SYRIA - End to Rebel Training

"Pulling the plug on rebel training, what’s next for U.S. in Syria?" PBS NewsHour 10/9/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Pentagon is canceling a program to train and equip moderate rebels fighting the Islamic State in Syria, after their efforts only produced a handful of fighters.  Judy Woodruff discusses the decision with former State Department officials P.J. Crowley and David Kramer.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  We take a closer look now with P.J. Crowley.  He’s a former assistant secretary of state for public affairs during the Obama administration.  He also had a 26-year career in the U.S. Air Force.  And David Kramer, former assistant secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

DAVID KRAMER, Former U.S. State Dept. Official:  Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, P.J. Crowley, what do you think?  Is this a good thing, that this program to train the rebels in Syria is ending?

P.J. CROWLEY, Former U.S. State Dept. Official:  Well, it was a failure.

It was a good idea, but was so heavily structured to try to avoid — so you would have assistance going just to the good guys with the white hats and avoid assistance bleeding over to the guys with the murkier hats.  It was so heavily structured, it had very modest results.

I don’t think we’re surprised that this was not a program that was by itself going to tip the scales on the battlefield.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  David Kramer, how do you see it?

DAVID KRAMER:  I agree it was a failure and it should have been changed a long time ago.  My concern is the timing of the announcement.

It looks like we’re retreating in the face of this Russian advance, the Russian military intervention.  And it makes us look even weaker than we perhaps are.  The program was a failure.  It was just focused on the Islamic State.  It wasn’t designed to deal with the Assad regime and the Assad regime is really the main source behind all the problems we’re seeing in Syria.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  What the Pentagon is saying, they’re going to focus on arming these Kurdish rebels fighting ISIS in Northern Syria.  Is that a good substitute for this?

DAVID KRAMER:  This should have been done years ago.  The fact that this has taken so long, that it has produced so few results means that it is a failure.

But pulling the plug now, announcing it publicly, I would have preferred they just did it without making a big public announcement about this.  We just look like we’re running away from the Russians.

DOD BUDGET - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's Proposed Budget Cuts

"How will proposed military savings affect strategy and security?" PBS Newshour 2/24/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Now: striking the balance between national security and budget reality.

CHUCK HAGEL, Secretary of Defense (news brief):  Good afternoon.

GWEN IFILL:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out plans this afternoon to cut troops and close bases, reshaping the nation’s military after more than a decade of war.

CHUCK HAGEL:  We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States.

GWEN IFILL:  A key part of that repositioning, shrinking the Army from 522,000 active-duty soldiers to between 440,000-450,000, the fewest since World War II.

The Army National Guard would be reduced as well, but Hagel said it can be done without compromising national defense.

CHUCK HAGEL:  Our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater — as it must be — while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater.

GWEN IFILL:  The budget also calls for eliminating the venerable A-10 Warthog aircraft, used for close air support of ground troops, and for replacing the iconic U-2 spy plane with a force of Global Hawk drones.

Among the other recommendations: increasing health insurance deductibles and co-pays for military families and retirees, reducing subsidies to military commissaries, and closing more military bases.

Hagel also proposes freezing salaries of generals and admirals and limiting pay raises for military personnel to 1 percent.  He said delaying such decisions actually hurts morale.

"‘Beloved’ A-10 Warthog aircraft may not survive Pentagon Attack" PBS Newshour 2/25/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The A-10 Warthog was designed specifically to fly in low and attack enemy forces, loitering over the battlefield.  But top Pentagon officials now say the Warthog's days are over.  The Defense Department plans to eliminate the entire fleet and save $3.5 billion over five years in order to save for newer and more capable aircraft.  Kwame Holman reports on the debate.

