The Insider

Officials in the Joint Staff's Military Education Coordination Council last month recommended three new focus areas where officials believe increased attention is needed in military schoolhouse curricula this year, we're told.

The new areas blessed by the panel are titled "space as a contested environment," "psychological health awareness" and "operational contract support education for non-acquisition DOD Personnel," according to a Joint Staff briefing from last month.

The list of "special areas of emphasis," as the Joint Staff calls them, also includes a handful of topics carried over from last year. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen has yet to approve the council's recommendations.

The recommendation to boost awareness of the relatively new field of operational contract support, or OCS, is rooted in the experiences with contracting and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short, DOD officials were utterly unprepared for the vast number of contractors with whom military commanders ended up sharing the battlefields, as a recent briefing from a Pentagon logistician describes it in two photos.

"Current ((joint professional military education)) does not adequately prepare officers/enlisted to operate/interface effectively with OCS in the contingency environment," the briefing states.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced this afternoon that Amb. Charles Freeman asked that his selection to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council be withdrawn. Blair accepted Freeman's request. The choice of Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has sparked controversy because of his views on Israel and his connections with Saudi and Chinese interests.

Yesterday, all seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence sent a letter to Blair expressing concerns over Freeman's qualifications for the position, as well as his objectivity.

The NIC is responsible for producing national intelligence estimates and other assessments on specific issues.

Earlier today, Blair defended Freeman during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) brought up Freeman's past business associations and his views on Israel.

Blair responded by stating, in part:

Those of us who know him find him to be a person of strong views, of an inventive mind -- on the analytical point of view -- I'm not talking about policy. And that when we go back and forth with him a better understanding comes out of those interactions, and that's primarily the value that I think he will bring.

Despite that view, Blair today accepted Freeman's request to have his name withdrawn.

Republican Rep. Eric Cantor (VA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ) are warning against cutting missile defense funding in the face of what they see as escalating threats from North Korea and Iran.

In an op-ed piece published today in Politico, Cantor and Kyl write:

. . . ((U))nclassified reports have detailed North Korea's preparations for the launch, possibly within days, of a new, even longer-range Taepo Dong 2 missile. This kind of missile is a threat, not just to some of America's closest allies in the region (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) but to the U.S. itself.

Moreover, North Korea continues to be the world’s greatest proliferator of ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons know-how. We should be very concerned about with whom North Korea does business.

And then there’s Iran.

On Feb. 2, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly announced that his country had successfully launched its first satellite. If it were any other country, such a launch would seem of little consequence. However, as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, recently noted, space launch technologies “are compatible with an intercontinental ballistic missile-type capability.”

Add to that the latest news that Iran has enriched one-third more uranium than was previously understood -- more than enough to build a nuclear bomb -- and the potential threat is clear.

These examples should underscore the necessity for an effective, operational missile defense system. Yet the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are now seeking ways to halt the progress that’s been made in defending against these threats.

Cantor and Kyl write of their concern about recent statements from other members of Congress and news reports of the Obama administration's alleged plans to "make significant cuts" to the fiscal year 2010 missile defense budget, including "funds that would be used to deploy our missile defense assets to Europe -- which NATO has twice stated is necessary to deal with the threat from Iran.

"That such a rollback of the system is being discussed is dangerous," they warn. "That it is being discussed at the same time North Korea and Iran are carrying out aggressive, threatening activities is irresponsible and unacceptable."

The two lawmakers continue: "When President Obama campaigned last year, he said that he supported missile defense systems that work. Our systems have shown through numerous tests that they work -- that is not in doubt."

The Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office might have something to say about that, however.

At a Feb. 25 House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) asked DOT&E Director Charles McQueary whether the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, just because it "receives a less-than-perfect test score, ((does)) this necessarily means it does not provide the warfighter with an operationally effective capability?"

McQueary responded that he couldn't say "with high confidence" that the GMD system is an operationally effective system. "Our job is testing and to deal with the facts at hand. And there's simply not been enough testing done in order to be able to state it."

To which Franks said:

. . . I don't know of any system that we have that is proven 100 percent effective. I'm not even sure we could say that about the baseball bat, but it's still pretty effective at close range.

Jacques Gansler, who was under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics in the Clinton Pentagon, has penned a new piece for Foreign Policy on the United States' reliance on other countries in military areas -- including the use of weapon system components made in other countries.

