The Right to Defend Oneself

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

“We all have an inherent right to self defense in international waters,” according to Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). This remark came out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that saw testimony from Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk Alabama. Phillips received international media attention several weeks ago while being held hostage by pirates off of the coast of Somalia.

Both the Senators and the witnesses acknowledged that Piracy off of the coast of Somalia has been on the rise recently. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that America’s “ability to project naval power and to help ensure the free passage of goods and humanitarian aid is as important as ever.”

Phillips acknowledged that more needs to be done to secure vessels of the merchant marine, specifically arming the crew.

“In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should only be one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy,” he said.

The comprehensive approach the committee discussed could include increased U.S. Navy presence in the most dangerous areas, the creation of a protected corridor that civilian ships can travel within, the rooting out of pirates in their land based sanctuaries and the “hardening” of ships, to make the ships structurally more resistant to pirates. “Hardening” measures include razor wire on railings, fire hoses to repel the pirates, and unbolting ladders that lead onto the boat. Phillips does not believe this will stop the pirates, but rather, that they will find a way to adapt.

Maersk Chaiman John Clancey, also present at the hearing, does not believe that arming the crews is a good idea.

“Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of even more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win. In addition, most ports of call will not permit the introduction of forearms into their national waters,” Clancey said.

Clancey also posed that greater liability may be assumed by the companies if sailors are traveling with weapons. Neither Chairman Kerry nor Phillips felt that this argument was strong, because of the intense amount of training that mariners go through already. Kerry, a former member of the U.S. Navy, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that multinational agreements can be reached to work out the issue of bringing weapons into port.

Richard Phillips is scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What to do in Somalia?

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The lack of a coordinated international response might have emboldened pirates off the coast of Africa to step up their terror, according to Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff. This comes on the heels of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcing the Obama Administration’s new approach to the situation in Somalia, which includes the U.S. seizure of financial assets.

Cosgriff believes that a coordinating authority among the nations with maritime interests in the region could help present a unified front against pirates.

“With so many different players on the field, it’s a bit like an all-star game without an authoritative coach. There are differing rules of engagement, national approaches, and limits on what they want their warships to do.” Cosgriff said it’s a challenge “to have the right ship from the right navy in the right place at the right time to do what you want to do.”

Cosgriff is former commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command. He held a talk at the Middle East Institute, at which he addressed the possible courses of action which could be taken against maritime piracy in the nearly 400,000 square mile region along the Somali coast.

“Doing nothing, or being ineffective at what we do, strikes me as bad policy,” said the commander, who addressed five possible courses of action that could be taken to curb the lawlessness:

• Do Nothing: Companies which traffic goods off of the African Horn would pay ransoms and treat piracy as a cost of business.
• Arm the Crews: Ship crews would be expected to maintain their own security through hiring private security forces or arming their mariners.
• Flood the Zone: International naval coalitions and unofficial patchworks of navies “with significant maritime interests” would patrol the region.
• Go in on ground - Light: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground aimed at equipment and infrastructure within known pirate camps along the Somali coastline.
• Go in on ground - Heavy: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground to flush out the pirate camps, seize property, and not allow the pirates to bare the fruits of their actions.

Cosgriff emphasized the importance of a coordinated international response in whatever route was selected, because it is an “international problem in the great global commons known as the sea.” A coordinated response would provide a uniform framework in which to react to pirates when they engage in hostility, according to Cosgriff. He said that since the U.S. is a global maritime leader, it should take a leading role in the solution.

“Whatever lies ahead, we have to take care… that the cure is not worse than the disease,” he said.

Cosgriff acknowledged that piracy is a business, and doesn’t believe that it is rooted in simple poverty and desperation, although he acknowledged those as contributing factors. “The overall problem is that of organized criminal clans,” groups which he said, “try to extend seaward the rule of the gun which pertains in much of Somalia.” He continued, “in short, piracy pays.”

Somalia has faced ongoing violence and lawlessness since the government collapsed in 1991.

Military Recruiting "purely remarkable."

I’ve never seen a better Army, said Major General Thomas P. Bostick, Commanding General of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, at a briefing on FY2008 Recruiting and Retention for the AVF (All Volunteer Force) Military, held at the Pentagon. Each person, Bostick said, became a hero the day they enlisted. Dr. David S.C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, echoed this sentiment by saying that a willingness to step forward and serve is a great tribute to our military.

Ninety-two percent of those enlisting overall in FY2008 had high school diplomas, with the Army having the lowest score, with only eighty-three percent having diplomas. The Air Force, at ninety-nine percent, is the branch of service having the highest amount of enlistees with diplomas in FY2008. One of the ways the Army is working with that, is by their Army Prep School, where potential recruits can get GEDs before they go to Basic Training for the Army.