How the A-10 Warthog became 'the most survivable plane ever

WAR ON TERROR - Opinion, Torture and the "Counterinsurgency Field Manual"

"How The Media, Pentagon And Human Rights Groups Sold Us An Army Field Manual That (Still) Includes Torture" by Jeffrey Kaye, The Public Record 1/23/2014

Excerpt

I’m marking the 12th anniversary of the abomination that is Guantanamo with a couple of repostings related to how the Bush administration, with the connivance of key members of the press and the human rights community, sold a continuation of torture as an end to torture.

Such a reposting seems necessary as the entire press, human rights groups, and blogging world continues to ignore the ongoing issue of torture via interrogations.  While indefinite detention, forced cell extractions aka beatings, and the painful forced-feeding of hunger strikers still garners attention, and rightly so, the fact the U.S. continues to have an official policy of torture in its interrogation manual continues to be ignored, even though it is the most important issue about torture facing America today.

Eschewing the worst-looking forms of torture, like waterboarding, in 2006, at the same time that “high-value detainees” like Khalid Sheik Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah were transferred out of the CIA black sites and sent to Guantanamo, the U.S. put out a new Army Field Manual (AFM) with instructions on interrogations that claimed to be “humane.”

Origin of AFM Rewrite Out of Ashes of Abu Ghraib Scandal

Only recently have I found the possible origin of the new AFM’s drafting in the August 2005 recommendations of a Joint Chiefs of Staff panel subsequent to the military investigations into the Abu Ghraib scandal. (See pg. 315-16 of this document)

Recommend a policy-level review and determination of the status and treatment of all detainees, when not classified as EPWs [Enemy Prisoners of War].  This review needs to particularly focus on the definition of humane treatment, military necessity, and proper employment of interrogation techniques. (e.g. boundaries or extremes)….

Recommend study of the DoD authorized interrogation techniques to establish a framework for evaluating their cumulative impact in relation to the obligation to treat detainees humanely.

The study of “authorized interrogation techniques” was tasked to the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone.

But a number of the new techniques that ultimately showed up in the newly written AFM were not humane at all.  In fact, they amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhumane and degrading behavior.  Over the years various human rights groups recognized this and came out publicly for changes to the AFM.

The AFM made changes to its text that allowed wider latitude in use of drugs in interrogations, while eliminating prohibitions against sleep deprivation and stress positions that had been in the pre-2006 AFM.  Even worse, a category of prisoners that were not considered subject to Geneva Convention POW protections was singled out for a special kind of interrogation “technique,” as described in the manual’s Appendix M.

Appendix M allowed for use of isolation for 30 days, and potentially indefinitely; sleep deprivation for up to 30 days, but potentially indefinitely; manipulation of environment and diet (so long as it wasn’t “extreme”); and forms of sensory deprivation, so long as every form of sensory input wasn’t affected.

There was very little interest in whether or not or how these new techniques were being used.  In fact, no one had apparently even thought to ask the government until I did in January 2010 whether or not Appendix M had even been used.  Not surprisingly, the Department of Defense confirmed it was using Appendix M interrogations at Guantanamo.

More surprising was my discovery, confirmed by a DoD spokesman, that the use of the Appendix M torture techniques was approved in a Bush-era Office of Legal Council memorandum, and left in place by the Obama administration despite claims that all such memos were withdrawn in January 2009.  Even to this day, in a massive political failure, not one human rights group or legal organization has recognized this fact.

The Torture Never Stopped

Intense abusive interrogations continue.  We know from a filing by Omar Khadr in his Canadian court case that prior to release from Guantanamo to Canadian authorities, and shortly after his plea deal with Military Commissions authorities in October 2010, Khadr was subjected to prolonged interrogation that likely was conducted, given the key presence of the use of isolation, to Appendix M parameters: “Following the Pre-Trial Agreement, the Americans transferred Omar to a maximum security detention facility restricted for prisoners convicted of offenses.  Omar was thrown back into solitary confinement and continued to be subjected to months of prolonged interrogations consisting of a sequence of 9 hours of interrogation per day for 9 days at a time.”

