by Julian Barnes

General Stanley McChrystal has not yet left for Washington but he is expected to depart by 1 pm, Eastern. McChrystal will be meeting in the Pentagon with Secretary Gates as well as meeting in the White House.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a statement Tuesday expressing concern for the article, and calling it a distraction that detracted from the war effort.

"I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case," Gates said.

Gates statement did not included an explicit statement of support for McChrystal, as some defenders of McChrystal had hoped it would say. Instead, Gates made clear that McChrystal had been recalled to Washington to discuss the article and defend himself.

You can read the full statement after the jump.

by Julian E. Barnes

The Army issued a formal apology to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan after it sent them letters with the salutation "Dear John Doe."

In December, the Army sent out 7,000 letters to the families of most of the 3,544 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 containing information about services or gifts for which they may be eligible.

Although the envelopes were properly addressed, a software problem caused an error that printed the place-holder salutation of "Dear John Doe" at the top of the letter. The letters were printed by a private contractor.

J. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the service had not received any angry complaints, but several families called to alert the military to the error on their letters. That prompted an investigation showing that most likely all the letters were misprinted.

"There are no words to adequately apologize for this mistake or for the hurt it may have caused," Brig. Gen. Reuben Jones, the Army's adjutant general, said in a statement. In addition to the formal apology from the military, Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, is sending the families a letter explaining the error.

See the rest of the report on the Army's Dear John Doe letter in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:

by Julian Barnes

Iran has reduced the number of roadside bombs they are pushing into Iraq, a top military officer said today.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the head of the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, said there had been a sharp reduction of the number of deadly explosively formed projectiles, a deadly bomb the military said are often designed or built in Iran.

"Someone on the Shia side has made a decision to bring them down," Metz told a group of reporters at a breakfast meeting.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington could be eased and the risk of military confrontation between the countries reduced, if Iran has significantly ratcheted down the weapons they are smuggling into Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg News)

by Frank James

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it pretty clear today, he really wasn't hoping to stay around Washington beyond the Bush Administration. He really had hoped he would be able to return to his home in the Pacific Northwest on Jan 20. Famously, he had a countdown clock ticking down to what was supposed to be his last minute in office.

But when President-elect Barack Obama asked him to remain to serve the new administration, the ever dutiful Gates said yes. Asked by a reporter about his clock today, Gates said:

Well, first of all, I've thrown away the clock -- (laughter) -- because it was absolutely useless -- (chuckling) -- at the end of the day. The president-elect and I agreed that this would be open-ended, and so there is no time frame.

With respect to my comments over the last six months, I guess I would say that I was engaged in my own form of strategic deterrence. It was my hope that if I made enough noise about how much I did not want to stay here and how much I wanted to go back to the Northwest, that I wouldn't have to worry about the question ever being asked, because I also knew myself well enough to know that if the question was asked, what the answer would be.
And it was the same as with President Bush two years ago. With the country fighting two wars and our men and women in uniform at risk, if a president asks me to help, there's no way I can say no. So I spent a long time hoping the question would never be popped. I then hoped he'd change his mind. And yesterday it became a reality.

by Frank James

Defense officials have been concerned for years about the threat to U.S. government computer networks posed by cyberattacks from American adversaries whether they're governments, criminal networks or hackers, with particular concern about China and Russia.

It turns out there was another one this past week, apparently of Russian origins, which was of such consequence that President Bush was informed.

As Julian Barnes of the Tribune's Washington Bureau reports:

Senior military leaders took the exceptional step of briefing President Bush this week on a severe and widespread electronic attack on Defense Department computers that may have originated in Russia -- an incursion that posed unusual concern among commanders and raised potential implications for national security.

by Frank James

Gen. David Petraeus today took over the U.S. military's Central Command which has responsibility for some of the most critical and combustible parts of the world, including the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Petraeus is the closest the U.S. has to a conquering hero of Iraq for his execution of the surge in Iraq is widely agreed to have been masterful and responsible for much of the reduction in violence there.

Which makes it interesting that Petraeus was smacked down by the Bush Administration on an idea he had to visit Syria after assuming his new command.

by Frank James

How much have you heard on the presidential campaign trail about the growing weaknesses in the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

I don't recall hearing much about it at all, which probably says more about the way we view things in the post-Cold War world than we did during that anxious period of modern history.

But still it's no less true that the U.S. has real problems with a nuclear arsenal that's aging and a growing shortage of people who know how to turn that around.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to drive home that point yesterday during a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The inescapable conclusion from what he said it that our nuclear arsenal faces a crisis.

by Frank James

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington today of, among other things, the need for the U.S. to modernize its nuclear weapons capability. I'll deal with what he said on that score in another post.

But I was struck by part of an answer he gave about Iraq during the Q&A session following his speech. A questioner asked him what further steps should be taken to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Gates essentially said Europe could and should do more to isolate Iran. Then he related a fascinating story about something he personally experienced three decades ago involving Iranian officials:

I will tell you, you know, there has been a lot of conversation about this. I have spent 30 years in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate. When Jessica (Matthews, now president of the Carnegie Endowment) and I were working together under Dr. Brzezinski -- I was with Zbig when he was at the 25th anniversary of the Algerian revolution. And we got word that the Iranian leadership wanted to meet with him. This was October 1979. And Zbig got permission to do this. So we met with the prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister of the new Iranian revolutionary government. I think it was the first senior-level meeting with the Iranian leadership since the revolution.

by Aamer Madhani

Sen. Barack Obama commended the Pentagon for postponing the controversial competition to overhaul the Air Force's aging tanker fleet, but he took aim today at the McCain campaign for its connections to the European aerospace manufacturer battling Chicago-based Boeing Co. for the $35 billion contract.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the surprise announcement on Wednesday that he was leaving the decision in the competition between Boeing and a consortium led by Northrop Grumman, which includes European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., parent of Airbus SAS, to the next administration.

In the remarks delivered via satellite to the conference of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers in Orlando, Fla., Obama reminded the union audience of Sen. John McCain's ties to lobbyists who worked on behalf of EADS

Sen. John McCain's former finance chairman was Thomas Loeffler, a former House member from Texas. His K Street lobbying firm, the Loeffler Group, began lobbying for EADS North America in 2007. Other campaign advisors who worked with Loeffler on the tanker program include finance director Susan Nelson and political advisor William Ball.

"While it was right for the Pentagon to cancel competition yesterday for the next generation of tankers, it was wrong for John McCain to reward two of the Washington lobbyists who worked against Boeing with jobs on his campaign," said Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee.

Loeffler resigned from the campaign in May after McCain implemented a policy prohibiting any campaign staffer from being a registered lobbyist or foreign agent.

By Aamer Madhani

The Pentagon announced today that it has canceled the controversial competition to replace the Air Force's Eisenhower-era fleet of aerial refueling tankers after defense officials concluded they can't pick a winner before the conclusion of the Bush administration.

Both of the competitors for the $35 billion contract, Chicago-based Boeing Co. and Nothrop-Grumman, have been notified and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress of the decision during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this morning.

The decision comes in the shadow of top Boeing officials demanding more time to draw up a new bid. Boeing officials said that they might not bid on the contract if they weren't given six additional months to submit a proposal based on a larger airframe.

"Over the past seven years the process has become enormously complex and emotional - in no small part because of mistakes and missteps along the way by the Department of Defense," Gates said. "It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we can no longer complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly charged environment. The resulting "cooling off" period will allow the next Administration to review objectively the military requirements and craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X."

Northrop Grumman and lawmakers from Alabama, which was expected to host some of the aircraft manufacturing sites if Northrop won, responded with disappointment and outrage at the decision.

"Northrop Grumman entered this competition in good faith and proposed the
most modern, most capable tanker available, at the best value to the
American taxpayer," Randy Belote, III, Northrop's vice president for strategic communications said in a statement. "While we understand, we are greatly concerned about the potential future implications for the Defense acquisition process."

Some of the Alabama Congressional delegation was not as politic.

"It has been seven years since the Air Force initiated its program to replace the KC-135 fleet," said Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) "The current competition began on April 2006, and DoD's latest plan was to award a contract by the end of the year. Today, we are told DoD is scrapping all the work that has been done by all parties since April 2006 and is essentially declaring the project too hard to do."

by Kim Barker and Aamer Madhani

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Abdullah Masjidi cannot go home anymore, though his village is only 30 miles from the capital. When he tried to drive there this summer, he was stopped by friendly villagers warning that he looked too Western. "You don't have a beard," he was told. "The Taliban will kill you."

Masjidi and other Afghans are looking for someone to re-establish law and order in their country, where Taliban-led insurgents have gained increasingly more power and now threaten provinces near Kabul, the capital.

For American military officials and both U.S. presidential candidates, the answer is more troops--a "mini-surge" of about 10,000 personnel. But those extra troops would find a far different scenario in Afghanistan than in Iraq, one complicated by mountainous terrain and a population famous for resisting foreign invasions and suspicious of U.S. motives. That suspicion has increased since the issue of civilian casualties in the conflict has tainted the image of international troops.

It also would probably be more difficult to separate Afghanistan's ethnic Pashtuns from the Taliban insurgency, which is a homegrown movement, than it was for U.S.-led forces to separate some of Iraq's Sunni insurgents from Al Qaeda, which was born of a foreign ideology, analysts say.

And it's hard to imagine any victory as long as insurgents can find refuge in neighboring Pakistan.

