On This Day In The Navy:1798: President John Adams signs an act that reestablishes the Marine Corps under the Constitution. The following day, Maj. William W. Burrows is appointed Commandant of the Marine Corps.

TOP STORIES:1. Kerry Assures China That The U.S. Can Have Many Allies In Asia (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Jane Perlez

BEIJING – Seeking to put the best face on a difficult relationship with Beijing, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday that the United States and China could find ways to manage their differences and had more in common than not.

2. Gaza Deaths Spike In 3rd Day Of Air Assaults While Rockets Hit Israel (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Isabel Kershner

JERUSALEM – Palestinian deaths from Israel’s aerial attacks in Gaza rose sharply on Thursday, while militants there fired more than 180 rockets into Israel, reaching new targets spread across a vast area of the country.

3. Kerry In Afghanistan To Try To Broker Election-Audit Deal Deepening Crisis Threatens to Divide Country Along Ethnic Lines(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Ian Talley and Nathan Hodge

KABUL – Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Afghanistan to try to broker an election-audit deal between presidential candidates as a deepening crisis threatens to fragment the country along ethnic and regional lines.

CNO:4. CNO At NNOA: Speaks On Navy Diversity And Gives Leadership Advice (NAVY NEWS SERVICE 11 JUL 14) ... Chief of Naval Operations Public Affairs Staff

QUANTICO, Va. – Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert spoke to sea service officers at the 42nd National Naval Officer Association (NNOA) Professional Development and Training Conference held in Quantico, Va., July 10.

ASIA – PACIFIC:5. Chinese Hack Aims At Federal Workers’ Data (WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein

Federal authorities are investigating a breach of the computer networks of the Office of Personnel Management, which stores detailed data on up to 5 million U.S. government employees and contractors who hold sensitive security clearances.

6. How Not To Win Friends And Influence People China's heavy-handed behavior is driving neighbors, especially Australia, farther away from its orbit.(FOREIGN POLICY 10 JUL 14) ... Keith Johnson

Here's one way to gauge just how much China has shot itself in the foot by bullying neighbors and rattling sabers: It's making what looked like a painful choice for Australia a whole lot easier.

MIDEAST:7. Kurdish Government Calls On Maliki To Quit As Iraqi Premier (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Alissa J. Rubin and Alan Cowell

BAGHDAD – The Kurdish regional government responded Thursday to harsh criticism from Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, announcing that its ministers would boycott cabinet meetings, demanding an apology to the Iraqi people and calling on Mr. Maliki to step down.

CHINFO NEWS CLIPSFriday, July 11, 2014

Further reproduction or distribution is subject to original copyright restrictions.To subscribe: send request with Name, Rank & Email to [chinfo_clips.fct@navy.mil]

1

8. Israel's 'Iron Dome' Changes The Face Of Battle (ASSOCIATED PRESS 10 JUL 14) ... Aron Heller

JERUSALEM – Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system has emerged as a game-changer in the current round of violence with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, shooting down dozens of incoming rockets and being credited with preventing numerous civilian casualties.

9. Kerry To Join Talks On Iran As Deadline Draws Near (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... David E. Sanger

VIENNA – With the Vienna negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities making halting progress at best and a deadline looming, the Obama administration announced Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry would fly here this weekend to assess whether a deal is possible – and perhaps to begin negotiating an extension in the talks that both sides said they had wanted to avoid.

AFGHANISTAN / PAKISTAN:10. Nominee To Lead Troops In Afghanistan Sees ‘Good News’ (STARS AND STRIPES 10 JUL 14) ... Chris Carroll

WASHINGTON – Senators on Thursday pressed nominees to top military posts on how to avoid a repeat of the recent Iraq debacle – where a U.S.-trained military collapsed in the face of a smaller insurgent force – in Afghanistan as the war there draws to a close.

11. Pakistan Claims Win Against Militants Along Afghan Border, But Enemy Slips Away (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Ismail Khan and Declan Walsh

MIRAM SHAH, Pakistan – A solitary donkey wandered through the deserted streets of this once-bustling tribal town of 100,000, but no other inhabitants were to be found 10 days after Pakistani troops backed by tanks and helicopter gunships seized control.

EUROPE:12. Pro-Russia Rebels Defiant As Ukraine Military Advances Toward Donetsk Government Moves to Consolidate Gains, Rebel Leaders Make Rare Joint Appearance(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Philip Shishkin and Lukas I. Alpert

Leaders of the pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine vowed in a rare joint appearance Thursday to turn their biggest remaining stronghold into a final battleground as government forces edged closer.

13. British Combatants Of A Different Religious War (NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Alan Cowell

LONDON – It was nine years ago on July 7, 2005, that four suicide bombers killed 52 people on the London transit system during the morning rush hour, introducing Britons to a kind of terrorism that Americans had confronted on Sept. 11, 2001.

AFRICA:14. Pirates V Economists A new weapon against Somali bandits: free trade(THE ECONOMIST 12 JUL 14)

Ships navigating the lawless seas of the Gulf of Aden must keep a constant lookout for Somali pirates. The roots of Somalia’s maritime banditry lie in its desperately poor coastal villages, where the choice between fishing and piracy is an easy one for many. But whereas plenty of attention has been given to pirates’ own economic motives, less has been paid to the question of why influential local clans put up with the marauders in their midst. New research by economists at the University of Oxford and King’s College London sheds some light on that issue – and suggests a way in which the pirates could be run aground for good.

CONGRESS / BUDGET:15. House Panel Grills Navy On Cruiser Modernization Plan Carrier refueling seems to be moving forward(NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Christopher P. Cavas

WASHINGTON – Sometimes it’s all about trust, and right now, the Navy is struggling to convince Congress it’s on the level about a plan to take half the fleet’s 22 cruisers out of service and gradually return them to active duty.

2

16. Stackley: Navy Plans To Refuel Carrier George Washington (U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE NEWS 10 JUL 14) ... Sam LaGrone

The U.S. Navy’s chief shipbuilder told Congress the service plans to reshuffle $7 billion in funds to refuel and maintain the nuclear aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73). The fate of the carrier wash an open question at the start of the year due to ongoing military funding pressures.

17. U.S. House, Senate Appropriators Not Yet 'Pre-Conferencing' A 2015 Defense Bill Senate's Procedural Deep Freeze Shows No Sign of Thawing(DEFENSE NEWS 10 JUL 14) ... John T. Bennett

WASHINGTON – Even as the U.S. Senate remains unable to pass agency spending bills, the two chambers’ Appropriations committees have yet to begin work on a compromise bill to fund the military next year.

18. Fleet Forces Leader Warns Senate Panel Of Cyber Threat (NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT 10 JUL 14) ... Bill Bartel

Adm. Bill Gortney, head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, told a Senate panel Thursday morning that the greatest threat to the United States' homeland security is cyber attacks.

19. Special Operations Commander Says Burden On Elite Troops Is Here To Stay (DEFENSE ONE 10 JUL 14) ... Ben Watson

The incoming top commander of the United States military’s elite forces said that Pentagon officials and lawmakers need to ease the burden on special operations troops and their families, who are bending under the compounded stresses of more than a dozen years of war in the world’s most dangerous places.

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP:20. Under Fire The vessel meant to be a mainstay of the Navy fleet faces questions about its firepower as well as financial constraints(HONOLULU STAR-ADVERTISER 10 JUL 14) ... William Cole

The "littoral combat ship" that was to make up one-sixth of the U.S. Navy fleet continues to be a work in progress as one of the vessels heads out from Pearl Harbor to take part in a "sink exercise" off Kauai during Rim of the Pacific war games.

AVIATION:21. Hagel Hails F-35 – But It’s Still Grounded (POLITICO 10 JUL 14) ... Philip Ewing

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel praised the F-35 Lightning II effusively on his visit Thursday to its training hub here. The sleek gray fighters are going to deliver unmatched new capabilities, he said – they are “the future.” He is absolutely confident in the fleet, its pilots and the troops who support them.

22. Kendall: F-35 Engine Failure Appears Unique, Not A Systemic Problem, Based On Early Evidence (DEFENSE DAILY 10 JUL 14) ... Megan Eckstein and Pat Host

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told lawmakers that early evidence suggests a recent F-35 engine failure was a single-engine issue, not a systemic problem – but he made clear the Defense Department needs to go through its full investigation and safety certification process before allowing the planes to fly again.

23. Lockheed, Partners Pledge To Pump $170 Million Into F-35 (FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM 10 JUL 14) ... Steve Kaskovich and Yamil Berard

Lockheed Martin and its two main partners in the F-35 program have agreed to invest $170 million over the next three years to help bring down the cost of the over-budget, next-generation fighter jet by the end of the decade.

ENERGY:24. Navy Looks To Biofuels To Sail The Great Green Fleet In 2016 (BIOMASS MAGAZINE 09 JUL 14) ... Mark Matsunaga, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

Ships and aircraft in the next Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise could be running on biofuels, and they won't even need to know it, according to speakers at an Alternative Fuels Overview briefing for RIMPAC 2014 participants.

3

PERSONNEL:25. Career Intermission Program 5 Things You Need to Know(ALL HANDS (NAVY.MIL) 10 JUL 14) ... Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs

Since the Navy's Career Intermission Program inception in 2009, 70 Sailors, men and women, officers and enlisted, across a variety of communities have taken advantage of the program to pursue personal and professional goals.

26. Marine Corps Dilemma With Women Prompts Change At Infantry School (CHECKPOINT (WASHINGTON POST BLOG) 10 JUL 14) ... Dan Lamothe

It has been more than two years since word first trickled out that the Marine Corps was planning to incorporate women on an experimental basis into its arduous Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va. The idea was simple, if controversial: The Pentagon was investigating which additional jobs should be opened in the military to women, and top Marine officers wanted as much research done as possible before decisions were made. They gave themselves three years.

VETERANS AFFAIRS:27. Retired Navy Doctor Named To Interim VA Post (NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Patricia Kime

The Veterans Affairs Department has named a career Navy doctor to serve as interim director of its Office of the Medical Inspector.

28. Lawmakers Propose Bill To Improve VA Suicide Prevention Care (NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Patricia Kime

House lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation they say would improve suicide prevention at the Veterans Affairs Department and bring together former service members needing help.

OUTREACH:29. Commanding Officer, Sailors From USS Louisville Submarine Visit Namesake City (WDRB FOX LOUISVILLE 10 JUL 14)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The city of Louisville is rolling out the red carpet for the crew of the USS Louisville (SSN 724). U.S. Navy Commander Robert Figgs, the commanding officer of the submarine, and three of his Sailors are visiting namesake city of their ship this week.

HISTORY:30. USS Nevada: A Century Of Pride For The Silver State (RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 08 JUL 14) ... Guy Clifton

As Nevada celebrates its 150th year of statehood, one of her storied namesakes is marking an anniversary as well.

COMMENTARY:31. Obama’s Counterterrorism Blueprint Looks Good, On Paper (WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... David Ignatius

In President Obama’s sometimes maddeningly cautious foreign policy, you can see him struggling to answer what may be the hardest question of his presidency: How should the United States project power in a disorderly world without making the same mistakes it did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

32. The U.S. Is Losing The Message War The United States must advance a Mideast policy based on collaboration(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Jane Harman

What, exactly, does the United States stand for in the Middle East? More important, what would the average Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian or Yemeni say that it stands for? The suggestion that the United States is retrenching might seem absurd, given that Yemenis can hear the buzz of drones overhead. The notion that the United States is in the business of supporting democratic pluralism might clash with their reading of our Egypt strategy or our will-they-or-won’t-they waffling over whether to actively support Syrian opposition fighters. Day by day, with chaos blossoming, it becomes clearer that if we do have a strategic narrative for the Middle East, we certainly have not articulated it effectively. In marketing terms, we are not making the sale.

4

33. How To Resolve The Iran Impasse Ensuring nuclear fuel for Iran could put the country in a box(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... George Perkovich

Uranium enrichment is the stickiest sticking point in the nuclear negotiations with Iran now underway in Vienna. The United States and its five partners want Iran to scale back the number and output of the centrifuges it operates and deploys in reserve, thereby extending the time it would take to “break out” and construct a bomb. Iran says it could delay expanding its enrichment capacity for a few years but ultimately needs to scale up to produce replacement fuel for its Bushehr nuclear power reactor. Iranian negotiators maintain that they can’t rely on Russia to continue supplying the fuel or give up Iran’s centrifuge capability, given the high price that has been paid to acquire it – in sanctions and the assassination of its scientists.

34. China Plays The South Korea Card President Xi's trip to Seoul was undoubtedly an attempt to isolate Japan. It won't work.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Michael Auslin

After Chinese President Xi Jinping's trip to South Korea last week, "Beijingology" is in full swing. Analysts are trying to interpret the tea leaves of his visit. Is he showing anger toward North Korea? Driving a wedge between Japan and South Korea? Is he responding to U.S. pressure?

35. Going It Alone The U.S. should follow Ukraine’s lead and act unilaterally on Russia sanctions(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Editorial

Ukraine’s new leader is making progress in regaining control over eastern areas of the country that were seized by Russian-backed insurgents, but he’s getting no help from the United States or the European Union. In fact, President Petro Poroshenko is succeeding in large part because he is resisting pressure to make unacceptable concessions to Moscow and its surrogates.

36. How To Avert Afghanistan's Implosion Election-fraud charges must be resolved by July 22. The U.S. should do all it can to make that happen.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Frederick W. Kagan

The Afghan electoral commission announced on Monday that preliminary results showed Ashraf Ghani a million votes ahead of Abdullah Abdullah. Both camps immediately claimed victory.

37. In Defense Of Killer Robots A ban-the-bots movement is growing, but first the military should find out what such autonomous systems can do.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Erik Schechter

Weapons systems are getting smarter, and people are getting nervous. In May, Human Rights Watch called for the outlawing of autonomous military machines with lethal capabilities. The group, which has organized an international "Campaign to Stop Killer Robots," issued the statement as 87 member states of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons met in Geneva to discuss the legal and ethical implications of autonomous military machines.

38. Sinking The Next-13-Navies Fallacy (WAR ON THE ROCKS 10 JUL 14) ... James Holmes

The war against naval factoids is a quagmire! A primary theater in this whack-a-mole struggle is the notion that America’s navy is “stronger” than the next X navies, and thus, we should rest easy about our republic’s strategic position in Eurasia. The usual figure given for X is 13, although a reputable commentator recently inflated it to 16. The latest purveyor of this claim is David Axe, the normally reliable proprietor of War Is Boring. On Tuesday, Axe contended, “By some measures, the U.S. Navy maintains a 13-navy standard. In other words, it can deploy as much combat power as the next 13 largest fleets combined.”

39. A Plea From Parents To Congress: Do Something To Stop The Suicides Of Our Veterans (WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Melinda Henneberger

Parents of military veterans who took their own lives after surviving combat told a congressional panel on Thursday how not to prevent suicide:

5

40. How To Fix The Government’s Security Clearance Mess (DEFENSE ONE 10 JUL 14) ... Steve Nguyen

The federal government’s security clearance process has been under intense scrutiny since last year’s Washington Navy Yard shooting by Aaron Alexis, a Marine Corp contractor with secret-level clearance and Edward Snowden’s unprecedented leak of classified information. In March, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pledged to correct “gaps or inadequacies in the department’s security” that could facilitate these types of incidents. If the federal government applied the same sort of risk analysis tools that insurance companies perform when they take on new clients, we could remove internal threats and maintain the safety of federal employees and government contractors.

6

TOP STORIES:1. Kerry Assures China That The U.S. Can Have Many Allies In Asia(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Jane Perlez

BEIJING – Seeking to put the best face on a difficult relationship with Beijing, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday that the United States and China could find ways to manage their differences and had more in common than not.

Neither side wanted to fall into the “trap of zero sum competition,” Mr. Kerry said at the conclusion of an annual strategic and economic dialogue between top officials of the two countries.

The array of topics with some areas of agreement – climate change, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan – attested to the viability of the relationship, he said.

Still, Mr. Kerry used fairly blunt language in an effort to persuade President Xi Jinping that the United States did not intend its 60-year system of alliances in Asia to encircle and contain China.

“We mean what we say when we emphasize that there’s no U.S. strategy to try to push back against or be in conflict with China,” he said, as Mr. Xi sat beside him during a farewell session at the Great Hall of the People.

Mr. Kerry was indirectly replying to charges by Chinese officials that President Obama had reinvigorated America’s network of alliances in Asia with the idea of containing China and its fast modernizing military. In response, Mr. Xi has initiated a campaign that calls for a new security architecture of Asia for the Asians.

New accusations that Chinese hackers had attacked highly sensitive American material were brusquely dismissed by China, even as the American delegation, headed by Mr. Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, tried to press cyberespionage as an important issue at the conference.

The Foreign Ministry dismissed assertions in an article in The New York Times that Chinese hackers had infiltrated United States government computer systems that house personal information of federal employees.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said the article was part of what he called an irresponsible anti-China smear campaign.

The article, first published Wednesday on the newspaper’s website, said the hackers had gained access to some of the databases of the Office of Personnel Management before authorities in the United States detected the breach and thwarted further access. It remained unclear what kind of information, if any, was compromised in the attack, which was said to have happened in March.

Asked about the article at a regular Foreign Ministry press briefing, a spokesman, Hong Lei, repeated China’s longstanding position that it opposes cyberhacking.

“This is what we say and what we have been doing,” he said. “Recently, some American media and Internet security firms keep playing the card of China Internet Threat and smear China’s image. They cannot produce tenable evidence. Such reports and comments are irresponsible and are not worth refuting.”

Asked about the article at a closing news conference, Mr. Kerry said that he and Mr. Lew had been unaware of the attack described in the article and did not raise it with Chinese

officials, although the broader subject of cybersecurity was discussed.

“We were notified about this alleged incident minutes before coming out here,” Mr. Kerry said.

He said the article was about attempted “intrusions” that were still being investigated and it did not appear that sensitive material had been compromised.

A senior American official who participated in sessions with the Chinese on Thursday said the case of the hacking into the Office of Personnel Management was not raised by either side. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk about a delicate matter.

The Chinese, angered by the indictment by the Justice Department in May of five members of the People’s Liberation Army on charges of cyberespionage, refused a request at the dialogue by the Americans to restart a joint cyber working group.

China suspended the work of the group that brought together American and Chinese negotiators to discuss cyber issues and has complained that National Security Agency documents made public by Edward J. Snowden showed the United States had used cyberespionage to gain economic advantage.

Mr. Xi, who invited the American and Chinese delegations to meet him Thursday afternoon at a session that was partly open to reporters, called on the two countries to work on building a “new model of major country relationship,” a phrase he frequently uses to imply an equal status between the United States and China.

It is an expression that the Obama administration has been reluctant to endorse for fear that it would confer legitimacy to China’s various territorial claims, including in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

The Obama administration sent senior officials to the dialogue, including Janet L. Yellen, chairwoman of the Federal Reserve; Michael Froman, the United States trade representative; Ernest Moniz, secretary of energy; Penny Pritzker, secretary of commerce, and John D. Podesta, counselor to President Obama, who specializes in climate change.

The Americans appeared pleased about what they called serious discussions on how to reduce carbon emissions. The presence of Mr. Podesta, who the Chinese know is close to Mr. Obama and is committed to climate change policies, added weight, they said.

A joint working group on climate change announced that both countries would develop new greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards.

“This effort has to be mutual and has to be accompanied by commitments which are defined by the actions we will actually take,” Mr. Kerry said. “It’s not about one country making a demand of the other.”

Even so, China’s chief climate official, Xie Zhenhua, said China, which still considers itself a developing country, should not be subject to the same rules for greenhouse gas emissions as the United States, suggesting that Beijing will

7

oppose attempts to impose them at next year’s world climate conference in Paris.

Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/asia/china-kerry-cyberspying.html

Return to Index

2. Gaza Deaths Spike In 3rd Day Of Air Assaults While Rockets Hit Israel(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Isabel Kershner

JERUSALEM – Palestinian deaths from Israel’s aerial attacks in Gaza rose sharply on Thursday, while militants there fired more than 180 rockets into Israel, reaching new targets spread across a vast area of the country.

The escalation appeared to increase the likelihood of a ground invasion and prompted the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to call urgently for a return to calm and a cease-fire.

“Today, we face the risk of an all-out escalation in Israel and Gaza, with the threat of a ground offensive still palpable – and preventable only if Hamas stops rocket firing,” he told an emergency meeting of the Security Council. There were no signs that a cease-fire was imminent, and no signs that diplomats representing the antagonists were heeding Mr. Ban’s call for calm.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, played an air-raid siren at the Council meeting to reflect what his country’s citizens hear every day. He called his Palestinian counterpart, Riyad Mansour, “a mouthpiece of Hamas.” Mr. Mansour blamed the underlying Israeli occupation, exhorting the Council to intervene and “salvage prospects for peace and security.”

In a televised statement after a cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said, “While the campaign has gone as planned, further stages yet await us,” describing what was to come as “tough” and “complex.”