With an even dozen years of crimes at Guantanamo — fully over 1/3 of them under the auspices of the Obama administration — I think it’s time to review just how consensus around torture takes place in actuality.  As we shall see, it is a complex story, involving media manipulation, psychological effects such as denial, and subordination of human rights to party politics and an achingly slow platform of reformist change.  I say “consensus” because silence about all this amounts to consensus.

The following was published at Alternet and my own blog, Invictus, in January 2009.  (My first writingrecognizing torture in the AFM goes back to the introduction of the new manual in September 2006, when I wrote under my pseudonym Valtin)  In a day or two, I will publish part two, which will look at how the foreign press saw through what DoD was doing, and how a major blogging news and opinion site helped cover that up.

++++++++++++

How the Press, the Pentagon, and Even Human Rights Groups Sold Us an Army Field Manual that (Still) Includes Torture

A January 17 [2009] New York Times editorial noted that Attorney General designate Eric Holder testified at his nomination hearings that when it came to overhauling the nation’s interrogation rules for both the military and the CIA, the Army Field Manual represented “a good start.”  The editorial noted the vagueness of Holder’s statement.  Left unsaid was the question, if the AFM is only a “good start,” what comes next?

The Times editorial writer never bothered to mention the fact that three years earlier, a different New York Times article (12/14/2005) introduced a new controversy regarding the rewrite of the Army Field Manual.  The rewrite was inspired by a proposal by Senator John McCain to limit U.S. military and CIA interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual.  (McCain would later allow an exception for the CIA)

According to the Times article, a new set of classified procedures proposed for the manual “was pushing the limits on legal interrogation.”  Anonymous military sources called the procedures “a back-door effort” to undermine McCain’s efforts at the time to change U.S. abusive interrogation techniques, and stop the torture.

WAR ON TERROR - Band 'Skinny Puppy' Gets Big DoD Paycheck

(click for better view)

"Here’s A Copy Of The Invoice Skinny Puppy Drafted For The Pentagon For Using Its Songs At Guantanamo" by Jason Leopold, The Public Record 2/5/2014

There’s been quite a bit of media attention directed toward Skinny Puppy over the past week following revelations that the industrial band’s music was allegedly used during the interrogations of “war on terror” suspects detained at Guantanamo.  Band members said they were informed in March 2013 by ex-Guantanamo guard Terry Holdbrooks [see update] that its songs were used as a form of torture at the detention facility.  Following that disclosure, Skinny Puppy drafted a $666,000 invoice for the U.S. government for using its songs. But the band never sent the invoice. [See update 2.]

Despite all of the news coverage Skinny Puppy has received over the past week revolving around the invoice, it appears that reporters never bothered to ask members of the band for a copy of the document.  But I did.  Here it is (at top).  It’s dated March 7, 2013 and addressed to “Guantanamo Intelligence.”

In an interview Wednesday afternoon with HuffPostLive, Kevin “Ogre” Ogilvie, Skinny Puppy’s lead singer, discusses the story behind the invoice, how the band arrived at the $666,000 figure, and gives a shout out to yours truly for trying to obtain information via the Freedom of Information Act about the use of songs during interrogations at Guantanamo.  (Segment starts at 21:51).

UPDATE (2/7/14):  Former Guantanamo guard Terry Holdbrooks told me he first met Skinny Puppy in 2011 and interviewed band members.  It was during this 2011 interview that he informed them that their music was used at Guantanamo as a form of torture.  The issue resurfaced in early 2013 when the band was working on a documentary and that’s when the invoice was created.

UPDATE 2 (2/7/14):  Band members said they “recently” mailed a copy of the invoice to the Department of Defense and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had played a role in developing and overseeing some of the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo.

NAVY - Captain Kirk Commands New Ship

Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer DDG 1000

"Captain Kirk to command new Navy destroyer" by Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News 10/30/2013

NOTE:  Link includes video

The commander of the U.S. Navy's sleek new guided-missile destroyer, which launched late last week in Maine, has a name to match its space-age look: Captain Kirk.

