| |
News Center | Mason News | News Center |
| SEARCH: |  |
| TheSpringGarden Plants & trees, gardening products & equiptment, homedecor | SunglassesEyeglasses All stunning brand names sunglasses at the great prices | DIYHomeSupplies Do it yourself woodworking projects & home remodeling supplies | UnitedPlus Gift Ideas. Diecasts, Figurines, American Heroes, and much more |
| CarPartsAccessoriesEtc Search and shop for auto parts & accessories online. Simple & Convenient | Sewing Machines Top notch sewing machines, vacuums, and appliances. For home or commercial. | Patio & Landscape Ready for family BBQ party this summer? A Large selection of outdoor furnitures | FontsWorld Looking for those cool fonts? Here, variety of all around the world fonts. Free Download. |
| |||||||
| Army What's up with the Army? |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-17-2008, 01:20 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 The Pentagon Early Bird 17 Jan 2008 January 17, 2008 Use of these news items does not reflect official endorsement. Reproduction for private use or gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. Item numbers indicate order of appearance only. This is the single print version. Use the PRINT command in your browser to print the entire Early Bird as one document. (NOTE: This single file format is a long document and can use 50 or more pages of paper.) Please Scroll down to read Headlines; then scroll down to read entire News Article.AFGHANISTAN
January 17, 2008 Netherlands Summons U.S. Official To Discuss Gates' NATO Criticism Ambassador offers 'clarification' of Defense secretary's comments about forces in Afghanistan. By Times Staff and Wire Reports THE HAGUE — The Dutch Defense Ministry on Wednesday summoned the U.S. ambassador as other American allies denounced criticism of NATO forces in Afghanistan by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. The U.S. ambassador, Roland Arnall, met with ministry officials to offer a "clarification of the comments" by Gates, said chief State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. Gates, in an interview with The Times, questioned whether North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in southern Afghanistan were adequately trained for counterinsurgency operations. "I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," he said in discussing forces in the southern region. Gates made the remarks last week during a trip to Southern California and Nevada. The comments were published in an article Wednesday. Although he did not criticize any country individually, Gates said he had raised the concerns at a meeting last month of NATO countries with troops in southern Afghanistan. Those forces are predominantly British, Canadian and Dutch. The question is considered sensitive for the Dutch, whose forces on Saturday killed two of their own troops and two allied Afghan soldiers in "friendly fire" incidents. After meeting the U.S. ambassador in The Hague, Dutch Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop downplayed the issue. "We assume this was a misunderstanding," Van Middelkoop told the Dutch broadcaster NOS. "This is not the Robert Gates we have come to know. It's also not the manner in which you treat each other when you have to cooperate with each other in the south of Afghanistan." The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, did not challenge the accuracy of the quotes but said Gates was "disturbed" that he might be seen as singling out a particular country for criticism. Instead, Morrell said, Gates had noted that "NATO as an alliance does not train for counterinsurgency. The alliance has never had to do it before." <A name=e20080117573866.html> Washington Post January 17, 2008 Pg. 18 NATO Allies Bristle At Criticisms From Gates By Molly Moore and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Foreign Service PARIS, Jan. 16 -- Some of the United States' closest NATO allies expressed anger and astonishment Wednesday at published statements by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates describing their forces as poorly trained for fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Gates's comments, which were reported in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, came the day after the Pentagon announced it would send about 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan because NATO allies had failed to contribute more troops. The main forces fighting Taliban efforts to regroup in southern Afghanistan include some of Washington's staunchest allies -- Canada, Britain and the Netherlands. Dutch Defense Minister Eimert van Middlekoop, whose government recently extended its commitment in Afghanistan for two years despite increasing public opposition, summoned the U.S. ambassador to explain Gates's criticism. "This is not the Robert Gates we have come to know," Van Middlekoop told the Dutch broadcasting agency NOS. "It's also not the manner in which you treat each other when you have to cooperate with each other in the south of Afghanistan." In Britain, Conservative Party lawmaker Patrick Mercer called the remarks "outrageous," the Associated Press reported. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the Dutch minister had summoned the ambassador, but he denied that the meeting had been "one of these sort of finger-wagging sessions and that it got emotional." Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said: "The secretary is not backing off his fundamental criticism that NATO needs to do a better job in training for counterinsurgency. But he is not -- nor has he ever -- criticized any particular nation for their service in Afghanistan." "The article was wrong in suggesting that he criticized individual countries," Morrell said of Gates. "In fact, he has routinely praised the Canadians, the Brits, the Dutch and the Australians who are in the fight in southern Afghanistan. He appreciates their service. He's sympathetic for the losses they have suffered." Morrell said Gates believes that NATO must train its troops better to deal with insurgents conducting asymmetric attacks and that, in particular, NATO training teams in Afghanistan must have such skills in order to properly teach and mentor Afghan security forces. Gates telephoned the Canadian defense minister, Peter MacKay, Wednesday to explain what he had said. MacKay later told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that Gates had expressed only strong praise for Canada's role. In the Los Angeles Times interview, Gates said, "I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations." "Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap," Gates said, a reference to the German region where a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was considered most likely during the Cold War. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer defended his troops, telling reporters at alliance headquarters, "All the countries that are in the south do an excellent job." Dutch, Canadian, British, Australian and U.S. forces are conducting most of the military operations in southern Afghanistan, long the Taliban's stronghold. Rugged Uruzgan province, where many of the allied troops are based, is the home territory of the Taliban's one-eyed leader, Mohammad Omar. The parliaments of the European countries with troops in the south had approved the deployments on the assumption that their forces would be involved primarily in nation-building projects to help Afghanistan recover from war. Instead, they have encountered some of the toughest combat in the entire Afghan theater. Italy, Germany and many other allies refuse to allow their troops to be deployed in the treacherous southern region. NATO officials said they were particularly galled by Gates saying: "Our guys in the east are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat. But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with." "Our troops, men and women, are well prepared for the mission," Col. Nico Geerts, the Dutch field commander in Uruzgan province, said, according to the Associated Press. "Everyone in the south, the British, the Canadians, the Romanians and our other allies, are working hard here. . . . I wouldn't know what the secretary of defense of America is basing this on." Tyson reported from the Pentagon. Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung in Washington contributed to this report. <A name=e20080117573850.html> ArmyTimes.com January 16, 2008 Gates Rejects Reports Of NATO Criticism By William H. McMichael, Staff writer On the heels of recommending a new U.S. troop deployment to support NATO operations in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “disturbed” that a news story published Wednesday made it seem like he was criticizing America’s NATO partners in Afghanistan for lacking essential counterinsurgency skills, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters today. The story, published in the Los Angeles Times, drew immediate criticism from NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. “I’m surprised because I have no indication — and neither has the military chain of command — that any country or countries are not exercising their tasks to the highest levels,” de Hoop Scheffer told Reuters. “I think there is no reason not to conclude that all nations, including the ones in the south, are performing very well.” The 43,000-member International Security Assistance Force is currently commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeil; current major troop contributors include Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Romania and the U.S., which has 14,000 troops assigned to the force. The story begins: “In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.” The story was based on a Jan. 7 interview, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. That was four days before Gates was briefed on the proposal, since approved by President Bush, to send 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan to help fend off what is expected to be an attempt at a spring offensive by Taliban insurgents. Morrell said Gates did not take exception to any of the quoted material in the story. But “the totality of the piece leaves the impression that the secretary is disturbed with the performance of individual countries in Afghanistan. He is not. He has never expressed such concerns, publicly, to anyone,” Morrell said. “His criticism ... is exactly what he told the Alliance” in December and repeated to the newspaper in January, Morrell said. “And that is that we as an Alliance have to adjust better to the new reality we find ourselves in — which is not preparing to fight the Soviet army coming through the Fulda Gap, but to fight what may be a persistent threat in the future.” The Alliance, he said, is “having to make up for those failings,” he said. Gates is specifically concerned, Morrell said, that NATO is sending to Afghanistan improperly trained 16- to 20-member operational mentoring and liaison teams, known as OMLTs, to conduct training for Afghani army and police forces. De Hoop Scheffer told Reuters that while he had not verified Gates’ comments, he did not recall Gates having raised the issue of counterinsurgency capability with him or at NATO meetings. Gates has publicly and repeatedly expressed concern that other NATO countries have not contributed enough combat forces and other capabilities to the coalition effort in Afghanistan — which, he said during a Dec. 19 news conference, “remains threatened by ruthless extremists and destructive narcotics trade.” Gates has said the International Security Assistance Force is short about 3,500 trainers, and a total of 7,500 additional troops would be needed to meet every command requirement. Gates expressed no concern during that news conference over any lack of capability in any member nation’s troops. Gates renewed his manpower concerns at a December meeting of NATO defense ministers in Scotland but acknowledged that “political realities” make it difficult, if not impossible, for some members to increase their commitments of troops. He said he would look for more “creative” solutions, such as an increase in funding for specific needs, like helicopter maintenance. The NATO effort to rebuild and secure Afghanistan, Gates said Dec. 19, “must be sustained and expanded into next year and beyond.” <A name=e20080117573782.html> Washington Times January 17, 2008 Pg. 1 NATO Seen Cool To Hot Spots In Afghanistan U.S. to send more troops as alliance falters By Sara A. Carter, Washington Times The U.S. has to send Marines to Afghanistan because other NATO members don't want to deploy forces to more violent areas and have not come through on their promises to send troops, congressional critics and intelligence officials say. The criticisms come while the Pentagon is planning to send 3,200 more Marines to Afghanistan and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is publicly criticizing NATO allies for lack of preparedness. "I'm worried we're deploying [military advisers] that are not properly trained, and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times for yesterday's editions. "Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained" for a Soviet army invasion in the Cold War, he said. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer immediately rejected Mr. Gates' remarks, telling reporters yesterday that NATO was up to the task and performing its duties. Members of the House Armed Services Committee have for months been privately voicing their opposition to sending more U.S. Marines to make up for NATO's flailing contributions in Afghanistan's more violent southern region. Ranking House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, told The Washington Times yesterday that NATO nations must be willing to commit 3,000 or more additional combat troops or risk losing lucrative "American tax-funded" defense contracts. "What I'm worried about is what's being pressed on the American forces in Afghanistan, particularly in the southern region with high combat activity," Mr. Hunter said. "The idea that only Americans will be willing to risk their forces, while NATO allies do so little, is remarkable." Mr. Hunter had sent a letter to Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, in October asking that he not approve deploying Marines to Afghanistan. "Installation of a new presence in Afghanistan will signal to recalcitrant allies that Uncle Sam is willing to allow them to shirk their fair burden in this war," said the letter, obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. Several military and congressional sources have told The Times that Mr. Gates is putting a diplomatic face on his public statements, but, behind the scenes, he and other U.S. military officials see most NATO countries as doing the minimum possible and taking on the least-risky tasks. Senior leaders of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said last year that another 7,500 troops were needed to confront Taliban insurgents and to help train new Afghan soldiers and police. "U.S. forces are shouldering the burden in Afghanistan," one intelligence official said. "The U.S. is not being unreasonable. NATO must be willing to do more." However, several NATO officials privately told the Associated Press they were surprised by Mr. Gates' reported comments, fearing they would add to tension within the alliance, in which Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have generally stood by Washington in urging more reluctant allies to do more in the fight against the Taliban. With the 3,200-Marine deployment, U.S. troops in Afghanistan will number 30,000. Britain is second to the U.S. with more than 7,000 troops in the country, while Germany has sent more than 3,000 troops and Canada about 1,700. The other 35 participating nations combined, mostly NATO members, have sent about 11,000 troops, according to International Security Assistance Force documents. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that the Marine deployment "is for a very finite period of time," and "we've made it clear, this is seven months. This is a one-time deal; that's it." As Mr. Gates' remarks spread across the Atlantic yesterday, the Dutch government summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation of his remarks. In Britain, Conservative Party lawmaker Patrick Mercer called Mr. Gates' comments "bloody outrageous." "I would beg the Americans to understand that we are their closest allies, and our men are bleeding and dying in large numbers," Mr. Mercer added. Later yesterday, Mr. Morrell said that Mr. Gates was "disturbed" that the Los Angeles Times article implied he was critical of individual NATO countries. Mr. Morrell said his boss was not misquoted but "for the record, he did not — to the L.A. Times or at any time otherwise — publicly ever criticize any single country for the performance in or commitment to the mission in Afghanistan." He said Mr. Gates was suggesting NATO, as an alliance, had not updated its training to include counterinsurgency operations. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said yesterday that "the idea that this was a vote of no confidence never entered my mind or anybody else's mind that I've discussed this with." But Mr. Hunter did criticize the response from NATO nations regarding Mr. Gates' comments, saying, "The numbers speak for themselves." "The NATO leadership has become a social group," Mr. Hunter said. "I think it is bad for us to simply acquiesce to NATO's reluctance." This article is based in part on wire service reports. <A name=e20080117573851.html> Financial Times January 17, 2008 Ashdown To Be UN Envoy In Afghanistan By Stephen Fidler and James Blitz in London, and Jon Boone in Khost, Afghanistan Paddy Ashdown, the British politician and former United Nations high representative to Bosnia, will be named soon as the UN’s new envoy to Afghanistan. The appointment of a high-profile figure to the position is designed to address poor co-ordination among multinational agencies, the military and the Afghan government that has jeopardised the international effort in the country. Yet, according to diplomats and international officials, a proposal was debated to give Lord Ashdown a position in Afghanistan simultaneously representing the UN, the Nato alliance and the European Union – so-called “triple hatting” – but was rejected. He will have a broader mandate, however, than his predecessor, Tom Koenigs. Lord Ashdown will have a close working relationship with Nato but will have to “rely on charisma and the force of his personality” to push through greater co-ordination, said a senior UN diplomat in Kabul. Lord Ashdown, 66, former leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, is to take the post after several months of negotiation with the Afghan government, the UN and Nato member states. “He wanted to be clear about his mandate and wanted to be sure he had a substantive job,” said a senior British government official. “You can’t co-ordinate all the strands that need to be co-ordinated in Afghanistan if you don’t have a sufficiently strong mandate to do so. The role that he will have has had to be agreed with a wide number of stakeholders, not the least of which is President Hamid Karzai himself.” The former royal marine has strong US backing. His experience of a country aiming to recover from conflict – he was in Bosnia from 2002 to 2006 – coupled with a background as a military officer and politician, are regarded as giving him strong credentials for the position. David McKiernan, the US general who Nato diplomats say is expected to take over in June from General Dan McNeill as the next commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, also has experience in the Balkans, although the two did not overlap. According to officials, Mr Karzai has been concerned that a UN super-envoy would undermine Afghan sovereignty as the country heads towards presidential and parliamentary elections next year. The UN secretariat and some member states have also been concerned that the UN might become identified too closely with Nato. Already UN officials in Kabul are alarmed that the organisation is no longer seen as an impartial provider of humanitarian aid. Several recent attacks on aid convoys have sparked fears that it is now seen as a legitimate target for insurgents. International hopes that the Taliban had hitherto avoided targeting civilian soft targets such as the offices of non-governmental organisations or places frequented by westerners have been shattered by Monday’s attack on the Serena hotel in Kabul. Taliban officials have threatened more attacks, including on restaurants favoured by Kabul’s expatraite community. There is also concern in Kabul that Lord Ashdown’s appointment will heighten popular anti-British sentiment. One senior European diplomat warned he should expect antipathy. “In the last year [Mr Karzai] has gone through phases of warmth and anger at the British. I believe this will continue with Ashdown.” <A name=e20080117573738.html> NPR January 16, 2008 Taliban Resurgence Strains Alliance In Afghanistan By Tom Bowman RENEE MONTAGNE: We turn now to another country that’s a top security concern for much of the world. The U.S. is sending an additional 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan. That decision was arrived at reluctantly after the U.S. failed to get NATO nations to increase their own troop numbers there, and it’s raising deeper questions about NATO’s role in Afghanistan. NPR’s Tom Bowman reports. TOM BOWMAN: More than six years after they were toppled, Taliban forces are resurgent. There was an average of 500 attacks each month last year. LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID BARNO [U.S. Army, Ret.]: It appears to be from the distance a much more capable Taliban and a strengthened Taliban from what we faced during the period oftime that I was there. BOWMAN: Retired Lieutenant General David Barno was the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 through 2005. BARNO: Just the size of the engagements, the number of evident casualties that have been inflicted on the Taliban indicate that they are a significantly stronger force. BOWMAN: And Barno says the U.S. may have unwittingly contributed to that resurgence beginning in 2005, first, by announcing it was turning over to NATO responsibility for the military operation in Afghanistan, second, by cutting 2,500 American combat troops. That sent a message to friend and foe alike, Barno says, that the U.S. was moving for the exits. NATO commands most of the 54,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, nearly half of whom are American. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wanted NATO to send about 7,000 more troops. Appearing before Congress just last month, Gates wasn’t ready to mince words. With American troops stretched in Iraq, NATO troops were needed in Afghanistan. DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: I am not ready to let NATO off the hook in Afghanistan at this point. BOWMAN: But by last week, Gates was ready to do just that. He moved swiftly to approve the added U.S. troops even though he worried about the message that sent to NATO. GATES: I am concerned about relieving the pressure on our allies to fulfill their commitments. BOWMAN: With violence flaring in Afghanistan, Gates had little choice but to turn to the Marines. At the same time, defense officials complained NATO is not focused enough on the most important part of fighting an insurgency, making life better by creating jobs, clinics and roads. That left Gates in a recent appearance before Congress to question the role of NATO, an alliance created to fight the Soviets. GATES: The Afghanistan mission has exposed real limitations in the way the alliance is organized, operated and equipped. We’re in a post-Cold War environment; we have to be ready to operate in distant locations against insurgencies and terrorist networks. BOWMAN: Those problems are spurring several Pentagon reviews about the way ahead in Afghanistan, one option being discussed would give the U.S. an even greater combat role in the country’s restive south, now patrolled by Canadian, British and Dutch forces. Meanwhile, there is also talk of appointing a high level envoy to better coordinate international aid for Afghanistan. That makes sense to American officers like Colonel Martin Schweitzer. He commands the 4th Brigade Combat Team in Khost Province in eastern Afghanistan, where he says more experts are needed to give Afghans a better life. COLONEL MARTIN SCHWEITZER [U.S. Army]: Specifically, we need assistance with agrarian development, natural resource development like natural gas, et cetera, because there’s natural gas in the ground here, and we need those smart folks to come over here and help us get it out so you can turn it into a product that can help sustain the government and the country. BOWMAN: A more robust Afghan economy may help cut into Taliban recruitment, but Barno and others caution that the Taliban are a regional problem. There’s a steady flow of radicalized recruits pouring over the border from Pakistan. Tom Bowman, NPR News, Washington. <A name=e20080117573740.html> Washington Post January 17, 2008 Pg. 1 U.S. Boosts Its Use Of Airstrikes In Iraq Strategy Supports Troop Increase By Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writer The U.S. military conducted more than five times as many airstrikes in Iraq last year as it did in 2006, targeting al-Qaeda safe houses, insurgent bombmaking facilities and weapons stockpiles in an aggressive strategy aimed at supporting the U.S. troop increase by overwhelming enemies with air power. Top commanders said that better intelligence-gathering allows them to identify and hit extremist strongholds with bombs and missiles from above, and they predicted that extensive airstrikes will continue this year as the United States seeks to flush insurgents out of havens in and around Baghdad and to the north in Diyala province. The U.S.