The Insider

With Congress back in session after the July 4th break and with only a few weeks left before the longer August recess, supporters and detractors of ratifying the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are ratcheting up the debate.

In a letter sent yesterday to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN), former Secretary of State George Schultz and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) are calling for New START's ratification:

The two of us also want to make clear our support for New START and express our hope that the committee can now move expeditiously with their report and a vote recommending New START for consideration by the full Senate. We recognize the importance of the Senate giving full consideration to the related hearings held by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

We strongly endorse the goals of this Treaty -- to achieve a near-term reduction of nuclear weapons with mutually agreed verification procedures. We believe the threat of nuclear terrorism remains urgent, fueled by the spread of nuclear weapons, materials and technology around the world. While this is a global issue, there are two countries -- the United States and Russia -- whose cooperation is absolutely essential in order to successfully deal with current nuclear threats. With New START, our odds of establishing a more cooperative relationship with Russia improve -- recognizing this will be a process of engagement broader than any one treaty.

Not everyone is so supportive, however. Retired Navy Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, a former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Times seeking to rein in such irrational exuberance:

To date, Senate ratification hearings on the New START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia have been "love-ins." A parade of witnesses - mostly Obama administration members, elder statesmen committed to "a world without nuclear weapons," and veteran arms controllers - have painted the treaty as another modest, responsible reduction in numbers of weapons, a new nonproliferation initiative and an important element for "resetting" our relations with Russia.

This one-sided approach to a key national decision is not serving the country well. Ratification of New START would be a major mistake, immensely damaging to national security. Some of the reasons have been touched upon in testimony but not emphasized or seriously discussed. For example:

The treaty is unbalanced. It reduces U.S. nuclear weapons while allowing Russia unlimited increases in new tactical nuclear weapons, multiple independent re-entry vehicles, nuclear cruise missiles and nuclear bombs.

The treaty reduces U.S. strategic delivery vehicles (SDVs) below the minimum recommended by the Defense Department last year while allowing Russia to increase its SDVs.

The treaty is unverifiable. It does not even include the on-site inspections, telemetry access and missile-production monitoring of START-I, which it replaces.

The treaty gives Russia virtual veto power over future improvements in U.S. missile defense - America's vital first line of defense in tomorrow's world.

The treaty seriously undermines our promising Prompt Global Strike program (with conventional warheads) by requiring that each missile be counted as a nuclear SDV.

Our nuclear weapons modernization program - which is required by law to be considered with treaty ratification - is totally inadequate. It omits modernization of the nuclear weapons themselves; it omits testing of nuclear weapons to prove their viability; it omits construction of a pit (trigger) production facility of adequate capacity to rapidly replace our overaged stockpile; and it omits replacement of SDVs for two legs of our strategic triad. . . .

In sum, the Senate owes it to America to expand the New START ratification debate so that it fully addresses the true issue at stake - should America rely on strength or weakness as it faces the dangerous and unknown future? Hopefully, these hearings will stimulate the national debate the issue deserves.

And Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) isn't a fan of the treaty either, saying at a National Defense University Foundation breakfast this morning that "the great concern here that I have is the administration's arrogance to competency ratio is catastrophically out of balance."

The Pentagon has advised Congress of a potential $2.1 billion deal to sell 24 MH-60R Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopters to Australia.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency on July 9 announced the potential sale, which would include 60 T-700 GE 401C Engines -- two per aircraft plus 12 spares -- communication equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications and the like.

According to the notice:

The proposed sale of the MH-60R SEAHAWK helicopters will improve Australia’s anti-submarine and surface warfare capability and provide an improved search and rescue and anti-ship surveillance capability. Australia will also use the enhanced capability in future contingency operations encompassing humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these additional helicopters into its armed forces.

The prime contractors for such a deal, according to the notice, would be Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, CT; Lockheed Martin, Owego, NY; General Electric, Lynn, MA; and Raytheon, Portsmouth, RI.

The Defense Department earlier this month kicked off $63.5 million worth of new security assistance projects to provide counterterrorism training and equipment to five nations -- Lebanon, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Maldives and Mauritania, according to Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Bob Mehal.

The allocation for the new projects, according to Mehall:

- Lebanon: $23,000,000
- Bangladesh: $7,019,000
- Mauritania: $6,440,000
- Indonesia Aviation Upgrade: $11,760,000
- Indonesia Maritime Security: $10,775,000
- Maldives: $3,910,000

These programs -- drawn up in cooperation with the State Department -- bring total spending in fiscal year 2010 on “global train and equip programs,” authorized under the so-called Section 1206 authority, to $301.6 million. The Defense Department is authorized to spend $350 million in FY-10 on these “dual-key” security assistance programs.