On Monday, Pakistan's top security official acknowledged that Al Qaeda's leadership moved freely in and out of the country. Rehman Malik, the Interior Ministry chief, said the Al Qaeda "syndicate" had been allowed to operate across the region and "free passage was given to them" to come to Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistani intelligence and a witness told The Associated Press that at least 15 people were killed in an attack Wednesday involving U.S.-led forces in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border. The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said it had no report of an incursion; Pakistan's army confirmed an attack but did not specify if it believed foreign troops were involved.

Masjidi, like many average Afghans, Afghan officials and Western analysts, does not think more troops alone are the answer to Afghanistan's Taliban-led insurgency. Some say more troops could even stiffen the resistance.

"If they put more U.S. troops in my village, there will be more bloodshed," said Masjidi, 22, from Wardak province, which borders Kabul. "There will be more people killed by the Americans protecting themselves. Then there will be more suicide bombs and other attacks."

Those are the issues for the U.S. presidential candidates as they weigh plans to send more troops to Afghanistan.

by Aamer Madhani

The ongoing and increasingly sharp rhetorical exchange between Washington and Moscow escalated on Wednesday as the Bush administration moved one step closer to completing a deal to build an American missile shield in Poland, paving the way for the U.S. to set up its first missile system in a former Soviet bloc nation.

The formal signing of the agreement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart comes days after top Russian officials threatened that the Poles could face an attack if Warsaw goes through with its plan to host 10 U.S. missile interceptors.

Russian leaders are convinced that the weapons system, which would sit in northern Poland about 115 miles from its borders, would be a threat against their country despite the assurances of U.S. officials that it is a defensive system to protect Europe and parts of the United States from a potential Iranian nuclear strike.

To operate the proposed missile defense system, the U.S. military would have to base a small number of troops in Poland as well as the Czech Republic. It's a move Russia says would violate post-Cold War agreements that the U.S. would not base its troops in former Soviet bloc states.

Russia also has previously proposed a joint global missile defense system that would include Russia, the United States and others, but U.S. officials have been unreceptive to the proposal.

Within hours of Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski signing the agreement in Warsaw, the Russians notified Norway's Embassy in Moscow that it was freezing military ties with NATO, the Associated Press reported.

The Russian pledge to suspend its relationship with NATO comes a day after NATO Secretary Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said there could not be "business as usual" with the Kremlin until the 13-day-old crisis in Georgia is resolved.

Some analysts said it is meaningful that the U.S. and Poland closed the agreement on the proposed missile defense system in the midst of the unsuccessful effort by White House and NATO officials to push Russia to withdraw its troops from Georgia.

"The timing of the conclusion of the missile defense deal is anything but accidental," said Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow for Europe studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Now that the missile system is going forward, the deal takes on much sharper overtones from the Russian perspective."

by Frank James

Russians will no doubt view it as a Polish poke in the eye; top Russian officials have said as much.

But in the wake of Russia's invasion of the Republic of Georgia, the Republic of Poland has officially sided with the U.S. on a key issue that had previously found it uneasily poised between the Bush Administration and the Russian government led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and signed a pact to allow U.S. missile interceptors on Polish soil. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Warsaw today to sign the agreement at a very well-publicized ceremony.

Polish officials had been slow-walking discussions with the U.S. over the missiles for months. Even though the U.S. has insisted that it wanted the interceptors in Poland to counter the potential threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, the Russians have adamantly opposed the U.S. missiles, saying they viewed them as a threat because the missiles could weaken Russia's deterrent force of nuclear missiles.

Despite official Polish denials, the fact that the deal was finally reached with great alacrity after Russia's Georgia invasion has been interpreted by U.S. foreign affairs analysts as a direct result of Russia's aggression against a former Soviet satellite state.

In this instance, the Russians apparently are being reacquainted with the law of unintended consequences. Their actions in Georgia hastened the very consequences they found so undesirable, American interceptors in Poland.

by Aamer Madhani

In the wake of Russian threats against Poland for agreeing to host part of a proposed U.S. missile shield, Defense Secretary Robert Gates today said the Russians are singing "an old song" in their attempts to intimidate the Polish government.

After the Poles announced their intention to host 10 U.S. missile interceptors in Poland last week, the deputy chief of the Russian general staff told the Interfax news agency that Russian military could consider a possible nuclear strike against the Poles.

Russian President Dimitri Medvedev also repeated his country's stance that the American plan to build a missile shield as a threat against Russia. U.S. military officials say the system is not an offensive weapon and would help defend against a potential strike on Europe and the U.S. by Iran, but the Russians have remained steadfast in their opposition.

"It is a fairy tale that the U.S. defense shield missiles would be aimed at pariah states," said Medvedev, repeating the oft-voiced Russian concern about the Bush administration's desire to place interceptors in Poland and a satellite battery in the Czech Republic. "The missiles will be aimed at Russia."

In the aftermath of the Russian incursion in Georgia, Gates has dropped the polite diplomatic speak that he's employed in the past to address the Russian's concerns about the proposal.

Speaking on the Sunday morning talk shows today, Gates called out the Russians for being "ridiculous" in their bluster.

"I think it's very loose rhetoric and I think it's unnecessary and frankly it's empty rhetoric," Gates said on CNN's Late Edition. "The Russians aren't going to launch nuclear missiles at anybody because 10 defensive - missile interceptors are located in Poland. So I think some of the leadership of Russia needs to get a better handle on the leadership of some of the folks there."

Gates also acknowledged that he believes Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who stepped down as president earlier this year and was replaced by Medvedev, remains politically in control of Russia.

"We just want those in Russia who seem to be willing to look to the future, people perhaps like President Medvedev, to perhaps begin to exercise more influence here and get some of these people's rhetoric under control," he said on ABC's This Week.

The Bush administration has said it will work with the Poles and Czechs to give the Russians access to the missile defense system if it is built. Gates also noted that the White House agreed not to make the interceptors operational until the Iranians have test-launched a missile with the range to hit Western Europe.

by Aamer Madhani

It didn't seem that long ago that President Bush told the world about looking Vladimir Putin in the eye and "getting a sense of his soul."

Today, Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, brushed aside the question of whether Putin could be trusted, but he didn't exactly give the Russian prime minister a rousing endorsement.

"I have never believed that one should make national security policy on
the basis of trust," Gates said. "I think you make national security policy based on interests and on realities."

The Bush administration appears to have few options to pressure the Russians. Gates (pictured at right with the Joint Chiefs' vice chairman, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, smiling at a reporter's question) made crystal clear that U.S. military intervention is not an option and that because of commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan--as well as political sensitivities--that the U.S. was unlikely to take part in any peacekeeping mission in the region.

In his first comments since the fighting started in Georgia, Gates warned that Russia's actions could endanger Moscow-Washington relations for years to come." Gates' remarks at a Pentagon news conference comes a day after Russian troops drove into the Georgian city of Gori despite publicly agreeing to stop its offensive.

Gates, who was in the thick of U.S. policy-making at the CIA during the Cold War, said he didn't want to see U.S.-Russia relations slip into the strained status of that era, but he added that there should be consequences for the Russians actions in Georgia.

The defense secretary went on to say that Russia was attempting "to punish Georgia for daring to try to integrate with the West." Gates noted that every August since 2004 there have been minor skirmishes between the South Ossetia and Georgian troops.

"I think that the Russians' further message was to all of the parts of the former Soviet Union, as a signal about trying to integrate with the West and move outside of the long-time Russian sphere of influence," Gates said. "So I think that they had an opportunity to make some very broad points and, I think, they seized that opportunity."

An F-16 aligns with the boom from a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker as part of a training exercise over California. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, file)

by Aamer Madhani and Julie Johnsson, updated at 4:20 pm ET

Pentagon officials have re-opened the contentious competition to provide the Air Force with a fleet of new tankers, and worked the contest rules to favor the larger jet proposed by Northrop Grumman Corp., a Congressional aide told the Tribune.

Chicago-based Boeing Co. is battling California-based Northrop for a $35 billion contract to overhaul the Air Force's Eisenhower-era fleet of aerial tankers, essentially flying gas stations.

The Pentagon said last month it would re-open the contract to build 179 new tankers, awarded to the Northrop-EADS team in February, in light of the deep flaws found in the process by the Government Accountability Office.

Draft request for proposals, spelling out the performance guidelines sought by the government, were sent to Congress and the two aerospace companies Wednesday morning.

A source familiar with the long and complex document said that Pentagon procurement officials have added language that appears to explicitly favor the larger jet proposed by Northrop and the France-based parent of Airbus SAS.

The latest request for proposal awards points for an aircraft that exceeds the fuel and cargo thresholds previously set by government evaluators, addressing a key point of contention raised by the GAO, an investigative arm of Congress.

In a scathing report issued earlier this summer, the GAO had found that Air Force evaluators failed to follow their own criteria in selecting the larger Airbus A330 over the Boeing 767.

By Amanda Erickson

A House subcommittee Wednesday began examining whether gay men and women should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces for the first time in15 years.

Congress had not reconsidered the controversial 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy since it was approved by former President Bill Clinton in 1993. Currently, recruitment officials are not allowed to ask enlistees about their sexual orientation and service personnel may not engage in homosexual conduct or aggressively display homosexuality.

At the 2½-hour hearing, lawmakers focused on two key questions: What effect a change in the policy would have on troop unity and whether the current policy is hurting recruitment and retention of service members who are gay.

Occasionally, the debate got heated, such as when Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes gays in the military, suggested that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would increase the number of HIV-positive cases among service members. Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) called that contention "inappropriate" and said under that logic "you ought to recruit only lesbians to the military because they have the lowest incidence of HIV."