Since U.S. President Barack Obama has taken office, the debate between economic protectionism and free trade has reemerged with a vengeance. Just this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown dinged the new president's allies in Congress for inserting a controversial "Buy American" provision in the stimulus bill passed in February.

The most important strategic decisions over trade that Obama will face will not be about French cheese or the Chinese yuan, however, but over the dozens of countries around the world that, during the past few decades, have become critical in supplying the U.S. military with the latest technologies and best equipment. These foreign suppliers are significant, and increasingly vital, contributors to America's military superiority.

Gansler goes on to single out the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles program as well as the Medium Extended Air Defense System as examples of programs dependent on components made elsewhere. "Even Obama's new helicopter," he writes, "will be based on an Italian design and partially produced in Britain." (Maybe not, but you get his point.)

Not everyone is a fan:

Of course, critics argue that these arrangements are incredibly dangerous. After all, couldn't the U.S. weapons supply be cut off during wartime if the country were too reliant on foreign parts? Most of these foreign sources, however, are from NATO nations or other countries with which the United States has had enduring military and commercial relationships. For example, despite very public opposition in some of these countries to U.S. actions in Afghanistan or Iraq, at no time did foreign suppliers (including 20 German and two French suppliers) restrict the provision or sale of components.

Skeptics also worry about "Trojan horses" built into foreign-supplied systems, particularly in the case of software. But this potential threat can be addressed through extensive and rigorous testing and reverse engineering, just as occurs in the financial and medical communities. Still others raise serious and legitimate concerns about military technology leaking into the hands of rogue regimes or terrorists or being sold to third parties without U.S. knowledge. These are certainly excellent arguments for international arms-control treaties. But there's no reason why such treaties need preclude legal arms trade among allies, along with mutually agreed-to verification techniques.

More commonly, opponents emphasize the potential loss of jobs that might occur as a result of buying equipment from offshore firms.

Gansler, though, sees no way around it. "The United States must face the fact that it no longer has a monopoly on the world's best military technology," he concludes. "America's path toward future stability involves cooperating with allies and taking advantage of the best they have to offer, not cutting itself off and watching as its military superiority slips away."

The Air Force has ordered inspections of its entire C-130 Hercules cargo hauler fleet after discovering a potential issue with wing bolts, according to service officials.

Each aircraft must undergo a two- to four-hour inspection before returning to flight, an Air Force Special Operations Command official told Inside the Air Force this morning. The command operates specially configured Hercs that are used to insert troops into combat zones and refuel helicopters.

The mandatory inspections include newer Lockheed Martin C-130J aircraft in addition to the legacy C-130s, which make up the bulk of the Air Force's inventory. The oldest Air Force Hercules aircraft entered service in the early 1960s. The newer J-models entered the fleet in the late 1990s.

C-130s are the backbone of intratheater airlift and are used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan to transport troops and cargo.

“Despite the size of the fleet, inspections are proceeding rapidly, and while this is a significant effort for our maintainers we currently don’t expect any major disruptions to essential airlift operations,” Vicki Stein, an Air Force spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail today.

The C-130 becomes the latest Air Force airframe to fall victim to potentially serious structural issues. A portion of the A-10 Warthog attack jet fleet remains grounded due to cracks in the wings. The service also grounded much of its F-15 fighter fleet for months in 2007 and 2008 after an Eagle snapped in two during a training mission.

UPDATED: Obama gave his speech, as advertised -- and unloaded on defense contracting.

The transcript and a memo Obama signed on contracting reform are here. Our coverage to follow.

Today at 10 a.m., President Obama is scheduled to give a major speech about his plan to "reform a broken system of contracting to cut back on wasteful spending, and save the American people tens of billions of dollars," according to the White House.

The AP reports that Obama will sign a new memo to reform contracting for the entire federal government, including the Pentagon. He is expected to discuss defense contracts in the speech. Stay tuned.

All signs point to an increased emphasis on energy issues at DOD, perhaps even in the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The British military, too, is thinking along those lines, according to a recently released Ministry of Defence science and technology plan.

Under the heading "Emerging Technologies," British defense officials have published a slide indicating how the Brits intend to go from "critical dependence on fossil fuels" to "efficient, cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels."

Admittedly, the slide consists mostly of buzzwords displayed on a notional time axis. But there are some interesting ones. For example, the idea of "Unmanned Vehicle Power Sharing" sounds pretty cool.