The Office May/June 2011

The Journal of the Reserve Officers Association

www.roa.org

May - June 2011

Also inside: Rep. Walz on Mentoring | Symposium Recap | Radio Recon | Amb. John Bolton

We know you look for the best deal.

ROA VISA Platinum Cash Rewards

5 1

% cash back on gas paid at the pump*

% cash back on everything else

Apply today.

877.424.7305 PenFed.org/Officer

If you can find a better deal, take it!

Photo: Courtesy U.S. Air Force

All rates and offers are current as of March 1, 2011 and subject to change. *Visa USA determines which transactions are classified as paid at the pump. Fuel purchases for airplanes and boats receive 1% cash back. Other terms and conditions may apply.

A ll R O A me mbe r s a n d your fa mily a re eligible to join . Ap ply for a c a rd toda y a n d s u p por t R O A p r og ra m s .

You’re smart.

TOC

Ta b l e O f c O n T e n T s

The

Officer

•

Vo l u m e

LXXXVII,

No.

3

•

M AY

–

2011

JUNE

ON THE

FEATURES troublED rEgions _______________________________________________ 36

COVER

p. 32

Former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute focusing on U.S. foreign policy and national security, discusses with The Officer the unrest in the Middle East and Iran’s growing power and influence in events. rADio rEcon _____________________________________________________38 Radio host John Batchelor likes to go where the conflicts are. From Pakistan and Iraq to Egypt and Libya, he has a 10-year history of digging deep in the places were reservists find themselves today and where they might find themselves tomorrow.

By Christopher Prawdzik PluggED in ______________________________________________________ 44 ROA’s first-ever National Security Symposium connected the top minds in national security and the Reserve Component with ROA members and national security aficionados for two days of intense and educational policy discussions and debates.

By Caitlin Wixted

Airlift Evolution

The robot-to-human ratio in the military is about one for every 50 troops. In this inaugural feature presentation, The Officer explores some of the latest robot technology out there.

Throughout a decade of conflict, airlift capability has continued to grow as a vital part of the military’s Total Force strategy. The backbone of airlift continues to be the Reserve Component.

By William Matthews

By Erika N. Cotton

Defense Tech: intElligEnt ArsEnAl __________________________________ 54

nAtionAl sEcurity rEPort _________________ 50 Finger on the Pulse As troops fight abroad, a big threat from above is a nuclearcapable nation exploding an electromagnetic pulse weapon overhead, knocking out the country’s electric grid.

By Peter Huessy subjEct mAttEr kEy _________________________________________________ Use these subject matter icons for a quick reference on column and department topics throughout each issue.

PErsonnEl History

oPinion tEcHnology

lEgAl issuEs HEAltHcArE

DEfEnsE DEPArtmEnt

oPErAtions

lEgislAtion

forEign AffAirs

Policy

inDustry

Index to Advertisers: Call for Speaker Presentations

49

Marsh Affinity Group Services

25

Member-Get-A-Member

31

Pentagon Federal Credit Union

Inside Front Cover

ROA Legacy

7

ROA Top 10

3

Top of the Hill USAA

Back Cover 5

TOC

Ta b l e O f c O n T e n T s

The

Officer

•

Vo l u m e

LXXXVII,

No.

3

•

M Ay

–

juNe

2011

DEPARTMENTS President’s Message _________________________ 4 Budget Battles

By Col Walker M. Williams III, USAF (Ret.)

reserve oFFicers association oF tHe united states Organized in 1922. Incorporated under charter of the Congress by Public Law 81-595.

THE OFFICER PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. Publisher: MG David R. Bockel, USA (Ret.) Editor: Christopher Prawdzik Managing Editor: Tiffany Ayers Senior Editor: Elizabeth H. Manning Copy Editor: Carol A. Kelly Associate Editors: Jeanne Kouhestani Graphic Design: Six Half Dozen Advertising Director: Lani Burnett Circulation Manager: Tracey Ware Chairman, Publications Committee: LTC John Rosnow, USAR

editorial ____________________________________6 Best Business Decision

By MG David Bockel, USA (Ret.) reader Feedback tips and tools ____________8 arMy _______________________________________10 20/20 Vision

By Bob Feidler deFense education ForuM __________________ 11 Essential Afghanistan

By Bob Feidler navy _______________________________________ 12 Carrier Concerns

By CAPT Marshall A. Hanson, USNR (Ret.) air Force ___________________________________ 14 Recruit Racing

By David Small service MeMbers law center ________________ 16 Five-Year Limit Primer

By CAPT Samuel F. Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.) caPitol Hill connection ___________________ 18 Cutting Politics, Beyond Talk

By CAPT Marshall A. Hanson, USNR (Ret.) FY 2012 Budget, Earth and Sea Dominance

By Elizabeth Cochran Crowded House

By Legislative Staff reserve enlisted association _______________26 Strong Finish

By CMSGT Lani Burnett, USAF (Ret.) stars industry news ________________________58 IT Transformation

By Jeanne Kouhestani book review _______________________________64 Known and Unknown: A Memoir (Donald Rumsfeld) Reviewed by Col Will Holahan, USMCR (Ret.) Follow roa on twitter: twitter@reserveofficer

The Officer (ISSN 0030-0268) is published bimonthly by the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, One Constitution Avenue NE, Washington DC 20002-5618. Telephone 202-479-2200; Fax 202-646-7767. Printed by Brown Printing Company, East Greenville, Pa. Subscription prices: $40 per year for members, which is included in the dues, $20 for surviving spouses and ROAL members. PERIODICAL POSTAGE PAID at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Officer, Membership Department, ROA, One Constitution Avenue NE, Washington DC 200025618. DEADLINES: Editorial, letters–45 days preceding month of issue; articles, departments–45 days preceding month of publication. Manuscripts preferred by e-mail to editor@roa.org.

This publication is available on the ROA website, for members only. Copyright © 2011 by the Reserve Officers Association. All rights reserved. ADVERTISING INFORMATION: Deadline: 1st day of month preceding month of publication. ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE: Lani Burnett, Advertising Director, Reserve Officers Association, One Constitution Ave. NE, Washington DC 20002-5618; Phone 202-646-7758; Fax 202-646-7767; E-mail lburnett@roa.org. Meaghan Bassiri, Ad Traffic Manager, One Constitution Ave. NE, Washington DC 20002-5618; Phone 202-646-7711; Fax 202-646-7767; E-mail mbassiri@roa.org.

Publication of advertising does not constitute endorsement by the ROA Publisher or the Publisher’s representatives.

become a fan of roa on Facebook: www.roa.org/facebook_fan

network with roa on linked in at: www.roa.org/linked

Ask Us About Our Top 10 Priorities H Recapitalize the Total Force of the seven Uniformed Services with modern Equipment and Facilities.

H F ully Fund and support the Training, Education and Professional Development of Guard and Reserve members.

H Preserve the Defense Industrial Base as a National Security Asset.

H Establish equitable Joint Service policies across components.

H T ransform Reserve Retirement in recognition of an increased operational role.

H I mprove a continuity of health care to treat serving and wounded warriors, both past and present.

H Advance the Service Members Law Center’s ability to provide information on reemployment, voting and other legal issues.

H Enhance employment rights, promoting awareness of responsibilities of both Reservists and employers.

H Fully Fund Family Readiness and Support Programs.

H Through advocacy and Defense Education, promote a fiscally responsible National Security strategy.

Marshall Hanson MHanson@roa.org 202-646-7713

Lani Burnett LBurnett@reaus.org 202-646-7715

Reserve Officers Association of the United States 1 Constitution Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-5618 www.ROA.org

Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States 1 Constitution Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-5618 www.REAUS.org

ROA PResident’s MessAge Col Walker M. WilliaMs iii, UsaF (ret.) • roa NatioNal PresideNt bUDGET bATTLES

Averted shutdown keeps reservists afloat.

OA is chartered—incorporated—by Congress to “support and promote the development of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate national security.”

ROA’s charter also prohibits “political activities” by stating: “the corporation or an officer or member as such may not contribute to, support or assist a political party or candidate for public office.”

Of course, this does not prevent ROA, or our members speaking for ROA, from taking positions on matters before Congress that concern national security. But we, as members of ROA, have to be careful not to criticize politicians or political parties.

As I write this, the “my way or no way” syndrome lasted until the last hour on Capitol Hill, as the country narrowly averted a government shutdown, of which our troops and their families would have been victims. Negative impacts on reservists due to the numerous “continuing resolutions” are already evident, as short-term funding does not allow services to do long-term planning and purchasing.

I feel strongly that, while possibly not an issue for ROA, a government shutdown impacts national security in many ways.

Think about the morale of our troops, worrying about their families; think about terrorists possibly seeing a weakness at this moment in homeland defense; think about the weakness of our borders that might tempt terrorists and drug runners; and think about the impact on the economy, still fragile from the recent recession.

Even though both sides of the aisle in Congress and President Barack Obama profess the need for a strong defense, we may not get all we need without a strong economy. Therefore, I hope compromise will get future budgets approved and the nation’s economy back on track.

If you read any of the Military Times newspapers, you will see pictures every week of the human toll: casualties of combat operations. For the period of March 25–31, 2011, the papers contained pictures of seven young Soldiers, ages 20 to 29. The section also mentioned 68 brave Americans wounded in action during just that week. I would hope our political leaders could

learn to compromise and keep the government functioning to honor the almost 6,000 young American men and women who have given their lives and the more than 42,000 wounded in combat since 2001. Politicians also should consider the thousands of family members impacted by the loss of loved ones and the families of deployed men and women today.

Of course, the driving issue for Congress is the deficit and the size of the budget. With the funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 finally resolved, Congress will immediately look at FY ’12. In this issue of The Officer, don’t miss “Cutting Politics” on page 18 in Capitol Hill Connection for a closer look. It is our hope that, by the fall, Congress can agree on defense funding throughout next year.

Meanwhile, ROA continues to testify before Congress. Following up on the 17 statements that ROA made last year, ROA headquarters continues to submit testimony.

In the cover story “Airlift Evolution,” The Officer examines Reserve Component airlift, its relevance, and how it has grown in a decade of conflict.

Former United Nations Amb. John Bolton then discusses with The Officer the unrest in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.

We also examine radio host John Batchelor’s nightly program in “Radio Recon.” The show provides insight, education, and reports from experts on the ground—from Libya and Egypt to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other global hot spots.

“Plugged In” takes readers right into the heart of ROA’s first National Security Symposium. This two-day event welcomed national security experts, ROA members, and anyone else with a stake in the nation’s security. ROA is already working on shaping next year’s symposium program.

And don’t miss ROA’s new Defense Tech section that focuses on the latest defense technology that could soon be in the Reserve Component’s hands.

This, of course, is just a preview of our comprehensive coverage this month. We hope you enjoy. 

I hope compromise will get future budgets approved.

4

the

Officer / May–June 2011

We know what it means to serve.速

Editorial

By MG DaviD Bockel, USa (Ret.) • Roa execUtive DiRectoR BEst BusinEss dEcision

Modest Tricare fee increases are better than expensive alternatives.

he government must find ways to cut expenses and/or increase revenues.

Is there anything new you haven’t already heard on this subject? Although politics overshadow the problem, the truth remains the same: A combination of both expense reductions and revenue enhancements must take place.

Having founded and run a business for more than 32 years, I realize that this decision ultimately comes down to a business decision. Unfortunately, with our current economic situation, emotion continues to trump common sense.

For many in the Reserve Component, this hits home by way of Tricare fee increases. A lot of folks are highly energized over proposed fee increases, but have they taken a close look at what it is really all about?

Right now the proposed fee increase is $60 per year for Tricare Prime for families, which would increase the annual cost from $460 to $520 each year. The individual rate is half that. That’s $60 a year—just $5 more a month! Do without a Starbucks coffee for one day and you’d likely have it covered.

And no fees or increases are planned for Tricare Standard or Tricare For Life.

Again, it boils down to a business decision. For those who have paid for personal health insurance or, for some of us who have provided health insurance to employees or family members, premium increases of 20, 30, 40 percent or maybe even higher, are common. You see exclusions for pre-existing conditions, some conditions that are not covered or no longer covered, as well as other issues on policy renewals.

But with Tricare, you can enroll with a pre-existing condition and not pay a penalty or be denied coverage. Bottom line: Tricare is a great deal if you are eligible for it.

You shouldn’t be surprised to learn that buying health insurance on the open market can cost thousands of dollars.

So, what is the big deal if a Tricare Prime recipient, who has no copays and a very small premium, has to pay $5 more a month? We tend to get wrapped up in the emotional side of things instead of what makes the best business sense.

A former mentor once said, “There is no 100 percent solution. Sometimes an 80 percent solution is the best you will be able to do.”

So, what’s wrong with an 80 percent solution? A baseball player who only gets a hit 33 percent of the time gets into the Hall of Fame.

Right now, our country is trying to find solutions to our economic problems. I hope what they come up with are good business solutions and not emotional solutions. Entitlements can be tough issues to deal with. In the Department of Defense, personnel costs— particularly with the high number of retirees—are going through the roof. One of the reasons is Tricare. And Tricare is arguably the best health plan that has ever been provided for members of our military and their families, and it includes serving members of the Reserve and Guard as well as the Active Component and retirees.

It wasn’t so long ago that serving members of the Reserve and Guard received no health benefits except when serving on active duty in Title 10 status. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Accepting a very small increase in just one aspect of the program is not all that hard. In the future, as health care costs rise, why shouldn’t there continue to be modest increases in Tricare fees?

You’d better believe that health insurance in the marketplace will go up as well—by leaps and bounds. Accept the small increases as the right business solutions. If you don’t agree, send me a note or write a letter to our editor. Other points of view are important. 

It wasn’t so long ago that serving members of the Reserve and Guard received no health benefits except when serving on active duty in Title 10 status. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

6

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Legacy Society Spotlight: COL and Mrs. David E. Davenport, USAR (Ret.) ROA past President COL David Davenport and his wife Margie have been ROA members for 33 years, and they know first-hand that such dedicated membership is something that evolves just as any relationship—not just over one day or one year, but for a lifetime. With ROA, it’s a relationship with continuous rewards. But looking back to 1978, they also realize that they initially needed some encouragement.

command, for admission to the Army War College, for promotion to colonel, and for selection to brigade command.”

“When the battalion executive officer informed me that I was expected to join ROA, Margie and I did him one better and began attending the local Chapter meetings … [but] we came to believe that, through perhaps some sort of miracle, we were quite invisible to the attendees.”

COL Davenport’s involvement with ROA also had a big impact on his experience as an officer. “It turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made in respect to developing my military leadership skills and my effectiveness as an officer,” he says. “Even as a junior officer, I often found I was much more aware of military service and national security matters than my peers.”

Early on, it’s easy to think, “Why join?” he said. “That same question intrigued me in my junior officer days— if for no other reason than because until one spends some time working to furthering the organization’s goals, ROA can be a very complex concept to get one’s arms around.”

But COL Davenport maintained faith and confidence in both his senior officers and in himself, knowing that it was the right thing to do. “I stuck around and got involved’” he said “[Once others knew] we were not just ‘passing through,’ the attention that we received from all these folks was quite exhilarating for a junior officer and his spouse; in the long run, we came to appreciate that we had persisted in our chapter attendance.”

Behind 30-plus years of membership, the Davenports were encouraged and mentored by their peers, and the rewards included Margie’s election as National ROAL president in 2000, followed by COL Davenport’s election to ROA National President in 2002.

“Looking back,” he said, “there were many proud moments during my ROA service.” He reflected particularly fondly on ROA’s many years of lobbying for the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA). “Try as we might, we just couldn’t seem to get the bill onto Congress’ calendar. This went on for many years until suddenly, in 1995, just as I was nearing my mandatory removal date, Congress voted ROPMA into existence,” COL Davenport said. “This measure added seven years to my reserve career and enabled me to compete—successfully, I might add—for battalion

The Davenports have spent 30 years actively involved in ROA.

But as proud as COL Davenport is of ROA’s legislative victories and its impact on his career, he is most honored by the support the ROA community has given him and his wife.

“Perhaps most importantly, Margie and I have both profited from the knowledge that we are involved in something greater than ourselves,” he says. “I loved my service in the Army Reserve, and Margie supported me and my units every step of the way. ROA, though, has given us an additional outlet that allows us to support our armed forces, our country, and our community.”

COL Davenport also had a lot of fun. “Margie and I never ‘spent’ a dime on ROA or ROAL, but we ‘invested’ a lot in both…[and] we consistently received ‘returns’ that always exceeded our expectations,” he said.

Visit www.roa.org/support for more information or contact Richard Thralls at 202.646.7721 or rthralls@roa.org

READER FEEDBACK Tips and Tools l of the Res

.org

Iran turns up heat Also Inside:

2_cover_march_ROA.indd 94

Air and Army Guard Q&A Undercover Defense Combat Lifeline STARs: Humana Military

January -

n

February

2011

ht Tal k

air forCe

arMy res erve

reserve

Guard

ve Ch iefS’ S TaT e of Th e foRC e

reserve

Navy res erve

ReSeR

affairs

Coast Gu reserve ard

IRAN

Straig

Associatio

Noaa

www.roa

March–April 2011

MariNe Corps reserve

www.roa.org

erve Officer s

NatioNa l

The Journa

The Journal of the Reserve Officers Association

also iNs ide: Q&a wi th r. JaM es wool director sey, y of Cen tral inte

former

desert

lligence

storM 20 years later 2011 leG islative aGeNda

2/14/11 8:18 PM

We Want to Hear from You With more than 50,000 readers and covering an everexpanding net of national security issues, The Officer continues to try to bring readers the latest, most compelling, entertaining, and cutting-edge information available. While doing so, we also do our best to listen to and follow our readers’ opinions about what might work for us—and even sometimes what doesn’t. To that end, we heavily encourage comment, contributions, and feedback from readers to give us insight on the material they would like to see in the future.

In this issue, The Officer staff wanted to provide additional information on how to get thoughts and ideas into the journal. We’re always open to suggestions about new content to make the reading experience even better. We want to maintain the lines of communication, so please take a moment to read our submission guidelines for everything from letters to the editor—which always have a chance for publication—to interest in other contributions that help The Officer stand out as a premier publication of the Reserve Component and national security issues.

Thank you again for your support and interest in the publication, and we hope you keep reading. Your input makes us a better publication.

Christopher Prawdzik Editor | The Officer | cprawdzik@roa.org 8

the

Officer / May–June 2011

The Officer is the journal of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA). Published six times a year, it focuses on national security topics, particularly those that affect the Reserve Component of the U.S. military. The Officer also covers pertinent issues emanating from Capitol Hill, the Defense Department, and the White House.

All material published in The Officer is original and exclusive to the publication. The Officer does not consider for publication any editorial material that has previously appeared in any format, printed or electronic. This includes blog posts, e-mails, personal websites, letters to the editor, and scholarly essays submitted to institutions of higher learning.

With little exception, The Officer does not publish

Corrections/Clarifications In “Operational Air” (the Officer, March–April 2011), Gen Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, was misidentified.

In “Iran Turns Up Heat” (the Officer, March– April 2011), Tel Aviv was misidentified. It is the financial capital of Israel.

information pertaining to the operation or issues surrounding ROA business, aside from topical coverage of ROA symposiums, educational events, and items focused on national security issues. Topics about ROA members, association news, or membership-related material is published in the association’s quarterly newsletter Time on Target.

For those wishing to submit written material for publication in The Officer, the best department for submissions is the publication’s “Feedback” section. This section of the journal presents news, opinion, and comment from readers pertaining to issues addressed in the publication.

Please limit letters to 250 words or less. The Officer reserves the right to edit any letter for publication at its discretion.

Those letters addressed to “Feedback” via traditional mail or e-mail will be given automatic consideration for publication in a future issue. Please include name, rank, service section, hometown, and a daytime phone number with each submission.

The Officer cannot guarantee publication of any submission.

Please send “Feedback” submissions to Christopher Prawdzik, 1 Constitution Ave., Washington D.C. 20002 or e-mail to cprawdzik@roa.org.

For other sections of the publication, The Officer assigns occasional opinion columns, analysis pieces, book reviews, feature stories, question and answer interviews, National Security Reports, or other features to professional, established writers, researchers, and policy experts. While we consider all serious editorial proposals to the publication, we cannot guarantee publication or the chances of publication.

Article proposals for The Officer should be e-mailed to editor Christopher Prawdzik at cprawdzik@roa.org. Please do not submit completed manuscripts. We are unable to read them, and we are unable to return them once submitted to us.

Although we welcome unsolicited proposals, we are unable to pay for unsolicited contributions to The Officer.

Proposals should include the following: 1.

A cover letter (it can be in the body of the e-mail) describing in 400 words or less what you would like to produce for The Officer. Please be specific about the direction the piece will take. Include names and titles of

individuals you plan to interview and how you might have access to these individuals. Also include notes about available art/photography that you might submit in conjunction with the article.

2. Copies of at least two published articles. They do not need to address military topics, but we do need to see previous work.

3. A short biography of the author—name, background, expertise, writing experience: anything that would be pertinent to support the proposed article.

If a proposal is accepted, an editor from The Officer will contact the author and assign an article with a deadline and specific instructions for the story.

Please remember that The Officer is a bimonthly journal, and issues are planned months in advance. If your proposal is intended for a particular issue, please present your idea at least six months in advance of the desired date for publication. (July– August story ideas, for example, are considered in January.) 

TIPS Provide a tight focus on a single topic. *East” (“Iran’s Nuclear Threat to the Middle is better than a story about “The

Dangers of Terrorism around the World.”)

Multisourced features are best. Individual *handled interview/Q&A submissions are typically by staff from T O . he

fficer

For feature stories, include multiple *Lengthy interviews with experts in the field. opinion pieces about a certain

topic are more difficult to get published.

Be patient. We receive many proposals *stories but print only six issues a year, and most are assigned well in advance.

If you have questions about submissions and submission policy, please e-mail editor Christopher Prawdzik at cprawdzik@roa.org.