But the hearing mostly drew on the personal experience of openly gay former service members, retired sergeants and the head of a group that opposes allowing gays and lesbians to serve.

Capt. Joan Darrah, who served in the Navy for 30 years and won several commendations, spoke of the stress the policy caused her. Darrah had been at a meeting in the Pentagon just minutes before it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Seven of her colleagues were killed.

"The reality is that if I had been killed, my partner then of 11 years, would have been the last to know," she said. "I had not dared to list her in any of my paperwork."

by Frank James

As if U.S. troops in Iraq didn't have enough to deal with -- the many tours in-country and consequent separations from family, the possibility of being killed or maimed, the heat -- there's the possibility of being electrocuted or dying in a fire caused by faulty electrical work.

Congress has heard testimony about the problem, which has resulted in deaths of and injuries to U.S. troops and contractors and which appears related to Defense Department contractors using incompetent workers to do the wiring.

For instance, Senate Democrats held a hearing last week to examine the problem. The Democratic senators heard from Debbie Crawford, a licensed electrician who worked in Iraq.

Here's an extensive excerpt from her testimony last week which provides an excellent description of the problem:

Most work done in the Green Zone was awarded to subcontractors. The subcontractors employed third-country national and local national workers who were not familiar or skilled in U.S. quality standards, U.S. safety standards, and installation techniques, or U.S. codes. It was not uncommon for KBR electricians to go in after a subcontractor had supposedly completed a job, to actually complete it or repair their work.

The construction of small, temporary man-camps was a particular problem, and I personally received several complaints from Blackwater employees that they were being shocked in their trailers. The KBR employees supervising these electrical contractors often had no electrical experience at all. It was not uncommon for a labor foreman with no electrical experience to supervise Iraqi electrical subcontractors or third-country nationals doing electrical work.

Activists wave the anti radar flag during a protest against plan to build a U.S. Missile defense shield in Czech Republic, at Wenceslas Square, center of Prague, Czech Republic, 08 July 2008. (EPA/SRDJAN SUKI)

by Aamer Madhani

With time running out on for the Bush administration to execute its plan to build a U.S. missile shield in Europe, the director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency today criticized Russia for holding up the effort.

At a Pentagon news conference, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering said that Russia's "increasingly aggressive" rhetoric against a U.S. proposal to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a tracking system in the Czech Republic was unfounded.

Russia has been adamantly opposed to the U.S. plans to build a weapons system in Central Europe, which the Pentagon and Bush administration argue is necessary to protect the U.S. and its allies from Iran. U.S. intelligence officials conclude that Tehran could be able to launch an intercontinental missile as early as 2010.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week that his country will be forced to take "further steps in response" if Washington moves ahead with its plans for the missile shield. The Russian president's vague threat followed the Russian Foreign Ministry warning that it may launch a military response if the Czech Republic ratified an agreement to host the tracking system.

"I think it's incumbent upon them when they make increasingly aggressive statements, it's incumbent upon them to justify those," Obering said. "There is absolutely no justification in our eyes for some of their statements and some of their concerns about these sites."

Russia has argued that U.S. officials are overstating the Iranian threat. Russian officials also see plans for U.S. missile defense system near their border as an attempt by Washington to gain a military edge over them.

by Aamer Madhani

Ken Robinson, a former Army Special Forces intelligence officer turned Hollywood producer, was working on a short-lived Pentagon drama for CBS aptly titled the "E-Ring" when two of the show's writers stopped by his office to discuss the details of torture and other harsh interrogation methods.

The writers, Matthew Federman and Steve Scaia, seemed intent on accurately portraying torture on an episode of the television show in which a Special Forces operator was captured by Lebanese militants.

While Robinson was pleased by the writers' desire to thoroughly research the topic, he was concerned Federman and Scaia had a sanitized concept of some of the interrogation methods, including waterboarding, an interrogation technique that makes a prisoner believe he is in imminent danger of drowning.

"I asked them both: 'Do you really want to understand waterboarding?' " said Robinson, referring to the technique prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual. "And they go, 'Absolutely, we'd love to see it.' " I go, 'Well, you know, seeing it is not going to really help you. But ... if you were waterboarded, I think you could write an excellent episode.' "

The two writers were game. Federman would be waterboarded while Scaia would take notes.

Robinson, who had been waterboarded five times as part of his military training, tied Federman to a board, forced water down his throat, and the young writer said he felt the unmistakable of sensation of drowning.

Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the portrayal of torture on network television was a rarity. But the moment piqued interest in Hollywood and led to dozens of television and movie story lines in which American heroes deal with uncooperative antagonists who hold critical information about an imminent attack.

By 2003, the first year of the war in Iraq, there were 228 instances in which torture was portrayed on network TV, according to Human Rights First, a civil liberties group that advocates governments banning torture.

Last year, 117 scenes portrayed torture, according to the organization.

Read the rest of the story about Hollywood's portrayal of torture in the Chicago Tribune.

by Matthew Hay Brown

After a year and a half of pushing unsuccessfully for a timeable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, congressional Democrats have found an ally in Baghdad.

Iraq's national security adviser told reporters in Najaf today that the U.S.-backed government would not agree to the security deal it is negotiating with Washington unless it included details of a pullout.

"We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said. His comments echoed those made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi on Monday.

The State Department slapped the Iraqi demand down today.

"The U.S. government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the U.S. government, we want to withdraw; we will withdraw," spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters. "However, that decision will be conditions-based."

But the demand has found a willing audience among the congressional majority.

"President Bush refuses to listen to Congress or the American people, but he cannot support Iraqi political reconciliation and security and ignore Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the withdrawal," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

(Video above shows Darren Manzella in the 60 Minutes interview the Army later used as evidence the sergeant is gay.)

by Aamer Madhani

U.S. Army Sgt. Darren Manzella told his commanding officer nearly two years ago that he was gay--something he felt he had to do after receiving anonymous threatening e-mails from someone who said that people in the Army were aware of his sexual orientation.

He later provided Army investigators intimate pictures and video of him and his boyfriend--kissing, snuggling and holding each other. He said he wanted to stay in the Army, but he didn't want to hide who he was.

The Army investigated, but Manzella was told they could find no proof of his homosexuality. He would deploy to Kuwait with the rest of his unit.

Manzella, a decorated combat medic who also served in Iraq, even went on 60 Minutes in December to tell his story and speak out against the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" that prohibits out-of-the-closet troops from serving.

It wasn't until this spring that the Army concluded that Manzella, a 30-year-old from Upstate New York, was in fact gay and recommended him for discharge for violating don't ask, don't tell. Earlier this month, Manzella was officially kicked out of the service.

When his command at Fort Hood, Texas, notified him that they were recommending his discharge, Manzella said they offered him the 60 Minutes transcript as well as a copy of an Associated Press story about him as evidence that he was gay.

Never mind that he told his commanders the same story months before.

"I don't know if their hands were forced because of the 60 Minutes interview," Manzella said in telephone interview. "At that point it had gone up the chain of command."

by Amanda Erickson

It's official: FISA isn't going anywhere until after the Fourth of July recess.

Lawmakers will not vote on the domestic spying bill until July 8. The decision to hold the measure until then came after a day of procedural maneuvering by some senators who were upset with the bill's offer of retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the federal government 's warrantless requests to eavesdrop.

When the bill comes back to the floor, Sen. Chris Dodd (D. Conn.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) will introduce an amendment that would strike the immunity clause. Civil liberty proponents say this is important because it will give them the tools they need to dig up more information about the program. Without data, they say, they aren't able to bring cases arguing the wiretapping should be illegal.

"I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation," Feingold wrote in a statement. "It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

When the Senate finally votes, the bill will almost certainly pass with the immunity amendment.

Until late this afternoon, some staffers had still been (optimistically, it turns out) predicting that the measure would pass before the senators fly home for their breaks. Others thought it would be held until after the holiday. An announcement on the floor by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) around 7:15 tonight put the rumors to rest.

by Aamer Madhani updated at 6:20 p.m.

More than a week has passed since government auditors called on the Pentagon to reopen the bidding of a $35 billion contract to overhaul the Air Force's tanker fleet, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday that he still isn't sure if he will restart the bidding process for the lucrative contract.

"I haven't made any decisions yet," said Gates, weighing in publicly for the first time since the Government Accountability Office's report was released on June 19. "But I would say that I take the GAO report very seriously. They clearly pointed out some areas where we were deficient."

Gates comment was somewhat of a departure from his stance prior to the GAO recommending that the contract be re-bid, because the Air Force made several critical mistakes in evaluating the bids from Chicago-based Boeing Co. and the winning partnership led by Northrop Grumman.

The Air Force announced in late February that it was awarding the contract to build 179 new tankers--what essentially are flying gas stations--to a consortium of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., the parent of Boeing rival Airbus SAS.

After Boeing appealed the Air Force's decision to award the contract to Northrop, top Pentagon officials, including Gates, defended their decision and said that the process was fair and transparent.

Since the GAO recommendation was announced last week, Gates said he has met with top Pentagon brass to consider some of the GAO's concerns.

Among the errors the GAO said the Air Force made was not adequately evaluating whether the Northrop plane could fly faster and outmaneuver the service's fighter and transport fleet. There were also concerns that the Air Force made significant errors in calculating the military construction costs associated with the project.

By Mark Silva

The removal of North Korea from a list of states that sponsor terrorism and easing of restrictions under the Trading with Enemies Act will not "open the door" to a flood of new trade, the White House says, pointing to many more sanctions that Pyongyang still faces for human rights abuses and nuclear proliferation.