“We have struck hard at Hamas and the terrorists, and as long as the campaign continues we will strike at them harder,” he said.

President Obama spoke with Mr. Netanyahu by phone on Thursday from Air Force One while returning to Washington from a fund-raising trip to Colorado and Texas. A White House statement said that Mr. Obama expressed concern about further escalation of violence and told the Israeli leader that the United States remained “prepared to facilitate a cessation of hostilities” between Israel and the Palestinians. Aides said Mr. Obama also expressed condolences about the murder of three Israeli teenagers and concern about the beating of a teenage American citizen.

A spokesman for the Israeli military said that about 20,000 reservists had been called up and that preparations for a possible ground operation were being completed.

As the air campaign entered its third day, the Palestinian death toll rose to at least 78, a majority of them civilians, according to officials in Gaza. No Israelis have been reported killed.

Airstrikes overnight on a house in Khan Younis and an open-air beach cafe killed at least 15 Palestinians, and one airstrike hit a car used by a local news agency bearing media signs, killing the driver, Hamed Shehab, 27, the officials said. The Israeli military said it had also hit at least eight operatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in what it described as several precision strikes. The military said all had been involved in either the manufacture or firing of rockets.

The Palestine chapter of Defense for Children International, an independent child-rights organization, said 14 children aged 15 and younger had been killed in the airstrikes on Tuesday and Wednesday, including four toddlers. The group issued a list with the names and ages of those killed, saying its Gaza-based field worker had verified each death.

Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas leader, said on Palestinian radio, “What we need is for the international community to pressure the occupation to halt its aggression, which is unjustified.” He was referring to Israel.

The rocket fire into Israel reached Mitzpeh Ramon, a town deep in the Negev desert, and the Dead Sea area for the first time. More rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system or fell in open spaces in the Tel Aviv area of central Israel. Sirens wailed in Jerusalem in the early evening, and two rockets were intercepted above the city; two more fell in open areas, one on the outskirts of the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Southern cities that have been the targets of rocket fire for years, like Ashdod and Beersheba, came under heavy rocket attack. The rockets caused extensive property damage but no serious injuries as Israelis ran for cover in shelters and fortified rooms with each siren.

Mr. Ban, while repeating his condemnation of indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, also warned Israel, saying “the excessive use of force and endangering of civilian lives are also intolerable.”

“Once again,” he said, “Palestinian civilians are caught between Hamas’s irresponsibility and Israel’s tough response.”

Israel says it is taking precautions in an effort to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. The military says it warns the occupants of houses marked for destruction that airstrikes are coming by phoning residents then firing a flare or a missile without an explosive warhead onto the roof.

The Israeli military gave an initial explanation of what happened in one case when seven people died and 25 were wounded in the strike on the house of the Kaware family in Khan Younis on Tuesday. Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said Thursday that the warnings had been given, and that the attack had commenced after the Israelis had seen people vacating the premises. In the interval between the last warning and the airstrike, people went back in, Colonel Lerner told reporters, saying it was too late to cancel the missile. “It is a tragedy indeed and not what we intended,” he said. A member of the family said earlier that neighbors had come to “form a human shield.”

The Israeli military said that the targeted houses belonged to Hamas members involved in launching rockets or other military activity, and that they had been used as operation centers. If innocents are hit, Mr. Netanyahu said, “it is because Hamas is maliciously hiding behind Palestinian civilians.”

In Gaza, the mood was somber but defiant. Abu Tamer Ajour, 70, said the conflict had come at a bad time, with

8

Hamas unable to pay full salaries to its 40,000 employees, among other hardships. “This aggression makes matters worse,” he said, “but victory will be for the Gaza people and our resistance.”

Riad Fawzi, 48, who is jobless, said he did not expect the clashes to last for long. “The Jews are not interested in more escalation,” he said, referring to Israel. “We are used to this

thing, but they cannot endure the same way we endure,” he said. “Allah is with us.”

Fares Akram contributed reporting from Gaza, Somini Sengupta from the United Nations, and Michael D. Shear from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html

Return to Index

3. Kerry In Afghanistan To Try To Broker Election-Audit DealDeepening Crisis Threatens to Divide Country Along Ethnic Lines(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Ian Talley and Nathan Hodge

KABUL – Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Afghanistan to try to broker an election-audit deal between presidential candidates as a deepening crisis threatens to fragment the country along ethnic and regional lines.

Former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani emerged as the apparent winner, with 56.4% of the vote, in preliminary results from a June 14 runoff. Former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah rejected the results, charging widespread fraud, and declared himself the victor.

Followers of Mr. Abdullah have called for him to set up a "parallel government," raising fears of a return to civil war. President Barack Obama has urged Mr. Abdullah to wait for an investigation of ballot-stuffing allegations.

"We are working very closely with all the stakeholders in Afghanistan, with enormous concern, obviously, for the restoration of credibility through the process," Mr. Kerry said on Thursday in Beijing before flying to Kabul.

It is unclear how the Obama administration plans to broker a compromise. Mr. Kerry said he has contacted both candidates several times, encouraging them "not to raise expectations for their supporters, [and] to publicly demonstrate respect for the audit process."

Administration officials say the U.S. isn't trying pick a winner, but rather to ensure that the election is seen as legitimate so that the new government has a mandate for power.

"While the U.S. does not support an individual candidate, we do support a credible, transparent and inclusive process that affirms the Afghan people's commitment to democracy and that produces a president who can bring Afghanistan together and govern effectively," said Jeff Rathke, a State Department press officer.

Thijs Berman, chief of the European Union observer mission in Afghanistan, on Thursday called for a full

investigation of fraud allegations. "At this stage of the analysis of the preliminary results, and without an in-depth audit, the final result is as yet uncertain and it is not possible to declare a winner, given the very high number of votes yet to be validated or annulled," Mr. Berman said.

Figures published by Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission led EU observers to estimate that between 2 million and 4 million votes should get further scrutiny, he said.

Mr. Abdullah claims that as many as 2 million fraudulent ballots were cast on Mr. Ghani's behalf, out of an official tally of 8.1 million – an accusation denied by his opponent. Mr. Ghani says higher voter turnout in the second-round vote was due to more effective voter mobilization by his campaign.

On the eve of Mr. Kerry's arrival, Afghan President Hamid Karzai endorsed a plan presented by the United Nations to audit 8,000 polling stations, the president's spokesman said.

The president and top Afghan officials met late Thursday with Ján Kubiš, the U.N. envoy in Afghanistan, to discuss the U.N. proposal, said Aimal Faizi, Mr. Karzai's spokesman. Mr. Karzai agreed to the plan, which would involve an audit representing about 3.5 million votes, according to Mr. Faizi.

On the day of the June 14 runoff vote, a total of 6,172 polling centers, including 22,828 polling stations, were open, according to the country's election commission.

"The president backs it, and asks the candidates to work with the U.N. on this proposal," Mr. Faizi said. "It's up to the U.N. and the two candidates and the [election] commission to work together."

Mr. Faizi said the proposal would be presented in writing to the candidates on Friday.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/kerry-voices-concern-over-contested-afghan-election-1405001583

Return to Index

CNO:4. CNO At NNOA: Speaks On Navy Diversity And Gives Leadership Advice(NAVY NEWS SERVICE 11 JUL 14) ... Chief of Naval Operations Public Affairs Staff

QUANTICO, Va. – Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert spoke to sea service officers at the 42nd National Naval Officer Association (NNOA) Professional Development and Training Conference held in Quantico, Va., July 10.

During Greenert's remarks he highlighted how Sailors underwrite what the Navy does, an update on how he sees diversity in the different communities and leadership advice.

This is Greenert's third year addressing NNOA, an organization which promotes diversity within the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The conference includes educational and professional development workshops, designed to enhance the professional awareness of attendees on recruitment, mentorship and other issues affecting the sea service. Greenert spoke twice during the conference, first to a joint session and then after lunch to a Navy specific group.

9

"We want to nurture people, to join and stay, which are two very different goals," said Greenert. "We've got to have role models, like Adm. Michelle Howard."

The first female four star admiral, Adm. Michelle Howard assumed office as Greenert's Vice Chief of Naval Operations last week. Greenert has long been an advocate of diversity in the Navy. During his tenure as CNO there have been radical changes to the opportunities for women.

Speaking about diversity across the Navy, Greenert said the overall numbers are good but the Navy should not declare victory. He highlighted how well the different occupational communities are doing and also provided statistics to back up progress.

"We're making progress but can do better to bring forward a diverse officer corps that can lead and develop a diverse Navy," said Greenert.

Greenert also highlighted that progress was uneven across the different communities.

"We must ensure there are no barriers to career progress," said Greenert. "Communities must continuously assess themselves."

Despite all the recent progress in promoting diversity and inclusion, Greenert says there is work yet to do.

"It is our goal that every ship, work center, community and rank is representative of our nation's diversity," said Greenert. It is an incredibly powerful and strategic message we send to the international community when we represent ourselves as a diverse force, said Greenert.

Following the joint session, Greenert took questions and engaged in a dialogue with Navy personnel attending the conference at an All Hands Call. The discussion touched on ethics, leadership, command climate and fitness.

"We all play a role in command climate – It sets a sense of being," said Greenert to the officers in attendance. Leadership is defining your group's sense of reality, he said. "Be pragmatic and optimistic and your attitude will be infectious."

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=82141Return to Index

ASIA – PACIFIC:5. Chinese Hack Aims At Federal Workers’ Data(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein

Federal authorities are investigating a breach of the computer networks of the Office of Personnel Management, which stores detailed data on up to 5 million U.S. government employees and contractors who hold sensitive security clearances.

Authorities have traced the intrusion to China, but it is not clear whether the hackers worked for the government, said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

So far, no personal data appears to have been stolen, according to OPM spokeswoman Nathaly Arriola. A U.S. official said the data is encrypted.

Arriola said that the OPM and the Department of Homeland Security were alerted to the breach in mid-March through an automated monitoring system. The intrusion apparently was detected early enough that a DHS computer emergency readiness team, working with the agency, was able to block the intruder and minimize the harm.

The Chinese military has waged a persistent, more than decade-long cyber-campaign to steal all manner of information – from military weapons designs to proprietary data on advanced technologies to insight into government policies – from the computer networks of the U.S. government and its contractors as well as other from other western governments and companies.

News of the breach, first reported by the New York Times, came as senior U.S. officials met in Beijing with their counterparts for the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Secretary of State John F. Kerry said he had been notified of the report only after the dialogue had finished, but he said he had raised the general issue of Chinese targeting of U.S. systems and been “very clear” that it was an area of concern.

Chinese officials steadfastly deny that their government hacks U.S. computers and have pointed to reports based on documents leaked by former National Security Agency

contractor Edward Snowden that the United States has compromised the systems of a major Chinese telecommunications equipment company, Huawei.

Former U.S. officials said that if the intruders were successful in siphoning data from the OPM, they would have gained access to a treasure trove of personal information that could enable further attacks. Experts say there are ways around encryption.

The agency operates a computerized program called e-QIP, which processes applications for security clearances, including top secret and higher. Stored in the system are massive amounts of data, including applicants’ financial histories and investment records, children’s and relatives’ names, foreign trips taken and contacts with foreign nationals, past residences, and names of neighbors and close friends such as college roommates and co-workers. Employees log in using their Social Security numbers.

“If the Chinese government got access to that type of data, it would be a significant breach because the data would allow them to have very detailed information about people who hold very sensitive clearances,” said Shawn Henry, a former executive assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch.

The data could enable a hacker to craft more sophisticated efforts to send e-mails to government officials aimed at getting them to download malware by posing as people who know them – a technique known as “spearphishing,” said Henry, who is now chief security officer at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm. It could help them gain access to sensitive computer accounts and even potentially conduct a physical attack or attempt extortion, he said.

The hacker could know virtually “every single person who is cleared in the U.S,” said Jacob Olcott of Good Harbor Consulting, a cyber-risk-management company, and a former counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee. “So when they

10

want access to the Energy Department program on such and such, they’ll say, ‘Who do we know there? Let’s send a spearphishing e-mail to get access to their computer.’“

U.S. government networks are assaulted daily by hackers – including more than 100 foreign intelligence agencies – trying to breach computer defenses, according to U.S. officials.

The Chinese have had some success. In 2006, Chinese hackers breached the system of a sensitive Commerce Department bureau, forcing it to replace hundreds of workstations and block employees from regular use of the Internet for more than a month. A few months before that, Chinese hackers broke into State Department computers.

In recent years, hackers have penetrated e-mail and other systems at the Defense Department, the Navy and the

Environmental Protection Agency. Last year, hackers stole personal data from more than 104,000 people from an Energy Department system.

“This wasn’t the beginning or end of this particular mission,” said Olcott, referring to the attempt on the OPM system. “You have to think of this as another part of a long-term effort to collect data on U.S. government initiatives.”

Simon Denyer from Beijing and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hackers-go-after-us-workers-personal-data/2014/07/10/92db92e8-0846-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html

Return to Index

6. How Not To Win Friends And Influence PeopleChina's heavy-handed behavior is driving neighbors, especially Australia, farther away from its orbit.(FOREIGN POLICY 10 JUL 14) ... Keith Johnson

Here's one way to gauge just how much China has shot itself in the foot by bullying neighbors and rattling sabers: It's making what looked like a painful choice for Australia a whole lot easier.

For years, policymakers from Down Under have worried about just how long the country could balance moving ever closer to China in terms of economic interests with maintaining deep defense ties with the United States as tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific. With the U.S. "pivot to Asia" – featuring a leading role for Australia – and growing concern about China's heavy-handed diplomacy, those fears had been intensifying.

"The question is not whether we want to choose between them, but whether we might find ourselves forced to make such a choice," Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, told Foreign Policy recently.

China is doing its part by picking fights with Vietnam and the Philippines, single-handedly pushing Japan to scuttle decades of pacifism, and running roughshod over the international rules and norms that underpinned the region's decades of peace and prosperity. As a result, Australia has taken giant strides toward the United States and its allies.

On Tuesday, just weeks after doubling down on security ties with the United States, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed sweeping economic and defense deals, reaffirming the two countries' "special relationship." The deals, which include plans for joint development of advanced submarines, indicate Abbott's vocal support for Abe's more muscular military posture – while also sending a clear message to China.

"For decades now, Japan has been an exemplary international citizen. So Australia welcomes Japan's recent decision to be a more capable strategic partner in our region," Abbot said, addressing Parliament with Abe. "I stress, ours is not a partnership against anyone; it's a partnership for peace, for prosperity and for the rule of law."

Coming right on the heels of Abbot's June trip to Washington – in which he stressed that "Australia will be an utterly dependable ally of the United States" – Abbott's stance puts to rest worries that Australia might throw its old friends

under the bus to guarantee lucrative trade ties with Beijing, some experts say.

"In a strategic and political sense, Australia has already chosen: It is a firm U.S. ally, and the alliance has intensified," said Rory Medcalf, a director at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia's leading think tank. "In the end, it is very difficult to see how Chinese economic leverage could compel Australia to loosen or break the alliance."

Abbot himself underscored that point, telling Parliament, "You don't win new friends by losing old ones."

For decades, countries such as Australia and New Zealand never had to choose between economic growth and security. The dominant economic power and the dominant military power were one and the same: the United States. "So long as one country ... was able to set the international security agenda, there was no significant divergence between economic aspirations and the desire for security," former New Zealand Defense Minister Wayne Mapp noted in a paper written this spring.

That has all changed with China's dramatic transformation over the last 40 years from economic weakling to titan. China is Australia's top trading partner, with bilateral exchange worth more than $150 billion annually. China's voracious appetite for raw materials and energy resources, in particular, helped underwrite Australia's economic growth over the last 20 years; former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in a speech last year that such trade accounted for about half of Australia's income gains from 2000 to 2010.

Even as China's double-digit economic growth slows, accompanied by corresponding drops in its demand for Australia's raw materials, Australia's prosperity remains centered in Asia. That leaves policymakers in Canberra to wrestle with how best to position Australia to take advantage of the "Asian century."

Australian leaders spanning the political spectrum, from conservatives such as John Howard and Abbott to liberals like Rudd and Julia Gillard, have tried to chart "best of both worlds" courses, seeking more affinity with everyone. Rudd speaks Mandarin. Abbot offsets visits to Japan with stops in China. And now Canberra is placing itself firmly under Uncle

11

Sam's wing even as it pursues finalizing a new free trade pact with Beijing by year's end.

"America has kept us safe while China has made us rich. We would like that to last forever," Australian National University's White said.

Indeed, Australians have a blurry view of just what's best for the country. In the latest annual Lowy poll, Australians said China was the country's best friend in Asia – ahead of Japan or South Korea, its other big trading partners, which are also democracies allied with the United States. Aussies registered their warmest feelings toward China in 10 years of Lowy polling. And the importance they placed on the military alliance with America hit a five-year low, though 78 percent of Aussies still favor it.

Yet nearly half of Australians believe China will become a military threat in the next 20 years, a significant uptick from last year's survey. That likely reflects unease with China's recent regional aggression, such as dispatching an oil rig to Vietnamese waters in May, constructing an airstrip on an island claimed by the Philippines that same month, and constantly sparring with Japan over disputed islands in the East China Sea with both air and naval power.

Even as those actions pushed Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and Australia closer to Washington, "they will not be able to ignore China's expectations," Mapp, the former Kiwi defense minister, told FP. "In short, the increased power of China does change the calculus. And it means accommodating at least some of China's expectations – not every one of them can be rebuffed."

Top U.S. and Chinese officials are discussing the two countries' impasse at the big strategic and economic talks in Beijing this week. Pentagon planners are plotting ways to push back against Chinese encroachments in the South China Sea. If things turn ugly, Washington would expect Australian help, including direct military assistance; that's likely to prompt some serious soul-searching in Canberra.

"Joining the United States in military operations against China would have immense consequences for our relations with Beijing. If such a conflict escalated, which is not a remote possibility, Australia would soon face a real 'us-or-them' choice," White said.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/09/how_not_to_win_friends_and_influence_people_china_australia_defense_japan_abe_abbott

Return to Index

MIDEAST:7. Kurdish Government Calls On Maliki To Quit As Iraqi Premier(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Alissa J. Rubin and Alan Cowell

BAGHDAD – The Kurdish regional government responded Thursday to harsh criticism from Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, announcing that its ministers would boycott cabinet meetings, demanding an apology to the Iraqi people and calling on Mr. Maliki to step down.

The political fissure was exacerbated after Mr. Maliki on Wednesday accused the Kurds of turning their regional capital into the headquarters of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as harboring members of the Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein and other opponents of the Iraqi government.

The Iraqi government halted all cargo flights to Kurdistan on Thursday, said Capt. Nasser al-Bandar, the head of civil aviation in the Iraqi government. Kurdistan had responded by halting its cargo flights to Baghdad, he said.

Iraq has also notified the United Nations that Sunni militants from ISIS seized nuclear material from a university in the northern city of Mosul last month as they advanced toward Baghdad, the nuclear regulatory body of the United Nations said Thursday.

Gill Tudor, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is based in Vienna, said in a statement that the organization’s experts believed that the material – thought to be uranium – was “low grade and would not present a significant safety, security or nuclear proliferation risk.”

Word of the seizure first emerged in a letter to the United Nations that was dated Tuesday and seen by reporters from Reuters, which quoted it as saying that “terrorists” from ISIS had taken control of the materials.

The letter said that almost 90 pounds of uranium compounds had been kept at the university and that the materials “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction,” Reuters said.

But the theft has not caused alarm in the safeguards division of the atomic energy agency in Vienna, said a diplomat there who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide information that is considered sensitive.

“This seems to be a reagent used in teaching,” the diplomat said, adding that it was a relatively small amount of material that could “fit in a bucket.”

The mention of such weapons resonates in Iraq, where the American-led invasion of 2003 was justified in Washington and London by assertions that Saddam Hussein, the leader at the time, had acquired weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found by the invading forces.

In her statement on Thursday, Ms. Tudor said that the atomic energy agency “is aware of the notification from Iraq and is in contact to seek further details.”

She said experts did not believe that the material could be fashioned into a weapon. “Nevertheless,” the statement said, “any loss of regulatory control over nuclear and other radioactive materials is a cause for concern.”

Mr. Maliki, the Iraqi leader, asked the Kurds on Wednesday to “stop the operations room for ISIS” and implied that the Kurds had assisted the Sunni militants who swept into northern Iraq and seized territory in June, saying that the government had “diagnosed the internal and external parties who supported the conspiracy that took place in Iraq.”

Kurdistan is a semiautonomous region encompassing three provinces in northern Iraq. The Kurds are represented in the Iraqi Parliament and hold offices in the Shiite-led national government, including president, foreign minister, trade minister and health minister. However, they also have their own Parliament and regional government, and have foreign missions in several countries.

12

“He has become hysterical and has lost his balance,” the Kurdish president, Massoud Barzani, said in a statement, referring to Mr. Maliki. “He is doing everything he can to justify his failures and put the blame on others.”