The

Officer / May–June 2011

9

Army BoB Feidler • director, Army ProgrAms 20/20 Vision Resources, accsessibility critical for an operational reserve.

he Army Reserve is at a critical juncture. It has evolved from a strategic reserve—beginning in the 1990s—to an operational reserve. Given extreme fiscal constraints and clear signals from Congress that the Department of Defense will have to bear its share of future budget cuts, the challenge for the Army Reserve is clearly whether it will remain an enduring operational force. Will it be organized, modernized, postured, and resourced to provide support to the Total Army, combatant commanders, and civil authorities? The top priorities for the Army Reserve must be: adequate resources (funding), accessibility to their services, and support for Soldiers and their families.

With blueprints for the Army Reserve’s future in the Army Reserve Vision & Strategy 2020 and the Army Reserve Campaign Plan, a wariness exists that the Army Reserve might be put back By into the “strategic reserve” box. This would reduce the operational ability of the Army Reserve and needlessly squander resources and experiences that the Army Reserve has constructed over the past decade. To remain an enduring operational force and the premier force provider of Citizen Warriors for planned and emerging missions, the Army Reserve must be adequately resourced and accessible.

In areas such as transportation, medical, civil affairs, engineering, and information operations, the Army Reserve provides a substantial portion of the force. Although the expense for these units when employed operationally is the same as for Active Component units, maintenance is much lower when they are not in active status. Reserve Component units also can respond to homeland emergencies, although the laws governing accessibility to the Army Reserve desperately need amendment to permit broader usage in domestic emergencies and access for call-up by the Secretary of Defense for theater engagement and similar missions. We have built an Army that is dependent on the Army Reserve; now we must fund it.

The Army Reserve is an enabler for the Total Army through its provision of rotational units (enablers) cyclically under the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. The current model calls for a unit to have a dwell time ratio of 1:5 (one year deployed and five years at home station). The cycle begins 10

the

Officer / May–June 2011

as a unit resets and trains; it then becomes ready, and finally joins the available pool force. If a unit is not in the rotational element of the force, it is in the generating force (e.g., training divisions or mobilization support) or one of the 22 operational and functional commands. These entities are nonrotational but always available as additional capacity to the operational force, such as units from the train/ready force pools if a surge is required. Critical is that units not be classified as ready when, in fact, due to restricted training, they might not be.

The Army Reserve Campaign Plan 2011, effective in March 2011, is the primary strategic management tool developed to implement change in support of Vision & Strategy 2020 and the Army Campaign Plan. It focuses on those actions and activities required to shape and adapt the Army Reserve operating and generating forces and their associated institutions and agencies.

The plan includes 32 major objectives the Army Reserve must accomplish in the next year and a half to meet the needs of the units and Soldiers. Pressing issues include the shaping of the force and developing a true continuum of service to ease transitions within duty statuses, such as active, active reserve, and inactive reserve.

For an enduring operational reserve—especially in a time of fiscal constraints—the Army Reserve must match its capabilities to the needs expressed in the National Military Strategy, the Guidance for Employment of the Force, and the various combatant command campaign plans. It can only do this with sufficient resources. As a result, the Army Reserve should be fully included in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 13-17 process at funding levels reflecting an operational—not strategic—reserve and be fully included within the Total Army Analysis strategy that sets the Active Component/Reserve Component enabler mix and expectations of the Active Component for the Army Reserve.

Given the severe fiscal pressure the defense structure will face in years to come, an operational Army Reserve offers the most cost-effective solution. It will be essential that units are properly trained and accessible by the Secretary of Defense for a variety of missions, including domestic emergencies.

DEFENSE EDUCATION FORUM BoB Feidler • director, Strategic deFenSe education ESSENTIAL AFGHANISTAN

D E F E N S E

EDUCATION FORUM

Al-Qaida safe haven heavily impacts U.S. national security.

or many years, the United States lost focus on Afghanistan, despite it being a safe DEF haven from which al-Qaida organized its deadly attack on 9/11. As a result, the Taliban and associated extremists reconstituted their safe havens, especially along the Pakistan– Afghanistan border, and in recent years have sustained a resilient insurgency.

In recent years, Taliban and related forces have seized terrain and gained support among numerous elements of the populace.

A clear risk had returned that a Taliban-led Afghanistan might again provide safe haven for terrorists.

The tremendous Afghan Surge counterinsurgency campaign, in which 30,000 more troops were committed to that area of responsibility, along with substantial civilian assistance, is helping turn the tide.

The United States and its partners of the International Assistance Security Forces (ISAF) have more than 140,000 forces in Afghanistan; the United States alone has more than 1,100 civilian personnel from nine U.S. departments and agencies assisting in Afghan civil society development.

The task to assist with economic and governance development is enormous, particularly with Afghanistan’s challenging geography and diverse population that include several major tribal identities of more than 30 million people, making it larger than Iraq. The ultimate goal is to disrupt and defeat al-Qaida, deny it the safe haven it needs, and thus prevent future threats to the United States.

The good news is that we are winning. GEN David Petraeus, ISAF commander, has cautioned that the gains over the past year are “fragile and reversible.” At the Defense Education Forum (DEF) program on Afghanistan in March, Dr. Kim Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War—along with other panelists—made the point that while Taliban momentum has been stopped and reversed in much of the country, exceptionally difficult work lies ahead.

The expected spring offensive and its results will go a long

way toward determining if the back of the Taliban has been broken and if an era of reintegration of Afghan insurgents into the community will begin. Indeed, over the past few months, hundreds of insurgents have left the battlefield through both formal and informal reintegration.

The next step in the process is reconciliation, in which a political solution is developed that will end armed opposition to Afghanistan’s central government.

Key to the recent success and an absolute necessity for the future has been the evolution of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). They have been integrated into coalition activities, and it was expected that in late March a number of provinces would be fully transitioned to ANSF control for security purposes.

DEF participants stressed that the Afghan people crave order. The challenge is to increase the accountability of the central government so that the people have a stake and belief in its survival. A stable and enduring government and political order is the goal—accomplished to Afghan standard, not Western standard. The people demand two major things from government: security and justice.

Essential elements for future success are increased U.S. efforts and the international civilian community improving governance, economic development, and the provision of basic services. To this end, continued funding must be maintained to the civilian entities of the U.S. government most responsible for these activities—the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development—or many successes could backslide.

Finally, Afghanistan’s neighbors—Pakistan and India—are concerns as well. Pakistan is asserting some control over border areas, which long have been Taliban safe havens. However, between Pakistan’s inflation and high anti-American sentiment, the future of a nuclear Pakistan must remain a high priority for the region. 

The challenge is to increase the accountability of the central government so that the people have a stake and belief in its survival.

the

Officer / May–June 2011

11

Navy CAPT MARSHALL A. HANSON, USNR (ReT.) • diReCTOR, NAvAL SeRviCeS SeCTiON

Carrier CoNCerNs Where are they now? Where do they belong?

And how many do we need?

he U.S. Navy currently operates 11 aircraft carriers.

Fiscal hawks and security doves suggest that this country doesn’t need that many. Manned by more than 5,000 Sailors, the aircraft carrier has become a target for budget cuts. If the number of aircraft carriers is reduced, will the Navy be able to meet crisis demands?

The aircraft carrier has been the weapon of choice for U.S. presidents. As expressed by President Bill Clinton during a 1993 visit to the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: Where is the nearest carrier?”

A debate is forming on what is of greater importance: forward presence or the cost and maintenance of an evermore expensive Navy? The argument is between a budget deficit and a presence deficit. Always fair game for budget cutters, aircraft carriers are under fire because of their massive costs.

The Government Accountability Office in 1997 reported that the lifecycle cost of a nuclear carrier is $22 billion. In his 1985 book Pentagon and the Art of War, defense analyst Edward N. Luttwak estimated that “more than $6 billion worth of ships, as well as salaries, benefits, and pensions for 8,000 people are needed to keep a carrier-based air wing of 90 planes at sea.”

The rate of inflation has nearly doubled that amount as of 2011.

Last summer, the Sustainable Defense Task Force plan suggested that the U.S. Navy could “retire two Navy aircraft carriers and two naval air wings.” Commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank (D–Mass.) and supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R– Texas), the study said this reduction would save the nation $50 billion. Because retiring two carriers actually reduces the number of carrier battle groups, even more ships could be cut, providing even greater savings. The study proposed a 230-ship Navy with an overall savings of $126.6 billion.

In the September 2010 report “Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint,” the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., proposed reducing the Navy to eight carrier battle groups, explaining that “under a strategy of restraint, the 12

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Navy would operate as a surge force that deploys to fight, rather than attempting to stamp out trouble by maintaining a presence around the world.”

Observers point out that the United States currently has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies reports that countries with aircraft carriers in service include Italy (two), Britain (one)—with two planned after 2020—and India (one) with two being constructed and another being rebuilt. Russia, France, Spain, Brazil, and Thailand each have one. China is rebuilding a carrier that it bought from Russia.

A 12th U.S. carrier—the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)— is under construction, with an expected completion date of 2015, and two more authorized carriers are yet unnamed. In addition, the United States has 10 amphibious carriers that provide helicopter and Harrier (vertical and short-takeoff and landing aircraft) fighter support. The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is scheduled for retirement in 2013.

But the number of available U.S. carriers is misleading. At the end of February, only three were deployed. Of the others, one was in dry-dock, one was being refueled, and one was in ship overhaul. Operationally, two were going through qualifications; two were in training exercises; and one was returning to home port after deployment. The normal cycle is deployment, refit, and train.

A particular goal set by then–Chief of Naval Operations ADM Vernon Clark was to enable a surge of aircraft carriers during crisis periods. In 2004, for the Summer Pulse exercise, seven carriers were surged with 12 in the fleet. Looking at February’s numbers, it appears that only five or six carriers could have responded.

In an interview with WTNT radio, former United Nations Amb. John Bolton pointed out that the U.S. Navy didn’t have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean at the time the unrest began in Libya (see “Troubled Region,” page 38), which precluded evacuation of American citizens. The closest aircraft carrier was the Enterprise, which was stationed off the Persian

Gulf at the time.

Protests against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi began Feb. 16 and quickly escalated when the regime used deadly force to suppress protesters. Resistance grew into civil war as protesters armed themselves, and members of the Libyan military took sides. Several sources reported that Qaddafi hired mercenaries to backfill his military, which potentially added to the level of violence.

The United States chartered a private ferry to evacuate Americans and other nationals from the port of Tripoli.

According to a statement from then–State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley at the end of February: “We are unaware of large pockets of Americans who wished to evacuate but did not. However, we are aware that there may be Americans still in Libya that may need assistance departing the country.”

At the same time, Iran sailed two warships through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean for a visit to Syria. “The visit aims to strengthen old ties between Iran and Syria and to enhance maritime cooperation,” said Iran’s navy chief, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari as reported by Al Arabyia News.

At a March 1 news conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced he had “directed several Navy ships to the Mediterranean.” He added that “the USS Kearsarge and the USS Ponce will be entering the Mediterranean shortly and will provide us a capability for both emergency evacuations and also for humanitarian relief.” Because the 1,400 Marines from the Kearsarge were serving in Afghanistan, 400 Marines were sent from the United States to join the ships. National Journal reported that the Enterprise was ordered to join the two warships via the Suez Canal.

The available five carriers will be spread thin across potential global crisis spots. In addition, the Navy has accepted humanitarian missions.

While scheduled to go to the West Pacific already, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) was sent to Japan with recovery material support following the Japanese earthquake on March 11. The USS George Washington (CVN-73) is home-ported in Yokosuka, Japan, and rode out the quake at the pier. While the ship’s crew could provide assistance, which was requested of U.S. forces by Japan, it was limited to resources onboard and at the naval station. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) was away from its homeport in Guam, having transferred to the 5th Fleet off the Persian Gulf, where the Navy usually tries to keep two

carriers in the Arabian Sea. Yet, concerns continue in the Pacific and include saberrattling North Korea, as well as China’s claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea. With tensions rising, the Pentagon may also reconsider keeping a carrier in the Mediterranean.

However, other areas of crisis could also arise.

Elsewhere, the Gulf of Guinea, off the west coast of equatorial Africa, may become a center of gravity because of its oil fields. Clashes in the Ivory Coast, violence and piracy in Nigeria, new leadership in Guinea, and instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could increase.

There’s also the Indian Ocean, which “combines the centrality of Islam with global energy politics and the rise of India and China to reveal a multilayered, multipolar world,” according to Robert Kaplan in “Center Stage for the 21st Century,” an essay in the March/April 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs. He argues that the Indian Ocean rimland will take center stage in the 21st century, and points out that while Europe and the United States talk about globalization, the countries around the rim of the Indian Ocean are growing more nationalistic. A senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington D.C., Mr. Kaplan is also author of Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power.

Another area of growing instability is in the Western Hemisphere. Drug wars send ripples of chaos throughout Latin America.

Guatemala is becoming a Mexican cartel battleground.

Venezuela has replaced Cuba as an agent of aggressive interventionism in the affairs of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean by becoming involved in elections to support leftist guerrillas.

A 2007 Department of Defense report shows the United States military in 150 countries around the world. The troops perform a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries. As troops are pulled back into the United States, the U.S. Navy will assume the greater deterrent role.

Last February, during a speech at West Point Military Academy, Secretary Gates told cadets that “the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements—whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere.” But with this shift in strategy, will eight carriers be enough?  the

Officer / May–June 2011

13

AIR FORCE

By DaviD Small • ROa DiRectOR Of aiR fORce affaiRS RECRuIt RACIng Ten-year NASCAR relationship is a positive model.

rom my layman’s perspective, I’d say that the government funds some pretty squirrelly programs—many, in my opinion, related to crazy art projects or ads to inspire people to eat more cheese. So, it doesn’t shock me when a Capitol Hill staffer makes grand plans to cut funding for something about which he or she knows nothing. I’d do the same in his or her shoes. That’s why organizations like the Reserve Officers Association exist: to educate Congress on programs specifically related to national security.

Without question, Americans who support the military understand the need to fund military recruiting and retention programs. But some people question how that money is used.

In February, Rep. Betty McCollum (D–Minn.) introduced an amendment to end funding for the military sponsorship of NASCAR, in which the Air Force and Army participate, calling it a waste of money.

On the surface, that conclusion seems to pass the logic test.

NASCAR? It reminds me of when I was stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Va., and we’d all go to the Langley Speedway, out the back gate with a bucket of chicken and a case of Milwaukee’s Best—perhaps not the best image from a recruiting standpoint.

But when you look at the facts and data behind why the Air Force sponsors NASCAR, I, for one, support it. The Air Force

14

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Recruiting Service didn’t just say, “NASCAR. Cool. Grunt.”

The service did its homework as good stewards of taxpayer funds to best communicate with its target audience and adult influencers.

Recruiters aim to attract the brightest, most competitive young people across the broadest landscape who, they hope, are associated with science, technology, engineering, and math. Of the various sponsorships this strategy targets, their NASCAR partnership provides opportunities to associate with a pop-culture event and create brand affinity with mechanically inclined youth and their influencers.

The Air Force’s team is Richard Petty Motorsports’ No. 43 car in the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, driven by A.J. Allmendinger, one of the most respected teams in NASCAR. “This is our tenth season in NASCAR, and we look forward to competing and winning with the Richard Petty team,” Brig Gen Balan Ayyar, commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, said in a release. “This is a high-performance atmosphere that aligns with the leadership, technology, and competitive spirit of our Airmen and Air Force. We intend to go beyond the race track to reach supporters and fans.”

About one-third of enlisted accessions—9,000 recruits— each year fill careers as engine mechanics, avionics specialists, electronics systems maintainers, and crew chiefs. These are perfect jobs for youth who like to tinker with engines. Read: racing fans!

While I don’t watch the sport, 70 million fans do—all very patriotic, pro-military spectators who are extremely loyal to team sponsors and drivers. They like speed, performance, precision, technology, engineering, math, teamwork, and excellence in competition—all things that parallel the description of a stellar Airman.

NASCAR events create a venue for other outreach opportunities, too: flyovers, swear-in ceremonies, multiday recruiting booths in front of 100,000-plus crowds weekly, in prime markets reaching an extended 250 million TV viewers annually. NASCAR also allows the Air Force to participate

The service did its homework as good stewards of taxpayer funds to best communicate with its target audience and adult influencers.

with the mobile show car at schools. I personally saw the awe of people when the car was parked in Times Square for Air Force Week in New York City last year.

All of these benefits come with an incredibly small price tag: less than 3 percent of the Air Force’s overall marketing and advertising budget, or just $1.6 million this fiscal year.

The Army sponsors NASCAR No. 39, driven by Ryan Newman. “The U.S. Army NASCAR team [is] fueled to succeed by the over 1 million men and women who bravely defend our country as part of the Army,” says the Army NASCAR website at GoArmy.com. “The honor and pride to drive the Soldier’s car, along with the speed, power, teamwork, and technology demonstrated by the race team continues to push it toward its ultimate mission, reaching Victory Lane.”

Given the Army mission’s heavy reliance on convoys to transport people, equipment, and supplies in-theater, the website even highlights its NASCAR hauler, comparing it to its heavy equipment transport system.

“Only a great team can keep vehicles like these running smoothly, and great teams are made of talented individuals,” the website states, encouraging visitors to compare the elements of the racing team to elements of the Army.

Going a step further, Army Racing presents its Education for the Future program on track grounds during NASCAR events and provides high school- and college-aged students with real-world lessons about careers and options for their future, emphasizing the importance of education and goalsetting. Students from local schools participate, getting the opportunity to meet Ryan Newman and the team, along with other industry representatives, who inspire careers that would benefit the Army, such as automotive engineers, motorsports industry professionals, and U.S. Army Soldiers.

Air Force Reserve recruiters are also good stewards of taxpayer dollars on such programs. While the Air Force Reserve doesn’t sponsor NASCAR, it has other important recruiting programs. It constantly looks for the most efficient and costeffective means to reach the right people, said CMSgt Glen Barnes, chief of advertising for the Reserve’s recruiting service.

The Air Force Reserve previously sponsored a jet car and biplane but eliminated its funding two years ago because return on investment wasn’t paying off. Instead, the Reserve sponsors 12 Monster Jam events, which the Air Force Reserve calls “a four-wheel drive extravaganza with a variety of specialty events including hot wheels monster trucks, pro-stadium trucks, quad wars, demolition derby, and specialty thrill acts.”

They do so for many of the same reasons the other components sponsor NASCAR. The Air Force Reserve is also the sole military sponsor of Street League, a new professional street skating league launched last year that now has 3 million participants. It is targeted at those between ages 17 and 35 who lead an active lifestyle.

As budgets tighten, recruiters have become keenly attuned to what works and what doesn’t. Promotional items (“swag”), lead purchases, displays, and print advertising are less a focus now than social networking and other marketing activities that produce qualified leads for recruiters in the field, said a Reserve spokesman.

Ultimately, Rep. McCollum’s anti-NASCAR amendment, CR H1232-1233, failed 148-281 and ended up being much ado about nothing, but it opened up these programs to further scrutiny. While Congress decides what ought to be funded and what shouldn’t, ROA should be more supportive of a strategy that funds the recruiting and retention efforts of all services and lets the boots on the ground who have done their homework decide where the money goes. Haul them in for testimony, but don’t arbitrarily propose funding cuts, because on the surface you’re unable to connect a deceptively important program’s budget to its positive, tangible effects on the mission.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

15

Service MeMberS Law center Capt Samuel F. Wright, JagC, uSN (ret.) • DireCtor, Service MeMberS Law center

Five-Year-LiMit PriMer

Your job protection is up to you.

n this issue we hope to shed more light on questions about the five-year limit.

Q: I am a Marine Corps Reserve officer and a member of

ROA. When not on active duty, I work as an airline pilot.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I have been away from my civilian job for almost seven years of active duty—some voluntary and some involuntary. I have been trying to figure out which of my active-duty periods count toward my five-year limit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and which periods are exempt. This is too complicated.

Why should this burden be placed on the individual reservist? Somebody should take on this responsibility for the individual reservist. What about the civilian employer?

What about the Marine Corps Reserve? What about the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)? What about the Department of Labor (DoL)? Can’t these organizations take the burden off the individual reservist?

A:

Nobody but you can protect your job. If you want to preserve your right to reemployment under USERRA, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that you meet USERRA eligibility criteria, including, but not limited to, the five-year limit.

As I explained in Law Review 0766, and other articles, you must meet five criteria to have the right to reemployment: 1. You must have left a civilian position of employment for the purpose of performing voluntary or involuntary service in the uniformed services.

2. You must have given the employer prior oral or written notice that you would be leaving for the purpose of service.

3. Your cumulative period, or periods, of uniformed service, relating to the employer relationship for which you seek reemployment, must not have exceeded five years. Not all duty counts toward the five-year limit.

4. You must have been released from the period of service 16

the

Officer / May–June 2011

without having received a punitive (court martial) or other-than-honorable discharge.

5. You must have made a timely application for reemployment after release from the period of service.

You must meet these criteria with respect to each period of service, whether for a drill weekend or five years of voluntary active duty. You must be prepared to document that you meet the criteria. I suggest that you carefully dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s.

Your civilian employer does not necessarily understand all the nuances of USERRA, and some employers have no knowledge of the law whatsoever. Moreover, the employer is not necessarily on your side. Even in the “good old days” when Reserve Component service was generally limited to one weekend per month and two weeks of annual training, some employers strenuously objected to the burden of employing a National Guard or Reserve member. Now that we are talking about repeated periods of voluntary or involuntary service, often for months at a time, some employers are willing to spend big bucks to hire lawyers to help them get out from under USERRA requirements. If you fail to meet even one of the five criteria, you do not have the legal right to reemployment upon release from service. I strongly suggest that you not rely on the employer’s goodwill. Don’t assume that the employer will reemploy you.

If you tell the employer that you will be gone for a year of military service and then you extend for a second year, it is essential that you inform the employer of the extension. I suggest you do so by certified mail, and retain a copy of the letter and the evidence that the employer received it. But don’t expect the employer to sign on to your assertion that the first year or the second year is exempt from the five-year limit.

You must meet all five of the eligibility criteria to have the right to reemployment. That means that you must be released from the period of service and then apply for reemployment.

When you show up at the civilian place of employment with your form DD-214 in hand, the employer then needs to determine if you are within the five-year limit and if you

meet the other four criteria. Until you are ready to return to work, the employer need not make—and probably will not make—a determination about the five-year limit or the other criteria.

