Senate And Joint Chiefs At Odds Over National Guard Role

By Adrianna McGinley

In a rare collective appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, all Service Chiefs testified against a proposal that would give the National Guard Bureau Chief a permanent seat on the Joint Chief of Staff.

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he values the role of the reserve force, but does not believe it is necessary to give a permanent seat to the National Guard.

“It’s unclear to me what problem we are trying to solve,” Dempsey said, noting that the head of the National Guard already attends meetings with the Joint Chiefs.

National Guard Bureau Chief General Craig McKinley testified in favor of attaining the position, saying the National Guard serves a unique role in U.S. defense because of its ability to serve in wide variety of situations.

“That is really where I’m zeroing in on,” McKinley said. “To institutionalize the role of the National Guard Bureau Chief in becoming that spokesperson, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, through the chairman, to the Secretary of Defense, to give my best military advice, when asked, so that we don’t miss a beat in this very new age of asymmetric challenges that face our nation.”

When Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) asked General Dempsey if there was any indication that the Army and Air Guards were not being sufficiently represented by the respective Chiefs, Dempsey responded, “absolutely no indication. Not only is there no indication, it just isn’t accurate. They are represented by the two Service Chiefs.”

Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, who was called on to testify about the legal implications the legislation may have, said he found, “no outright legal barriers to enacting this legislation. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it.”

Johnson did however warn against possible legal ambiguities concerning the extra power a National Guard vote may give to the Army and Air Force, which would raise questions of balance.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) noted that same concern emerged in 1978 when the Marine Corp was given a permanent seat among the Joint Chiefs, as it is considered part of the Navy. The panel agreed, but acknowledged that it has not been an issue.

Graham made clear his stance on the legislation saying, “the citizen soldier’s time has come, you’re going to get a seat at the table General McKinley if I have anything to say about it.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) pointed out that the proposal is one thing Congress seems to agree on, telling the witnesses, “please don’t deny us this moment.”

Petraeus, Eikenberry Testify Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee

By Ravi Bhatia - Talk Radio News Service

A day after U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Eikenberry joined General David H. Petraeus and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew to discuss the civilian efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The three testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Aside from reiterating U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acknowledgment that U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan would be difficult “but possible,” the three witnesses asserted that the United States would not abandon civilian efforts to stabilize the region, if and when U.S. troops remove the threat of al-Qaeda and the various Taliban networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Many Pakistanis believe that America will once again abandon the region,” Kerry said in his opening statements. “Let me be clear: It would be a mistake for anyone in Pakistan or elsewhere to believe that the President’s words about drawing down troops from Afghanistan mean an end to our involvement in the region.”

President Barack Obama committed 30,000 additional troops to the region, in response to McChrystal’s request for 40,000. Unlike the McChrystal hearings, war protestors were not present in the Dirksen building hallways during Eikenberry, Patraeus and Lew’s testimonies.

None of the three witnesses could confirm Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s estimation that the country would not be able to pay for its own security until 2024. Nor could they provide an estimate to the cost of training and deporting civilian troops to the region for another 15 years. However, Eikenberry said there will be almost 1,000 civilians from “numerous government departments and agencies on the ground in Afghanistan” by early 2010, tripling the total number of civilians from early 2009.

“The integration of civilian and military effort has greatly improved over the last year, a process that will deepen as additional troops arrive and our civilian effort expands,” he said.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a member of the committee, suggested that the witnesses’ testimonies made him believe that after $13 billion dollars given to Afghanistan for development and infrastructure efforts, “we are basically starting from scratch as it relates to development efforts.”

“We hope that Karzai will do everything right,” he said. “But, you know, we may prod and poke but at the end of the day, this depends on an Afghan government that can ultimately sustain itself.

“At some point we need to get the price tag here,” Menendez continued.

Lew disagreed with Menendez’s notion.

