What is Sequestration?
One of the great things about life Inside the Beltway is how language is constantly re-invented.
In the old days, before the Internet, say in the 18th Century, you would pull out script and pen and work through drafts or your document and then print them in a paper or read them in an Assembly and the words would be debated.
Today with instant access to the global word system – word globalization – you can use a word any way you want or invent new words and do not have to worry about any real debate about the word and its meaning.
You just assert and use the word.
And then you debate yourself or. even better, talk past whomever you don’t like or, put in other terms, your COMPETITORS. Your SUPPORTERS will form a website celebrating the common FELT position, because actually debating with someone you disagree with is not really necessary in a NETOCRACY.
It is a circular Rabbit Hole to use the Alice in Wonderland baseline.
A good example of this is the appearance of the word Sequestration. When I was younger, if someone used this word, they were probably a lawyer or a bill collector.
Originally a legal term referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved.
But now this word now has a much more significant meaning along the lines that the Congress and the Administration could not agree on how to deal with spending cuts so a process was put in motion which will lead to Draconian cuts with no one in control.
“This is a perfect metaphor for today’s Washington,” opined Boomer. “If no one is in charge, then you can blame the other guy, or the other party for the Draconian cuts which an automatic process would create. You can pull a McCain and claim you are hopping mad or an Obama and talk about the old ways of Washington which subvert the will of the people.”
Let us go back in time to the post-Revolution period in the United States and visit the Founding Fathers.
Hamilton: “We need to do something about the financial disaster of the Articles of Confederation. The country needs a sound system of financial management and responsibility. If we are weak economically, foreign powers will be able to undercut our independence and put us into servitude.
Adam Smith: “You are right, and you could call the new document the Articles of Sequestration. You could come up with a system, which manages itself in perpetuity without human intervention. The hidden hand of Sequestration would lead to a continual process of cuts and rebalancing without the need for political debate or any need whatsever to make choices.”
Washington, Jefferson and the others listened to this and worked behind the scenes to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Articles of Sequestration. And who can ever forget those marvelous essays in The Sequestration Papers. It makes one swell with pride.
But Boomer did not find this funny. “I have worked as a guard for many years keeping my eyes over the sacred documents of the founding fathers, and don’t think they would find the current situation all that funny.”
I felt Boomer was being a bit harsh and too serious. But Boomer: With a new concept – Sequestration – a whole new priesthood of interpreters of the meaning of the word can come to the fore and sage bodies of Wordtankers can discuss the problem for months if not years.
Isn’t this an important stimulus to the economy and one which the Chinese can not control directly?
To make my case to Boomer, I read to him this bromide from Bloomberg:
Under the Budget Control Act passed by Congress in August 2011, automatic spending cuts will go into effect in January 2013 under a process called sequestration. But the law does not provide specifics on how those cuts are to be implemented. Bloomberg Government Defense Analyst Kevin Brancato dives into this subject, and the direct impact on Defense Department programs, on Federal News Radio.
One interpretation of the law would be to cut every single program by the same amount, roughly 13 percent. The other interpretation of the act is that overall spending would need to be reduced by 13 percent but the Pentagon could pick and choose the programs to cut, stated Kevin Brancato, on The Federal Drive show with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp.
Cutting every single program by the same amount presents an inherent difficulty for the Department of Defense, according to Brancato. Across-the-board cuts would be extremely complicated to implement since every contract and weapons program would have to be canceled, modified or renegotiated, a timely and expensive process, especially in the middle of a fiscal year. But how the government and the Department of Defense are planning to implement the cuts is not clear.
In the end, “The President, Congress, military leaders, industry — nobody wants sequestration,” Brancato said. “They just haven’t agreed on a way to avoid it.” In all likelihood, however, a resolution to avoid sequestration will not occur before the election.
Boomer: “This is a sad day when American leaders can’t even address priorities, choices or financial realities. I think the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves. Sequestration really means, punt the decisions and let the next crowd make choices that we can’t make. Oops many of these folks will be back for the next Congress. I guess then those folks will be Sequestered or something like this. ”
Right Sizing the USN-USMC Fleet
Recently, former Secretary Navy John Lehman teed up a discussion of how to ensure that the USN-USMC team is enabled to play its role in the 21st century.
His discussion was launched by a reference to an AOL Defense piece where I am on the editorial board of contributors.
In the piece, to which Lehman referred, Sydney Feedberg, Jr. presented comments by the Under Secretary Work’s providing a spirited defense of the Obama Administration’s approach to force building for the USN-USMC team.
“There is no subterfuge about this at all,” Work said ahead of a key House Armed Services Committee oversight meeting on the size of the fleet, amidst accusations [since retracted] by “Information Dissemination” blogger Raymond “Galrahn” Pritchett that the service is counting support vessels it never previously included in its “battle force” to bulk up its current and projected numbers. “The 300 ships that we [will] have in 2019 are ships that we count right now, right now,” he said, and do not include such traditionally excluded auxiliaries as small patrol craft or hospital ships.
Work did not deny that the Navy might want to count such craft sometime in the future: “We have not looked at the battle force counting rules, which are extremely arcane, since the early eighties,” he said, back when Reagan’s politically savvy Navy Secretary, John Lehman, set up the system in context of a clash with the Soviet Union and to support his push for a 600-ship fleet. But, Work insisted, the Navy has not changed the system yet.
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/04/under-secretary-robert-work-denies-navy-fudged-ship-numbers-no/
Lehman underscored that “the seas are great and our Navy is small.
(Once could add as a parenthesis that Pacific is even bigger than that, please see the piece by Ed Timperlake
http://www.sldforum.com/2011/04/the-pacific-dimension-sizing-the-challenge/).
Mr. Work’s statement to AOL Defense that “the United States will be everywhere in the world that it has been. And it will be as much (present) as the 600-ship navy” is not persuasive.”
And Lehman underscored that the approach seems to be retire older ships now and build more in the relatively distant future. “In order to reach a 350 ship fleet in our lifetime., we will need to increase shipbuilding to an average of 15 ships every year.”
I would add to Lehman’s concern that there is also a fundamental question of what ships we intend to build.
The Administration has emphasized the Littoral Combat Ship as a numbers enhancer;
but in many ways the LCS is more of a force drainer than it is a force multiplier.