Even if the employer says something to the effect that your service is exempt from the five-year limit, an earlier employer statement is not binding on the employer. When you finally leave active duty and apply for reemployment—and after the employer is “lawyered up”—the employer may contest your assertion that a period of service does not count toward the limit. In the final analysis, if push comes to shove, it may be up to a court to determine whether you are within or outside the five-year limit with respect to that employer relationship.

Similarly, you cannot rely on the Marine Corps Reserve to compute the five-year limit for you. The folks at the personnel office may not even know the meaning of the acronym USERRA. They certainly don’t know the details of the five-year limit. And the Marine Corps may not know when you started to work for your present employer. ESGR and the DOL generally don’t come into the picture until you have an actual claim for reemployment, which the employer has denied.

Law Review 201: “Have I Exceeded the Five-Year Limit?” goes into great detail as to how the five-year limit is computed— what counts and what does not count. The shorthand version is that all involuntary service and some voluntary service are exempted from the computation of the five-year limit. It is incumbent on you to determine how much of the five-year limit you have already used and how much “headroom” you have left. Before you agree to a new voluntary period of active duty or a voluntary extension of your active duty, be sure that the new period or extension does not put you over the five-year limit.

secretary concerned refers to the service secretary, such as the secretary of the Navy.

A 1998 Department of Defense instruction provides that the service secretary can delegate this responsibility, but not below the “assistant secretary” level. These determinations are normally made by the assistant secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, or by similar officials in the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force, or by the Commandant of the Coast Guard for that service.

I am concerned about many of the military orders that I have read. Instead of a general statement to the effect that the period is exempt from the five-year limit, I want to see a specific citation to the written determination by the service secretary or assistant secretary. If the question of your right to reemployment must be litigated—and if the question comes down to whether a particular period of service is exempt from the five-year limit—the court will likely demand to see evidence that the proper official has made the determination. 

The employer need not make a determination about the five-year limit or the other criteria.

Q: Some of my military orders contain a paragraph explicitly stating that the duty performed under the order is exempt from the computation of the five-year limit under USERRA. Can I rely on that paragraph?

A:

Not necessarily. As I explain in detail in Law Review 201, five of the eight exemptions require the “secretary concerned” to make a determination and written certification. The term

The Law Review articles that you read in the journal are just a small fraction of the articles that you can find on our website, at www.roa.org/law_review. You can find more than 700 articles there, along with a detailed subject index and a search function to facilitate finding articles about very specific topics. We add up to four new articles per week.

Most of the articles are about the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), but you can also find articles about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and other laws that are particularly relevant to those who serve the country in uniform. We are interested in new articles from ROA members who are lawyers. Please contact Captain Samuel F. Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.), director of the Service Members Law Center, at 800-809-9448, ext. 730, or SWright@roa.org.

the

Officer / May–June 2011

17

Capitol Hill ConneCtion: Capitol View

CUttinG politiCS Capt Marshall a. hanson, Usnr (ret.) roa DireCtor of legislation

Freshmen target redundancy, as ‘big government’ is in crosshairs.

What created this series of continuing resolutions was Congress’s inability to agree on a long-term budgeting solution.

f things continue the way they started during the first quarter of 2011, the entire congressional year could fundamentally become a debate about the cost and size of big government. An ongoing disagreement about the budget might handicap federal operations and even harm national security.

Congress avoided a government shutdown, with a series of two- to threeweek continuing resolutions with prorated budget cuts of $2 billion a week. For defense, this delayed training, procurement, and maintenance, and Reserve Component orders were not cut for periods outside of the continuing resolution period.

“The readiness of our forces is beginning to be threatened as flying hours and steaming days are reduced, exercises and training events are canceled, and equipment is foregoing much-needed maintenance,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D– Hawaii), Appropriations Committee chairman, at a hearing in early March.

What created this series of continuing resolutions was Congress’s inability to agree on a long-term budgeting solution. At the time, the House voted to reduce the budget by $57 billion for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011, and Senate leadership and the White House suggested just $6.5 billion.

“We want to cut spending,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R–Va.) told reporters. “That is where the American people want to go.”

The catalyst for this is a large freshman class with 87 of 93 new congressmen being Republicans. Most of these new elected officials view last November’s elections as a mandate from voters to reduce big government and its expenditures.

Because of its size, the new class flexed its muscles and insisted on important committee seats and forced the elimination of rules restrictions placed on House votes, which opened up all legislation to amendments from the floor. More than 200 amendments were filed against the first continuing resolution considered by the House, almost causing it to stall.

When the Government Accountability Office published a report in March identifying 33 areas where federal programs overlapped, and Republican leadership suggested a potential 18

the

Officer / May–June 2011

$100 billion in savings a year, freshmen seized an opportunity to start eliminating the redundancy before professional staffers could study the report.

Many Democrats disagreed, stating that focusing on the deficit is an unlikely way to restore jobs and the economy. “We’re not going to balance America’s budget in the next six months,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) told the website Real Clear Politics during an interview. “We should be taking care that we don’t do things that damage our economy and really slow down our recovery.”

The Hill newspaper reported that “a growing number of Democrats believe they should counter House GOP proposals to cut non-security discretionary spending with a plan to raise tax revenues.” Democratic officials told The Hill that it is “difficult to vote against short-term resolutions which cut $4 billion here or $2 billion over there.”

As the debate continues, leadership on both sides of the aisle are losing patience. Agencies once thought immune are being questioned, with military spending drawing attention.

The Hill reported on a hearing last March, where the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D–N.D.), showed his frustration with the president’s budget.

He read a list of federal agencies seeking budget increases, including a 5.5 percent increase for defense. “Every area of the budget is going to have to come under scrutiny,” he cautioned attendees at the hearing. He admonished the Pentagon leadership, reminding them that they will be as susceptible to budget cuts as any other federal agency.

Criticizing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for seeking savings, and then trying to put the freed-up money elsewhere, Chairman Conrad asked, “Can’t DoD [Department of Defense] come up with savings that are net savings?”

Secretary Gates had announced in January that the Pentagon had found $150 billion in efficiencies over the next five years and had the intention to reinvest $70 billion into different programs.

“I’m not predicting defense cuts this year, or next year,” Chairman Conrad warned. “But more cuts are coming.” 

FooD FoR tHoUGHt: FY 2012 BUDGet ElizabEth CoChran lEgislativE assistant

Budget shifts cause concern and division.

For the first time, the budget adopts a uniform approach for both DoD and the State Department in conflict operations.

eaction to President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget carried little surprise. Republicans, with their new House majority, vehemently opposed it and called for more dramatic cuts.

Meanwhile, Democrats voiced support for the president’s “tough-love budget,” largely huddling together in an attempt to preserve their party strength.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R–Wis.) told National Public Radio: “The president punted on the budget, and he punted on the deficit and on the debt.”

Already, some Democrats are voicing concern that the president might be disposed to compromise with Republicans, who insist that deep cuts are a must in any deal.

Moreover, the presidentially appointed bipartisan Debt Commission—co-chaired by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson (R–Wyo.) and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erksine Bowles—was too divided to even present a plan to Congress that would have cut $4 trillion from the federal budget over 10 years. The plan received only 11 votes out of 18, with 14 votes being required. Regardless, the president has decided to disregard many of their recommendations.

The president’s proposed budget, included a freeze on discretionary spending—except for security—for five years and on federal workers’ pay for two years. It mandated that the Department of Defense (DoD) must find $78 billion in savings over five years, and the president cut several foreign assistance and bilateral programs.

The overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget is 26 percent lower than the FY 11 request, and the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will now have their own OCO funding as it relates to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Due to the Iraq drawdown and the planned Afghanistan drawdown, the OCO budget has been reduced by $41 billion for DoD, while the budget for the State Department and USAID has been increased by $3 billion.

For the first time, the budget adopts a uniform approach for both DoD and the State Department in conflict operations.

According to the report, “aligning priority war costs between

the departments, efficiencies can be found.”

Until this takes effect, the military will remain the primary provider of security for the State Department, but with the drawdown, the State Department will have to shift more resources to providing its own security. As a result, State Department employees may not be able to move around as easily and may have to move into closer quarters to uphold their safety.

In addition, military personnel, particularly with today’s ongoing contingency operations, understand the dangers and yet have chosen to serve again and again. In contrast, State Department employees are not subject to mandatory deployments and their rotations to Afghanistan and Iraq are only a year in length.

And shifting missions to the State Department will likely have a negative impact, considering there is a reported “…chronic underinvestment by the United States in the nonmilitary instruments of state-building” and they “…have fallen short in their efforts to deploy adequate personnel and other resources to the field, particularly in insecure environments,” according to Stewart Patrick of the Center for Global Development. Additionally, foreign aid is a favorite slashing ground when budget cuts are being made.

Despite the negative view of defense spending, DoD has contributed more to development than in the past. It nearly quadrupled its U.S. development aid between 2000 and 2005.

Changing direction, the president included the Global Health Initiative (GHI), with a budget of $9.8 billion for 2012, “…focusing on country-led strategies to address the full range of developing country health needs in an integrated way while strengthening partner-country health systems.” Originally introduced in 2009, GHI, however, has made little headway in organization, leadership, or progress toward goals.

These initiatives, though endorsed by the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, are disconnected from congressional priorities. In essence, Congress, the president, and the political parties are divided over the budget. And the battle has just begun.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

19

Capitol Hill ConneCtion

Crowded House LegisLative staff RepoRt ROA emphasizes Tricare and Guard and Reserve issues at hearing.

When a nation puts members of its military at physical risk from disease and traumatic injury, it absolutely owes them health care, not health insurance.

ongestion is expected on the way into Washington D.C., but it came as a surprise to find it in a hearing room on Capitol Hill in March. That’s when ROA was invited to testify CAPCON on proposed military health care reforms. So many people wanted to contribute that the hearing ended up with seven organizations providing oral testimony on the beneficiaries’ panel.

After several years of postponing an inevitable confrontation with retirees, the Pentagon revealed its recommendations for changes in the Tricare fee structure as part of the president’s 2012 budget request. These proved far more modest than what the Bush administration had previously suggested. Rather than doubling or tripling the fees as suggested by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the recommended increase was a $30 bump for the year for individuals to $260 a year and a $60 boost to $520 a year for families.

The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed no changes to Tricare Standard or Tricare For Life costs. The only other proposed DoD increase is to hike the copay for prescription drugs to $5 for generics, $12 dollars for brand names, and $25 for nonformulary medications at retail pharmacies. ROA testified that such increases should only apply to maintenance prescriptions, not initial orders.

Yet, even these slight increases were enough to draw impassioned responses from many retirees and other organizations. For them, any increase was too much. Some associations vowed to hold the line.

Other organizations agreed with ROA that a $5 per month increase was tolerable but challenged the DoD premise that future increases should be tied to a published index—similar to how a retirement cost of living adjustment (COLA) is calculated. Some groups suggested that the COLA percentage should be the limit to health care premium increases.

Except, the conundrum facing both retirees and the DoD health system is that health care costs, which are currently 9 percent of DoD’s budget, continue to increase, and the budget for DoD is beginning to decline. At some point, compromise 20

the

Officer / May–June 2011

is needed. If changes aren’t discussed now, associations could be left out of deliberations in the future—and DoD can increase cost shares without congressional legislation.

Because of ROA’s historically flexible positions on health care, the association was one of a small group to give oral testimony.

CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.), ROA’s legislative director, testified about the need to sustain the health care program to which retirees are entitled. But as others talked about proposed premium hikes, ROA brought up other health issues affecting the National Guard and Reserve.

CAPT Hanson pointed out to the committee that premiums were increased for Tricare Selected Reserve (TRS) and Tricare Retired Reserve (TRR) in January 2011, while Congress prohibited fee increases on Tricare active duty retiree beneficiaries.

He also noted that DoD health affairs treats Reserve Component health plans as insurance, while Tricare for active duty is viewed as a benefit. ROA remains concerned over the high premiums charged for Tricare Retired Reserve and warned that only those gray-area retirees with health problems would likely enroll. ROA asked for a Government Accountability Office audit of the basis for establishing the high level of TRR premiums.

Access to the Continued Health Care Benefit Plan is another problem, as Tricare Reserve Select beneficiaries remain the largest population in the country without access to COBRA transitional health care protections. ROA also addressed Reserve Component members not having access to Transitional Assistance Management Program benefits once they complete active duty, and how other reservists are advised to go to the Department of Veterans Affairs rather than use Tricare.

Still, ROA concluded, “Health care services are vital to keeping the nation’s military force strong and ready. When a nation puts members of its military at physical risk from disease and traumatic injury, it absolutely owes them health care, not health insurance. While warriors may age into retirement, their contributions and sacrifice can’t be disregarded when a new generation faces a new era of strife.” 

CapiTol Hill ConneCTion

Beyond Talk Capt Marshall a. hanson, Usnr (ret.) roa DireCtor of legislation

ROA broadens scope of testimony before House, Senate on personnel issues.

ongress gave ROA the opportunity in March to submit testimony to both the House Armed Services Committee and a Joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs hearing on broad personnel issues. The topics represent a variety of issues that CAPCON impact the many who have sacrificed through their service.

ROA noted the following in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee:

Expanding reimbursement to Reserve Component personnel who travel in excess of 50 miles one way to their monthly training. While Congress last year extended

the reimbursement authorization for a 100-mile trip, the current Department of Defense (DoD) policy is to reimburse only those who travel because of their early station being closed by the Base Realignment and Closure process. The Senate Finance committee continues to show interest in this issue and may provide legislation allowing additional tax deductions.

Renewing Reserve Income Replacement Program for mobilized Reserve Components. This congressional

authorization was allowed to expire last December without comment by the Pentagon.

Correcting early retirement to include those who served prior to Jan. 28, 2008. ROA and other associations

continue to work this issue. This year, some options were examined to spread out the costs to reduce the dollar amount needing to be offset as is required by Congress. In testimony, ROA pointed out that those who had served prior to 2008 faced a higher risk that resulted in a higher percentage of the casualties. Between 2001 and the date the law took effect, 82 percent (926 deaths) of National Guard and Reserve deaths had already occurred. ROA pointed out that Congress is overlooking this early sacrifice by not correcting the early retirement statute to include those serving prior to 2008.

ROA also highlighted that the current legislation is not an end in itself, and that other types of service should be credited toward earlier retirement qualification.

Fixing the fiscal year barrier to early retirement.

Last year, Congress published as part of the National Defense Authorization a sense of Congress that told DoD that it was using an incorrect crediting method causing Reserve Component members to lose days toward early retirement reduction. The Pentagon insists that a change be made to U.S. Code before

changing its method of crediting early retirement. ROA has worked with Rep. Tom Latham (R–Iowa) who reintroduced the legislation, H.R. 1283, to change the existing law.

ROA addressed the following issues in its testimony to the Joint Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees: Veteran status. ROA endorsed H.R. 1025, a bill to recognize the service in the Reserve Component of certain persons by honoring them with status as veterans. This veterans’ status bill was introduced by Rep. Tim Walz (D–Minn.) and was initially co-sponsored by Jon Runyan (R–N.J.) and Tom Latham (R–Iowa). Within days, 28 other members of Congress had already signed on as cosponsors.

While Reserve Component members may not have qualified through consecutive time or with a DoD Release Form-214, the accumulated active duty time of Guard and Reserve members who have completed 20 satisfactory years exceeds the 180 days of duty that is the current definition. ROA and other associations are working with Senate offices to gain support for S.491 introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D–Ark.), and anticipate a 2012 hearing on this veteran-status issue.

Employment of Guard and Reserve members and separated veterans. ROA stressed a growing employment and

reemployment problem facing Reserve Component members and discharged veterans. While unemployment may be dropping nationally, it is actually increasing for Guard and Reserve Component members, reaching an average of 15.4 percent.

ROA’s Service Members Law Center has reported an increase in inquiries as veterans face problems returning to the job market. Note: Sens. Max Baucus (D–Mont.), Chuck Grassley (R– Iowa), and Scott Brown (R–Mass.) have introduced legislation supporting tax incentives for employers who hire veterans.

Rural veterans. Faced with unique challenges, veterans living in rural areas don’t receive the same type of military or veteran affairs service support as do their urban counterparts.

While only 19 percent of the nation live in rural areas, 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural America. As many of these rural veterans are Guard and Reserve Component members, ROA encouraged these committees to establish a more vigorous oversight system of the Department of Veterans Affairs so that no veteran is left behind.

ROA testimony is available at www.roa.org/testimony.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

21

capitol hill connEction

Earth and SEa dominancE ElizabEth CoChran lEgislativE assistant

China’s influence on rare earth elements and neighbors continues to grow.

The situation with China can be described as many things, but in the end the future is uncertain.

ver the past year, China has dramatically cut its export of rare earth elements (REEs), which could significantly impact the industry. REEs are a group of 17 elements used in everyday items such as cell phones and computer hard drives, as well as in critical military equipment such as smart bombs, laser-targeting systems, night-vision goggles, range finders, and precision-guided munitions.

In mid-2010, China cut its REE exports by 72 percent. Then it embargoed REE exports to Japan in September. Finally, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced in early 2011 that China would cut its REE exports by approximately 35 percent more, which will greatly affect the United States as well as Japan.

Concerned about it, Rep. Mike Coffman (R–Colo.) said: “Part of it is that we’ve been asleep at the switch when we think China will operate along the lines of free-market principles and not use its leverage ... like [it has done] with rare earths.”

China currently supplies more than 95 percent of REEs in the world market, and the United States imports 87 percent of its REEs from China. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated that non-Chinese producers pay at least 31 percent more for raw REEs than Chinese producers, resulting in a black market in which onethird are smuggled out of China.

A Congressional Research Service study published in September 2010 said, “World demand for rare earth elements is estimated at 134,000 tons per year, with global production around 124,000 tons annually.” By 2012, demand is expected to increase to 180,000 tons and to 200,000 tons by 2014.

Consequently, China’s expected output of 160,000 tons per year by 2014 will result in a nearly 40,000-ton shortfall.

Additionally, “while rare earth ore deposits are geographically diverse, current capabilities to process rare earth metals into finished materials are limited mostly to Chinese sources,” according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report. Based on industry estimates, rebuilding the once-prosperous supply chain of U.S. REEs could take up to 15 years and would depend on a variety of factors such as capital 22

the

Officer / May–June 2011

investment in infrastructure.

Still, many nations have recognized the need to build up the industry. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Australia is opening new REE mines. The European Union, according to a Department of Energy (DOE) study, has devoted $34.5 million for research funding. The Canadian company Rare Element Resources Ltd. is pursuing a prospective mine in Wyoming, but because the mine would be located in the Black Hills National Forest, regulatory hurdles will draw out the process.

In its search for alternatives for electric motor vehicles, Toyota may work with Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and is exploring an opportunity in Vietnam. Moreover, about 160 projects by Japanese companies will combine for a $1.3 billion investment

by March 2012 to search for ways to reduce REE consumption.

Largely due to Chinese predatory prices during the early 2000s, the United States and other nations shut down their REE facilities. The United States’s premier facility—once the largest rare earth mine—operated by Molycorp in Mountain Pass, Calif., was closed but now has plans to reopen by 2012.

However, the United States can produce only certain REEs, and the future availability of some is expected to remain in China’s control.

Nevertheless, many agencies recommend stockpiling, developing new mines, increasing international cooperation, and developing substitutes and new technologies. However, all of these strategies will take time.

The United States has about 13 million metric tons of REEs, according to USGS. The largest deposits are in California, Wyoming, and the Bokan Mountain of Alaska. The Bokan Mountain is being explored by Ucore Rare Metals Inc. and is said to be one of the few facilities in the world that could manufacture products within three to four years. Ten other states also contain REE deposits.

The DOE report strongly suggests that the United States must make a concerted effort to overcome reliance on China, and many critical technologies that use REEs are at risk of supply disruptions in the short term.

Partnering with other nations is crucial, especially

considering that within the U.S. workforce, only about 400 people have expertise with REEs, compared to nearly 4,000 in the late 1980s.

Congress introduced legislation in 2010 including the RESTART Act, which would have created a “whole of government” approach involving multiple agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD).

Another bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate, which would have had the DOE find and develop REEs through loan guarantees. The 112th Congress will likely introduce new legislation.

A Stronger China

Beyond REEs, China has worked hard to conceal its true strengths and weaknesses. Its rise is a well-discussed national security subject that grows in importance each day. A compelling question is how China will use its escalating power, especially military power, in the future.

China’s GDP climbed to 9.6 percent while the United States’s is at 2.6 percent as of the third quarter of 2010. According to the CIA World Fact Book, “[B]ecause China’s exchange rate is determined by fiat, rather than by market forces, the official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China’s output; GDP at the official exchange rate substantially understates the actual level of China’s output vis-a-vis the rest of the world; in China’s situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries.”

Significantly, China holds a substantial amount of American debt—about $1.2 trillion according to the U.S. Treasury. In government funds, China actually has a surplus of $272.5 billion, while the United States has a $561 billion deficit.

The United States is also concerned with China’s undervaluation of the yuan. According to Chinese economist Lu Mai, the yuan is undervalued by less than 8 percent against the dollar, whereas American economists put it at more than 20 percent.

As far as average income is concerned, the difference is big, yet China appears to be bridging the gap. It wasn’t until 1994 that China established the minimum wage, and wage earnings have increased steadily since. The United States instituted the minimum wage in 1938.

However, China’s stated wage earnings can be misleading.

For example, Bloomberg’s Businessweek reported that

“minimum wages in the more affluent eastern areas of the country are more than double those of poorer inland provinces, government data shows. In Henan, the lowest legal salary is 600 yuan [$91.36] a month compared with 1,100 yuan [$167.49] in Shenzhen, where Foxconn employs the largest portion of its 800,000 workers in China.”

Still, compared to American wages, the gap is enormous, even if looking at the richest China provinces compared to the poorest states in America. The totals are about $167.49 per month in Shenzhen province versus approximately $2,500 per month in Mississippi (for 2009), according to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Another concern is China’s defense budget, which “officially” will increase 12.7 percent (600 billion yuan or roughly $91 billion, for 2011). Some of the increase will go toward the strategic nuclear force, the strategic missile unit, and the navy.