Many Iraqis believe that the Kurds used the push by ISIS – and the ensuing security vacuum after many Iraqi government troops fled the fighting – to seize control of the oil-rich Kirkuk region, as well as towns in the northern part of Diyala Province and a number of border villages where there are substantial Kurdish-speaking populations. The Kurds believe that these areas are part of their domain.

The back and forth is also part of a risky political calculation by Mr. Maliki and Mr. Barzani that each will garner points with his own loyalists by criticizing the other. Many Shiites feel betrayed by the Kurds after their seizure of Kirkuk and other border areas, and support Mr. Maliki’s accusations. For their part, the Kurds believe that they are part of a movement to remove Mr. Maliki and that the tough talk will rally his opponents as well as reinforce the Kurdish position on Kirkuk.

Relations between the Iraqi central government and the Kurdish region have been deteriorating for months, with the central government refusing to pay salaries of Kurdish

government employees because the Kurds have been trying to export oil independently.

In his statement, Mr. Barzani’s office noted that the Kurdish region and its capital, Erbil, had once been a haven for Mr. Maliki, and said it was Mr. Maliki who had ceded ground to the ISIS militants, not the Kurds. However, many opponents of the Maliki government have also found refuge in Kurdistan, including many Sunnis who are insisting that Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, step down.

“Kurdistan is proud that Erbil has always served as a refuge for oppressed people, including yourself when you fled the former dictatorship,” the statement said. “Now Erbil is a refuge for people fleeing from your dictatorship.”

A former speaker for the Kurdish Parliament in Erbil, Abdul Salam Barwari, expressed the long-held frustration of Kurds and Sunnis with Mr. Maliki’s policies, which they regard as discriminatory.

“We have sacrificed to hold Iraq together, while he breaks it apart,” he said.

Alissa J. Rubin reported from Baghdad, and Alan Cowell from London. Omar Al-Jawoshy contributed reporting from Baghdad, and William J. Broad from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/kurdish-leader-calls-for-iraqi-premier-to-resign.html

Return to Index

8. Israel's 'Iron Dome' Changes The Face Of Battle(ASSOCIATED PRESS 10 JUL 14) ... Aron Heller

JERUSALEM – Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system has emerged as a game-changer in the current round of violence with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, shooting down dozens of incoming rockets and being credited with preventing numerous civilian casualties.

By shooting down more than 90 percent of its targets, the system is ensuring Israel's decisive technological edge that has helped it operate virtually unhindered in Gaza.

At the same time, it's also providing a much-needed sense of security on the home front.

Gaza militants have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, some more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) deep, covering an area of about 5 million. But beyond some jitters and discomfort, they haven't hurt Israelis much, causing no casualties and very little damage.

"The Iron Dome system and its impressive success thus far have had a strategic impact on managing the campaign. It gives us wide options," said Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon. "Having said that, we cannot become complacent."

Israel has deployed seven batteries across the country that – coupled with a high-tech warning system – have given it its best defensive capabilities ever.

Iron Dome quickly recognizes the trajectory of incoming rockets and whether they are headed for major population centers. Those are shot down, while others are allowed to fall in empty fields to spare the hefty cost of firing the sophisticated interceptors. Local reports say each launching costs about $20,000.

So far, Hamas and other Gaza militants have fired more than 420 rockets toward Israel in three days of fighting. The military says it has shot down 90 of those, including several over Tel Aviv and central Israel.

On Thursday afternoon, the system was deployed for the first time in Jerusalem. Two puffs of smoke could be seen in the sky – apparently after intercepting two incoming rockets.

Lt. Col. Levi Itach, head of the military's early warning branch, said several high-tech measures along with a disciplined public that has vigilantly followed instruction have allowed Israel to keep its casualties from rockets to a minimum.

He said the systems had improved significantly in the two years since the last major exchange of airstrikes and rocket fire between Israel and Hamas, in which six Israelis were killed and several were injured by Gaza rocket fire in that weeklong battle.

The system is still far from foolproof. On Thursday, rockets struck a home in the southern city of Beersheba and a car in Ashdod – incidents that easily could have resulted in casualties.

Itach said no system could provide 100 percent protection.

"If we keep up what we are doing, there is a good chance that we will be able to lower the ratio to one death for every 10,000 rockets fired," he said.

Yossi Kuperwasser, a retired military general and current director general of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, said that Gaza's Hamas rulers and other militants have acquired longer, more powerful weapons in the past two years, but Israel had not been idle either. He said improvements to Iron Dome have allowed it to hold off on a ground operation while the home front was protected.

"It gives us much more room to maneuver. ... Now we have the ability to hold our breath for some time," he said. "And I'm sure that Hamas is feeling frustrated with this

13

situation because after launching hundreds of rockets, they haven't managed to get Israeli casualties."

Newspapers have already crowned the U.S.-funded system as the star of the campaign. The front page of Yediot Ahronot carried the headline "Golden Dome," with a huge spread of the system in action. The paper's top military columnist, Alex Fishman, wrote that the Iron Dome has "changed the face of the battle."

"If not for the Iron Dome system, the entire military would have already been stuck in the Gaza Strip. It is already possible to reflect on the main lesson of Operation Protective Edge: we must not stop investing in the Iron Dome system," he wrote.

Iron Dome is just the first of a planned three-part defense system that Israel hopes will be operational by the end of the year.

It has successfully tested "Magic Wand," designed to intercept projectiles with ranges between 70 kilometers (45 miles) and 300 kilometers (180 miles), and is aimed primarily at countering the large arsenal of Hezbollah rockets in

Lebanon and those of President Bashar Assad's government in Syria.

Together with the Arrow system for longer-range threats from Iran, the three components will complete what Israel calls its "multilayer missile defense."

The next generation of the Arrow, now in the development stage, is set to be deployed in 2016. Called Arrow 3, it is designed to intercept missiles at very high altitudes, before they are on their downward path toward their target. Together, the two Arrow systems would provide two chances to strike down incoming missiles.

Just this week, President Barack Obama cited the systems as proof of the U.S. commitment to Israel's security.

"Across the board, our unprecedented security cooperation is making Israel safer and American investments in Israel's cutting-edge defense systems like the Arrow interceptor system and Iron Dome are saving lives," he wrote.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_IRON_DOME

Return to Index

9. Kerry To Join Talks On Iran As Deadline Draws Near(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... David E. Sanger

VIENNA – With the Vienna negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities making halting progress at best and a deadline looming, the Obama administration announced Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry would fly here this weekend to assess whether a deal is possible – and perhaps to begin negotiating an extension in the talks that both sides said they had wanted to avoid.

Mr. Kerry will be joined by the foreign ministers of several, but probably not all, of the other nations engaged in the talks, which include Germany, Britain, France, China and Russia. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has been here since July 2, as all sides have haggled over a deal that can not only be agreed upon among themselves, but also has a chance of satisfying Congress and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Many in Congress have been so suspicious of the negotiations that they have threatened not to lift sanctions on Iran if they are not satisfied with the terms of the agreement. The Revolutionary Guard commanders harbor considerable suspicion that Mr. Zarif, who spent half his life in the United States and was educated there, could trade away what they view as the instruments of power that would restore Iran’s influence in the region.

Mr. Kerry will come to Vienna from Kabul, where he arrived Friday to meet with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, and the two candidates to succeed him, who are locked in a bitter dispute about election results. But it is the Iran negotiations that may well determine how Mr. Kerry’s stewardship of American foreign policy is evaluated, especially now that the other venture he invested in so heavily, a Mideast peace accord, seems further away than at any other time in recent memory.

Mr. Kerry has made no secret of his objective: to be certain that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is degraded enough that it would take Tehran at least a year, and maybe considerably longer, to race to build a nuclear weapon should

its leaders decide to do so. But assuring a significant warning period, called “breakout time,” requires assembling many pieces of a complex puzzle.

Chief among them is the country’s ability to enrich uranium in centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speed. While the negotiators are keeping the details of their arguments secret, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave a speech on Tuesday that, if reliable, provided some insight into how far the West has moved.

He said that the West wanted to limit Iran’s enrichment capacity to “10,000 separative work units, which is equivalent to 10,000 centrifuges of the older type that we already have.” Setting aside the oddity of having the country’s top religious leader talk in the language of nuclear engineers, that number is more than twice the production capability that American officials suggested a year ago, in background interviews, would be acceptable.

But Mr. Khamenei went further, insisting that eventually Iran would “need 190,000 centrifuges,” to produce fuel for future nuclear power plants. “Perhaps this is not a need this year or in two years or five years, but this is the country’s absolute need,” he said. That number could produce a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade material in just a few weeks, but Iran has nowhere near the ability to make that many centrifuges.

That is just one of the issues, but perhaps the toughest. Mr. Kerry will have to evaluate whether the United States and Iran can ever close the gap on what kind of capability will satisfy all sides. But there are differences on other major issues, including Iran’s willingness to limit other production facilities and allow its top weapons scientists to be interviewed, that officials say are highly unlikely to be resolved by the July 20 deadline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/kerry-to-join-nuclear-talks-on-iran-as-deadline-draws-near.html

Return to Index

14

AFGHANISTAN / PAKISTAN:10. Nominee To Lead Troops In Afghanistan Sees ‘Good News’(STARS AND STRIPES 10 JUL 14) ... Chris Carroll

WASHINGTON – Senators on Thursday pressed nominees to top military posts on how to avoid a repeat of the recent Iraq debacle – where a U.S.-trained military collapsed in the face of a smaller insurgent force – in Afghanistan as the war there draws to a close.

Army Gen. John Campbell, who likely will become the final commander of U.S. and NATO combat troops in Afghanistan, and Army Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, tapped to run U.S. Special Operations Command, both said Afghan forces were gaining capability. That could be seen in their effective security operations during Afghan presidential voting earlier this year, Campbell said.

But both promised senators they’d speak up if President Barack Obama administration’s timelines for removal of U.S. troops from the country prove unworkable.

Obama announced earlier this year plans to maintain a force of fewer than 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the official end of combat operations in December. By the end of 2016, the only remaining troops would be those manning the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Angus King, an independent senator from Maine, questioned how the Obama administration can be sure that Afghan forces will be ready.

“It strikes me that rather than an arbitrary date for leaving Afghanistan, it should be based on conditions on the field,” King said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said both of Afghanistan’s leading presidential candidates have told him they’re worried about basing troop levels on dates rather than conditions.

McCain said Afghan forces are unlikely to gain necessary capabilities in the areas of logistics, intelligence and aviation by 2017. Inadequate support, he suggested, could lead to an Iraqi-style collapse, where the Sunni insurgents last month sent the Iraqi army scurrying across broad sections of Iraq.

“One would hope the president of the United States would look at the nightmare in Iraq today and the ability that we could have had to provide some stability there, and perhaps re-evaluate his decision [in Afghanistan] – not for American combat troops but for the much needed capabilities of support

and counterterrorism that we can provide, which they simply do not have,” he said.

Campbell said counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan were critical.

“I believe the CT piece, if you want to just boil it down to simplistic terms, is it protects the homeland,” he said.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., questioned how the Obama administration could announce plans for a normal embassy military presence of perhaps 1,000 troops if counterterrorism is crucial.

“How do we do that based on a Kabul operation only, and how do we do that with 1,000 people, and which part of that 1,000 people will fulfil the important mission to protect the homeland?” she said.

Campbell and Votel responded that military leaders would have to assess the situation as it develops in coming years, and potentially make recommendations on modified force levels later.

“I don’t think I can answer that question accurately right now,” Votel said. “I think it really depends on the situation as it evolves.”

But Campbell praised the overall progress of Afghan forces, and said the contenders to be the next Afghan president are eager to work with the United States.

“Everything I see, sir, is good news,” he said of the developing political situation in Afghanistan, in answer to a question from Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. “I’m looking forward to getting over there, and I think we’re on a positive path right now.”

Senators also questioned Adm. William E. Gortney, nominated to command U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, on topics including missile defense and cyberwar.

“I think the greatest threat that we have is the cyberthreat, to our critical infrastructure, to our power grid, to our banking system,” Gortney said. “And the job at NORTHCOM is to handle the physical consequences of that particular threat.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/nominee-to-lead-troops-in-afghanistan-sees-good-news-1.292775

Return to Index

11. Pakistan Claims Win Against Militants Along Afghan Border, But Enemy Slips Away(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Ismail Khan and Declan Walsh

MIRAM SHAH, Pakistan – A solitary donkey wandered through the deserted streets of this once-bustling tribal town of 100,000, but no other inhabitants were to be found 10 days after Pakistani troops backed by tanks and helicopter gunships seized control.

The front doors of houses had been left open and shops were only half-shuttered. Some buildings had been destroyed by military airstrikes and artillery barrages; others bore red paint marks to show soldiers had searched there. On Wednesday, military officials guided a small group of journalists through their most dangerous discoveries: a bomb

factory, a school for suicide bombers, a private prison and a network of underground tunnels.

But there was little sign of the fighters themselves.“Yes, they did escape,” said Maj. Gen. Zafarullah Khan,

commander of the three-week-old military drive into North Waziristan, the tribal district along the Afghan border that has been Pakistan’s most notorious jihadi hub. “They had smelled that the operation was about to be launched. Peace talks had failed, the buildup for the operation had already begun. So the leadership abandoned this place.”

General Khan dismissed suggestions by skeptical officials in Afghanistan and the West that his forces had allowed

15

favored militants to flee. “We are colorblind,” he said. He added that in a difficult environment like North Waziristan, “it is not possible to create a watertight compartment where individuals cannot escape.”

The one-day tour of Miram Shah – a dusty, rugged town about 10 miles from the Afghan border – offered a rare ground-level perspective on a military operation that has been largely hidden from view since it started on June 15. The assault, precipitated by the collapse of peace talks and an embarrassing militant attack on the Karachi airport, is the military’s most determined effort yet to clear out a tribal district that had become a thriving center of international militancy.

Yet few doubt that the fight has barely begun. Militants evaded the military bombardment in part by hiding among the flood of roughly 800,000 refugees that fled the area into neighboring districts or Afghanistan, according to officials and witness accounts. And the opaque nature of the operation – the army has tightly controlled information about the fighting and discouraged local journalists from writing “negative” stories – has stirred disquiet among Pakistanis who worry about the offensive’s chances of success.

“One really doesn’t know what is happening,” said Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, which borders the tribal belt. “Very little real operational detail is coming out. The army says it has killed hundreds of people, including Uzbeks. But who, exactly, are they?”

The United States joined in the action on Thursday morning, when a CIA drone fired several missiles at a house and a car in Datta Khel, about 20 miles west of Miram Shah, just before dawn, a Pakistani security official said on the condition of anonymity.

The strike occurred in territory controlled by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a Pakistani militant commander who has played a central role in mobilizing fighters to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan. The American missiles killed three Uzbek militants and three Afghans, the official said.

In Miram Shah, General Khan said that his troops had established control over 80 percent of the town with relatively modest casualties, with a few soldiers killed by rocket fire or militant booby traps. In total, the military said, it had lost just 24 soldiers so far, while more than 400 militants are said to have been killed, mostly in airstrikes against militant compounds in the surrounding mountains.

Few of the dead militants have been identified, however, and in contrast with a previous antimilitant offensive in the Swat Valley in 2009, the Taliban themselves have been largely quiet.

Now, General Khan said, Pakistani troops have begun an advance toward Datta Khel, a village that has been a frequent target of CIA airstrikes. They will move simultaneously against militant havens in Mir Ali, the second biggest town of North Waziristan, he said.

One question is where the army will go after that. With North Waziristan’s main towns located on the plains, military experts say that a more daunting challenge may lie in the steep-backed valleys deep in the mountains, where tribal fighters have a centuries-old record of defying conventional militaries.

For the United States, a key question is whether the Pakistani offensive will dent the capabilities of the Haqqani network, a group that has deep roots in North Waziristan and, equally, longstanding ties with Pakistani intelligence. American officials have suggested that Pakistani fighters tipped off Haqqani commanders in advance of the operation.

But the military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Asim Bajwa, insisted that Pakistani soldiers had clear instructions to attack all militants, regardless of their affiliation. “All militants will have to be eliminated, whether they are local or foreign, Haqqani network or Uzbeks,” he said.

Pakistani officers guiding the tour of Miram Shah pointed out evidence that suggested the town’s role as a hub of both the insurgency in Afghanistan and of the global jihadi movement.

At a training center for suicide bombers, paperwork headed “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” contained registration details for young recruits. One such recruit, who identified himself as Sharifullah, a 20-year-old from Khost in Afghanistan, signed an agreement for a two-month training period. During this time, he agreed to not use his mobile phone or attempt to leave the facility, and would have no contact with anyone except for his teachers and fellow suicide bomber recruits.

Journalists were taken to a prison run by the Ittehad-e-Mujahedeen Khorasan, a ruthless militant counterintelligence group that has tortured and executed tribesmen accused of spying on behalf of the United States.

And General Khan said his soldiers had discovered a mile-long tunnel, which militants used to evade detection, that stretched under Miram Shah. He said it would take some time to clear the town entirely, given the large number of traps and other explosive devices that it was believed to contain.

The operation has exacerbated tensions with Afghanistan. Some 66,000 Pakistani refugees have fled across the border, in a humiliating turn for Pakistan, which has hosted millions of Afghan refugees from violence since 1979.

Pakistani military leaders have called on the Afghan authorities to help capture Maulana Fazlullah, the leader of the main Pakistani Taliban branch, who is widely believed to be hiding in the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. Afghan officials have previously admitted supporting Mr. Fazlullah against Pakistan.

“We have asked the Afghans and other forces to take appropriate measures to interdict and capture him,” General Bajwa, the military spokesman, said at a briefing.

Afghan leaders, in turn, have accused the Pakistani military of stoking the Afghan Taliban insurgency inside their own country, and of purposefully letting Afghan-focused militants escape in the current offensive.

One striking aspect of the North Waziristan operation is how the United States has been almost entirely absent from the public debate. In previous offensives, conservative critics have loudly blamed American pressure for forcing the military’s hand.

“Now the U.S. isn’t mentioned at all,” said Mr. Aziz, the former chief secretary. “We Pakistanis have learned that this is our own internal problem. I hope it’s not too late to solve it.”

Ismail Khan reported from Miram Shah, and Declan Walsh from London. Azam Ahmed contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Kiran Nazish from New York.

16

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/asia/pakistan-claims-a-win-but-enemy-slips-away.html

Return to Index

EUROPE:12. Pro-Russia Rebels Defiant As Ukraine Military Advances Toward DonetskGovernment Moves to Consolidate Gains, Rebel Leaders Make Rare Joint Appearance(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Philip Shishkin and Lukas I. Alpert

Leaders of the pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine vowed in a rare joint appearance Thursday to turn their biggest remaining stronghold into a final battleground as government forces edged closer.

Ukrainian officials said they had regained control of the rebel-held town of Siversk, and were moving to consolidate their position by funneling aid into recaptured areas and repairing damaged infrastructure there.

Rebel leaders in the regional capital of Donetsk said that they had decided to surrender Siversk to avoid being surrounded there.

The government appeared to gain the upper hand in the three-month-old fight when it forced rebels to retreat last weekend to Donetsk from their former stronghold of Slovyansk. Siversk, with about 10,000 people, was the last in a ring of cities around Slovyansk to fall.

Civilians stuck in the conflict zones have had to cope with increasing disruptions to basic services as the fighting damaged infrastructure and cut off government services.

Speaking in the occupied government headquarters in Donetsk, Alexander Borodai, the separatists' prime minister, and their military commander, who goes by the name Igor Strelkov, struck a defiant tone.

The two men, both Russian citizens, also said they were counting on Russian help, and warned frightened residents of the city of nearly 1 million of a looming evacuation.

"We can concentrate our forces in one place, and inflict greater damages on the enemy, and we can seriously prepare for the defense of this city, for an active defense, to put it mildly," said Mr. Borodai, who had until recently worked as a consultant in Moscow.

On Thursday, insurgents attacked Ukrainian forces stationed near the closed Donetsk airport, but didn't seize control.

The mayor of Donetsk, who has sought to keep the city running by avoiding taking sides, confirmed the fighting near the airport, which has been closed since a major clash there in May.

Officials in the capital Kiev have said they are aiming to surround Donetsk to force the rebels out, and would seek to avoid street battles. Few Ukrainian troops have urban fighting experience.

Around 100,000 residents have left since April, the mayor has said. Mr. Borodai said they were planning the possible evacuation of tens of thousands more.

Russia has so far ignored calls by the rebels to send in troops, but Ukraine continues to accuse Moscow of funneling arms and fighters to the separatists through the porous border.

The separatist movement here has been at pains to position itself as a grass-roots campaign of local ethnic Russians who fear a surge of Ukrainian nationalism in the

wake of the toppling of a pro-Russian government in Kiev last February.

