Barack Obama is daring the terrorists. He's standing in their front yard. He's calling them out.
Of course, that's not how it's reported. “U.S. ‘nowhere near' decision to pull all troops out of Afghanistan,” was the understated Reuters headline. Under negotiation is an agreement keeping 8,000 to 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan “through 2024 and beyond.” Also on the table are night raids and drone strikes that Afghan President Hamid Karzai refuses to allow.
More than 100 people (Hill staff, journalists, combat pilots and ground commanders, DOD officials and think-tankers) recently attended two events on a national security issue that is usually, even studiously, ignored in Washington: what is the most effective role of air power in war, and what is the thinking behind the Air Force leadership's decision to retire the whole force of A-10 close air support aircraft as soon as possible.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Almost single handedly, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has given the A-10 retirement issue, and the importance of the “Warthog's” close support mission, a visibility that neither have had on Capitol Hill since the days of the Congressional Military Reform Caucus of the 1980s. The importance of the A-10, its role in warfare and the future of the Air Force were all discussed in considerable depth at two events sponsored by the Straus Military Reform Project and the Project On Government Oversight.
Some, but far from all, of the issues were addressed in seven news articles prompted by the two events. More importantly, an amendment incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act by Senator Ayotte mean that the A-10 and close support issues are now rising to Washington DC's consciousness and will remain there for some months to come–until a growing fight is resolved.
We spent over a trillion dollars, killed tens of thousands, including thousands of our own, and destroyed a functioning country. And more than a decade later this is what we have to show for that grievous error.
Phi Beta Iota: Iraq was not an error. It was treason by Dick Cheney (VP) and George Tenet (DCI) enabled by complicity on the part of Colin Powell (SecState) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Al Qaeda is over-sold. What this is all really about is the complete loss of legitimacy by all governments, the corruption of all governance processes, and the emergent realization by the public that a populist uprising is necessary to restore intelligence with integrity to how we govern ourselves.
When you think about it, Santa Claus and the NSA have a lot in common—both can tell when you’ve been sleeping and know when you’re awake…
So our civil liberties elves here at the ACLU decided to make an NSA version of that classic holiday tune, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town,” taking a cue from Santa’s own secret surveillance program. And as one of the more than 35,000 supporters who signed our petition to Congress to rein in the NSA, we want you to have the first peek at the hysterical new music video!
This new video is the perfect way to show your friends that while Santa’s spying operation may be magical, the NSA’s is very real—and why we should all care.
The NSA has used every excuse from here to the North Pole to justify their unlawful spying operations, but we’re not buying it. And after all their deception, we’re not trusting them with a program so open to abuse of power.
There’s already good legislation pending in the House and Senate—we just need to get as many people as possible to stand with us and push Congress to pass it now.
A strange Washington Poststory gives readers the impression that morale is low at the NSA because President Obama hasn't visited to signal his support for the intelligence agency, even as Edward Snowden's leaks are causing many to criticize it.
The headline: “NSA morale down after Edward Snowden revelations, former U.S. officials say.”
The lead:
Morale has taken a hit at the National Security Agency in the wake of controversy over the agency’s surveillance activities, according to former officials who say they are dismayed that President Obama has not visited the agency to show his support.
What these “dismayed” sources told the newspaper:
Supporters of the NSA say staffers are not feeling the love.
“The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it’s been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,” said Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006. “They feel they’ve been hung out to dry, and they’re right.”
A former U.S. official—who like several other former officials interviewed for this story requested anonymity because he still has dealings with the agency—said: “The president has multiple constituencies—I get it. But he must agree that the signals intelligence NSA is providing is one of the most important sources of intelligence today. So if that’s the case, why isn’t the president taking care of one of the most important elements of the national security apparatus?”
Is this just an attempt to exert pressure on the president and stave off even the mildest criticism of the NSA? The sourcing here seems awfully shoddy. Is a former NSA inspector general who hasn't worked for the agency in seven years really qualified to pronounce upon the current feelings of every employee? Is the proposition that NSA staffers are all of one mind about recent controversies something we'd credit even if a current NSA employee said it? Did the anonymous “former U.S. official” ever work for the NSA? What “dealings” does he or she presently have with the agency, and how remunerative are those dealings?
After reading what these former officials had to say, Marcy Wheeler points out that NSA employees have a reason for low morale that has nothing to do with Obama's support:
Most of the NSA’s employees have not been read into many of these programs … That raises the distinct possibility that NSA morale is low not because the President hasn’t given them a pep talk, but because they’re uncomfortable working for an Agency that violates its own claimed rules so often. Most of the men and women at NSA have been led to believe they don’t spy on their fellow citizens. Those claims are crumbling, now matter how often the NSA repeats the word “target.” [PBI: Emphasis added.]
Remember the thumping of Obama’s war drums for a US attack on Syria last August and September, including his spokesmen’s absurd invocations of Kosovo as a precedent for a limited cruise missile strike on Syria? The trigger for hyping that war fever was a sarin gas attack in Eastern Ghouta, a Damascus suburb, on August 21. Obama was quick to blame Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for crossing Obama’s bizarre Netanyahu-esque “red line.”
Although he may not have intended it as such, all the publicity surrounding the recent published book by Erik Prince, founder of the private security firm once known as Blackwater, has actually served a useful public policy purpose; namely, highlighting the near ubiquitous presence of private military and security contractors (PMSC), as well as other types of private contractors, and the cost and benefits of using them.
When it comes to the costs of outsourcing formerly inherently governmental functions there are many different ways to calculate them but one relatively under-examined way is to consider the dangers of allowing what in almost any other industry would be considered a conflict of interest. Or. To put it more colorfully, does it really serve the public interest to allow a PMSC fox guard the government hen house?
Specifically, does anyone really think it is reasonable to assume that placing personal services contractors (Note: “personal services” is the umbrella category that all PMSC contracts fall under) in government procurement offices will produce dispassionate, objective assessments of the pros and cons of using PMSC?
Does anyone think that is a good idea; anyone, anyone at all? Hmmm, your silence is deafening.
Well, if you think this is an absurd idea rest assured you are not alone. William Charles Moorhouse is in the house. Major Moorhouse serves in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and is currently the Chief of Contract and Fiscal Law for the U.S. Army Expeditionary Contracting Command.