The ship represents the classic approach of focusing on a platform without looking profoundly at the context of operational and sustainment approaches.
Work spoke in his earlier writings of “surging LCSs” to a problem. There is a small issue here – the LCS is so relatively small that it is has VERY limited organic support.
The ship is built around “distance” support as well.
This means that the already challenged Military Sealift Command will have to be able to support the “surging” LCS fleet and if the fleet is disaggregated this will put significant stress on an already challenged fleet.
And due to “distance support,” there is the need to be supported by forward bases, the costs of which too should be folded in.
In addition, the LCS is survivable via being connected to big brother assets to which it can reach back.
These would be assets on amphibs, carriers, on land based air or submarines to deliver the scalable force necessary to ensure surviviability and viability.
In other words, there is a significant cost as well to ensuring that it is near land or sea bases to provide for scalability.
There is a better way.
Curtail the numbers of LCS’s and plus up the amphibious fleet and the MSC fleet.
More T-AKE ships plus LPD-17s and American class ships provide sustainable forward presence, which can scale up and back to foreign naval and air assets or to large deck carriers and to USAF assets.
But they don’t need this be sustained and viable, unlike the LCS.
In other words, Lehman’s point about the size of the fleet is true in both senses: numbers of ships and types of ships to be built.
The recent Bold Alligator 2012 exercise underscored the role, which an expeditionary strike group can play in shaping a sea base capability which can be both a presence and a warfighting force.
It is one as well which demonstrates to allies that they are working with a global power, not an anti-piracy gendarmerie.
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/bold-alligator-a-glimpse-of-marine-navy-future/
http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012304150007
How to use large deck carrier space in the 21st Century?
by Michael W. Wynne
21st Secretary of the USAF
Under Secretary Work focused on TACAIR options for the USN and USMC. Work focused on “warfighter capability and affordability trades, and costs and potential cost savings of different TACAIR force structure combinations.”
http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-of-the-navy-robert-works-july-tac-air-memo/
Perhaps a better question would be to ask: what strike capabilities do you want with regard to the large deck carrier?
Functional equivalent of Dolittle's raiders? What to put on a 21st century large deck carrier deck? Credit Image: USN
The concept of 4.5 Acres of sovereign airfield associated with the large deck carrier was a great advertisement. The fact as presented was the freedom of movement across the 60 percent of the globe that is water.
The concept of re-norming defense is about rethinking the original purpose of the invented and available platforms given the modern invented technologies; and applying these in favor of doing more with less.
In the case of the carrier platform; we must thank the inventor of the Doolittle raid that took the concept of ’4.5 Acres’ and changed the dynamic of a nation. And look no further than the Tsunami relief to find an inventive admiral who thought about the functional capabilities of the carrier and repurposed it as a floating power plant, water purification system, helicopter pad and hospital.
This “re-purposement” was fraught with risk; with the Doolittle Carrier now carrying the nations hope for a better outcome; and the Tsunami relief done against a backdrop of an uncertain world and concern for ‘taking one of the nations premier systems off line for a mission beneath its optimal.
Now, in his memo, Under Secretary Work is looking to a committee to dream up repurposing for a part of the total Aircraft Carrier System, namely Aviation. From a systems perspective; one should consider all of the system, not focus just on tac air.
Let us return to the 1920′s when the concept of ship borne aviation was introduced and look to how to re-create this original purpose but with an eye to modern and maybe future technologies to enhance the original desired capabilities.
From a perspective of a air and sea space that was considered benign at the time, the purpose seemed simple enough. How to bring airborne firepower forward to wreak havoc on the ports and nearby airfields, essentially moving sovereign borders close to an enemies, via the open water.
This concept was a complex extension of the large man of war gunships that pummeled with big guns the shore batteries and ports, until driven off by counter fire or enemy fleets.
The rest of the platform design came about by mission demands for protection from enemy air, from enemy sea and to best use the ‘Big’ Ocean for longevity of an operating mission. The Navy began to introduce the concept of last on first off for its aviation units by allowing the aviation unit to come aboard after they had some sea time to shake off any refit problems; and allowing them to depart early so they could dedicate the remaining voyage to cataloguing repairs; and supplies.
This simple act of smart logistics can easily be extended by asking the question of why the aircraft are ever on the carrier except to prep for a mission?
Asking this question is the essence of re-norming.
One needs to start from the bare deck and ask: what else is needed to achieve the mission?
The carrier platform began to swell to the carrier battle group. And as it did so the purpose changed.
There is tremendous military evidence that protection of the Carrier Platform began to consume the entirety of the mission status for all of the surrounding ships and submarines, and many of the on board aircraft. Such a focus left essentially 8-12 strikes capable A-6 aircraft to accomplish the original mission, of bringing havoc to the enemy.
The upgrade to the F-4 was the F-14; a very capable; though maintenance unfriendly strike fighter. Better still; the upgrade to the carrier protection air system was the swing fighter, the F-18; which had sufficient speed and agility to be a carrier protector; as well as strike inland targets; sometimes deep with support of the Air Force Tankers scattered around the air space.
Unfortunately; this led the Navy to the ill-fated A-12; the first stealthy try to replace the A-6, the last of which was stood down by maintenance in the late 2000 decade. Without this replacement but able to fly from protected Air and Sea Space provided by the USAF, the F-18 performed all of the mission required; and is convincing the Navy that it is invincible.
But we note that the emergence of Exocet missiles, arrayed in unfriendly territory have placed the carrier far enough off shore that to stay in the Afghan conflict, a refueling with a tanker is a requirement. Some of the F-18 carrier aircraft operationally flew from Bagram Airfield to help with Northern strikes. This is an adaptive Navy that is placing risk in the operational plan.
Unfortunately; the Strategic Navy; by dedicating significant resources to purchase the 1950′s designed F-18 airframe is trying its best to convince itself that the modern F-18 can carry out all assigned missions. In contrast, the planning Navy sees trouble ahead for any Navy Airmen sent into an Air Space defended with Integrated Air Defenses, and puts the Carriers further out to sea.
This creates a true conundrum; but all of the selected electronic games that young men play have already taken technology into account; and these young game players see that the senior officials clinging to F-18s are in a losing strategy.
So what to do?
First return to the original mission and try to maximize the opportunity to effect it.