Captain James Kirk, the prospective commanding officer of USS Zumwalt, will lead the 610-foot vessel, the Navy's largest destroyer and first of three new Zumwalt-class ships "designed for littoral operations and land attack," the Navy said.

Kirk, a native of Bethesda, Md., was commissioned at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1990 and has served in a variety posts as a "surface warfare officer," according to his online bio.  "Ashore, Captain Kirk has served as Executive Assistant to the Navy’s Chief of Legislative Affairs and as an Action Officer on the Joint Staff."

Kirk obtained a master's degrees in national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College and U.S. Army War College, where he undoubtedly heard more than his share of "Star Trek" jokes.

The ship, which was moved from dry dock in Bath, Maine, to a pier on the Kennebec River on Friday, is loaded with new technologies, including "radar reflecting angles, a striking inward-sloping tumblehome hull" and advanced gun system.

The lead ship and class are named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo R. "Bud" Zumwalt Jr., who served as chief of naval operations from 1970 to 1974.

According to the Navy, construction on the first Zumwalt is "more than 87 percent complete," with remaining work on the hull scheduled to be completed before delivery in late 2014.

So who will serve as Capt. Kirk's "Spock" on the Zumwalt? According to the Navy, it's Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Hickox, who was named prospective executive officer of the ship.

U.S. NAVY - Defense Secretary, Wake of Washington Navy Yard Shooting

"Defense Secretary Hagel on Security: 'We Need To Do More -- And We Will'" PBS Newshour 9/18/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recognizes his department's responsibility to ensure the safety of its employees.  But, he told Judy Woodruff, there were "red flags that didn’t get connected."  On Syria, Hagel said the military is ready to respond to any option the president decides to take.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Secretary Chuck Hagel, welcome to the NewsHour.

SECRETARY CHUCK HAGEL:  Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Let's talk first about these tragic shootings at the Navy Yard this week.  You acknowledged earlier today that there were a number of red flags, as you put it, that were thrown out that should have been picked up.  You've commissioned a couple of reviews to be done, and you've said whatever mistakes were made, we're going to fix them.

But what do you say to the families of the victims and to the people who still work at this Navy Yard and other military installations who are thinking, I thought if my loved one worked at a place like this, they'd be safe?

NATIONAL SECURITY - The 'Black Budget'

"U.S. spy network’s successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary" by Barton Gellman and Greg Miller, Washington Post 8/29/2013

Excerpt

U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former ­intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny.  Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

The summary describes cutting-edge technologies, agent recruiting and ongoing operations.  The Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods.  Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.

“The United States has made a considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare,” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. wrote in response to inquiries from The Post.

“Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats,” he said.

Among the notable revelations in the budget summary:

• Spending by the CIA has surged past that of every other spy agency, with $14.7 billion in requested funding for 2013.  The figure vastly exceeds outside estimates and is nearly 50 percent above that of the National Security Agency, which conducts eavesdropping operations and has long been considered the behemoth of the community.

• The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as “offensive cyber operations.”

• Long before Snowden’s leaks, the U.S. intelligence community worried about “anomalous behavior” by employees and contractors with access to classified material.  The NSA planned to ward off a “potential insider compromise of sensitive information” by re-investigating at least 4,000 people this year who hold high-level security clearances.

• U.S. intelligence officials take an active interest in friends as well as foes.  Pakistan is described in detail as an “intractable target,” and counterintelligence operations “are strategically focused against [the] priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel.”  The latter is a U.S. ally but has a history of espionage attempts against the United States.

MILITARY - 'Top Brass' Rejection on Threat to Power

Being retired military NCO, this is what I would expect from the 'Top Brass.'  At their rank they absolutely reject change when it threatens their power.  In this subject they are wrongheaded.

