SFTT DefenseWatch – 13 March 2002

Let's assume it is 1942 instead of 2002, and six months have passed since the catastrophic surprise attack that thrust the nation out of an uncertain peace and into a global war.

This is a snapshot of a nation at war on June 7, 1942:

* In the Pacific, salvage teams continue to recover stricken battleships, cruisers and destroyers from the wreckage at Pearl Harbor, where 18 warships were sunk or crippled and over 2,400 American servicemen perished in the surprise Japanese attack. The final defense of the Philippines has ended with the surrender of Corregidor on May 6, and with it, the last 2,000 American and Filipino defenders join more than 76,000 troops from Bataan, who had surrendered in April, in the hell of Japanese POW camps.

While the embattled U.S. Navy has ambushed a superior Japanese carrier force off Midway on June 4-5, sinking four enemy aircraft carriers to the loss of only one U.S. flattop, it is still several months before the United States will be able to muster its first attempted counter-offensive against Japan's military bastion with a Marine Corps assault at Guadalcanal in August 1942.

* In the Atlantic, German U-Boats are continuing a devastating offensive against U.S. commercial shipping, and three submarines are nearing the East Coast where two will land teams of saboteurs and the third will penetrate the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to lay a deadly minefield on June 13.

* In Europe, plans are underway to land a force of British and Canadian commandos in France at the port of Dieppe. The raid, on Aug. 19, is a military disaster.

This is what has not yet happened:

* The first U.S. bomber raids from Great Britain to targets in Germany will not take place for another six months, in January 1943. The first U.S. Army clash with a German Army unit will also not occur until February 1943, and it will mark a rare American military defeat at the hands of German soldiers. The U.S. and British invasion of Sicily is still more than a year away, in July 1943.

* It is just shy of two full years before the United States, Great Britain and allied nations launch the historic D-Day invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. It is a full two years before the 20th Air Force launches its first B-29 bombing raid against mainland Japan.

* It is just shy of three years until the surrender of Nazi Germany to the allies on May 7, 1945, and three years and three months until Japan surrenders to U.S. and allied commanders in Tokyo Bay, ending World War II.

This chronology is useful when we pause to take stock this week in marking the sixth-month anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

There has been no shortage of informed analysis to note the vast differences between the United States during World War II and the U.S. military position at the time of the 9/11 strikes.

For one thing, the U.S. military - while significantly cut back and over-stretched by the Clinton administration during much of the past decade - has remained a force deployed globally. Thus, the massing of aircraft, troops and support equipment to wage war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan required only weeks, not months and years as in the mobilization of American forces against Japan and Germany six decades ago.

Similarly, the shadow war involving U.S. intelligence agencies, diplomatic offices and law enforcement officials has been up and running for some time now, with an impressive string of successes in thwarting additional terrorist attacks from western Europe to Asia.

But the chronology from 1942 should still stand as a stern warning to all Americans and our allies that there is no quick ending in sight. As President Bush warned on Monday, we are entering a more indeterminate phase of the war against terrorism, "a sustained campaign to deny sanctuary to terrorists who would threaten our citizens from anywhere in the world" (see the president's speech text, Article 07, below).

Bush and his senior aides are also beginning to lay the rhetorical groundwork for possible military action this year against Iraq, whose support for international terrorists - if not particularly the al Qaeda network, then others - is as well-documented as its intransigent efforts since 1991 to develop weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the world community. It is not known yet whether sustained military action may be required against Baghdad, but the administration correctly calls the world's attention to a security threat that may yet be proved to be an order of magnitude greater than the suicidal hijackers of Sept. 11.

In the meantime, there is positive news to report.

Above and beyond our battlefield successes in Afghanistan, our intelligence-law enforcement disruption of al Qaeda terror cells throughout the world and our progress in recovering from the physical damage of Sept. 11, we learned this week that the American public is holding strong in support of the war against terrorism. A Washington Post-ABC Poll revealed that 9 out of 10 Americans strongly support the conduct of the campaign, a figure unchanged for the past four months. As The Washington Post reported on Monday:

"Six months after Sept. 11, the survey suggests that the Bush administration enjoys nearly as much support now for a broad war on terrorism as it did in the weeks immediately after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

"Most Americans say they clearly understand why U.S. troops are fighting in Afghanistan. If anything, they want the fight expanded to other countries suspected of harboring terrorists."

And, the Post added: "The president gets even higher marks for the way he is handling the war on terrorism: 88 percent said he is doing a good job, a proportion that has remained unchanged throughout the fall and winter."

The American people today share the quiet strengths of resolve and grit that we last saw sixty years ago when the nation was also locked in a fight for survival. A unified American people is a weapon in our nation's arsenal no less important than aircraft carriers, precision-guided bombs and Special Forces commandos.

Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at defensewatch@aol.com.

Table of Contents

Hack's Target For The Week:

9/11 Sitrep

By David H. Hackworth

It has been six months since the Kamikaze Krazies forced us into the trenches, high time for a Situation Report on how we're doing.

Firstest with the mostest is Dubya, who's morphed into the perfect wartime leader: confident, decisive, assigning clear mission-type orders as opposed to micromanaging like some past presidents might have.

But the federal government has acted the way it did just after Dec. 7, 1941 - like an elephant awakened by a rodent bite, flailing about at first, then finally getting it together enough to begin stomping the rats.

