"We're getting to that point now where the secretary is making the major funding decisions," McCord said, referring to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in remarks following an address to investors and financial analysts at a conference sponsored by Credit Suisse, an investment bank.

He said the new budget would propose "tailored" force-structure reductions that "will be controversial" and "painful."

In addition, the Pentagon's No. 2 budget official said Panetta has presented President Obama with draft versions of the Pentagon's new strategy guidance that proposes a recalibration of the U.S. military in accordance with plans to cut defense spending by more than $450 billion over the next decade. Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has said the cuts could be about $490 billion.