Second; minimize the deck space required to protect the ship by turning to modern technology, as the Navy has with the counter missile Phalanx System; and can as well with AUVS systems to accomplish submarine hunting, and counter torpedo technologies;
For Air use high Flying Air to Air missile armed Remotely piloted vehicles; with the pilots flying remotely; or on-board.
Further; this would allow multi mission, outlying picket ships with AEGIS systems to be far removed from the Carrier, actually performing other missions yet able to fire from a distance in support of the carrier.
And the F-35s could well glue together the Aegis with the RPVs and creating a significant bubble around the carrier and at the same time carrying a strike package forward simultaneously
Using the High Flying RPV’s for Nodal connection the carrier can increase by an order of magnitude it’s communication capability for over the horizon command and control; connecting other command and control nodes for back up and fire support.
With this kind of “pre-Work” accomplished, the system would be more ready to respond to Under Secretary Work’s memo; and now it can consider maximizing the Strike Mission for which the platform was first invented.
This requires one more leap into the future. How could one best use the remaining deck space in accomplishing the mission when the mission is uncertain? Is there a better and future strategy for actually rewarding fleet operators for minimizing aircraft deck crowding until the bell goes off? This type of thinking should underscore Navy thinking as it moves into an uncertain but constrained budget season.
First published last year and can be found here
http://www.sldinfo.com/re-working-the-question/
Harvest the Best, Leave the Rest
The latest in our ‘Just Do It! series gives a tip of the hat to Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Mark Begich (D-AK), for their work in forging a bi-partisan coalition to once and for all put the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) out of its misery.
Ayotte and Begich were joined by a half dozen colleagues from both parties in asking the heads of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee to work with them on eliminating funding for the beleaguered MEADS missile program.
It is a boondoggle that’s cost taxpayers more than $2 billion, is riddled with cost overruns, is late in development, is no longer wanted by the US Army or its allied partners, and will never be built or used.
But rather than simply expressing concern in another piece of cathartic congressional correspondence, the senators offer concrete solutions to the situation while insisting that the administration abide by the will of Congress.
It was made clear as crystal to the Defense Department last year that MEADS funding for the budget year ending October 1 would be the end of the program.
In spite of this congressional mandate, the administration’s FY 2013 budget audaciously asks for another $400.9 million for MEADS. If there ever was an instance where the separation of powers needs to be exercised, this is it.
More importantly, Ayotte, Begich and the other signatories provide outstanding guidance on how the Pentagon can abide by the will of the Congress and continue improving air support and defense for ground troops.
Elegant in its simplicity, the senators suggest shifting the DoD MEADS request into further upgrades to the existing Patriot missile system.
In spite of the system’s ultimate failure, there is something of great value in the doomed MEADS program.
Even though MEADS never came even close to realization, it did result in some important technology that can be harvested for use in other systems.
There’s no reason why we cannot harvest the best of MEADS technology and adapt it to the ongoing upgrade of the Patriot system, using the administration’s $400.9 million request to pay for it. Warfighters get the improved air support they’ll need for future engagements and taxpayers will get real value from Pentagon spending. The technology was also developed in conjunction with the Italians and the Germans. And a cross fertilization of allied capabilities is an important possibility as well.
Many in the defense community agree that when it comes to ending the costly and unworkable MEADS program, the time has come to ‘Just Do It!’ Bravo Zulu to Senators Ayotte and Begich, and to their Senate colleagues, for moving MEADS in the right direction – out of the budget.
Up in Smoke Inside the Beltway?
The shift from President Clinton to President Obama is dramatic in many ways. And it could not be clearer than when it comes to smoking. The current President smokes or used to smoke or his wife says he doesn’t smoke but in any case he likes or liked to hide the fact. President Clinton boldly smoked cigars and was very proud about it. And during his Presidency even some of his Generals felt free to smoke Cuban cigars and this led to one famous comment: “I am destroying the enemy’s crops, one cigar at a time.”
“Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker?” said Obama last June (2009), “No. I don’t do it in front of my kids, I don’t do it in front of my family.” To avoid setting “a bad example,” he is also careful never to smoke in public. When his habit was at its heaviest, he reportedly consumed seven or eight cigarettes a day but he’s recently said that he’s “95 percent cured.” Press secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama only “occasionally falls off the wagon.
http://theweek.com/article/index/200270/why-is-obama-still-smoking
In contrast, former President Clinton has been seen actually smoking cigars.
http://www.smokersassociation.org/images/former-us-president-bill-clinton-smoking-a-cigar
There is an important caveat when thinking about Clinton and cigars however.
Former President Clinton has been forever linked to cigars due to that unfortunate White House incident that had nothing to do with smoking.
A side note: Because the White House was designated as a non-smoking area during the Clinton Administration, the President would more often chew a cigar than smoke one. He still chews cigars when playing golf.
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-worlds-most-famous-cigar-smokers-477758.html
But now the Obama Administration is opening up another front in attacking cigar smokers in America and threatening an important “special interest” in the coming election. It is hard to imagine President Clinton and his Administration doing this but the Obama Administration is on a collision course with the cigar smokers of America.
Cigar smokers are mad as hell, and they aren’t going to take it anymore. Faced with an unprecedented assault on their guilty pleasure from President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, aficionados and industry insiders told The Daily Caller that they’re picking up their torch lighters and revolting.
Usually divided by their preferences for mild, medium and full-bodied smokes, they’re uniting against regulations that threaten to make cigars prohibitively expensive, shut down scores of small cigar shops, jeopardize tens of thousands of jobs and erase the traditionally bright line between Camels and Cohibas.
Cigar lovers are also recruiting members of Congress to defend what public health activists and anti-cancer crusaders see as little more than gentrified cigarettes smoked by economic one-percenters.
“Only a couple weeks remain,” one apocalyptic online pitch warns, “to stop the FDA from ruining cigars.” If that seems like a stretch, don’t bother telling Famous Smoke Shop. The e-tailer has sent 1.7 million emails to customers on its mailing lists, asking them to encourage their representatives in Congress to co-sponsor legislation designed to tie the FDA’s hands.
Cigar industry representatives told The DC that efforts like this have already generated more than 113,000 messages to Congress.
It’s no surprise, then, that 125 House members and four senators are on board. They include 26 Democrats, along with six of Congress’ 20 physicians and two of its seven nurses — all strange bedfellows for a pro-tobacco law in the making.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, announced Wednesday that she will join them. Landrieu chairs the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, a crucial position from which to influence an issue that affects mostly mom-and-pop retailers.