On the homeland front, Tom Ridge's task of tying more than 50 agencies into a team capable of pulling the rope together in the same direction is proving to be mission impossible. He seems to be spending a lot of time and dough building yet another overblown Washington institution where bureaucrats write interminable, often redundant memos while they scratch each other's backs with our tax dollars. The homeland czar's only apparent accomplishment so far is a soon-to-be-unveiled terrorism alert system that gives the public more precise information when the federal government issues warnings of potential terrorist attacks - which could and should have been done by Week Two. Hopefully, he'll revisit the Principles of War -- especially the Principle of Unity of Command - and then show us some of that sergeant skill he displayed on the battlefield as a small-unit leader in Vietnam.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been brilliant at both stand-up improv during briefings and the no-nonsense military leadership we need. Under him, our Special Operators and guys and gals in the sky have performed second to none. Since Sept. 11, they've moved quickly and set up around the globe, placing a laser-focused noose around the terrorist gangs and their supporting nation/state sanctuaries. Just putting and keeping all the pieces in place has been and continues to be a major feat. In war, the bottom line is always logistics, logistics, logistics, and thanks to our supply generals, we're strong on moving the beans and bullets.

On the other hand, our conventional Army forces in Afghanistan have made some scary tactical and trigger-pulling mistakes, driving home the point that because soldiers need to train the way they fight, the social experiments of recent years have got to disappear. Most green armies stumble the first time out, but I'm sure Rummy's having not-so-friendly little chats with the generals about keeping our boys out of body bags. He should learn from Vietnam the price of caving into politics and condoning leaders who can't figure out how to fight the war they're confronting.

Our local cops and FBI - both big players in homeland defense, both operating on a shoelace - have been terrific. Despite the poor funding and red tape between federal and local authorities, they've pre-empted terrorist attacks by the score and already have a bunch of sleeper creeps under lock and key. Our Joes and Janes on the street know what's at stake and are well into and up for the mission - we just need to make sure they're all working off the same page and have the right stuff to do their job.

Overall, we've seized the initiative and have the enemy where we want him - reacting to us. We've busted up his command and control and have him ducking and weaving all over the world. Since 9/11 he hasn't been able to get in a good hit - and now more than ever, we've got to keep punching. When you're on the run, it's hard to shoot straight.

Yes, he'll strike again. Probably with attacks at least as horrific as the World Trade Center. But fortunately we're up against mostly third-string fumblers like the shoe bomber who couldn't give himself a hotfoot even with a full box of matches.

I have no doubt we'll win this war as long as we support our government all the way. We need to gear up to go the distance and understand the battles won't all be Kosovo-easy, bloodless, sanitized. And here at home, we can do our part by remaining ever alert and reporting anything even remotely suspicious to the cops and FBI.

The mistake the enemy made was he didn't understand something as American as Coca-Cola, that old Yankee motto, Don't Tread On Me.

http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 01

Reflections on a Transformed America

By Matthew Dodd

It's hard to believe it's been six months this week since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. A lot has happened in the world, in our country, and in the lives of countless people in the last 183 days. On this emotional anniversary, I want to reflect on my observations and lessons learned.

First and foremost is how dangerous it is to take for granted our right and freedom to vote. How truly blessed we were to have New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and President George W. Bush in office when tragedy demanded leaders with character and conviction.

My hope is that our collective voting conscience will shift from peacetime partisan politics to crisis leadership potential. How ironic that many vocal critics were looking forward to Mayor Giuliani's term-limit departure and questioning the legitimacy of the Bush administration before the Sept. 11 attacks. How sad it is that there are some high-visibility elected officials who still seem eager and willing to turn our war efforts into partisan politics issues in this re-election year.

Our forward- and quickly-deployed military forces showed the might of our global power-projection capabilities. The combat relief in place between the Marines and the Army at the airfield at Kandahar, Afghanistan, was a textbook maneuver, and the performance of our Special Forces troops on the ground and our relentless warriors in the skies continues to be spectacular.

Airport security has come under close scrutiny and been tightened, yet the system is still not perfected. U.S. and Canadian fighter jets have escorted suspicious passenger jets to safe and secure landings, but many are concerned about our ability to sustain these measures. Some people died from exposure to anthrax-laden mail, and the investigation into who was responsible for the anthrax continues.

The bright beacon of hope throughout the darkest hours of U.S. history was the confirmation of the true nature of our citizens: diverse, yet united; threatened, yet courageous; violated, yet generous, and shocked, yet determined. I was a proud American before Sept. 11, and I am an even prouder survivor of Sept. 11.

Two apparent gaps in our homeland security posture are water port security and the fragile national stretched-to-capacity hospital emergency room situation. Gov. Tom Ridge is the appointed director of the new White House Office of Homeland Security and there are growing concerns about his challenges in gaining governmental interagency consensus, cooperation and competent authority.

It is refreshing to see that America is finally starting to recognize and redefine its true heroes. For too long, too many mistook the immensely rich, famous and popular as heroes. Now we are saluting those common, anonymous and ordinary people who selflessly serve, protect, and sacrifice for others for the greater good as the heroes they've always been.

The U.S. Department of Defense is expending a lot of time, effort, and resources simultaneously on transformation, homeland security, and the war on terrorism. Six months after the tragedy of Sept. 11, questions about the Pentagon remain: Where is the priority, and is there an overarching vision for these seemingly disparate efforts?

We must never again allow ourselves to grow ignorant, arrogant, complacent, and vulnerable in this increasingly violent and dangerous world. Wendell Phillips once said, "Eternal vigilance is the price you pay for freedom." I hope we all remember those words and learn to put it in practice in our daily lives.

Lastly, I also hope we all remember the lessons from the heroics of those brave passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed into a deserted field in the Pennsylvania countryside. With limited information, they accurately assessed the threat to themselves and to our wounded country. They quickly formed a plan to counter that threat. Then they sacrificed their best interests, executed their plan, and eliminated that threat. They selflessly seized the moment and did what was right to thwart evil in their midst and protect our country.

Much has changed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland. Much more needs to be done if we are to protect ourselves and our way of life here and around the world. These last six months have proven to me that we are capable of so much more than we ever imagined. Our leaders and citizens know what needs to be done. Let each and every one of us live up to the spirit of the Flight 93 heroes when they uttered those immortal words, "Let's roll."

Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd is the pen name of an active-duty Marine Corps officer stationed at the Pentagon. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 02

Court Ruling Can Free Army From Discrimination

By J. David Galland

A recent federal court ruling took a major whack to the old saying, "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way."

And the U.S. Army and its soldiers will be better off as a result.

The court action came on March 4, when U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth struck down the Army's equal opportunities promotion process, saying the policy gives undue preference to women and minorities at the expense of white, male officers.

The Army's policy of institutionalized discrimination has been ground to a halt. This biased system - which formally directed promotion boards to consider the "past personal or institutional discrimination" faced by women and minorities - was found by the judge to lead to promotion quotas, furthering the careers of women and minorities in uniform at the expense of equitable treatment of white officers.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Saunders was the plaintiff in this significant legal battle, which resulted in Lamberth's ruling after three years of litigation. Lt. Col. Saunders was denied promotion to full colonel in both 1996 and 1997, because he did not fit into the special category of race or gender. He proved that the Army had instructed promotion boards, in writing, to favor officers who may have been a victim of discrimination.

In effect, Saunders persuaded the court that the Army - by affording preferential treatment to those who might have been suffered past discrimination - had actually discriminated against him.

Saunders presented historical Army data from the 1970s and onward, which affirmed that black officers were actually being promoted at virtually the same rate as whites, if not slightly higher. This weighed heavily in the eyes of the court and proved that the Army, therefore, had no basis for taking race or gender into account at promotion selection time.

Saunders is not the only white officer whose career was thwarted by his non-promotion. A number of other officers in the Army and other military services have ongoing lawsuits charging discrimination in promotion criteria. Saunders is, however, the first to be the plaintiff on a federal court decision that has won a favorable judgment.

In rendering his decision, Judge Lamberth agreed with Saunders' arguments, noting that Army promotion policy "undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional." No fairer words could be spoken.

If the ruling withstands an appeal to higher courts, it would require the Army to remove considerations of past individual or institutional discrimination from its promotion process. It also allows Saunders's own lawsuit against the Army to proceed, forcing the Army to prove that he would not have been promoted regardless of the affirmative-action rules in effect at the time.

Another probable consequence of the Lamberth ruling is that there likely be further lawsuits filed against other Army practices that have evolved into de facto discrimination against non-minorities. Army customs that have all the indicators of gender, racial or age discrimination will certainly be challenged with renewed vigor and justification. The Army's enlisted promotion system is one good target, since service members experience its bias and discriminatory practices on a daily basis.

In particular, it is anticipated that aggrieved enlisted personnel and their attorneys will zero in on the particular policies governing the selection for promotion and assignments of the Army's top three noncommissioned officer ranks: sergeant first class, (E-7), master sergeant (E-8) and sergeant major (E-9). In this particular case, age discrimination - as a matter of formal Army policy - remains unchallenged as race discrimination drove the Saunders case.

Forget a "glass ceiling" blocking the promotion of those not favored by existing policy - this one is concrete! Written guidance to senior NCO promotion boards instructs the selection panels to disqualify senior noncommissioned officers who are too old (specific date of birth cut-offs are established). If an Army master sergeant is "too old," he or she is simply not even considered for promotion to sergeant major or command sergeant major and the individual service person's records merit no review for promotion selection.

At this juncture, it is still unknown whether or not the Army will appeal the Lamberth ruling.

But one curious indication has already surfaced. In one news report, Col. Tara Osborn, chief of the Military Personnel Branch with The Army Litigation Division, stated, "This case involves the Army's former equal-opportunity instructions, which have not been used at centralized selection boards since September 1999." Her point immediately raises a question: If so, why even consider an appeal?

If the Army is to recover from the over-reaching policies that in the guise of ending discrimination merely created a new form for an unprotected "class" of soldier, I believe it is necessary for the service to go beyond a nuts-and-bolts overhaul of the specific promotion policies that sparked the Saunders lawsuit.

It is my hope that the Army and its excellent people can use the Lamberth ruling as a positive inducement to move beyond the social-engineering constructs that have proven more negative than not.

Gender and racial sensitivity seeds get sewn from day one of a soldier's enlistment. The Army has a party line of values, which soldiers must memorize and embrace to the point that soldiers are required to carry a credit-card like reminder in their wallets (and a small fob on their dog-tag chain) as a constant reminder of the rules.

Whether it is simply to ensure equal treatment of others, or to reaffirm sensitivity to the needs of soldiers with a different skin color or gender, the system serves as an ever-present watchdog. But no one has ever stopped to consider whether such ham-handed attempts might actually be counterproductive, engendering resentment instead of respect.

One outstanding 19-year old soldier of mine, who happens to be white, observed, "I never realized that I needed so much correcting and reminding of common courtesy, which I mastered with guidance from my parents over fifteen years ago." He added, "Prior to coming in the Army, I had no idea of how wrong I was, just being me every day."

Constant attitude overwatch exists at the localized promotion boards also. Here is where junior soldiers vie for their first NCO stripes. On these boards - which almost always consist of five senior noncommissioned officers - a female NCO and an "other-than-white" noncommissioned officer are always included.

The implied necessity of this race and gender requirement is, of course, to ensure equality. But again, the unstated implication is that the Army lacks confidence in its senior noncommissioned officers to conduct a fair promotion board and select qualified, deserving young soldiers, and that an all white-male promotion board would inevitably be sexist and racist.

I submit that this implicit belief, in itself, constitutes a form of institutionalized discrimination and the sharp young troops are not missing the Army's subliminal message.

Perhaps it's time to recognize that soldiers are mature adults and capable of demonstrating the necessary and correct respect for the diversity of their comrades without an Orwellian "Big Brother" instantly poised to judge them as biased.

