Pentagon's Program 1033 helps militarize US police forces

(June 15) When US police flooded street across the US to control protesters a couple of weeks ago, to many the scene looked as if the army had been deployed as many police had camouflage uniforms and combat gear, armored vehicles, and high-powered assault weapons.

+ Add Image

US Defense Dept. distributes surplus equipment to police departments

US police departments large and small applaud the program that enables them to receive equipment and gear that would be costly to buy for free. The program was started in 1990 and was later restricted by the Obama administration but these restrictions were removed by Trump as reported in a recent article: "Obama banned the shipment to police of grenade launchers, weaponized vehicles, bayonets, rifles, ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, and certain armored vehicles that resemble tanks. Under Trump, those items are no longer prohibited."

Critics complain program helps to militarize police

Critics of the surplus disposal program complain that it contributed to the overall militarization of the police. This trend has helped to fuel mass nationwide demonstrations against police abuse and deadly tactics particularly against blacks. The demonstrations began in late May after African American George Floyd was killed on May 25th by a Minneapolis police officer.

As soon as the protests began in Minneapolis the city police force rolled out armored vehicles that seemed more appropriate to appear on some Middle East battlefield. In response to the protest especially in Washington, President Trump actually suggested he might call in the active-duty armed forces to help control protests.

Not just large city forces take advantage of the program

In 2013 police in Flathead County, Montana, which has about 90,000 residents, received an armored vehicle that was mine-resistant. The year before it had received a military transport. Ada Oklahoma with 16,000 residents and 8 full time police and 2 part time members also received a mine resistant armored vehicle in 2019. Over the years it has received 34 M-16 assault rifles.

Even school districts have received equipment. The Bay District in Panama City Florida which has 47 primary and secondary schools received 27 assault weapons and two mine-resistant armored vehicles in just 2012 and 2013.

The Pentagon 1033 program has existed for years

Since 1997 the Pentagon has distributed both new and used surplus equipment including, helicopters, armored vehicles, to handguns to the tune of about $8.6 billion. The material has gone to more than 8,000 federal, tribal, and local police forces according to the US Congress. Just this year alone, about 500 million pieces of surplus equipment was transferred to police departments under the program.

As mentioned earlier President Obama limited the program in 2015 but the original program was restored by President Trump in 2017.

Recent protests prompts lawmakers to try to stop the program

About 200 members of Congress, most Democrats, are sponsoring a bill called "Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act". The bill now in the House of Representatives would limit the transfer of guns, ammunition, grenades, explosives, certain kinds of vehicles, and drones plus other aircraft designed for the battlefield. There is a parallel bill being pushed in the Senate by Democrat Brian Schatz, who has long fought against over-arming police. Rand Paul a Republican Senator has also fought against the 1033 program.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump and Pentagon disagree on deployment of active duty troops to control protests

 (June 8)Tensions are very high between the Pentagon and the White House over Trump's threat to use active military forces to control protests after George Floyd was killed by a policeman.

The tensions

Historically, there have often been tensions between the government and the Pentagon but during Trump's term this is the second time eh tensions have been so high as to raise the prospect of high-level resignations and lasting damage to the military's reputation.

Trump has recommended dominating the streets and the use of force to control demonstrations and has even suggested that not just the National Guard be used to quell protests but also active-duty service people. He has suggested invoking the Insurrection Act that would allow him to use active-duty troops which otherwise would be illegal. However, many critics see such a move as harming the reputation of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said to reporters: "I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act".

Trump seems to feel there is no limit on his authority to use unlimited power to dominate the streets during protests including the use of active US forces against US citizens rather than against foreign enemies. Critics see such use of active-duty troops against US citizens as justified only in extreme conditions such as an actual rebellion. Trump had requested Defense Secretary Esper to send 10,000 US troops to Washington DC to potentially be used to quell protests. Esper put pressure on several state governors to send National Guard members to Washington to head off any Trump attempt to demand that active-duty forces be used.

Other military officials critical of Trump's position

Vincent K. Brooks a recently retired four-star Army general claimed that Trump's threat to use federal troops for law enforcement in any states where he deemed a governor was not acting toughly enough towards protesters and wrote in an essay for Harvard University's Beifer Center where he is a fellow: “It is a trust that the military, especially the active-duty military — ‘the regulars’ — possessing great physical power and holding many levers that could end freedom in our society and could shut down our government, would never, never apply that power for domestic political purposes.”

Former Defense Minister Jim Matthis criticized Trump's use of force to clear peaceful demonstrators so that Trump could walk to a church for a photo op. Matthis said that he never dreamed troops “would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.” In a further statement published in the Atlantic Matthis went on criticizing the president: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people —does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” Matthis called on Americans to unite without Trump.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon seeks billions for US arms makers from funds meant to save economy from negative effects of COVID-19 pandemic

(April21)As debate is picking up for the US to pass another emergency stimulus package to counter the economic damage produced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Pentagon is lining up well-connected US arms makers, some already the most heavily subsidized companies.

US official's statement

Ellen Lord US Undersecretary of Defense claims the pandemic is negatively effecting ship-building, aviation, and space launch companies. She said that the Pentagon is planning a major pay-day for companies in these arieas, billions and billions.

Lord said that out of 10,509 Defense Department contractors, 106 are closed with 68 companies having closed and reopened. Of 11,413 subcontractors, 427 are closed with 147 having closed and reopened

Big winners are big companies

While there is some talk of some small space launch companies as having to shut their doors because of the pandemic this covers up the fact that the big winners will be the handful of large US companies that are constantly receiving large subsidies from the US government. Many of the smaller companies that will receive funds are suppliers to these large companies.

Those receiving the most money are to be Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Boeing is already expected to seek funds from the airliner bailout. Money will also go to some of their suppliers so that their chain of supplies is not cut off. Lord did not single out any particular programs that could be negatively impacted by the pandemic but claimed that not approving the bailout could cause inefficiencies and other negative effects.

Not clear what view legislators will take of Pentagon demands

While Lord , as mentioned, had not picked out particular programs that the COVID-19 pandemic would hurt she said it could negatively impact on major programs: “We are just now looking at key milestones that might be impacted,. We believe there will be a three-month impact that we can see right now. So we’re looking at schedule delays and inefficiencies and so forth.”

Even though the COVID-19 relief bill is not a military funding bill, legislators seem usually to approve funds spent for military purposes. Weeks ago President Trump signed a $2 trillion COVID-19 bill as shown on the appended video.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon wants a big boost in funding for modernization of nuclear weapons systems

(February 29) PentaEach year the US spends tens of billions of dollars on nuclear weapon modernization schemes. Yet every year the Pentagon insists that funding is insufficient.

	1 of 2

This year, the complaints continued with US Strategic Command's head Admiral Charles Richard warning that the US is "almost on a path to disarmament."

US even now outspends all other nuclear powers

This shows that there is no tendency at all towards disarmament. If anything US spending could be provoking a nuclear arms race. While the Admiral suggested that the US must invest smartly and not waste money it was clear he was asking for an increase in funding.

The argument for more funds

The argument is that even at the high level of spending of the US at present as the system ages they will need to rebuild virtually the entire infrastructure or no longer be a nuclear power.

Admiral Richard said: “If we do not invest smartly in our nuclear enterprise now, we may begin to reach points of no return. I predict [that will] start in the nuclear weapons complex, next in the nuclear command and control, and finally in the triad delivery systems. When we talk about the modernization of the triad, what we leave out is the ‘or else.’ The other choice is not to keep what we have. The entire triad is reaching the end of its useful life. Either we replace what we have now, or start to divest, almost on a path to disarmament, in the face of this growing threat.”

The triad referred to is defined by Wikipedia: "A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence."

The huge costs of nuclear modernization

For fiscal year 2021 the Trump administration has asked for roughly $46 billion in funding for nuclear programs. That amount includes about $28.9 billion for the Dept. of Defense to develop delivery system such as the B-21 bomber and the new replacement for ICBMs. The rest of the funding for development of nuclear warheads comes from the National Nuclear Security Administration a semi-autonomous branch of the Dept. of Energy.

Looking to the future from fiscal year 21 to 25 the Pentagon projects it will spend at least $87 billion on nuclear modernization efforts. If the US spends such sums on modernization there will be pressure upon Russia, and China to do the same.

A modest proposal

The MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) policy may have worked so far but it is very expensive and without some controls does not avoid a nuclear arms race. This partly explains why Russia and the US have a new START treaty that is still in force until February of next year. Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism.

Nuclear modernization is used mainly for nothing but deterrence. However, it does provide defense contractors with profits. Both Russia and the US could use funds not used for nuclear modernization for expenditures on health, education, more useful job creation and numerous other purposes. Instead of asking for more funds what the Pentagon should be seeking are more arms reduction negotiations and funds for negotiations. This alternative is never considered. Why is that?