-led coalition dropped 1,447 bombs over Iraq last year, an average of nearly four a day, compared with 229 bombs, or about four each week, in 2006. "The core reason why we see the increase in strikes is the offensive strategy taken by General [David H.] Petraeus," said Air Force Col. Gary Crowder, commander of the 609th Combined Air Operations Center in Southwest Asia. Because the United States has sent more troops into areas rife with insurgent activity, he said, "we integrated more airstrikes into those operations." The greater reliance on air power has raised concerns from human rights groups, which say that 500-pound and 2,000-pound munitions threaten civilians, especially when dropped in residential neighborhoods where insurgents mix with the population. The military assures that the precision attacks are designed to minimize civilian casualties -- particularly as Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy emphasizes moving more troops into local communities and winning over the Iraqi population -- but rights groups say bombings carry an especially high risk. "The Iraqi population remains at risk of harm during these operations," said Eliane Nabaa, a spokeswoman for the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. "The presence of individual combatants among a great number of civilians does not alter the civilian character of an area." UNAMI estimates that more than 200 civilian deaths resulted from U.S. airstrikes in Iraq from the beginning of April to the end of last year, when U.S. forces began to significantly increase the strikes to coordinate with the expansion of ground troops. The strategy was evident last week, as U.S. forces launched airstrikes across Iraq as part of Operation Phantom Phoenix. On Thursday morning in Arab Jabour, southeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military dropped 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives in 10 minutes, one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces north of Baghdad employed bombs totaling more than 16,500 pounds over just a few days last week, according to officers there. "The purpose of these particular strikes was to shape the battlefield and take out known threats before our ground troops move in," Army Col. Terry Ferrell, commander of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, said at a news conference in Baghdad last Friday, describing the Arab Jabour attacks. "Our aim was to neutralize any advantage the enemy could claim with the use of IEDs and other weapons," he said, referring to improvised explosive devices. Counterinsurgency experts said the greater use of airstrikes meshes with U.S. strategy, which calls for coalition troops to clear hostile areas before holding and then rebuilding them. U.S. forces have put the new counterinsurgency efforts into play by using their increased numbers to home in on insurgent strongholds. Colin Kahl, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University who studies the Iraq war, said airstrikes rose in 2007 because of a combination of increased U.S. operations and a realization that air power can have a strong psychological effect on the enemy. "Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary," said Kahl, who recently returned from a trip to the air operations center. "Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes." Senior Air Force officials said the greater use of airstrikes stems from better intelligence that provides a clearer picture of the battlefield. Commanders said the additional U.S. forces in Iraq over the past year have pushed insurgents out of urban areas and into places that are easier to target. "You see an increase in the number of kinetic strikes because we have found the enemy, we are finding the enemy's emplacement sites, manufacturing facilities for IEDs and caches of weapons," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, the U.S. Central Air Forces and Combined Forces Air Component commander. "And we're striking them." The Marine Corps keeps its own statistics for airstrikes in western Iraq but could not provide 2007 data. In Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO bombings picked up in the middle of 2006, coalition airstrikes reached 3,572 last year, more than double the total for 2006 and more than 20 times the number in 2005. Many of the strikes have targeted the Taliban and other extremists in Helmand province, and military officials said they have been able to use air power to support small Special Forces units that engage the enemy in remote locations. Human rights groups estimate that Afghan civilian casualties caused by airstrikes tripled to more than 300 in 2007, fueling fears that such aggressive bombardment could be catastrophic for the innocent. Marc Garlasco, a military analyst at Human Rights Watch who tracks airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the strikes carry unique risks. "My major concern with what's going on in Iraq is massive population density," he said. "You have the potential for very high civilian casualties, so you need really granular intelligence on what you're going to hit. But I don't think they're being careless." In preparation for last week's major airstrikes near Baghdad, North said, he met two weeks ago with Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division and U.S. forces in Baghdad, to walk through the plans. "What you're seeing in the last few days is a very deliberate process honed by intelligence, targeted and aligned to get the desired effect in a particular area," North said. Commanders also said they are using air power more creatively, in some cases dropping bombs that explode in the air to detonate insurgent roadside bombs. Other U.S. munitions have cut off small bridges or roads to isolate insurgent movement. As seen in Air Force videos, some attacks have been extremely precise, such as when a Predator unmanned aircraft fired an AGM-114P Hellfire missile to kill three extremists who were setting up a mortar attack on Nov. 7 in Balad. North said the Air Force has at times used concrete-filled bombs to detonate IED sites and is using 250-pound GBU-39 small-diameter bombs to make blasts safer for civilians. Commanders also have been using airstrikes on houses suspected to be rigged with explosives, called "house-borne IEDs." Such a strike happened Jan. 6, when soldiers with the 2nd Battalion, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team spotted five suspected insurgents with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 rifles apparently rigging a house with explosives near Khan Bani Saad, northeast of Baghdad. Lt. Col. Stuart Pettis, air liaison officer for Multinational Division North, said the unit asked for airstrikes. "After doing a show of force to get civilians out of the area, they engaged the house and the fighters with a 500-pound bomb," he said of the attack by two British Tornado GR4 jets. "They took the fighters out." <A name=e20080117573874.html> Wall Street Journal January 17, 2008 Pg. 10 Petraeus Is Undecided About Deeper Troop Cuts By Gina Chon and Yochi J. Dreazen WASIT PROVINCE, Iraq -- The top American commander in Iraq said that 30,000 American troops would leave the country by July but that he had yet to make up his mind about whether to recommend any additional reductions. In an interview, Gen. David Petraeus said he was working to finalize an assessment of security conditions in Iraq and the wisdom of further military withdrawals in advance of a high-profile appearance before Congress in March. When the 30,000 troops that were brought into Iraq as part of the Bush administration's surge withdraw, the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq will be down to 130,000, where it has held largely steady since the start of the war in 2003. Whether the troop levels go any lower remains an open question -- and one that threatens to reignite the debate over the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he hopes to see the U.S. military presence fall below 130,000 by the end of 2008, a position shared by many senior Pentagon commanders who worry the high troop levels in Iraq are causing growing manpower strains on the army. "The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system," Army Chief of Staff George Casey said in an interview this week. "And we need to find a way of getting back into balance." But President Bush made clear this week that additional troop withdrawals were far from a sure thing. After a meeting in Kuwait with Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Bush said he was open to slowing or stopping the withdrawal of troops to avoid jeopardizing recent security gains in Iraq. "My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me in order to make sure we succeed," Mr. Bush said, referring to Gen. Petraeus. The president's remarks highlighted the unusually central role Gen. Petraeus plays in formulating U.S. policy in Iraq, which will be on full display when the general testifies before Congress in March. In the interview, Gen. Petraeus said he and his commanders were analyzing three different scenarios to determine the pace and timing of any subsequent troop reductions. In one scenario, Iraq's security situation continues to improve as the surge forces leave, while in the other scenarios conditions hold steady or deteriorate. Gen. Petraeus declined to say how the various scenarios would affect future troop withdrawals, but Mr. Bush's comments suggest that reductions would stop if conditions worsened. "We're just into the early stages of the initial substantial drawdown," Gen. Petraeus said. "We need to work our way through this." As he toured the bustling Zurbitiya port of entry on the Iraqi-Iranian border, Gen. Petraeus said the U.S. military was struggling to determine whether Iran was honoring a recent pledge to stem the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives to Shiite extremist groups in Iraq. Some State Department officials argue that the Iranian government is actively trying to reduce the amount of armaments entering Iraq, but many senior U.S. commanders have long been more skeptical. In early January, the number of attacks against U.S. troops featuring powerful armor-piercing bombs that American officials have long linked to Iran increased, Gen. Petraeus said. But he said there has been a downturn in recent days, making it difficult to conclusively settle the question of Iran's role -- and intentions -- in Iraq. "Only time will tell," he said. <A name=e20080117573737.html> Christian Science Monitor January 17, 2008 Pg. 1 A Rift Over U.S. Troop Cuts In Iraq While General Petraeus is in no hurry for more than five brigades to leave, Secretary Gates weighs a bigger drawdown. By Gordon Lubold, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON --President Bush has declared that the planned troop drawdown in Iraq is "on track," but within the Defense Department, signs of disagreement are emerging over how much further US forces can be cut later this year. At issue is how much of a drawdown is possible after the expected departure of five combat brigades from Iraq this summer. Mr. Bush, who is in his last year in office, and Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, appear to be in no rush to reduce the number of troops any further. This is in the hope of ensuring that the improved security environment in Iraq stays that way. But some in the Defense Department, quietly led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, say that while the security gains in Iraq are to be carefully guarded, there is only so much the troops can do. They also see a limit to how many forces can be sent again and again to the war, now in its fifth year. Currently, about 160,000 US forces are in Iraq, including the roughly 30,000 troops deployed under the "surge" last year. The tug of war is illustrated by General Petraeus's recent requests for forces. He has asked for small numbers of troops to fill gaps left by departing forces to help manage operations as the broader drawdown continues, sources say. Those requests are giving Pentagon officials pause because many forces that could go have not had adequate time at home. "We just can't continue to give this way," says one senior uniformed official, who, like others in this article, asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. "At some point, we have to refresh and retrain those forces that are cycling through," says the official, who acknowledges the tension between Petraeus and those who provide the forces. If defense officials decide not to provide new forces to Petraeus, the message to him will be simple: Make the most of what you've got. "As we draw down, the expectation is that we would redistribute the forces we've got there instead of sending any new ones," says the official. "It's just good business practice." That thinking may also drive upcoming decisions on how many more troops can be withdrawn this year. General consensus has already been reached on the five-brigade drawdown, a proposal that both recognizes improved security in Iraq as much as it does the strain on American forces. But the consensus for other decisions has yet to come together. As Petraeus prepares for his testimony in Washington – previously slated for March but now likely to occur in April, sources say – he will weigh all his options before making a recommendation on troop numbers. Under one scenario, security in Iraq will stay about the same as the planned troop withdrawal occurs, Petraeus explained during a news conference in Kuwait over the weekend. Under another scenario, it deteriorates as US forces return home. A third scenario, Petraeus said, is that security actually improves as Iraqi forces develop more capability. "Certainly there is a possibility" of a drawdown beyond the five combat brigades expected to be withdrawn by July, Petraeus said at the news conference. But it's a question of timing and "conditions on the ground," he said. The tension between ground commanders and those who provide the forces is age-old. But as Congress and the US public see tangible security gains in Iraq, they now expect the benefits they can yield in terms of troop withdrawals. Petraeus is mindful of the strain on US forces, but he doesn't want to jeopardize the success he's orchestrated on the ground in Iraq, says a senior American officer in Baghdad. "There are of course many that would like to speed up the process to include those that are currently in Iraq," says the official in an e-mail. "However, with that said, there is no desire to rush to failure and to give up the gains that have been made and in many cases with the blood of our fallen and those that have been grievously wounded." Secretary Gates, meanwhile, who agreed to take the top job in the Pentagon more than a year ago, entered the fray with what many believed was a pragmatic view of the ability of US forces to sustain operations in Iraq. Gates has said in recent months that he would like to see the force in Iraq be cut to as few as 100,000 by December. He has since backed off using that number, but he still hopes to cut as many forces in the second half of 2008 as are expected to be cut in the first half. "We obviously want to sustain the gains that we have already made," he said last month. "If we were to continue the withdrawals at the level of the first half of the year, if the conditions permitted that, then that would bring us down by the end of the administration to about 10 brigade combat teams." Currently, 19 brigades are in Iraq. Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, has said repeatedly over the past few months that while security is important in Iraq, the Army is deploying at "unsustainable rates" and that soon the Army has to lower the rate of deployments. But some think it's unlikely that a drawdown of forces beyond the five brigades will occur while Bush is still in office. The primary interest of the president and Petraeus is to ensure that security continues to improve as the Iraqis prepare to assume more responsibility for their country, sources say. "I believe that [a reduction below] 15 brigades isn't going to happen during this administration," says another senior uniformed official. Speaking to reporters this weekend in Kuwait at a separate news conference, Bush himself appeared to give Petraeus license to keep as many forces in Iraq as he needed. "My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me, see," Bush said at Camp Arifjan, a sprawling US base there. Many in and outside the Pentagon believe time will tell if security gains will lead to more troop withdrawals. The question is when, says the first quoted official. "This is a very tedious balance right now in Iraq." <A name=e20080117573741.html> Washington Post January 17, 2008 Pg. 16 Female Suicide Bomber Attacks In Diyala By Amit R. Paley, Washington Post Foreign Service BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 -- A woman wearing an explosives-packed vest killed at least seven people Wednesday when she blew herself up in volatile Diyala province, U.S. military officials said. The attack was at least the fourth carried out by a female suicide bomber in Iraq since November, a sign that women are being used more frequently in insurgent assaults. Women reportedly carried out 11 suicide bombings in the previous 4 1/2 years. The bombing took place at 9 a.m. in the town of Khan Bani Saad, in southern Diyala province, where Sunni insurgents have recently fled after being driven out of Baghdad and Anbar province to the west. Lt. Col. Ismail al-Jubory, a spokesman for the Diyala police, said eight civilians were killed and seven injured. The U.S. military said seven people were killed and 15 wounded. Three U.S. soldiers were shot and killed in the neighboring northern province of Salahuddin, the military said. Two soldiers were wounded. The violence came a week after the U.S. military launched a major offensive in the north to drive out insurgents, including al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that U.S. officials say they believe is foreign-led. "This type of attack is very tragic, but it is no surprise that al-Qaeda in Iraq chose to attack at this time by using a suicide bomber against civilians," Lt. Col. James Brown said in a statement, referring to the Diyala assault. "Our recent operations in the area have resulted in the death of several key AQI leaders and have helped bring reconciliation between the area's tribal leaders." U.S. military officials said a key al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, identified as Abu Abd al-Rahman, also known as Abu Layla al-Suri, was killed Dec. 30 in Diyala province in a firefight with U.S. troops. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government announced that a 48-hour vehicle ban would go into effect Thursday night in Diyala, Baghdad and all of southern Iraq in an effort to control violence surrounding Ashura, one of the holiest Shiite holidays, when thousands make a pilgrimage to the city of Karbala. In Baghdad, two roadside bombs exploded near a college campus in the Bab al-Muadham area, killing three students and wounding 11, an Interior Ministry official said. And two members of a U.S.-backed Sunni militia were killed and four civilians were wounded when armed men attacked a Baghdad checkpoint manned by the militia, known also as an "awakening council." Special correspondents Zaid Sabah, K.I. Ibrahim, Naseer Nouri, Saad al-Izzi and Dalya Hassan contributed to this report. <A name=e20080117573863.html> Washington Post January 17, 2008 Pg. 16 State Dept. Official Disputes Iraq Report GAO Challenged Claims of Progress By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer Officials from the State Department and the Government Accountability Office disagreed yesterday over whether spending by Iraqi government ministries in 2007 accurately reflected claims of progress the Bush administration made last fall. In a much-publicized September report on benchmarks in Iraq, the White House said that Iraqi ministries had spent about 24 percent of their capital budget through July 15, 2007, and that the government was making "satisfactory progress in allocating funds to ministries and provinces." The Baghdad government's "budget execution is, indeed, a focal point as they continue to improve governance and move toward self-reliance," the administration said at a time when Congress was debating fiscal 2008 funding for Iraq. In a report this week, however, the GAO found that of their $6.4 billion budget for capital projects, the ministries "had spent only 4.4 percent of their investment budget as of August 2007," citing official Ministry of Finance reports. State Department officials told the GAO that they had relied on "unofficial" Ministry of Finance data that were more current. U.S. officials have touted Iraqi government spending as a sign of political progress. U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said recently that "different parts [of Iraq] are moving at perhaps different paces. . . . The economic elements, the budget formulation and execution is going increasingly well." A senior State Department official said yesterday that more recent data collected in Iraq will show that the ministries spent far more than 24 percent of their budgets. "We are predicting that when the final tallies are done in a month or two from 2007, we will have hit and may have exceeded 60 percent of the capital budget," he said. Joseph Christoff, the GAO official responsible for the report, said yesterday that his figures were reported by U.S. Treasury officials working with Iraq's Ministry of Finance. His latest numbers, which cover spending through October, show only a slight increase -- up to 8 percent of the total 2007 budget. He said the State Department is considering not just money spent on capital projects but also money allocated to such projects but not yet spent. "It is not just comparing GAO's apples to State's oranges," Christoff said. "State is including also bananas, apples and oranges." "The discrepancies . . . highlight uncertainties about the sources and use of Iraq's expenditure data," the GAO report concluded. It added that the "strikingly large" gap between the different assessments required the U.S. Treasury to work with the Iraqi ministry "to reconcile these differences." The administration has long recognized the problems with Iraqi government budgeting and has instituted a variety of programs to remedy the situation. Nevertheless, according to the GAO report, U.S. and foreign officials working in Iraq have said that "weaknesses in Iraqi procurement, budgeting and accounting procedures impede completion of capital projects." Spending by Iraq's Oil Ministry provides an example of the divergence between the administration's figures and the GAO's findings. According to the GAO, the Bush administration reported that Iraq's Oil Ministry had spent $500 million of its $2.4 billion capital budget by mid-July. However, the GAO found that spending on oil capital projects reached only $270,000, according to Ministry of Finance data. The State Department official, who discussed the data on the condition of anonymity, said the focus was misplaced. "The real test is: Are we seeing the effects of these capital expenditures on the ground? And we are seeing it," he said. "Services are being delivered [and the] slow, downward spiral of worsening services has stopped and is starting to come back." Delivery of services, he said, is "our number one goal" in Iraq for 2008. <A name=e20080117573847.html> Norfolk Virginian-Pilot January 17, 2008 Advocacy Group Says Tougher Laws Needed For Private Security Firms In Iraq By Dale Eisman, The Virginian-Pilot WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has shown “shocking indifference” to alleged crimes committed by private security contractors in Iraq, an international human-rights watchdog group charged Wednesday. Human Rights First said that while Congress needs to close legal loopholes that have helped Blackwater and other contractors avoid scrutiny, the Justice Department has failed to apply existing laws to prosecute contractor abuses. “The biggest obstacle is not the law, but political will,” said Maureen Byrnes, the group’s director. Its new 136-page report, “Private Security Contractors at War,” is “a milestone, a clarion call” for both Congress and the White House, said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who has led congressional efforts to toughen regulation of contractors in Iraq. When a whole system of laws and regulations is in place to make sure that troops are accountable for mistakes committed in battle, “it’s maddening to see contractors operate as though they are above the law,” Price said. The Pentagon’s use of private companies to provide meals, shelter and other services to the military and civilian agencies working in Iraq has freed up thousands of troops for combat, said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who joined Price in praising the report. “The issue is, let’s make sure that they play by the rules,” he said. According to Human Rights First, only one contractor has been tried for violence or abuse toward foreign civilians under a law passed in 2000 that governs crimes committed abroad. In contrast, the group said, more than 60 U.S. service members have been court-martialed in connection with the deaths of Iraqi citizens. The Justice Department took sharp exception to the findings. “The fact of the matter is that the department has charged a number of cases involving contractors, as well as other cases … involving military personnel, and many of the cases cited by the report in support of its assertion are, in fact, under active investigation,” said Paul Bresson, a department spokesman. “Investigation and prosecution of potential crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are complex, involve unique challenges … and, as a result, take longer to investigate and prosecute,” Bresson added. “Investigations in any foreign country face particular difficulties of language, evidence collection, logistical support, and coordination with a sovereign power.” Congress has been pressing for closer regulation of contractors in Iraq since 2004, when reports surfaced of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. A defense policy bill approved last fall includes provisions championed by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb that require the Pentagon to tighten its record-keeping on private security personnel and develop an identification system for vehicles operated by contractors. The legislation, which was held up by a presidential veto on other grounds but is likely to gain final passage next week, also requires that security contractors receive briefings on U.S., Iraqi and international laws on the use of force. Human Rights First said its review included court documents, media accounts and military records, including 610 “serious incident reports” arising from actions by security contractors in Iraq over a nine-month period beginning in July 2004. The military and private security companies are so closely intertwined in Iraq that even those incident reports are compiled by a contractor, Aegis Corp., that is commissioned by the Pentagon, the group said. Some contractors don’t bother to submit reports, and those that do often provide little useful detail, the report said. Even so, it added, the documents “reflect tactical patterns that pose serious risks to the civilian population.” The report also said “military officials in Iraq and industry insiders alike believe that significant incidents are likely both underreported and misreported by private security contractors.” Of the 610 incident reports reviewed by the group, “just one even suggests unwarranted weapons discharge by a security contractor,” according to Human Rights First . While part of the report reviewed violent incidents involving Blackwater and its employees, including a September 2007 shooting incident that killed 17 civilians and wounded 24 more in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square neighborhood, there appeared to be no new allegations against the company , which is based in Moyock, N.C. In the Nisoor Square shootings, “U.S. military officials accused Blackwater guards of firing at innocent civilians without provocation,” the report said, but Blackwater officials asserted that “the guards acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack.” The Nisoor Square shootings are among the incidents still under active investigation, Bresson said. Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, did not respond Wednesday to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment on the report. The company employs about 1,000 security personnel in Iraq and collected more than $832 million from the State Department for its services between 2004 and 2006, according to the report. One industry group welcomed the findings. Doug Brooks, director of the International Peace Operations Association, a group representing 30 security companies , showed up at a Human Rights First briefing on the report and told the authors, “We largely agree with your conclusions.” “Accountability is good for the industry,” he added. <A name=e20080117573756.html> DefenseNews.com January 15, 2008 Iraqi Air Force Could Have Fighters By 2011 By Bruce Rolfsen The Iraqi air force could be flying fighter jets by 2011, the U.S. Air Force’s top commander for Iraqi operations said Jan. 15. Lt. Gen. Gary North, head of the 9th Air Force, explained during a talk in Washington, D.C., that he envisioned the Iraqi air force having its own fighter jets by 2011 or 2012. The fighter model or its capabilities would be up to Iraqi commanders to decide, North added. The Iraqi military won’t get there without more help from the U.S. Air Force. North said that in 2008 the number of U.S. Air Force advisors working with their Iraqi counterparts should double to about 400 airmen. The Iraqi air force hasn’t flown a fighter since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. The invasion left what fighters Iraq had either destroyed on the ground of rendered useless when the Iraqi military buried many of the jets to keep them from becoming targets. Today, the Iraqi air force flies a mix propeller-driven airplanes and helicopters that primarily used as transports and reconnaissance aircraft. North said a first step to the Iraqi air force flying attack jets is adding weapons to its fleet of Cessna Caravans and Beechcraft King Air 350s and then acquiring a “light attack” airplane. Many of the Iraqi’s helicopters are already equipped with guns. <A name=e20080117573739.html> Washington Post January 17, 2008 Pg. 7 Army Chief May Shorten Tours In Iraq, Afghanistan By Summer By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army's chief of staff, said yesterday he hopes to shorten the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan this summer. The move would end a policy, required by the buildup of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq last year, that has placed significant stress on soldiers and their families. Casey suggested that the withdrawal from Iraq of five U.S. Army combat brigades by July could allow soldiers once again to deploy for 12 months and then spend a year at home, although he cautioned that a decision will depend on conditions in Iraq. "The big question is when you come off the 15 [months] . . . and the answer is probably sometime around next summer," Casey told a gathering of the Association of the United States Army. A decision would not be final "until I am sure we are not going back on that," Casey said in response to a question on the heavy pace of combat zone rotations. Pentagon and military leaders have emphasized that they seek to end the taxing 15-month-long Army tours as soon as possible, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates predicted during a visit to Baghdad last month that such a change would not be possible until the end of this year at the earliest. Casey's remarks could reflect an optimism shared by other senior military officials that the U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq announced last fall -- with five Army combat brigades scheduled to leave by July -- will continue apace after the summer. U.S. commanders in Iraq have begun planning for the possibility of a further reduction of another five brigades by the end of the year, with a recommendation on the drawdown expected this spring from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Casey, who became Army chief in April after serving for nearly three years as the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, has warned for months that the Army is "out of balance" and cannot long sustain the increased troop levels in Iraq. He reiterated those convictions yesterday but indicated that if current trends continue, the Army will return to a normal pace of training, deployments and recuperation within four years. "The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system," Casey said. "But as they come back over the spring, we'll start getting more flexibility back." As more troops return from Iraq, and as the Army adds tens of thousands of new soldiers by 2010, the number of combat brigades available to deploy will grow, Casey said. As a result, he said, "If we stay steady at about 15 active brigades [deployed] . . . we can put ourselves back in balance in about four years." <A name=e20080117573816.html> Los Angeles Times January 17, 2008 Pg. 1 Bush Sides With Navy In Sonar Battle He cites national security in aiming to override a judge's injunction aimed at protecting marine mammals off Southern California. An environmental group promises to fight his move. By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer President Bush on Wednesday moved to exempt Navy sonar training missions off Southern California from complying with key environmental laws, an effort designed to free the military from court-ordered restrictions aimed at protecting whales and dolphins. The president's directive was designed to short-circuit a long-running battle in which environmental groups have won court victories that frustrated the Navy's preparations for nine training missions over the next year, the first one set to begin next week. The battle pits concerns over injuries to marine mammals against troop readiness and national security. But with Bush's latest action, it took on overtones of a struggle between the administrative and judicial branches of government. U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper in Los Angeles, who ordered the restrictions, has called the Navy's plans "grossly inadequate to protect marine mammals from debilitating levels of sonar exposure." By contrast, the Navy asserts that it's already doing enough to safeguard marine mammals from harmful effects of the mid-frequency active sonar it uses to hunt for quiet diesel-electric submarines now operated by Iran, North Korea and dozens of other countries. In a memo justifying his action, Bush did not address environmental concerns. He said his decision would "enable the Navy to train effectively" for activities "which are essential to national security" and "in the paramount interest of the United States." The White House directive, issued late Tuesday and released Wednesday, set off a daylong rush through federal courthouses by Justice Department attorneys and lawyers for environmental groups. "We will vigorously oppose the president's illegal waiver of federal law," said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Bush's action was "an end-run" around the nation's environmental laws, Reynolds said. The complex legal situation involves two federal environmental laws and Cooper's court order. One law, the Coastal Zone Management Act, is designed to protect coastal and marine resources, including whales and other marine mammals. It has a provision allowing the president to exempt certain federal activities from the law's limits, said Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission. The other law cited by environmental groups, the National Environmental Policy Act, does not give the president such unambiguous power. Neither does Bush have the legal power to overturn a federal court order. So Justice Department lawyers followed his move with legal papers asking the federal courts to remove the order, which was a preliminary injunction that imposed an array of restrictions on the use of sonar, including its shutdown when marine mammals ventured within 2,200 yards of sonar devices. The Navy indicated Wednesday that it will not proceed with its training missions unless the injunction is set aside. The Justice Department, representing the Navy, asked a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside the restrictions by Friday. Justice Department lawyer Allen M. Brabender said Cooper's order "profoundly interferes with the Navy's global management of U.S. strategic forces, its ability to conduct warfare operations, and ultimately places the lives of American sailors and Marines at risk." "Each day that the injunction remains in force the Navy and national security suffer grievous harm," Brabender wrote. The appeals court responded late Wednesday by sending the case back to Cooper, saying the Navy needed to ask her first. Lawyers for the Navy plan to ask the judge to issue a decision by this afternoon. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs were left watching a legal ping-pong match, hoping they would get a chance to weigh in on the case. Coastal Commission director Douglas said he found the Bush directive "troubling" and "another example of this Republican administration overriding environmental protections under the banner of fear." The commission, Douglas said, has no clear way to fight Bush's action, the first presidential override of the coastal management law that since 1972 has given states the right to review federal activities that affect their coastal resources. The legal standing of the White House effort to override the environmental policy act is less clear. The White House Council on Environmental Quality asserted that regulations dating to the 1970s allow it to grant the Navy "alternative arrangements" in case of emergencies. Some legal scholars Wednesday questioned what they called the administration's self-manufactured emergency, noting that it had not surfaced as a legal argument until after nearly a year of litigation. If the Navy had complied with the National Environmental Policy Act to begin with, it wouldn't be in an emergency situation, said Daniel P. Selmi, an environmental law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. At the same time, he said, he was impressed with the "full-court press" of the White House, the Pentagon and federal agencies, including the filing of a classified affidavit by Navy admirals that can be seen only by the judges. "The federal government is pitching it as a full-blown matter of national security," Selmi said. "That puts an enormous pressure on judges to defer to the government." Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, said the regulations implementing the environmental policy act don't define what constitutes an emergency. But she added that the courts often defer to a federal agency's long-standing interpretation of the law. "It's an interesting question," Sivas said. "Is the agency's interpretation a reasonable one? Is it a reasonable loophole?" This isn't the first time the federal government has tried to short-circuit lawsuits brought by conservationists concerned about the effects of sonar on marine mammals. The Pentagon tried to circumventthe suit last year by exempting the Navy's training exercises from the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But the suit went forward under the two other laws, leading to Cooper's Jan. 3 injunction, which set out the toughest restrictions ever imposed on the use of sonar during training missions. The Navy asserts that it has 29 measures to protect marine mammals from harmful effects of mid-frequency active sonar, which has been linked to panicked behavior and even death of marine mammals. Citing the Navy's own studies, Cooper concluded that planned exercises off Southern California "will cause widespread harm to nearly 30 species of marine mammals, including five species of endangered whales and may cause permanent injury and death." Mid-frequency active sonar, first developed in the later days of World War II, has grown more powerful and has been used increasingly in coastal waters, the habitat of most marine mammals. Times staff writer Julian E. Barnes contributed to this report from Washington. <A name=e20080117573813.html> Aerospace Daily & Defense Report January 17, 2008 Navy Sticking With US101 For Presidential Helo; More Costly Mods Expected After considering alternatives to the Lockheed Martin VH-71 presidential helicopter - including upgrading the Sikorsky H-3s - the Navy has decided to stick with the US101 aircraft and fund more significant and costly modifications, according to sources familiar with the program and recent discussions between the contractor and the government. Added White House and Navy requirements are essentially turning the helicopter into another "Air Force One" - a reference to the president's fixed-wing aircraft fleet, which includes specifications not included at the program's outset, the sources said. As a result, the second phase of the program, "increment two," is going to cost the Pentagon an additional $1 billion, sources say, on top of the initial $6.1 billion price tag. Pentagon and contractor officials met Jan. 12 to review program options, sources said. That meeting concluded the alternatives were likely to work no better than sticking with the US101, with the structural modifications to extend its range beyond what the current airframes can deliver. While those modifications appear to be the major drivers of cost growth, delays and increased angst in the program, sources say it is likely Lockheed will still continue to get a black eye as a result - especially in its bid for the Air Force's combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter fleet replacement, a program worth $15 billion. Lockheed and Sikorsky lost to Boeing for the initial CSAR-X contract, although both had protests sustained by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Air Force is now reviewing the third revised set of proposals for the program. In review of the bids, Lockheed has taken serious knocks for its performance issues with the presidential helicopter. Both the CSAR proposal and the VH-71 use the US101 basic airframe. The Navy, the lead service for the presidential helicopter, has continued to press ahead with Lockheed in other helicopter acquisitions. And the VH-71 has had more modifications to consider than CSAR-X or other helicopter programs. It's a difficult task, sources say, for the customer and the contractor to put together a helicopter with hundreds of performance requirements and specifications driving |