Yet the presence of two Muscovites at the movement's helm has led to accusations from Kiev and Western capitals that the Kremlin is pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Mr. Strelkov, a former Russian military officer whose real name is Igor Girkin, and Mr. Borodai both played a role in Russia's annexation of Crimea. But the two old friends said they are merely volunteers in Donetsk.

The people of Donbas, as the wider region is known, "rose up on their own," Mr. Borodai said. "The fact that because of certain competences, qualities and capabilities, we both happened to lead this movement, well, it just happened that way."

Mr. Strelkov, wearing a vintage wooden holster on his belt, said the retreat from Slovyansk and two other small towns allowed the insurgents to conserve resources and manpower for the battle of Donetsk.

"Unfortunately, we couldn't have kept those resources otherwise," he said.

The government in Kiev said it was moving to restore heavily damaged water and electricity supplies to Slovyansk, which had a population of more than 100,000. It also said it was sending nearly 25 tons of humanitarian aid and resuming pension payments for residents immediately.

Local officials said they were moving to restore train service between Slovyansk and the nearest major government-held city, Kharkiv. Demolition experts were clearing roads around the town and had neutralized a ton of explosives, including a dozen improvised explosive devices and 20 antitank and anti-personnel mines, the defense ministry said.

The Ukrainian defense ministry reported several battles overnight near Donetsk and Luhansk – the other main city held by the rebels – as well as a around a handful of other rebel strongholds.

The ministry said three soldiers were killed and 27 wounded, bringing the total on the government side to 173 killed and 446 wounded since the fighting began in April. Officials in Luhansk reported that six civilians were injured in fighting around that regional capital.

The State Border Service said the hotly contested border checkpoint of Dozhansky had been hit by more than 200 mortar shells over two days, completely destroying it, although it remained in government hands. The service said three other border posts also came under fire overnight.

Mr. Borodai, just back from a trip to Moscow, said he'd held "rather successful political consultations" there, though he refused to say with whom.

He said the separatist movement is oriented toward Russia, "spiritually even. And we await the arrival of Moscow,

17

in a good sense of the word, we crave it, and pray for it," he said. "So any people from Moscow are welcomed here."

He then introduced a new internal-security chief: Vladimir Antufeyev, a Russian citizen who had once held a similar job in Transnistria, the self-styled breakaway republic carved out of Moldova with Russian support in the early 1990s.

Mr. Strelkov revealed a few more details about himself: He said he had fought Transnistria, in the Serbian part of Bosnia and in Chechnya. He said he resigned last year from Russia's state-security service with the rank of colonel.

Ukrainian intelligence maintains he is still a serving Russian military-intelligence officer, a claim denied by Moscow.

The two Muscovites also said that Donetsk's popular, three-term mayor should pledge allegiance to the rebel cause or step down. The two men, who first met in 1996 in Moscow, dismissed the idea of negotiations with Kiev and promised there will be no retreat from Donetsk.

In Russia, a court extended until the end of August the detention of a Ukrainian air force pilot charged with being an accessory in the June deaths of two Russian journalists.

Russia's Investigative Committee has accused Lt. Nadezhda Savchenko of transmitting the location of the journalists and others to Ukrainian ground forces who then fired mortars at their position, killing the reporters and two others.

How Lt. Savchenko ended up in Russian hands is in dispute. Russian officials say she was arrested after crossing into Russia as a refugee with no documents. It was later determined she was on a wanted list and she was arrested on July 2, Russia says.

But Ukrainian officials say she was abducted from her base and forcibly taken to Russia.

Russia's pro-Kremlin TV channel NTV reported on June 20 that she was captured by rebels and then handed over to Russian authorities.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-forces-take-another-rebel-held-town-1404996939

Return to Index

13. British Combatants Of A Different Religious War(NEW YORK TIMES 11 JUL 14) ... Alan Cowell

LONDON – It was nine years ago on July 7, 2005, that four suicide bombers killed 52 people on the London transit system during the morning rush hour, introducing Britons to a kind of terrorism that Americans had confronted on Sept. 11, 2001.

This week, the memory conjured grief and defiance in uneven measures: In Hyde Park, just hours before survivors gathered on Monday to recall the bloodshed, the steel pillars that form a monument to the dead were defaced with stenciled slogans redolent of that era: Blair Lied, Thousands Died; 4 Innocent Muslims.

Britons probably did not need what one survivor called this “immature act” to grasp that Islamic militancy has not gone away, and may indeed have intensified, its focus widened to the highways and deserts and battered cities of Iraq and Syria, drawing ever more young Britons to the black banner of far-flung jihad.

The police in the northern city of Manchester, for instance, said that twin 16-year-old girls of Somali descent who disappeared in June were probably en route to join a brother fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – the fierce militants who have spilled from Syria into Iraq and declared an Islamic state.

That disclosure came after intense news coverage of a group of young British Muslims – three from Cardiff, Wales, and one from Aberdeen, Scotland – said to have traveled to Syria to join militants who now include an estimated 500 British Muslims.

In court this week, two women from London denied a charge that they had tried to help finance terrorism. One of them, the prosecution said, had been found carrying 20,000 euros, or $27,000, in high-denomination bank notes in her underwear when she tried to board a plane to Turkey – the conduit to Syria – in January.

Time has woven the July 7 bombings into the national memory, dulling the shock that flowed from the realization that the assailants were not citizens from some exotic, distant

society, but, mostly, British-born Muslims who had grown up in a land that prided itself on tolerance and inclusion.

Since the so-called Arab Spring, however, a new militancy has arisen, beckoning young Muslims in Britain and many other parts of the West to join its ranks. It has become axiomatic to conclude that some of them will return to wreak havoc in their own lands.

Indeed, in an online posting showing what appeared to be homemade bombs, one Briton in Syria, Nasser Muthana, 20, declared: “So the U.K. is afraid I come back with the skills I have learned.”

There is, however, a counternarrative, evoking the fine balance between national security and civil liberties, and to the ever-more strident calls for tighter security laws such as those introduced in recent days by France and the United States. On Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to enforce stricter electronic surveillance laws.

“It is a loud official drumbeat and it is getting ever louder,” The Guardian newspaper said in an editorial.

On the anniversary of July 7, moreover, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain’s MI6 secret intelligence service, said that the latest fighting in the region was “essentially a Muslim on Muslim affair” and that both the government and the media were exaggerating the threat.

“It is time to move away from the distortion that 9/11 understandably created in our national security stance,” he said. “We must continue to cover the Middle East as a political requirement but without putting the incipient terrorist threat to ourselves at the center of the picture.”

The view contradicted the Western orthodoxy.“This is a global crisis in need of a global solution,” Eric

H. Holder Jr., the United States attorney general, told a European audience this week. “If we wait for our nations’ citizens to travel to Syria or Iraq, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our national security.”

18

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/europe/british-combatants-of-a-different-religious-war.html

Return to Index

AFRICA:14. Pirates V EconomistsA new weapon against Somali bandits: free trade(THE ECONOMIST 12 JUL 14)

Ships navigating the lawless seas of the Gulf of Aden must keep a constant lookout for Somali pirates. The roots of Somalia’s maritime banditry lie in its desperately poor coastal villages, where the choice between fishing and piracy is an easy one for many. But whereas plenty of attention has been given to pirates’ own economic motives, less has been paid to the question of why influential local clans put up with the marauders in their midst. New research by economists at the University of Oxford and King’s College London sheds some light on that issue – and suggests a way in which the pirates could be run aground for good.

Anja Shortland and Federico Varese mapped the locations of hijacked ships between 2005 and 2012. They found that hijacked vessels were always anchored far away from regional trading routes, and that big ports were not prone to piracy. There is a reason for that. Somali clans control local trade by issuing licences and charging informal taxes. The researchers reckon that communities which can tax imports and exports refuse to protect pirates because trade is a safer and more lucrative source of revenue than pirate earnings. Only clans that have no other income offer the pirates protection, in return for a share of their loot.

The theory seemed to hold up during a ban on Somali livestock imports imposed by Saudi Arabia between 2000 and 2009. Most Somalis are farmers and Saudi Arabia is their main livestock market, so the embargo hammered the economy. Clan leaders in heavily hit cities such as Bosaso, in

the coastal state of Puntland, began offering refuge to pirates instead. After the ban was lifted and customs duties began flowing again, the pirates were promptly locked up.

The study’s authors think their findings offer a new way to scuttle Somalia’s pirates. Hijackings off the Horn of Africa have fallen sharply since shipping companies beefed up their security and international navies upped their patrols. Only 15 incidents were reported off Somalia’s coast last year, down from 75 in 2012 and 237 in 2011. But those security measures are expensive, and do not tackle the underlying causes of the problem. A more lasting solution would be to build new roads and ports, which would allow remote areas to start trading. With alternative sources of income, fewer communities would be willing to harbour pirates.

Donors keen to advance shaky security gains pledged around $1.5 billion to Somali reconstruction last year. Part of that could be allocated to remote coastal areas, rather than big cities like Mogadishu, which get the lion’s share. “The demand is there,” says Ms. Shortland. A former president of Puntland repeatedly requested a road be built to Eyl, a rough-and-ready coastal town, as a quid pro quo for giving up piracy. His request was turned down, and piracy continued. Time for donors to rethink where they spend their pieces of eight.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21606882-new-weapon-against-somali-bandits-free-trade-pirates-v-economists

Return to Index

CONGRESS / BUDGET:15. House Panel Grills Navy On Cruiser Modernization PlanCarrier refueling seems to be moving forward(NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Christopher P. Cavas

WASHINGTON – Sometimes it’s all about trust, and right now, the Navy is struggling to convince Congress it’s on the level about a plan to take half the fleet’s 22 cruisers out of service and gradually return them to active duty.

“Our main goal is to know that those cruisers are not being euthanized, that they’re going to actually be modernized,” Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Seapower subcommittee, said after a Thursday late-afternoon hearing on the issue. “Don’t tell us we’re going to have these cruisers if there’s no money to bring them out of suspended animation.”

Navy officials want to take 11 cruisers out of service, then gradually modernize and restore them in a phased plan to replace the 11 that would continue running. The Navy claims the plan is necessary to extend the lives of the ships into the mid-2030s, the earliest time a replacement design could begin to be fielded.

Without the plan, the Navy says, all its cruisers will be worn out by the end of the 2020s.

“We can’t afford to get rid of the cruisers,” assured Sean Stackley, the Navy’s top acquisition official, but he repeated the Navy’s argument that the money isn’t there to upgrade all the ships now.

Forbes and others on the committee were clearly skeptical, repeatedly recalling that in 2013 the service asked to get rid of seven of the ships purely for budgetary reasons, with no plans to bring them back.

“I think a lot of people had some confidence issues that this phased modernization was just decommissioning by another name,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn.

“Why would you suggest to us that we should have a confidence level” after changing the plan, asked Forbes. “Give me the comfort level of how you’re going to build those ships,

19

then modernize these ships and take them out of layup. You don’t have the money to do that.”

About $3.5 billion is in the future years defense plan for the modernizations, Stackley said – enough to last into 2019. But another $5.3 billion would be needed beyond that.

“I can’t certify for you today that the Congress will fund that,” Stackley said.

The proposed plan is faring poorly as it works its way through Congress, part of the 2015 budget request. House and Senate appropriators and authorizers oppose it, instead pushing different funding plans to modernize the ships and keep them in service.

“The reason we’re doing this is the budget,” Stackley said of the phased modernization plan. “This is trying to strike the best balance with what is a difficult budget environment.”

“I’m afraid that when these ships go into drydock, we have no guarantee that they’re coming back,” Forbes said.

“I am confident that if we continue to deploy those cruisers ... we’re going to have fewer cruisers,” Stackley replied.

In a post-hearing interview, Forbes explained his concerns.

“If you’re convinced that they’re serious about putting these things in for a decade and then coming back and pulling them out, then you have to say their plan makes some sense,” Forbes said. “But I think Mr. Courtney had it right when he said, how do you take an entity that wanted to dismantle seven of them last year – and the only reason they didn’t was because Congress told them no – and then come back and say, uh oh, don’t pay attention to what we’re doing, let’s just quietly put them in the bed for 10 years and then we’re going to wake ‘em back up.”

Forbes said he was “adamant” in supporting the need for the ships in the air defense commander role to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. But he was frustrated that the Navy has moved slowly this year to present a detailed plan to upgrade and return the cruisers to service.

“The Navy has moved a long ways based upon the positions we’ve taken,” he said. “When they first came in with their plan [earlier this year] it didn’t look at all like this. They were basically just going to lay ‘em up.” The results, he said, came after prodding from the Hill.

“They’ve stepped up and tried to do that,” Forbes said.“What we’re going to look for is to make sure there’s

some guarantee to make sure there’s some teeth in their promise, so that we know these are coming out and they’re not just going to be mothballed and we’re never going to see them again.”

A guarantee, Forbes said, could come in the form of proposing to modernize two of the ships in 2015, rather than one, and returning both to service.

Forbes remains opposed to keeping the ships on the sidelines, whether before or after modernization.

“I don’t think that would be a wise scenario,” he said. “I think that given what you heard them say today, with the op tempo they have, with the deployment needs they have, if you had those ships modernized I think they would tell you it makes sense to have those ships out there.”

Forbes also is not buying the Navy’s position that the ships will wear out of they’re not taken out of service for some years.

“While you may be saving some hull life on these ships, you’re going to be wearing out hull life on the other ships, because you’re deploying them at too fast a rate,” he said.

Forbes also praised the Navy for indications it’s dropping plans to decommission the aircraft carrier George Washington and move ahead with work to prepare for a major refueling overhaul.

“The communication we’ve had from the Navy is this is a moving forward,” he said of a decision to free up money to begin planning to defuel the ship’s nuclear reactors. “And they see it as a moving forward, and we view it as a moving forward. And I don’t think the Navy is saying we’re playing games with you and we’re not going to do it. I think they’re taking those steps forward to doing it. We view this is a positive thing.”

Stackley, in the hearing, addressed the carrier issue.“We are today making every effort to replan nearly $7

billion required across the future years to refuel the carrier, plus maintain its air wing, manpower and support,” Stackley said. “We’ve released the balance of advance procurement funding for 2014 to continue planning efforts in order to best maintain our options and retain skilled labor at the shipyard while we await determination by Congress regarding sequestration in 2016. Yet, this also increases the pressure on other programs.”

Forbes was pleased but not quite ready to break out the champagne.

“I’m not going to tell you they couldn’t pull the rug out from under us down the road,” Forbes said. “But I don’t think that any of our staff, or anybody we’ve talked to in the Navy, feels that way. I think this is a movement in a very positive direction.

“I think the Navy deserves credit for moving forward to where Congress is taking them. All the indications we’re getting are that these are steps in the direction we want them to go.”

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140710/NEWS05/307100075

Return to Index

16. Stackley: Navy Plans To Refuel Carrier George Washington(U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE NEWS 10 JUL 14) ... Sam LaGrone

The U.S. Navy’s chief shipbuilder told Congress the service plans to reshuffle $7 billion in funds to refuel and maintain the nuclear aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73). The fate of the carrier wash an open question at the start of the year due to ongoing military funding pressures.

“We are today making every effort to replan near $7 billion required across the [Future Years Defense Plan] to refuel the carrier plus maintain its airwing, manpower and support,” Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA), told the House

20

Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces in a Thursday hearing.

“We’ve released the balance of advance procurement funding for 2014 to continue planning efforts in order to best maintain our options and retain skilled labor at the shipyard while we await determination by Congress regarding sequestration in 2016. Yet, this also increases the pressure on other programs.”

The move from the Navy follows three congressional committee marks that include funds for procurement of advanced materials for the refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) for George Washington inserted into the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget after the service had not included the funds itself.

The Defense Department, while expressing a desire to keep the carrier, was adamant that starting the more than $4 billion RCOH in FY 2016 was contingent on Congress lifting the sequestration funding restrictions born from the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in February that unless sequestration was lifted, George Washington and its air wing would be removed from the active fleet.

“The Navy has reversed a potentially disastrous decision that, according to the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, would have seriously compromised U.S. security interests,” subcommittee chairman Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said in a Thursday statement provided to USNI News.

“It is simply delusional to believe that the United States can remain the world’s dominant naval power while simultaneously dismantling the principal instrument of that power, the aircraft carrier.”

Stackley said since Hagel’s February announcement there were enough positive signs from Congress to allow the Navy

to go ahead with the RCOH plan as part of its FY 2016 budget – currently being prepared by the service.

“The signal today is strong enough that says we need to go ahead and proceed to the next step of releasing funding and go into the negotiations with the ship yard to start the planning effort per the refueling portion of a complex overhaul,” Stackley told USNI News following the Thursday hearing.

“We’re in the middle of the 2016 budget bill today and we’re in the process of building a budget that anticipates Congress’ action that will support a change to BCA and sequestration. We’re moving out in anticipation of a future congressional action because we can’t wait until a year from now to build that budget.

The Pentagon’s threat not to refuel the carrier was the highest profile bullet point in the ongoing struggle between Congress and the Defense Department over military funding.

The Navy included $243 million in FY 2014 for advanced procurement for the RCOH. Ahead of the most recent FY 2015 budget submission, the service planned to include $796 million for long-lead items.

The long-lead money was also included in a draft version of the Navy’s unfunded requirements request but was taken out of the final submission to Congress.

Representatives from Huntington Ingalls Industries, the company the contractor for the four year RCOH, was cautiously optimistic following Stackley’s comments.

“While we are pleased to see positive momentum toward funding the RCOH, however this is a complex process that we will continue to monitor,” according to a HII statement provided to USNI News.

http://news.usni.org/2014/07/10/stackley-navy-plans-refuel-carrier-george-washington

Return to Index

17. U.S. House, Senate Appropriators Not Yet 'Pre-Conferencing' A 2015 Defense BillSenate's Procedural Deep Freeze Shows No Sign of Thawing(DEFENSE NEWS 10 JUL 14) ... John T. Bennett

WASHINGTON – Even as the U.S. Senate remains unable to pass agency spending bills, the two chambers’ Appropriations committees have yet to begin work on a compromise bill to fund the military next year.

A senior House aide told CongressWatch “no discussions on this have occurred” when asked if the Appropriations panels have begun what’s known on Capitol Hill as “pre-conferencing” a version of the 2015 Pentagon spending bill.

That tactic has been used before to pass defense legislation when the Senate has been unable to get its own bill done. What typically would occur is both chambers pass different versions of a bill, then a House-Senate conference committee irons out differences and produces a version that gets quick approval in each chamber.

But a years-long partisan fight in the upper chamber over procedure and amendments has made passing any legislation – even department-specific appropriations bills – nearly impossible.

Congressional sources have said for months that a massive continuing resolution that would fund all agencies at past-year levels or an omnibus spending bill that could feature a full 2015 defense appropriations bill likely will be necessary in coming months.

If House and Senate leaders opt for the latter, with the Senate unable to pass spending bills, the two chambers’ Appropriations committees would have to get together behind closed doors and write a compromise defense funding bill.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., vowed late last year to get back to “regular order,” meaning her panel would pass department spending measures then they would be passed on the floor.

But, so far, the latter has not occurred. Most recently, the Senate melted down when Mikulski and Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., pieced together a three-bill “minibus” that featured a $21 billion Agriculture Department appropriations bill, a $51 billion Commerce-Justice-Science measure, and a $54 billion Transportation/Housing and Urban Development bill.

Reid had to pull the bill, however, when Republicans charged him with preventing their amendments from getting a vote. Democrats screamed about GOP obstruction tactics.

As the Senate stumbles, the Republican-controlled House continues to easily pass appropriations bills.

“The House continues to plow through our work,” the senior House aide said, “and have considered 11 bills in committee and will pass our sixth bill on the floor this week.”

21

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140710/CONGRESSWATCH/307100024

Return to Index

18. Fleet Forces Leader Warns Senate Panel Of Cyber Threat(NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT 10 JUL 14) ... Bill Bartel

Adm. Bill Gortney, head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, told a Senate panel Thursday morning that the greatest threat to the United States' homeland security is cyber attacks.

Gortney was questioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee as he seeks congressional confirmation for a position overseeing the defense of the continental U.S.

"I think the greatest threat that we have is the cyber threat ... to our critical infrastructure," Gortney said, noting that the security of power grids and other systems are a concern.

Gortney was nominated by President Barack Obama last month to become commander of the U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), both based in Colorado Springs, Colo.

The admiral also agreed with comments by some senators the recent illegal entry of more than 50,000 children from Central America into the U.S. through Mexico exposes a security problem.

The same weak border security that allowed for the children to gain entry or for smugglers to bring in drugs “can be exploited by terrorists as well,” he said.

The admiral told the panel in his opening statement that there’s “no greater responsibility than defending the nation we call home....I view these missions as a sacred trust.”

Gortney has been head of Fleet Forces since September 2012.

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/07/fleet-forces-leader-warns-senate-panel-cyber-threat

Return to Index

19. Special Operations Commander Says Burden On Elite Troops Is Here To Stay(DEFENSE ONE 10 JUL 14) ... Ben Watson

The incoming top commander of the United States military’s elite forces said that Pentagon officials and lawmakers need to ease the burden on special operations troops and their families, who are bending under the compounded stresses of more than a dozen years of war in the world’s most dangerous places.

