In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
The Plan Jericho approach which the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has put in motion to shape a con-ops driven transformation process is built around the acquisition of new platforms, but then crafting ways for these platforms to operate and together in a joint manner to achieve the desired mission effects.
Plan Jericho really is about the transformation of jointness and finding ways for the integration of the new platforms into a more effective force.
It is about looking carefully at which platforms should do what in the joint battlespace and then to modernize those aspects of the platforms most appropriate for the desired combat effect.
It is about training the RAAF team, and reshaping the work force as new platforms become operational, and learning how best to adapt the maintenance culture to what new platforms bring to operations.
Prior to the Plan Jericho workshop at Williams Foundation, I had a chance to discuss some of these aspects of force transformation with Air Vice Marshal Warren McDonald in his office in Canberra on August 3, 2015.
I last had a chance to talk earlier this year with then Air Commodore McDonald, who was then in charge of the Air Mobility Group, about the impact of Operation Okra on the transformation of the force.
We started by picking up some of our earlier discussion to focus on the impact of the KC-30A on RAAF and allied operations.
McDonald underscored that because the KC-30A was a new platform, the RAAF was learning new ways to support the aircraft.
The Honourable Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Defence (right) is shown around a KC-30A Mutli Role Tanker Transport by then Commander Air Mobility Group, Air Commodore Warren McDonald, CSC during the 2015 Australian International Air Show. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defense.
The RAAF has deployed a single KC-30A to the Middle East operation but that single aircraft has delivered close to 30 million pounds of fuel since its arrival in late Fall 2014.
The aircraft has only needed a small technical footprint, some 10 technicians to deliver a mission success rate of around 95%.
“When you introduce a new platform like the KC-30A, you need to make sure you are not doing so under a legacy mindset.
You need to test your mindset in real operations and then draw your conclusions as to the best way to maintain that aircraft.
Once tested and verified you then need to shift your older maintenance approach to a new one, and subsequently reshape your workforce.
This does not happen right away; it is a process that will take five to seven years see fully mature.
Nothing in the personnel space happens quickly, particularly when you must adapt to such a change.
The technical workforce changes we see happening in the KC-30A will be seen in the workforces of any capability we introduce, the P-8A and F-35 are other examples.
In other words, we need to reshape our workforce to optimize the new capabilities that we are introducing, so that we aren’t stuck with a legacy of the past.
It’s not that we don’t value our maintenance personnel, they are key to our success on any operation.
However, we must acknowledge the significant advances in engineering that have occurred, and therefore reshape the balance of air maintenance personnel inside air force.”
Air Vice Marshal after the Second Line of Defense Interview at his office in Canberra, August 3, 2015. Credit: RAAF
Question: You are adding to your tanker fleet as well?
Air Vice Marshal McDonald: “Yes, we are adding two additional aircraft to our current fleet of five.
The two aircraft were purchased from the Qantas 330 fleet.
One of the two is already in Spain being modified.”
Question: You are part of the global sustainment approach of the C-17, do you see something akin to this for the KC-30A fleet?
Air Vice Marshal McDonald: Yes we are a part of the very successful C-17 sustainment system and I would like to see a similar model bought in for the KC-30A.
But what first needs to be worked out is how to tap into the commercial parts pool for the global commercial A330 fleet.
Right now the military certification of the KC-30A does not readily translate into the commercial certification of a A330 so that even though the parts are often the same we cannot tap into the commercial parts pool.
Obviously, this makes little sense.
It’s blindingly obvious, but sometimes you have to be quite innovative to make that blinding obvious come into an executable outcome.
We can have a KC-30A parked on the tarmac next to a group of A330s and know they have the parts we need in their repair and support bays but we cannot access them.
We need to solve this one.
Question: Australia has been the lead nation on the KC-30A, how has this impacted on others who are looking to buy a tanker or are introducing the tanker?
Air Vice Marshal McDonald: It was a challenge getting the KC-30A into service, but the results are there for all to see, particularly in the Middle East.
The Singaporeans talked with us at length about the aircraft and we provided them with our experiences associated with the program and aircraft. I am aware that the success of the Australian program fed into their own decision as it did in South Korea.
The thing that’s sometimes missed with being a lead customer on the KC30 means you must also forge a path for air to air refueling clearances.
Without them it is just a transport aircraft and useless to the fight.
Clearances are about enabling the tanker fleet to operate in a global context and thereby contributinge meaningfully to coalition operations.
We are well underway with clearances, which then other global users can simply draw upon.
The Honourable Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Defence (right) is shown around a KC-30A Mutli Role Tanker Transport by then Commander Air Mobility Group, Air Commodore Warren McDonald, CSC during the 2015 Australian International Air Show. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defense.
For example, Singapore is obviously watching us closely as we move into F-35 clearances the latter part of this year, because for Singapore when their tanker is delivered there will be a JSF clearance already taken care of.
We are working very hard to get as many clearances for the KC30A as possible, as such we’re working towards at the C-17 in the second quarter of 2016.
And then in the third, fourth quarter we’re looking at P8.
With Singapore and South Korea operating the KC-30A as well, means that we can mass capabilities in an area.
Operating in the Middle East also allows us to become more and more comfortable and flexible working with other countries using our platform.
Question: An example of your transformation approach has been what you are doing with your C-130Js. Could you describe the process and how you are addressing the future of this platform as a joint asset?
Air Vice Marshal McDonald: With the KC-30A and the C-17, we really do not need to use the C-130J as a transport aircraft.
And we are adding the C-27J to do that mission with a wider variety of austere locations in the region where we might need to operate.
What then with regard to the C-130J?
A clear path is to make it a combat asset integrated with the ground forces to inert them into areas of interest.
But to do this effectively we need to add SATCOM and ISR capabilities, which we have done, are doing.
By doing so this triggers a change in Army whereby they can look to link digitally with RAAF assets to create a more effective joint combat package.
By enabling them to have all that decision authority, and full understanding of situational awareness aboard the C-130J, you then have a very good joint blade to spearhead an operation.
And we are doing similar things with the C-17 whereby we have added broadband communication to the aircraft along with Air View 360 to the back of the aircraft to provide situational awareness and communications tools for our troops onboard.
This is Plan Jericho in action, which is a con-ops driven approach.
One looks for the appropriate technology for the appropriate platform to shape the effect which you need to create in the battlespace, rather than having simply a technological driven approach.
Editor’s Note: This is the fourth of a series of interviews with senior officers in the RAAF which preceded and followed the Plan Jericho session held by The Williams Foundation and which will then be followed by an overview report on the Conference and the evolving RAAF approach to the transformation of jointness under the impact of evolving air-enabled operations.