Because the Lamberth ruling was, in word and deed, a major victory for the U.S. Army. The judge ruled that the facts - in contradiction to the ill-advised promotion policies - affirm that the Army long ago had broken free from the racism of its past. Maybe someday soldiers will be allowed to do the same.

J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is a retired veteran of over thirty years of service in military intelligence who resides in Germany. He can be reached at defensewatch02@yahoo.com.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 03

Activated Reservists and Guardsmen Need Protection

By John M. Szelog

National Guard and Reserve members know that deployments, sometimes for extended periods, are a fact of life. At the same time, they expect that in exchange for their service, the federal government will protect them from financial and employment problems that could result from those deployments.

However, in the decade since the end of the Cold War, a large number of combat and combat-support units have been moved to the reserve component. Many of these units, such as aerial refueling, intelligence, and medical units, are critical to the support of long-term operations by the active force. The unrelenting pace of peacekeeping and other non-combat operations ordered by the Clinton administration, and now, the ongoing war against terrorism, has resulted in the Pentagon needing to use reserve component units much more frequently, and for longer durations, than was ever anticipated.

A particular problem today stems from the need to use National Guard and Reserve units, but without those units being federally activated. Because they are not activated, units cannot order members on to active duty for longer than the mandatory 2 weeks. In this situation, commanders are forced to rely on volunteers from within their units, and other units, to fill billets for the duration of deployments. Guard or Reserve members who volunteer to go beyond their minimum yearly active duty requirements do not get the federal protection that they get if they are activated.

As DefenseWatch has previously revealed ("Poor Planning, Leadership Are Hurting the Reserve Component, Paul Connors, Feb. 20), some units have been giving members the "choice" of volunteering for a short-term deployment, or face being activated for as long as a year, which could still happen even if they carry out the short deployment. By volunteering for the shorter deployment, unit members are putting themselves at risk of losing their civilian jobs.

In addition, volunteers face certain money problems in the event of activation. Because of the way the military pay system works, these personnel only get a portion of their pay while deployed.

For deployments under 30 days, a member gets only base pay and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). For an Air Force staff sergeant (E-5) over 8 years, that amounts to $2,030 per month basic pay, minus taxes, and $241.60 for BAS, for a total of approximately $1794.10 per month. For a civilian who takes in between $1,200-1,800 every two weeks from a civilian job, that's a pretty severe pay cut.

If a deployment goes over 30 days, then the member gets Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) as well. This allowance varies by location, but in another twist, traditional Guard and Reserve members and technicians get their BAH based on the address of their home of record, and not the location of their duty station, unless they are federally activated.

Again using an Air Force staff sergeant as the example, the BAH (including dependents) for Moffett Field, Calif., is $2332 a month. But the BAH (including dependents) for the Central Valley of California, where many members of the Guard and Reserve units at Moffet live, is only $844 a month, for a net reduction of $1,488. While the difference in housing costs and living costs in general between the two areas has been rapidly closing over the last several years, the BAH has failed to keep up, and that difference in BAH can have a huge effect on the ability of members to maintain their households while deployed.

Unless special arrangements are made beforehand by the unit, all other allowances and special pays - including Hazardous Duty Pay, Family Separation Pay and tax exemption refunds - are not paid until the end of a deployment, and will take from several weeks to several months beyond that to be processed. For deployments of more than a month, this can mean that a family has to dip into savings in order to pay mortgages and bills until the member returns from their deployment.

And, of course, even when all of the pay and allowances finally do arrive, the total compensation may still not be enough to replace the total civilian income that the member lost as a result of activation and deployment. (Some civilian employers pay various types of compensation to employees who are activated, but it is often limited in duration or dollar amount.)

If the federal government wants to try and get a military on the cheap by putting a significant portion of critical units in the Guard and reserves, that's fine. However, members of those units deserve the full support and protection (especially for civilian re-employment) of the federal government when they are called up and deployed.

Serving in the war against terrorism is stressful enough without reservists and Guardsmen having to worry about their families going broke, their cars being repossessed and their houses foreclosed while they are serving thousands of miles from home. Employers, too, deserve some help from the government for their support of employees subject to military callup and deployments.

There is more to this issue than protecting a social contract between civilian society and its citizen-soldiers. There is a military readiness aspect to the issue we cannot afford to ignore as well: A deployed Guardsman or reservist worried about whether there will be a home or civilian job to return to is a deployed military service person who will not be focusing fulltime attention to his or her wartime duties.

John M. Szelog is a Contributing Editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at streetgang52@hotmail.com.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 04

The Nuclear Posture Review - The Real Story

By Robert G. Williscroft

On March 10, The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times reported the release of a secret Pentagon paper, presenting the findings of the second Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). According to both newspapers, this report is a comprehensive plan for developing and deploying nuclear weapons. The newspaper coverage purported to reveal controversial information about the NPR that captured the imagination of world leaders and generated significant negative reaction towards the United States from around the world.

It is surprising that these eminent newspapers only reported on this development on March 10, since the actual paper was disseminated to the press back on Jan. 9 by J. D. Crouch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, with the active participation of Rear Adm. Barry M. Costello, Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy on the Joint Staff; John Harvey, Director, Office of Policy, Planning, Assessment and Analysis for the Department of Energy, and Richard McGraw, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

McGraw led off the Jan. 9 briefing with some general remarks alluding to the first Nuclear Posture Review completed in 1994. This review was a response to the dramatically altered world following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It created an operating framework for this changed situation.

Crouch then presented fifteen slides that outlined the findings of the current Nuclear Posture Review. This presentation was followed by questions from the press answered by one or more of the participants.