"Top Brass Reject Overhauling Military Justice System to Reduce Sexual Assault" PBS Newshour 6/4/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The military's top leaders rejected Senate proposals to remove commanders from their role in adjudicating service personnel who are accused of serious crimes while in uniform.  Gwen Ifill gets two views on possible solutions from Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School and retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap of Duke University Law School.

MILITARY - Future of U.S. Drone Campaign

"What's Next for the U.S. Drone Campaign as Obama Tries to End a Decade of War?" PBS Newshour 5/24/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  According to reports, U.S. drone attacks on militants in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere are conducted by both the CIA and the U.S. military, but will eventually be handled solely by the Defense Department.  New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti talks to Jeffrey Brown about the CIA's shifting role in the fight against terrorists.

OPINION - Rumsfeld, Apologize for Tenure at Pentagon?

"'Did you ever think about apologizing?'" by Steve Benen, Maddow Blog 5/17/2013

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently isn't done sharing his thoughts with the public just yet -- he'll even be on "Meet the Press" this weekend -- and he's published a new book, "Rumsfeld's Rules:  Leadership Lessons in Business, Politics, War, and Life."  It includes, without a hint of irony, the former Pentagon chief's belief that "it's easier to get into something than it is to get out."

Taegan Goddard flagged an exchange between Rumsfeld and Kai Ryssdal this week that stood out as especially interesting (thanks to my colleague Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).

Ryssdal:  I do wonder whether you read Robert McNamara's memoirs when they came out.  Obviously, the secretary of defense during Vietnam.

Rumsfeld:  I have not.  I served in Congress during that period.

Ryssdal:  Here's why I ask, that book was widely seen as an apology for his role in Vietnam.  And I looked in this book [Rumsfeld's Rules] pretty hard for any rule that you might have had about apologizing.  And I couldn't find one.

Rumsfeld:  And?  What's your question?

Ryssdal:  Did you ever think about apologizing?

Rumsfeld may not have fully appreciated the scope of the question, because his answer kind of meandered a bit.  "Well, my goodness," he replied.  "As Napoleon said, 'I've been mistaken so many times I don't even blush for it anymore.'  Sure, you see things that don't turn out the way you hoped."

I'm not sure this counts as an apology, but for those who look at his Pentagon (aka DoD) tenure with sorrow, grief, and crushing disappointment, it'll probably have to do.

MILITARY - Sexual Assaults Growing

"Report on Military's Growing Number of Sexual Assaults Draws Presidential Rebuke" PBS Newshour 5/7/2013

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour):  The problem of sexual assaults in the nation's armed forces is getting worse, and maybe much worse.  The issue drew the national spotlight today and a presidential rebuke.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  We're not going to tolerate this stuff, and there will be accountability.

RAY SUAREZ:  The news of growing sexual assaults in the military raised the president's hackles at a news conference with the president of South Korea.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Let's start with the principle that sexual assault is an outrage.  It is a crime.  That's true for society at large, and if it's happening inside our military, then whoever carries it out is betraying the uniform that they're wearing.

RAY SUAREZ:  Mr. Obama spoke as an annual Pentagon study reported sexual assaults in the military rose from just under 3,300 in 2012 to nearly 3,400 last year.  But it also found that up to 26,000 cases went unreported.

At a Senate hearing this morning, the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Mark Welsh, struck sparks with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, suggesting it's not always a commander's fault if victims don't come forward.

POLITICS - Embattled Confirmation of Defense Secretary Hagel

"Did Embattled Confirmation Process Weaken New Defense Secretary Hagel?" PBS Newshour 2/26/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):   The United States Senate ended a contentious fight over a key presidential nomination today, and confirmed former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense.