All services met or even exceeded their recruiting goals for FY2008. At the end of the year, the totals for Accessions were 80, 517 Army; 38,485 Navy; 37, 991 Marine Corps; and 27, 848 Air Force. Of special note was the waiver system in place, where individuals are granted waivers to enter the military when ordinarily a medical problem, a criminal offense of some sort, or even their age wouldn’t have allowed them to do so before. Specific numbers were not announced for the waivers, though when the question was asked how many waivers were issued for overweight individuals Major General Robert E. Milstead, Jr, Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command, boomed from the back of the stage, "THE MARINE CORPS HAS NONE!!"

Rear Admiral Joseph F. Kilkenny, Commander, Navy Recruiting Command said in the Navy that they were successful in all fronts, and the total force team is “definitely firing on all cylinders.” The results achieved were “purely remarkable” and they were pleased they have exceeded retention goals in the Navy. But as Brigadier General Alfred J. Stewart, Commander, Air Force Recruiting Service pointed out, the retention in the Air Force is a little soft likely due to the high-skilled jobs competing with high paying competition in the private sector.

Of huge concern was how the economy affects recruitment. While Dr. Chu wouldn’t directly quote numbers, he did say that people are more willing to “give us a chance” because of it. Older adults, Chu said, need to be more supportive of young people’s decision to go into the military. If you treat people right, such as equal pay for a job they could hold in the civilian sector, good benefits, and use of deployments, they will stay in. There are many discussions about “public service,” said Chu, but few mention the military as a way to do that.

Sonar and the supreme court

Basic facts: The Navy performed a number of mid frequency active sonar exercises off the coast of Southern California aimed at detecting diesel electric submarines. Citing irreparable damage to marine life, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) took legal action to prohibit the sonar use.

The District Court for the Central District of California agreed that environmental laws would be violated by the sonar use, but agreed to let the Navy continue under a preliminary injunction that would require a 75 percent power shut down and restrict the Navy from using sonar when marine mammals are detected within 2,200 feet of testing areas.

The Navy sought to remove the injunction by invoking a statement in the National Environmental Policy that allows alternative measures in emergency circumstances. The President and the Council for Environmental Quality recognized the situation as being an emergency and granted the Navy approval to continue without the preliminary injunction.

The District and the Ninth Circuit Court refused on the grounds that there was no apparent emergency and that the alternative means the Navy took were not valid.

The courts deemed that the preliminary injunctions would continue. The Navy brought the case to the Supreme Court to judge if the District Court acted legitimately in prohibiting the Navy’s sonar exercises.

Arguments:

The Navy argued that the District Court made their decision based on an erroneous conception of irreparable injury, and that there is a precedent set by the Supreme Court that when a lower court makes an erroneous assessment the court may intervene.

According to the Navy, there was no clear permanent damage done to marine mammals and that the only disturbances they faced were “Level B”, which means marine mammals would temporarily alter their direction or feeding routines when confronted with mid frequency sonar. Therefore, since there was no permanent damage done to marine mammals, it could not be considered irreparable injury.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg mentioned that the Navy’s environmental assessment estimated that there would be 654 Type A disturbances, implying permanent damage to marine mammals. The Navy responded that this number included beached whales, of which the causes of death were unclear.

The NRDC responded that classifying beached whales as possible Type A disturbances was not a generous policy move by the Navy, but that there is scientific evidence that these deaths are sonar related. The NRDC explained that the sonar disturbed the whales diving patterns, which resulted in whales coming up too fast or too early which would cause “the bends” or embolisms. The NRDC also said that traditionally environmental damages have been considered permanent and irreparable.
There were also questions raised by Justice Antonin Scalia over whether or not the District Court could judge what would constitute as military emergency since they are not related to the armed forces. NRDC responded that the Court gave proper deference to the Navy but still did not find that the evidence matched the declaration of an emergency.

Color:

Justice Stephen Breyer joked that he thought the military trying to get an environmental impact report was absurd since “the whole point of the armed services to hurt the environment” and asked if we made environmental inquiries when we’re dropping bombs. The NRDC responded that none of their restrictions apply to the environment.

The Navy did perform an Environmental Assessment and apparently if there is nothing in the assessment that would make a party believe there needs to be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) one can be forgone. The NRDC pushed for the Navy to issue an EIS. Antonin Scalia suggested that this shows they hold the Navy in bad faith.