But this is not China’s entire defense budget. In fact, it doesn’t include the cost for procuring or building new weapons, which could almost double the defense budget. What’s more, experts across the board estimate that China actually spends far more than is reported, ranging from more than $150 billion as DoD reported in 2010 to as much as $400 billion as estimated by GlobalSecurity.org.

Add aggressive behavior and the situation is more urgent.

Recently, the Philippines deployed two warplanes when a ship searching for oil complained of harassment from two Chinese patrol boats in the South China Sea. Japan deployed F-15 fighter jets when Chinese surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft flew near the East China Sea disputed islands. And China’s threat to overtake Taiwan remains. For the United States, the most noteworthy event happened in January when Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting to continue discussion of resuming military-to-military talks, and China chose to conduct a test flight of its stealth fighter jet.

In addition to U.S. concerns about China’s defense budget and aggressive behavior, China also associates with adversarial nations, specifically Iran, which openly threatens the United States. China also chooses not to work with the international community in its efforts to rein in hostile North Korea.

The situation with China can be described as many things, but in the end the future is uncertain, thus requiring a continued strong influence and presence in the region.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

23

DESPITE TOUGH TIMES, LIFE INSURANCE REMAINS A MUST FOR MOST

By Terence B. Bernier, Marsh U.S. Consumer, An ROA Affinity Partner

Although Americans have cut back on expenses to help get through these challenging years, most consider life insurance coverage too important to let go of, according to a study.

“The Value of Life in Tough Economic Times,”1 a research report by The Prudential Insurance Company of America, found that the overwhelming number of Americans with life insurance believe the value of assuring their families’ security far outweighs the savings of pocketing the premium costs.

Respondents noted quite a few reasons for the need to keep their life insurance in force. Those cited most often were:

INCREASES OUTNUMBERED DECREASES Most Americans already covered by life insurance realize the value of their security. In fact, more

Percent Agreeing

than three times as many of those

It may cost much more to buy life insurance at an older age ...................................95%

surveyed increased their life

The guarantee that coverage is there, if needed .......................................................94%

insurance coverage during 2008–

Protecting one’s family is the most important thing, no matter what .....................93% The risks of going without life insurance far outweigh the cost of coverage............89%

2009 as the recession took hold instead of cutting back coverage or canceling it entirely.

The cost of insurance is minimal compared with other items .................................84%

This shows that insured Americans understand it’s a necessary investment, even in tighter times. They also have recognized that the security of cash benefits increases when economic uncertainty rises and confidence in investments falls. The market downturn has, for many, reinforced the need to make sure they have adequate life insurance coverage.

In fact, having life insurance was a confidence-builder. You could be one to join those respondents who said they were “very confident” that regardless of the state of their investment portfolios, having enough life insurance will provide enough money. This is enough not only to replace their lost income, but also to pay off potentially burdensome expenses, such as final expenses, mortgages, children’s college tuition and other debts.

Almost eight in 10 agreed that these things were not possible without the coverage.

It is important to understand the risks of surrendering insurance coverage purchased when rates may never be lower—when you are younger and in good health. Most survey respondents were doubtful they could be insured again if they canceled their policies.

Six in 10 worried about having to go through a medical exam, and about half were concerned that a health condition would make them uninsurable.

Don’t let a coverage gap remain when you are counting on life insurance to provide for your loved ones. Around three quarters of respondents have not reevaluated their life insurance coverage following the market downturn. And of the fourth that did, 77 percent have taken no action.

Make the necessary precautions to ensure you have the protection your family needs.

While in these challenging economic times cutting costs seems common, the value of life insurance makes it a worthy investment.

1 “The Value of Life in Tough Economic Times,” research report of Prudential Financial’s study on Taking a Pulse of American’s Changing Life Insurance Needs, August 2009.

24

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Prepared to protect ...

country, community, family.

As a reserve officer you understand the importance of always being prepared, whether it’s in your role as a military officer or for the challenges and changes of civilian life.

Changes such as buying a home, having a baby, sending a child to college, a change in income or caring for an aging relative can leave your family less prepared for future financial needs should something happen to you.

ROA’s Simplified Issue Level 10-Year Group Term Life Insurance can help you protect your family’s financial future with up to $100,000.00 in lump sum benefits. This ROA-endorsed plan is offered exclusively to our members with a simplified application procedure and no medical exams or blood work required to be accepted.

This plan available exclusively to ROA members includes:  Coverage for ROA members age 19-60, their spouses and dependents  Competitive group rates that will remain level for 10 years*  Simplified issue application on coverage amounts up to $100,000 with no medical exam

No medical ed! exam requir

Learn more about Simplified Issue Level 10 -Year Group Term Life Insurance Call 1-800-247-7988 Ask for request #051221-1-1-1 Hearing-impaired or voice-impaired members may call the relay line at 1-800-855-2881.

Sponsored by the Reserve Officers Association and underwritten by ReliaStar Life Insurance Company.

This policy may have exclusions, limitations or reductions in benefits. Please contact the ROA Insurance Plan Administrator for complete details. *ReliaStar Life Insurance Company reserves the right to change premium rates but may only do so for all insureds covered under the group policy and with 60 days written notice.

d/b/a in CA Seabury & Smith Insurance Program Management, AR Ins. Lic. #245544, CA Ins. Lic. #0633005 51221 (5/11) ©Seabury & Smith, Inc. 2011

ReseRve enlisted AssociAtion CMSGT Lani BurneTT, uSaF (reT.) • rea exeCuTive DireCTor stRong Finish Mentoring plants the seeds beyond individuals and paves the way for future success. hile writing this article, I was excited to learn that Rep. Tim Walz (D–Minn.) served in the Army National Guard for 24 years and retired as a command sergeant major, making him the highest ranking enlisted Soldier ever to serve in Congress. Believing that rarely does someone achieve such career success without mentoring, I contacted Rep. Walz’s office and, subsequently, we were able to sit down and talk about mentoring—one retired E-9 to another. We talked, and I wasn’t disappointed. What follows is my column, as well as an extended Q&A with Rep. Walz on issues important not only to mentoring, but to service and REA.

“People have made at least a start at understanding the meaning of life when they plant shade trees under which they know full well they will never sit.”

– David Elton Trueblood This is by far one of my favorite quotes. I heard it decades ago and refer to it often to remind myself of my responsibilities: to see down the road, to see the potential in future leaders, and to do all I can to ensure their success.

Were it not for the mentors who made a significant contribution to my development—my mother, my fifth grade math teacher, and numerous civilian and military supervisors—the outcome would have been drastically different. I was fortunate to have individuals who held me accountable and forced me to move beyond my comfort zone, and in doing so gave me the gift of feeling accomplishment on my own.

On many days, however, I witness a “no mentoring done here” moment. It could be something as simple as approaching a sales associate for assistance or witnessing a 26

the

Officer / May–June 2011

supervisor go around someone he or she perceives as having a mediocre attitude to task someone else who’s easier to deal with. It seems that mentoring has gotten lost. Perhaps there isn’t room for one more thing in our hectic lives, or maybe a survival attitude brought on by unemployment has stalled information-sharing.

Most of the time, I think I’m doing a better-than-fair job of mentoring, but if I’m being honest I realize I’ve become besieged with e-mails, weighed down with deadlines, and haven’t truly focused in some time on mentoring. Mentoring is more than throwing out tidbits of information. Mentoring takes commitment, energy, and discipline, and involves setting aside time systematically.

In both his civilian career as a teacher and during his military career, Rep. Walz felt that he would not have been nearly as effective or fulfilled were it not for the many people who took the time to share lessons learned. He says that “we assume that it [mentoring] will happen spontaneously.” It doesn’t.

Developing Potential I don’t think it takes as much ability to recognize potential in someone as it takes to acknowledge that everyone has potential. It’s up to us to take the time to develop it. And as the development process begins, it is important to accept that everyone is unique. Each person comes from a different background, has a different set of values, and contributes different talents to the overall success of an organization.

We need to embrace that diversity and avoid the tendency to clone ourselves.

This takes confidence, patience, and the understanding that time and experience are needed for development.

Being tolerant of mistakes or calmly handling an abrasive or unpolished approach is necessary to see that potential develop.

“At times it means subjugating the power of your own ego to develop a team,” Rep. Walz said.

At one point in my career, I supervised three reservists

assigned to our office. I made a conscious effort to mentor to the best of my ability. Long story short: There were challenges along the way, but during that assignment all three received commissions. After witnessing the commissioning ceremony, I was escorted outside to (proudly) render a salute to each of them.

Rep. Walz relayed similar experiences and acknowledged that he knew he “could be replaced in a minute and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I didn’t hold back information; they knew my whole job–you have to have confidence to do that,” he said.

everyone. All of us find comfort in familiar surroundings and security in a regular routine. But as I learned from my mentors, I needed to step out of my comfort zone and stretch. Change leads to growth. I was absolutely confident that those who followed would do so not in my footsteps.

They would make their own way.

Networking Power Getting to know and understand the lay of the land— the who’s who in an organization—is an essential piece in the mentoring process. Early in my military career, my supervisor, a staff sergeant, passed on a bit of mentoring advice that proved to be invaluable: Regardless of where I was assigned, he said, make a point of getting to know five people on base—someone from supply, security police, accounting and finance, the clinic, and the dining hall. He did not just say “leave it to chance” or “meet someone” but rather, make it a priority to establish a relationship with key people.

Handing Over the Reins Leader and mentor are synonymous. You aren’t one without being the other. As a chief master sergeant, I had instant credibility when I walked in a room. Not so the case once I stopped wearing those stripes. My ego wasn’t attached to my stripes, but a large portion of my identity was. To finish strong, we can’t get too wrapped up in our own indispensability.

Lacking confidence in our successors is a direct reflection of how well we’ve mentored. Obviously, none of us started out knowing as much or having the same amount of experience as someone farther up the food chain. But we’re fooling ourselves if we believe no one can do as good a job as we have done.

When I made the decision to retire from the Air Force Reserve 14 years ago, I was able and eligible to serve for several more years. Colleagues and friends asked how I knew it was time to move on. I’m sure the answer is different for

Rep. Walz agreed. “Mentoring is a golden opportunity and a responsibility to pass along what we know to ensure not just individual growth but the success of the team,” he said.

Those of us with leadership opportunities must do so with an open heart. From the very first day in a new assignment, we must confidently hand over the reins to others. How we do that might just be the ultimate measure of our success. 

Q&A:

Continued Conversation Rep. Walz spoke not only about mentoring but from his unique perspective as the highest-ranking enlisted Soldier ever to serve in Congress.

Lani Burnett: I spent the first part of my military career as active duty and resented the Reserve because I would have to come in to the office and open it up on the

Officer / May–June 2011

27

ReseRve enlisted AssociAtion

the weekend. And then I became a reservist–and I never worked so hard in my life.

Rep. Tim Walz: No, it’s true! And when we deployed

with the 173rd unit in Italy—the airborne unit there—what’s really great is that we had a good working relationship with them there. The one thing that I would get from the active force that was working there, they would say, “You know, you guys come here, you perform optimum level, do everything that’s asked of you as Soldiers, you act like Soldiers, you do the job. And you have a whole [other] career on the side.

You’re teachers, you’re electricians, and you have to manage that. And they said, mentally, “I don’t know how you guys do it.” Because when you’re active, a lot of those things are taken care of for you on the base. If you’re [National] Guard, you’re on your own, your Guard and Reserve families, you’re on your own.

In the middle of southern Minnesota, that’s a little different.

while, it was a bit of a lost art, whether it was in business, the private/public sector or in the military. We got focused, if you will, on an “Army of One,” where it was personal growth in contrast to that team approach, cross-training and bringing people up.

I thought specifically in the civilian side, too, where in teaching we have a massive problem where we lose half of our new teachers in the first five years, and I chalk it up to lack of mentoring.

As we look at educational reforms, one of the things that got really highlighted in Minnesota was the need to bring back professional mentoring. And it was not just someone to teach you where the copy machine was, but more importantly, someone who showed you their lessons learned, and one of the things that I really benefited from was a mentoring program in which, our mentors were taken from the classroom on a two-year rotation, and they worked heavily and extensively with you or they team-taught you. And I became a better teacher from that. The positive thing from that, too, was that I think those older teachers got better by seeing the new ones that came in. And I saw that in the military.

“I certainly never became a sergeant major all on my own.

I came by the people I was surrounded with; my Soldiers were welltrained and made me look good, and I understood that, and I, in turn, did the same thing and hoped they learned from that.”

LB: And the Reserve force brings value to the table because of that civilian career ...

TW: Oh, it’s invaluable—especially in that new

environment we find ourselves in, because the stories I hear when I go in and visit GEN [David] Petraeus when I’m in the theaters over there: “Yeah, look at this, we found some great carpenters in the Reserve units, and they helped us build this classroom, and it’s so much better,” or “We found all these kids from Indiana that knew how to plant corn in this environment in Afghanistan; we put them on an Agricultural Transition Team. Those were skills that were not part of their MOS [military occupational specialty] that they went with, but they brought them from the civilian side.”

LB: I’m wondering if mentoring is a lost art. When you militarily make it to be a command sergeant major or chief master sergeant and then a congressman, you obviously had some really strong mentors along the way.

TW: Well, I’m glad you’re hitting on it. I think for a

28

the

Officer / May–June 2011

LB: I think it’s interesting for those individuals who are always saying, “Oh that younger generation, they have it so easy, and they don’t know what they’re doing.” They don’t make the connection that it was their responsibility to teach, challenge, mentor.

TW: It’s valid. It goes both ways, and like I said, when you engage, there is something you’re going to gain. Being a high-school teacher, I am very optimistic about the future. The next generation is going to be the next greatest generation. And when you’re around them, and you see that, it gives you confidence and a sense of optimism. I see people who I know saying, “Oh, these guys aren’t doing anything.”

These kids know more than we ever thought of; they treat each other with more respect than we ever did. There’s much

to be learned there, but I think it is our responsibility to say, “If you’re going to take this job, you have to expect that you’re going to have to pay some dues for a couple of years, and then you can start moving up instead of just trying to move and find an easier way to get there.”

LB: Looking at the environment today, with the job rates and unemployment, there’s a part of me that wonders if people are more concerned about their own survival, so they’re not willing to share information.

TW: Yeah, I think that’s a fear, and I’ve been concerned,

both private[ly] and publicly, with this issue in corporate America, that there’s a sense of shared responsibility. … And I always find this so ironic, the military is the ultimate team, the military is the ultimate sharing of this responsibility.

Anything you do collaboratively, now they slap socialism on it and call it un-American. It is not. We all can do better!

I certainly never became a Sergeant Major all on my own; my Soldiers were well-trained and made me look good, and I understood that, and I, in turn, did the same thing and hoped they learned from that.

LB: One of the things I said when I retired was that when I was an E-5, I had all the answers; when I was an E-9, I asked all the questions.

TW: Well, it’s true. I can still remember, this is so funny

now, because some of my former Soldiers, I go back and see them, and they’re still in and they’re getting ready to go to

Afghanistan now, some of them. But after work, you’ll find me coming to them now and saying, “When I’m sergeant major of the Army or the president, we’re going to change this; this is the way it’s going to be,” and they say, “Well, you’re not one of those two but you are the congressman, so get us our damn PDRA [Program Research & Development Announcement] money; get us a new GI Bill.” … You’re seeing our Guard units, when I go back; it’s [not] the Major getting older—how young they look, but how professional and how adaptable.

LB: They’re more educated now than we ever were.

TW: And I do think the military has done a good job on

focusing on this leadership development, this mentorshiptype of thing with bringing them up, but there’s still the competitive nature. All these E-6s knew they were going in to get a promotion, and whoever was No. 1 was going to get the job, and so it creates that, there’s always a tension in a free society to challenge the individual to be the best they can, but with the understanding that it can’t be at the expense of others, too.

LB: What needs to be done to let everyone out there understand the value of the Reserve Component?

TW: The current op-tempo has certainly done a lot.

The two of us were there, in early parts of my career; there was certainly a difference, a designation, certainly a bias which to a certain degree carries over. But I think that the

“These kids know more than we ever thought of; they treat each other with more respect than we ever did. There’s much to be learned there.”

the

Officer / May–June 2011

29

ReseRve enlisted AssociAtion

expertise brought over by the Reserve Component and the Guard, and their ability to prove themselves, has helped a lot. I think one of the things that I worry about again, and we all pray for it, to move to a time of peace and less deployment.

We have to keep that exchange more so, and it doesn’t just need to be Reserve Component going to Active Component schools and being trained by the active force. It needs to

LB: I think being able to adapt those leadership styles takes a certain, if not a large amount of, security; you have to be secure in who you are.

TW: Yes, because I’m very fearful, and I see this especially

be the reserve forces training the active force on certain things, because then, there’s that sense of respect and sense of competency. I’ve always been a big believer in those exchange programs, always been a big believer on how they could work together to see that, and I think we have to work together to enforce that.

ideology. This is the line in the sand, and I talk to my staff, if it’s a profound quote you’re looking for, it’s one that serves me well: If the facts don’t support our ideology, then we have a responsibility, both morally and everything else, to change our ideology, not change the facts.

This idea of trying to pound the round peg into the square hole just because I want to believe it can go has to end. I think that’s where having different types of leadership styles or the ability to pull in data, is where we can help folks.

When I look back historically, the best leaders are those who can adapt.

People say, “Well, it took a strong leader to do this during war, and I say: absolutely; and the type of leadership style needed for that. … I’m very much a situational leader. If the situation calls for that, you don’t enforce your will on every situation: you adapt and use the skills that come up. 

LB: So, when in your career did you decide, “this is who you want to be?”

TW: I think in many cases for me, they were much more organic. Ending up here was certainly not a choice. I always say, I never chose to be a member of Congress, but I do believe my life prepared me well to be one. And it wasn’t the other way around, I didn’t plan my life out to end up here.

My life planned it out and I ended up here, and I think it’s from real leadership experiences.

30

the

Officer / May–June 2011

here now, where it’s interesting whether this job is political theater [or] is real leadership. And people take on a different person, on what you’re going to focus on, and I watched this—that it’s viewed as a political strength to have a rigid

Member-Get-A-Member Promotion For every member you get to sign up, you get an entry into a monthly drawing, but if you get 10 memberS to sign up, you get yOUr CHOICe of a iPod Shuffle or $50 iTunes Gift card!

The most effective form of recruiting in membership organizations is that of active members recruiting their peers to an organization that they sincerely believe in. An ROA membership has historic relevancy and tangible benefits that active members readily can demonstrate to their fellow officers. ROA has many constituencies from which its new members come.

Members who recruit five (5) or more fellow officers under fully paid memberships will be prominently mentioned in Time on Target. For every fully paid membership, the current member will be entered into a pool that will select one winner, each month, who will receive an iPod Shuffle. For each ten (10) members recruited, the current member will have their choice of an iPod Shuffle or $50 iTunes Gift card.

Who Can family

YOU Recruit?

friend

s col

leagues

For Additional Information, Please Contact: Col William Holahan | wholahan@roa.org ROA Member Services is announcing the launch April 1st of a Member-Get-A-Member promotion.

This promotion will run through the fiscal year that starts April 1, 2011 and ends March 31, 2012.

Members will only be eligible to receive one award during the fiscal year. Non-military Spousal memberships, OCS/ROTC memberships and other “gifted� (non-paid) type memberships will not count toward the five memberships needed to qualify for award. ROA National Staff are not eligible for awards. This initiative is clearly voluntary and supports the overall needs of our Association. Show your fellow members what you can do in the recruiting arena.

Decade of conflict keeps Reserve Component in for the long haul.

By Erika N. Cotton

Airlift is by design a necessary and vital part of the military’s Total Force strategy. For more than half a century, airlift capability has moved cargo, people, and resources in and out of theater to meet the needs of Soldiers and civilians around the world.

Over the past 10 years, as the military has shifted away from operations in Iraq to operations in Afghanistan, airlift pilots and crews have seen some significant changes in the way they approach and handle new requirements, fiscal pressure, terrain differences, security, and outdated technology.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the need for the Reserve Component to participate, in one form or another, has steadily increased across the entire spectrum of aviation and nonaviation forces.

“We’re coming on 10 years into this, and several mobilizations have occurred throughout this period. I think it’d be fair to say that the requirements are continuing,” said Col Bruce Bowers, deputy director, Air Force Reserve Command A3, Directorate of Air, Space, and Information Operations.

Maintaining a strategic reserve and leveraging resources to provide efficient operational capability, he said, is their No. 1 priority right now. As far as future requirements go, however, Col Bowers said he could not begin to guess.

“Nobody has a crystal ball that can see into the future. I could not offer what role the [Air Force Reserve Command] will play … as we go through sourcing solutions for all of the partner management commands, as well as all of our [Department of Defense] partners,” he said.

Though future requirements are somewhat uncertain, 32

the

Officer / May–June 2011

the strategy for ongoing airlift requirements and those of the recent past are mostly unchanged, according to COL Lawrence Gray, chief of current operations, Army Materiel Command Operations Directorates.

In general, with regard to moving cargo and passengers and deploying aircraft to meet theater requirements, things have remained the same.

“What we have seen is kind of a shift in our deployment forces slightly to be able to position better in meeting the theater’s airlift requirements,” COL Gray said. “The challenge is essentially to try to move the same amount of stuff over a greater distance, because Afghanistan is a little bit farther away from the United States than the Iraq theater was. Our challenge is in the extra distance and time to try to meet the same amount of, if not greater, airlift requirements.”

To meet these challenges, COL Gray said, they have worked with U.S. Transportation Command to maximize the force’s ability to use multimodal operations.

The force forward deploys some of the heaviest equipment to airfields in the Central Command area of responsibility that are also located in the same area as a seaport. This way, the equipment can be shipped instead of flown, saving money and resources. Once it arrives at the next port, the equipment is then transferred to aircraft to be flown into the appropriate theater’s area of responsibility.

In many instances, this multimodal strategy cuts flying distance down by nearly a quarter from origination to destination, COL Gray said. Use of the multimodal strategy

helps maximize limited airlift resources more efficiently, which is a necessary factor during times of intense fiscal pressure. The multimodal strategy also saves lives.

Maj Jason Allen of the 97th Airlift Squadron, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., who works as a civilian pilot for Alaska Airlines, has firsthand experience with this type of operation, having deployed to missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years.