SEN. HARRY REID, D-Nev., Majority Leader:  Twelve days later, nothing, nothing has changed.  Twelve days later, Senator Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  In short, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, Chuck Hagel should have been confirmed before the President's Day recess.  At the time, the Senate's 55 Democrats could not get the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against fellow Republican Hagel.  Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois condemned the GOP opposition today.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN, D-Ill., Majority Whip:  There's no question that there are some who bear some negative feelings toward Chuck Hagel because of his independence and some of his votes in the past, even his support of President Obama in the last presidential election.  But this has been taken to a level that I never expected.

POLITICS - Panetta Warning on Sequestration

"Defense Secretary Panetta Warns Automatic Spending Cuts Could Mean Furlough" PBS Newshour 2/20/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  It was the starkest statement yet on the possible effect of automatic federal budget cuts, due to begin in nine days, on Mar. 1st.  Defense Sec. Leon Panetta notified his entire civilian work force that employees could be sent home without pay.

The warning was aimed at Defense Department workers at the Pentagon and around the world.  Secretary Panetta sent them a written message, as he left for a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels.  In it, he said there are limited options for coping with the looming across-the-board cuts.  And he said: "Should sequestration occur and continue for a substantial period, DOD will be forced to place the vast majority of its civilian work force on administrative furlough."

UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS JESSICA WRIGHT:  On our civilians, it will be catastrophic.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Within hours, top Pentagon officials were out, saying employees could lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks.

Ah, yes.  The real concern about jobs.... NOT!

POLITICS - Republican Obstructionism on Hagel Confirmation

More Republican obstructionist dogma BEFORE the security of our nation.  Also, they eat their own.

"Defense Secretary Nominee Hagel Faces More Hurdles in Bid for Nomination" PBS Newshour 2/14/2013

Excerpt

SEN. HARRY REID, D-Nev.:  There has never in the history of the country been a filibuster of a defense secretary nominee, never.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour):  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor this morning and blasted Republicans for blocking a vote on Chuck Hagel for the Pentagon's top job.

HARRY REID:  This isn't a high school getting ready for a football game or some play that's being produced at a high school.  This is -- we're trying to confirm somebody to run the defenses of our country.

MARGARET WARNER:  Democrats hold a 55-45 edge in the Senate, but it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, meaning five Republicans would have had to break ranks to make that happen.

But partisan divisions were on display Tuesday, as the Armed Services Committee approved the Hagel nomination on a straight party-line vote 14-11.  That followed a contentious hearing in January, as Hagel's former Republican colleagues attacked him on several fronts, including his criticism of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.

POLITICS - Hagel Confirmation Hearing

"Chuck Hagel Defends Record at Confirmation Hearing" PBS Newshour 1/31/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel faced a hostile reception today from half of the committee that must sign off before he can become secretary of defense.

His Senate confirmation hearing centered heavily on criticism from his one-time Republican colleagues.

The atmosphere was friendly enough at the outset, as Chuck Hagel began his big day before the Armed Services Committee.  He quickly sought to allay concerns on both sides about his positions on everything from Iran to Israel to nuclear weapons.

FORMER SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-Neb.:  No one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record.  My overall world view has never changed, that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world.

I believe, and always have believed, that America must engage in the world, not retreat from the world, but engage from -- the world.  My record is consistent on these points.

COMMENT:  Typical Republicanism, no disagreement allowed, even from a Republican.

MILITARY - DoD Budget and Politics of Hagel Nomination

"Defense Department Budget Will Be Major Questioning Point for Nominee Hagel" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 1/29/2013

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Now we take a two-part look at President Obama's choice to be the next secretary of defense.

Confirmation hearings for former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel are set for Thursday.  Among other things, he is likely to face questions about the Pentagon's looming budget crisis. Automatic spending cuts set to take effect March first mean the Defense Department may have to find $52 billion in savings this year and half-a-trillion dollars over the next decade.

NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN (Newshour):  Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently sounded the alarm at the prospect of looming budget cuts.

DEFENSE SECRETARY LEON PANETTA, United States:  The most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty.  We're going to suffer some damage.