Getting to know the Department of Defense (Again)

By Meredith MacKenzie

I was born on Hahn AFB in Germany during the Cold War. I was baptized by an Air Force chaplain. For most of my life my father has been an F-16 Fighter pilot and my mother the most understanding and enduring of military spouses. All of my father’s friends went by names like “Fuzz,” “Mad Dog,” and “Chairman.” I have waited at an airport many times with that “Welcome Home Daddy!” sign. I understand every phrase from military life from “hurry up and wait” to the alphabet soup of TDY and the SOP and I will never forget the ROE my dad made me sign in order to get my learner’s permit.

As an Air Force brat, I thought that I understood America’s military. I mean, I come from a military family, the military helped pay for my education, my favorite college team (after my alma mater, of course) is the Fighting Falcons. But being on the ground, on base, even my own failed attempt to join AFROTC in college, could not have prepared me for getting to know the Department of Defense all over again.

As the TRNS Pentagon correspondent I had the chance over the last week to travel with the Secretary of Defense to Mexico City, Ft. Bliss, Texas, and the largest Army vehicle depot in the country at Texarkana. It was my first time traveling with a government entourage and I want to tell my fellow citizens that there is no better way to travel. I imagine that only the President or the Secretary of State travel in more style than Secretary Gates.

It was the contrast between our great accommodations (which the journalists themselves pay for) and the convenience of riding in a police escorted motorcade and the drab brown surroundings of Ft. Bliss that stuck out to me. I thought I knew what military life was about-- turns out that I know military life in an officer’s family. My family has never had to live on base, my father has never had a 15-month hardship deployment, and he certainly has never had three of them.



The bulk of America’s military are the enlisted men and women who serve in active duty. Only in the insulated rings of the Pentagon do officers outnumber enlisted. It is the enlisted soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who do the daily work of the military. By and large these are people who have not attended a four-year university. They have families which they began at a young age. They enlist and give control over their lives to an institution. Then they go to Iraq and Afghanistan and then they go back.

There are 34,000 active troops in Afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq. The new Yankee Stadium could be filled twice with the men and women serving in theater. And this is just one part of the vastness of America’s Defense Department. The sheer size of America’s military/industrial complex is staggering. Considering the $550 billion base operating budget, the 23,000 employee population of the Pentagon and the millions of members of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, as well as their respective Reserves and National Guards; it is not too much of a stretch to believe, as one colonel told us, that the combined territory of White Sands Missile Range, Yuma Proving Grounds and Ft. Bliss is larger than Rhode Island.

We toured a factory in Texarkana that puts out one Humvee every 24 minutes. We met with a colonel responsible for transitioning over 200 wounded soldiers to their homes or new units a month. We witnessed an enlistment ceremony where 45 young people (and they were young) enlisted and another 30 soldiers reenlisted. This ceremony at Ft. Bliss occurs monthly.

Sure everything is bigger in Texas, but these are just numbers from that one post, there are more than 250 U.S. military installations all over the world. Looking at the enormous scope of the nation’s defense it is no wonder that Sec. Gates, whom the Pentagon staff refer to as simply “the Boss,” is a big picture thinker. As the local press in Texas and a class of sergeant majors at Ft. Bliss discovered, Gates is the wrong man to ask about the details of a soldier’s pension or home loans. Gates simply can’t be expected to know all those details.

Over the past few months, in hearings and press conferences about what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen has called “stress on the force,” I have felt concern about the long and repeated tours of duty. I have wondered what it does to the psyche of the young men of my high school graduating class. I have read carefully Joseph Stiglitz evaluation of a $3 trillion war. But at Ft. Bliss I met a psychologist who gave me a real idea of the cost of this war.

Dr. John E. Fortunato is the resilience and restoration program director in a prototype program at Ft. Bliss. He works with severe cases of post traumatic stress disorder, all of whom want to return to duty. Through an intensive 35 hours a week in therapy, Dr. Fortunato uses alternative medicine, psycho analysis, and biofeedback techniques to help soldiers become fit for duty. He says that it is his job to heal the wound that does not show and help these soldiers deal with the price of killing.

He told us the story of one soldier who had trouble in therapy. They pushed him and intensified therapy until finally he broke down in tears telling the hardest of his stories. What he said to the therapists, represents the real cost of this war. “No one knows,” he gasped through his tears, “No one know the price, the price you pay when you shoot a man so close his blood splashes back on your flack jacket.”

The money for the war comes from American taxpayers and their children, the decisions about funding are made in the air conditioned rooms of Congress, the war is administrated by top brass and career civil servants like Secretary Gates, the cost is estimated at $12 billion a month. But the price of this war is paid by men and women who enlist and serve in the U.S. military.