“Rather than using convoys to get some of the equipment into the places in Afghanistan, we were using airlift because of the IED [improvised explosive device] threat,” he said. “We were moving a sizable number of people from the roads so they were less exposed.”

The command also expects to cut down flying time by establishing a polar flight plan. COL Gray said a polar flight would help significantly to cut down the distance between eastern seaboard aerial ports and the area of responsibility.

“The Earth is essentially a ball and the equator is the thickest part of the ball. From the East Coast, we’re flying at about halfway up the ball. If we fly north, over the pole, and through Russian air space, that is actually a reduced distance in flight

Air Force Reserve Command is looking to maximize use of the C-5 Galaxy in Afghanistan.

U.S. Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Joe Zuccaro

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the need for the Reserve Component to participate, in one form or another, has steadily increased across the entire spectrum of aviation and nonaviation forces.

times. So we’re getting things there faster,” he said.

Although these plans have not yet come to fruition, the command is excited about them, COL Gray said. They hope to be able to test them out in the not-too-distant future.

Increased efficiency for operations comes from aircraft upgrades as well. Although the C-17 Globemaster III is the real workhorse of the fleet, the command is working to maximize use of the C-5 Galaxy aircraft.

“It has a much more efficient engine. It’s got more power.

It’s got more ability to fly longer, so we’re excited about opportunities to use the C-5,” COL Gray said.

Improved communications, new panel displays, updated navigation, and safety equipment are just a few of the changes being made to more than half of the C-5 Galaxy aircraft through the Avionics Modernization Program. The upgraded aircraft is designated as the C-5M Super Galaxy.

One of the challenges the force has faced with use of the C-5, however, is that more than 70 percent are owned by the Reserve Component. Due to fiscal pressure, access to the aircraft and the aircrews to fly those aircraft is more difficult.

Congress will only approve so much training, so many crew members, and so much for aircraft operations and maintenance. As a result, COL Gray said, they have had to become more efficient in the way they pay for aircrews and maximize the military personnel appropriation allocated to buy those capabilities.

“That’s a change for our reservists, because they’re trying to balance their military careers with their civilian careers,” COL Gray said. “Whereas we could afford to pay for more a few years

the

Officer / May–June 2011

33

But many times, the cargo is much more precious than a bundle of water; it’s a human life. ago, we just don’t have the personnel dollars available to pay for the people we had access to just a year ago.”

He also said that they have had to return to a more traditional, strategic reservist role, and away from what has essentially been the equivalent of Active Component personnel.

Another challenge in using the upgraded aircraft is the terrain. MAJ Benjamin Cotton, U.S. Army (Ret.), Air Defense Artillery, Army Acquisition Corps, who now serves as a defense contractor for the Joint Battle Command-Platform, said the C-5s are not often used because of the need for a longer runway.

“They need more takeoff and landing space. Sometimes the terrain is just not there for you to do that,” he said. “So the force tends to want to use aircraft that can take off and land in an area that has shorter airfields, especially where there’s no port nearby to bring a boat in, the terrain is bad, or the roads are not there.”

In these situations, aircraft—such as the CH–47 Chinook or the C-130 Hercules that can utilize small spaces—come heavily into play.

“The C-130 is a lot smaller than other aircraft. It’s very

durable; it’s smaller; but it cannot carry as much payload as some of the other ones,” MAJ Cotton said. “Although the C-5s ... are larger air planes and have larger capacities, both of those planes need a lot of runway to take off and land.”

COL Gray agrees. “That’s a huge challenge for us. With the mountainous terrain [in Afghanistan], there’s just not a lot of great airfields for us to be able to operate into and out of to resupply the Marines and the Soldiers that are stationed there.

It’s very inhospitable,” he said.

Maj Allen recalled that technology limitations in Afghanistan, combined with the mountainous and rugged terrain, sometimes made air lands impossible, especially early on.

Getting into and out of Afghanistan proved quite challenging for the pilots and their crews when operations first began. The instrument approach technology that already existed at most airfields throughout the world had not yet reached Afghanistan.

“All of the instrument approaches that would’ve allowed us to go in when the weather was bad weren’t available or they weren’t operating,” he said. “So, the only way we were able to get into some of those areas, because of the terrain, was when the weather was clear enough for us to land without the clouds or low ceiling.”

Today, standard instrument approaches are available and in place on the runways in Afghanistan, so airlift capability is usually not impacted by bad weather. However, because ground space around the bases remains limited, aircrews still rely more heavily on airdrop capability than air lands to meet the resupply needs of Soldiers in the field.

In fact, the number of airdrops—measured by cargo weight—has doubled every year since 2005, COL Gray said.

They handled 60 million pounds of airdrop last year alone.

Maj Allen said that was definitely a change in direction from operations in Iraq. “I don’t think, as far as C-17s are concerned, U.S. Air Force/ Lawrence Crespo

The C-130 Hercules is crucial for tight takeoff and landing areas, particularly in Afghanistan.

34

the

Officer / May–June 2011

U.S. Air Force photo/Sgt. AdriAn cAdiz

A C-17 Globemaster III aircraft drops fuel containers over Forward Operating Base Waza Kwah in Paktika province, Afghanistan, in January.

that we were really dropping any equipment in Iraq. I never had to do that on a continual basis. In Afghanistan, we do it all the time, especially in the winter months when a lot of the roads are not passable because of the snow,” he said.

Although the aircrews are trained to handle the increase in airdrops, they are still more complicated to conduct than land drops, COL Gray said.

“You have to do a lot more route planning. You have to figure out what your computed area to release point is. You have to rig all the equipment with the webbing, the parachutes, rig the back of the aircraft to make it compatible for airdrop. And then you have the challenge to plan the mission to get to the location,” he said.

And sometimes—although not often—the equipment fails.

COL Gray says that the best, safest, and most popular way to deliver anything is by land.

“That way you know exactly where it arrived and what condition it arrived in. With an airdrop, there are sometimes limitations with the equipment,” he said. “For example, with some of the loads, the parachutes don’t work exactly the right way. You may drop a container delivery system bundle with water and it hits the ground at too high of a velocity and all the water just splashes out and it’s useless.”

But many times, the cargo is much more precious than a bundle of water; it’s a human life. Maj Allen said the shift from missions in Iraq to missions in Afghanistan has impacted air medical evacuations as well.

“Rather than the medical team having to keep someone stable for a five-hour flight from Iraq to Germany, they’re having to keep somebody stable and watch over them from eight to eight-and-a-half hours,” he said. “From a medical perspective, that is a big difference.”

Those are the airlift missions, he said, that the crews work to go above and beyond because “it’s no longer beans and bullets, it’s a real person.”

MSgt Jake Chappelle, chief of media, 446th Airlift Wing Public Affairs, Lewis-McChord, said that approximately 80 percent of medical crew missions are flown by Reserve Component units every day, and they have a 98 percent casualty-survival rate.

Overall, airlift operational capability and efficiency has increased over the past several years.

“Last year, coupled with Haiti and the [Iraq war] surge, when you look at the number of hours that we flew, we carried 50 percent more cargo, had a 20 percent increase in the amount of fuel that was offloading our tankers, and passenger movements were about a 3 percent increase,” COL Gray said. “So you see, given about the same amount of resources that we’ve been able to expend over the last couple of years, we’re getting a lot better and more efficient at moving stuff.”

With regard to security, processes and procedures remain relatively unchanged.

“In the post–9/11 era, we’re pretty confident that our processes—looking at the threats out there, getting the information to the aircrews, training them to use their onboard defense systems, and using their [eyes] to visually acquire any type of threat to the aircraft—help mitigate the threats that are out there,” he said.

The colonel said he could not characterize any specific patterns, upswing, or decrease in threats. Some weeks, he said, are better than others.  Erika N. Cotton is a professional freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C., with extensive experience covering the Reserve Component.

Editor’s Note: Ms. Cotton is the daughter of MAJ Benjamin Cotton USA (Ret.) who is quoted in the story; however, ROA generated the assignment independent of knowledge of their relationship, and he was most qualified to comment on issues regarding airlift. the

Officer / May–June 2011

35

Ambassador John R. Bolton served as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute focusing on U.S. foreign policy and national security. Mr. Bolton recently spoke with The Officer’s editor Christopher Prawdzik about the unrest in the Middle East, and particularly Iran’s interest and influence in events that change on a day-to-day basis.

UN Photo–EvaN SchNEidEr

The Officer: With

the unrest in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and even Bahrain, where does Iran sit amid all of this chaos?

AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON: I think Iran is poised to exploit a lot of this violence for its own purposes.

I’m not saying that the Iranians were behind it in any stretch– with one possible exception, that being Bahrain–but I do think that Iran sees the collapse of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, for example, as eliminating a government that was roundly opposed to Iran’s efforts to extend its influence. And so, whenever you replace a strong opponent with a weaker opponent, you’re in better shape from the Iranian perspective.

36

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Now, in the case of Bahrain, I think this is a much more promising opportunity for Iran, given that the country is 70 percent Shia, with a Sunni minority, but ruled by a Sunni monarchy. And I think that the prospect that Iran could engineer regime change there–put in a regime more friendly to Iran, maybe even Shiite dominated–is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia, to the other monarchies of the Gulf region, and to us as well.

We’ve got obviously a substantial reason to worry about our naval and air assets all across the Gulf, in Bahrain, in Qatar, in the UAE [United Arab Emirates]–Fifth Fleet and Air Force and all the rest of it–so I’m very concerned about the strategic implications of Iran exploiting this violence right now in Bahrain, but possibly in Oman, possibly in Kuwait, Saudi, and elsewhere in the region.

The Officer: We’re talking about small nations …

JOHN BOLTON: ... that produce a lot of oil.

The Officer: There’s the definite threat to Israel in what Iran’s trying to do from a nuclear standpoint, but about how many of these nations are also not comfortable with a powerful Iran?

JOHN BOLTON: In fact, the Arab states of the Gulf region don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons any more than

Israel does. They see a nuclear-capable Iran as very much a direct threat to them, and when you combine that nuclear program with Iran’s support of terrorism–whether it’s Shiite terrorists like Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Sunni terrorists like Hamas in the Gaza Strip–the Arab states of the Arabian Peninsula are very worried about that one-two punch that Iran has.

They’re very worried about a declining American presence in the region. They’re very worried about our promised withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year, by the promise of the drawdown in Afghanistan beginning in the summer, by the possibility that that means that our need for air and naval bases in the Gulf will decline. This is [where] they see themselves as having sided on with the United States on, in effect, and now they see us basically drawing down our presence and seeing our influence decline, and they’re extremely worried about that, because it provides an enormous possible opening for Iran.

The Officer: We’ve got Iranian ships moving through the Suez Canal, which is an overt threat there.

With this, along with behind-the-scenes efforts, talk about the United States’ inability to deal with this, even going back over the last 32 years.

JOHN BOLTON: We’ve had a very ineffective response to their two-decades’-long push for nuclear weapons, and I think they see, basically, that they’ve got an open path–that we just have not responded effectively. We’re not responding effectively now.

We’re hard-pressed at the moment to deal even with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t have adequate naval assets in the Mediterranean to deal with the crisis in Libya; we’re having to pull units now out of the Arabian Sea area [and] send them back up through the Suez Canal to get them into the Mediterranean.

So, I think the Iranians see weakness and vulnerability. They see a White House that doesn’t like to pay attention to foreign policy, so they’re probing. And I think sending those ships through the Suez Canal was one way to probe. I think they’re going to try other measures as well. And they’re certainly going to continue to accelerate their nuclear weapons program. I don’t see any doubt of that.

The Officer: In terms of our national security, related to what’s going on over there and how it might translate to future engagements for us, are there areas that look most ripe for our troops?

JOHN BOLTON: I’m very worried that the drawdown in Iraq just opens up more possibilities for Iranian

mischief among the Shiites in the southern part of the country– [where they] are nearly two-thirds of the population–and that is a strategic objective Iran has had for a long time. It’s why I’ve always felt that the timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq was a mistake, because I think it just says to the Iranians and the Shiite extremists, if you wait long enough, this thing is going to fall into your lap like a ripe plum. And I think the same is true in Afghanistan. When you announce a timetable for troop deployment, either in or out, you’re just advertising to the adversary what you’re prepared to do.

So, from our perspective, if you saw an Iran with greater influence over the Arab states–from Iraq to everything on the Arabian peninsula–you’d have a major shift in influence over oil production and prices that can’t be a good thing for us. I think you’d see increased threats to Israel that look like they’re going to be one of the consequences of the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt in any case, so I see the risk of a much more dangerous Middle East in just a relatively short period of time.

I think the president has given his very clear direction that he’s just not interested in a more assertive U.S. presence in the region.

The Officer: Is there an approach that we might be able to take that would energize a more effective response, as far as improving the security over there? Do you see anything like that on the horizon?

JOHN BOLTON: I’m very worried. I think the president has given his very clear direction that he’s just not interested in a more assertive U.S. presence in the region. I think he sees it as a distraction from his domestic program. I think he’s more interested in putting pressure on Israel to come to a resolution with the Palestinians because he buys the argument that many Europeans buy: that if you could make progress on Israeli-Palestinian affairs, sweetness and light would break out throughout the entire region. I think that’s badly wrong, but I think that’s what he thinks.

So, I don’t see much prospect for change in the near term, and I think that’s very troubling, because I think our adversaries in the region–whether it’s Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, or whomever–see it the same way. And they will try to take advantage of it, no doubt about it.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

37

Ten-year radio program delivers the globe and serves as bellwether for future conflicts.

By Christopher Prawdzik NEW YORK—A random March night on the air at WABC Radio studios in Manhattan starts like this: “What we’re dealing with now is a global conflict. … From Algeria, police used tear gas to disperse a crowd of a hundred young men. … Libya, under bombing attack all day long. … The African Union is moving to a two-day summit to discuss another rogue dictator; his name is Laurent Gbagbo. … He is holding hostage the world’s leading cocoa crop. … This dictator won’t go; neither will the dictator in Libya; neither, by the way, will the dictator in Algeria. … The dictator in Algeria, by the way, is named Abdelaziz Bouteflika; he doesn’t make it much in the news in the United States, but give him [a] chance. The dictator in Yemen will definitely not leave. And later on tonight I will talk to the capital Sana’a, the capital of that populous state. …

38

the

Officer / May–June 2011

… So, I move to another battlefront where there is more mystery. This time, Afghanistan. … Right now there are reports across the world that the United States is either in conversation or moving to conversation with significant Taliban leadership. … We didn’t even get to Japan, and we will call Japan later on tonight.”

The complete version of this intro took up the first three minutes, 24 seconds of the John Batchelor Show [and took much longer to transcribe]. John Batchelor’s worldwide nightly syndicated radio show (along with a comprehensive podcast archive of each show at www.johnbatchelorshow.com), covers everything from politics and business to almost every hot spot around the globe. He goes where troops go—and where they might be headed in the future.

But come to the John Batchelor Show expecting Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Michael Savage, or Rachel Maddow, and you’ll be disappointed—or possibly enchanted. This longform program takes its time. The result is some of the most comprehensive coverage of events impacting the country and the world, politically and militarily.

During a visit to WABC studios in early February, I found

Mr. Batchelor sitting behind the microphone in the corner of a broadcast studio, shadowed by two posters—one depicting military troops on the ground in Iraq and the other of troops in Afghanistan. While not aimed primarily at a military audience, his program provides a deeper focus on locations and issues that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have known firsthand for nearly 10 years—and his show often finds itself the “canary in the coal mine” for what might be next.

Novel SereNdipitY John Calvin Batchelor is a novelist, having published seven novels, in addition to a history of the Republican Party. He was 52 years old doing what he calls a weekend “hobby show” at WABC in 2001. The hobby, he said, was long-form radio. He and his co-host would take a historical subject—anything from political assassinations to Star Wars—and arrange guests to talk about that subject for four hours. While working on his hobby, Sept. 11, 2001, happened.

“When the city was attacked, it just so happens that the weekend before—the Saturday night before—we’d done four hours on the attack on the [USS] Cole in October of 2000,” he

“You can’t make this stuff up.” the

Officer / May–June 2011

39

said. “I talked to the admiral in charge of the Second and Fifth Fleet … and then we talked to people who had a good deal of knowledge about the Cole.”

Not even a year since the Cole attack, this pre–9/11 show included a mother of one of the Sailors. But that wasn’t all.

“One of my correspondents that night was George Friedman of Stratfor.com, which is very well known now, [but] was starting out in those days, and he said, ‘Our information is that this was an operation by al-Qaida—the same people who were involved in the attack on the East Africa Embassies in ’98 and who were targeted by President Clinton’s operation in August of ’98,’” Mr. Batchelor said. “And then he introduced the audience to someone named Osama bin Laden—the first time I’d ever heard of that name in conjunction with all these other events.”

This was just days before 9/11. After the attack, a radio producer whose sister had been in one of the downed buildings called him and wanted to know who was responsible.

“I knew enough to say three suspects: three people who had ever used suicide

bombings at that level. Al-Qaida was one of them, Palestinian Islamic Jihad was another, and Hezbollah,” Mr. Batchelor said.

“So I was careful. I’d learned from my security guys not to say [only] one thing—say three, give yourself a chance, surround the subject.”

Within hours, President George W. Bush was on the air using the name al-Qaida—all pretty obvious now, the host added, but relatively new immediately after 9/11. In the hours after the attack, Mr. Batchelor received a call from the station asking him to go on the air. “[I was told,] ‘We can’t put Dr. Laura Schlessinger on tonight, and I’m certain you know who did this; will you come in until we figure out what we’re going to do?’” Mr. Batchelor said.

With few stations operational in the city (many radio towers had sat atop the World Trade Center), his first weekday show was broadcast on most stations and across the country on Sept. 12, 2001. “The FMs and other cities came in, because they wanted to hear from New York, and WABC’s tower is on the Empire State building,” Mr. Batchelor said. “So for the next several weeks, I did seven nights a week, for, oh, I guess, about three months … and I’ve been on air ever since.”

10-Year DeploYment While Reservists were the first involved in combat on 9/11 and have been ever since, the John Batchelor Show hit the air the night of 9/12. And somewhere in his earliest shows, Mr. Batchelor said he would continue his show until Osama bin

Laden was caught. It’s something he plays down a bit now, but the singular event of 9/11 was the hook on which the show was hung, and it was a big hook.

“There’s a tent pole here; the tent pole is that the nation’s at risk from a hostile and dedicated source, and he’s fully empowered to destroy 3 or 4 million Americans and wreck our economy,” 40

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Mr. Batchelor said. “Everything else since then, of course, is added layer to the story, because life goes on; but the tent pole remains.

And about his claims to continue the show until Osama bin Laden’s capture? He admits he might have been thinking about a Charlton Heston movie—a little IMDB.com research shows it was likely Major Dundee—where he’s a Union officer and makes a promise with an English Confederate officer to not fight each other until the enemy is taken.

“I think that was probably in my mind—until the enemy is taken or captured,” Mr. Batchelor said. “And at the time, it seemed like it was going to be quickly—the full military apparatus of the United States of America in pursuit of one guy … and this is a very small planet.”

That attitude might have changed a bit, but the show’s focus hasn’t changed, only expanded. Along with the “tent pole,” the John Batchelor Show carries with it a little extra, thanks to his years as a novelist and obvious acumen for storytelling. “You can’t make this stuff up,” he said.

The stories he’s telling every night now are quite real, and they have few boundaries, unlike his ventures into the fiction world.

News As Novel “Fiction is a nice dream while you’re in it, and what I found in 10 years is that I can’t write, because this is writing,” Mr. Batchelor said. “The ability to tell the story on paper, and the

“At some point, Dickens builds his characters inside an historical setting,” Mr. Batchelor said. “And I have these historical settings at night, and they’re compelling because you don’t know what’s going to happen, so I set the story up.”

Because of the show’s style and approach, he can follow these themes for weeks, months, and even years at a time. “The bin Laden pursuit is 10 years; financial crisis of 2008 coming two-and-a-half years,” he said. “Last time, we told the story of the suspicion that the 17th Karmapa, who’s the number three in the Tibetan Buddhist order of battle, is suspect as being a Chinese sleeper agent, who’s 25 years old.”

Mr. Batchelor takes listeners where they need to go to understand. “We called Delhi, [India] to the New York Times correspondent who had been up at Dharamsala to investigate this, and although it doesn’t seem very credible, it’s a wonderful story.”

So, he begins with the pursuit of a sleeper agent—the Karmapa—and follows with the bigger story of the Peoples Republic of China’s 60-year brutal exploitation of the people of Tibet.

“When [Chinese President] Hu Jintao was in town, one of the things he went on script to say is, Tibet and Taiwan are internal matters—none of your business,” Mr. Batchelor said.

“Well, that means that I can tell the Karmapa story, connect right to Hu Jintao and to our relationship with China, as the antagonism has become more apparent, and China becomes more belligerent.”

“we’ve lived through 10 years that will be a part of the American saga, and they’re continuous with events of the past, and they’ll be continuous with events in the future.” ability to tell the story on the air, it’s the same skill set, and they fight each other. So, if I were to try to write a story during the day that is discontinuous with the stories I’m telling at night, I become brittle, because I haven’t got the two different systems.”

The tough part, he said, is that he can’t exist in the dream world of fiction and in the communication and information world at the same time. But, no matter. The stories are just as good, if not better. And he emphasized the point that most fiction is based on historical events.

That very night in the studio, two authors were scheduled to talk about China’s Qing Dynasty plan to send 60 boys to American military schools, such as Annapolis or West Point, so that they would then return to China and use what they learned as Chinese military leaders.

“That connects to the Karmapa,” Mr. Batchelor said. “We have now a hundred years of the same structure; they’re going to train on us so they can go back and secure their borders.”

It’s a combination of reality and “once upon a time.” “And the

Officer / May–June 2011

41

“i have these historical settings at night, and they’re compelling because you don’t know what’s going to happen, so i set the story up.”

that is the long-winded answer to how both novel writing and storytelling are the same thing in my mind,” he said. “And why it’s easy for me to do four hours a night over 10 years.”

Storyteller turned BroadcaSter Though Mr. Batchelor now has a 10-year, nightly longform show that touches literally every corner of the globe, he started with limited broadcast experience, and he didn’t train as a broadcaster.