“A combination of high operational tempo, exacting standards for operational proficiency and mission sensitivity places unique stressors on [special operations forces] and their families. In accordance with President [Barack] Obama’s Strategic Guidance, this burden will not decrease,” said Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel in prepared testimony ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday. If confirmed by the Senate, Votel will replace U.S. Special Operations Command’s, or SOCOM’s, Adm. William McRaven, who took over from (retired) Adm. Eric Olsen in August 2011.

Votel said he agreed that decreased defense spending coupled with 13 years of constant and dangerous rotations has “accelerated” the “fraying” of America’s elite troops, echoing statements McRaven said in May. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., asked Votel how the U.S. should respond to McRaven’s warning when the rest of the services will be shrinking troops levels but special operations units are set to remain constant at about 69,000 personnel.

“I’m also concerned,” added Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., “about the force and sort of the ‘fraying’ of the force after the incredible amount of work that’s been done over the last 13 years.” Kaine said he met a widow recently whose husband was a Special Forces veteran who committed suicide in March. “How as the head of this command [do] you intend to deal with those issues?”

“The pressure that has been put on the force is not exclusive to our special operations force – it has affected all of our forces,” Votel said. But, he continued, “A higher degree of operational activity and enemy contact brings an increased opportunity for traumatic exposure.”

Added to this is the fact that typical SOF missions don’t always allow for traditional psychological, medical or religious support. “SOF lives within a short-term deployment and training cycle that result in little or no reintegration period with families,” Votel said. “We are always at war.”

The commander did point senators to one partnership available to special operations troops and their families. The Care Coalition, Votel said, “is designed to take care of our members that are wounded physically or otherwise in these situations.” But, he continued, “I think continuing to look at veteran organizations outside of the military is also a great partnership that we need to have in place.”

Special operations forces have to cope with aggressive training and deployment schedules, Votel explained in his prepared testimony. “SOF members are subject to no-notice recall and immediate deployments without clear end dates which adds unpredictability to the families.”

With a growing presence in more than 80 countries and given recent special forces deployments in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Erbil to help counter the destabilizing march of Islamic extremists there, strains on the Pentagon’s special operations troops show no sign of abating any time soon. The budgetary caps imposed by sequestration – which are set to limit special operations forces growth by more than 2,000 troops – don’t make planning for the future force any easier.

“Special operations command has been operating flat-out for more than a decade now,” Reed said, “and as we reset our forces, our conventional forces, you’re going to still operate at Mach speed.”

“None of this can happen if we do not preserve and protect our special operations forces and the families that support them,” said Votel. “After nearly 13 years of sustained high operational tempo, our people need help with mending their mind, body, and spirit.

22

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/07/special-operations-commander-says-burden-elite-troops-here-stay/88402/

Return to Index

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP:20. Under FireThe vessel meant to be a mainstay of the Navy fleet faces questions about its firepower as well as financial constraints(HONOLULU STAR-ADVERTISER 10 JUL 14) ... William Cole

The "littoral combat ship" that was to make up one-sixth of the U.S. Navy fleet continues to be a work in progress as one of the vessels heads out from Pearl Harbor to take part in a "sink exercise" off Kauai during Rim of the Pacific war games.

The uniquely shaped USS Independence, an all-aluminum trimaran with a narrow, pointy bow and wide stern, will launch a Seahawk helicopter Thursday that will fire a Hellfire missile at the retired USS Ogden, a 569-foot amphibious transport dock ship.

The 64-inch Hellfire will be one of many munitions that RIMPAC nations put into the Ogden before it sinks.

In the fall, meanwhile, a sister ship of the Independence, the USS Coronado, will be fitted with a canister for the test-firing of Norway's potent long-range Naval Strike Missile, officials said.

Adding firepower to the controversial "LCS" – the Navy also is exploring Longbow Hellfire missiles – is one of the options on tap for the warships that have been criticized as being under-gunned and under-armored while also experiencing cost overruns.

On a tour of the 418-foot ship Tuesday, its captain, Cmdr. Joseph A. Gagliano, said multiple factors have to be considered when looking at the survivability of a vessel like the Independence.

"Anytime we build a ship, we're concerned about the survivability of the ship, because these are warships and we intend to use them in combat," Gagliano said. "I think that's something that we have to look at. It's a balance between the survivability of the ship and the cost of the ship and how you are going to employ it. So when we weigh all three of those things together, I can tell you as the commanding officer of this ship – I'm confident in taking this ship into combat."

Gagliano added that he is confident in the design, speed, weapons capability and overall survivability of the Independence.

The Pentagon and Congress are less so, however.On Feb. 24, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he was

cutting back purchase of the two variants of the LCS from 52 ships to 32.

"The LCS was designed to perform certain combat missions – such as mine-sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment," Hagel said. "But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging technologies, especially in the Asia-Pacific" region.

Further, if the Navy were to build out the LCS to 52 ships, they would represent one-sixth of the future 300-ship fleet, Hagel noted.

Given tight budgets, shipbuilding resources need to be directed toward platforms that can operate "along the full spectrum of conflict," Hagel said.

Not mentioned were the concerns about a growing number of Chinese missile ships that outgun the LCS.

Hagel directed the Navy to submit alternative proposals, including a modified LCS or different ship designs, to "procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities" of frigates, which are being retired.

Two types of LCS are being built – the trimaran Independence class, and more traditional, steel hull, aluminum-deckhouse Freedom class. The USS Freedom, LCS 1, participated in RIMPAC in 2010 and deployed to Singapore in 2013. Lockheed Martin produces the Freedom class while Austal USA builds the Independence variant.

The LCS, with a 57mm deck gun, was intended as an inexpensive and fast mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments and threats such as smaller surface craft, diesel-electric submarines and mines.

Gagliano said the Independence, based in San Diego, checks a lot of the boxes.

"The idea behind the design of the ship is it takes a ship that's this long, which is 420 feet, lifts it up out of the water, because we only draw about 13 or 14 feet of water," Gagliano said. "So the design of the ship is such that we can take a ship this size into shallow waters in the places that the United States Navy has never been able to go before."

A destroyer, by comparison, has a draft of about 30 feet, he said.

A traditional Navy ship of the same size might have 200 crew, but with automated systems the Independence can operate with about 50, according to Gagliano.

The Independence can swap out mission packages. For RIMPAC, it's carrying a 36-foot rigid-hull inflatable boat and detachment of helicopters for an anti-surface warfare focus.

With a 104-foot width at its stern – 46 feet wider than the Freedom – the Independence has a big helicopter deck and equally big mission bay beneath it.

Gagliano said the Independence can deploy with two Seahawk helicopters or six unmanned Fire Scout helicopters.

The littoral combat ships were forecast to cost $220 million a ship, but that has ballooned to more than double that, according to media reports.

23

A possible competitor mentioned for the LCS is a Navy version of the Coast Guard's Legend-class National Security Cutter built by Huntington Ingalls Industries.

But a reconfigured LCS may still rule the day.

"The ship has the ability to grow," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said in March. "It has speed, it has volume and it has capacity."

http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140710_UNDER_FIRE.html

Return to Index

AVIATION:21. Hagel Hails F-35 – But It’s Still Grounded(POLITICO 10 JUL 14) ... Philip Ewing

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel praised the F-35 Lightning II effusively on his visit Thursday to its training hub here. The sleek gray fighters are going to deliver unmatched new capabilities, he said – they are “the future.” He is absolutely confident in the fleet, its pilots and the troops who support them.

There was just one problem: The jets could not fly.As Hagel addressed a hangar full of troops between two

Air Force-model F-35As, one of which had his name painted on its landing gear door, every aircraft in the arsenal was grounded. An Air Force-model jet caught fire on a runway here last month, and until program engineers get to the bottom of what happened and why, the Pentagon’s flagship new fighter – the most expensive weapons program in history – is grounded.

Exacerbating the problem for the Pentagon, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin and engine vendor Pratt and Whitney, the fighter was supposed to make its international debut at two major British air shows this month.

The show dates don’t mean much in the context of the decades and billions of dollars it has taken to develop the F-35. But they mean quite a lot to the political and business worlds, especially after considerable hype about the British shows’ attendees being able to see the much-discussed new thoroughbred prance in the global ring for the first time.

“I know there are issues,” Hagel said today. “I don’t know of a platform we’ve ever had, that we’ve ever designed, tried and put into service that didn’t go through issues.”

He told his audience that his confidence is unshaken, however, because of the pilots and crews who met with him earlier in the day – including the pilot of the aircraft that caught fire. The crews told him they thought the F-35 will be good to go, Hagel said, so that is good enough for him. He is keenly aware of the stakes.

“This is as big a project, the F-35, as we have, “ Hagel said. “We’ve got a lot riding on this aircraft.”

If program officials had hoped he would use his visit to F-35 country to set the aircraft loose again, they were disappointed. Hagel closed out his visit, and later his two-day trip to the South, without a decision about either the air shows or operations for the overall fleet.

The Marine Corps had hoped to send two of their F-35Bs, which take off from a ship or a short runway and can land vertically, to perform in the United Kingdom. First up was a date at the Royal International Air Tattoo, which begins Friday. While defense officials acknowledge it’s now highly unlikely the F-35 can make that show, they appear to hold out hope it can make the second scheduled air show date at Farnborough, which gets underway later in the month.

Hagel told reporters after his all-hands call that he knows the F-35 program manager, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, has publicly faulted both Lockheed and engine builder Pratt and Whitney. He declined, however, to give any sense about what new measures the Pentagon could take to punish or entice them to resolve the grounding. The Air Force investigators must be able to go ahead with their work, he said.

Meanwhile, the cadre of senior American and international F-35 pilots at Eglin said they aren’t just twiddling their thumbs during the grounding. The F-35 program includes a battery of high-tech simulators that let pilots and crew continue to train even without their actual aircraft – although pilots acknowledged that can seem like thin gruel.

“We’d rather be flying this aircraft,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Taylor, a top leader in the 33rd Fighter Wing. Since they can’t, however, they spend a lot of “water cooler time” thinking about the ways in which they’ll use their jets once they become operational.

The F-35’s stealth, speed and other attributes mean that pilots coming from older-model aircraft must change the way they think about flying a tactical aircraft, said 1st Lt. Hope Cronin, a spokeswoman for the 33rd.

The Marines’ AV-8B Harrier, for example, is a subsonic, decidedly un-stealthy aircraft first designed in the 1960s. It’s difficult to fly, requiring pilots to almost become “an octopus,” as they like to say. So the Marines and their aviators have built the strategies of their Marine Expeditionary Units around those expectations. The F-35B, by comparison, is a faster, highly automated, cutting-edge aircraft – which its pilots and the Marines need to explore.

“It gives you more options in the way you do your business,” Cronin said.

Marine Corps officials say they’re on track to reach “initial operational capability” with their F-35Bs next year. The Air Force’s 58th Fighter Squadron already has all 26 of its A-model jets, officials said, making it the first complete squadron in the military. The much-delayed, much-maligned $400 billion program is making progress, defense officials insist.

But they worry the grounding, and the embarrassing prospect of missing the British air shows, mean that message is getting lost. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, also of the 33rd Fighter Wing, said he and his colleagues here on the Florida Panhandle know they can deliver on the promise of the program even with the latest grounding.

“We’re still working hard,” he said.https://www.politicopro.com/story/defense/?id=36093

Return to Index

24

22. Kendall: F-35 Engine Failure Appears Unique, Not A Systemic Problem, Based On Early Evidence

(DEFENSE DAILY 10 JUL 14) ... Megan Eckstein and Pat HostPentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told lawmakers

that early evidence suggests a recent F-35 engine failure was a single-engine issue, not a systemic problem – but he made clear the Defense Department needs to go through its full investigation and safety certification process before allowing the planes to fly again.

The undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics told the House Armed Services Committee Thursday at an acquisition reform hearing that DoD has inspected all the engines of in-service Joint Strike Fighters after a F-35A caught fire during takeoff on June 23 and the entire fleet was subsequently grounded.

“We have not found, as far as I know, anything that would suggest the type of problem that we think caused this failure,” he said. “We’re examining the actual engine that did fail, the parts of it we have, to try to determine what caused the failure.”

Kendall stressed multiple times that “I don’t want to get ahead of the safety and evaluation process,” noting that “as a political appointee, [I] don’t want to get involved or influence the safety process the safety professionals and the air worthiness professionals need to conduct.” But he added, “what I know now – I will go this far – there’s a growing body of evidence that this may have been an individual situation,

not a systemic one. But we don’t know that for certain at this point in time.”

After the hearing, Kendall added that the safety professionals would like to understand a root cause of the engine failure before putting the planes back in the sky, but he would not comment on how long that could take and when the flight ban may be lifted.

In what could be a big hit for DoD, it is unlikely one of the Marine Corps’ F-35Bs will fly this weekend at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) in the United Kingdom, Marine spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh said Thursday. Ulsh said DoD was still planning on debuting the jet in England later this month, likely referring to the Farnborough Air Show scheduled for next week.

DoD’s fleet of F-35s remained grounded Thursday, with the Air Force’s no-fly streak for F-35As reaching 17 days. An update from the Navy on its fleet of F-35Cs is expected Friday. An engine issue is suspected. Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corp. [UTX], develops the F135 engine for the F-35.

http://www.defensedaily.com/kendall-f-35-engine-failure-appears-unique-not-a-systemic-problem-based-on-early-evidence/

Return to Index

23. Lockheed, Partners Pledge To Pump $170 Million Into F-35(FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM 10 JUL 14) ... Steve Kaskovich and Yamil Berard

Lockheed Martin and its two main partners in the F-35 program have agreed to invest $170 million over the next three years to help bring down the cost of the over-budget, next-generation fighter jet by the end of the decade.

Under the agreement with the Department of Defense announced today, called a “Blueprint for Affordability,” Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems said they will implement cost-reduction initiatives to lower production costs on the Fort Worth-made jet, with the goal of reducing the average cost of a F-35 to about $80 million. It currently exceeds $100 million apiece.

“This is a significant change in business approach within the F-35 program,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager. “Industry partners will make an upfront investment into cost-cutting measures that the government and taxpayers will reap benefits from by buying F-35s at a lower cost. By 2019, we expect that the F-35 with its unprecedented 5th equal in cost to any other fighter on the market, but with far more advanced capability.”

The announcement came on the eve of two major airshows in Great Britain where the F-35 had been scheduled to fly before a June 23 engine fire in Florida prompted the U.S. government to ground its fleet. The F-35 is no longer expected to fly in the Royal International Tattoo on Friday, and the Pentagon has yet to say whether or not it will be cleared to make its debut next week at the Farnborough International Airshow.

Four B-models – the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 – are scheduled to take to the

skies on Monday at Farnborough, officials said Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth said.

The B model is designed to operate from bases and aircraft carriers near front-line combat zones. U.S. Marines were expected to fly three of the aircraft at the show, with the fourth to be flown by a British pilot.

During a July 1 interview with the Star-Telegram, Lockheed’s top executive in Fort Worth said he was hopeful that the aircraft would still be permitted to fly at the airshow.

“We’re very excited,” said Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president of Lockheed’s Fort Worth-based aeronautics division. “We’re very proud of where the airplane is. We’re very proud of how well it performs, how well the flight testing has gone.

“This is an opportunity for the rest of the world to see the airplane, especially the B-model, to see it hover, a key capability of the B-model. To have this airshow where everyone can get to see that, is just a thrill for us.”

During the interview, Carvalho said the company was waiting for the results of a safety investigation into what caused the plane to catch fire.

“At this point and time, we’re all waiting for the results of the safety investigation, which will ultimately determine when we could start flying again,” he said. “We’re letting the process play out.”

The fire is the latest blow to the F-35, the costliest U.S. weapons system, which has endured technical problems and cost overruns during its development. Over the past year, the Pentagon said Lockheed has made progress in addressing

25

performance and cost issues on the program, which is now estimated to reach nearly $400 billion for more than 2,400 planes.

More than 6,000 people work directly on the F-35 program at Lockheed's complex in west Fort Worth, which

employs about 13,300 overall. More than 100 F-35s have been delivered to the U.S. military.

The first F-16 flew at Farnborough in 1980. Lockheed Martin has produced 4,500 of the aircraft, officials said.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/07/10/5961685/lockheed-partners-pledge-to-pump.html

Return to Index

ENERGY:24. Navy Looks To Biofuels To Sail The Great Green Fleet In 2016(BIOMASS MAGAZINE 09 JUL 14) ... Mark Matsunaga, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

Ships and aircraft in the next Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise could be running on biofuels, and they won't even need to know it, according to speakers at an Alternative Fuels Overview briefing for RIMPAC 2014 participants.

The briefing drew over 40 officers and officials from seven nations – Australia, Brunei, Chile, Colombia, Japan, Mexico and the United States.

Joelle Simonpietri, U.S. Pacific Command's operational manager for energy and contingency basing, spelled out the need to develop alternative fuels in order to reduce a major driver of conflict. This is especially true in the Pacific, which has the world's largest energy demand and lowest fossil energy resources; where the "tyranny of distance" is most acute, and everything must travel long distances. She also noted that only a handful of the 36 nations in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region are petroleum exporters.

Fossil fuel price volatility has meant that "in several of the past 10 years, the U.S. Department of Defense has had to do significant budget machinations," Simonpietri said. Development of alternative fuels closer to operations shortens and diversifies supply lines. It can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster "good neighbor" cooperation among nations.

Simonpietri said Department of Defense Alternative Fuel Policy requires that replacement fuels must be "drop-in" fuels and meet existing fuel specifications. The biofuels must utilize existing transportation and distribution infrastructure and require no modifications to weapons platforms. Moreover, these alternative fuels must be cost-competitive with petroleum fuel and have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are no worse than conventional fuels while also complying with existing procurement, energy, health and safety laws and regulations. Biofuels can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including crop residues, woody biomass, dedicated energy crops, vegetable oils, animal fats, and algae. Simonpietri also made the important point that biofuel production must complement rather than compete with food crops.

The "drop-in biofuel" the Defense Department wants is not the same as the familiar ethanol and biodiesel – first- and second-generation biofuels – that are used in cars and trucks. What the Defense Department is pursuing is third-generation biofuel "drop-in" replacements for diesel and jet fuels that are used in aircraft and ships. These biofuels are much more advanced, have far less oxygen than ethanol and biodiesel, and contain the same energy density as their petroleum-based counterparts.

Chris Tindal, director for operational energy in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, said that in RIMPAC 2012 the Navy successfully demonstrated the Great Green Fleet, operating a carrier strike group's surface ships and aircraft with a biofuel blend without incident. In fact, the Great Green Fleet 2012 demonstration was a significant milestone of the Navy's testing and certification program for "drop-in" biofuels derived from used cooking oils and algae.

The next milestone, Tindal said, is 2016, when the Navy intends to "sail the Great Green Fleet 2016."

Rather than one group of ships, he said, the Navy plans for biofuels to comprise up to

50 percent of the fuel used by deploying ships and aircraft throughout the fleet in calendar year 2016. Procurement has already begun for advanced drop-in biofuels. Selection of platforms and locations for the 2016 effort will happen later. However, biofuel use in the Navy will not end at the conclusion of 2016 after the sailing of the Great Green Fleet, as "it will mark the start of the Navy's 'New Normal,'" Tindal said.

Leading up to that milestone, the Navy has already issued solicitations for operational quantities of alternative fuel in the Western U.S. and Western Pacific. Alternative fuels could be purchased and distributed through Navy oilers as early as January 2015. He and Simonpietri stressed that in order to be accepted for Defense Department use, biofuels or biofuel blends must be virtually indistinguishable from their fossil fuel equivalents. Because of that, participants in RIMPAC 2016 could very well be operating on biofuels without needing to be aware of it.

Tindal and Simonpietri encouraged the foreign members of the audience to facilitate government cooperation, and offered to share U.S. test and certification data for alternative fuels. They also encouraged the officers to consider future possibilities where their nation could both supply fuel to the U.S. Department of Defense and produce it for their own military and aviation use.

RIMPAC is a multinational maritime exercise that takes place in and around the Hawaiian islands and Southern California. Twenty-two nations, 49 ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel are participating in the biennial exercise from June 26 – Aug. 1.

The world's largest international maritime exercise, RIMPAC provides a unique training opportunity that helps foster and sustain cooperative relationships that are critical to ensuring the safety of sea lanes and security in the world's oceans. RIMPAC 2014 is the 24th exercise in the series that began in 1971.

26

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10648/navy-looks-to-biofuels-to-sail-the-great-green-fleet-in-2016/

Return to Index

PERSONNEL:25. Career Intermission Program5 Things You Need to Know(ALL HANDS (NAVY.MIL) 10 JUL 14) ... Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs

Since the Navy's Career Intermission Program inception in 2009, 70 Sailors, men and women, officers and enlisted, across a variety of communities have taken advantage of the program to pursue personal and professional goals.