And most recently, the “special interests” are in revolt.
Cigar Rights of America (CRA) and the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR) have filed a an official petition with The White House asking the Obama Administration to contact the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in support of protecting premium cigars from regulation.
The petition reads as follows:
Dear Mr. President:
The FDA is considering the creation of regulations for the premium cigar industry. These regulations will jeopardize over 85,000 American jobs, destroy America’s “mom & pop” premium cigar retailers & manufacturers, and risk over 250,000 jobs in Latin American that produce cigars, impacting the economic/political stability in the region.
We hope you will stand up for small businesses that dot Main Street America & recognize that premium cigars are enjoyed by adults, are not addictive and therefore do not conform to the Congressional intent of the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act.
Tell the FDA to leave our premium cigars alone. With this nation’s more pressing issues, harming my simple ability to enjoy a cigar should not be a priority of the government.
We consulted Boomer to try to understand the “up in smoke” threat to the Obama Administration.
Boomer, in the interests of full disclosure, do you smoke cigars?
“I smoked many things during my time during the Great Asian Vacation, but enjoyed Cigars the most. My hero was General US Grant and loved the idea that he and Abe would smoke cigars in the White House and in the Willard Bar. I used to smoke cigars there as well but now you can’t and the only place you can smoke a cigar is a bar frequented by the Secret Service. And I am damned worried that the problems the Secret Service is having will be used by the FDA to shut that bar down as well.”
We had to pause and reflect. With “full disclosure” rules you don’t want to interview anyone with experience in the subject they are talking about, because their view is biased by experience. But I could not find an “interest” free think tank to answer the question so continued with Boomer.
Boomer could you explain why the powerful Cigar lobby or “special interest” is attacking a man above politics?
Boomer: “You have to understand. Special interests are the folks supporting your opponent or the people you do not like. Your special interests are called supporters. So it depends on where you sit how you view this.”
And in a democracy don’t folks have a right to be represented and their views brought before their Congressmen and other political leaders?
Boomer: “You have a point. But democracy is subverted by the special interests whereas your supporters are a force for good and democracy. If you want to live Inside the Beltway you have to understand that K street – the home of the lobbyists – are sometimes “special interests” and sometimes “supporters.” The bad ones are “special interests” and the good ones are “supporters.”
Don’t I have a right to smoke a cigar?
Boomer: “Now that we have health care reform, the answer is no. Smoking is bad for you. Because you are killing your body, that process will cost the GOVERNMENT money. And that high cost of you hurting yourself is not allowable because the SOCIAL SECURITY system wants to reduce the payments out to support the growth of the numbers of folks working for the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DETERMINING HOW TO reduce the payments going out to the people who overpayed in the first place.”
Shaping the Battlespace
Bold Alligator 2012 was significantly more than an amphibious exercise. And in a real sense, it was not. It was a littoral force engagement exercise leveraging the sea base to operate over a very large battlespace. And it was an exercise that picked up lessons learned from NATO’s ope-ration in Libya last year and carried them forward.
When compared with the U.S. Navy’s last major amphibious exercise — “Operation Purple Star,” conducted in 1996 — one of the clear differences was the impact of the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. The Osprey’s speed and range, demonstrated in the Libyan operation and in Bold Alligator, provided glimpses of the future.
Bold Alligator took place from Jan. 30 to Feb. 12 along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. The exercise demonstrated that the sea base can be linked ship to ship, from ship to shore, from shore to ship and back again.
During the exercise, the Osprey landed on the USNS Robert E. Peary, a T-AKE ship, and participated in a simulated raid 185 miles away on Fort Pickett, Va.
As the chief coalition officer involved in Bold Alligator 2012, Navy Lt. Cmdr. George Pastoor argued, “This really is about power projection from the sea and the ability to move the insertion force from and to the sea base and to operate throughout the battlespace.”
The promise of the expeditionary strike group (ESG) enabled by the Osprey and the coming F-35B, the vertical-takeoff version of the Joint Strike Fighter, is really rather simple. The ESG enabled by the Osprey and the F-35B is neither a carrier battle group (CBG) nor an amphibious ready group (ARG).
It is far more flexible than a CBG in that it is a modular mix-and-match capability, which can include allies as it did in the exercise, or in Libyan operations.
And it is not simply an “ARG on steroids,” as one of the Harrier squadron commanders noted. “It is far more capable.”
An ESG will allow for an economy of force whereby the ARG-U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit can be scaled up to include other sea-based or air assets to dominate the battlespace. It is scalable, both in terms of assets contained within the sea base or contributed by various land support structures, air or ground.
According to the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force commander in the exercise, Brig. Gen. Christopher Owens, who will soon be moving to Okinawa, by strengthening the ability of the sea base to provide for logistics ashore, one can insert force without moving an iron mountain with it ashore.
And “we get away from that image of amphibious assault where we’re going into a limited area, and that you have limited places you can land, so the enemy knows you’re coming to one of these two places. The goal of the ESG is to hit them where they’re not.”
The distributed character of the sea base seen in this exercise and highlighted by the evolving ESG allows for a modular mix-and-match quality that can embody the key elements of what one wants in 21st-century forces: presence, economy of force and scalability.
The F-35B will become a key enabler for an ESG and provide a significant opportunity to redefine and rescope the role of the large deck carrier.
As the commanding general of 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, Gen. Jon “Dog” Davis, who rode on the F-35 testbed during the exercise, has argued, “The F-35 community of users — sea based and land based — will be able to create a pretty tight air grid over the top of the distributed battlespace so we can share information very freely out there. The key is to have these airplanes networked over top, where they’re able to see deep into the enemy battlespace, or the objective area, but also sharing that information.”
And as Col. Kevin Iiams, Davis’ deputy at 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing and a fellow rider on the F-35 combat systems test bed, added, “We’re right-sizing our assault so that we put the right force in the right place, at the right time against the right enemy and objective, while minimizing overall footprint/exposure ashore.”
As for the strategic relevance of the newly reconfigured ESG, it is not hard to look at current events to find its central role. The evolving Middle East is rapidly creating the need for such a capability, and such a transformation of U.S. and allied forces. And remember the core role that allies played in Bold Alligator.
