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.