Interested in participating? Here are five things you need to know to take advantage of the program:

1. Sailors use the Career Intermission Program for a variety of reasons, including to start a family or take care of family members, complete educational goals, or to achieve personal goals (such as hiking the Appalachian Trail or doing humanitarian aid work in a foreign country.)

2. Sailors receive many benefits during their time on the program to include retaining active duty health and dental care for themselves and their dependents, receiving a monthly stipend pay, and a permanent change of station (PCS) to the location of your choice. Sailors are also eligible to use the G.I. Bill while participating in the program.

3. Sailors can choose to leave active duty for up to three years. For each month a Sailor takes off, two months are required to be served upon return to active duty.

4. During the intermission, Sailors are required to muster monthly via email, are exempt from mobilization, are exempt from promotion consideration and time on intermission is not counted for retirement eligibility.

5. To return to active duty, Sailors must meet all physical readiness conditions and security qualifications. A Sailor's date of rank/time in grade is adjusted to account for his or her intermission time and a "Non-Observed" (NOB) Fitness Report or Evaluation will be issued to cover the period of participation.

For more information about the Career Intermission Program, visit http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/tflw/Pages/CIPP.aspx.

http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ftrStory.asp?cid=social_20140710_27617466&id=82129&issue=3

Return to Index

26. Marine Corps Dilemma With Women Prompts Change At Infantry School(CHECKPOINT (WASHINGTON POST BLOG) 10 JUL 14) ... Dan Lamothe

It has been more than two years since word first trickled out that the Marine Corps was planning to incorporate women on an experimental basis into its arduous Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va. The idea was simple, if controversial: The Pentagon was investigating which additional jobs should be opened in the military to women, and top Marine officers wanted as much research done as possible before decisions were made. They gave themselves three years.

The U.S. military has continued to open new positions to women since, but it’s the pending infantry decision that polarizes opinion like no other.

Critics of opening the all-male infantry say doing so would weaken it. They point to a variety of concerns, including privacy issues, questions about whether political correctness would pave the way for a relaxing of standards and cultural concerns about whether men and women can co-exist in high-stress situations in which there is frequently no privacy and Marines huddle with one another for warmth in frigid conditions. Advocates say women deserve a chance, and that integrating them could help alleviate long-term problems in the military like sexual assault.

The Marine Corps initially opened the Infantry Officer Course to women coming out of introductory officer training at The Basic School at Quantico. The results thus far: Only 20 women have attempted it, and none have completed it. Some

have come close to passing the grueling initial Combat Endurance Test, as I observed on site for Marine Corps Times last year, but they all fell short.

With less than a year before a decision is due, the Corps is changing it up in response. In a message published Wednesday, Marine officials indicated they will open IOC to active-duty female officers who are “company-grade” – meaning not only new lieutenants, but seasoned ones and captains, too. Those who volunteer will be required to meet a new requirement, however: Completion of the male version of the service’s annual Physical Fitness Test and the Combat Fitness Test with first-class scores.

The PFT requirement is the likely sticking point for many female Marines: To score a first-class PFT, men must do at least five pull-ups, assuming they rack up maximum points by running three miles in 18 minutes or less and complete 100 sit-ups. Under current rules for female Marines, women are not required to complete pull-ups.

The women who return to Quantico to attend IOC won’t go in cold. The Marine Corps is requiring that they arrive between 60 and 90 days before their infantry test begins to join a “Marines Awaiting Training” platoon that hones physical skills, including marching with a heavy load, maneuvering through an obstacle course, swimming in uniform and performing martial arts, the message the Corps

27

released Wednesday says. The change was authorized by the Corps’ top Marine, Commandant Gen. James Amos, and takes effect for the class beginning in October. That means the volunteers should begin arriving soon to prepare.

The decision follows the publication of a widely read opinion piece in The Washington Post in March by 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo, one of the women who tried at IOC and failed. She argued that if men and women were prepared the same way to attend IOC, more women would pass. She zeroed in on the differences between the male and female versions of the Corps’ annual physical fitness test, in particular, noting that women still are not required to do pull-ups, while men have been for years. She added that numerous female volunteers have passed enlisted infantry training since it was opened last year, but it doesn’t have the same demanding indoctrination test.

“I understand not wanting to discourage new recruits,” Santangelo wrote of the IOC experiment. “But dual standards

highlight and foster differences in a way that undercuts the goal of integrated military units. Women aren’t encouraged to establish the same mental toughness as men – rather, they’re told that they can’t compete. Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak. I noticed that women were rarely chosen by their peers for some of the harder tasks in basic training.”

The Marine Corps’ move would appear to address some of that criticism. In fact, some of the women who volunteer now could have years of military experience under their belts, a potential advantage over traditional students. Critics of female integration are sure to bring that up if one of the women attending under the new requirements pass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/10/marine-corps-dilemma-with-women-prompts-change-at-infantry-school/

Return to Index

VETERANS AFFAIRS:27. Retired Navy Doctor Named To Interim VA Post(NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Patricia Kime

The Veterans Affairs Department has named a career Navy doctor to serve as interim director of its Office of the Medical Inspector.

Dr. Gerard Cox, a retired Navy captain who commanded the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in the late 2000s and served as force surgeon for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and 5th Fleet from 2010 to 2012, will temporarily take over the duties of OMI director, responsible for monitoring and investigating Veterans Health Administration hospitals and clinics.

“In response to the revelations by the Office of Special Counsel, we need new leadership and a fresh look from outside of OMI to assist in this transition,” said Sloan Gibson, acting VA secretary. “I expect Dr. Cox to help us restructure OMI to better serve veterans and create a strong internal audit function, which will ensure issues of care quality and patient safety remain at the forefront.”

As part of his efforts to reform OMI, Gibson also announced earlier this week he has suspended the OMI hotline, directing calls and complaints about VHA facilities to the VA Inspector General’s office.

On June 23, the Office of Special Counsel issued a report saying VA OMI officials often accepted problems at facilities as “harmless errors” and did not thoroughly investigate allegations made by whistleblowers.

Following the release of that report, Gibson announced a review of OMI operations. He also accepted the resignation of Chief Medical Inspector Dr. John Pierce, who had served in that role since 2004.

In mid-June, Gibson sent a message to VA employees emphasizing the importance of protecting whistleblowers. He continues to meet with employees at VA medical centers nationwide to reiterate that message.

But while OSC officials praised this effort in a letter to the White House on June 23, they said VA has a long way to go before it adequately responds to those whistleblower reports.

The office has 50 pending disclosure cases alleging threats to VA patient health and safety, and another 60 cases of alleged retaliation against whistleblowers in the department.

OSC officials said problems at VA facilities now make up about one-fourth of all the government cases they are investigating.

Cox joined VA in January as the assistant deputy under secretary for health for policy and services at the Veterans Health Administration.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140710/NEWS05/307100056

Return to Index

28. Lawmakers Propose Bill To Improve VA Suicide Prevention Care(NAVY TIMES 10 JUL 14) ... Patricia Kime

House lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation they say would improve suicide prevention at the Veterans Affairs Department and bring together former service members needing help.

Named for a former Marine who died by suicide in 2011 despite actively engaging in treatment, therapy and outreach, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act

would require VA to submit to yearly evaluations of its suicide and mental health programs, team with the National Guard to improve care for members and establish a peer support outreach program for veterans.

It also would require the Defense Department to establish a review process for troops who received unfavorable

28

discharges possibly because of behavioral problems related to traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.

The legislation is similar to a Senate bill introduced in March by John Walsh, D-Mont., whose bill also would ensure mental health care professionals in VA and DoD receive special training to identify at-risk veterans. It also would increase the number of mental health professionals in VA by repaying school loans of psychiatrists who agree to work for the department.

Hunt’s mother, Susan Selke, in Washington to testify on veterans suicide before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said the legislation would have helped her son, who struggled with the mounds of paperwork and the bureaucratic processes at VA while waiting months for care.

“All veterans, but especially those struggling with invisible injuries, should not have to go through red tape to get the mental health care they need and very much deserve. They should not have to jump through hoops to get an appointment,” Selke said.

The House bill, sponsored by Reps. Jeff Miller, R-Fla.; Tim Walz, D-Minn.; and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., would “change thousands of lives for the better,” said Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

“Our friends are dying and they are dying right now. In the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric. ... It’s time for action,” Rieckhoff said.

Miller expressed optimism that his House colleagues would approve the legislation and added that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, was aware of the bill in addition to the Senate companion legislation.

“Unfortunately, suicides are happening at a frightening pace. The system has to change and if they won’t change it, the Congress will,” Miller said.

The Congressional Budget Office is reviewing the proposed legislation to determine its cost.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140710/NEWS/307100063

Return to Index

OUTREACH:29. Commanding Officer, Sailors From USS Louisville Submarine Visit Namesake City(WDRB FOX LOUISVILLE 10 JUL 14)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The city of Louisville is rolling out the red carpet for the crew of the USS Louisville (SSN 724). U.S. Navy Commander Robert Figgs, the commanding officer of the submarine, and three of his Sailors are visiting namesake city of their ship this week.

Figgs and his Sailors are meeting with dignitaries like Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, and they are taking part in other events including a Caps for Kids event at the Kosair Children's Hospital.

The fourth ship and/or submarine named Louisville was commissioned on November 8, 1986, at the Naval Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut. The 35th nuclear powered fast attack submarine of the Los Angeles-class design, USS Louisville is one of the most advanced attack submarines in the world. Louisville is currently home-ported in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

The USS Louisville's mission is to seek out and destroy enemy ships and submarines, and to protect our naval interests. At 360 ft and 6,900 tons, she is well equipped to

accomplish this task. Faster than her predecessors and equipped with highly accurate sensors and weapons systems, Louisville is armed with sophisticated MK48 torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

During Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, USS Louisville (SSN 724) made naval history by firing the first submarine launched Tomahawk cruise missile in combat. To accomplish this, Louisville conducted a 14,000 mile submerged, high-speed transit across the Pacific and Indian Oceans to the Red Sea; firing shortly after noon on 19 January 1991. Louisville returned to combat operations in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom where she made history as the only Pacific Fleet SSN to have twice launched cruise missiles in combat when she fired numerous salvos into Iraq.

View Clip (RT: 0:39)http://www.wdrb.com/story/25984182/commanding-

officer-sailors-from-uss-louisville-submarine-visit-namesake-city

Return to Index

HISTORY:30. USS Nevada: A Century Of Pride For The Silver State(RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 08 JUL 14) ... Guy Clifton

As Nevada celebrates its 150th year of statehood, one of her storied namesakes is marking an anniversary as well.

One hundred years ago Friday – July 11, 1914 – the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) "kissed the waves" for the first time with these words from Gov. Tasker Oddie at the Fore River Shipbuilding Corporation in Quincy, Mass.

"I believe we all share a pride that the nation has selected Nevada as the name of a ship that will be one of the greatest of our navy or of any navy. There is no citizen of the state who

will not follow the vessel's career with close, personal interest, whatever port she may enter and whatever sea she may sail."

Oddie's 10-year-old niece, Eleanor Ann Siebert, christened the battleship with a bottle of Champagne, and so began the story of the "unsinkable Nevada," which would go on to endure two world wars, the attack on Pearl Harbor, a kamikaze strike and two nuclear bombs.

29

The christening bottle used by Ms. Siebert will be in Carson City Friday morning, part of a ceremony to commemorate the battleship's 100th anniversary.

The event, which starts at 9:30 a.m. on the front steps of the state Capitol, is open to the public and part of the state's sesquicentennial celebration.

It also will include a look back at the history of the battleship, a proclamation by Gov. Brian Sandoval, and the unveiling of a new plaque at the USS Nevada Memorial.

The effort for the new plaque was led by a group of former Vaughn Middle School students, who in the early 1990s spearheaded the effort to have the

memorial built in the first place. The memorial itself is an exact replica of the one at Hospital Point at Pearl Harbor., Hawaii. The old plaque, which is adjacent to the memorial lists the names of those killed during the attack, the medal winners who served on board, and the ship's honors. It has become weathered and virtually unreadable during the past 21 years.

"I saw the pictures of it recently and it looked like it had moss growing on it and you couldn't read the names anymore," said Joe Uccelli, who was part of teacher Ellyn MacKenzie's gifted-and-talented history program at Vaughn. "In talking with Ellyn, we learned we've got the 100th birthday coming and we've got the opportunity to do something about it."

The middle schoolers started the project in 1991 after a presentation on flags from local historian Jim Ferrigan, who urged them to lead an effort to restore the USS Nevada's flag, which was in storage at the Nevada State Museum. After they had the flag successfully restored (and it is on display now at the museum), they turned their attention to the memorial, writing to the Nevada Congressional delegation at the time.

Uccelli, a surgeon who is just returning to Reno after six years for a residency and fellowship, credited MacKenzie for getting students engaged in the history of the battleship.

"Ellyn was able to motivate us, which can be hard to do with teenagers," he said. "She gave us a good framework to use. Now, at this point in my life, I definitely appreciate it. We got an opportunity to leave a lasting mark."

Storied HistoryIn 1914, the Nevada and her sister ship, Oklahoma, were

the newest and most-advanced battleships in the U.S. fleet.Nevadans were excited to have a namesake ship and a 65-

piece silver service set was produced, crafted from 250 pounds of silver from Tonopah and gold from the mines of Goldfield.

The Nevada did not see battle during World War I, but that changed drastically at the onset of World War II.

On Dec. 7, 1941, the Nevada was one of eight battleships in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese launched their surprise attack in the early morning hours.

The Nevada was the only battleship to get under way during the attack. It was hit with at least six Japanese bombs and a torpedo which opened a 45-by-35 foot gash in the side of the ship.

Crew members manning the guns were the first to shoot down an enemy plane.

As the Nevada moved out, the Japanese turned their attack to her. Fearing she might be sunk and block the harbor, she was ordered to run aground, which she did at Hospital Point.

At the end of the battle, the Nevada suffered 50 deaths and 140 wounded. The names of the 50 soldiers killed are listed on the USS Nevada Memorial at the Capitol in Carson City.

Silver DollarsThe Nevada eventually was refloated and taken to the

shipyards at Bremerton, Wash., for repairs.She was off the beaches of France for the Normandy

invasion in 1944. The crew fired a continuous volley of shells for three consecutive days in support of the allied assaults.

Nevada Gov. James Carville, proud of the accomplishments of the state's namesake battleship, asked Nevadans to contribute silver dollars that would be given to the officers and crew of the battleship. More than 2,300 were collected. They were placed in a magnesium chest, the magnesium mined at Gabbs and processed at Basic in Southern Nevada.

When the Nevada returned to the states for repair, Joseph Kievit, a University of Nevada student before the war and an officer on the Nevada, was charged with traveling to the state to secure the chest containing the silver dollars.

On Nov. 19, 1944, the crew was assembled on deck, and all were presented with a silver dollar.

The Nevada's war service was not done, however. It was sent to the Pacific, where it was involved in the invasion of Iwo Jima and the battle of Okinawa.

At Okinawa, the ship was hit by a Japanese kamikaze airplane, resulting in the deaths of 11 crewmen.

PostwarWith the end of World War II, the Nevada was deemed

too old to continue in service and was selected as a target ship for nuclear bomb testing at the Bikini Islands.

Despite two atomic bomb blasts, the ship was still afloat, though damaged and radioactive. She was towed back to Pearl Harbor and decommissioned on Aug. 29, 1946.

In July 1948, the Navy decided to dispose of the Nevada by sinking her in deep water 65 miles southwest of Hawaii, but the "unsinkable Nevada" proved stubborn. After five days of bombardment ranging from explosives inside the ship to 5-inch shells from other ships, the Nevada would not go down.

Finally, an aerial torpedo dropped at midship sent the Nevada to the depths.

For those who served on the Nevada, there was a sense of pride that continues to this day.

"They are very proud of their battleship, they're very proud of their service during World War II," said Ellen Derby McCollum, president of the USS Nevada Reunion Association and the daughter of crewman Woodrow Wilson Derby, who served on the Nevada throughout World War II. "I know they'll be proud to know their memorial (in Carson City) is being restored and that people still remember their service."

Submarine NevadaIn September 1985, the submarine USS Nevada was

launched with Carol Laxalt, the wife of then-U.S. Sen. Paul Laxalt of Nevada, christening the vessel.

On Friday, the submarine's Chief of the Boat, Master Chief David Stephenson; and its "sailor of the year," Petty Oficer Keith Kaiser, will be in Carson City for the ceremony. They will bring with them, the bottle used to christen the battleship Nevada 100 years ago. It has been on loan to the submarine crew since 1985 and is kept on board the sub.

30

The Nevada State Museum will also have select items from the USS Nevada on display at the Old Assembly Chambers inside the Capitol after Friday's ceremony. Attendees will also be able to visit the museum to view other battleship memorabilia, including a burned piece of the deck that was damaged during Pearl Harbor.

Bob Nylen, curator of history at the museum, said the revamped memorial will be a nice tribute to those who served on the battleship.

"I think it's important that we remember all those men," Nylan said. "In a second, their lives changed and it changed the course of history. There is a lot of pride in what those men on the Nevada did for our country."

http://www.rgj.com/story/life/2014/07/08/uss-nevada-century-pride-silver-state/12386435/

Return to Index

COMMENTARY:31. Obama’s Counterterrorism Blueprint Looks Good, On Paper(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... David Ignatius

In President Obama’s sometimes maddeningly cautious foreign policy, you can see him struggling to answer what may be the hardest question of his presidency: How should the United States project power in a disorderly world without making the same mistakes it did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Obama, whose deliberative approach often resembles that of a Supreme Court justice rather than a politician, has developed a conceptual framework for combating terrorism and instability. It looks good on paper. But the problem is that he hasn’t yet applied this framework successfully in dealing with the challenges that arose on his watch: civil wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria, and the emergence in Iraq of the Islamic State.

Obama is emphatic about what he doesn’t want to do. He wants to avoid “boots on the ground” with U.S. troops; he wants to avoid unilateral actions that isolate the United States; he prefers quiet partnerships that shield America and its allies from domestic political criticism. He is willing to use what amounts to targeted killing.

Instead of significant U.S. military intervention, Obama seeks a network of partnerships stretching from Morocco to South Asia. The United States would provide training and other support for the security services and militaries of nations across this belt. Where governance has vanished and terrorism reigns – as is the case now in parts of Syria and Iraq – the United States would fill the gaps, using surveillance drones, armed drones and Special Operations forces.

It’s a strategy in which Obama, despite his legalistic temperament, plays a role I’ve described as “covert commander in chief.” He relies on the two instruments of national power he most trusts: the CIA and its armed drones and “special activities,” overseen by Director John Brennan, one of his closest aides; and Special Operations Command’s “Global SOF Network,” developed by Adm. William McRaven, the architect of the Osama bin Laden raid and perhaps Obama’s favorite military adviser.

This framework has some obvious conceptual holes: It assumes that countries such as Libya and Yemen can be put back together and turned into functioning allies after near-death experiences. It extends partner status to countries such as Egypt and Turkey, which are perilously close to being autocratic dictatorships despite their long history of friendship with the United States. And it ignores altogether the role, positive or negative, of Iran.

Obama has posited the counterterrorism strategy in two major speeches, in May 2013 at the National Defense University and May 2014 at West Point. Further explanation was offered by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s speechwriter, deputy national security adviser and the closest thing he has to a chief strategist.

This “CT architecture,” as Rhodes calls it, sounds good in principle but is hard to accomplish. Just look at Syria: The United States has been debating covert support for the Syrian rebels since mid-2012; it has had an actual CIA-led training program since 2013, with little effect. It has sought to coordinate regional partners, in earnest, since last September, again with little effect. Meanwhile, a one-time al-Qaeda affiliate has morphed into a deadly adversary that controls one-third of Iraq and part of Syria.

The United States’ prospective partners seem wary of the role Obama envisions. Jordan fears blowback from the CIA covert program for Syria, and it likes even less a proposed overt version employing SOF trainers. Among the other countries that ring Iraq and Syria, you see similar skittishness or outright paralysis. It’s like trying to build a fortress out of putty. The enterprise would be difficult even for a president who was strong politically at home and abroad. For Obama, it may be impossible.

The best example of a mobilization similar to what Obama is imagining in his counterterrorism partnership was the global covert action launched by President Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union. Under the generalship of CIA Director William Casey, the United States ran operations in Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia and Poland, not to mention Afghanistan. But even Reagan and Casey stumbled (and eventually, retreated) when they confronted a few hundred disciplined terrorists in Lebanon. This isn’t as easy as it may sound, in other words.