"This is not opening the door at this time for commercial relations," Steve Hadley, the president's national security adviser, said this morning. "That is one of the prospects that is open."

In exchange for North Korea's disclosure of its nuclear program - delivered today in documents for the Chinese, partners with the U.S. in six-party talks with North Korea - the Bush administration is lifting three sanctions under the Trading with Enemies Act but keeping two others. The White House also is advising Congress of its intent to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terror within 45 days.

"The degree of easing of sanctions is relatively minor," Hadley said. Yet the actions should be seen as significant in dealings with North Korea.

By Mark Silva

President Bush today hailed North Korea's disclosure of its nuclear program and promise to destroy part of its weapons-building reactor in a dramatic televised event as important first steps toward the goal of a nuclear weapon-free Korean peninsula.

Bush also moved to reward Pyongyang with two steps of his own: Lifting a U.S. ban on trade with North Koreans under the Trading with Enemies Act and a pledge to rescind his declaration of North Korea as a state sponsor of terror within 45 days if the nation lives up to its commitments.

"This is action for action," the president said during questions from reporters after a statement in the Rose Garden this morning.

Bush, who had identified North Korea as one of the three "axis of evil," acknowledged today that North Korea has much further to go in dismantling its weaponry and ending human rights abuses, but called this a welcome beginning,

"We will trust you only to the extent that you fulfill your promises," Bush said of the North Koreans. "This isn't the end of a process. This is the beginning of a process."

The U.S. remains concerned about human rights abuses in North Korea - including abduction of Japenese citizens - its nuclear proliferation and the threat it poses to its neighbors, said Bush, who also had targeted Iraq and Iran in his 2002 State of the Union "axis of evil" remarks.

"The U.S. has no illusions about the regime in Pyongyang," Bush said today.

by Aamer Madhani

The two U.S. senators from Kansas have what they say is the "gold standard" of military prisons in their back yard, but they have repeated their stance that Kansans want nothing to do with housing Guantanamo detainees.

The debate over what to do with Guantanamo was revived by the Supreme Court decision earlier this month that said the prisoners can ask federal judges to review the government's grounds for keeping them locked up without charges.

The left-leaning Washington think tank, Center for American Progress, has released a report recommending detainees slated for trial in military courts be transferred to the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. The suggestion has apparently gotten under two Republican lawmakers' skin.

In a letter Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts sent to their colleagues yesterday, the two lawmakers laid out the reasons why they believe the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth--the only maximum security lockup in the military system-- isn't secure enough to host some 270 enemy combatants that are now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Here is an excerpt:

by Aamer Madhani

Women were disproportionately discharged from the Army, Air Force and Marines in 2007 under the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays from openly serving in the U.S. military, according to new data released by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

SLDN, an organization that advocates the reversal of the military's ban on gays serving opening in the military, reports that women accounted for 14 percent of the Army's active duty force while making up 46 percent of don't ask, don't tell discharges. In 2006, women represented 17 percent of the Army and made up 35 percent of such discharges. Women make up 20 percent of the Air Force but accounted for 49 percent of the discharges.

Sixty-eight marines were discharged under the policy in 2007, up from 64 the year before. While women make up six percent of the service, they made up 16 percent of the discharges under the policy last year. A breakdown by gender was not available for 2006.

The Navy discharged 166 sailors, the same number that were separated the previous year. A SLND spokesman said that the Navy did not provide a breakdown by gender of who was discharged from the service under the policy.

The group obtained the Pentagon data through a freedom of information act request.

Overall, the number of men and women discharged under the policy in 2007 was 627 up from 612 the year before, SDLN reports. The number of troops being discharged under don't ask, don't tell has plummeted by about half since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the group.

by Aamer Madhani

BELLMORE, N.Y. -- Kristofer Goldsmith was so distressed about the prospect of returning to Iraq that he decided he was willing to kill himself to avoid serving a second tour.

Just as Goldsmith's three-year Army contract was to expire, it was extended under the military's "stop loss" program, and his unit was set to deploy to Baghdad to take part in the troop surge. On the day before he was to ship out in May 2007, he took a dozen Percocet painkillers, washed down with more than a liter of vodka.

Soon after Goldsmith was admitted to Winn Army Community Hospital at Ft. Stewart, Ga., a senior non-commissioned officer from his brigade visited the young sergeant, along with an Army psychologist, to discuss discharging him from the military.

"We all agreed that it was for the best that my Army career come to an end then," said Goldsmith, 22, who added that he'd scrawled the words "stop loss killed me" in marker on his body before his suicide attempt. "It was a few days later when they told me that they were going to come at me for faking a mental lapse."

Goldsmith's case illustrates the complex decisions facing the U.S. military, which says it is eager to address the mental health problems plaguing its troops while maintaining its warrior ethos and respect for the chain of command.

The rear detachment commander of Goldsmith's unit, Maj. Douglas Wesner of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, quickly initiated an administrative punishment known as an Article 15 against Goldsmith for malingering--that is, feigning a mental lapse or derangement or purposely injuring oneself--to avoid being deployed to Iraq.

Eventually his commanders dropped the Article 15, but not before removing Goldsmith from the service on a general discharge. Because he did not receive an honorable discharge, Goldsmith was stripped of his Montgomery GI Bill benefits, which he'd been counting on to help pay for college.

Goldsmith's tough treatment is not unheard of.

Twenty-one soldiers in Iraq have been punitively discharged since 2003 after being convicted of malingering, according to the Army.

Check out the rest of the story in today's Tribune.

(AP Photo/Northrop Grumman Corp)

by Aamer Madhani and Julie Johnsson

The Government Accountability Office today called on the Air Force to reopen the bidding process on a $35 billion contract to overhaul the service's Eisenhower-era aerial refueling tankers.

The GAO decision is a stunning victory for Boeing Co. which lost out on one of the richest contracts in Pentagon history to a partnership of the Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. (Read GAO press release.)

A contract to lease new tankers was originally awarded to Boeing but was annulled in 2004 after an ethics scandal led to jail time for two Boeing officials. One of the jailed officials had worked as a procurement officer for the Air Force and was specifically involved with the annulled deal before joining Boeing. The Northrop-EADS team won the rebid of the contract, which was announced in late February.

"Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman," said Michael Gordon, the GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law. "We also denied a number of Boeing's challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated legal requirements with respect to those challenges."

The Air Force made the surprise announcement on Feb. 29 that it chose the Northrop-EADS partnership over Boeing.

In making its decision, the GAO said that the Air Force should terminate its contract with Northrop-EADS and reimburse costs of filing the protest to Boeing. The Air Force has 60 days to inform the GAO of what actions it is taking in response to the GAO recommendations.

by Frank James

One of the most memorable and chilling lines from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treatment of detainees came when Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat who chairs the committee, referred to the back-and-forth between U.S. government officials as they discussed interrogation techniques that could be used on detainees.

The line, from Jonathan Fredman, a senior Central Intelligence Agency lawyer at the time was: "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."

This led Levin to say, with enough introspection for everyone in the room:

How on earth did we get to the point where a senior U.S. government lawyer would say whether or not an interrogation technique is torture is, quote, "subject to perception," and that if, quote, "the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong?"

The Senate hearing's purpose was to examine how Pentagon lawyers trying to come up with acceptable interrogation techniques received help from U.S. military officials responsible for training American servicemembers on how to handle harsh interrogation techniques should they become prisoners of war.

by Aamer Madhani

The U.S. military announced earlier today that four U.S. marines were killed in a roadside bomb in western Afghanistan, marking the deadliest attack against U.S. forces in Afghanistan this year.

Just yesterday Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out to his European counterparts that for the first time last month, the total number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan exceeded the coalition death toll in Iraq.

Fifteen U.S. and two Georgian troops were killed in action in Iraq last month, while 19 coalition troops, including 14 Americans, were killed in Afghanistan.

While one month hardly makes a trend, it seems as the news gets better in Iraq the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.

Gates pointed to the grim numbers to underscore the importance of the European nations meeting their military commitment in Afghanistan.

"It's important that we live up to our pledges in both the civilian and military spheres as necessary for success in Afghanistan," Gates said Friday in Brussells.

Gates ordered an additional 3,000 U.S. Marines to Afghanistan in March on a one-time deployment. It remains unclear if NATO countries will step up and fill the gap when the marines leave Afghanistan in November.

by Aamer Madhani

The gay rights advocacy group PFLAG is blasting President Bush's for his decision to award the highest civilian award to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who once said that he thought homosexual acts are "immoral."

Pace later apologized for injecting his personal opinion in his defense of the U.S. military's "don't ask don't tell" policy. PFLAG is calling on Americans to write the president to protest his decision to award Pace the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"Honoring General Pace for using his personal prejudice to meddle with military matters is just plain wrong," PFLAG wrote on its blog. "There should be no medal for bigotry and intolerance."

In its announcement, the White House called Pace "one of our nation's most accomplished and respected military officers."

Pace sparked controversy in March 2007, when he said in an interview with Chicago Tribune reporters and editors that he supported the "don't ask, don't tell" policy because homosexual acts are immoral and akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Defense Department Press Secretary Geoff Morell. (Pentagon photo.)

by Frank James

At today's Pentagon briefing, Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell, was asked about the preparations his agency is making to continue operating in the event Congress doesn't pass the war-spending bill.

He answered by saying that officials within the department were working now to figure out who the "essential" employees are who would have to work even if the department shutdown:

...And so we are, as you know, I think, taking some prudent planning measures just in case that money doesn't come through. Deputy Secretary Gordon England sent a memo throughout the department earlier this week asking for all the departments to begin planning for a possible shutdown, and all the departments are due to report back to him by June 30th with a plan as to what they would do to shut things down. And he's additionally, I think, asked that we figure out who sort of the essential civilian personnel is that would have to remain working even without pay in the event of a shutdown.