It is about design driven concepts of operations which is at the heart of the Plan Jericho approach.
They are being joined by European based F-22s as well in Europe to work with the NATO allies.
The F-22s have flown for many years in Red Flag with allies.
Typhoon pilots have addressed their experience in flying with F-22 in Red Flag and have described the impact as significant for them as well.
Group Captain Paul Godfrey has been involved with Typhoon training with the F-22.
Based on that experience, Godfrey commented
The F-22 has unprecedented situational awareness.
And working with Typhoon, the F-22 enhanced our survivability and augmented our lethality.
The F-22 functions as a significant Situational Awareness (SA) gap filler for the operation of a fourth generation aircraft.”
The F-22 operating in the Middle East has brought new capabilities to the combat environment as well.
During an AFA breakfast meeting earlier this year, ACC Commander General “Hawk” Carlisle highlighted the F-22 role.
The F-22s have played an important role in Middle East operations.
They have combined within the fleet strike, ISR, and support capabilities.
He gave an example of one F-22 pilot who within a 12-hour mission during the night, variously conducted strike, ISR, and armed escort missions with several air refuelings during the night mission over Syria and Iraq.
And we will publish a series of interviews from Australia where the Royal Australian Air Force discuss their operations with F-22s as well in their transition to operating their own fifth generation aircraft.
But the Air Marshal of the RAAF has already weighed on the importance of working with the F-22s for the RAAF.
Question: Your Super Hornets flew for the first time in combat with F-22s.
What was the experience and what did you learn from that?
Air Marshal Davies; We have flown in Red Flag with F-22s and that training was crucial to operations in the Middle East. The pilots came back and said “it was just like in Red Flag.”
For us, at the moment the F-22 is a surrogate for the F-35, although with regard to combat systems and roles, the F-35 will be superior to the F-22.
But the point is to get the operational experience.
What we discussed at last year’s Williams Seminar with the Marines present is our basic point: What does a Super Hornet bring to 5th generation and what does the 5th generation bring to the 4.5 generation aircraft?
And to be clear, the F-35 brings significant knowledge about the battlespace and how to more effectively operate in the battlespace, manage the battlespace and dominate in the battlespace.
All of this will be an evolving work in progress, and that is inherent in our Plan Jericho approach (i.e., the fifth generation enabled transformation strategy) where discovery is expected and then the implications of discovery for evolving concepts of operations and prioritizing technological needs will follow.
The core point is that F-22s and F-35s do not operate, as do legacy aircraft and the Greek chorus of critics on the F-35 and the fifth generation transition simply blow past this combat reality.
This has also been helped by the very low public profile which the F-22 combat force has had as well.
As the former head of ACC, General Hostage put the challenge of understanding the dynamics of change:
Question: The last time we met, we learned that you had become the first ACC Commander to actually fly the F-22. We were impressed. From your perspective, how will the challenge of working the F-22s and the F-35s be worked with the legacy fleet?
Well, I was fortunate to fly the airplane, I learned what I didn’t know.
U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Joshua Bard, a crew chief with the 43rd Aircraft Maintenance Unit, straps in Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, into an F-22 Raptor for his qualification flight at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo by Christopher Cokeing/Released)
I was writing war plans in my previous job as a three star using the F-22s in a manner that was not going to get the most out of them that I could’ve because I didn’t truly understand the radical difference that the fifth gen could bring.
People focus on stealth as the determining factor or delineator of the fifth generation, it isn’t, it’s fusion. Fusion is what makes that platform so fundamentally different than anything else. And that’s why if anybody tries to tell you hey, I got a 4.5 airplane, a 4.8 airplane, don’t believe them. All that they’re talking about is RCS (Radar Cross Section).
And you’re not going to put fusion into a fourth gen airplane because their avionic suites are not set up to be a fused platform. And fusion changes how you use the platform.
What I figured out is I would tell my Raptors, I don’t want a single airplane firing a single piece of ordinance until every other fourth gen airplane is Winchester. Because the SA right now that the fifth gen has is such a leveraging capability that I want my tactics set up to where my fourth gen expend their ordinance using the SA that the fifth gen provides, the fifth gen could then mop up, and then protect everybody coming in the next wave.
It’s radically changing how we fight on the battlefield.
We are fundamentally changing the tactical battlefield. How a tactical platform operates with the fusion of fifth gen.
What the aviators do is fundamentally different in a fifth gen platform versus fourth gen in the tactical fight.
Lt. Col. Berke, the USMC F-22, F-35 and legacy pilot and squadron commander. has put the transition in clear and blunt terms:
Berke described the challenge he faced going from being a very successful pilot in 4th generation aircraft to confronting the disruptive change associated with fifth generation.
He faced a situation where pilots with much, much, much less experience than he had were able to excel against him as he brought fourth generation mindsets to the F-22.
I showed up with guys about half my experience, who were just annihilating me in the airplane.
They just understood things way better than I did.
It was a very difficult transition for me.
So much of what you knew as a pilot didn’t apply.
It was very frustrating to make fourth generation decisions – my Hornet brain – inside an F-22.
A lot of those times, if not most of the times, those decisions proved to be wrong.
U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft pilots assigned to the 95th Fighter Squadron at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., fly in formation Aug. 28, 2015, over Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. This is the first training deployment of the F-22 Raptor in the U.S. European Command theater.(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Christopher Ruano/Released)
One might note, given the high cost of pilot training and the key role of the combat pilots in the air combat force that learning to fly yesterday’s airplanes creates a mind set that actually can undercut the capabilities to use 5th generation aircraft such as the F-35 effectively.
It is not just about wasting time, effort and resources; it is about undercutting the speed with which the F-35 can have an impact upon the combat force.
When he was able to grasp how to think differently as a combat pilot in the F-22, he recovered his ability to perform combat dominance.
You have so much more to offer the three-dimensional world than you did prior to really figuring it out.
When you realize that your contribution to air warfare is about that, and you’re doing it much better than you can in any other platform, you start to recognize your contribution on war fighting as a Fifth Gen aviator.
And what made the F-22 different suggests how the F-35 is different.
The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels.
It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.
“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.
The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast.
The least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.
It is its ability to master the battlespace is where it is most impressive.”
Rather than focus on speed is life and more is better, the Raptor has started the rupture in air combat whereby information dominance in the battlespace is the key discriminator.
Berke believes that the replacement mentality really gets in the way of understanding the air combat revolution that fifth generation capabilities have introduced and that will accelerate with the F-35 global fleet.
He argues for the need really to accelerate the leap into fifth generation-enabled combat forces for the US and its allies.
The video below which shows the F-22s coming to Europe has been created from a series of USAF released videos, thereby showing the range of activities to deploy the aircraft from Florida to Germany.
This first-ever F-22 training deployment to Europe is funded by the European Reassurance Initiative, and provides support to bolster the security of our NATO Allies and partners in Europe.
The F-22s and Airmen are from the 95th Fighter Squadron, Tyndall AFB, Fla.
The C-17 is from the 60th Airlift Wing, Travis AFB, Cailf.
Editor’s Note: In the Spring of 2012, Harald Malmgren wrote a report which largely anticipated what is now happening in China and assessed what he thought might be the consquences.
We are reissuing the report which can found below which provided his assessment at that time.
The Chinese are very likely headed for a hard economic landing. This economic dynamic is coming in the context of a significant political transition within China itself.
The two will intersect with each other to shape the evolution of China, Asia and the world beyond.
During 2012 and 2013 a massive, generational change will take place across most of China’s leadership. At the same time, Chinese economic growth is slowing markedly, ending decades of double-digit economic growth.
Under Communist leadership, China’s economy was long powered by exports to the rest of the world, but China’s international competitiveness has recently been eroded by rising costs of labor, materials and energy.
Foreign demand for China’s exports has dramatically weakened as a result of continuing global financial crises set in motion in 2007 and 2008. China’s domestic demand is not yet strong enough to pick up the slack from faltering exports.
At home, China’s financial bubbles in real estate and commodities are bursting, its banking system is crumbling under the weight of massive misallocated and nonperforming debt, and its peoples are suffering from inflation in food, fuel and daily essentials.
Around the world, investors are now considering whether China’s economy will have a hard landing, or just a period of slower economic growth.
The answer depends in part on whether or not the world economy experiences stronger recovery from the financial shocks of the last few years.
But the answer also depends upon how quickly the new leadership can agree on, and implement, new economic policies to address severe stresses on the economy.
This in turn depends upon whether the political transition is smooth, or whether China will experience a lengthy period of turbulent power struggles among the many new leaders who will take over from their predecessors.
Based on dealings with the Chinese investor class, it is very clear that there is every prospect of a hard economic landing. In the last few years in China there has emerged an array of autonomous private investors that I refer to as China’s “investor class.” This includes high net worth families and managers of giant investment funds as well as individual entrepreneurial families.
Their individual and collective wealth has growing influence on how China’s economy functions, and therefore on how the political superstructure functions.
The “investor class” has not been given much attention by foreign press, media, academic economists, or market analysts.
One reason may be that the investor class has only in recent years become a significant segment of the Chinese economy, with many of today’s asset managers and senior traders relatively young, and the elder high net worth individuals reluctant to operate transparently.
Direct discussions with many of the Chinese “investor class” families reveal a widespread worry that a troubled transition of leadership will distract attention of the government and impede orderly implementation of new economic and financial policies.
The Intersection with and Impact on the Chinese Political Transition
Very broad, generational turnover of leadership is taking place at the same time as the Chinese economic engine is faltering.
There are widespread fears among China’s investor class that political power struggles may interfere with timely economic policy decisions in response to domestic and global slowdown.
Power struggles may distract the most senior levels of government, especially during a period of transition when a “learning curve” will prevail as new leaders experience interaction with each other and with each other’s power base.
Such fears have already been given validity by the events following the fall of Chongqing’s Communist Party leader and Politburo member Bo Xilai, and questions about his wife’s involvement in businesses and conflicts with foreigners, and allegations of involvement in murder of a foreign business partner.
Allegations of corruption at such a high level of governance have highlighted public concerns about disparities in treatment of powerful families in contrast with treatment of ordinary citizens before the law.
Making matters even more complex, one of the principal political supporters of Bo Xilai has been Zhou Yongkang, one of the 9 members of the Politburo Standing Committee, whose personal responsibility is to oversee the security and law enforcement apparatus of the entire nation. If his authority were to come into question, the credibility of the nation’s laws and law enforcement would also come into question.
Moreover, this role as overseer of security and law enforcement implicitly encompasses extensive awareness of the extent of corruption and aggregation of wealth – including wealth that may have been positioned outside China. If the overseer of such information is perceived as favoring or shielding privileged members of the power structure at either national or local levels, this could open a chain reaction of yet additional power struggles not only among leaders but also among the wider populace.
The extraordinary downfall of Bo Xilai and the implicit power struggle behind pose acute embarrassment for both the outgoing and the incoming Chinese leadership, because it raises questions about the moral authority and “legitimacy” of the central government and of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
Eventually, as the debate continues about Bo’s bold “red revival” and the alternative of incremental relaxation of central control, it is likely that questions will arise about the relative effectiveness of such alternatives.
Greater public controversy can also be expected about the extent to which corruption is implicit in the harsh selection of winners and losers in the ‘red revival” scenario.
Consequences
China’s “collective leadership” will change along with generational change in the next few years.
Will internal strains be manageable if the economy’s performance proves disappointing to the people of China?
Within China, will there be a reversion to previous hard line Cultural Revolution dictates or will China’s decision system continue its recent path towards collective leadership in support of an increasingly diversified, entrepreneurial, innovative society?
Externally, if the Communist Party leadership finds itself paralyzed by faltering economic growth and domestic controversies over unfairness and injustice, will it need to divert attention of the wider public to conflicts with other nations, particularly with neighboring nations such as India, Vietnam, and Japan?
Will the PLA lay claim to a greater share of national wealth to enable itself to project power beyond China’s neighborhood, ostensibly to protect China’s supply lines with Africa and the Middle East, and even beyond?
Will China’s leadership be able to exercise multilateral leadership on a global scale, supported by its vast accumulation of foreign currency reserves, or will those reserves have to be drawn down to help levitate a failing domestic economy?
Ultimately, the rest of the world not only awaits the outcome of this major transition in China’s leadership, but its impact on the global economy.
Can China’s new leadership think global, or will it be forced by daunting domestic challenges to remain focused on domestic survival for the next several years?
Dr. Harald Malmgren is a recognized expert on world trade and investment flows.
At Yale University Malmgren was Scholar of the House and research assistant to Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling, graduating BA summa cum laude in 1957. At Oxford University, he studied under Nobel Laureate Sir John Hicks, and wrote several widely referenced scholarly articles while earning a D.Phil. in economics in 1961. After Oxford, he was appointed to the Galen Stone Chair in Mathematical Economics at Cornell University.
He began government service under President Kennedy as an adviser to the Secretary of Defense. Under President Johnson he became the first Assistant US Trade Representative. He left government service in 1969, to head research at the Overseas Development Council, and to serve as adviser to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. At that time, he authored International Economic Peacekeeping, a guide for negotiations on trade liberalization during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1971-72 he also served as principal adviser to the OECD Secretary General and as a senior adviser to President Nixon on foreign economic policies. President Nixon subsequently appointed him the Principal Deputy US Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador. In this role he served Presidents Nixon and Ford as the US chief trade negotiator.
In 1975 Malmgren left government service, and was appointed Woodrow Wilson Fellow at the Smithsonian Institution. Since 1977 he has been adviser and strategist for international corporations, banks, investment banks, and sovereign wealth funds. He has also advised finance ministers and prime ministers of a number of governments around the world. Over the years, he has continued writing on economics, markets, and public policy. He also serves as Chairman of the Cordell Hull Institute in Washington, a private, not-for-profit “think tank” which he co-founded with Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State.
My last assignment when working at the Institute for Defense Analyses was supporting the staff for the 1995 Roles and Missions Commission.
This Commission was headed by John White, who later was Deputy Secretary of Defense, and was formed to address a number of issues mandated by the Congress, including lessons learned from foreign militaries which could be applied to US forces.
I worked on the lessons learned part of the effort and at the time it seemed to us that the Brits, the French and the Israelis had the most to teach us, and with a focus on public-private partnerships certainly the British who were far and away the leading MoD in pursuing this approach.
We worked hard and talked with many of the foreign militaries and came up with a good cut at the challenges and ways to adopt sensible things which others had been done.
When presented to the Commission, we were told that the research was good but irrelevant because “the Department of Defense is so much larger than every other Ministry of Defense so that no lessons could be learned or applied to DoD from foreign militaries.”
Certainly this thinking continues to thrive and survive inside Washington and beyond.
Yet with the diversity of challenges and dynamics of change in 21st century operations, this is less and less true.
And how various allies and partners deal with change and challenges is not only important for themselves, but any power which wishes to work with them.
The first Royal Australian Air Force F-35A Lightning II jet arrived at Luke Air Force Base Dec. 18, 2014. The jet’s arrival marks the first international partner F-35 to arrive for training at Luke. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Staci Miller)
And coalitions need to be built from those who can work together for common strategic purpose, not simply forged by those who wish to show up or as part of the list to generate the largest number of possible of participants.
With the coming of the F-35 global coalition, change will be driven more effectively by the edge forces, the USMC and smaller coalition airpowers.
There will be more integration, and less stovepipes getting in the way of the change which a fleet of flying combat systems able to operate in 360 combat space can deliver throughout an entire combat force.
Evidence of the impact of the smaller forces generating change is clearly the Royal Australian Air Force and its partner the Williams Foundation.
Where do you find cutting edge thinking about the impact of fifth generation airpower DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC on changing the entire approach to combat operations?
Washington?
Paris?
London?
Amazingly it is in Canberra, a town characterized by a Quantas staff member when flying into Canberra, as a place where you do not want to do everything during the day for you will have nothing to do at night.
I will be focusing upon the Plan Jericho approach as well as a wide range of interviews with the RAAF at leadership and squadron levels over the next few weeks and then circle back to highlight some key findings about the rethink and working of a defense transformation strategy in Australia.
The Williams Foundation hosted a seminar early in 2014 which focused on air combat operations through 2025 and identified key impacts which the new platforms of the RAAF and the coming of the F-35 would enable in transforming the force.
Then earlier this year, the Williams Foundation co-sponsored a seminar in Denmark to discuss the evolution of airpower. This was not US-led, but Australian-led which is a statement all by itself.
And then this August, the Williams Foundation sponsored a seminar where the RAAF could discuss in public its approach and involved a large number of officers debating the way ahead.
As one US industrialist who attended noted: “The level of detail and scope of the discussion about how to shape new combat capabilities was amazing. And I wish we would see the USAF return to a leadership role in providing leadership in a transformation debate.”
I remember well a long discussion I had with Herman Kahn when I was a graduate student about his relationship with the USAF in thinking about the way ahead, and the challenges to innovate but the importance of leadership in the USAF to break glass to shape a way ahead.
John Blackburn presenting at the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium, April 17, 2015. Credit: The Williams Foundation
In an article entitled In Defense of Thinking, Kahn underscored the importance of innovative thinking to shaping a way ahead:
In 1960 I published a book that attempted to direct attention to the possibility of a thermonuclear war, to ways of reducing the likelihood of such a war, and to methods for coping with the consequences should war occur despite our efforts to avoid it.
The book was greeted by a large range of responses some of them sharply critical.
Some of this criticism was substantive, touching on greater or smaller questions of strategy, policy, or research techniques.
But much of the criticism was not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the views I expressed.
It was concerned with whether any book should have been written on this subject at all.
It is characteristic of our times that many intelligent and sincere people are willing to argue that it is immoral to think and even more immoral to write in detail about having to fight a thermonuclear war.
We clearly need Kahn-like strategic thinking re-established in the United States.
But emotionalism and sentimentality, as opposed to morality and concern, only confuse debates.
Nor can experts be expected to repeat, “If, heaven forbid. ….,” before every sentence.
Responsible decision makers and researchers cannot afford the luxury of denying the existence of agonizing questions.
The public, whose lives and freedom are at stake, expects them to face such questions squarely and, where necessary, the expert should expect little less of the public.
All we now get is carping and political positioning from what passes for strategic thought.
For example one can look long and hard for the discussion of how exactly the United States would enforce its will on Iran when necessary to enforce the “agreement” with Iran.
It is not just about providing leadership in military operations; it is showing up and leading public debates as well.
I doubt if US politicians want this; but that is really beside the point.
And what think tank in Washington today would welcome a Herman Kahn?
The importance of a Foundation and an Air Force shaping a public debate about transformation under the influence of the F-35 is significant.
With the coming of a global fleet, and almost dead silence from the Air Forces acquiring the aircraft, it is refreshing to have a public force countering the Greek chorus undercutting the evolution of airpower and air-enabled operations.
The RAAF like the USMC is an F-18 fleet, which is moving from the F-18 to the F-35.
The RAAF does not see the F-35 as simply a day-one aircraft; but sees it very much as the USMC as a flying combat system to enables the entire force. The Royal Australian Air Force has made it very clear that the F-35 is the baseline aircraft for 21st century operations; the Super Hornet will be a contributing and complimentary asset for the RAAF.
The global enterprise of F-35s will not only generate pilots, maintainers, but also parts and upgrades amortized by the investments of multiple nations.
And weapons revolution will be a key dynamic as well, and the F-35 global fleet will receive regular focus of attention from the entire gamut of US and allied weapons manufacturers for a simple reason: there will be so many of them and in the hands of multiple users world wide.
And the global intelligence impact of the F-35 fleet will be significant for all users – the worldwide fleet will be major signals intelligence assets as part of its normal operation as tron warfare aircraft.
But you do not need to take it from me – just talk with the Aussies!
The (then) Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, is enthusiastic about the F-35’s stealth capabilities.
He was on the receiving end of fifth-generation stealth technology when he flew an F-15 “aggressor” against F-22 Raptors on Exercise Red Flag in the United States several years ago.
“We were never in a situation where we saw them at any time on radar or infrared,” Air Marshal Brown said.
“We never knew where they were or where we were killed from, so we had no situational awareness.
Then to go back and look at the situational awareness the F-22 had, it was quite a dramatic difference.
It the same sort of technology we’re getting but a little bit more advanced in some respects with the F-35.”
Air Marshal Leo Davies providing the opening address at the Plan Jericho Conference held by the Williams Foundation in Canberra, Australia, August 6, 2015. Credit Photo: Second Line of Defense
He said the jump between a fourth- and fifth-generation fighter was dramatic.
“It’s the difference between being in a biplane against a monoplane pre-World War II, the difference between a piston engine and a jet – it’s one of those game-changing events,” he said.
Air Marshal Brown said the announcement of an additional 58 Joint Strike Fighters allowed Air Force to plan for the full withdrawal of the 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets.
“The Hornet’s been the mainstay of our air combat fleet for nearly 30 years.
To be signed up to the future means we can go forward and plan how we’re going to transition,” he said.
“The transition will be quite a difficult thing to do because we need to move people from that era of technology into a completely different generation.”
Air Marshal Brown said the F-35As would need upgrades to maintain their combat edge but the Joint Strike Fighter program was designed for easier improvements than the F/A-18s.
With so much capability inherent in generation 4.5 fighters, it has been often asked why do we need 5th generation?
The answer to this is simple: we need to ensure we conduct tomorrow’s air combat operations with tomorrow’s capabilities.
Historical examples highlight loud and clear that today’s technology won’t be suitable in 2025, and certainly not in 2035.
And his discussion of the F-35 focused on a key element which will become evident as the F-35s in the Pacific becomes a fleet of enablers for deterrence in the depth: decision making superiority.
To achieve decision superiority in 2025 and beyond, Air Combat Operators will need to be able to see who and what is in the area of operations, with very few limits to arcs of coverage.
The fusing of multi-spectral sensors and electronic support must enable targets to be detected without the knowledge they are being tracked.
The cueing of capabilities must not be limited to on-board sensors; they must be available from multiple off-platform sources.
The networking capabilities of these future air combat assets must be a force multiplier.
They must be able to feed, and be fed from, multiple sources.
The end result is that the pilot must be able to focus solely on the fight, not allocating time and effort to managing data that supports the fight.
As the F-35 systems become realities, concepts of operations will change significantly and here the Air Marshall sounded a bit like Admiral Halsey who focused constantly on the importance of what he called, “training, training, and training.”
New capabilities breed new methods, and how a 5th generation fighter undertakes these missions in 2025 and beyond are unlikely to resemble yesterday’s air combat operations. In future, as it is now, the ability to integrate all the fundamental inputs to capability will still be what determines relative combat effectiveness.
The ability to fly an aircraft does not mean you have the ability to fight the aircraft.
This is never more so than in 5th generation fighters.
This is where training will be so important to our success in future air combat operations.
In spite of the reality of the coming of the F-35 so evident in USMC and RAAF behavior, we continue to see arguments for alternatives based on claims, which can be challenged by the reality of the aircraft itself.
So we learn from a Danish piece, reproduced in a Canadian newspaper, that the Super Hornet should be bought rather than either a Eurofighter or an F-35.
And we learn that Denmark does not need an F-35 because it is primarily a day one of the war airplane and Denmark does not really need that.
We learn that it is hard to maintain; we learn as well that the Super Hornet will be fully supported over the next thirty years.
And last time I looked, no one will be operating the Super Hornet in the Danish neighborhood, and the Dutch, Norwegian and British engagements in the region with F-35s seem to not show up as well.
And because one is never really certain when day one is, the aircraft’s ability to scan the battlespace, fuse data and share that data with an integrated fleet or transfer it elsewhere makes this a core intelligence asset in shaping pilot knowledge of the evolving combat space prior to the first shot being fired.
As Admiral Manazir put it with regard to the F-35:
The fifth generation is bringing us the opportunity and indeed the imperative to fundamentally alter the way we look at air warfare. The F-35 is not an A or an E or an F; it is all of those.
Earlier we had an F-14, an A-6 and an EA-6B and needed all three to do our job; now one airplane blends those capabilities and we can leverage that as we look at the integration of the other capabilities of the air wing we are developing.
Fifth generation is opening up so many possibilities that how we used to think about our capabilities is changing; how do we wring out the full capabilities of the air wing with the fifth generation as a catalyst for change?
The Williams Foundation and the RAAF are to be congratulated for publically discussing the way ahead in airpower under the impact of the F-35.
As John Blackburn, the guiding light for the Williams Foundation and a former Air Vice Marshal of the RAAF, put it whimsically when discovering fifth generation wine in Australia:
“We are so advanced in this country, we even have fifth generation wines!”
The Pacific area is certainly not Europe or the Middle East from the standpoint of shaping a deterrence strategy.
It is about the US providing a core set of capabilities to protect its national interests and working with core allies and a wide range of partners to shape a more effective defense of the region.
It is not about building a coherent and permanent alliance structure aimed against either Russia or China.
It is about shaping capabilities, which solves problems, builds trust and shapes capabilities, which can provide for deterrence in depth.
As one Aussie strategist put it: “We all work bilaterally and multilaterally to focus on issues and solve problems.
The US provides the hub within which our working relationships can be effective.
And of course, our own special relationship with the US goes beyond this to sharing core values and core working relationships among our militaries.”
Exercises among allies and partners are a coin of the realm in the Pacific in shaping the trust and habits of cooperation necessary to succeed when operations are necessary throughout the range of military operations.
Habitual partnerships are a key element of shaping an effective deterrence in depth strategy in the Pacific.
The Russians and Chinese focus on bilateralism in the region and working client states.
The role of the Chinese Coast Guard is indicative in the region: the Chinese have asserted that their Coast Guard Cutters are capable of sinking any ship their size or smaller, not exactly the focus of attention of other Coast Guards world wide.
The head of the Chinese Navy has similarly, asserted that no smaller nation should be able to stand up to a great power like China.
One PACOM official has characterized the Chinese as the “thugs of the sea.”
The focus of US attention in the Pacific will necessarily have to focus on dealing with China, but the Chinese want to make this about China versus the US; the US in contrast understands that the Pacific is about shaping effective multilateral relationships to solve problems and provide for collective security which in turn provides the venue within which deterrence in depth is possible.
An SH-60B Seahawk assigned to the “Saberhawks” of Helicopter Anti-submarine Squadron Light 47 lands aboard the Republic of Singapore Navy guided-missile frigate RSS Steadfast during flight deck qualifications with the Republic of Singapore Navy. Credit: US Navy, 3/26/2008
A country like India as it comes out into the Indian Ocean understands the challenge of China but has not fully embraced working partnerships with the Untied States, Japan or Australia for fear of being committed to a classic alliance strategy.
The government certainly needs to strengthen its working relationships with those countries, including legal agreements to share data and technologies,but it really is not about being part of a permanent alliance against China.
It is about shaping a 21st century effort to provide for collective security, effective partnerships which shape a deterrence in depth strategy against any country which wishes to use military force to change the rules of the game by force, or seize territory illegally.
During my visit to Hawaii at the end of July 2015, I had a chance to discuss the evolving partnership efforts of PACFLEET with William J. Wesley, Director, Plans and Policy, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Wesley has a wealth of experience in the Pacific, including combat experience in Vietnam as a Marine.
“As the N5, he is the chief architect for the coordination and preparation of the Pacific Fleet input into U.S. Pacific Command’s Theater Campaign Plan, which supports the Secretary of Defense’s priorities for creating new partnerships, coalitions and building the capacity of existing international friends, allies and partners to support confidence building measures throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific rim.”
Understanding the Character of Working Relationships in the Pacific
We started by Wesley simply underscoring how different the Western Pacific was from Europe and that the significant differences created problems in understanding inside the policy elite of how to shape alliance and partnership strategies in the region.
090628-N-7058E-064 SOUTH CHINA SEA (June 28, 2009) The guided-missile destroyer USS Chafee (DDG 90) fires its 5-inch gun at a ship-deployed surface target as the Royal Malaysian Navy ships KD Lekir, KD Handalan and KD Sri Indera Sakti and the guided-missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93) maneuver in formation during a surface gunnery exercise, part of the at-sea phase of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Malaysia 2009. Credit: US Navy
“The sensitivity on sovereignty issues is a core reality in the region, regardless of size of the state.
And working partnerships is the norm in a multi-lateral setting without permanent alliances being forged. It is an ongoing set of working relationships to solve problems.
The Chinese operate differently.
Xi Jinping and Wu Shengli, who’s the head of their navy, have all said the same thing at different times.
They said it’s not good for little countries to argue with big countries, or little navies argue with big navies.
So they do everything bilaterally.
That’s a given.”
He illustrated the working approach with regard to ASEAN..
“The key approach is to shape partnerships through confidence building measures and shaping trust and reliability.
“In 2013, ASEAN did a HA/DR exercise in 2013.
Then the next step was doing a maritime security exercise in Australia. It is a step by step process we see in the region.”
The Case of the Indian Navy
We then discussed at some length the case of India, and notably working with the Indian Navy.
“I think what people have to realize about the government of India, it’s very bureaucratic.
The Indian Navy is about 55,000 strong.
The air force is about 120,000 strong.
Sailors aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey (DDG 97) salute an Indian navy ship as Halsey prepares to pull into Chennai, India. Halsey is on a deployment to the Indian Ocean. Credit: Navy Media Content Services, 4/7/12
The army is a million.
They’re more of a continental army, centric organization.
They worry about China through their gap there. They’re worried about Pakistan.
I’ve been working with the Indian Navy for 21 years.
I also sponsor our Center for Naval Analyses and National Maritime Foundation talks.
The Indian Navy wants to work more closely with us.
They’re opening up to Japan very well, so you have a better relationship now with the Indian Navy and Japan, the JMSDF, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.
We have a very close relationship with the Indian Navy.
And the prime example is our Malabar exercise, which is an Indian exercise that the navy does normally in the Bay of Bengal.
Sometimes they’ll come out towards the Philippine Sea and beyond to do it with Japan and the US.
This year, we’re going to do it in Malabar. India, Japan, and the U.S. are involved in the exercise.
And they have opened the aperture to work Japan, Australia, Singapore and us.
And the relationship between OPNAV and the Indian Navy is very good as well.”
Question: The P-8 sale must provide an opening as well and the new agreements to work with India on helping on carriers must as well?
“They do. We have established a relationship with our carrier admiral that’s going to have a relationship with one of their vice admirals to talk CVNs and CVs.
Now they can advance their carrier capabilities.
They want to do better.
I think that’s an ongoing relationship.
We have worked really hard to help them from a maintenance perspective to understand the maintenance of their ships because we’ve sent our N43 there a number of years ago to help them.
The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group and the Indian Navy’s Western Fleet sail in formation in front of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan during a passing exercise. Credit: US Navy. 10/22/2008
I think we’re going to reinvigorate that aspect of it.
We also have opportunities for a number of the returning carriers to do fast exits and CV ops with them.
We’re doing that as well.
And another thing we are doing with the Indian Navy is submarine safety.
That’s another huge thing that we’re working with them on.
I see is there are a lot of opportunities there.”
Question: There is obvious concern with the emergence of the Chinese Navy.
Do you see this as a motivating factor in working with the USN and other allied navies?
“I do.
There is a sense of urgency, noticing how PLAN with their submarine ops and with their transiting counter-piracy groups going to the Indian Ocean are moving more westward.
This has caused concern with the Indian government obviously.
That’s why you saw Prime Minister Modi go to Sri Lanka, and reestablish a relationship with Sri Lanka.
He’s the first prime minister to do that in 28 years.”
Question: The P-8 provides an opportunity for sharing as well, but the sale was limited because of the continued refusal of the Indians to sign what we consider normal, namely an agreement to protect the communications side of share equipment.
Is there progress in this area?
“Not yet.
The Indians have not signed the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement or CISMA and this limits what we can do with India or how we can work the P-8 issues.
Until they sign the CISMOA, you can’t have the real open discourse with them on the classified side.”
Wesley added that they were going to host a seminar with the Indian Navy at Camp Smith in early September 2015.
Habitual Partnering
He then illustrated the challenges and the nature of evolving partnerships in the region by discussing the Regional Maritime Security Initiative or RMSI.
“A dozen years ago, it didn’t have a lot of traction.
Nobody wanted to do it.
But today there’s more effort to work together, to try to have some type of structure without the U.S. in the lead, supporting the effort.
For us, the goal is enhanced maritime security, maritime domain awareness, and information sharing in the region that we can be part of as well.”
He then cited steps, which have indeed done that.
There are new maritime security centers now in Singapore and Malaysia.
“And now Indonesia wants to step forward. They want to do more maritime security issues because of Natuna Island and the Chinese behavior. And then Malaysia is allowing us every other month basically to fly P-8 flights or P-3 flights out of Malaysia. And we have a Malaysian military officer on board when we do that going through the Straits of Malacca. Things that are happening that 12-15 years ago would never occur.”
Question: Could we talk about Vietnam? How do you see Vietnam reaching out into the region?
“I was in Vietnam as a young kid, ’66, ’67. So a few years ago, we had a number of admirals come over here for a meeting.
We sat down.
I sat next to a guy who spoke a little bit of English, an admiral from the People’s Republic of Vietnam’s navy.
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM (July 20, 2012) – Military Officials from Vietnam observe Tripler Medical Assistant Team during the Humanitarian Assistant/Disaster Relief Scenario in order to participate in future international training evolutions during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise. Credit: U.S. Navy
He looked at me and asked me if I’ve ever been to Vietnam.
I said, “Oh, yeah, I was there 1966, ’67.”
And then as he’s eating his soup, he kind of put the soup spoon out at me, “Were you?” I went, “Oh, yeah.”
But now have a working relationship.
I started our Vietnam navy-Navy talks five years ago.
They were a little bit curt, a little bit difficult, not a lot was achieved.
We just finished our fifth iteration and that went very well.
What we’re doing is undersea medicine, military medicine, our medical diplomacy efforts working in this theater, maritime security issues, and submarine rescue.
Of course we have a defense attaché in Vietnam but we have also a medical attaché and for two years a Naval attaché in Vietnam.
What I see is the slow movement with various countries and determine how they want to move forward.
But glacial steps are huge.
We’re taking huge steps with Vietnam. SecNav has been there a couple of times.
Vietnamese sailors depart the guided missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) following a shipboard in Da Nang, Vietnam, April 7, 2014, in support of Vietnam Naval Exchange Activities (NEA) 2014. Vietnam NEA is an annual collaboration focusing on noncombat events and skills exchanges in areas such as navigation and maintenance. Credit: US Navy
SecDef has been there.
In fact, we’ve had our PACFLT commander there.”
We then discussed the importance of the CARAT exercises in building habitual relationships, which enable enhanced collective security.
The Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (Exercise CARAT) is a series of annual military exercises conducted by United States Pacific Fleet with several member nations of ASEAN in Southeast Asia.
“We started out with six countries.
Today, we now have 10 countries involved in the exercises and it’s evolving from bilateral.
We want to go multilateral, trilateral with it. Vietnam calls it naval engagement activities because they don’t want to say they’re exercising with us, so instead they’re doing naval engagement activities.
Singapore looks at CARAT as a high-end exercise.
With Vietnam, it’s a low-end event.
They finally went out to sea for a few hours, which is a big step forward.”
The Australian Working Relationship
Question: I am going next to Australia, and how do you view Australia in this evolution of Pacific defense from a maritime perspective?
“I think what’s happening is obviously they’re looking at a way to get their next generation submarine. That’s going to be huge for them.
They’re looking at amphibiosity – if you want to use that word, how to use amphibs.
Jervis Bay, Australia – US Navy sailors assigned to USS Chosin are seen participating in combined navies exercises and an International Fleet Review in Sydney from Sept. 29 through Oct. 18, 2013. Credit: US Navy
We’re working very closely with them.
We’re looking at the relationship that we have with New Zealand, Australia, France, and us to shape more effective maritime security policies, not only in Oceania but also elsewhere as well.”
The interview with Wesley provides an understanding both of the challenges in shaping effective policies in the region as well building out an effective deterrence in depth strategy.
As Lt. General Robling, then MARFORPAC Commander put it in an interview in Hawaii last year:
It’s not about just building relationships in the region. It is about collective security in the region.
Building collective security requires, in part, a process of building partner capacity, and working convergent capacities to shape effective and mutually beneficial relationships which underlie the evolution of collective security.
Editor’s Note: In a discussion with the RAAF during the Australian visit, the P-3 community which is now training for transition to the P-8 in Jacksonville, Florida, the failure of India to sign the CISMOA agreement with the United States also reduced the ability of Australia to work with India on the platform and shape common concepts of operations,
This is less about US hegemony than having agreements in place which allow sharing of the communications and intelligence sharing which a platform like the P-8 delivers.
But here is a view of the CISMOA by some in India as well as a look at other issues mentioned in the article concerning India:
2015-08-25 In this video shot on August 24, 2015, a key member of the ECLAS-M Seabee team describes the basic capabilities of the Elevated Causeway System-Modular (ELCAS-M) and answers questions about how it might be used.
According to a press release from the 2nd Expeditionary Strike Group:
8/15/15 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA – Seabees and Sailors assigned to Amphibious Construction Battalions (PHIBCB) 1 and 2 along with other Naval Beach Group (NBG) 2 commands are constructing the Elevated Causeway System-Modular (ELCAS-M) on Anzio Beach at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek/Fort Story through September 2015.
The ELCAS system is a modular pier which can be built to a length extending up to 3,000 feet and can be assembled where port facilities are damaged or non-existent to provide logistics support to joint forces after an amphibious assault of an enemy beach or while conducting humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
Active and Reserve Component Seabees from PHIBCB 2 and PHIBCB 1 will be constructing 480 feet of ELCAS pier at Anzio beaches 2 and 3 during the training event.
Starting in July, PHIBCB 2 began the embarkation and site preparation phase of the ELCAS operation.
Following embarkation and site preparation, construction of the ELCAS pier will take place in August with crews working ten-hour daily shifts, seven days-a-week until the build is completed.
Throughput operations, the offloading of vehicles, equipment, and containers from water craft onto the pier head and then transporting the cargo via trucks down the pier and over the beach, is slated to take place at the end of August/early September.
Upon completion of throughput operations and following the Labor Day holiday, disassembly of the ELCAS pier and retrograde of the system will take place throughout the month of September.
The ELCAS has not been built since 2011.
80274random1.05.0
The photos in the slideshow show various aspects of the operation.
The first credited to 2nd ESG shows the pier in toto.
The other photos are credited to Second Line of Defense and show the crane as well as the piles being driven into the sides of the pier to support its operation.
The pier can be built out to 3,000 feet and can be configured to accommodate the ships needed to support an operation.
2015-08-25 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA – Seabees and Sailors assigned to Amphibious Construction Battalions (PHIBCB) 1 and 2 along with other Naval Beach Group (NBG) 2 commands are constructing the Elevated Causeway System-Modular (ELCAS-M) on Anzio Beach at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek/Fort Story through September 2015.
The ELCAS system is a modular pier which can be built to a length extending up to 3,000 feet and can be assembled where port facilities are damaged or non-existent to provide logistics support to joint forces after an amphibious assault of an enemy beach or while conducting humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
Active and Reserve Component Seabees from PHIBCB 2 and PHIBCB 1 will be constructing 480 feet of ELCAS pier at Anzio beaches 2 and 3 during the training event.
Starting in July, PHIBCB 2 began the embarkation and site preparation phase of the ELCAS operation.
Following embarkation and site preparation, construction of the ELCAS pier will take place in August with crews working ten-hour daily shifts, seven days-a-week until the build is completed.
Throughput operations, the offloading of vehicles, equipment, and containers from water craft onto the pier head and then transporting the cargo via trucks down the pier and over the beach, is slated to take place at the end of August/early September.
Upon completion of throughput operations and following the Labor Day holiday, disassembly of the ELCAS pier and retrograde of the system will take place throughout the month of September.
It is the goal of Second Line of Defense with the publication of this article to begin a series on the problems with the Veterans Administration.
It is hoped that visibility into VA problems by highlighting key challenges – including specific instances of corruption and malfeasance will inform the Presidential Debate.
Since Fox chose the participants for the first Republican debate, this article focuses on those individuals in that debate.
THIS is NOT a series to bash or take cheap shots at VA in fact just the opposite: it is past time to drive accountability and if necessary bring significant structural change to Title 38, for without such change, problems will not be resolved.
This is direct feedback from a combat disabled Vietnam Veteran who worked with President Reagan’s Vietnam Veteran Leadership Program and is a good statement of the issue:
“From personal experience I have seen the good and the bad at VAMCs and you are correct the good are really dedicated but the bad get away with no accountability!”
The Unasked Question During the First Republican Presidential Debate
“America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war: America is at the Mall”—Words written on a white board in combat very early in our never ending Middle East wars.
The first Fox Presidential 2016 debate is over so hopefully America can see the strengths and weakness of individuals who wish to become the next Commander-in-Chief of our country. Unfortunately, the ego driven moderators, Brent Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace did not live up to the trust and confidence they wished to instill in the process. The fact that many in the media are applauding their shallow, superficial and nasty lines of inquiry is testimony to the intellectual dry rot that passes for journalism today.
A simple news flash for the entire production crew of Fox News, the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln. In his historic for the ages Second Inaugural Speech on March 4 1865, a month before his assassination on Good Friday April 14, 1865, he said the following-
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Of all the issues covered no one in the entire Fox Production Team thought of the 22 million American Veterans who are being ill served by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is true that no nation can ever repay the cost of a war but America has developed a support network as Lincoln said to care for the veteran, it is the DVA motto.
Now that safety net has been torn apart by a nasty greedy criminal element that has cheated and gamed the system for their own benefit.
As the first Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Congressional and Public Affairs, I entered a Cabinet Department with some of the most caring professionals I have ever met. They are the rule and allowing a relatively few criminals to go unpunished is an attack on them.
So why wasn’t there one question about the DVA?
It took an anonymous hero smarter and more perceptive that everyone at Fox to even mention veterans. Megyn Kelly said as the debate was ending a woman came to the stage and wanted a question about what the candidates would do about veterans. Then in one of the more bizarre moments Megyn Kelly framed the issue about God and Veterans.
Let me help Fox–“What will you do as President to bring accountability to the Department of Veterans Affairs?”
The American Constitution has well defined roles for the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, and together with a smart and knowledgeable 1st Amendment protected media the country has evolved a dynamic system of Constitutional Accountability.
The Legislative branch focusing on their contribution to accountability can hold oversight hearings under the threat of perjury to bring issues to light. The Executive Department can investigate and prosecute under the rules and guidance set by the courts. The media brings the sunlight of disinfectant to the entire process.
To bring accountability to The Department of Veterans Affairs it has to be understood that it operates within what is called “The Iron Triangle.”
This unofficial triad has historically been the DVA, in partnership with the Congress and the Veteran Service Organizations such as American Legion, DAV and others. Over time this group has evolved a simple formula; Money for DVA equals love support and respect for veterans. Money is always good but the formula also provides superficial cover for DVA bureaucrats, and legislators on both sides of the Hill and aisle. More money for DVA often drives VSO membership and also allows the media to call for budget remedies without real understanding of accountability first.
It is now time, even if Fox missed the opportunity, to ask what will the next President do to fix DVA?
The process is broken; the DVA leadership has totally failed in their mission. To be absolutely fair to President Obama he picked two individuals with exemplary credentials to be Secretary of his Cabinet Department, the Former Chief of Staff of the US Army, and his Under-Secretary for Benefits is an Air Force Academy Graduate General Officer. The fact they were and some still are leading an epic fail is not the Presidents fault. Because, I suspect a Republican President could have chosen the same team.
However, what can be done now for accountability is still in President Obama’s hands.
Action to bring Constitutional accountability is simple. Currently with the failure of the VA IG team, to make meaningful cases and Congress doesn’t prosecute, it is time to bring in the FBI and get serious. If the FBI is dispatched to look into police departments after just one death it is long past time to bring the best law enforcement organization in the world to investigate a system that is allowing American Veterans die alone in the dark.
One other fact about the FBI there are many military veterans serving in FBI. The mission to clean up the DVA could be historic. The FBI in taking down bad elements in an entire Cabinet Department can ripple forward real accountability for generations to ensure lasting good government.
Republican Candidates could handle such a DVA investigation question very easily. Governors know Executive Accountability, the two Doctors on the stage are gifted with insights about Medical Accountability, Senator Cruz was in both the Executive and Legislative Branch and appointed Solicitor General of Texas and also served in US DOJ and a potential President “Your Fired” Trump needs no help in understanding accountability.
Fox News should have taken the lead from Fox Sports on what it means to be a veteran and why an FBI investigation can be justified.
The words of the great Rocky Bleier looking back forty years to his Vietnam War experience of being wounded on the battlefield tells us all what it means to be in uniform:
“So there’s no color barrier, no class barrier. There’s no black, no white, no north, no south. You’re just you and your fellow soldier, and that is a bond that you always have.
No matter what the branch may be, there’s a respect for what a fellow soldier has gone through and is going through.”
Ed Timperlake was Assistant Secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs in President Bush’s ’41 Administration ( Senate Confirmed): 1989-1992
He built the first Congressional Affairs Office at the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the first Public Affairs Office at DVA and the first Intergovernmental Affairs staff at DVA.
He was senior Government Officer in charge of medical mobilization of the Department of Veterans Affairs during Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
And finally, he was Secretary Derwinski’s designated representative to address “Gulf War Illness” challenge.
For those who wish to send comments, please go to the following:
