The Insider

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his South Korean counterpart today announced new military exercises aimed at North Korea.

The American Forces Press Service has details on a statement issued by both:

The first in a series is a combined maritime and air readiness exercise named Invincible Spirit. About 8,000 U.S. and ROK military personnel will participate. The exercise is in response to the unprovoked attack on and sinking of the South Korean frigate Cheonan off the west coast of the peninsula. Forty-six South Korean sailors were killed in the North Korean torpedo attack on the vessel.

“This is the first in a series of ROK-U.S. combined naval exercises that will occur in both the East and West Seas,” the two defense ministers said in their joint statement. To Americans, the East Sea is the Yellow Sea and the West Sea is the Sea of Japan.

“These defensive, combined exercises are designed to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behavior must stop, and that we are committed to together enhancing our combined defensive capabilities,” the statement continued.

Navy Adm. Robert F. Willard, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, put the exercises in context for reporters traveling with Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Willard said the exercise will begin at the conclusion of the Two-plus-Two meetings between the U.S. and Korean ministers of defense and foreign affairs.

Willard called the attack on the Cheonan “heinous.”

The exercise does include the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group and ROK Navy ships. Aircraft will come from the U.S. Seventh Air Force, the George Washington’s Air Wing, the ROK air force and ROK anti-submarine aircraft. The exercise will include F-22 Raptor aircraft training for the first time in the theater, he said.

“In all, over a hundred aircraft will fly in the event,” Willard said. “The exercise will include a variety of training opportunities – flight operations from the carrier, there will be an air defense exercise, strike exercises and opportunities for passing exercises.”

“Anti-submarine warfare is also included in the exercise with both ROK and U.S. Navy ships and P-3 aircraft participating,” he said.

At the end of the exercise, there will be a counter special forces exercise. “These occur with some frequency in both the East and West Seas, conducted by the ROK and U.S. Navy,” Willard said.

Invincible Spirit is a large-scale exercise, the admiral stressed. “This is intended to send a signal to North Korea with regard to what has occurred post-Cheonan, and it is intended to signal to the region the resolve of this alliance and our commitment to one another and the scope and scale of our ability to operate together,” he said.

Stephen Daggett, a defense budget and policy expert at the Congressional Research Service, has published an analysis of major U.S. war costs -- from the American Revolution to current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and adjusted the tallies for inflation, allowing for a side-by-side comparison of the costs of each campaign.

The tab for the two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $1.1 trillion so far. World War II, by comparison, cost $4.1 trillion once adjusted for inflation, according to the report.

Steven Aftergood, who first reported the CRS analysis on the Secrecy News blog, notes:

This makes the "war on terrorism" the most costly of any military engagement in U.S. history in absolute terms or, if correcting for inflation, the second most expensive U.S. military action after World War II.

Daggett in his eight-page report underscores the difficulty of making accurate comparisons of war costs across the centuries.

Comparisons of war costs over a 230-year period, however, are inherently problematic. One problem is how to separate costs of military operations from costs of forces in peacetime.

Another challenge is also the actual numbers in the ledgers:

Figures are problematic, as well, because of difficulties in comparing prices from one vastly different era to another. Inflation is one issue -- a dollar in the past would buy more than a dollar today. Perhaps a more significant problem is that wars appear vastly more expensive over time as the sophistication and cost of technology advances, both for military and for civilian purposes. The estimates presented in this report, therefore, should be treated, not as truly comparable figures on a continuum, but as snapshots of vastly different periods of U.S. history.

Even with these caveats, the figures are very interesting.

The American Revolution was a relative bargain at $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2011constant dollars, according to the report.

At today's rates, the Civil War ran the Union $59 billion and the Confederacy $20 billion.

Thirty-two universities are slated to get about $227 million in research grants over the next five years, the Pentagon announced today:

Awards are subject to the successful completion of negotiations between the academic institutions and DoD research offices that will make the awards: the Army Research Office (ARO), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).

The awards are the result of the fiscal (year) 2010 competition that ARO, ONR, and AFOSR conducted under the DoD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program. The MURI program supports research by teams of investigators that intersect more than one traditional science and engineering discipline in order to accelerate both research progress and transition of research results to application. Most MURI efforts involve researchers from multiple academic institutions and academic departments. Based on the proposals selected in the fiscal 2010 competition, a total of 67 academic institutions are expected to participate in the 32 research efforts.

The MURI program complements other DoD basic research programs that support traditional, single-investigator university research by supporting multidisciplinary teams with larger and longer awards.  The awards announced today are for a five year period subject to availability of appropriations and satisfactory research progress. Consequently, MURI awards can provide greater sustained support than single-investigator awards for the education and training of students pursuing advanced degrees in science and engineering fields critical to DoD, as well as for associated infrastructure such as research instrumentation.

The MURI program is highly competitive. ARO, ONR, and AFOSR solicited proposals in 30 topics important to DOD and received a total of 411 white papers, which were followed by 152 proposals. The awards announced today were selected based on merit review by panels of experts.

The Canadian government today announced a $8.5 billion plan to replace its entire fleet of CF-18s with Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, a step that will secure 65 new F-35s for the Canadian military and $11.3 billion worth of steady work for Canadian aerospace companies.

Canada is one of eight partner nations that has invested in the stealthy aircraft  $168 million, to date) and its Minister of National Defense, Peter MacKay, explained the decision to acquire it in a statement today.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the best aircraft we can provide our men and women in uniform to face and defeat the challenges of the 21st century. This multi-role stealth fighter will help the Canadian forces defend the sovereignty of Canadian airspace, remain a strong and reliable partner in the defense of North America, and provide Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations.

Jacques Gourde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, said:

Canadian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program will bring high-value jobs and other economic benefits to our country. This government is delivering on our plan to strengthen Canada’s defence industry, leverage Canada’s competitive advantage and work with industry to help position Canadian companies for success in the global marketplace.

A fact sheet issued today by the Canadian defense ministry explains further:

Now that Canada has committed to purchasing the F-35, Canadian industrial opportunities could exceed CAD$12 billion [$11.3 billion] for the production of the aircraft. Sustainment and follow-on opportunities for Canadian industry are emerging and will be available over the 40-year life of the program. For instance, in accordance with the industrial participation agreements, all 19 Canadian companies manufacturing items for the F-35 will also repair and overhaul those components for the entire global fleet.

The National Defense University and the Institute for National Strategic Studies is sponsoring an event next month that's centered on the premise, as stated in the symposium's title, that "economic security is national security."

It's slated for August 24 and 25 at Ft. McNair in Washington.

From the event description:

National Security includes the strength of our nation’s infrastructure, the foundation upon which the continuous growth of our society depends. This includes its strong societal and moral codes, the rule of law, stable government and political institutions and leadership. Also included are our nation’s schools and educational programs to ensure a knowledgeable citizenry and life-long learning including science, engineering, R&D and technological leadership but most of all a strong economy -- all the things Americans take for granted. Understanding the complex systems nature of National Security and why the economy is a part of the equation is the impetus for this symposium.

And the confirmed speakers:

• The Honorable David M. Walker, President and CEO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation
• Professor Leon Fuerth, Research Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University
• Ms. Carmen Medina, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency
• Dr. Claude Canizares, Associate Provost & VP for Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Dr. Larry Johnson, Director, Center for Transportation Technology R&D, Argonne National Laboratory
• Dr. Sheila R. Ronis, Director, MBA/Management Programs, Walsh College

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."