Morrell's use of the word "essential" would likely send shivers through some at the Pentagon and cause painful flashbacks for federal employees who lived through the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996.

That's because all federal workers like to be regarded as essential. Otherwise, maybe federal managers will get it in their heads to start downsizing their agencies.

by Aamer Madhani

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has picked the two men he would like to see take the place of the ousted Air Force secretary and the service's top man in uniform.

Gates has recommended President Bush nominate the head of Pentagon's management office, Michael Donley, to replace Michael Wynne. He also recommended the president nominate Gen. Norton Schwartz to replace Gen. Michael Moseley as the Air Force Chief of Staff.

Donley had previously served as acting Air Force secretary in 1993. Schwartz, a 35-year Air Force veteran, served in senior joint military positions as director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, director for operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and deputy commander of Special Operations Command.

Gates has recommened that Donley be appointed acting secretary as of June 21.

"I am confident that Mike Donley, General Schwartz and the new Air Force leadership team have the qualifications, skill and commitment to excellence necessary to guide the Air Force through this transition and beyond," Gates said in a statement.

Gates abruptly dumped Wynne and Moseley last week after receiving a report that was critical of the Air Force's leadership's management of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Gates cited a failure of leadership in the Air Force's top echelon in stewarding the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the Air Force's central and most sensitive mission. Gates had asked Wynne to fire Moseley, but he refused, according to a defense source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Gates then decided to ask for the resignations of both men.

By Aamer Madhani

Defense Secretary Robert Gates this afternoon announced that he accepted the resignation of the service's top civilian and chief officer after receiving a report that was critical of the Air Force's leadership's management of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates cited a failure of leadership in the Air Force's top echelon, including the service's Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, in stewarding the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the Air Force's central and most sensitive mission.

Last August, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. It was also revealed earlier this year that the Air Force mistakenly sent shipment of fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006 in the place of helicopter batteries.

Gates recently received a classified report from Admiral Kirkland Donald, who conducted investigation of the Taiwan incident. Gates quoting from Kirkland's classified report said the admiral found there was a "lack of a critical self-assessment culture" in the Air Force.

"I think it was the second incident that prompted me to believe that there were serious systemic problems here, a part that went well beyond the incident involving Minot and Barksdale," Gates said. "So the Taiwan incident clearly was the trigger."

The defense secretary also said the Taiwan incident represented "a significant failure to ensure the security of sensitive military components, and, more troubling, it depicts a pattern of poor performance that was highlight to us following last year's incident involve the improper movement of nuclear weapons between Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base."

Moseley and Wynne were at a quarterly meeting of Air Force brass at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, when they got the news that Gates wanted them to step down, according to a defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Moseley had a face-to-face meeting with Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Washington this morning.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England flew out to Wright-Patterson today to speak with Wynne.

"I have been a long-time proponent of accepting responsibility and being accountable for actions and activities within our Air Force ... I have to live up to the same standards I expect from my Airmen," Wynne wrote in his letter of resignation.

by Aamer Madhani

The Air Force's top civilian and top man in uniform have been asked to hand in their resignations, a defense department official said today.

Air Force officials at the Pentagon were working on statements from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne this afternoon, and it was expected they would announce their resignations perhaps as early as today, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Moseley and Wynne were at a quarterly meeting of Air Force brass at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, when they got the news. Moseley had a face-to-face meeting with Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Washington this morning.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England flew out to Wright-Patterson today to speak with Wynne.

It was no secret that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was frustrated with the service's brass.

An embarrassing incident last August in which a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country did not reflect well on Wynne and Moseley.

It was also revealed earlier this year that the Air Force mistakenly sent shipment of fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006.

Gates took a thinly-veiled shot at the service last month, suggesting it may be too disconnected from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"For much of the past year I've been trying to concentrate the minds and energies of defense establishment on the current needs and current conflicts," Gates said in a speech at a Heritage Foundation event in Colorado Springs last month. "In short, to ensure that all parts of the defense department are, in fact, at war."

by Aamer Madhani

Nearly 14,000 U.S. service members who had previously served in Iraq and Afghanistan were newly diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder last year, according to statistics released today by Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker.

The detailed figures for the four military services shows about a 46 percent increase in the number of troops diagnosed with PTSD in 2007--a spike that coincided with the most violent year of the Iraq war. Overall, nearly 40,000 have been diagnosed with the illness since 2003, though it is likely many more haven't sought help out of fear of being stigmatized.

Lt. Gen. Schoomaker, the Army's top medical officer, said that the Army needs to improve facilities and has too few mental health care providers.

"I think we can say as a nation that our mental health facilities and access to mental health providers is not adequate to the need right now," Schoomaker said. "So part of the problem that we as a military are suffering is a shared national problem."

Schoomaker released the figures to defense writers earlier today and just weeks after Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new policy under which troops and civilian defense employees no longer have to divulge previous mental health treatment to receive security clearance.

Last month, the RAND Corporation published a study that showed nearly 300,000 U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were suffering major depression or symptoms of post traumatic stress.

The RAND study found that only about half of those suffering PTSD or depression seek help. The Pentagon has estimated that about 15 to 20 percent of returning troops suffer from symptoms of post traumatic stress.

About 12 to 15 percent of soldiers are on a combination of either mild anti-depressants or sleep medication, and some troops that have suffered post traumatic stress have returned for subsequent duty in war zones.

"We do know that there is a subset of soldiers that are over there and are actively on medications...for prior or ongoing treatment, but by all accounts that's being done well," Schoomaker said.

by Aamer Madhani

With Americans celebrating Memorial Day, Americans United for Change launched a television advertising blitz over the weekend against four House Republicans who voted against an overhaul of the GI Bill.

The advertisements target Reps. Michelle Bachmann (Minn.), Randy Kuhl (NY), Steve Chabot (Ohio) and Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.) and blister the representatives for not getting behind the legislation.

The 30-second ads are running in the Buffalo, Rochester, Elmira, Orlando, Cincinnati and the Minneapolis-St. Paul markets.

Americans United for Change was founded to battle against the privatization of Social Security, but has also challenged the Bush administration's Iraq war policy more recently.

Here is the text of the voiceover of the ad running in Bachmann's district in Minnesota:

"When they came home, America gave them more than a parade."

"We gave them opportunity, a chance to go to college. The GI Bill."

"Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have earned the same chance."

"But after all their rhetoric, Michele Bachmann and George Bush
oppose the new GI Bill. Bush say's he'll veto it - Bachmann voted against it."

"Supporting our troops isn't about politics - it's about patriotism."

"Tell Michele Bachmann to put the needs of our veterans first."

by Frank James

Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign evidently feel they have found a productive line of attack against Sen. John McCain on the veterans' benefits issue. That's the most obvious explanation for why the senator from Illinois returned to the subject on Saturday while campaigning in Puerto Rico.

Obama supports the Democrats' version of a bill which passed the Senate on Thursday and would make expanded college education benefits available to veterans after a three-year enlistment.

McCain, the White House and the Pentagon oppose that approach because they say it would give too many service members a reason to leave the military, after only at a relatively brief enlistment, at a time when the forces are already stretched thin and the Army and Marines are trying to grow their overall strength in order to field enough forces in Iraq and Afghanistan while adding to the U.S. ability to respond to crises elsewhere in the world.

But while the Democrats' plan is more liberal in one respect--the relative short enlistment needed to qualify for the full benefit--the Republican plan has a liberal feature the Democratic plan lacks. It would allow veterans to transfer their benefits to family members.

In any event, one of the more interesting aspects about Obama's strategy is that his campaign has clearly decided to go after a McCain strength and turn it into a weakness, his biography as a Navy fighter pilot and a prisoner-of-war, which gives him a strong natural political base within the active and retired military community.

Artist's depiction of a KC-45A refueling a B-2 stealth bomber. (AP Photo/Northrop Grumman Corp)

by Aamer Madhani

The Government Accountability Office is still pondering Boeing Co.'s appeal on the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion tanker contract to a European rival of the Chicago-based aerospace giant.

But Air Force leaders are already looking for a nickname for the KC-45A, the controversial aerial refueling tanker which is to replace the service's Eisenhower-era fleet of tankers.

The Air Force announced a contest for Air Force personnel and civilians to come up with a name for the new tanker, which is the oldest plane in the service's fleet. The overhaul of the tanker fleet has been one of the most controversial military projects in recent history.

The Air Force announced on Feb. 29 that it had awarded a $35 billion contract to a partnership of Northrop Grumman and the corporate parent of the European-led planemaker Airbus to begin replacing the tanker fleet, whose aircraft now have an average age of 47.

A contract to lease new tankers was originally awarded to Boeing but was annulled in 2004 after an ethics scandal led to jail time for two Boeing officials. One of the jailed officials had worked as a procurement officer for the Air Force and was specifically involved with the annulled deal before joining Boeing.

Members of Congress with Boeing manufacturing plants in their districts have threatened to undo the deal, and the GAO is scheduled to announce a decision on the Boeing appeal next month.

The Air Force is accepting entries until May 30. The nickname has to be two words or less.

Unfortunately, the service's brass is only considering entrees from Air Force personnel and civilians working for the service, but The Swamp would love to hear your suggestions.

by Aamer Madhani

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said today that he expects to recommend a further reduction in U.S. troop levels in Iraq this fall--before voters go to the polls in November.