KWAME HOLMAN:  That damage could be felt soon.  Hundreds of thousands of the Pentagon's civilian employees will face furloughs and reduced paychecks as early as April.

"In Some States, Political Ads Take Aim at Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 1/29/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Political ads both on TV and in newspapers have been launched against Chuck Hagel, nominee for Secretary of Defense.  Judy Woodruff talks with New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg about who may be behind the campaigns and what affect they may have.

MILITARY - Lift on Banning Women in Combat

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Lifts Armed Services Ban on Women in Combat" PBS Newshour 1/23/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta decided to lift the ban on women in the military serving in combat, opening thousands of front line jobs to women and reversing the 1994 policy that kept them out of those positions.  Gwen Ifill talks with James Kitfield of National Journal about the historic change and implications.

AFGHANISTAN - Withdrawal Schedule for 2014

"White House Says All U.S. Troops Might Leave Afghanistan by End of 2014" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 1/9/2013

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): As the president's second term takes shape, the Obama administration is grappling with one of its thorniest challenges, deciding how many troops will or will not remain in Afghanistan after 2014.

Judy Woodruff has that.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): The talk of how many U.S. troops to leave in Afghanistan comes with 66,000 still serving there, down from a peak of 100,000 in 2010.

Under current plans, combat forces would be withdrawn by the end of 2014, leaving an undetermined number of Americans to train Afghan troops. But, yesterday, the White House deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, told reporters the number could be zero.

He said: "We wouldn't rule out any option. The U.S. doesn't have an inherent objective of X-number of troops in Afghanistan."

The comment raised eyebrows in Washington, especially in light of something that Vice President Joe Biden said in a campaign debate last fall.

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: We are leaving in 2014, period. The primary objective is almost completed. Now, all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Underlying all this, U.S. and Afghan negotiators at odds over granting American soldiers immunity from prosecution under Afghan law after 2014.

The issue is expected to come up Friday, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai meets with President Obama at the White House.

But if past experience is any indicator, agreement may be hard to come by. In 2011, negotiations to leave American trainers in Iraq broke down over the immunity question, and no U.S. troops remain there.

"Anticipating Withdrawal, Weighing Options for U.S. Troop Levels in Afghanistan" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 1/9/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY: While the White House considers how the U.S. military might best make its Afghanistan exit, Judy Woodruff gets two views on the topic from Bing West, author of "The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan" and former Defense Department official Celeste Ward Gventer.

POLITICS - Nominees for DoD Secretary and CIA Director

"Nominations for Defense and the C.I.A." Editorial, New York Times 1/7/2013

Excerpt

In nominating Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary and John Brennan to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, President Obama has selected two trusted advisers who could help him set a new tone, and conceivably a new direction, on issues of war and peace in his second term. But both candidates must provide answers to serious questions before they can expect confirmation by the Senate.

"Lawmakers Promise Tough Questions for Defense, CIA Nominees" PBS Newshour 1/7/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Judy Woodruff reports on President Obama's nominations of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary and John Brennan for CIA director. Gwen Ifill talks to Jessica Tuchman Mathews of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Reuel Marc Gerecht of Foundation for Defense of Democracies about the president's picks.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Today's announcement at the White House sets up a pair of potential confirmation fights. President Obama's choices to oversee the Pentagon and the CIA will now be called on to answer questions about everything from Israel to Iran to interrogations.

There had been much speculation about both nominations, but the president made them official this afternoon in the East Room of the White House.

Watch Lawmakers Promise Tough Questions for Defense, CIA Nominees on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

DOD - All Chuck Hagel Needs to Know

"Everything Chuck Hagel needs to know about the defense budget, in charts" by Brad Plumer, Washington Post 1/7/2013

On Monday afternoon, President Obama will nominate former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (R) as secretary of defense. The confirmation hearings are likely to focus on Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran. Yet the biggest headache likely to face the next defense secretary will almost certainly be the U.S. military budget.