Obama has the right concept in creating a global network of Special Operations forces and intelligence services that can combat the frightening evolution of al-Qaeda into new and potentially more toxic offshoots. But someone at the White House needs to drive this policy every day and make sure it’s happening on the ground, in Syria and Iraq and all the other potential ungoverned places on Obama’s new map.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-obamas-counterterrorism-blueprint-looks-good-on-paper/2014/07/10/fe65ed5e-084d-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

Return to Index

31

32. The U.S. Is Losing The Message WarThe United States must advance a Mideast policy based on collaboration(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Jane Harman

What, exactly, does the United States stand for in the Middle East? More important, what would the average Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian or Yemeni say that it stands for? The suggestion that the United States is retrenching might seem absurd, given that Yemenis can hear the buzz of drones overhead. The notion that the United States is in the business of supporting democratic pluralism might clash with their reading of our Egypt strategy or our will-they-or-won’t-they waffling over whether to actively support Syrian opposition fighters. Day by day, with chaos blossoming, it becomes clearer that if we do have a strategic narrative for the Middle East, we certainly have not articulated it effectively. In marketing terms, we are not making the sale.

Other nations could be forgiven for failing to grasp our priorities and values. “Don’t do stupid [stuff] ” may make sense to the American public, but it means little to the rest of the world, and it means nothing to those vulnerable to the evangelism of groups such as the Islamic State, now choosing between the difficult work of politics and the terrible promise of jihad. What role will U.S. foreign policy play in their choice? Have they come to see U.S. power as a threat? Or have they seen firsthand the capacity of U.S. aid workers, nongovernmental organizations and men and women in uniform to serve as partners in their aspirations for a better life? If we don’t think seriously about the way our strategy plays out in the eyes and lives of such people – if we don’t think about the narrative – we will lose them for a generation.

This cuts to the core of the policy challenges we face in Iraq and Syria. Many wonder, with good reason, how we can reliably identify moderates to arm and aid, questioning whether today’s moderates will turn out to be tomorrow’s extremists. We know with certainty, though, that the Islamic State and militant groups like it will fill their ranks with those who have been given no reason to trust in politics, let alone nonviolence. Preventing radicalization is difficult; de-radicalizing hard-line believers is nearly impossible. So it is smart for nations such as the United States, Turkey and Jordan to build relationships with resistance leaders and invest in them as a tool to preempt extremism.

The United States, acting in coalition with regional partners, should offer a better choice. Our commitment to this narrative must be active, visible and credible, keeping in mind that the prison at Guantanamo Bay hobbles our pitch, as torture did, and as the drone campaign threatens to do if it is not better justified. It’s not enough for U.S. policymakers to come down from the mountain with stone tablets bearing the words “pluralism,” “rule of law” and “human rights.”

While Adm. Mike Mullen was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he assigned two staff members the task of drafting a new U.S. strategy. The result was “A National

Strategic Narrative,” released publicly by the Wilson Center in 2011. We protected the identities of its authors under the pseudonym Mr. Y, a nod to George Kennan’s outline for containment in his iconic “X-article.” That narrative seems prescient now for its description of the new strategic environment – first and foremost, because it emphasized the need to work with other nations to design a common approach in an open world. The narrative rightly declared an end to an order in which the United States could seek control and the beginning of a system in which we would need to compete for influence. We need a foreign policy that reflects the bold clarity of these findings.

The goal is a strategy shaped together with the Middle Eastern world: leaders and peoples alike, borrowing the best impulses of the bottom-up Arab Spring and the traditionally top-down U.S. approach to engagement. Our promise to the Middle East must be one in which collaboration helps the people of the region achieve shared values by a route of their own choice. Make no mistake: We risk losing the argument. The Islamic State is mastering information warfare; it has a savvy Twitter presence and a glossy newsletter that highlights battlefield successes alongside – of all things – the work of its consumer protection authority. It has declared a hasty, heady victory in pursuit of its ultimate goal: the 7th-century caliphate restored. Its message has gained a frighteningly broad following.

What to do? Many perceive drones plus “don’t do stupid [stuff]” is our foreign policy, and it certainly isn’t an adequate narrative. For every jihadist our airstrikes might kill, left behind are scores of Iraqis and Syrians whose only contact with the United States came by way of a Hellfire missile. Instead, we need a “track two” surge, a dynamic partnership with Middle Eastern citizens seeking stability, economic growth and freedom from corruption. Such a surge would be international, drawing on the interests of neighboring states in preventing the spread of extremism. It would also be a whole-government initiative, drawing on considerable U.S. resources in the field of peace-building.

The United States must put itself forward as the partner of choice, offering a narrative of forward movement and a genuine lifeline to those slipping into the grasp of jihad.

Jane Harman, the president and chief executive of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, represented California’s 36th District in the House from 2001 to 2011, including four years as the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-states-must-advance-a-mideast-policy-based-on-collaboration/2014/07/10/ccd7eeaa-0761-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

Return to Index

33. How To Resolve The Iran ImpasseEnsuring nuclear fuel for Iran could put the country in a box(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... George Perkovich

32

Uranium enrichment is the stickiest sticking point in the nuclear negotiations with Iran now underway in Vienna. The United States and its five partners want Iran to scale back the number and output of the centrifuges it operates and deploys in reserve, thereby extending the time it would take to “break out” and construct a bomb. Iran says it could delay expanding its enrichment capacity for a few years but ultimately needs to scale up to produce replacement fuel for its Bushehr nuclear power reactor. Iranian negotiators maintain that they can’t rely on Russia to continue supplying the fuel or give up Iran’s centrifuge capability, given the high price that has been paid to acquire it – in sanctions and the assassination of its scientists.

It is difficult to find international nuclear experts who are convinced by the argument that Iran needs an industrial-scale enrichment program for Bushehr. Russia is fulfilling its contractual obligation to supply fuel through 2021 and wants to continue doing so thereafter, and Iran does not possess the intellectual property necessary to design and produce the fuel this reactor requires. If Iran did introduce self-made fuel into the reactor, its Russian warranties would no longer apply. While it is understandable that a proud country such as Iran would want to operate independently, no other country at such an early stage of nuclear development has been self-sufficient in this area.

The key to resolving this impasse is to prove that Iran can rely on Russian-made fuel to operate Bushehr without interruption, which would enable Iranian leaders to discontinue premature and uneconomical industrial-scale enrichment. To this end, Russia and the other negotiating states should offer to send, on a rolling basis and starting as soon as possible, several years’ worth of Bushehr fuel to Iran. Such fuel, if kept under constant safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, would not feasibly enable a breakout.

With fuel stockpiled, Iranian technicians could focus on research and development to produce more efficient centrifuges to make fuel for future, indigenously built Iranian power plants. Iran’s leaders could proclaim that they cleverly traded first-generation centrifuges to obtain their four main goals: to secure the “right” to enrich; to secure fuel for Bushehr; to create the basis for an advanced Iranian nuclear power program; and to relieve sanctions. If Iran’s leaders said no to a deal along those lines, the Iranian public and the rest of the world would conclude that something other than peaceful requirements was at issue.

Iran has already agreed that “under no circumstances will [it] ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” Shifting from an unnecessary, impractical, premature industrial-scale enrichment program to a research-and-development program whose scale and pace coincide with demonstrated civilian needs would help validate this commitment. Based on the experience of other countries with peaceful nuclear programs, Iran would need at least 15 years to design, site, build and operate a modern nuclear power plant that conforms to international safety, security and liability guidelines. The comprehensive deal being negotiated in Vienna would be fully implemented by then, and Iran would be regarded as a “normal” non-nuclear-weapon state.

Of course, even a research-and-development enrichment program is too much for some in the West who insist that Iran should have no nuclear capability at all. But that genie is out of the bottle. Iran is too advanced and too invested in maintaining hard-won expertise to accept what it – and other developing countries – would perceive as a neocolonial demand.

U.S. and Israeli security concerns could be met by an Iranian centrifuge program that proceeds apace with indigenous power plant construction and is located at a single declared facility, with no premature accumulation of enriched uranium and with attendant verification arrangements. Compared to plausible alternatives, a research-and-development program along these lines would diminish the prospects that Iran could either break out from declared facilities and dash for a bomb or “sneak out” and produce a bomb at undeclared facilities.

Time may not allow for agreement on these and other outstanding issues before the July 20 deadline. But if Iran, the United States and the others could agree to pre-stock fuel for Bushehr and focus Iran’s enrichment program on research and development, it would be in everyone’s interest to extend the negotiations on this basis. The alternative – a breakdown in diplomacy and resumption of destabilizing nuclear activity in Iran – could be a tragedy of global dimensions.

George Perkovich is director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-nuclear-deal-with-iran-should-focus-on-stockpiling-fuel-for-research-not-a-bomb/2014/07/10/1389ae36-06e2-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Return to Index

34. China Plays The South Korea CardPresident Xi's trip to Seoul was undoubtedly an attempt to isolate Japan. It won't work.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Michael Auslin

After Chinese President Xi Jinping's trip to South Korea last week, "Beijingology" is in full swing. Analysts are trying to interpret the tea leaves of his visit. Is he showing anger toward North Korea? Driving a wedge between Japan and South Korea? Is he responding to U.S. pressure?

Such speculation is as unhelpful as it was during the dark days of the Cold War, when Americans studied Soviet leaders' every move in an attempt to understand their motives and goals, a strategy known as "Kremlinology." As with the Soviet Union, today's China is often a blank palimpsest to its readers,

who impose whatever interpretation of Beijing's motives and goals suits them.

The very existence of Beijingology is a healthy reminder that even as China has become the world's second largest economy, the Chinese Communist Party continues to control information and limits its cooperative relations with outside states. Still, analysts should refrain from reading too much into President Xi's trip to Seoul last week.

They are undoubtedly right that Mr. Xi wants to use his relationship with South Korean President Park Geun-hye to further pressure and isolate Japan. Yet there is very likely a

33

limit to how far Ms. Park will go in her outreach to China. Seoul remains committed to the U.S. alliance, in no small part because Washington is the only realistic counterweight to Beijing's growing strength.

Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye meet in Seoul last week. Kim Hong-ji/Associated Press

A recent poll indicated that 70% of South Koreans consider China's rise and power a threat to their country. And, despite deep historical anger and hatred toward Japan, South Korean officials know that democratic (and aging) Japan poses less of a threat than a revisionist China.

On top of all that, Seoul realizes it must to some degree work with Japan, since both are key allies of the United States. Any U.S. action to protect South Korea from the North would also involve U.S. bases in Japan.

As for North Korea, Mr. Xi is hardly sending a message to Kim Jong Un by visiting Seoul before Pyongyang. It is no secret that China has long found North Korea's behavior as infuriating and unpredictable as the rest of Asia.

There is, however, no indication that Beijing is seriously rethinking its support for Mr. Kim's rogue regime. Pyongyang continues to play a crucial role in absorbing U.S. strength and attention in Asia and in keeping Washington, Seoul and Tokyo off-balance, all of which appears to be valued by China's leaders.

China will continue to support North Korea for the same reason it does Russia, Iran and Syria. It chooses to align itself with rogue regimes, revisionist powers and disruptive actors. It sees its interests aligning more with those who try to destabilize global stability rather than those who try to

maintain peace. When Beijing no longer supports dangerous actors around the globe, it will no longer support North Korea. That day, however, is far from coming.

In light of Mr. Xi's visit to South Korea, it is incumbent on Washington and Tokyo to deepen their own relations with Seoul. That has been particularly difficult for Japan of late. But both President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should be stressing the future of relations, not just the past.

It is manifestly in Seoul's self-interest to firmly align itself with a liberal bloc in Asia. Yet it is also up to Japan to do more to reach out to Seoul as a potential partner, for example by including it in plans for liberal multilateral approaches to security cooperation that so far have focused almost exclusively on India and Australia. Tokyo must emphasize that Seoul is a valued part of a liberal community for South Korea to feel a shared set of values with Japan. Given Ms. Park's antipathy toward Mr. Abe, Washington should not only encourage him to improve relations, it should throw its weight behind any Japanese initiative to do so.

The future of Asia will not be determined by one, or 10, state visits by any leader to any country. Instead, it is the steady work of creating liberal communities of interest to maintain regional norms that will create opportunities for prosperity and stability in coming decades.

Mr. Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C..

http://online.wsj.com/articles/auslin-reading-beijings-tea-leaves-1405011529

Return to Index

35. Going It AloneThe U.S. should follow Ukraine’s lead and act unilaterally on Russia sanctions(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Editorial

Ukraine’s new leader is making progress in regaining control over eastern areas of the country that were seized by Russian-backed insurgents, but he’s getting no help from the United States or the European Union. In fact, President Petro Poroshenko is succeeding in large part because he is resisting pressure to make unacceptable concessions to Moscow and its surrogates.

Germany and France have been pressing for a cease-fire and peace talks that would include the rebels, Russia and Ukraine but not Western governments. Vladimir Putin is supportive, as he hopes to create another of the “frozen conflicts” Moscow uses to permanently destabilize its neighbors. His truce terms would leave in place Russian control of the major eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk and make it virtually impossible for Mr. Poroshenko to stabilize the country.

Mr. Poroshenko’s resistance to those terms and resumption of military action has led to the recapture of half the territory once occupied by the pro-Russian forces, including the important crossroads town of Slovyansk. Ukrainian forces are now encircling the rebels in Donetsk. The Ukrainian leader has offered to talk to the insurgents but rightly says a cease-fire depends on an end to Russia’s arms trafficking.

It remains to be seen whether Ukrainian forces can finish off the insurgents while observing a pledge to avoid civilian

casualties and whether Mr. Putin will step up his military support for his proxies. The Russian leader has been playing what NATO’s secretary general correctly termed a “double game,” offering fake compromises to the West while continuing his campaign to make Ukraine ungovernable. Mr. Putin has economic as well as military cards to play: He has suspended Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine and threatened to impose crippling trade tariffs. He has patience and plenty of time; for the moment he is popular at home, and the Russian stock market is rising.

If he has been surprised by Mr. Poroshenko’s grit, then Mr. Putin can only be encouraged by the fecklessness of the European Union and the United States. At the end of June, the allies promised tough sanctions against Russia if Moscow did not immediately stop its support of the rebels. Secretary of State John F. Kerry breathlessly declared on June 26 that Russia had to move within “hours” to disarm its proxies. Two weeks later, the promised “sectoral” sanctions on Russian industries have not been adopted, even though Western governments agree that Mr. Putin has not met any of their conditions. Instead, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande are leaning on Mr. Poroshenko to stop trying to regain control over his country.

To their credit, senators from both parties voiced frustration with the Obama administration’s continued passivity at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing

34

Wednesday. “What are we waiting for?” asked Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Administration officials predicted that the oft-promised sanctions would come “very soon” if Russia did not change course – perhaps following a European Union summit meeting next week. But the White House has not committed itself to unilateral action if the European Union falters.

The administration is not wrong to prefer joint action with the Europeans if it is achievable. But the United States has the

power to impose crippling unilateral sanctions on Russia, especially through the banking system. If the Ukrainian government can act without the permission of France and Germany, so can the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-should-follow-ukraines-lead-and-act-unilaterally-on-russia-sanctions/2014/07/10/a355c460-0853-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

Return to Index

36. How To Avert Afghanistan's ImplosionElection-fraud charges must be resolved by July 22. The U.S. should do all it can to make that happen.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Frederick W. Kagan

The Afghan electoral commission announced on Monday that preliminary results showed Ashraf Ghani a million votes ahead of Abdullah Abdullah. Both camps immediately claimed victory.

Mr. Abdullah's supporters have taken to the streets, and he has threatened to form a parallel government if the result is not overturned. The White House has said that the formation of an extra-constitutional body will mean the termination of U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and rightly so. This election must be decided according to Afghan law by the established electoral bodies and without more mobilization of street pressures. Any other outcome will hurt all of the Afghan people and seriously damage U.S. and international interests in South Asia.

This crisis is only superficially complex. There was clearly a lot of fraud, as there always is in Afghan elections. President Hamid Karzai's political machine largely backed Mr. Ghani, which means that there was no doubt plenty of cheating on his behalf. Mr. Abdullah also surely benefited from ballot-box manipulation, as he did in his 2009 effort to unseat Mr. Karzai. The Afghan electoral system, supported by the international community, must investigate the vote and ultimately certify a result that is as clean as possible in accordance with the Afghan constitutional system.

It won't be surprising if it turns out that Mr. Ghani won, even when the fraud on both sides is subtracted. The electoral coalitions were built in typical Afghan style. Mr. Ghani, a Pashtun, appealed to that ethnic group, which is a plurality of Afghan voters. His selection of Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek warlord, as his running mate no doubt secured him some Uzbek support that ate into Mr. Abdullah's base.

Mr. Abdullah, a member of the Tajik minority, tried to run as a candidate of all Afghans but was seen as a Northern Alliance power-broker, narrowing his appeal to Pashtuns. Afghanistan's demographics make it hard for a Northern Alliance candidate to win an election fought along ethnic lines, as this one was. Mr. Ghani also campaigned for the runoff election much more vigorously than did Mr. Abdullah.

None of that matters now. There are a limited number of scenarios for resolving the crisis: (1) The result stands and Mr. Ghani wins, with Mr. Abdullah ultimately acquiescing; (2) the result is overturned and the victory given to Mr. Abdullah, with Mr. Ghani submitting; or (3) the whole process breaks down and is discredited, with Mr. Karzai continuing to rule through emergency powers and everyone else trying to figure out how to start over or, worse, abandoning the democratic and constitutional process entirely.

The Afghan electoral commission was right to announce the preliminary results on July 7 while continuing its fraud investigations. Departures from the constitutionally mandated process and timeline risk tipping Afghanistan into the abyss: If an impatient Mr. Abdullah and his supporters launch a parallel government, it would fracture the country and provoke civil war almost immediately.

Prolonging the electoral-review process past its legally mandated period – the final results are due on July 22 – allowing Mr. Karzai's continued rule, would alienate most Afghans and all of Afghanistan's international supporters. Fears that Mr. Karzai might extend his rule indefinitely would rise.

The consequences would be dire. Aid would likely be suspended or canceled. Mr. Karzai would continue to refuse to sign the status of forces agreement allowing U.S. troops to stay in Afghanistan after the end of this year. President Obama would likely order plans drawn up to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2014 and might even set that process in motion.

Other troop-contributing nations would do the same. Deprived of military and humanitarian aid, Afghanistan would be on track to implode spectacularly.

The Taliban are no doubt watching the crisis closely, heartened by signs of dysfunction and ready to step up pressure on an Afghan National Security Force already frayed by the ethnic tensions surrounding the election. If international forces begin to move out faster than the current drawdown calls for, significant battlefield failures are likely, heightening the impression that the country is on the verge of collapse. In response to Taliban successes, the Northern Alliance would likely mobilize, further weakening the Afghan National Security Force, because former alliance commanders form much of the military's leadership.

Pakistan would reinforce the Taliban and the Haqqani network. India would be tempted to reinforce the Northern Alliance. Russia, joined by Iran, might support the alliance as well. The prospects for an all-out civil war are high if the electoral crisis is allowed to fester.

Mr. Abdullah and his partisans, in taking their defiant stands, seem to have forgotten the risks of the course they are pursuing. For all his flaws, Mr. Ghani is not Mr. Karzai. He is not a Pashtun supremacist and would not pose a threat to Afghanistan's northern minorities. He has already announced his intention to form an inclusive government, and his past behavior provides ample reason to believe him.

The U.S. and the international community should bring as much pressure to bear as possible on Mr. Abdullah – and on

35

Mr. Ghani if it becomes necessary – to let the constitutional process play out. Otherwise there may be no future for Afghanistan.

Mr. Kagan is director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/frederick-kagan-how-to-avert-afghanistans-implosion-1405035380

Return to Index

36

37. In Defense Of Killer RobotsA ban-the-bots movement is growing, but first the military should find out what such autonomous systems can do.(WALL STREET JOURNAL 11 JUL 14) ... Erik Schechter

Weapons systems are getting smarter, and people are getting nervous. In May, Human Rights Watch called for the outlawing of autonomous military machines with lethal capabilities. The group, which has organized an international "Campaign to Stop Killer Robots," issued the statement as 87 member states of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons met in Geneva to discuss the legal and ethical implications of autonomous military machines.

This follows the Pentagon's decision in 2012 to set a five- to 10-year moratorium on developing autonomous weapons systems. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has likewise called on other states to put their research on hold. For now, only a handful of countries – Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt and Ecuador – and the Vatican support banning autonomous military machines, but that may change when the U.N. revisits the issue in November.

Certainly the idea of killer robots is unsettling, and proceeding with caution is a good idea – so long as we don't completely stop exploring this technology. Autonomy is already a feature of the modern military. Experimental drones can now fly themselves, pick out their own landing zones and travel in mutually supporting swarms. A logical next step is to give these unmanned systems the power to fire on their own, delivering weapons on target faster and with greater precision than a human ever could.

The argument for the ban goes like this: War, though mind-shatteringly nasty, is still not a moral free-for-all. Under international humanitarian law, we expect combatants to do their best to spare the lives of civilians. In the pre-al Qaeda days of uniforms, insignia and organized front lines, it was easy to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate targets. But in our age of amorphous militants and low-intensity conflict, making that distinction is often challenging for a human soldier, the critics say, and it would be nearly impossible for a robot.