"My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, which was holding a hearing this morning to consider his appointment as the new Central Command chief. "I don't want to imply that that means a BCT [brigade combat team] or major combat formation, although it could. But I do believe that there will be certain assets that, as we are already looking at the picture right now, we'll be able to recommend can be either redeployed or not deployed to the theater in the fall."

When he was in Washington last month to give Congress a progress report on Iraq, Petraeus recommended a 45-day pause in troop reductions in July before U.S. officials review once again whether there should be a further draw down.

But before the Armed Services Committee this morning, the four-star general said that he hopes to recommend a further troop reduction before his anticipated promotion in September to become the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

by Frank James

If you're a non-commissioned officer who has to be shipped back to the states because of allegedly using a Quran, the Islamic holy book, for target practice, you probably know, or should know, you're in serious trouble.

But when your alleged actions create an international incident that requires the president and your commander-in-chief to apologize in a phone call to the prime minister of Iraq, it's probably safe to say that your problems have seriously escalated.

That's the situation facing the unnamed U.S. service member, a sniper, accused of zeroing in on a Quran on a firing range in Iraq.

BBC is reporting that President Bush called Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, to apologize for the incident.

US President George W Bush has made a personal apology over the shooting of a Koran by an American soldier, Iraq's government has said in a statement.

The soldier was sent home by the US military after the Muslim holy book was found riddled with bullet holes at a shooting range by Iraqi police.

by Aamer Madhani UPDATED with Pelosi comment

House minority leader John Boehner accused the Democrats of "playing political games" for stacking the spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with what he and other Republicans have called extraneous spending.

Boehner and his GOP colleagues didn't like a provision to extend unemployment benefits, or the Democrats call to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for an overhaul of the GI Bill. They adamantly opposed including language in the measure that would have required President Bush to begin pulling out troops from Iraq within 30 days once the bill becomes law.

When it came time to vote today on the $163 billion supplemental to pay for the wars, the Republicans decided to clean their hands of a measure that the White House had already threatened to veto.

The Democratic-led House approved more money for the jobless and boosted GI education benefits, but dozens of Republicans unexpectedly voted "present" to spend $163 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus blocking the bill from winning approval.

The Democratic leadership split the measure into three parts, so the antiwar members of their party could vote against further war spending, while voting in favor of the overhaul of the GI Bill and extension of the unemployment benefits.

by Frank James

You know all those military recruiting ads you've been seeing during nationally televised sports events, like the one with the Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon which, through the miracle of digital editing, appears to be going though its paces on Hoover Dam, by the Golden Gate Bridge and atop a giant desert butte? (It's one of my favorites. Sends patriotic chills up my spine.)

Apparently, such ads are doing the trick in terms of recruiting young men and women into the armed forces in more than sufficient numbers.

Once again, Defense Department officials reported that they outdid themselves in April in terms of recruiting.

This is from an American Forces Press Service story:

WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008 - All military services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for April, with the Marine Corps recruiting 142 percent of its goal, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said here today.

In the re-enlistment arena, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps met or exceeded their active-duty retention objectives. "The Air Force still faces challenges, but they still seem able to meet their year-end strength goals," Whitman said.

by Aamer Madhani

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- Tom Olexa, a wildlife biologist at this busy military installation, had just left his desk one morning last week when a grim-faced airman tracked him down to deliver some bad news in a Ziploc bag.

A plane ferrying troops returning from the Middle East had just passed through Langley. Soon after the plane departed, Air Force personnel found a dead bird on the runway, apparently the victim of a bird strike.

"Uh-oh," said Olexa, a 31-year Department of Agriculture biologist who works with the base's Bird and Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) team, after he was handed the bag with a dead starling. "Bad luck."

Perhaps the most confounding threat to the Air Force's fleet isn't the fledgling Chinese defense industry or the service's shrinking piece of the Pentagon's budgetary pie. It's the birds.

The Air Force reported $16 million in 2006 from damage caused by bird strikes--a whopping sum but down from more than $54 million reported in 2003. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that bird-related damage has cost the aviation industry as much as $600 million a year.

For the most part, most strikes go unnoticed by pilots, as birds collide harmlessly with jets. But in the worst situations--particularly when the plane strikes a large bird--the outcome can create a white-knuckle moment.

by Julian E. Barnes

The Pentagon abruptly ordered changes Friday in the way it handles service members' remains after learning that one business used by the Air Force performs both human and animal cremations.

The Delaware facility maintains separate incinerators in different buildings for human remains and animal remains, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. But the crematorium, in an industrial park, had one sign, which advertised pet cremation services.

Told of the situation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked for immediate changes, ordered a broad review and issued an apology to military families, Morrell said.

"Secretary Gates believes the site and signage are insensitive and entirely inappropriate to the dignified treatment of our fallen," Morrell said.

"We just think our heroes deserve to be treated better than that."

The issue was brought to Gates' attention after an officer who attended the cremation Friday morning of a friend killed in combat lodged a complaint.

People made homeless by cyclone Nargis shelter from the rain in Bogalay township area (Photo: EPA/STR.)

by Frank James

The military junta that leads Myanmar, also known as Burma, relented today and agreed to allow one U.S. cargo plane laden with relief supplies to land in the nation more than a week after a cyclone killed perhaps more than 100,000 people and made more than 1.5 million homeless.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, speaking from Crawford, Texas where President Bush is preparing for his daughter Jenna's weekend wedding, admitted that one plane load wasn't much considering the staggering need in Myanmar. But at least it was something.

While the Myanmar government is allowing in supplies, it's still refusing to let U.S. relief workers into the nation.

Here's Johndroe's exchange with reporters:

Q Gordon, on Burma,/Myanmar, that first flight that gets in, that's scheduled to get in on Monday, can you say a little bit what that's going to be carrying, whether it's going to be -- what kind of materials are being sent?

by Aamer Madhani

In some of the meetings former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had with retired military generals turned television news analysts, he offered sharp tongued assessments of Iraqi and American officials, according to transcripts and audio files released by the Pentagon.

As you may recall, the New York Times published an article last month that unveiled that the Pentagon was running a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the Bush administration's wartime performance by offering some retired officers special access to top Pentagon officials as well as arranging for VIP trips to Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

The retired generals who worked for all the major network and cable news stations met with officials such as Rumsfeld, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chief of the Army.

Some Congressional critics were aghast at the revelation that the Pentagon was trying use the retired officers, who the network news programs billed as military analysts, to carry the department's water. The Pentagon has suspended the program, but Sen. John Kerry has called for the Government Accountability Office to launch an investigation.

The Pentagon has dumped thousands of pages of documents, transcripts and audio files on its web site related to the military analysts program.

by Aamer Madhani

The lawmakers and veterans' advocates who gathered behind Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) this afternoon for a Capitol Hill rally to promote an overhaul of educational benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan vets were an A-list lot.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), gushed about the importance of doing right by the current crop of veterans. And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a Korean War and a World War II veteran, reminded the crowd that it was unlikely that he would have become a senator if it weren't for the fact that the GI Bill paid for his undergraduate and law school tuition.

Even the actor that played the head of NBC on Seinfeld showed up to cast his support for the Webb-Hagel proposal.

Just a few months ago, Webb's and Hagel's call to modernize the bill was hardly registering with their colleagues. They repeatedly pointed out to their colleagues that service members serving in a war time were receiving a GI Bill that had been last updated with a peace time standard, while the administration expressed concern that an overhaul could push active-duty troops to ditch the military for college.

As of today, their proposal now has 58 sponsors in the Senate and 249 in the House.

Despite President Bush again today calling on Congress to send him a $108 billion war spending bill free of extraneous programs, Democratic leaders will likely include the proposal in the upcoming supplemental war spending bill, a senior Democratic aide said.

by Mark Silva

The U.S. has no interest in a third major conflict at this time - meaning war in Iran - the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.

Yet the military is concerned about the role that Iranians are playing in fighting in Iraq, and the military is contiuously planning for such contingencies -- and no one should underestimate the ability of U.S. forces to take on a third military challenge, Adm. Mike Mullen said today.

"A third conflict in this part of the world would be extremely stressing for us,'' Mullen said at a Defense Department briefing today. "That said, I have reserve capability, in particularly our Navy and our Air Force, not just there but available globally. So it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability...

"I have no expectations that -- you know -- that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future,'' he said. "In terms of having another conflict in that region, I certainly don't think that would be where we'd want to go right now.''

As the president has said many times, however, military options have not been removed from the table. "There are lots of potential military courses of action, depending on specifics that occurred. And I wouldn't want to prognosticate what those might be,'' Mullen said. "There are planning activities which occur routinely against possibilities -- and actually, those change over time, depending on the circumstances..

"But I am concerned over time just in these last couple years, you know, that tensions continue to rise, Iran does not respond, and in fact they seem to be ratcheting it up in terms of their support for terrorism. And I am concerned about where that goes in the long term.

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

by Matthew Hay Brown

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't foresee any effort to block the nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to lead the U.S. Central Command. Nonetheless, he's looking forward to the confirmation hearings.

"Here's the man that's going to be in charge of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan," the Nevada Democrat told reporters this afternoon. "I think it's very important that we ask him questions."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended the appointment of Petraeus, the architect of the troop surge that is credited with decreasing violence in Iraq, to replace Adm. William Fallon as chief of the command that overseas U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fallon resigned last month after clashing with the Bush administration over policy, notably on Iran.

Reid, not a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that he planned to submit questions that he wants committee members to ask Petraeus.