He was delving into the story of the Republican Party and connected with a friend telling the story of the Democrats.

This resulted in a six-month show on Bloomberg Radio that ultimately didn’t work out, but it got Mr. Batchelor in the door.

“It never did occur to me that I have a national security story alongside the once-upon-a-time story,” he said. “But once it did come along, I mean, we’ve lived through 10 years that will be a part of the American saga, and they’re continuous with events of the past, and they’ll be continuous with events in the future.”

That very evening, Egypt was the centerpiece of the show, just days before Hosni Mubarak stepped down. It was also the retirement day for several senators, which added a congressional angle to the evening.

And finally, the show included the story of CIA contractor Raymond Davis, caught in Pakistan after allegedly killing two Pakistani men, who likely were following him as agents of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. (In March, the CIA operative was released after the two men’s families were paid $2.4 million.)

“Here we are at February 10 … with two states supposedly allied in a war, where we’ve got 100,000 troops in the field, having totally broken down over the fate of one shooter who 42

the

Officer / May–June 2011

speaks Urdu and Pashto fluently,” Mr. Batchelor said. “And in his camera were pictures of a Pakistani security apparatus along the Indian frontier, and Pakistani security apparatus in south Waziristan—carrying a Glock 17 with hollow-point bullets, driving in a rough part of town, in Lahore [Pakistan], by himself, and the two young men—20 and 22—were shot in the back, and he said it was self-defense.”

He asked again: “Can you make this stuff up?”

GloBal loGiSticS and riSk In the office by 3:30 or 4 p.m. each day, Mr. Batchelor starts the show quickly. While on the air from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.

Eastern Time, he does most of his interviews live during that timeframe. But sometimes it’s just not possible, particularly for correspondents in Europe and the Middle East. It’s too late for them.

The toughest zone, he said, is Iraq and Afghanistan, where the bulk of troops and thousands of reservists remain. He can go to these places at midnight, but he said the communication towers are unpredictable.

“When we build something like a call into Kabul or Lahore,” he said, “we have to build backup, because the towers will fail, so really, a lot of this show is clock-matching.”

Ultimately, Mr. Batchelor said, the show is based on risktaking and risk analysis, not unlike that in Washington or on Wall Street.

“It’s easier to manage risk if you have larger themes that are folding into the story,” he added. “So the financial crisis since ’08 folds very neatly into the risks of the state of the union. The presidency’s always a risk. Congress is always a risk. It’s pretty obvious where the risk is in Cairo.”

Talk Radio, PoliTical images Personal politics, Mr. Batchelor said, is not really an issue with his show, but he admits “we were committed to being male; did you notice that? And so, once that happened, it is an issue.”

He’s a Republican, his father was a Republican, and so was his grandfather, but he said he doesn’t really use modifiers, because that’s not his type of show. Plus, any given night, he might have conservative former United Nations Amb. John Bolton for one segment, then liberal editor of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel the next. And the conversations are less debate and more information exchange, with the understanding that each has his or her own ideas and opinions.

“I like Republican party politics probably more than Democratic party politics because I’m more familiar with the melodrama, and I can tell the story over a long period of time— and it’s got some great punch lines,” Mr. Batchelor said. “The fact is, this show works, and it works very well.”

While leading headlines often lead, the show designates certain nights for certain topics.

Monday’s focus is politics; Tuesdays, money; Wednesdays the focus turns to Asia; Thursdays it’s the Middle East, and Fridays Mr. Batchelor takes it a bit light, typically focusing on cultural issues. But his week doesn’t end there. Saturdays he presents his book show, and Sundays, he said, it’s his “big risk show.” From 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. he gets a jump on the upcoming week. At the opening of the show, trading in Asia has begun, and the oil and gold markets are open when he is on the air.

“We’re the first [Monday] morning show, starting at nineo’clock [Sunday] night,” he said.

If anything, he said he knows his listenership is smart, and

he doesn’t need to explain much—although he does know that younger listeners always tune in, and he works to make these themes and stories digestible at many levels. Mr. Batchelor also noted his listeners’ insatiable appetite for information.

The comprehensive nature of the show, his guests, and the subject matter could be particularly instructive for families and individuals who have spent multiple deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever the next hot spot will be. It’s easy to picture his correspondents working, studying, and writing in the same environments where the random Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine might patrol the streets, work perimeter security, or advance through some of the most hostile parts of the globe.

The show brings dangerous realities a little closer for those listeners who live their lives thousands of miles from conflict.

“They like to go to the places; I do, too,” he said. “The romance of calling up Delhi to talk about Dharamsala. … They’re interested in hearing the tone of the speaker who has the information. …

The audience always wants to know what the problem is.”

When he opened a program in early March, the problem was North Africa. Weeks later, at the beginning of April, Army GEN Carter Ham, commander of U.S. operations in Libya, announced ground troops might go next to Libya. While this was unthinkable before the air missions to support Libyan rebels in March, the John Batchelor Show was already talking about it.

Ultimately, the John Batchelor Show might not know exactly were troops will next deploy, but once those orders come in, most listeners can likely find a first-hand, comprehensive education on these hot spots no further away than Mr. Batchelor’s nightly radio show.  the

Officer / May–June 2011

43

At the first-ever ROA National Security Symposium (NSS) in January, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Dennis McCarthy was scheduled to speak about the future Reserve Component. A report on that subject, however, had just reached Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ desk and had not yet been reviewed, so the contents were not available for discussion.

The report had required input from 24 departments and agencies, taking more time than anticipated.

Following up with The Officer in mid-March, Secretary McCarthy was still waiting for word from Secretary Gates, but discussed some perspectives on the future of the Reserve Component.

“I think that there’s certainly a broad consensus that much of the Reserve [Component] has been converted into a part of the operational force,” Secretary McCarthy said in March. “And I think there’s a broad consensus that that process of using a portion of the Reserve as a part of the operational force of the nation is very likely to continue.”

Using “years” as an illustration for time, the secretary added that there is an “emerging consensus that the part of the Reserve that participates as an element of the operational force is going to rotate so that a unit may be a part of the operational force this year and in some kind of a reset mode next year and the year after.”

He emphasized that he doesn’t think all units of the National 44

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Guard or Reserve will be operational units all the time.

“And lastly, I would say that there is a consensus that those forces that are not at any one point currently a part of the operational force still represent a very important force in readiness—a part of our strategic[force], if you will,” he said.

This process of a single report, and the future of the Reserve Component as a whole, illustrates the value of continuous communication—in this case, the NSS as a catalyst to connect officials and experts beyond the scope of ROA membership to the expertise, emphasis, and information the association has to national security issues.

Along with featuring Secretary McCarthy, the two-day event at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park included nearly 30 experts, ranging from members of Congress to department secretaries, military leadership, and policy experts who discussed the issues that shape and drive the Reserve Component.

Gen Norton A. Schwartz, chief of staff to the U. S. Air Force, presented an active duty perspective on maintaining current personnel requirements in the midst of threats imposed on operations by the budget deficit and spending. Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey spoke on the impact of current international issues on national security. Maj Gen David Senty, chief of staff to U.S. Cyber Command, discussed cybersecurity threats and new combatant command.

By Caitlin Wixted sympOsium spOtlighted reserve COmpOnent future, and emphasized OngOing COmmuniCatiOn effOrts.

photo Credit from left to right: 1. mark abraham, 2. Capt henry plimack, usCgr (ret.), 3. mark abraham, 4. Capt henry plimack, usCgr (ret.)

Speaking about irregular warfare and the role of the Reserve Component in future threat environments, MG David Morris, director of the Joint Irregular Warfare Center, explained that this type of warfare will be the most probable ongoing and future method of warfare involving the United States.

On the budget deficit and how it impacts national security, a panel consisting of Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation and Thomas Donnelly, director at the Center for Defense Studies, spoke about the national debt, federal budget deficits, and their effects on the Department of Defense.

“ROA is one of the few organizations out there that is trying to relay how the budget deficit is having a huge effect on national security, simply based on the conflict of budget cuts,” said MG David Bockel, USA (Ret.), ROA executive director.

“The national security symposium as a whole advanced the conversation on a national level for all of those topics.”

For example, the NSS conversation included legislative advocacy issues such as the strategic airlift presentation by Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, a public-policy research organization in Washington, D.C. (Read about the Reserve Component’s airlift role on page 32 of this issue.)

Dr. Grant’s presentation was an educational event relating to the efforts of ROA’s Defense Education Forum (DEF). More information on DEF is available at www.roa.org/educate.

Current OperatiOns “Many of the speakers at the NSS talked about the Reserve in Afghanistan and the importance of stability and global security, [and] our Defense Education Forum followed that up with various programs,” MG Bockel said.

Prior to the symposium, DEF presented events on the integrated national security professional system, and the forum followed the conference with its hard-hitting March 16 event on Afghanistan’s regional stability. In late March, the Iran threat to its region was another topic—this soon after the March– April issue of The Officer featured experts’ commentary on Iran’s threat to the region.

Interactive for audience members, the symposium included question and answer portions after each session, time to speak one-on-one with presenters, and opportunities to give feedback. Audience members were given the chance to fill out cards that asked the question, “What are some key things that you think … the Reserve needs?”

After ROA analyzes its feedback from the symposium, Secretary McCarthy will also see it: the information and comments on his presentation, the symposium, and the Reserve Component as a whole.

In addition, ROA will heed attendee feedback as it plans future events. the

Officer / May–June 2011

45

next year—through efforts on the website, the continually updated ROA blog, and through The Officer journal’s scope and distribution.

“I think that it’s important for people in the Reserve to consider coming to events like this, and this one in particular, because it is Reserve-focused to advance their own careers,” he said. “It’s professional development at its most basic form— learning about something that will help you in your career, making you smarter, and making you part of the conversation on national security issues,” he said.

The ROA National Convention and National Security Symposium 2012 is scheduled for the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel from Jan. 29 to Feb. 1.

audIEncE connEcts to rEsErvE chIEfs

photo credit: mark abraham

“The general feedback that we got from attendees was that they really, really liked it,” MG Bockel said. “They thought it was beneficial and that it was well worth their time to attend and that it was a positive contribution to advancing our national security issues for ROA.”

InformatIon ExpansIon Efforts MG Bockel said that ROA will expand on the successful NSS format of 2011 for next year’s symposium. Presentation days will be moved to accommodate attendees who travel from out of town and for those who “don’t want to spend their weekend at work,” he said.

Next year’s symposium schedule isn’t set, but a “call for papers” (see page 49) will help shape the future not only for the 2012 symposium but for the direction of future events and coverage in The Officer and ROA’s website.

ROA officials hope to bring registration costs down to attract more Reserve Component personnel—from hotel-cost modifications to other scheduling changes—to decrease the impact on attendees’ work schedules and pocketbooks.

MG Bockel hopes that word -of-mouth will boost attendance 46

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Secretary Dennis McCarthy moderated the Reserve Chiefs panel, which was perhaps the most interactive and forwardlooking event of the symposium, as audience questions fueled the session.

Panel members were LTG Jack Stultz, chief, Army Reserve and Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command; Lt Gen Charles Stenner, chief, Air Force Reserve and Commander, U.S. Air Force Reserve Command; VADM Dirk Debbink, chief, Navy Reserve; MajGen Darrell Moore, director, Reserve Affairs, HQMC; MG Raymond Carpenter, acting director, Army National Guard; Maj Gen Hugh Broomall, Air National Guard; and RDML Sandra Stosz, director, Reserve and Leadership, at the U.S. Coast Guard.

“This is really your session and the reason the chiefs take the time out of their schedules to come here, so that they can engage with you directly,” Secretary McCarthy said to the audience.

Questions ranged from those about homeland security, employment services, and civilian work, to natural and nuclear disasters on the home front and abroad.

Panelist Lt Gen Stenner spoke about the 1095 Rule, which allows a reserve member to be on active duty for 1,095 days over the previous four years, annual reviews, and baseline requirements for the Air Force Guard. LTG Stultz addressed the Army’s involvement during homeland disasters.

“The active Army is the first to respond,” he said. “The process is wrong, and we want the authority to activate our own troops and not have to wait for Congress to do it. We have equipment that’s not being utilized.” Backing up his point, LTG Gen Stultz cited “misuse” of Title 10.

“With Hurricane Katrina, we had many units ready to go

that were just sitting there in a training mode because we didn’t have the authority to send them, and that’s wrong,” he said. “We need to have the authority to activate those forces when that state government says, ‘We need help.’ ” RDML Stosz was clear that no one in the Reserve is too junior to start thinking out of the box when it comes to advancement. Seeking assignment to broaden yourself and your skills is key, she said.

“What we’ve found “SoLdierS’ meNtaL weLL- is that employers are BeiNg iS oF the utmoSt very interested in the importaNce aNd directLy skills that you have aFFectS the NatioN’S been trained in while Security.” in the military—also the fact that you come to them already drug-free, physically fit,” LTG Stultz added.

MG Carpenter addressed force modernization and longrange maintenance plans.

During his keynote speech at the convention, GEN Peter W. Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, focused on topics that are of grave concern to leadership. He noted that the Army is continually working to help Soldiers through post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and to offer services that can help Soldiers and their families with anxiety.

“Soldiers’ mental well-being is of the utmost importance and directly affects the nation’s security,” he said.

Because the number of high-risk deaths, suicide attempts, and suicides increased last year among personnel not serving on active duty, GEN Chiarelli said the Army is currently reporting on real-time results from a five-year Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers. Called STARRS, the study helps predict a Soldier’s mental health; it will conclude in 2014.

GEN Chiarelli said that of the 63 percent of those wounded in combat, 47 percent have PTSD and 16 percent have traumatic brain injury.

Locher: NatioNaL Security Strategy LackS ViSioN James Locher of the Project on National Security Reform quoted from President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. “[President] Obama called for efforts involving sacrifice, struggle, and meeting the demands of the new age. He said we need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. The president is saying things in the State of the Union

address that my project [National Security Reform] has been talking about for years,” Mr. Locher said.

Mr. Locher believes that to achieve the president’s vision, the National Security System needs to be transformed. If it’s not transformed, “we can’t create … the greater efficiencies that are needed to ensure America’s competitive position,” he said.

He said the government of the past isn’t one to meet future challenges; he called for a fundamental change to the system, noting that dedicated professionals’ hard work in these areas is being “wasted by a dysfunctional system.”

He believes that one flaw is in the National Security Act of 1947, causing imbalanced authority in staff and how power is delegated.

“We are only dealing with issues of today and tomorrow.

We wait until future problems are on top of current ones and then they become a crisis,” he said.

Mr. Locher believes that Congress is becoming less relevant to major national security issues because it doesn’t “have the mechanism for addressing things that go across departments and agencies.”

NatioNaL Security FoLLowS Budget deFicitS Baker Spring, research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Thomas Donnelly of the Center for Defense Studies discussed the most pressing issues of the symposium: The budget deficit and national security.

“The interest on our debt will be higher than the defense budget,” said Bob Feidler, ROA’s director of Strategic Defense Education, who moderated the panel.

Mr. Spring explained current inflation and discretionary spending with a historical perspective dating back to the sixties.

“Even with the abuses that occur, the root of fiscal problems of the U.S. is not accurate; it’s certainly not accurate with regard to the defense budget. Entitlement spending has gone from 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product [GDP] in the sixties to almost 10 percent today, and it will get much worse in the future,” he said.

Mr. Donnelly approached the defense budget from an outside-looking-in perspective. “Where has the defense budget been, in terms of the dire place it’s in? Discretionary spending,” he explained.

With projections from President Obama’s administration, Mr. Donnelly said the president is going to take the defense budget from less than 5 percent of the GDP to about 3.5 percent. the

Officer / May–June 2011

47

As ROA looks forward, Mr. Donnelly said that beyond 2050, the defense budget could be cut to zero, and there would still be difficulty achieving a balanced budget.

“Is defense the driver for the fiscal problems that we face long term? We’d be very hard-pressed to say that that’s the case,” he said.

Oil, ReligiOn, and TacTics Take cenTeR sTage

48

the

Officer / May–June 2011

photo credit: mark abraham

“When Bush or Obama says ‘we have problems with oil because we have to buy it from countries that don’t like us very much,’ that is the understatement of understatements,” said former CIA Director R. James Woolsey when discussing the impact of current international issues on national security.

“The home of about 80 percent of the world’s conventional petroleum reserves is OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries], and it’s in the Middle East,” he said.

“There are 22 countries in the world that get two-thirds or more of their national income from oil; all 22 are dictatorships or autocratic kingdoms.”

Mr. Woolsey said it’s easier for the United States to figure out how to deal with full-scale terrorists like al-Qaida, but much harder when approaching the Muslim Brotherhood, because they are cloaked in religion.

“We are a country of religious mavericks; it’s not polite of the U.S. to criticize religions,” he said. “We don’t have a very good handle on how to deal with a totalitarianism movement that wants to destroy us and has grown out of one of the world’s great religions.”

“TheRe aRe 22 cOunTRies in Staying current The wORld ThaT geT TwO- with Middle East ThiRds OR mORe Of TheiR tactics was the naTiOnal incOme fROm Oil; angle taken by Col all 22 aRe dicTaTORships OR Ferdinand Irizarry, auTOcRaTic kingdOms.” deputy commander, JFK Special Warfare Center and School.

“What is very important to us is trying as an institution to work on the same decision cycles as our enemy. Really, the gold standard is to evolve faster and trying to stay up with that,” he said. “The enemy can be extremely primitive or extremely sophisticated; they can be very poor or very well off; they can be a person who works in a jungle or one that works in an urban environment,” he said. 

CALL FOR SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS 2012 National Security Symposium, Reserve Component Expo & ROA National Convention January 28–February 1, 2012 Washington DC You are invited to submit a response to the Call for Speaker Presentations to be considered for the ROA 2012 National Security Symposium and the ROA 2012 National Convention.

NATIONAL S E C U R I T Y SYMPOSIUM R E S E R V E COMPONENT E X P O NATIONAL CONVENTION

2012

Proposal submissions for these events will be accepted starting February 7, 2011 until June 1, 2011.

Proposals can be submitted electronically by email to: Diane Markham at DMarkham@roa.org Or can be mailed to: Reserve Officers Association. Attn: Diane Markham 1 Constitution Avenue NE Washington D.C. 20002

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING A PRESENTATION PROPOSAL • Download the complete Call for Presentations here: www.ROA.org/2012 • Complete the Call for Presentation form completely and accurately.

• Letters of recommendation, phone numbers, marketing brochures, books and articles will be accepted as proof of performance and should be emailed to the address provided on the form.

• Handouts are acceptable and should accompany the Presentation Proposal. (If selected, handouts will be posted on the NSS website for attendees several weeks before the Symposium).

PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS: All proposals will be reviewed by a Selection Committee. Final selections will be made and notification on the status of submission will be mailed directly to the speaker.

p

e r y it

l a oN

r u c Se

t r o

FINGER ON THE

By Peter Huessy

ti a N

he congressionally mandated EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) Commission, composed of some of the nation’s top scientists, including the former science adviser to President Ronald Reagan, issued its initial report in 2004.

Their conclusion? Protect the country from electromagnetic pulse, which could come from a nuclear weapon exploded high above the United States by a terror-sponsoring nation or a solar storm of the same magnitude.

Since that report, numerous reviews have all independently concluded that this is a danger that would have “catastrophic consequences and imperil the lives of millions of Americans,” according to Peter Pry, president of EMPact America. These reviews include the Strategic Posture Commission, the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, and, most recently, a major U.S. government interagency study.

More than a half-decade later, the House of Representatives took the issue seriously, passing legislation unanimously in 2010 to harden the electrical grid against such threats as nuclear and non-nuclear EMP or solar storms that could generate the same effects.

If implemented, the legislation would be a strong initial step to protect the American people from a grid shutdown and a threat to the civilized life many take for granted. Unfortunately, the legislation died in the Senate late in 2010, where concerns with cyber security trumped a stand-alone grid protection act.

A new bill, the Shield Act, has been introduced in the House as H.R. 668 by Reps. Trent Franks (R–Ariz.), co-founder of the new House EMP caucus with Roscoe Bartlett (D–Md.), and Yvette Clarke, (D–N.Y.). The bill focuses on nuclear and natural EMP protection.

In 1998, Congress established the Rumsfeld Commission to examine missile threats to the United States and to determine whether sufficient threats existed to call for the United States to establish a missile defense deployment. Since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense 50

the

Officer / May–June 2011

PULSE Officials continue to walk a long, winding road to determine and diminish the EMP threat.

Initiative (SDI), controversy over missile defense had been intense. Would such defenses so upset the strategic balance as to make any reductions in nuclear weapons impossible? Could such a defense ever work? What was meant by work? And once the Cold War was over, were emerging ballistic missile programs in North Korea and Iran serious threats or minor programs that could safely be ignored?

We now know from Soviet archives that the military and political leaders in Moscow took SDI seriously. They believed “it would work.” Even a partial ability to deflect Russian missiles would undermine the Soviet Union’s ability to use ballistic missiles for coercion, blackmail, and terror. In short, “the correlation of forces,” said Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, former chief of staff, Soviet Armed Forces, which at the time were moving inexorably toward Moscow, were in danger of being reversed, a “shift in your favor,” he complained. President Reagan’s American critics ridiculed its workability as well such as in the 2001 book Phantom Defense; America’s Pursuit of the Star Wars Illusion by Craig Eisendrath, Melvin A. Goodman, and Gerald E. Marsh. U.S. arms control advocates saw missile defense as highly destabilizing. If it worked, they asserted, it would scare the Russians into massive increases in their nuclear arsenal, making a nuclear freeze—the goal of the disarmament community—all but impossible.

When President Gorbachev and President Reagan first met in Geneva, the Soviet General Secretary complained that missile defense was reckless and that the president’s strategic modernization program, including offensive nuclear weapons, was upsetting the strategic balance.

Shortly after their Geneva meeting, President Reagan wrote in his diary that Gorbachev “thinks I am relatively uninformed, and he can push me around.” But the Soviets viewed missile defense as a great equalizer, with which the United States could effectively checkmate their drive for strategic dominance.