Adhering to international humanitarian law also means making moral judgments under chaotic conditions. A machine will never be able to assign a value to, say, bombing a bridge and weigh its strategic importance against the cost borne by the local population. Equally problematic, machines lack basic human empathy. So an autonomous robot would respond to a 12-year-old holding a weapon very differently than a soldier would.

These are all powerful arguments, but there is something odd about closing the door on a technology simply based on what it may and may not be able to do. Shouldn't we be testing these suppositions first? Right now, there is far too much "Terminator" sci-fi coloring the debate. At this stage, no one is discussing an android stalking an urban landscape and reading threats based on human facial expressions or something equally subtle.

Autonomous weapons systems of the near future will be assigned the easy targets. They will pick off enemy fighter jets, warships and tanks – platforms that usually operate at a distance from civilians – or they will return fire when being shot at. None of this is a technical stretch. Combat pilots

already rely on machines when they have to hit a target beyond visual range. Likewise, some ground-combat vehicles have shot-detection systems that slew guns in the direction of enemy fire (although we'd probably want a robot to rely on something more than acoustic triangulation before unloading).

As for the moral judgment objection, machines may not have to be philosophers to do the right thing. Ron Arkin, a roboticist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, posits a scenario in which a human commander determines the military necessity of an operation; the machine then goes out and identifies targets; and right before lethal engagement, a separate software package called the "ethical governor" measures the proposed action against the rules of engagement and international humanitarian law. If the action is illegal, the robot won't fire.

Mr. Arkin's ethical-governor concept has been met with much skepticism. But let's assume for the moment that warbots, unhampered by feelings of fear, anger or revenge, can outperform human soldiers in keeping the rate of civilian casualties low. (We'll know for sure only if such a system is developed and tested.) If the goal of international humanitarian law is to reduce noncombatant suffering in wartime, then using sharpshooting robots would be more than appropriate, it would be a moral imperative.

Anticipating this utilitarian argument, disarmament activists contend that, real-life consequences aside, it is inherently wrong to give a machine the power of life or death over a human being. Killing people with such a self-propelled contraption is to treat them like "vermin," as one activist put it. But why is raining bombs down on someone from 20,000 feet any better? And does intimacy with one's killer really make death somehow more humane?

Another, related objection goes to the issue of responsibility. Predator drones, activists note, have a human crew (albeit one ensconced in an air-conditioned trailer stateside), so there is someone to blame if something goes wrong. But in the case of a fully autonomous system, who is liable for an unlawful killing? Is it the field commander? The software engineer? The defense contractor that performed the integration work? These are serious questions but are hardly showstoppers or even unique to killer robots. One could ask similar questions about injuries or deaths caused by self-driving cars.

But even if other states back an international treaty, enforcing it would prove nearly impossible. After all, it is hard to ban a weapon you can't quite define. Truth be told, modern militaries already employ a variety self-targeting weapons. For example, the Captor sea mine hunts submarines on its own, while the ship-mounted Phalanx gun automatically shoots down water-skimming missiles. Are these "killer robots" too? If not, why not?

Moreover, facile appeals to precedent notwithstanding, trying to enforce a ban battlefield robots would be nothing like banning lasers that permanently blind or chemical weapons. The military machines wouldn't leave telltale, a-robot-did-this marks on their victims. A bullet wound is a bullet wound, whether made by man or machine, so a medical forensics team

37

would be at a loss to determine whether a country had violated a killer-robots ban. Likewise, what makes a machine autonomous is its software, and that is buried deep within the system. Trying to distinguish a robot from a drone is like guessing what the apps are on a stranger's smartphone by looking at its protective case.

Ultimately, a ban on lethal autonomous systems, in addition to being premature, may be feckless. Better to test the limits of this technology first to see what it can and cannot

deliver. Who knows? Battlefield robots might yet be a great advance for international humanitarian law.

Mr. Schechter, a writer on defense and security issues, has contributed to publications including IHS Jane's International Defence Review and Popular Mechanics. He served in the Israel Defense Forces.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/erik-schechter-in-defense-of-killer-robots-1405035148

Return to Index

38. Sinking The Next-13-Navies Fallacy(WAR ON THE ROCKS 10 JUL 14) ... James Holmes

The war against naval factoids is a quagmire! A primary theater in this whack-a-mole struggle is the notion that America’s navy is “stronger” than the next X navies, and thus, we should rest easy about our republic’s strategic position in Eurasia. The usual figure given for X is 13, although a reputable commentator recently inflated it to 16. The latest purveyor of this claim is David Axe, the normally reliable proprietor of War Is Boring. On Tuesday, Axe contended, “By some measures, the U.S. Navy maintains a 13-navy standard. In other words, it can deploy as much combat power as the next 13 largest fleets combined.”

Nope, sorry. There is no benchmark whereby the U.S. Navy boasts more fighting strength than the next 13 fleets combined. Much heard during the2012 presidential campaign, the next-13-navies factoid refers to aggregate tonnage. In other words, it refers to how much the combined U.S. Navy displaces, aka weighs, relative to other navies. It assumes bigger and bulkier equals stronger. And indeed, by and large, U.S. Navy ships are bigger and bulkier than most foreign counterparts. They’re built to operate across the intercontinental distances they must traverse to reach the Western European, East Asian, and Indian Ocean rimlands. Far-flung voyages demand greater fuel, stores, and ammunition capacity. This constitutes an advantage over rival forces.

And an important one. But by no means should tonnage become shorthand for combat power. Weight isn’t everything – unless you think that obese 400-pound guy you saw lumbering down the Jersey Shore last weekend in a Speedo could whup Mike Tyson. Now assigning fighting ships to weight classes made some sense in the thrilling days of yesteryear. For instance, ramming was the standard tactic during the age of galley warfare. Lighter ships came off worse after being rammed by heavier ones. Nor could they inflict much damage on larger opponents by ramming. Smartly handled, bigger galleys were better.

Classing ships by tonnage also made some sense during the age of sail, when the size of a ship determined how many guns it could sport, and thus the weight of shot it could fling in close action. Even then, though, the composition of a ship’s battery of guns – not the simple number of cannon – determined its hitting power. In 1588, for instance, a fleet of smaller English ships festooned with long-range guns pummeled the behemoths of the Spanish Armada, whose guns were fewer in number, had shorter range, and disgorged smaller projectiles with less destructive potential. Precision English gunnery mauled the Armada from a distance, and commanders let weather take care of the rest.

Even less so since the age of sail gave way to the age of steam. Before World War I, naval sage Julian S. Corbett was already bewailing the technological “revolution beyond all previous experience” that overtook navies during the era of armored steamers. Corbett’s lifetime saw the debut of new weaponry such as torpedoes and sea mines, along with small craft like torpedo boats and submarines to carry them. New weaponry helped nullify the battleship’s overpowering offensive and defensive strength. Increasingly, ships that displaced a fraction a battlewagon’s tonnage could inflict grave damage on these great ships – if not disable them altogether.

For Corbett, this turned the world upside down. Armament, sensors, and fire control came to determine a ship’s combat punch, not the sheer size of its hull. Time and technology – in particular combat aircraft and the guided missile – have only swept Corbett’s revolution onward. As a result, battleships were scrapped long ago or (sob) relegated to museum duty. Nor are contemporary vessels immune to small-craft tactics. Think about an Iraqi Mirage fighter jet setting the frigate USS Stark ablaze in the Persian Gulf in 1987, or a rudimentary mine crippling the Aegis cruiser Princeton in 1991, or an explosives-laden skiff punching through the Aegis destroyer Cole in 2000. Small munitions, major firepower.

Tonnage remains a suspect standard of strength at best. Well, doesn’t the U.S. Navy simply have more men-of-war than the next 13 navies? Nope. Just one of those navies, China’s, is more numerous than the U.S. Navy, measured in raw numbers of “major combatant” hulls. In 2010, for example, The Economist reported (channeling the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies) that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) fields “more warships than America.” And so it does. Tally up the figures for yourself over at Jane’s Fighting Ships, Combat Fleets of the World, or GlobalSecurity.org. But these numbers mislead. Such estimates count a creaky old PLAN destroyer the same as a state-of-the-art Type 052D PLAN guided-missile destroyer, and both Chinese combatants the same as an American destroyer, cruiser, or aircraft carrier.

If size isn’t the sole determinant of strength, then neither are brute numbers. Statistics can lie, masking vast differences in capability. Lastly, Axe’s factoid is little more than a gotcha line for debates about fleet size and configuration. Who cares whether the U.S. Navy could thrash the world’s next 13 most potent navies in some hypothetical doomsday clash? Most of those navies belong to allies or friends. Even if they didn’t, it’s tough to envision that many hostile fleets massing for battle at the right time and place, or fighting well together if they did.

38

What does matter is whether U.S. mariners will prevail in the clash they’re most likely to face. And it’s far from clear that the U.S. Navy outmatches the most important one of those 13 fleets, the PLAN, in the real-world setting where an encounter would take place.

That’s because the U.S. Navy doesn’t just fight navies. It has to fight land-based air forces, and even armies. Think about it. To project power into distant theaters, U.S. expeditionary forces must operate near or on foreign coasts. Commentators often invoke a sports analogy: the U.S. military only plays away games. It ventures onto opponents’ turf, ceding a multitude of homefield advantages. Nor do any rules keep the teams symmetrical in numbers, size, or capability. The home team can throw as many well-rested players as it wants into the fray. Staging naval power far from home, then, is hard and expensive, even in peacetime. It’s daunting when the combined armed forces of a peer competitor try to balk U.S. strategy.

How would the U.S. Navy match up in such a contest? Not as well as you might think. Axe makes much of American supremacy in numbers of aircraft carriers, using them as a proxy for naval power. He calculates that the U.S. Navy will retain an inventory of 19 – 23 flattops in 2024 under the worst of budgetary circumstances. Let’s accept his numbers for the sake of discussion. And let’s accept his conflating amphibious helicopter carriers – 45,000-ton flattops that are designed to carry helicopters but can operate modest numbers of jump jets as well – with 100,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The rhythm of deployment, upkeep, and training being what it is – it takes at least three U.S.-based hulls to keep one on foreign station – the U.S. Navy could expect to throw six-to-eight of these carriers into a fight with China. That’s on the farfetched assumption that Washington concentrates the entire flattop fleet (complete with escort and logistics vessels) for action in the Pacific theater, stripping the rest of the globe of carrier strike groups. It also assumes that the navy manages to surge reinforcements into the Western Pacific from Hawaii and West Coast seaports in fighting trim, crossing thousands of miles of sea without suffering debilitating losses from Chinese anti-access weaponry along its way.

Once massed off Asian shores, this contingent will square off not just against the PLA Navy but against the PLA Air Force, whose burgeoning array of missile-armed tactical

aircraft can strike out to sea, and the PLA Army, which wields the anti-ship ballistic-missile force that so vexes Western analysts. These are shore-based forces boasting hundreds of miles of seaward reach. So long as the fight takes place within reach of land-based weaponry, consequently, PLAN commanders have a great equalizer at their disposal. China makes a large, unsinkable aircraft carrier. And it’s a carrier whose commanders can shift the air wing and missile batteries around to conceal them from enemy counterstrikes or position them closer to scenes of action. Advantage: home team.

So where does this leave us? The same place we started. The next-13-navies factoid is a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that. It encourages complacency. Combat power is not the same as tonnage. Nor is it strictly equivalent to numbers of hardware in the inventory. If it were, today’s U.S. Navy would be no match for its 1945 self, with its thousands of ships and aircraft. I yield to no one as an admirer of America’s World War II admirals, but the pre-missile, pre-jet-aircraft fleets commanded by Nimitz, Spruance, and Halsey would have stood little chance against today’s compact but high-tech force. So let’s give the next-13-navies fallacy a long-overdue burial (at sea, of course).

None of this is to counsel defeatism. The U.S. Navy retains certain competitive advantages. New armaments are in the works. It can count on powerful friends like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and Royal Australian Navy. Our navy can still compete successfully. Yet the service let other advantages slip away in the happy time following the Cold War and must recover them to outclass its first peer competitor since the Soviet Navy. In short, this is no time for chest-thumping about the U.S. Navy’s standing among sea services. Hubris goes before a fall.

The capacity to mount superior might at the critical place on the map at the critical time, in the face of adversarial sea, air, and land forces, represents the true measure of naval adequacy. Clarity about the military balance, sobriety about the limits of U.S. naval power, and resolve to restore and preserve American advantages constitute the proper attitude toward maritime strategy. Enough with the one-liners.

James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College

http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/sinking-the-next-13-navies-fallacy/

Return to Index

39. A Plea From Parents To Congress: Do Something To Stop The Suicides Of Our Veterans(WASHINGTON POST 11 JUL 14) ... Melinda Henneberger

Parents of military veterans who took their own lives after surviving combat told a congressional panel on Thursday how not to prevent suicide:

Turn away a veteran of some 400 combat missions in Iraq because he’s no longer active in the National Guard.

Then turn him away because he was previously in the Guard and refer him to a military facility where he’s promptly referred back to VA.

Now tell him to wait for a postcard with his appointment time.

Either don’t send that postcard, or send it to the wrong address.

Refuse to refer him outside the Veterans Affairs health-care system.

When he finally does get his first VA date with a psychiatrist, have that doctor inform him that he’s retiring and won’t be able to see him a second time. Emphasize that he will, however, be seen by another doctor – just as soon as one becomes available.

Never get back in touch, and let him run up considerable debt getting what help he can in the private sector.

And, finally, watch that veteran sprawled on the floor, crying in the corner of a VA hospital where he’s gone while having flashbacks and begging to be

39

admitted. Refuse to see him again, but assure him he’s free to stick around until he feels well enough to drive himself home.

After all that, Daniel Somers committed suicide last summer, his parents tearfully testified before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday. Their son was 23.

Sitting close together, Harold and Jean Somers took turns reading their statement, peering through almost matching wire-rimmed glasses. A few times, he finished her sentence when she started to cry. Once, she did the same for him.

While they spoke, members of the committee could not have been more attentive. One said she had been close to tears herself; a couple told the grieving parents that their testimony had been hard to hear. Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), a doctor who served in Vietnam, called their words “heartwarming.” He must have meant heartbreaking, because there was nothing fuzzy about it.

In 2011, Daniel Somers wrote about the crushing guilt he felt over having been “called upon to employ deadly force on a regular basis – often in situations where noncombatants ended up in the crossfire. To this day, I am unable to provide even a rough approximation as to the number of civilian deaths in which I may be complicit.”

In his final months, Somers suffered from post-traumatic stress so severe he wore a towel around his head that he said helped keep out the voices, the light and the sound.

Clay Hunt, a Marine who fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan, took his own life in 2011. His parents, Richard and Susan Selke, added more to the “what not to do” list.

Tell someone who has at last found an antidepressant that works well that he has to change drugs because there’s no generic version available.

Once that hurdle is cleared, tell him the VA pharmacy doesn’t stock that drug, but it will be mailed to him in seven to 10 days. Ignore all medical advice against stopping anti-depressants cold.

Now tell him the prescription can’t be refilled because it was written in Colorado rather than Houston, where he’s just moved – and thus he must start all over in the system, and wait to be reevaluated.

Classify him as only entitled to 30 percent disability pay even though he is so compromised by the symptoms of his post-traumatic stress that he isn’t able to work.

Lose his paperwork for 18 months, and then five weeks after his death, finally review his appeal and conclude that he should be on full disability. Notify his survivors of the good news.

Brian Portwine’s mom, Peggy, said he should have gotten an automatic mental health evaluation after a fellow soldier he’d just switched seats with in their Humvee in Iraq was blown to bits. That didn’t happen, though.

Back home, he had such poor short-term memory that he’d frequently ask his friends, “Where are we going again?” Yet despite suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and a traumatic brain injury, he was deployed again and killed himself in May of 2011.

“I’m begging this committee” to do something, Portwine said, in keeping with what “I promised my son at his funeral.”

She has kept that promise, as have all the parents and loved ones who’ve been turned into advocates by the rolling tragedy of the 22 veterans a day who committed suicide in 2010, up from 18 per day in 2007, according to the latest figures from VA.

The committe’s chairman, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), introduced a bill on Thursday called the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, which would require the National Guard and VA to work together. Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.), a retired Army colonel and Iraq veteran, has proposed similar legislation to financially reward psychiatrists who stay in the VA system. It’s unclear what VA could offer to doctors to stay on in a place that would leave a man who fought for us, and then couldn’t forgive himself, crying on the floor.

In this case, it’s obvious that Congress is willing to act, but how? Surely, more access to and information about private care is one answer. But on days like this one, spent watching the grief of those who survived soldiers we effectively left on the battlefield, VA itself seems beyond saving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/parents-tell-congress-how-va-failed-their-children-veterans-who-committed-suicide/2014/07/10/86838584-0849-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Return to Index

40. How To Fix The Government’s Security Clearance Mess(DEFENSE ONE 10 JUL 14) ... Steve Nguyen

The federal government’s security clearance process has been under intense scrutiny since last year’s Washington Navy Yard shooting by Aaron Alexis, a Marine Corp contractor with secret-level clearance and Edward Snowden’s unprecedented leak of classified information. In March, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pledged to correct “gaps or inadequacies in the department’s security” that could facilitate these types of incidents. If the federal government applied the same sort of risk analysis tools that insurance companies perform when they take on new clients, we could remove internal threats and maintain the safety of federal employees and government contractors.

The secretary’s announcement came shortly after the Obama administration released recommendations for changing

the security clearance process for government employees and contractors following an extensive review by the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB. The administration called for better background investigations and continuous evaluation of the 5.1 million people who hold security clearances, including confidential, secret or top secret.

Under the current system, federal employees granted ‘confidential’ clearance are re-checked every 15 years. Security clearances at the secret level are reviewed only 10 years. A top secret clearance is reviewed only every five years . But major life changes can occur within any 5, 10- or even 1-year timeframe, such as bankruptcy, liens or financial troubles, arrests, criminal activity, undue foreign sympathy or

40

influence, marital status changes and drug abuse that can affect an individual’s stability.

Clearance holders are required by law to self-report these changes, but very rarely does that happen. Because of lengthy periods between reinvestigations, red flags in an employee’s background go unnoticed and troubling gaps in the security clearance process pose serious internal threats. In fact, Hagel’s review found that threats to military and civilian personnel and DoD contractors were increasingly coming from within, including from colleagues with security clearances.

Not only does the government face the monumental task of maintaining accurate and current information on employees, many agencies face a huge backlog of reinvestigations. OMB found about 22 percent of top secret and secret clearance holders were overdue for review. Agencies simply lack the necessary resources required and a solution to continuously monitor all of the clearances manually. Hagel’s proposed changes will require time and technology before it can offer real-time alerts. Until then, agencies will most likely have to focus on reviewing a subset of clearance holders – either by random selection or by targeting individuals – which still leaves gaping holes in our nation’s security and counterintelligence efforts since troubled individuals may be overlooked. This is a serious issue with serious consequences.

The government is being asked to provide solutions by September 1 in the 120-day report. Many agencies, and defense and intelligence contractors, are considering approaches beyond traditional physical security and network system log reviews, focusing on life events for a full picture of the sort of risk an individual may pose.

We need to move from checking clearances every few years to continuous evaluation. To get rid of the backlog the government needs to better automate the security clearance process. They need to understand who they are dealing with, what is going on in their life and their associates, all valuable information in assessing an individual’s risk profile and doing so in closer to real time. Agency officials need to be able to receive an automated alert of certain life changes, such as a

marriage, divorce, bankruptcy, or one of the other items noted above, allowing them to make a decision on appropriate next steps. The way to do this is to automatically monitor millions of cleared individuals with data from public records, social media and government data sets.

The government also needs to make greater use of big data through a risk- and analytics-based approach. By looking at personal risk behavior data, agencies can make better and faster decisions on who needs additional scrutiny. In fact, this process is similar to monitoring systems already in use by the insurance and financial industries, which for years have been successfully determining if individuals qualify for insurance and loans and at what rate they should be charged. They determine premium and risk by taking into account an individual’s history and assigning a risk score. These same statistical models can be customized to support the risk modeling of individuals with security clearances.

The idea of continuous workplace monitoring may sound invasive to an increasingly surveillance-wary public. But when a government employee seeks clearance, which often comes with the ability to monitor or analyze sensitive information the public can’t access, that employee voluntarily gives permission for ongoing reviews and has no expectation of privacy.

Our concerns about government eavesdropping don’t apply to this situation. The problem isn’t privacy; it’s that we aren’t monitoring our monitors.

Fixing these glaring problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible before another tragedy occurs should be a top priority for our government. The government needs to be proactive, with the ability to monitor every individual with a clearance for potential risks. There are solutions that can make this an easy process, serving as a key function in maintaining our national security.

Steve Nguyen is vice president of government solutions and LexisNexis Special Services Inc. at LexisNexis.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/07/how-fix-governments-security-clearance-mess/88408/

Return to Index

41