While it is true that portions of the review are classified, the reasons for this classification were clearly stated in the briefing. Crouch and his assembled experts answered questions about these reasons, and went into significant detail about the motivations for and findings of the review.

A cover letter from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had been sent to Congress and was handed out at this briefing. Rumsfeld explained that the Nuclear Posture Review was built on the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ordered earlier by President Bush. The QDR and NPR together, he wrote, put in place a major change in approach to the role of nuclear defensive forces in U.S. deterrent strategy, and present the blueprint for transforming our strategic policy.

He went on to write that the NPR establishes a New Triad composed of (1) Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear); (2) Defenses (both active and passive), and (3) a revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats.

He then explained that the New Triad was designed both to reduce our dependence on nuclear weapons, and improve our ability to deter attack in the face of proliferating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capabilities by (1) The addition of Defenses, reducing our reliance on offensive strike forces; and (2) The addition of non-nuclear strike forces, reducing our reliance on nuclear strike forces.

In several articles breathlessly echoed by broadcast and cable news networks, both newspapers last week reported that the United States had taken a dramatic turn towards a war footing. Both papers seemed to see these actions as justifying the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists adjusting their Doomsday Clock closer to midnight (see http://www.sftt.us/dw03062002.html#4 for more information). They reported that the list of potential nuclear targets had expanded to include Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya, engendering a flood of protest and invective from these countries and their friends.

Contrary to what has been reported, the first leg of the New Triad - the offensive leg - will go beyond a reduced level of the Cold War trio of ICBMs, SLBMs, and manned bombers, to include new non-nuclear strike weapons and newly developed, lower-yield nukes. This will dramatically strengthen the credibility of our strategic deterrence.

The second leg of the New Triad, recognizing the impact of 9/11, requires development of both active and passive defenses that will deny or reduce the effectiveness of limited attacks, and so discourage those attacks. This leg will also "provide new capabilities for managing crises, and provide insurance against the failure of traditional deterrence," according to Rumsfeld.

The third leg is a responsive defense infrastructure. It will address our ability to bring new weapons on line, and will reshape our nuclear infrastructure. This will make us far less reliant upon large, strategic nuclear weapons, and better able to deploy tactical weapons that pose a much smaller threat to the world at large. These smaller weapons will also give us the ability to hold off massed armies that might otherwise be able to overrun our forces. Furthermore, maintaining our flexible response capability to large strategic changes can positively dissuade potential adversaries from developing WMDs.

The New Triad's effectiveness depends on "command and control, intelligence, and adaptive planning," according to Rumsfeld. He proffers the term "exquisite" intelligence to describe where we are headed. Such advance knowledge of the capabilities and intentions of our potential adversaries will give us the ability to adjust the degree of force we will use and the precision of how we will use it. No longer will we stand with a huge nuclear hammer raised to obliterate a potential foe.

Instead, we will have the ability to strike where it will hurt the most, pulling the plug on an offender before he is able to carry out any threats. Having already demonstrated this ability to some degree in Afghanistan, we now can cast our anti-terrorist glance more effectively at other offending nations. It may even be that a glance alone will suffice to solve many extant problems.

The NPR raises a particularly interesting point. Can a modern "smart" conventional weapon outperform a nuke, and so obviate the need for that particular nuke?

In my submarine days, we carried several torpedoes. One was the Mark 45, a nuke with an underwater kill radius of about one cubic mile of ocean. In other words, if your submarine was anywhere within a half-mile of the burst - in any direction - you were dead meat. We also carried the Mark 37, which was a "smart" torpedo - not so smart as the torpedoes used today - but still plenty bright. These "fish" used sonar sensing and tracking abilities. They also had a kill radius of about a cubic mile. Because they were not nukes, however, they were much easier to handle, easier on the guys - including less paperwork! - and less dangerous for the sub, since we had more control over what and where it could strike, and so could stay within the kill zone and still be safe. The Mark 45 absolutely mandated that we be outside the kill zone.

In many cases, a modern smart weapon may very well be a better weapon than a tactical nuke. This is especially true for weapons utilized to wipe out specific units, vehicles, or complexes. Unless the complex is heavily reinforced or well fortified underground, a smart weapon probably will be a better choice than a nuke.

The NPR specifically recommends developing a better burrowing nuke for wiping out deeply fortified cave-like complexes. Other than this recommendation, the report is silent on what might be forthcoming. It just leaves the door open for future development.

One wonders, therefore, at what motivated The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times to shout so loudly about a report that was released over two months ago. One wonders how they managed to distort the NPR into a warmongering document, when it actually paves the way towards a more peaceful world, less likely to become involved in a planetary nuclear war.

On the other hand, since these newspapers reported as straight news the recent Doomsday Clock movement by the left-wing Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, perhaps a hidden agenda is peaking out from under their self-righteous indignation.

Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 05

North Korea Remains a Threat to Asian Security

By Andrea West

In December 2001, Japan sank a North Korean vessel suspected to be a spy ship. Japan is now trying to raise that ship from the ocean floor (over the objections of China) in order to verify the claim that this was no ordinary fishing vessel, but evidence of North Korea's aggressive intent toward its neighbors.

If proven, this would cast serious doubt over the policies of "engagement" and "sunshine" so favored by the moderates in Washington and Seoul. In light of this incident and the controversy it has generated, it is instructive to examine the status of North Korean armed forces and the threat they continue to pose to South Korea and its allies, particularly the United States.

The foremost threat from North Korea is undoubtedly its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. North Korea has the capability of deploying chemical agents (and possibly biological agents) by means of missiles or other munitions. The Central Intelligence Agency believes that North Korea also produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons before agreeing to freeze its nuclear operation in 1994.