Eventually, the Soviets agreed to eliminate their entire

deployment of SS-20 intermediate-range nuclear ballistic report was released, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff missiles from Europe and Asia. START I, the Strategic Arms GEN Hugh Shelton dismissed its findings, declaring that the Reductions Treaty, resulted in cuts of more than 6,000 warheads United States would have ample intelligence capability to know in deployed systems, ending a Soviet reach for strategic when such threats were on the horizon. No such threats, he superiority, which it had hoped to achieve through SALT I and assured the U.S. Senate, were there. then SALT II, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

A few weeks later, North Korea launched a ballistic missile This brings us back to the 1998 Commission on Ballistic with a range roughly around 2,000 kilometers, with one of Missile Threats to the United States of America. During the stages splashing down in the Pacific far beyond Japan. the debate over missile defense—during the Clinton Initial assessments concluded that if the third stage had in fact administration—the CIA “worked,” North Korea’s missiles informed Congress in 1995 If one were to launch a rocket from could place all of the western that missile threats from United States at risk. a freighter 400 kilometers off the North Korea did not then exist Former Missile Defense “to the United States,” nor Agency Director Gen Trey coast of the United States and Obering has explained in a would any such threats be on the horizon for at least another sobering assessment that a explode its nuclear warhead some workable third stage would put 15 years.

Later it was learned that Indianapolis and Miami at risk, the draft national intelligence 70 kilometers above New York ... the depending upon the size of the estimate that came to this North Korean nuclear warhead. effects would generate an electroconclusion, but was not shared The U.S. intelligence at the time with Congress, community confirmed that at magnetic pulse. The energy would least the western continental assumed that North Korea would receive no outside States would be at risk. fry all modern communications, United assistance in its ballistic This was the state of play prior missile program and that, electronics, and the “nervous to the Clinton administration for purposes of analysis, the decision in the summer of United States did not include system” of modern civilization. 2000 not to go forward with Hawaii and Alaska. Since both the deployment in Alaska and states were considerably closer California of a missile defense to North Korea than the rest of the continental United States capable of shooting down “limited threats” to CONUS from (CONUS), their exclusion from the United States allowed the intercontinental ballistic missiles. While Rumsfeld Commission CIA to downplay any potential future threat from North Korea. warnings gained credibility after the North Korean launch, One top CIA analyst later candidly admitted the agency and while the Clinton administration in 2000 “punted” on deliberately “sexed down” the ballistic missile threat so as to building a CONUS missile defense, it was not until the next defeat efforts in Congress to build a ballistic missile defense administration, that of President George W. Bush, that another of the United States. Eventually, legislation was agreed to for a key portion of the report’s findings gained traction. According missile defense to be deployed against such threats “as soon as to the report, during the 1990s, Iran conducted several hightechnically feasible.” altitude flight tests of its Shahab-III. Tehran also launched a The Rumsfeld Commission concluded such threats were rocket from a barge in the Caspian. Both rockets exploded in on the horizon and that it would take roughly five years for a what appeared as an EMP mode above the earth’s surface. Most country to go from a decision to achieve such a capability to foreign intelligence services deemed the launches as “failures”; actually having developed such missiles. the Iranians did not. A possible explanation? The Iranian The commission’s report further explained that the lack of military had openly written about using an EMP attack against transparency in rogue regimes meant the United States would the United States. not necessarily have the intelligence capability to know when If one were to launch a rocket from a freighter 400 kilometers such a decision had been taken. Shortly after the commission off the coast of the United States and explode its nuclear the

Officer / May–June 2011

51

rt o p e r y urit c e S l a oN

Nati

warhead some 70 kilometers above New York, for example, the out such an attack. Others believed nuclear forensics would effects would generate an electromagnetic pulse. The energy enable us to identify the attacker, thus bringing deterrence would fry all modern communications, electronics, and the into play. Another common assumption was that Russia and “nervous system” of modern civilization. Even a relatively China were alone capable of such an attack. Furthermore, it was small device, in the low kilotons, could fry a sufficient portion claimed, they would have no interest in attacking the United of the nation’s electrical grid to cause a cascade effect, where States with an EMP weapon now that the Cold War was over. anywhere from a considerable region to much of the nation’s The commission dealt with all these matters, although some critical infrastructure would be taken down. The freighter critics seem not to have taken the time to actually read the could be flagged and crewed by any number of nations, part of commission’s initial and then follow-up reports. In addition, a deliberate policy of non attribution. The crew would scuttle the 2009 Perry-Schlesinger Commission recommended that the ship seconds after launching the United States take actions Tens of millions of Americans its missile tipped with an EMP to “reduce the vulnerability of nuclear device. The United States the nation and the military to would perish quickly. Hundreds attacks from weapons designed would be literally and figuratively in the dark. to produce EMP effects.” of millions would be at risk. Furthermore, the Congressional Rumsfeld Commissioners were briefed on just such a threat Commission on Weapons of during deliberations in 1998. An EMP-type attack was deemed Mass Destruction in 2008 and 2010 found that EMP was a very a severe threat to the United States, especially from rogue real threat. nations such as Iran and North Korea.

With the withdrawal by the United States from the AntiAs a result, Maryland’s Rep. Bartlett introduced his Ballistic Missile treaty in 2001–2002, the United States was legislation to create the EMP Commission, with precisely this finally free to deploy missile defenses of all kinds, which the kind of threat in mind. In its initial 2004 report, the commission Bush administration did. Washington also secured a further not only described the EMP threat from a nuclear terrorist or reduction of nearly two-thirds of deployed strategic nuclear state threat, it also described the likelihood of similar EMP weapons in the 2002 Moscow treaty with Russia, bringing effects from a massive electromagnetic solar storm, which last American nuclear weapons deployments to levels not seen hit the United States in the 19th century. since the latter part of the Eisenhower administration. The 2002 Today, however, with society’s extraordinary reliance agreement proved, beyond doubt, that missile defense and arms upon electronic computer chips, an EMP storm, according control could work hand in hand. When helping to put together to commission test data, would cause a massive electrical grid budgets for the incoming Bush administration, I made CONUS blackout that could, in turn, cause a cascading infrastructure missile defense protection high on the list. Equally important failure affecting the entire country. Tens of millions of Americans was protection from short- and medium-range ballistic missile would perish quickly. Hundreds of millions would be at risk. threats in thecr Persian Gulf and Northeast Asia. I projected As the commission warned, a nuclear armed rogue state budgets of roughly $10 billion a year would be needed, with could provide a terrorist group a nuclear device. Russian experts deployments reaching 1,400 interceptors of all kinds by the told the commission of low-yield super-EMP weapons having middle of the next decade. been developed by Moscow that remained in its inventory. The Counting all systems, we have or will have deployed by the Republic of Korea (ROK) intelligence community warned the end of 2011, upwards of 1,000-plus missile defense interceptors commission of North Korea receiving Russian help to develop of all kinds, including at least 30 rockets deployed in California super-EMP weapons. Now, according to a March 8 ABC News and Alaska to defend against long-range missiles. Depending report, North Korea is using a Russian EMP weapon to jam U.S. upon where an EMP attack might come from, our current and ROK communications as Pyongyang “nears completion of missile defenses can provide limited protection, but not the an electromagnetic pulse bomb.” kind of full protection we need.

The general attitude about whether an EMP threat is credible Ultimately, we were initially remiss in not seeing EMP has unfortunately been caught in the hangover assessments threats. By the time the EMP Commission concluded its initial from the Cold War. Many analysts assumed only a nuclear work, much of the nation’s missile defense architecture was weapon in the “one megaton” class would be sufficient to carry under development. So, despite our success in fielding missile 52

the

Officer / May–June 2011

defenses, we still had EMP protection to consider.

But how do we best defend against a missile launched in an EMP mode from, for example, the maritime regions around the United States?

One top Israeli expert pointed out to me that such a missile, if launched from an offshore freighter, could just as easily be a nuclear warhead to be detonated in a conventional airburst over the city of New York or Washington, D.C. If, on the other hand, the missile is designed to carry a warhead some 70 kilometers above the United States and then detonate in an EMP mode, a deployed missile defense on Aegis ships or Aegis Standard Missiles ashore on coastal military bases, added to the current deployments in Alaska and California, could collectively begin to deal with both such threats. However, getting there may take some time, depending upon the strength of our commitment.

Unfortunately, missile defense deployments—especially the associated deployments planned for Poland and the Czech Republic to deal with long-range Iranian ballistic missile threats—became a major controversy during the 2008 presidential election. It was unclear to what extent the incoming administration would support an expanded EMP missile defense role, or whether it would support EMP protections at all. As a result, the focus of EMP protection, which the commission always primarily thought would be efforts to harden and protect the grid and infrastructure, shifted to alternately protecting the U.S. infrastructure and power grid through exactly such “hardening.” An interesting coalition of House members led such an effort.

Rep. Bartlett, EMP Commission founder, joined fellow House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Franks, along with Democratic Reps. Yvette Clarke from Brooklyn and Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, and secured passage, with the support of both the Committee on Homeland Security and the Energy Committee, of legislation to protect the national grid from nuclear and non-nuclear EMP effects, including those from a rogue terrorist threat and from solar storms as well. The vote was unanimous in both Committee and the full House.

The EMP threat is real. The Iranian mullahs have repeatedly discussed “a world without the United States,” implying they have a goal of eliminating the U.S. capability to keep the peace. In Lebanon recently, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted of how Israel will soon be wiped off the map. Hwang Jang-Yop, the highest ranking defector from North Korea, who recently passed away and was given a state funeral in Seoul, told a senior U.S. official that “the sole reason North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has nuclear weapons is to

use them,” to reunify the Korean peninsula by force, placing it under communist rule. With America potentially part of any such military campaign, an EMP attack would significantly diminish the United States’ ability to defend South Korea.

While speaking earlier this year on EMPact America Radio, Rep. Bartlett said that a senior Russian defense official quietly warned a House delegation that Moscow, if unhappy with the United States over such issues as Kosovo or the Persian Gulf, could launch a submarine-based missile from off the U.S. Coast, and in an EMP attack mode, take down the U.S. grid for a year or more, killing millions of Americans “without the U.S. knowing anything about it.” So perhaps the Cold War is not over after all.

An initial solution is readily doable. H.R. 668, the new grid protection act—the Shield Act—is the proper template for efforts this year. As a minimal first step, the electrical utility industry could protect key high-energy EHV transformers for between $100 million and $500 million, at a cost of 3 to 14 cents per month for each American. All 12,000 U.S. energy transformers need not be protected, but EMP experts estimate that for an additional $6–$12 per American per year for three to five years, our other critical infrastructure could be completely protected from the full spectrum of EMP threats. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has agreed that such costs can be included in the utility rate structure.

Put into perspective, the current annual utility bill for all Americans is roughly $400 billion. So we could buy initial EMP protection for our electrical grid for no more than $1 extra for every $2,000 we now pay for electricity, just for one year. For added insurance, we could deploy, over time, additional interceptors ashore along the U.S. coast, such as the Navy’s standard missile, now being deployed aboard U.S. and Japanese Aegis ships and planned for additional deployments in Europe. But for a very modest investment for a year, we get grid protection now and we honor our constitutional obligation to “provide for the common defense.”

Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis and is a senior defense consultant for National Defense University Foundation, Washington, D.C.  The National Security Report is a publication of the Defense Education Forum of the Reserve Officers Association and is intended to advance discussion and scholarship of national security issues. The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of ROA. the

Officer / May–June 2011

53

By William Matthews NaNo hummiNgbird (aero viroNmeNt)

Robots meet battlefield requirements in all shapes and sizes–and do so at an exponential growth rate.

The U.S. military’s newest robot can dodge, weave, and hover on rapidly flapping wings just like the hummingbird it resembles. But unlike its living counterpart, this bird transmits a video feedback to its controller as it zooms around corners of buildings and ducks in through open doors for a look inside.

At two-thirds of an ounce, the Nano Hummingbird weighs a bit more than its flesh-and feathers-cousin, and its 6.5inch wingspan is a bit wider. But in appearance, the Nano Hummingbird could easily be mistaken for the real thing. It sports a “removable body fairing” complete with eyes, beak, and coloration copied from an actual hummingbird.

Built by AeroVironment for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Nano Hummingbird is a tiny spy plane designed to fly unnoticed while it takes pictures and collects intelligence. It is the latest addition to a fast-growing arsenal of robots the military relies on to spy, disarm bombs, search buildings, perform sentry duty, destroy incoming mortar rounds, conduct aerial surveillance, fire missiles, and deliver supplies–among other chores.

As recently as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military had no robots on the ground and only a handful in the air.

That number now exceeds 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and 12,000 unmanned ground vehicles. According to Pentagon officials, there is one robot for every 50 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and by 2013 that number should almost double to one for every 30 troops.

With this increased regularity comes increased requirements. In 2007, the Air Force maintained 18 aroundthe-clock Predator and Reaper combat air patrols over Iraq and Afghanistan. Today that number is 48, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a March speech at the Air Force Academy.

But even that isn’t enough.

“The demand from commanders for ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance from UAVs] continues to 54

the

Officer / May–June 2011

outpace supply,” said Mr. Gates, who has repeatedly prodded the Air Force to get more unmanned aircraft into combat.

In the Army, personnel use robots primarily for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), said Robert Moses, who heads the government and industrial robots division of iRobot. His company has delivered more than 3,500 PackBots for EOD work. Controlled remotely by an operator and carrying a variety of cameras and sensors and an arm to grip and lift small objects, each PackBot is about the size of a lawn mower and travels on little tank-like treads. Treaded flippers help them climb stairs and overcome obstacles.

But considering the size of U.S. ground forces, EOD is a relatively small market, Mr. Moses said. iRobot hopes to sell many more small, lighter-weight robots that can fit into backpacks and be carried by infantry troops. He envisions these being used for reconnaissance, building inspections, clearing potentially dangerous objects from supply routes, inspecting vehicles from a safe distance, sniffing for chemical and biological weapons, and performing other dangerous tasks.

In addition to EOD and surveillance tasks, robots will likely transition into heavy load carriers for infantry troops as well.

A four-legged robot called BigDog, for example, can carry a 340-pound load and trot along at four miles per hour over muddy trails, through snow, and through shallow water. It’s 2.5 feet tall, three feet long – “the size of a large dog or small mule,” according to information from Big Dog inventor Boston Dynamics.

Onboard sensors monitor the robot’s leg joint positions, the force exerted on each joint, and which legs are making contact with the ground. A gyroscope and advanced software keep the robot balanced; light-detection and ranging sensors measure its distance from objects; and it has a stereo vision system, Boston Dynamics says.

For now, BigDog remains under development. “The ultimate

goal,” Boston Dynamics says, “is to develop a robot that can go anywhere people and animals can go.”

In fact, more conventional cargo-hauling robots may well make it to combat before BigDog does.

Last fall, the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force issued a solicitation for an unmanned ground vehicle “about the size of a compact car, capable of carrying up to 1,200 pounds of payload and designed primarily to serve as a utility and cargo transport for dismounted small unit operations.” The robot should automatically follow ground troops and travel at about four miles per hour for 10 hours a day, according to the Army solicitation.

That sounds similar to the six-wheeled multifunction utility/logistics and equipment (MULE) system that Lockheed Martin was developing for the Army until the Future Combat Systems program was canceled in 2010. But Lockheed’s MULEs weren’t just cargo carriers. One version was armed with a

machine gun and anti-tank rockets, and another was designed to detect buried mines.

Mr. Moses predicts that robot truck convoys will soon haul supplies through dangerous areas to forward operating bases.

Several flying robot cargo carriers already do this.

In March 2010, Boeing’s A160T unmanned helicopter hauled 2,500 pounds of cargo 75 miles while operating

It costs about $390,000 to deploy one soldier to Afghanistan for one year.

mq8b FIRE SCOUT (nORThROp bRUmman)

the

Officer / May–June 2011

55

TARANIS (bAe SySTemS)

autonomously, following a mission plan that was programmed into its computer. Oddly, the 4,000-pound A160T is also called a Hummingbird.

A month earlier, a slightly larger unmanned chopper, a 5,145-pound Kaman K-MAX, delivered two 750-pound cargo loads autonomously to two different locations during a demonstration. Destination coordinates, directions, way points, altitudes, speed, and other details were entered into the helicopter’s mission computer, and the aircraft flew the mission without further input.

The Navy, too, has a pilotless helicopter able to deliver supplies to ships. Its 3,150-pound Fire Scout UAV can haul up to 600 pounds of cargo in containers mounted on its skids.

In addition to their variety of capabilities, robots appear in an astonishing variety of shapes and sizes. iRobot is developing a hand-size, squishy, elastic “chembot” that can change shapes, stretching out thin enough to creep under doors and squeeze through cracks and holes. The Chembot can then puff up into a ball to roll forward, performing its assigned mission. Chembot would probably be fitted with various sensors for collecting intelligence.

On the other extreme, Mesa Robotics makes the 2.5-ton Acer, a bulldozer-like robot for finding and clearing mines, pushing obstacles out of the way, neutralizing chemicals, fighting fires, and towing disabled vehicles.

Qinetiq North America makes a modular advanced armed robotic system (MAARS) that it says is the first robot able to offer “force escalation options” to fit any combat situation.

A 350-pound miniature tank, MAARS is equipped with loudspeakers to warn adversaries to stay away; eye-safe lasers to dazzle (temporarily blind) their vision; a bean bag launcher; smoke and pepper spray to use in nonlethal assaults; and a machine gun and grenade launcher for lethal effect.

56

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Army special operations forces are testing several MAARS robots for undisclosed missions, and other units have expressed interest in using them as sentries to guard bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But arming robots with deadly weapons raises specific questions. Can they tell friend from foe? Or civilian from insurgent? What laws and ethical codes would apply to armed robots?

“What does it say about us when we send out unmanned machines to fight for us?” asks Peter Singer, who studies automated warfare at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. While the UAVs used to hunt down and kill Taliban chiefs in Pakistan are praised in the United States for being efficient, effective, and for keeping U.S. pilots out of harm’s way, they’re denounced in Pakistan as “cruel and cowardly” weapons.

Mr. Singer wonders whether “war waged by remote control from distant locations will become too easy, too abstract, too tempting.” Is war more likely when a pilot can report to a cubicle at an Air Force base in Nevada each day to fire missiles at enemies 7,500 miles away – “and then make it home in time for his kid’s soccer practice?” Perhaps more ominous, “How will humans remain masters of weapons that are immeasurably faster and more ‘intelligent’ than they are?” Mr. Singer asks.

Mr. Moses, the iRobot executive, who is also a former Navy fighter pilot, contends “there will always be a man in the loop” to control the robots. But others aren’t so sure.

Last summer, BAE Systems in Britain unveiled a stealthy, intercontinental unmanned bomber that some analysts say has enough artificial intelligence to think for itself much of the time.

Named Taranis for the Celtic god of thunder, it’s an attempt to build “the first-ever autonomous stealthy unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that would ultimately be capable of precisely

striking targets at long range, even in another continent,” BAE officials said during an unveiling ceremony last year.

But Taranis wouldn’t think and fight on its own, the company added. It would “at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground.”

In the United States, the Department of Defense has at least studied the possibility of robots that are able to think and act for themselves. In 2007, the Army commissioned research on robots capable of “fully autonomous engagement without human intervention” but “under user-defined conditions.”

DARPA has gone a step further. Between 2004 and 2007, the high-tech research agency sponsored three Grand Challenges in which it offered prizes of up to $2 million for driverless vehicles that could obey all traffic laws, detect and avoid other vehicles, and travel steep and winding rural roads, for the first two challenges, and urban roads amid other traffic for the third challenge.

In a burst of enthusiasm for robots, the U.S. Congress funded the first challenge in 2004 to spur the development of smart robots with the goal of making one-third of U.S. ground forces autonomous by 2015. Eight years later, that goal looks much more elusive.

Nonetheless, robots are extremely appealing to the military.

The No. 1 reason: They save lives, Mr. Singer said.

They’re also often cheaper than human troops. It costs about $390,000 to deploy one soldier to Afghanistan for one year, according to the Congressional Research Service. A PackBot costs between $100,000 and $200,000 depending on its sensor package, Mr. Moses said.

The more robots the military can deploy, the fewer human ACER (mEsA RobotiCs)

According to Pentagon officials, there is one robot for every 50 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and by 2013 that number should almost double to one for every 30 troops. troops it will need. Today, one soldier typically operates one robot. But with greater autonomy, each robot will require less human supervision. “We’d like to get to where one operator can operate five to 10 robots,” Mr. Moses said.

Robots are also tireless, fearless, uncomplaining, and not forgetful. In combat, they may prove more humane than humans are, according to Ronald Arkin, director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Without an instinct for self-preservation, without anger and frustration to cloud their judgment, and with better sensors and the ability to process information much faster than humans, robots are less likely to kill by mistake or out of fear or for revenge, Mr. Arkin says in the 2010 paper, “The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems.”

Robots are less likely to mistreat noncombatants or damage property, and they’re more likely to adhere to the laws of war, Mr. Arkin contends. “As robots are already faster, stronger, and in certain cases … smarter than humans, is it that difficult to believe they will be able to treat us more humanely in the battlefield than we do each other?” he asks.

They’re “worth pursuing vigorously,” Mr. Arkin concludes.  William Matthews is a defense writer who focuses on military, technology and government issues. the

Officer / May–June 2011

57

StarS induStry newS Jeanne Kouhestani • associate editor

it tranSformation

Booz Allen Hamilton tackles battlefield challenges with speed and innovation.

ngela Messer remembers the day when the world changed forever.

“I was about a block from the Pentagon when the 9/11 attacks occurred—and saw the traffic jams … trying to get through the confusion … not having situational awareness except for the newsfeeds we were getting from New York,” she said. “We couldn’t use our cell phones; everything was clogged on the system. The subways had been stopped. There really was confusion.”

A senior vice president of Army programs at Booz Allen Hamilton, Ms. Messer said the chaos of that day—and specifically the lack of situational awareness and inadequate communications—highlighted the glaring need for first responders and the military to have better information technology (IT) interoperability. Since then, solving the interoperability problem has been the most critical focus of the military in the IT arena.

Progress is tremendous, especially in communications, but technologies evolve so fast that the new challenge is in integrating and deploying them quickly enough to benefit the warfighters in the field.