With the Arab Spring, the security and defense framework the West has underwritten over the past 30 years is shattered. The Arab Spring states are in upheaval, the Iranians are preparing to emerge as a nuclear power, the conservative Arab states have to prepare to defend themselves against Iran, and the interaction between Arab Spring forces and the stability of the key conservative Arab states is significant.
Who will the West be aiding and abetting if the Arab Spring continues to pull the rug out from under the de facto conservative Arab, Israeli and Western alliance? Will Western states be able and willing to deploy land-based forces, whether ground or air, on Arab soil? And given uncertainties even in key Arab allied states, how might the West best defend its interests and ensure energy security in the region?
There are several elements presaged in Bold Alligator that are relevant to the reshaping of Western capabilities to protect Western interests. One of these was suggested by the role of Harrier jump jets in the exercise. Harriers based on the USS Kearsarge worked closely with land-based air assets to provide a significant air combat capability to shape the battlespace.
This model can be followed with Arab air forces, the Israel Air Force or Western air forces deployed temporarily on Arab soil.
The point is that the organizer of the spear is on the sea base, and this capability can be conjoined with the various air combat centers extant or being developed in the region. This is a role the evolving ESG, under the twin influence of the Osprey and the F-35B, will be well suited to play.
The op ed first appeared in Defense News April 16, 2012
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120415/DEFFEAT05/304150007/Shaping-Battlespace
A Special Report on BA-12 can be found here:
“Leading from Behind”
When President Obama was dragged into supporting the NATO operation against Gaddafi in Libya, he expressed his frustration and level of support in one brilliant statement. The United States would “lead from behind.”
Now there could be some MISunderstanding of a concept with behind as a key element of the statement, but the President was getting at an important point: how could the United States support allies without taking the lead?
But “lead” from behind seems a bit of a stretch.
So we asked Boomer to help us through this linguistic innovation. Boomer, I simply do not understand how you LEAD from behind?
I understand how you don’t lead or you support or you work with colleagues or friends or whomever.
But help us understand how you lead from behind?
Boomer: “Unless you have lived Inside the Beltway for a very long time, this would confuse you. If a President and his Administration does anything by definition they are LEADING.
LEADING means that they have made tough decisions in perilous times and are showing the way for the rest of us mere mortals.”
Ok, I get it now so the President and his Administration and making tough choices and are taking responsibility for their decisions.
Boomer: “Oops, your comment reminds me of what Candidate Reagan said to President Carter: there you go again. You are confusing the issues. When you LEAD you do not want to be RESPONSIBLE for what you did.
Secretary Clinton Comes Out Decisively for Twitter Use in Iran. Tweets for Freedom.
You hope that the consequences of what you do are forgotten by the time anyone notices. And the key thing is to SPEAK decisively.
President Teddy Roosevelt once said that you need to speak softly and carry a big stick.
But in today’s social media world, thumbs are more important than force. Tweeting is in; quiet competence is out.
For example, the Arab Spring has come about by the 1% of those in the Arab World on FACEBOOK. And FACEBOOK is inherently democratic so that the Arab Middle East will become democratic because of the FACEBOOK Arab Spring.”
Are you saying that LEADING from behind is what helped support or accelerate the positive dynamics of the Arab Spring?
Boomer: “You are starting to get it. What the LEADER needs to do is to put strong LANGUAGE out there which can be picked up by the Washington Post and the New York Times and reported on.
These folks are called JOURNALISTS which means today or this hour.
And if you get lucky no one will connect the dots.
In fact, most Administrations can’t paint a picture even if you gave them a paint by numbers kit.”
Enabling the Asian Pivot: “Aegis is my Wingman”
President Obama has emphasized that the U.S. as it shifts from its focus on the land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is focusing upon Asia. This so-called pivot to Asia is all about re-shaping, re-crafting and re-organizing U.S. forces to work with allies in Asia to provide for security and defense from the Arctic to Australia.
The Aegis fleet is a key enabler of a flexible force able to provide a lynchpin capability for the forging of an Asian pivot. A 21st century approach to building force in the Pacific needs to build from presence, through an economy of force and able to scale up to force appropriate for the full spectrum of missions.
The very flexibility of an Aegis fleet which provides both presence and reach to protect a diversity of deployed air and surface assets is a key element for building such a capability.
Shaping a Scalable Force
Building an effective and affordable strategy for an Asian pivot is founded on having platform presence with scalability enablement.
By deploying assets such as USCG assets, for example, the NSC, or USN surface platforms, Aegis, LCS or other surface assets, by deploying sub-service assets and by having bases forward deployed, the U.S. has core assets, which if networked together – through an end the stovepipe strategy, significant gains in capability are possible.
Scalability is the crucial glue to make a network or a honeycomb force possible, and that is why a USN, USMC, USAF common fleet as a crucial glue.
As the presence forces operate in the Pacific from the Arctic to Australia, a key enabler will be the ISR inputs or services, which support and enhance deployed decision-making centers, whether in the combat aircraft of the 5th generation or by the ships and longer-range strike assets.
The service structure should be understood as a function of capabilities deployed permanently or deployed in areas of interest when appropriate to various insertions or augmentation of force.
The ISR service structure is a key element of the scalability of capabilities, and shaping of both US and allied concepts of operations. The term service structure highlights that the structure is platform agnostic.
The ISR service structure is very dynamic as well and can come from commercially leased systems, large aircraft, dirigibles, or robotic systems whether air-breathing or not. The key is to feed the ISR services into the decision making system and to support deployed presence platforms, capabilities and warfighters.
Space-based systems shape the “permanent” presence foundation for ISR in the Pacific. Given the weather conditions and the vast expanse of the Pacific, an ability to tap into space systems is a crucial foundation for situational awareness and guidance for deployment decisions.
A comprehensive C4ISR service structure can be built based on partnering with commercial and allied offerings pursued in a realistic policy environment and a distributed architecture shaped whereby capabilities emerge from the elements of a deployed capability, rather than trying for a costly comprehensive architecture which requires solely proprietary funding to support the end to end effort.
Leveraging other people’s money, whether commercial or foreign space, or other Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence and Decision Making Support or C4ISR D platforms is essential for an affordable, capable military space strategy.
The mix can well drive innovation and match quality of shaping a de facto distributed space architecture. Overcoming stove piped programs, and challenging DOD and the intelligence community to OPERATE outside the box is crucial. Simply contemplating change is not adequate.