The longest-range ballistic missile that North Korea has actually deployed is the No Dong, with a range of 800 miles. The two-stage Taepo Dong-2, which may be ready for flight testing, can carry a small nuclear payload as far as 6,200 miles, which would put it in striking range of Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States. A third stage added to the Taepo Dong-2 would extend the range to 9,300 miles for a two- or three-hundred pound or larger payload. This would enable the Taepo Dong-2 to strike any part of North America. In addition, the three-stage Taepo Dong-1 SLV could theoretically deliver BW/CW agents to the United States.

According to the North Korea Advisory Group's November 1999 report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, North Korea's armed forces consist of approximately 1.1 million active duty personnel and 5 million reserves. These are divided into the Korean People's Army (KPA), the North Korean Air Force (NKAF), the North Korean Navy, and a special operations force. The Korean Demilitarized Zone separating the two hostile states is the primary focus of all the DPRK forces.

The KPA consists of approximately 900,000 troops in 32 infantry divisions, and is tasked with the seizure of the Korean peninsula within 30 days of the onset of armed conflict, as well as with the defense of the North Korea proper. The KPA has approximately 5,000 tanks, 2000 armored personnel carriers, 13,000 artillery pieces, and 2,400 multiple rocket launchers. Recent KPA reinforcements along the DMZ include 240mm multiple rocket launchers and 170mm self-propelled artillery guns. Defenders in the area can expect the use of BW/CW agents as well.

The NKAF comprises 82,000 troops and 1,000+ aircraft. Its four missions are air defense, strategic bombing, air transport (notably of special operations forces), and air support. Air defense is tasked to ground-based units and includes 11,000 anti-aircraft artillery guns and 50+ SAM sites. In addition, 15,000 portable air defense systems are in the field.

The North Korean Navy has 46,000 members and two missions: coastal defense and insertion/extraction of special forces operatives. It has a well-stocked line of amphibious craft, attack and midget subs, missile boats, and torpedo and patrol craft.

The special operations forces, comprising some 100,000 troops, merit particular attention. They conduct recon and assorted black ops in South Korea and Japan, and are likely to present a serious threat to U.S. and South Korean defenders in the event of hostilities. In addition, they protect the North Korean rear. The NKAF and the North Korean Navy do a lot of support and carrying for these forces.

(For more detail, you can read the full report of the North Korea Advisory Group at its website, http://www.house.gov/international_relations/nkag/report.htm.)

A continuing point of debate is whether the North Korean military is itself in a state of decline like the wider society. While there have been reports of lagging military training, other reports have noted a steady buildup of front-line units close along the DMZ, which at one point is less than 40 miles from the South Korean capital of Seoul. The general consensus is that while North Korea may not have the ability to conduct a sustained war as in years past, it still retains the ability to wreak horrific damage on South Korea should hostilities erupt.

While the assumption is that North Korea relies on conscription to fill its ranks, this may not be the case. North Korean defector Kang Chol-Hwan, who escaped from North Korea through China, reported that the DPRK Army has no shortage of volunteers. According to Kang, volunteering for military service is the shortest route to social advancement for the country's peasants: the first ticket-punch toward Party membership and a guarantee of food and clothing for the grown children of poor families. There are periodically more enlistment applications than billets. When one considers that famine has ravaged North Korea for several years, it is not a stretch to see why three squares and clothes on your back are attractive perks.

How good those clothes are, however, depends on whether you actually receive them. Kang Chol-Hwan indicated that in the early 1990s, DPRK Army officers made a lucrative trade out of uniforms and boots intended for the rank-and-file soldiers under their command, leaving the foot soldiers with "threadbare old uniforms and canvas boots that couldn't keep out the rain."

Information about conditions within the North Korean armed forces is chiefly anecdotal, but it does suggest a material gap between the senior ranks and the lower ranks.

Among those gaps lies the issue of medical treatment and its availability. German physician Dr. Nortbert Vollertsen was given unprecedented access to North Korea after being awarded the Friendship Medal for donating his own skin to a North Korean burn patient. Vollertsen reported that he once visited a hospital for the senior military and the elite which - unlike the other hospitals in North Korea that lacked even basic anesthetics - was equipped with medical gear including MRIs, EKGs, ultrasound, and X-ray machines. This hospital struck him as being "as modern as any in Germany." Whether or not the lower echelons have access to them in wartime (or at any other point) is a matter of conjecture.

On a final note, it seems that service in the North Korean armed forces can be a hazardous proposition. In November of 1999 Vollertsen came across the body of a young soldier in the road on the way to Pukchang.

The soldier had been tortured.

Andrea West is DefenseWatch Veterans editor. She can be reached at defensewatchvet@yahoo.com.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 06

Farewell to MG Jack Juhan, Mentor and Marine

By Patrick Hayes

I lost a friend and mentor recently. Retired Maj. Gen. Jack Juhan USMC was 97 when he died on Feb. 24 in Santa Fe, N.M.

Although there was a significant difference in age and rank, General Jack was more than a senior officer to the cadre of Marines who joined him for monthly lunches. He was a mentor and leader, and the soul of the group who gathered to discuss national and world events. Never one to raise his voice, he quietly made his presence, and his opinions, known. He was a man who had lived a full life and who, at 97, had a mind as sharp and lucid as any, while painfully aware that his body was failing him.

A graduate of the Naval Academy in 1927, he served with the Marines in Nicaragua against the original Augusto Sandino guerrillas. Then, as a "China Marine" in Shanghai, he was engaged in a number of intense firefights between 1931 and 1933 against the invading Japanese forces - experience that served him well when the United States entered World War II. In 1937, he took command of the Marine Detachment aboard the USS Vincennes, where he served until 1939

An outstanding member of what Tom Brokaw called "The Greatest Generation," when Jack entered the Pacific campaign, he was one of a number of combat-tested Marines who would lead young men across the Pacific in the island-hopping campaign from Guadalcanal to Okinawa.