"For example, I was in Iraq when Petreaus was in charge of training the Iraqi troops," Reid said. "I'd like to know what's gone wrong, and what went wrong when he was there with that.

"We also know that there's been a lot of problems during his watch about tons of amunition gone to the wrong place.

"I want to find out what his plan is when we have a new administration. Is he willing to listen to the new commander-in-chief?"

by Frank James

One of the glories of the U.S. is the way the Founding Fathers provided for civilian control of the military, at least that's what most school children are taught.

That's the ideal, of course. Then you have the reality that often differs from the textbooks.

An example of that was found today with Defense Secretary Robert Gates complaining publicly that the Air Force is not doing enough for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan War.

He didn't quite go as far as asking "Why does the Air Force hate America?" but he's obviously fairly upset with them to call them put publicly in a speech he made at, in of all places, Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. (At least no one can accuse him of engaging in that Washington practice of back-stabbing. This was right up front.)

Specifically Gates, an old Air Force man himself, said the Air Force won't send more unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an Associated Press report by Robert Burns:

by Aamer Madhani

Two lawmakers from districts with Boeing manufacturing plants in their backyards said today they may use the upcoming defense authorization debate to thwart the Air Force from awarding a $35 billion tanker contract to a European rival of the Chicago-based aerospace giant.

The Government Accountability Office is still considering a protest lodged by Boeing last month after the Pentagon announced its decision to award the contract to overhaul the Air Force’s Eisenhower-era KC-135 aerial refueling fleet to an Airbus consortium.

But Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) said that a “parallel” campaign to block the funding could come during the appropriations debate.

“I don’t think the current contract can go forward,” said Tiahrt (R-Kan.), whose Wichita-area district would lose out on thousands of jobs if the Pentagon’s decision is upheld and funded. “I think there is enough momentum in the House of Representatives to say we’re not going to outsource our national security.”

A contract to lease new tankers was originally awarded to Boeing but was annulled in 2004 after an ethics scandal led to jail time for two Boeing officials. One of the jailed officials had worked as a procurement officer for the Air Force and was specifically involved with the annulled deal before joining Boeing.

But since Boeing formally lost out on the re-bid process on Feb. 29, numerous members of Congress have bemoaned the Air Force's decision to award one of the most lucrative military contracts ever to a partnership that includes a European company at a time when the U.S. economy is foundering.

Lawmakers will have their first chance to reignite the tanker debate in the coming weeks as Congress is expected to take on an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems unlikely that lawmakers pushing for a reversal of the Air Force decision would tie it to an already politically-charged war funding bill.

by Aamer Madhani

Nearly 300,000 U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress, according to a new study released today by the RAND Corporation.

The RAND study estimates the societal costs of PTSD and major depression for two years after deployment range from about $6,000 to more than $25,000 per case, and that the total society costs of the conditions for two years range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion.

The study’s conclusions are based on interviews with 1,965 U.S. troops. About 1.6 million service members have deployed to the conflicts since the war in Afghanistan began in late 2001.

“If PTSD and depression go untreated or are under treated, there is a cascading set of consequences,” said Lisa Jaycox, one of the researchers who lead the study. “Drug use, suicide, marital problems and unemployment are some of the consequences. There will be a bigger societal impact if these service members go untreated. The consequences are not good for the individuals or society in general.”

The study, which echoes some of the previous research showing PTSD and depression are serious problems plaguing veterans, comes in the midst of a broadening conversation on Capitol Hill about the long-term costs of fighting two lengthy wars.

The study concluded that 18.5 percent of U.S. service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD or depression, while 19.5 percent have suffered some sort of traumatic brain injury.

Perhaps, the most alarming finding of the study is that only about half of those suffering PTSD or depression seek help. Of those who seek help, just over half receive “minimally adequate treatment.”

About 44 percent of those surveyed suggested that concerns about being denied security clearance or worry that having mental health issues would harm their careers were among the barriers that prevent them from seeking help.

by Aamer Madhani

Is Moqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

It’s an old question, but one that is logically resurfacing in the aftermath of fierce fighting in Basra and Sadr City between Iraqi security forces—aided by U.S. and British troops—and elements of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that is loyal to the young cleric.

While U.S. officials credit Sadr’s call to the Mahdi Army to observe a ceasefire as playing a critical part in lessening the levels of violence in Iraq, Sadr has never dampened his blistering criticism of U.S. forces.

In a recent interview with Al Jazeera, Sadr told the journalist Ghassan Bin-Jiddu that armed resistance against U.S. forces was legitimate as long as Iraqi civilians were not harmed such attacks.

“Resistance is a legitimate right for all peoples,” said Sadr, according to a translation of the interview by Mideastwire.com. “In any place where there is occupation, there is bound to be resistance. God willing, the occupation forces will be driven away, as happened in Vietnam.”

by Aamer Madhani

President Bush sent a sharp rebuke today to members of Congress who have attempted to connect the U.S. economy’s woes to the five-year-old Iraq war.

Bush demanded that Congress quickly approve his $108 billion funding request to pay for the war, and vowed to veto any war spending measure that includes timelines for withdrawal.

“Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money,” Bush said “There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher.”

The 2009 defense budget—when adjusted for inflation--would mark the largest defense spending budget since World War II.

In the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, the defense budget accounted, at its height, for about 13 percent of the economy. In the Reagan administration, the defense budget was about 6 percent of the economy. The 2009 defense budget coupled with projected spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes in at about 4 percent of overall spending.

As reported in today’s Chicago Tribune, the Democrats and a smattering of Republicans have opened up a new front in their battle to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq, arguing that the troubled U.S. economy cannot sustain the war. More than $600 billion has been allocated to pay for the war thus far, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“The president has taken us into a failed war,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today. “He's taken us deeply into debt…That debt is taking us into recession.”

by Aamer Madhani

After months of warning from senior Pentagon officials that the 15-month combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are grinding on U.S. troops, it appears the Bush administration has heard the message.

The Associated Press is reporting that the Bush administration will announce next week that the tours will be shortened to 12 months. News of the change comes just days before Gen. David Petraeus (pictured left) and Amb. Ryan Crocker are set to go to Capitol Hill to update Congress on the ground truth in Iraq, more than a year after President Bush announced a nearly 30,000 troop buildup.

The U.S. military is in the midst of reducing its presence in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 combat brigades by July. But Petraeus is expected to announce a pause in further reductions until commanders can properly gauge the effect the initial drawdown has on the security situation.

Earlier this week, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee's readiness panel that lenghty deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military.

Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief, said last fall that the 15-month tours were "unsustainable" and proposed that tour times be reduced as soon as possible to ensure the health of the Army. Currently, most Army soldiers spend 15 months deployed, and 12 months at home.

Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he believed the administration would announce a decision on the Army proposal "fairly soon," but was cagey about the details.

"So I think the bottom line is, we're all still looking at that. But I think we'll have a better idea of what we think we can do, what we ought to do, in the fairly near future," Gates said Friday.

Casey had previously said that he believed he could shorten tours once the U.S. presence in Iraq was reduced to 15 combat brigades.

by Aamer Madhani

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today applauded Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s decision to send a division of Iraqi troops to the southern city of Basra last week in an attempt to weed out Mahdi Army fighters, but said it is too soon to tell whether it was a win or a loss for the Iraqi forces.

After six days of fierce fighting in Basra as well as some of the Shiite enclaves of Baghdad, Iraqi government officials and cleric Moqtada al-Sadr brokered a cease-fire. The deal came without the militiamen having to put down their weapons. Sadr also issued a nine-point list of demands.

“With respect to the outcome and the views of the outcome, my view of that, I think, it's really too soon to tell,” Mullen said today at a Pentagon news conference. “Clearly when Sadr put his nine points out, and there was compliance with that in a very short period of time, that had a significant effect obviously on the operation.”

As al-Maliki launched the operation, President Bush hailed the effort as a “defining moment” in Iraqi history. The Iraqis, after all, were showing some initiative on the security front.

But the uncertain outcome of the operation—in which U.S. and British forces assisted— has raised questions about the effectiveness of the fledgling Iraqi security forces.

Al-Maliki earlier this week called the operation a “success,” but the Joint Chiefs chairman didn’t declare victory today speaking with reporters.

“I really come at this from the point of view that I think it was very positive that the leader of a sovereign nation decided to make a move which was focused on providing for his own security, the security of his people,” Mullen said. “And in these kinds of situations, some things are going to go well and some things aren't. So as far as the overall outcome, I think, it's going to be a little while before we really understand the impact of it.”

by Frank James

The responsible exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan, according to many experts, is to train the militaries in both nations so they can provide internal security and protect their nation's borders.

Given that, the Iraqi army's relatively poor performance during the recent fighting against the Mahdi Army militia suggests very strongly that a lot more training is needed.

That's where the op-ed by Lt. Col. John Nagl in today's New York Times comes in.

Nagl who helped write the Army and Marines new counterinsurgency manual, calls for the U.S. military, policymakers -- including the president-- and, most importantly, the American people to take the U.S. military's training mission far more seriously if the goal is to Iraqify security in Iraq and eventually turn the fight over to Afghans.

According to Nagl, the military isn't fielding large enough advisor teams, which may be a function of the personnel strains in the U.S. military, though Nagl doesn't say that.

Another part of the military's problem is that it appears that troops who become advisors still do it at some sacrifice to their careers. It's definitely not a fast-track move in terms of a military career.

Gen. David Petraeus, with President Bush, in Iraq. Photo by Jim Watson / AFP

by Aamer Madhani

Last week's inconclusive battle for Basra is raising new questions about the viability of U.S. military strategy in Iraq as Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker head to Capitol Hill next week to give Congress their assessment of the U.S. troop surge.