Engaging in organizational innovation is at the heart of today’s technological innovation. Money can be freed up to support needs revealed by organizational innovation and core needs, which emerge at the edge of overlapping capabilities.
Space provides a significant contribution to C4ISR D or data for decision-making.
Yet the unmanned revolution as well as the fifth generation aircraft is game changers in providing data for deployed decision makers. And the role of hoisted payloads in supporting UAVs has become evident in the Afghanistan operation.
The new capabilities can provide a re-think about how to leverage commercial space, notably hoisted payloads, in supporting air-breathing C4ISR D assets.
The role of proprietary military space becomes a default capability: what CAN NOT be provided by the powerful conjunction of air breathing assets and commercial satellite capabilities?
The relatively un-agile DOD structure would then be put on notice to identify programs that are needed which can interact with such a conjunctive capability, but provide unique and core capabilities UNABLE to be generated either by air breathing military assets of the commercial space, notably hoisted payloads structure.
Savings would come from both sources.
First, DOD would have to ACT outside the box in leveraging its investments in unmanned and manned aerospace assets. The deployment of the F-35 will provide game-changing ISR capabilities, which can be harvested to reshape the C4ISR D structure.
Second, the evolution of satellite capabilities in the commercial sector provides significant cost investments, which DOD does NOT need to make. DOD by shaping long-term contractual service relationships can save scarce investment capital.
But this requires DOD to think and contract long term, not one of its core competencies.
Such an approach facilitates a strategic re-think, which parallels what is happening with fifth generation aircraft.
The focus is upon distributed operations and shaping a honeycomb of decision-making supporting the deployed warfighter. Such a focus allows one to tap into the emerging thinking about shaping a disaggregated strategy whereby space policy makers look to focus on overall capabilities from the enterprise rather than concentration of capabilities on single point of failure platforms.
Disaggregation and distributed operations further highlights the opportunity to build smaller payloads and to operate across a variety of launch platforms.
By reducing the cost impact of a launch failure and its impact on expensive and complicated satellites, innovation is enhanced as well. With a diversity of assets distributed across the space enterprise, and leveraging commercial space and air-breathing assets, innovation and cost effectiveness are enabled.
At the same time, various air-breathing assets are key elements of a presence force with an ability to become scalable and tailored to specific situations. The potential of the fifth generation aircraft and their associated robotic systems can be exploited to shape C4ISR capabilities very scalable for the presence forces.
Here the onboard processing capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 would be recognized for what they are, namely, breakthrough capabilities to process data for their own use, for the network of air combat systems and to integrate their capabilities with maritime and ground forces.
As the manned systems are deployed and their capabilities better understood and exploited, the role of robotic vehicles in the air network will go up dramatically.
A wolfpack concept is likely to emerge within which the manned systems direct and are embedded within airborne robotic networks which, in turn, work closely with maritime and ground forces.
The capability of providing for collaborative decision-making among maritime, ground, and air commanders becomes possible as the interactive network shapes options and provides choices to the joint commanders.
The Aegis Enabler
Historically, the Aegis missile defense system was inextricably intertwined with the Carrier Battle Group. It remains a key element of the CBG, but now deploys separate from the CBG in its missile defense mission. Its permanent deployment at sea in the Pacific to deal with ever-present danger of missile threats to the US and its forces is a key element for re-thinking the Pacific strategy.
With permanent deployment on the Pacific, the inclusion of Aegis sensors, missiles and capabilities within the honeycomb becomes a key element for the permanent presence, scalable force approach.
A key element for the Pacific force rethink is re-considering offense and defense. With a scalable force, the force is both able to do offensive or defensive missions. The circumstance dictates the task; not the limitations of the force.
By providing for the defense of a deployed force, Aegis allows that force to deal with a wider spectrum of threats and engagement options. SM-3 missiles aboard the Aegis ships can be used to defend, or to support a strike force.
And the Aegis ship has become a coalition ship.
Many Pacific allies are Aegis operators and as such the ability to develop coordinated operations enables the US and its Aegis partners to spread a defensive punch to the Pacific ISR grid.
The SPY-1 radar/Aegis system has been successfully installed aboard 7 different ship classes at 7 shipyards worldwide.
Just to review the current status of the Aegis deployment is to underscore the diversity of platforms on which one finds the Aegis system.
First, there are 22 Ticonderoga cruisers in service with the USN. The USN has engaged in a cruiser modernization program in which it is outfitting the Ticonderoga class with the latest Aegis baseline.
Second, there are the 58 Arleigh Burke class destroyers in service with the USN through multiple Aegis baselines.
Third, the Japanese are the originally foreign purchaser of the Aegis system. They have six Aegis systems for the Atago and Kongo destroyer classes. The Japanese program is in a lifetime support phase; with completion of mid-life systems upgrades of the 1990s Kongo class ships, which includes a BMD capability.
Fourth, the Spanish then entered the program and provide a key turning point. The Spanish shipyards have been major innovators in shaping a global Aegis product, in Spain, in Norway and in Australia. The initial 4 Aegis equipped F-100 ships have an original configuration radar (SPY-1D). The 5th F-100 ship will have an Aegis system with SPY-1D (V) radar with an indigenous combat management system (CMS).
Fifth, the Norwegians leveraged the Spanish program and have five Aegis equipped F-310 ships with a SPY-1F radar. They were able to leverage the SPY-1Y radar technology to shape a smaller antenna to fit a 5000-ton ship.
Sixth, South Korea has three Aegis destroyers with SPY-1D(V) radar on the world’s largest Aegis-equipped ships. The first ship will be in service with the remaining two ships to be completed by 2012.
Seventh, the Australians have also leveraged the Spanish program. There will have three Hobart class destroyers. This is t5he newest non-US Aegis program and leverages the Spanish F-100 ship design and the Aegis SPY-1D(V) system. The Australians picked the combat system prior to picking the shipbuilder.
Eighth, there are a number of other countries that have expressed interest in the Aegis solution. Those countries include Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, Brazil, and Turkey.
Currently, this means that more than 20% of the global Aegis fleet is non-American.
Aegis provides significant capability to mix and match US and allied maritime capabilities to provide for regional defense, power projection, fleet defense or support for joint or coalition non-maritime forces.