On Saipan, he served with distinction and courage as a battalion commander of the 1st Bn., 29th Marine Regiment, where he won his first Bronze Star with Combat "V". When Marines landed on Tinian, he was a regimental commander. Both campaigns produced some of the bloodiest and intense fighting of the Mariana Islands. The Marines held their ground against strong banzai attacks by the Japanese defenders, many of whom were Imperial Marines who were just as tenacious and unyielding and their American counterparts, which resulted in deadly hand-to-hand fighting.

Jack saw combat across the Pacific, ending in Okinawa, a Japanese home island, where enemy forces had dug in deep and fought to the last, resulting in thousands of dead and wounded Marines. By the end of the campaign, as preparations were made to attack Japan itself, Jack was the G-2 intelligence officer for the 2nd Marine Division. He later received the Legion of Merit with Combat "V" for his actions during the war.

General Juhan later served in Korea from 1953 to 1954, where he won his second Bronze Star with Combat "V". After returning from Korea, he was given several commands on the east coast before being sent to Camp Pendleton, California, as assistant base commander.

After 31 years of active duty, Jack retired as a major general on June 30, 1958, but was far from lying down and giving up. He moved to Santa Fe and became active in his community, and was a member of many organizations, including the Kappa Sigma Fraternity, the Rotary Club, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of World Wars, past president of the Ski Development Corporation in Santa Fe, and executive director of the United Way of Santa Fe County.

Jack had lived more than the lives of two average men. He loved his Corps and his country and was concerned about the latter's future up until the day he died. He will be missed.

He was put to rest at the National Veterans Cemetery in Santa Fe, with a full Marine honor guard and Taps, provided by the Reserve Marine Force Recon unit out of Albuquerque.

Rest easy, old warrior. The watch has changed and the Corps is still in good hands.

Patrick Hayes is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at Gyrene65@netscape.net.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 07

For the Record: Six Months After 9/11

Text of President George W. Bush Speech Marking the Six-Month Anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks:

We have come together to mark a terrible day, to reaffirm a just and vital cause and to thank the many nations that share our resolve and will share our common victory.

Six months separate us from September the 11th; yet, for the families of the lost, each day brings new pain, each day requires new courage. Your grace and strength have been an example to our nation. America will not forget the lives that were taken and the justice their death requires.

We face an enemy of ruthless ambition, unconstrained by law or morality. The terrorists despise other religions and have defiled their own, and they are determined to expand the scale and scope of their murder.

The terror that targeted New York and Washington could next strike any center of civilization. Against such an enemy, there is no immunity and there can be no neutrality. Many nations and many families have lived in the shadows of terrorism for decades, enduring years of mindless and merciless killing.

September the 11th was not the beginning of global terror, but it was the beginning of the world's concerted response. History will know that day not only as a day of tragedy, but as a day of decision, when the civilized world was stirred to anger and to action. And the terrorists will remember September the 11th as the day their reckoning began.

A mighty coalition of civilized nations is now defending our common security: Terrorists' assets have been frozen; terrorists' front groups have been exposed; a terrorist regime has been toppled from power; terrorist plots have been unraveled from Spain to Singapore; and thousands of terrorists have been brought to justice or are in prison or are running for fear of their lives.

With us today are representatives from many of our partners in this great work, and we're proud to display their flags at the White House this morning. From the contributions these nations have made, some well-known, others not, I am honored to extend the deepest gratitude of the people of the United States.

The power and vitality of our coalition have been proven in Afghanistan.

More than half of the forces now assisting the heroic Afghan fighters or providing security in Kabul are from countries other than the United States. There are many examples of commitment. Our good ally France has deployed nearly one fourth of its navy to support Operation Enduring Freedom, and Great Britain has sent its largest naval task force in 20 years.

British and American special operation forces have sought beside teams from Australia and Canada, Norway, Denmark and Germany. In total, 17 nations have forces deployed in the region, and we could not have done our work without critical support from countries, particularly like Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

Japanese Destroyers are refueling coalition ships in the Indian Ocean. The Turkish air force has refueled American planes. Afghans are receiving treatment in hospitals built by Russians, Jordanians, Spanish and have received supplies and help from South Korea. Nations in our coalition have shared in responsibilities and the sacrifices of our cause.

On the day before September the 11th, I met with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia who spoke of the common beliefs and shared affection of our two countries. We could not have known that bond was about to be proven again in war, and we could not have known its human cost.

Last month Sergeant Andrew Russell of the Australian Special Air Service died in Afghanistan. He left behind his wife Kiley and their daughter Lisa, just 11 days old. Friends said of Sergeant Russell, you could rely on him never to let you down. This young man and many like him have not let us down.

Each life taken from us is a terrible loss. We've lost young people from Germany and Denmark and Afghanistan and America. We mourn each one, and for their bravery, a noble cause, we honor them. Part of that cause was to liberate the Afghan people from terrorist occupation, and we did so.

Next week, the schools reopen in Afghanistan. They'll be opened to all, and many young girls will go to school for the first time in their young lives.

Afghanistan has many difficult challenges ahead, and yet we've averted mass starvation, begun clearly mine fields, rebuilding roads and improving health care. In Kabul, a friendly government is now an essential member of the coalition against terror.

Now that the Taliban are gone and Al Qaeda has lost its home base for terrorism, we have entered the second stage of the war on terror, a sustained campaign to deny sanctuary to terrorists who would threaten our citizens from anywhere in the world.

In Afghanistan, hundreds of trained killers are now dead. Many have been captured; others are still on the run hoping to strike again. These terrorist fighters are the most committed, the most dangerous and the least likely to surrender. They are trying to regroup, and we'll stop them.