Under his 1206 authority, the defense secretary -- with the concurrence of the secretary of state -- can sponsor a program to build the capacity of a foreign nation's military forces in order to either participate in a military operation alongside U.S. forces or conduct counterterrorism operations.

This spring, the Pentagon began programs to boost counterterrorism capabilities in Yemen and the Philippines as well as projects to assist the armed forces of nations set to deploy troops to Afghanistan.

More details on the current round of programs were reported by Inside the Pentagon when Defense Secretary Robert Gates notified Congress in mid-June. Since then, these efforts cleared a 15-day congressional notification period without objection from any lawmaker, allowing the new projects to proceed, according to Mehal.

The co-chairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus believe that future National Guard budgets should fund more C-27 aircraft. In a July 7, 2010, letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Army Secretary John McHugh, Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) state their support for the C-27 Joint Cargo Aircraft program in lieu of White House plans to reduce the number of airframes from 78 to 38, stating it is “cheaper to fly” than comparable intra-theater airlifters and can handle many different missions.

“We firmly believe that the C-27 is an excellent option for austere tactical airlift into rugged environments,” the letter states. “It is cheaper to fly than other intra-theater airlifters. The airframe seems ideal for the gamut of homeland defense and civil support missions that are central to the mission of the National Guard. We believe future budgets should increase the C-27 buy.”

The senators also air concerns over air mobility force structure, “particularly that of the Army,” due to the reduction in airframes and the possibility that the program would go from a joint Army-Air Force program to an Air Force-only program. "The reduction in the total C-27 program represents challenges both for the future of Department of Defense air mobility as well as personnel in the Army who have been trained to fly the airplanes,” the senators inquire.

The senators also ask about how the secretaries plan on integrating the reduced number of C-27s back into the fleet and issue their support for the C-27. They also question the DOD analysis that lead to the conclusion that the C-23, once regarded as obsolete, would be worth retaining in lieu of purchasing new C-27s.

The co-chairmen also ask about possible plans to retain personnel who were trained to support the C-27 mission.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and fellow panel member Jack Reed (D-RI) are traveling to Afghanistan and Pakistan this week to check out the security situation in the region, according to a committee statement issued this morning. Specifically:

During the trip, the Senators will meet with high-ranking foreign leaders, diplomats, and American military commanders, civilian personnel, as well as soldiers from Michigan and Rhode Island who are currently serving overseas.

President Obama today announced the recess appointment of Philip Coyle III -- Pentagon director of operational test and evaluation during the Clinton administration -- to be the White House Office of Science and Technology's associate director for national security and international affairs.

Coyle's appointment is one of three announced today by the president “to fill critical administration posts that have been left vacant,” according to a White House statement. The other two appointments fill posts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In a statement, Obama said:

It’s unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes. These recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away. With more than 180 nominees still pending before the Senate, it’s my hope that my colleagues in Congress will agree to put politics aside and move forward on these vitally important positions.

The following is a summary of Coyle's curriculum vitae released by the White House:

Philip E. Coyle III currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the President of the World Security Institute, and to its Center for Defense Information, a Washington D.C.-based national security study center. In 2005 and 2006, Coyle served on the nine-member Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), appointed by President George W. Bush and nominated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Coyle served on Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger's Base Support and Retention Council. From September 1994, through January 2001, Mr. Coyle was Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, in the Department of Defense, and is the longest serving Director in the 25 year history of the Office. In this capacity, he was the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on test and evaluation in the DOD. Mr. Coyle has 40 years experience in national security research, development, and testing matters. From 1959 to 1979, and again from 1981 to 1993, Mr. Coyle worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California. Over those 33 years Mr. Coyle worked on a variety of nuclear weapons programs and other high technology programs. Mr. Coyle also served as Deputy Associate Director of the Laser Program at LLNL. Mr. Coyle retired from the Laboratory in 1993 as Laboratory Associate Director and deputy to the Director.  In recognition of his years of service to the Laboratory and to the University of California, the University named Mr. Coyle Laboratory Associate Director Emeritus. During the Carter Administration, Mr. Coyle served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs in the Department of Energy (DOE). In this capacity he had oversight responsibility for the nuclear weapons research, development, production and testing programs of the Department, as well as the DOE programs in arms control, non-proliferation, and nuclear safeguards and security.