This mix and match capacity will be enhanced as many of the Aegis nations are looking to add the F-35 to the mix. And overtime, integration of the Aegis with F-35 sensor suites will help both to shape a more effective capability over time.
The Obama Administration has placed significant emphasis on continuing the upgrade path for the Aegis BMD program. By cancelling the Bush missile defense program in Europe, de facto, the Administration highlighted its commitment to Aegis as a key element for global missile defense.
But the evolution of the program depends upon a continuing significant commitment of increasingly scarce resources to testing and using test results to shape the concurrent development and manufacturing program.
And as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter comes on line, the integration of Aegis with F-35 will provide a powerful capability for the US and its allies. It must always be remembered how significant numbers of allied partners are in the Aegis deployed fleet, and that there are several joint Aegis and F-35 allies in prospect.
In other words, the Aegis global enterprise lays a foundation for a global capability in sea-based missile defenses and the protection of deployed forces as well as the projection of force. And this capability, in turn, becomes increasingly central to the freedom of action necessary for the global operation of U.S. forces and its Pacific.
“Aegis is my Wingman”
As one shapes a more effective integration of U.S. forward deployed and scalable forces and interacts with the force structure development of allies in Asia, the whole defense-offense approach changes as mentioned above.
With a scalable force, the force is both able to do offensive or defensive missions. The circumstance dictates the task; not the limitations of the force.
In a phrase, this is how the remaining core naval assets are integrated into a scalable Pacific capability.
The F-35s, whether land or sea-based as a C4ISR D force can bring the entire surface and subsurface fleet into a scalable operation. An economy of force capability is deployed every day with the permanent presence forces.
By making all of these forces C4ISR enabled, their individual strengths are combined into a honeycomb across the Pacific by a flying decision-making and decision directing asset.
With the combination of Aegis with F-35, the sensors are combined into wide area coverage. With a new generation of weapons on the F-35, and the ability to operate a broad wolfpack of air and sea capabilities, the F-35 can perform as the directing point for combat action.
With the Aegis and its new SM-3 missiles, the F-35s can leverage a sea-based missile to expand its area of strike. With a combination of the F-35 and the Aegis, the defense of land-bases and sea-bases is expanded significantly.
The commonality across the combat systems of the three variants of the F-35 provides a significant advantage. When one talks about the Aegis as my wingman, this can be true for F-35As, Bs, or Cs. 80% of the F-35s in the Pacific are likely to be A’s and many of these coalition aircraft.
Building an F-35 and Aegis global enterprise provides significant coverage and capability across the Pacific.
As the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter comes on line, the integration of Aegis with F-35 will provide a powerful capability for the US and its allies. It must always be remembered how significant numbers of allied partners are in the Aegis deployed fleet, and that there are several joint Aegis and F-35 allies in prospect.
During exercise Stellar Avenger, the Aegis-class destroyer USS Hopper launches a standard missile 3 Blk IA, successfully intercepting a sub-scale short range ballistic missile, launched from the Kauai Test Facility, Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sans, Kauai. (Credit: USN Visual Service, 7/31/09)
And by combining the F-35B with Aegis a whole new capability to defend land based air in the Pacific opens up. No longer should the F-35B be considered a boutique niche aircraft only essential for Marine combat con-ops. With vision and commitment on numbers it can become a tactical aircraft that sends a strategic signal.
The reason is simple, an F-35B can stand strip alert on any long runway, US or Allied. From a strategic point of view think of Guam, South Korea or in the Middle East on all long runways. As a crisis situation develops, the F-35Bs can be remotely placed in hardened bunkers and revetments and thus become a significant deterrence asset that can instantly sortie into combat and return to gas and go again and again.
By using a detachment of F-35Bs the issue of enemy runway area denial and need for rapid runway repair does not become a show stopper to ops-tempo both offensively and defensively.
Tie an F-35B to the Aegis and the entire “wasting argument” about asymmetric IRBM and enemy strike against our hard fixed land targets becomes moot. This is because Guam for example will still have air power in its defense. This principal can be applied globally.
Conclusion
The Aegis provides a foundational element for the defense in the Pacific now and a core building block for more effective and scalable forces for the future. Increasingly it will be less about the capability, which the US can deploy on its own, and more about how the US forces work seamlessly to support allies in the Pacific against various security and defense threats and challenges.
The evolution of the con-ops of Aegis will be significantly enhanced as the U.S. and allies alike deploy the F-35 fleet in the Pacific. Aegis will become both a defensive asset and a strike asset in support of forward deployed forces or forces which can be scaled up to support those forces.
See also
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-01/long-reach-aegis
Just Not Doing It: Nuclear Reductions Which Undercut Deterrence
I have been seeing “trial balloons” in the press about the Administration’s desire to go to lower numbers of nuclear warheads … beyond those listed in New START. Some of the numbers are as low as 300 warheads.
(For example see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/whitehouse-weighs-nuclear-arms-cuts-but-will-wait-for-more-talks-withrussia/2012/02/14/gIQAfdDgER_story.html).
This should worry all of us for several reasons.
Is there a strategy change that supports further cuts?
Those that I speak with say … well … we could just target cities … and 300 is way more than we need.
I frequently remind those who support this that the Law of Armed Conflict, Geneva conventions, and other international agreements … and our own moral principles … prohibit the intentional targeting of civilian non-combatants.
And … yes, there will be innocents that die in a nuclear attack, but the fact remains that we should never plan to target and kill noncombatants.
The view of some is that “lower is better” … despite the strong evidence that we can go too low.
A very low number of nuclear weapons reduces stability; makes it more likely that a potential adversary could deliver a knock-out first strike; and gives incentives to cheating.
Further if one looks at the nuclear age and measures casualties of war world-wide, one will find this is the safest period of any 65 year period of time in the modern history of the world.
Nuclear weapons at sufficient levels as well as the assurance they have been tested and will work have made world war too horrible to consider.
The Tactical Nuclear Weapons Challenge
Most of the proposals are for further arms reduction agreements with the Russians.
However, the numbers cited are considered “strategic weapons limitations” and do not include tactical nuclear weapons – of which the Russians have many times more than we have. To exclude tactical nukes plus those strategic and tactical weapons of the Chinese and others leaves out categories of weapons that could threaten our survival as a nation, as well as our friends and allies.