For five months in Afghanistan, our coalition has been patient and relentless, and more patience and more courage will be required. We're fighting a fierce battle in the Shahikot Mountains, and we're winning. Yet, it will not be the last battle in Afghanistan, and there will be other battles beyond that nation.

For terrorists fleeing Afghanistan, for any terrorist looking for a base of operations, there must be no refuge, no safe haven.

By driving terrorists from place to place, we disrupt the planning and training for further attacks on America and the civilized world. Every terrorist must be made to live as an international fugitive with no place to settle or organize, no place to hide, no governments to hide behind, and not even a safe place to sleep.

I've set a clear policy in the second stage of the war on terror: America encourages and expects governments everywhere to help remove the terrorist parasites that threaten their own countries and peace of the world.

If governments need training or resources to meet this commitment, America will help. We're helping right now in the Philippines, where terrorists with links to Al Qaeda are trying to seize the southern part of the country to establish a militant regime. They are pressing local peoples, and they've kidnapped both American and Filipino citizens. America sent more than 500 troops to train Philippine forces. We stand with President Arroyo, who is courageously opposing the threat of terror.

In the Republic of Georgia, terrorists working closely with Al Qaeda operate in the Pankisi Gorge near the Russian border. At President Shevardnadze's request, the United States is planning to send up to 150 military trainers to prepare Georgian soldiers to reestablish control in this lawless region. This temporary assistance serves the interest of both our countries.

In Yemen, we are working to avert the possibility of another Afghanistan. Many Al Qaeda recruits come from near the Yemen-Saudi Arabian border, and Al Qaeda may try to reconstitute itself in the remote corners of that region.

President Saleh has assured me that he is committed to confronting this danger. We will help Yemeni forces with both training and equipment to prevent that land from becoming a haven for terrorists.

In the current stage of the war, our coalition is opposing not a nation, but a network.

Victory will come over time, as that network is patiently and steadily dismantled. This will require international cooperation on a number of fronts, diplomatic, financial, and military. We will not send the American troops to every battle, but America will actively prepare other nations for the battles ahead. This mission will end when the work is finished, when terror networks of global reach have been defeated.

The havens and training camps of terror are a threat to our lives and to our way of life, and they will be destroyed.

At the same time, every nation in our coalition must take seriously the growing threat of terror on a catastrophic scale, terror armed with biological chemical or nuclear weapons. America is now consulting with friends and allies about this greatest of dangers, and we're determined to confront it.

Here is what we already know: Some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons and would use them without a hint of conscience. And we know that these weapons in the hands of terrorists would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos. These facts cannot be denied and must be confronted.

In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin for error and no chance to learn from mistakes. Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option.

Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.

Gathered here today, we are six months along, a short time in a long struggle. In our war on terror, we'd be judged by its finish not by its start. More dangers and sacrifices lie ahead, yet America is prepared. Our resolve has only grown because we remember.

We remember the horror and heroism of that morning, the death of children on a field trip, the resistance of passengers on a doomed airplane, the courage of rescuers who died with strangers they were trying to save, and we remember the video images of terrorists who laughed at our loss.

Every civilized nation has a part in this struggle, because every civilized nation has a stake in its outcome. There can be no peace in the world where differences and grievances become an excuse to target the innocent for murder.

In fighting terror, we fight for the conditions that will make lasting peace possible. We fight for lawful change against chaotic violence, for human choice against coercion and cruelty, and for the dignity and goodness of every life.

Every nation should know that, for America, the war on terror is not just a policy, it's a pledge. I will not relent in this struggle for the freedom and security of my country and the civilized world.

There will be a day when the organized threat against America, our friends, and allies is broken. And when the terrorists are disrupted and scattered and discredit, many old conflicts will appear in a new light, without the constant fear and cycle of bitterness that terrorists spread with their violence.

We will see then that the old and serious disputes can be settled within the bounds of reason and good will and mutual security. I see a peaceful world beyond the war on terror. And with courage and unity, we are building that world together.

Any nation that makes an unequivocal commitment against terror can join this cause. Every nation of good will is welcome, and together, we will face the peril of our moment and seize the promise of our times.

May God bless our coalition.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 08

Medal of Honor Recipient - MARM, WALTER JOSEPH, Jr., 2nd Lt. USA

Rank and organization: First Lieutenant (then 2d Lt.), U.S. Army, Company A, 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile).

Place and date: Vicinity of la Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam, 14 November 1965.

Entered service at: Pittsburgh, PA. Born: 20 November 1941, Washington, Pa. G.O. No.: 7, 15 February 1967.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. As a platoon leader in the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), 1st Lt. Marm demonstrated indomitable courage during a combat operation. His company was moving through the valley to relieve a friendly unit surrounded by an enemy force of estimated regimental size. 1st Lt. Marm led his platoon through withering fire until they were finally forced to take cover.

Realizing that his platoon could not hold very long, and seeing four enemy soldiers moving into his position, he moved quickly under heavy fire and annihilated all four. Then, seeing that his platoon was receiving intense fire from a concealed machine gun, he deliberately exposed himself to draw its fire. Thus locating its position, he attempted to destroy it with an antitank weapon. Although he inflicted casualties, the weapon did not silence the enemy fire.

Quickly, disregarding the intense fire directed on him and his platoon, he charged 30 meters across open ground, and hurled grenades into the enemy position, killing some of the eight insurgents manning it. Although severely wounded, when his grenades were expended, armed with only a rifle, he continued the momentum of his assault on the position and killed the remainder of the enemy. 1st Lt. Marm's selfless actions reduced the fire on his platoon, broke the enemy assault, and rallied his unit to continue toward the accomplishment of this mission. 1st Lt. Marm's gallantry on the battlefield and his extraordinary intrepidity at the risk of his life are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the armed forces of his country.

Editor's Note: If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email DefenseWatch MOH Editor Jim H. at bulldogleader@mindspring.com.