President Bush billed the struggle between Shiite militiamen and the Iraqi army as a "defining moment" for Iraq. But the fighting left hundreds dead from Basra to Baghdad without causing any serious damage to the Mahdi Army militia demonstrates how ineffectual the Iraqi army is five years into the war and underscores that Iraqi politics remains more complicated than ever, military experts said.

The Iraqi security forces didn't have the same widespread problem of desertion they have had in other key battles of the war, but there were scattered reports of Iraqi police handing over their arms to the Mahdi Army and pronouncing fealty to its leader, Moqtada Sadr.

What may be of greater concern is that Iraqi forces--even with the support of U.S. and British troops--had limited success in fighting the Mahdi Army, said Brian Katulis, a national security expert and senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Katulis assessed it in language he said the president might use: "This was a thumpin' for the Iraqi army and this was a thumpin' from a political perspective for the Iraqis."

In Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Tuesday that the operations in Basra were a "success," despite the Mahdi Army agreeing to a cease-fire without giving up its weapons. Meanwhile, the British announced they will postpone their scheduled withdrawal of 1,500 troops from the Basra area, the closest thing to an acknowledgment from coalition forces that the Basra operation was anything short of a victory.

"It is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding," British Defense Secretary Des Browne told Parliament in London.

by Frank James

Here's one from the all's-well-that-ends-well department. Politico has a story about Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.,) the House's only open lesbian, getting to take her domestic partner on a congressional delegation trip to Europe last month that traveled by military jet. The Defense Department had first refused Baldwin's request.

As Politico reports:

Prior to the Easter recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in order to get Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe.

The speaker succeeded, but the issue continues to simmer for both sides. The Pentagon appears to be self-conscious about transporting gay domestic partners at a time when it continues to enforce a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in its own ranks. The speaker is sensitive to the gay rights issue but doesn’t want to be drawn into a situation where it appears she is dictating policy for the use of military planes.

Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is “necessary for protocol purposes.” Although Baldwin, the only openly gay woman elected to Congress, exchanged wedding vows with Lauren Azar in 1998, her home state of Wisconsin does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, and military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a “spouse” within the meaning of the House guidelines.

by Frank James

The New York Times does American journalism proud today with some excellent reporting on a laxly run Pentagon procurement program that resulted in what appears to be a small company of arguably dubious qualifications providing old and faulty ammunition, or ammo from illegal Chinese sources, to Afghanistan security forces.

The story is a powerful example of what journalism at its best can do to shine a spotlight on troubling government actions that taxpayers have a right to know about.

In this case, it appears that even the Pentagon benefited from the NYT investigation. As a result of the newspaper's probe, the Defense Department has suspended the contract with the company, AEY, based in Miami Beach.

The story is at times complex since it involves the murky world of arms depots in the former Soviet bloc and extends into the really opaque world of global illegal arms trafficking.

But some things seem easy to understand. For instance, the Pentagon apparently does very little to investigate the backgrounds of such contractors. Also, in this case and probably others, it seems clear the Pentagon didn't do nearly enough to understand the sources of the ammunition and other products AEY was providing to the Afghans through the Pentagon.

Here's the top of the must-read story by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood:

Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur. .

by Aamer Madhani

The Defense Department mistakenly shipped non-nuclear ballistic missile components to Taiwan, top Pentagon officials announced today.

The components were shipped to Taiwan in 2006, but Defense Department officials just learned about the slip-up last week. In a hastily called news conference, Michael Wynne, the Air Force secretary, said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered an investigation of the blunder, which led to nose components of the nuclear Minuteman missile being sent to Taiwan instead of helicopter parts.

"I cannot emphasize forcefully enough how strong the secretary feels about this matter and how disconcerting it is to him," said Ryan Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary for defense policy."In an organization as large as DOD, the largest and most complex in the world, there will be mistakes. But they cannot be tolerated in the arena of strategic systems, whether they are nuclear or only associated equipment, as was in this case."

The items were originally shipped in March 2005 from F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming to the Defense Logistics Agency warehouse at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, Wynne said.

Side-by-side, Wynne said that the missile components don’t look like the helicopter parts that the Taiwanese were slated to receive. Wynne said the Taiwanese have been upfront in dealing with U.S. authorities in recovering the components.

By Aamer Madhani

WICHITA, Kan. — At the main entrance to McConnell Air Force Base, a stately KC-135 aerial refueling tanker manufactured more than 50 years ago sits on display as a museum piece, a tribute to the aircraft that was built to be a pillar of military strategy in the early years of the Cold War.

But inside the base, the old tanker is hardly a relic. Hundreds of personnel toil every day to keep 39 of the Air Force's 530 Eisenhower-era tankers airborne, a feat of tenacity and ingenuity that baffles even the men and women who have managed to keep the planes airworthy three decades after commercial airlines retired such planes.

"The KC-135 is like that first girlfriend or your first car," said Senior Master Sgt. Buddy Gerhardt, a fuel systems repair technician from Berwyn, Ill., who at 33 is at least a decade younger than the tankers he works on. "You might always have a special feeling for that first girlfriend or that first car, but eventually you have to move on."

The Air Force announced last month it had awarded a $35 billion contract to a partnership of Northrop Grumman and the corporate parent of the European-led planemaker Airbus to begin replacing the tanker fleet, whose aircraft now have an average age of 47. But the long-languishing plan to revamp the fleet will likely be further delayed as the competing bidder and manufacturer of the original fleet, Chicago-based Boeing, filed a complaint this month with the Government Accountability Office. Outraged lawmakers have threatened to undo the deal.

Lost in the Airbus-Boeing debate is the state of the aging current tanker fleet and the massive effort required to keep it in the air. Read all about it in today's Tribune.

Andrew Zajac

The furor over Boeing's lost tanker deal has followed Sen. John McCain overseas.

A union representing 25,000 Boeing workers, including some who work at the company's manufacturing plant in Wichita where final tanker assembly would have been done, issued a press release timed to McCain's visit to France, home to EADS/Airbus, the firm that beat out the Chicago-based plane builder.

The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers accuses McCain of unfairly favoring a foreign firm for the contract, one of the biggest defense contracts in history.

It wants the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting to open his office files on the Boeing/EADS face-off and it questions why McCain asked for the removal of bid language that would have penalized EADS for receiving government subsidies.

This image provided by the US Navy shows USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) cruising through the Arabian Gulf during sunrise Nov.3, 2004. (AP Photo/US Navy - Michael Sandberg)

by Frank James

It's always sad to see a once proud naval vessel being placed in mothballs, especially if that ship is younger than you.

But that's the story of the ship formerly known as the John F. Kennedy. It is currently being towed from Norfolk to Philadelphia where it will wait until the Naval Secretary decides what to do with it.

Some of the ship's fans would like to see it become a floating museum like the USS Intrepid docked on New York City's west side. But there are presumably scrap metal dealers who would like to see it become a tidy profit.

The ship has much fascinating history. A nine-year old Caroline Kennedy christened it in 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy, reprising her efforts in the White House, designed the in-port cabin which had wood paneling, the only one in the fleet.

In 1975, in shades of PT-109, the Kennedy collided with a destroyer, although it was a U.S., not Japanese one. It tore open the destroyer, thus earning the sobriquet the "Can Opener." Its other nickname: "Big John."

Here's what appears to be an official history of the ship. Wikipedia also has a very good page on the ship.

The Kennedy was a fuel-powered carrier. So in that respect it was a anachronism in a modern, nuclear-powered Navy. It had to go.

Still, here's hoping those who want to make it a museum find the money to keep it afloat.

by Aamer Madhani

Sen. John McCain’s campaign is getting defensive over accusations that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee tilted the Air Force’s $35 billion tanker deal to the consortium led by Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.

McCain has taken credit for thwarting the original contract that was awarded to Chicago-based Boeing Co., but was later annulled as the result of an ethics scandal that landed two Boeing officials, including one that helped the negotiate the deal on behalf of the Air Force before joining the aerospace company, in jail.

But in the aftermath of the contract being awarded, in part, to a European company, several top Democrats—including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel and Rep. John Murtha— have taken the opportunity to throw darts at McCain for the deal, which they say could send thousands of jobs to Europe.

“Is it really possible that there are Members of Congress saying that John McCain was wrong to fight and stop the corruption?,” Steve Schmidt, a senior advisor to the McCain campaign, wrote in a memo e-mailed to reporters today. “Should the fraudulent deal have been permitted? Should criminals not have gone to jail? Should the Department of Defense not be held accountable to select the most capable systems for the best price to the taxpayers? Isn’t that what our security requires, and American taxpayers deserve?”

Questions are now being raised if McCain went too far in pushing the Pentagon to seek competitive bids for the lucrative tanker contract. McCain twice wrote the Pentagon in 2006 asking officials not to weigh an ongoing World Trade Organization dispute between Boeing and Airbus SAS, the parent company of EADS, as it went about evaluating the competing tanker bids.

President Bush and U.S. Central Command commander, Navy Admiral William J. Fallon May 1, 2007 (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, File)

by Aamer Madhani

Admiral William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East who recently publicly criticized the Bush Administration’s Iran policy, has resigned his command.

In an abruptly called new conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he has accepted Fallon’s resignation. In a profile in the Esquire magazine now on the newsstands, Fallon is portrayed as the one man standing in the way of Bush going to war with Iran.

He was described as a lone wolf calling on the administration to tamp down the drumbeat of war and engage Iran.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said in a statement. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our polic