Negotiations over very low numbers need to include all nuclear armed countries – and a healthy sense of skepticism about the bad behavior of a few rogue states.
The rush to go lower – at a time when North Korea is expanding its stockpile, Iran is intent on building its first weapon, and the PRC is building new launch vehicles and warheads – seems to many like unilateral disarmament.
We have not yet gotten to the numbers agreed upon in New START. We have until 2018 to reach the 1550 limit; 700 deployed missiles and bombers; and 800 deployed and nondeployed launchers.
Deterrence theory actually considers that the US will respond with force that will inflict upon an adversary more damage than he considers acceptable.
Low numbers may cause a potential adversary to judge that either the US won’t respond to an attack or it won’t have the capability to respond – thereby making our nuclear forces less credible. This makes us more vulnerable and less secure.
Every nuclear nation (save perhaps North Korea) has the capability to create more nuclear weapons per month than does the US.
This is as a result of underinvestment in our industrial base. To go to very low numbers does not provide us the margin to quickly return to higher numbers (if ever necessary) in comparison to our major adversaries.
Very low numbers of nuclear weapons also pose a significant risk if we discover a vulnerability or unforeseen technical problem with a weapon or delivery system.
Very simply, we will further reduce any hedge to protect against “unknown unknowns”.
Finally, we must realize that our nuclear stockpile provides security for many nations around the world through our bilateral and multilateral security treaties.
For example, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and the 26 members of the NATO alliance rely on US deterrence for their security.
Going too low negates some of that implied deterrence and may cause other nations to invest in and build their own nuclear weapons.
All of the above is very important … even critical to our security. Everyone who is concerned about national security should understand this.
Published with the Permission of Lt. General (Retired) Dunn.
http://www.afa.org/PresidentsCorner/Notes/2012/Notes_4-19-12.pdf
For some recent pieces on Second Line of Defense on nuclear issues please see
http://www.sldinfo.com/russia-and-offensive-nuclear-arms-control-major-obstacles/
http://www.sldinfo.com/preventing-nuclear-terrorism-how-useful-are-nuclear-summits/
Ed Timperlake Honoring the New Generation of Military Heros
Ed Timperlake, the Editor of the Forum, appeared yesterday on the Mark Davis spot on Rush Limbaugh. Ed honored the new generation of veterans and discussed the future of the US military.
A New Generation of Vets is Coming
It has been reported that the most dangerous rank in Iraq and Afghanistan combat is a USMC Lance Corporal (E-3). Those wearing that stripe on their Marine Dress Blues have the highest probability of being killed or wounded. A Marine Lance Corporal makes around $1,300 per month.
The Marines’ brothers and sisters in arms serving with the Army, Navy, and Air Force are also paying a heavy price. In the opening engagement the US Naval Academy had the most graduates killed on 9/11 of any institution. West Point graduates have paid the highest price of all US officers serving in combat today.
It is not my intention to dwell on just the sacrifice of all but to send a message to America that a new generation of veterans is coming. This generation of veterans has truly earned the right to lead America into the future.
A few soldiers raising their hands today to support and defend the Constitution will still be making national security decisions in 2060. However, not just for our national security, but throughout America there is now a tremendous force for good in our society. A new generation is with us who believes despite the risk of their own life that their service in a Nation at war is bigger than just a sense of self.
The attributes of this cadre run deep. Student bodies cheering their team at the football games for the Commander in Chief trophy have dedicated four years to get an excellent education following a rigorous honor code – to not lie, cheat, or steal. When they graduate a war is calling them.
Fellow officers will join Service Academy grads. These officers come from the great land grant colleges of America. They make a commitment knowing their ROTC courses will require time and attention away from their chosen degree path. A few Ivy League ROTC Graduates will appear along with other private colleges. State Military institutions like VMI and the
Citadel will add to the mix. Let’s not forget that some students after spending their own money on an education volunteer for Officers Candidate School.
They all meld together with unity of purpose to be leaders in a nation at war.
The men and women they lead in the ranks are volunteers out of high school from cities large and small, off farms, and out of factories, office cubicles, and the service industry.
Ultimately when bullets are flying and people are dying it comes down to a fundamental truth: no one is in it for the money.
Building a Post 9/11 Safety Net
Since 9/11 a touchstone of service has been forged and a generation bonded. Some will stay in uniform; others will leave; but all have imprinted memories for a lifetime.
However, the biggest surprise I suggest is this generation is not monolithic in thought or deed. They will be Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. They will be deeply religious or not and some will have very significant problems readjusting. More than we suspect.
Family and friends will be the best help for those with combat wounds, physical disables, mental issues like PTSD, and sickness from the environmental factors on the battlefield. There is also a safety net woven by previous generations of warriors and strong VA programs. But the most important safety net will be support from their fellow warriors.
In getting on with their lives, because of decisions made beyond their control they will be facing huge problems. The American economy is in deep recession with significant issues still to come. In these veterans’ future there is an economic tsunami they didn’t create. Raising a family in these hard economic times will be a major challenge.
Nevertheless regardless of significant problems this generation can really drive the entire moral tone of America. At one bright moment these veterans were not greedy. They didn’t posture, or make excuses. These men and women didn’t whine or complain. They just – to use an infantry phrase – put one foot in front of the other and soldiered on to get the mission accomplished.
A lot of shallow posers – individuals who hint that they wished they could have served but didn’t – can be very smart and manipulate ideologues across the left-right political spectrum. These hucksters will reach out to harness this generation’s energy for their own purpose. However, whatever a veteran does, big or small, every American should know that these men and women have a well developed instinct for the truth. They are untouchable on that front.
So unscrupulous politicians, scam artists, hustlers, and parasites be on notice. If a man or a woman can face down the Taliban, come at them at your peril. Same advice goes to criminals and street thugs.
America, as once reported in the great space race, is “A-OK”.
Ed Timperlake, was the first Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Public Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, he was also Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs.
For a chance to hear Ed please go here
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/19/eib_guest_host_mark_davis
The “Untouchables” first appeared January 2010 here
http://www.sldinfo.com/happy-new-year-america-the-untouchables-are-here/
As we have argued, Just Do It. Well Ed just did it!
For some other Ed Timperlake pieces among the many which he has written see the following:
http://www.sldinfo.com/tail-hook-is-more-than-a-party/
http://www.sldinfo.com/how-to-defend-taiwan-in-the-decade-ahead/