“Taking new technologies and integrating them rapidly is where some of the new innovations are coming from—and how you build the systems and how you use more advanced technologies to achieve interoperability faster is the exciting part of where things are going,” Ms. Messer said.

What we take for granted—television news at the end of the day, for example, which comes from video satellite feed or via cell phone technology through a network—is what the warfighter needs access to in real time to carry out the fight most effectively.

In-theater military IT improvement since 9/11 has been the most powerful factor enabling effective and agile military warfighting strategies in response to insurgent and terrorist operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has significantly enhanced the situational awareness of warfighters, giving them the capability to make the right decisions at the right time— accomplished primarily by sharing such information as fullmotion video and metadata; data from fixed, vehicle, and 58

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Booz Allen Hamilton, a global strategy and technology consulting firm, works with clients to deliver results that endure. Booz Allen provides services to major international corporations and government clients around the world. Functional areas of expertise include strategy, organization and change leadership, operations, information technology, and technology management. (www.boozallen.com) airborne sensors operating day and night in good weather and bad; and a common operating picture developed by improved methods of communications, Ms. Messer said.

The need to respond to insurgent-type threats such as improvised explosive devices built with off-the-shelf technologies has led to other advances in military IT as well.

“Speed matters,” she said. “Whatever fire you put out today, they are already thinking of ways to counter what you just detected.”

A West Point graduate, former Army officer, and former Army Reservist, Ms. Messer said many Booz Allen Hamilton employees have strong military backgrounds and IT expertise, which gives them the mission understanding necessary to provide the military with programmatic and technical assistance.

“We have a whole spectrum of solutions, and ensure that with each solution comes the proper training, planning, engineering, and process in how you use the technology,” she said. She added that Booz Allen Hamilton is not an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) that develops big platforms, and that each theater requires different solutions. “We provide more of those rapid IT solutions that usually support the military or OEMs there in theater.”

Different Fighting Fields Extreme differences in terrain and existing infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan call for different IT solutions in theater.

Except for the northern part of the country, Iraq is mostly flat. This topography, combined with the country’s emerging infrastructure of roads, facilities, and fiber optic networks—

STANDING TOGETHER FOR AMERICA’S RESERVISTS

forces, and industry.

Booz Allen Hamilton is partnering with the Army on its network needs throughout both countries via various Department of Defense (DoD) organizations. The company is involved in three primary areas: research and development of technologies, engineering, testing, and integration; technology programmatics behind all the engineering and implementation; and design and architecture of many of the network systems, focusing on how the warfighter uses those systems.

Innovations and Challenges The most significant IT innovations in theater are in the fusing dissemination of sensor collection and full-motion, searchable video to combat users at the tactical edge, which has overtaken traditional stovepipe data systems, Ms. Messer said.

Much of this information is now provided in real time, allowing better and faster analysis, interpretation, understanding, and response to threats to U.S., allied, and coalition forces, as well as to the civilian populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

These innovations have resulted from a combination of technology advances and operational requirements, developed by troops who best understand the requirements and can drive technology to fit the operational needs.

Being able to access the right information at the right time,

Iraq’s emerging infrastructure of roads and facilities as well as commercial interests make the country ripe for new technology.

the

Officer / May–June 2011

DEpARTMENT OF DEFENSE

used both by the military and the Iraqi populace, and continually bolstered by commercial interests—make possible a broader use of line-of-sight and ground-based technologies.

Those technologies won’t always work in Afghanistan, however, where mountainous terrain, the dearth of roads and other infrastructure, its sheer vastness, and an active insurgency call for satellite-based—not fixed—capabilities to bring situational awareness to the individual warfighter. The multinational coalition force–nature of the fight in Afghanistan also presents unique challenges in comparison to Iraq in terms of data sharing, networking, and dissemination.

In both theaters, IT is stressed, Ms. Messer said. “There is a significant requirement for that immediate bandwidth that you want as 24/7 as possible, but there are physical limitations to the communications networks and the availability of relay and imagery satellites to gather or pass key information from those who collect it to those that need it,” she said. “So both theaters are challenges, but there are differences.”

The technologies themselves also present challenges, considering the weight and power of any of the payloads.

Extreme weather is factored into designs as well, as is the very nature of rapid changes and the need to integrate new technologies. Making all of this coalesce into working systems requires a close collaboration between the military, coalition

59

StarS induStry newS

acquisition, and deployment of those technologies.” The downside of rapid procurement, however, is maintaining interoperability with new and existing systems.

Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain, lack of roads, and other infrastructure make it more difficult for technological advances to move forward.

from multiple feeds, has advanced greatly. Because the network is still new in Iraq, the military is laying down some of the most modern technology available today. The improvement of networks and force protection systems within theatre has also expanded the scope of data that can be used for intelligence purposes. Overall, IT advances are force multipliers, enabling the warfighter to develop a better understanding of the battle space. Combat operations can be focused on known threats, with better targeting as well as civilian protection.

But these innovations come with implementation challenges—specifically, the lack of availability of infrastructure and adequate bandwidth for information fusion and exchange, particularly in Afghanistan. Other challenges include integrating inputs and outputs from systems developed independently and thrust into use due to operational needs but without the integration, planning, and synchronized information architecture necessary to efficiently and effectively gather, assess, and disseminate information quickly and accurately to users.

A nontechnical innovation that has greatly speeded up the process of getting new IT technologies to the mission has been the streamlining of DoD’s acquisition process. Major systems acquisitions, including testing and quality assurance, could take up to five years in the military. But because IT technology advances so quickly and the threat evolves just as rapidly, there is a tremendous need for rapid acquisition.

“There is a shorter time now between getting an idea that is going to help the warfighter to actually delivering it right there in theatre,” Ms. Messer said. “So innovation is more than a technology flavor; it is innovation in terms of process, 60

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Department of Defense

Future Threats A cyberterrorist attack is one of the biggest threats facing not only the military but the nation’s security as a whole, Ms. Messer said. To protect the integrity of these networks and data in the operational environment, Booz Allen Hamilton is looking at using technology such as the cloud, an Internetbased, hosted computing network that provides easy, scalable access to computing resources and IT services, with advanced analytics, which is unique, innovative, and transformative data analysis.

“How do you use the cloud when you are using networks, and use the benefits of the cloud to do advanced analytics to effectively leverage all the data that is being generated out there in theater?” she asked.

Advanced analytics are critical for filtering through data so warfighters can collect what they need fast, without having to make sense of all the data feeds coming in. This requires a better use of cloud technologies, she said.

“In initiatives such as our cloud computing and advanced analytics, along with mobile/digital applications, we are developing strategies, technology roadmaps, and threat assessments to ensure our Department of Defense IT clients will be able to leverage the best the IT community can develop into affordable, secure, and reliable IT systems for military use.” 

Northrop Grumman’s Joint STARS Re-Engine Program Hits Milestone Northrop Grumman recently completed the JT8D propulsion pod’s bleed air system’s preliminary design review for the E-8C joint surveillance Target Attack Radar System. The program team is redesigning the E-8C’s commercial off-theshelf bleed air system’s equipment to support the Joint STARs re-engine program. The system extracts high-pressured hot air generated from the JT8D’s engines and converts it into cool air to pressurize and/or cool the aircraft’s systems and equipment.

Today, the 17-aircraft Joint STARS fleet is the only all-weather, long-range, real-time, wide-area surveillance and battlemanagement and command-and-control weapons system in the world. Flown by the 116th Air Control Wing based in Warner Robins, Ga., since 2001, Joint STARs has completed more than 63,000 hours in 5,200 combat missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation New Dawn.

STANDING TOGETHER FOR AMERICA’S RESERVISTS

Northrop Grumman Corporation supports the Air Force Reserve with state-of-the-art products such as LITENING AT for precision targeting on the F-16, A-10, and B-52; APN-241 radars for the C-130s; V-9 radars for the F-16s; Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures for the C-130s, C-5s, and C-17s; and Joint Threat Emitters for Training.

Northrop Grumman...defining the future! (www.northropgrumman.com)

To Combat Anxiety, TriWest Offers New Service TriWest’s new Disease Management program for clinically diagnosed anxiety now joins the wellness and disease management programs offered to eligible Tricare beneficiaries.

Anxiety is a normal reaction to stress and, in general, can help one cope. But when anxiety becomes an excessive, irrational dread of everyday situations, it develops into a disabling disorder. Eligible beneficiaries in the TriWest region suffering from this level of anxiety can receive extra help at no cost. The Anxiety Disease Management program at TriWest offers a number of services to help beneficiaries cope with their disorder, including a health coach who works with one’s primary care manager to tailor an action plan. As needed, the beneficiary can also access smoking cessation, exercise, medication, and nutrition help from a TriWest health coach. Tricare determines eligibility; beneficiaries will be referred to TriWest.

TriWest Healthcare Alliance partners with the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide access to cost-effective, high-quality health care for 2.8 million members of America’s military family in the 21-state Tricare West Region. TriWest is the largest DoD contractor based in Arizona and has more than 1,900 employees—about half of whom are military dependents or veterans. (www.triwest.com)

Raytheon Teams with West Point to Combat Insider Threat To arm warfighters with the ability to rapidly detect and neutralize insider threats, Raytheon has teamed with the U.S.

Military Academy (USMA) at West Point for a study about insider threats on war front lines. Cadets from West Point’s department of electrical engineering and computer science are conducting a study to determine how insiders typically attack within a forward-operating base on war front lines. They will then make recommendations on how to detect and deter these threats. The project provides cadets with opportunities to apply theory and newfound knowledge to real-world military challenges that they may soon face. Insider-threat risks may pose life-threatening consequences and are some of the hardest to identify for Soldiers in forward-operating bases. Because the operational tempo is fast and ever-changing, Soldiers have very little time to address the problems posed by potential insider threats. To identify and characterize behaviors of malicious insiders, the cadets have deployed the Raytheon SureView information protection solution on a USMA network within a simulated forward-operating base environment.

Raytheon Company is a technology leader specializing in defense, homeland security, and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 87 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration, and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications, and intelligence systems, as well as mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide. (www.raytheon.com)

USAA Supports VFW Foundation Campaign USAA presented a $250,000 check to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) on March 7 for the VFW Foundation’s Return the Favor campaign. Return the Favor provides assistance to military personnel and their families, offering services that include financial assistance grants for housing, medical, or basic assistance needs, prepaid phone cards, assistance filing disability and benefit claims, and “welcome home” and “send off ” events for troops. The spokesman for USAA, now an official cosponsor of the campaign, stated that military families have unique financial needs and USAA’s sponsorship of the Return the Favor program will enable VFW to give the very best to the people who dedicated their lives to serving our country. the

Officer / May–June 2011

61

StarS induStry newS Boeing Begins Final Assembly Of First Navy P-8A Aircraft USAA, a diversified financial services group of companies, provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services to 7.3 million members of the U.S. military and their families. Known for its legendary commitment to exceptional member service, USAA is consistently recognized for its outstanding service, employee well-being, and financial strength. USAA membership is open to all who have honorably served our nation in the U.S. military. Visit USAA’s website to learn more. (www.usaa.com)

Oshkosh Defense Supports National Guard Youth Foundation Oshkosh Defense supported the National Guard Youth Foundation as a platinum sponsor of its ChalleNGe Champions Gala on March 1 in Washington, D.C. The annual event is held to raise awareness about the Youth ChalleNGe Program, which provides high school dropouts with new opportunities and honors those who have turned their lives around through the program. The foundation has graduated more than 100,000 cadets around the country through the ChalleNGe program, which began in 1993. The program consists of a 22-week residential phase followed by a 12-month mentoring phase.

It is open for 16- to 18-year-old male and female high school dropouts. There are 33 ChalleNGe program sites in 27 states and Puerto Rico. Oshkosh Defense has a history of supporting military members and their families. The company also recruits and employs active-duty and retired military members, including many who serve in the National Guard and Reserves.

Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, is an industry-leading global designer and manufacturer of tactical military trucks and armored wheeled vehicles, delivering a full product line of conventional and hybrid vehicles, advanced armor options, proprietary suspensions, and vehicles with payloads that can exceed 70 tons. (www.oshkoshdefense.com)

62

the

Officer / May–June 2011

Boeing began final assembly in March of the first U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon production aircraft. The P-8A is the first of six low-rate initial production aircraft that Boeing is building as part of a $1.6 billion contract awarded by the Navy in January. The Navy plans to purchase 117 of the Boeing 737based P-8A anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to replace its P-3 fleet; the first will be delivered on schedule in 2012 in preparation for initial operational capability, which is planned for 2013. The Poseidon team is using a first-in-industry in-line production process that draws on Boeing’s Next-Generation 737 production system. All aircraft modifications unique to the P-8A are made in sequence during fabrication and assembly.

The start of final assembly on Spirit AeroSystems followed after the March 7 delivery of the P-8A fuselage to Boeing .

The Boeing Company is the world’s largest aerospace company, with leading products and services in commercial and military aircraft and space and communications. Boeing military products include fighters, bombers, tankers, transports, and helicopters, along with missiles, homeland security, advanced information, communications, and space systems. Military aerospace support also provides maintenance and upgrades to all these systems. Boeing products are in use in 145 countries. (www. boeing.com)

Delta Dental of California has partnered with DoD since 1998 to administer the Tricare Retiree Dental Program (TRDP). The TRDP is the only voluntary group dental benefits plan authorized by the U.S. government for uniformed services retirees and their families, including gray-area retirees. The TRDP provides comprehensive coverage to more than 1.1 million enrollees worldwide. (www.trdp.org)

STANDING TOGETHER FOR AMERICA’S RESERVISTS

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., a business area of Lockheed Martin, is a leader in the design, research and development, systems integration, production, and support of advanced military aircraft and related technologies. Its customers include the military services of the United States and allied countries throughout the world.

Products include the F-16, F-22, F-117, C-5, C-130 & 130J, P-3, S-3, and U-2. (www.lockheedmartin.com)

For more than a decade, Logistics Management Resources Inc. has provided award-winning, cost-effective services to all areas of automated logistics support services. LMR, an employeeand veteran-owned small business, provides logistics management support services to DoD and all Army components with expertise in maintenance, supply, transportation, deployment, aviation logistics, materiel readiness, and training development. (www.lmrinc.com)

Daimler Trucks North America provides a full line of Freightliner and Western Star transportation to the U.S. government: military trucks, AAFES vehicles, and GSA medium and heavy duty trucks. DTNA currently provides the M915A5 6x4 line haul tractor, the M916A3 6x6 light equipment transporter, and the M917A2 6x6 20T dump truck to the U.S. Army. (www.daimler-trucksnorthamerica.com/govt/)

Bonner & Associates is the nation’s premier grassroots organizing firm. For more than 25 years, it has successfully built grassroots support for issues such as funding for the B-2 stealth bomber, Seawolf submarine, and the National Missile Defense Program. Bonner & Associates is proud to have worked for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other organizations focused on this country’s national security. (www.bonnerandassociates.com)

Humana Military Healthcare Services is a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor for the administration of the Tricare program in the South Region of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Humana Military’s mission is to work collaboratively with its DoD partners in the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective, accessible health care services to the military population Humana serves. (www.humana-military.com)

DRS Technologies, headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., is a leading supplier of integrated products, services, and support to military forces, intelligence agencies, and prime contractors worldwide. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica S.p.A., which employs more than 73,000 people worldwide. (www.drs.com)

the

Officer / May–June 2011

63

BOOK REVIEW 64

THE REAL RUMSFELD? Review by Col Will Holahan, USMCR (Ret.) Readers may expect many things from Known and Unknown, Donald Rumsfeld’s recent memoir, but they will not find explanation in detail. Still, they may find it interesting to see all of Mr. Rumsfeld’s career in one piece of work.

A man of few, often cryptic, and candid spoken remarks, Mr. Rumsfeld admits regularly throughout this work that, in 20-20 hindsight, he might have said it another way. That the media always gets it wrong starts to wear a little thin after a while, however.

The book’s title evokes reader memories of his “unknown unknowns” comment and the media’s fondness for perennial jousting with the former defense secretary. This reader was reminded yet again of Yogi Berra’s famous quip: “The future’s hard to predict because it hasn’t happened yet.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s comment about Washington “being 60 square miles surrounded by reality” is another reminder.

Loyalty to subordinates who served him well, regardless of the actual quality of their recommendations or work on strategic policy issues, shows throughout the book. Although a Navy Reserve officer, retiring with the rank of captain, Mr. Rumsfeld spends almost no time describing this parallel career. He does share some of the more poignant personal issues he and his family had to deal with throughout his long government career, which serves to make him appear somewhat less distant a personality to readers.

A key takeaway in this work details the almost casual way momentum built for the Bush administration to decide to implement regime change in Iraq. Readers will see a sketch of an administration that was partially dysfunctional on Iraq policy planning, with a chief of staff who should have been knocking heads but wasn’t and a president who should have demanded closer Cabinet-level coordination and execution but didn’t, and as a result never got it.

Mr. Rumsfeld is not particularly kind to then–Secretary of State Colin Powell, who appears to have chosen to communicate through staff leaks to The Washington Post rather than to offer clear insight and opinion via the forum of internal National Security Council meetings. The fact that Mr. Rumsfeld documents continual reference to Mr. Powell’s repeated lack of comment at these meetings was surprising.

Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state under President George W. Bush, doesn’t escape scrutiny either. A brilliant academic, but clearly out of her element on national security or policy management, Ms. Rice is depicted as one inclined to cobble together often disconnected inputs into parts of a policy so that dissenters in high-level discussions could feel the

Officer / May–June 2011

Known and Unknown

By Donald Rumsfeld

832 pages • $36 • Sentinel HC they had won at least a part of something.

In other matters, the reasons for a transfer of GEN David McKiernan is clear, as Mr. Rumsfeld comments on his first meeting with the general for a tour of Iraq early on. There it was disclosed that the general, who was in charge of troops on the ground in Iraq, spent time each week commuting to Bagdad from his headquarters in Kuwait, something Mr. Rumsfeld found unacceptable. GEN McKiernan was concurrently commander of International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, June 2008 to July 2009, and commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan, October 2005 to June 2009.

Regardless of one’s opinion of this two-time secretary of defense, ROA members will find this book easy to read and will gain somewhat useful insight into a long government career. It was a career that continues to have much impact on our Total Force. Only history will fully critique the second order effects of “unknown unknowns” on that Total Force. 

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION The Reserve Officers Association of the United States Serving Citizen Warriors through advocacy and education since 1922 Join Online at www.roa.org/join RANK

FIRST NAME

M.I.

LAST NAME

DATE OF BIRTH

/ MAILING ADDRESS CITY

STATE

ZIP+4 CODE

SPOUSE’S NAME

Personal E-MAIL ADDRESS (preferred)

PHONE Home

Work E-MAIL ADDRESS Cell BRANCH OF SERVICE (Circle One) [Civilian Spouse applicants, circle your spouse's BOS]

A

MC

N

/

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (Optional)

AF

CG

PHS

NOAA

(

)

(

Work (

)

)

MILITARY COMPONENT (Circle One)

Reserve

Regular

MILITARY STATUS (Circle One)

Nat’l Guard

Active

Retired

Former Officer

RESERVE UNIT /ORGANIZATION ASSIGNED TO:

TERM MEMBERSHIPS

❏

1 Year/$55

❏

2 Years/$100

❏

3 Years/$140

❏

SPOUSE TERM MEMBERSHIPS 5 Years/$200

LIFE MEMBERSHIP * (Deferred payment option—See below)

❏ ❏ ❏

❏ ❏ ❏

Under Age 31/$600 51–55/$480 66–70/$340

31–40/$580 56–60/$440 71–75/$280

❏ ❏ ❏

❏

1 Year/$28

❏

2 Years/$50

❏

3 Years/$70

❏

5 Years/$100

SPOUSE LIFE MEMBERSHIPS* (Deferred payment option—See below)

41–50/$530 61–65/$390 76 and over/$250

❏ Under Age 31/$300 ❏ 51–55/$240 ❏ 66–70/$170

❏ ❏ ❏

31–40/$290 56–60/$220 71–75/$140

❏ ❏ ❏

41–50/$265 61–65/$195 76 and over/$125

*Deferred Payment Plan available for life membership applicants. Pay 10% down and the balance in 9 equal monthly installments. Select in payment options below.

VIRTUAL MEMBERSHIP

❏

5-Year Virtual membership—$175.00

FAX or MAIL APPLICATION TO ROA MEMBER SERVICES One Constitution Avenue NE Washington DC 20002-5618 FAX 202.646.7762 Questions? Call us LOCAL 202.479.2200 Toll Free: 800.809.9448 OPTION 1.

MILITARy SPOUSE RATE: ❏ 50% off regular fee (except Virtual, which is same as primary member).

CO-MEMBERSHIPS WITH MILITARy ASSOCIATIONS (For New Members Only)

❏

“Any member of another qualifying military association, who meets membership requirements in all other regards, who applies for membership in ROA, can take a one-time $15 discount against all the normal dues rates — term member rates only.”

OFFICER CANDIDATES

❏

AROTC/NROTC/AFROTC/Service Academy Cadets & Midshipmen/OCS and State Military Academy Cadets: $20/year. Expected commission date: _____________________

www.roa.org

GIFT MEMBERSHIPS (1-year gift membership)

❏ ❏

For newly commissioned officers and newly appointed WOs who apply to ROA within their first year of service.

For officers & WOs recently released from active duty.

PAyMENT OPTIONS

❏ Check enclosed

❏ Cash

❏ Charge full amount to my credit card:

Card #: ______________________________________________

❏ MasterCard

❏ Visa

❏ American Express

❏ Discover

Expiration Date: ___________________________ Security Code: ____________________

★ LIFE APPLICANTS DEFERRED PAyMENT OPTION

❏

DEFERRED PAYMENT OPTION: Charge 10% down-payment and balance in 9 equal monthly payments. ❏ Charge my credit card monthly for the remaining 9 payments. ❏ Invoice me monthly for the remaining 9 payments.

Signature: _________________________________________________ Date of application: __________________________________________________ SPONSOR NAME

SPONSOR MEMBER NUMBER

DEPT./CHAPTER PREFERENCES APRIL 2010

Mail To:

WWW.ROA.ORG

Reserve Officers Association Attn: Member Services Department One Constitution Avenue NE Washington DC 20002-5618 the

Officer / SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2010 63