“Before the development assistance that you're describing, there was virtually no access to health care in Afghanistan,” Lew said. “[Now] there’s very substantial access to health care, in the 80-percent range. There were virtually no girls in schools, there are a lot of girls enrolled in schools - more every day, every week, every month. It’s fair to say we have an awful lot of work ahead of us. [But] I don’t think it’s quite the same as starting from scratch.”

McCain Wary Of New Missile Defense Plan

by Julianne LaJeunesse- University of New Mexico

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) expressed concern Thursday that the recent decision by the Obama administration to scrap a long-range missile defense system in Eastern Europe could signal that the U.S. is willing to concede to Russian interests.

"There is very little doubt, that in most of the world, that this is viewed as an attempt to gain Russian concessions on the Iranian nuclear issue," McCain said during a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "That's the interpretation. It was Machiavelli that said 'It's not what you do, it's what you appear to do.'"

During the hearing, McCain questioned the Defense Department's motives for changing the 2007 long-range missile plan in Poland and the Czech Republic. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates originally created the Bush administration's plan, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said that she personally saw the deliberation Gates put into the Obama administration's new short-range missile plan.

At the hearing, McCain said some of the newspaper accounts he's read lead him to believe the international community doesn't buy the Department of Defense's arguments about the technological benefits of short-range missiles in Europe, noting that the time it will take to implement new technologies will be time the United States and European allies will be left with weakened military defenses.

McCain added that he's curious about how new U.S. missile policies will affect Polish and Czech policies.

"I think it's worth noting the Czech Republic currently have NATO forces deployed, as well as 100 personal deployed in Kandahar," he said. "The Polish currently have 2, 000 troops in Afghanistan. I would be very interested in the future to see how firmly the Poles and the Czechs stand behind those commitments."

McCain went on to argue that he agrees building and using defenses against short-range missiles are needed, but not because of the "belligerent threats the Iranian regime continues to pose to the United States and the rest of the world."

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he believed the new short-range missile approach is positive because it "addresses more directly and effectively Iran's missile threat, it maintains and expands our security commitment to Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic, [and] it opens the door to working cooperatively with Russia on a missile defense system that could not only provide greater protection to Europe, but also make a strong statement to Iran, that Europe, including Russia will take unified action against Iran's threat."

Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) shared many of Sen. McCain's views, with Lieberman asking why the U.S. cannot adopt a dual system with short and long-range missiles.

DOD Official: Sailors Should Fight Somali Pirates Themselves

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

The most effective way to deal with piracy off of the Somali coast is for the sailors to defend themselves, according to a Defense Department representative testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, said that of the recent pirate attacks in Somalia the most effective means of fending off the pirates came from actions taken by the crews themselves.

“The single most effective short-term response to piracy will be working with merchant shipping lines to ensure that vessels in the region take appropriate security measures themselves,” Flournoy said. She continued that it is not possible for the U.S. military to prevent or intervene in every pirate attack, but if crews take appropriate measures, “the vast majority of pirate attacks can be thwarted without any need for military intervention.”

There were 122 attempted pirate attacks in 2008, of which only 42 resulted in crewmembers becoming captured. Of the unsuccessful attacks, 78 percent of them were stopped by the crews actions, with the others being stopped by military intervention, according to Flournoy.

Flournoy divided crew countermeasures into two categories: passive and active defense measures. Passive measures are those which don’t necessarily require direct confrontation with the pirates, and can include physical obstructions to boarding points, avoiding high-risk waters, creating fortified “safe rooms” in the ship, posting lookouts at all times, and maintaining contact with maritime security forces. Active defense measures can include using fire hoses and small arms to repel pirates and a military presence on the boat. Both of these defensive measures are important for crews to talk to defend themselves, Flournoy said.

She believes that the complexity of this situation necessitates a multifaceted approach, which is why the aforementioned measures should be combined with greater military patrols and economic development. Additionally, the Defense Department would like to see more states willing to prosecute the pirates. Presently, Kenya is one of the only nations to actually place Somali pirates on trial.

According to Flournoy, since August 2008 36 pirate vessels have been destroyed or confiscated, small arms have been seized, and 146 pirates have been turned over to law enforcement officers.

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.