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security. Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 billion to $530 billion — and that’s before accounting for the primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But now that those wars are ending and austerity is back in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start tightening its belt in 2013 and beyond. If Hagel gets confirmed as secretary of defense, he’ll have to figure out how best to do that.

Below, we’ve provided an overview of the U.S. defense budget — to get a better sense for what we spend on, and where Hagel might have to cut:

1) The United States spent 20 percent of its budget on defense in 2011

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All told, the United States spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. (It does not, however, include benefits for veterans.)

U.S. defense spending is expected to rise in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in. (More on that below.)

2) Defense spending has been rising dramatically since 9/11

Here’s a historical chart of defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars. There’s a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam wars. There’s another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan. Then defense spending got cut significantly during the Clinton years until soaring to historically unprecedented levels after 9/11.

U.S. defense spending is set to fall again in 2013, though it will still be as high in real terms as it was at the height of the Reagan build-up.

3) U.S. defense spending largely consists of soldier pay, weapons procurement, and operations spending

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Graph: Dylan Matthews

In 2011, the Pentagon spent about $145 billion on personnel pay and housing, $113 billion on weapons procurement, and $256 billion on operations — the last largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Smaller amounts also were spent on R&D (about $66 billion) and nuclear programs ($18 billion), as well as construction, family housing and other programs ($5 billion).

My colleague Dylan Matthews created the graph above to show how these portions have changed over time. Personnel spending has stayed constant over the years, even as the number of soldiers in the U.S. military has shrunk (pay and benefits have increased). Weapons procurement can vary wildly. And operations spending has soared during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4) The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011

Needless to say, the United States remains the world’s dominant military power. The graph above comes from the Pete G. Peterson Foundation, which compiled data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

5) The U.S. military budget is poised to shrink in 2013 and beyond, although this won’t be the biggest downsizing it has ever faced.

Two big things are about to happen to military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. And, thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing both hard budget caps and a looming sequester that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).

That seems severe. Although, as the graph above from the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester is fully implemented, which no one expects, the drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War were far more drastic in inflation-adjusted dollars.

6) Even with the Budget Control Act, defense spending is likely to grow over the next decade, albeit more slowly

The chart above comes from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, who points out that even with the Budget Control Act caps and the sequester, overall U.S. military spending will still grow in inflation-adjusted terms over the next decade. It will just grow more slowly than it otherwise would have. (And, of course, if Congress finds a way to avert the defense cuts in the sequester, as some members would like to do, then it will grow even more quickly.)

7) The Pentagon and Congress are already rejiggering the military budget in response to austerity

Photo: Raytheon

Back in January, the Department of Defense unveiled its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 — a look at how it would deal with new budget constraints. As Wired’s Spencer Ackerman reported, the Pentagon wanted to downsize about 100,000 human soldiers and ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles.

Of course, the Pentagon doesn’t have the final say. Congress eventually passed its own $631 billion defense appropriations bill in December that made some changes to the Pentagon’s vision. Many of the weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire — such as three Navy cruisers — were kept in. The final did, however, make plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years.

8) The next secretary of defense will have to make further tough choices about the Pentagon’s budget

The chart above comes from a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which asked seven teams of experts to come up with ways to meet the Pentagon’s new spending constraints in the coming decades. It shows what areas different teams would cut — some experts advised heavily slashing the civilian workforce, others advocated cutting aircraft inventory. (There were some areas of consensus, though: surface ships were generally cut more than submarines, for instance.)

The cuts weren’t always painless. For instance: “Five of seven teams agreed that they could not fully resource their strategies under the assumed fiscal guidance unless they accepted near-term risk by reducing current readiness programs.” These are trade-offs Hagel will have to navigate.

9) Ordinary Americans want to cut defense spending far more than is already on the table

Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn’t likely to pay much attention here, but it’s a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular.