Quadsville

Ever since the failed attempt over Christmas in which a Nigerian man attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight, there's been a growing din from media outlets about more "intelligence failures."  In addition, the finger-pointing has begun, and now everyone wants to assign blame.

I would submit that this incident doesn't represent an intelligence failure. The failure seems to rest with decision makers.  Intelligence informs.  Commanders, leaders, elected officials and decision makers are the ones who are charged with acting on it.

In this case, the intelligence seems to have covered all phases of the intelligence cycle.  It was collected, processed, analyzed and most importantly, disseminated.  For whatever reason, some decision-maker did not feel it necessary to put Farouk on the 'no-fly' list. In the end, TSA wasn't able to act on the available information.

Already, we're seeing that passengers are suffering for it, and I expect there to be even more knee-jerk restrictions placed on weary travelers.

Farouk should have never been on that plane, and the question isn't what sort of intelligence we're collecting, it's about our leaders and their decision-making process.  Somewhere, somehow...some decision maker didn't put Farouk on that list.

Anyone have any thoughts for discussion?

It's a good read, and highly recommended, and sure beats 10-second sound bites that come from TV media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Discussion?

Cheers,

Fly

 Here's the link:

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i36/36b00801.htm?utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

 Main takeaway from the article is this:  "A gulf between the military and the university is not healthy for American democracy. The constitutional order requires a civil-military relationship that protects military professionalism and autonomy, while also honoring the principle and practice of civilian control. Public awareness of national-security matters allows for a more effective partnership between the military and society. A public ignorant of the proper role of the military can lead to three major problems: uncritical support for military actions, or what Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, calls the "new American militarism"; endorsement of an opposite, antimilitary ideology that perceives the armed forces as evil or as the "other"; or a simple lack of knowledge regarding the military and strategic-security matters. National security is the cardinal duty of the state, and debate about the appropriate means of achieving security is a matter of vital importance to us all."

Comments?

Veterans Group’s Report Card Gives McCain Poor Marks

Republican Nominee Gets a “D”, Obama earns a “B” from nonpartisan IAVA

By Rick Maze  maze@militarytimes.com

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, (IAVA) a nonpartisan, non-profit group with more than 100,000 members, has issued a congressional report card in advance of the November general elections that gives an “A” to more than 300 lawmakers, including 150 who received an A+ for their support and votes on key issues.

But most of the attention of the Oct 7 report focuses on who got bad grades from the influential group that was called to testify before Congress more than 30 times in 2008 on issues involving combat troops and their families.

Seven lawmakers received a “D,” and two scored an “F.”  One “D” went to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the republican presidential candidate, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired Navy Officer and a decorated Vietnam veteran who spend 5 ½ years as a prisoner of war.

The Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who never served in the military but sits on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, received a “B,” as did his vice-presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware. 

Two people—both republicans—received an “F”:  South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and Texas Rep. Ron Paul.  Both have long records of opposing new spending, and Paul also missed several key veterans votes while running for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCain’s press office did not return several calls seeking comment, but his low score is the result of his missing six of the 10 votes used to calculate the grade and his failure to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which was a top priority for IAVA. 

McCain was one of the chief sponsors of a competing education benefits bill that IAVA and every other major veterans group opposed because its basic benefits would not have fully covered the costs of attending college. 

‘You’ve Got to Show Up’

Some McCain supporters said IAVA’s report card seems biased by holding McCain accountable for missing votes that ended up passing by overwhelming margins, showing his vote was not necessary, and grading him as if he had voted in opposition.  Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of IAVA and an Iraq war veteran, said there is nothing personal or partisan in McCain’s score.

“We did not plan it that way,” Rieckhoff said, adding that it is one thing to say you support veterans but another to cast the vote.

“You’ve got to show up,” he said. 

Rieckhoff said the scorecard shows most members of Congress are strong supporters of recent combat veterans. 

For senators, scores were based on 10 votes involving increased funding for veterans’ programs, expansion of benefits, the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and four separate votes at various stages of consideration on the Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights and co-sponsorship of the bill.

Fifty-five senators received an “A.” 

In the House, grades were based on 13 votes and co-sponsorship of the full-tuition GI Bill program that became law earlier this year. 

The votes were on bills that had to do with increasing veterans suicide prevention, refugee status for translators who worked with U.S. troops in Iraq, expanded wounded warrior treatment programs and ending the government’s policy of requiring repayment of bonuses by people who did not complete their military obligation because of death or disability.

Five House members received a “D,” while 250 received an “A.”

Vanessa Williamson of IAVA said the grades are based on items drawn from the associations legislative agenda, which was provided to every congressional office.

Getting a good score was on that difficult because many of the votes were unanimous or nearly unanimous.  In the Senate, only three votes on the Post-9/11 GI Bill made a significant difference in grades. 

In the House, two votes on the GI Bill and a 2007 vote about whether Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans should be given two years or five years of no-questions-asked health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs made the difference.

Rep. Susan Davis, D-California, chairwoman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel, who got a A+, said she was proud to work closely with IAVA to improve mental health benefits for combat veterans as well as education benefits.  “IAVA’s commitment and dedication to our veterans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is truly inspiring,” she said.  “I am honored by the recognition and look forward to working with IAVA in the next Congress.”

First, I’d like to acknowledge and applaud Sikpuppy for his recent posts on VA benefits.  I don’t think your posts are falling on deaf ears, and you’ve touched on an important issue, and you’ve struck a few chords that are worthy of discussion.

I’ve followed both VA issues and other items that affect both our active duty military and veterans.   Sikpuppy has highlighted and illustrated many of the shortcomings of the VA, and leveled much of the blame at republicans.  While I would argue that there are a good number of republicans that support VA benefits (Chuck Hagel comes to mind), the White House has a record of opposing new VA funding and measures, including the legislation earlier this year that involved VA benefits and the GI Bill.  The following link sums up many of the sentiments that Sikpuppy has already shared:

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/08/21/bush-administration-congressional-enablers-have-consistently-underfunded-the-va/

With an ever-increasing number of wounded and sick veterans, it seems like common sense that the nation should care for its veterans. The following link is to a survey that highlights this:

http://www.dav.org/news/news_survey_2008.html

As a legislative body, Congress continues to support VA benefits, and also improvements for our active duty forces, such as annual pay adjustments that keep up with inflation.   The Bush Administration has made plenty of press releases and claims to support military members and veterans, but more often than not opposes any increases.  In the interest of balance, the following link provides the White House perspective: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/veterans/

One quote from the White House web site was “Over the past seven years, the Administration has increased funding for veterans by more than 95 percent.”  True, but what you won’t hear is the fact the Administration opposed most of the measures…the president signed the various bills into law because either a) Congress would have overridden the veto, or b) it was forced into funding bills by Congress, and the President had to pass it to get other major funding approved for the wars.  Either way, Congress has increasingly bucked the President’s budget proposals for the VA, active military and military families.  A NYT article from earlier this year illustrates this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/washington/23spend.html?ref=nationalspecial3

I’ve pondered whether the subject should be posted in a “National Security and Foreign Policy” group, since I’ve been trying to figure out if this a national security issue.  My conclusion is “yes.”

Why?  Because the health and welfare of our troops and veterans is a reflection of America.  Caring for those who gave great sacrifice is more important than multi-billion dollar contracts to defense corporations. 

The common denominator between all veterans of military service is summed up in a simple quote I once heard (I can’t remember the author though): “Every veteran, regardless of job or branch of service wrote a blank check payable to the United States, for a value up to and including his/her life.”

It seems reasonable to me that the nation should reciprocate with the best care it can offer.

We ask our young men and women to volunteer…to make great sacrifices in the line of duty, and to assume hardships that most people have a hard time comprehending.

Earlier this year, the Bush Administration opposed the new VA funding bill, which included better GI Bill benefits.  The administration’s stance was summed up in the NYT article:  

---------

“The White House and the Pentagon said they feared that the bill would encourage men and women to leave the armed forces and enroll in college with federal aid, at a time when the military already has difficulty retaining troops to fight abroad.

But Mr. Webb and other supporters of the bill said the benefits would help the armed forces recruit and retain personnel.

“There are no politics here,” Mr. Webb said. “This is about taking care of the people who have taken care of us.”

---------

I agree with Senator Webb, and it should be noted that 25 republicans in the Senate broke ranks with the White House.  Plus, the White House pushed a specious argument, and eventually withdrew opposition…only when they realized it would be passed with a veto-proof majority.   Some more on the history of the GI Bill:    

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/sunday/main4200692.shtml

I would argue that better GI Bill benefits would HELP both recruitment and retention.  It demonstrates to prospective soldiers, sailors and airmen the level of commitment the nation has to them, which is only right, considering the level of commitment we ask of them to the nation.

I’d love to hear discussion on this topic.  I think Sikpuppy is correct…supporting the troops involves a lot more than yellow magnets and flag waving.

Does it enable presidents to better handle national security affairs and foreign policy?

What do the group members think?