A recent Forbes article last December notes: " Last week, however, in a rare display of constructiveness, Vladimir Putin suddenly offered to immediately extend the New START treaty “without any preconditions.” And Trump added: “We are looking at doing a new agreement with Russia, and we’re looking at doing a new agreement with China. And maybe the three of us will do it together…We may do it with Russia first and then go to China, or we may do it altogether…” Instead of modernizing their nuclear armor, Russia, the US and China need a treaty that will render their nuclear arsenal obsolete.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US offers a partial withdrawal of its troops from Iraq

(Feb. 16) Back in January this year, the Iraqi parliament voted 170 to 0 for a resolution requiring all foreign troops be withdrawn from Iraq. The resolution was not binding upon the government and a number of lawmakers stayed away from the vote.

Iraq asks for meetings with the US to discuss troop withdrawal

The former Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi asked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to send a delegation to discuss steps to be taken for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. There are approximately 5,200 troops in Iraq whose main mission was to train Iraqi troops and help in the fight against the Islamic State. However, the Islamic State has been mostly defeated and no longer holds any significant territory. It is more or less in survival mode. While the US is no longer needed the US wants to remain in Iraq to counter Iranian influence.

The US assassinated a top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani as well as a deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces an umbrella group of militias approved and financed by the Iraqi government. There were many protests after the drone attack near Baghdad airport. As the attack did not have government approval many considered it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

In response to the Iraqi PM's request the US State Dept. said that it would not discuss a troop withdrawal but would discuss the "appropriate force posture in the Middle East". This response no doubt raised tension between the US and the Iraqi government.

Trump had a violent negative reaction to the vote

Trump was angered by the vote in the Iraqi and demand for troop withdrawal. He threatened Iraq with sanctions such as they had never seen before if they forced the US to withdraw. On January 10 he also suggested the might block some $35 billion of Iraqi funds sitting in a US account.

The former Iraqi PM backed off somewhat but tensions remained high. However, the US is now taking a less negative stance and is offering the Iraqis at least a partial withdrawal.

Secret talks in Amman Jordan

Secret talks were held outside of Iraq at the private residence of the Canadian ambassador to Jordan in Amman according to the Middle East Eye. At the meeting were a US military representative, a NATO official and a senior Iraqi security adviser. The US State Dept. would not comment on the meeting. Similarly a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada also would not comment on the meeting.

The US appears to be willing to leave some Shi'ite majority areas and even cut down the number of troops in Baghdad. The US military representative said: “We are prepared to leave some of the Shia-majority areas, like the base in Balad. Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad .” The US rule in Baghdad would be reduced to guarding the airport and the US embassy in the Green Zone. However the US is categorically ruled out any withdrawal from the biggest air base in Iraq Ain al-Assad the largest US base in Iraq indeed in the whole Middle East.

The new US position represents a major shift but it remains to be seen if the withdrawal offer will be sufficient to satisfy many in Iraq who want to see a full withdrawal. As the appended video shows there are still ongoing protests against the government in Iraq.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon ends subsidy for venerable military newspaper Stars and Stripes

(Feb.  16) US Defense Secretary Mark Esper defended the Pentagon's decision to remove all federal funding of the military paper Stars and Stripes in its 2021 budget request. Esper told reporters in Brussels that the independent paper was not a priority.

Stars and Stripes not a priority

Esper claimed that the slightly more than $15.5 million for the paper needed to be used for other priority issues. Esper listed space, nuclear programs, hypersonic missiles as among places the money could be reinvested. However, $15.5 million is a minuscule amount within the Pentagon's total $705.4 billion budget request.

The funding enables the Stars and Stripes to be printed and distributed to US troops deployed around the world even in such areas as Afghanistan. Iraq, and Syria. It keeps the troops informed about what is going on.

Stars and Stripes funding

This is the first time that Pentagon officials have noted that their budget request has completely cut out the federal subsidy.

The newspaper receives about $8.7 million a year in operation and maintenance funds and another $6.9 million in contingency operations funds according to Marine Lt. Col. Chris Logan a spokesperson for Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist.

The subsidy is about half of the newspaper's annual budget. The other half of Stars and Stripes" revenue comes from sales, subscriptions, and advertising.

Last Monday on a briefing on the Pentagon's 2021 budget Comptroller Elaine McCusker confirmed that the subsidy to Stars and Stripes would be eliminated and said: “We have essentially decided that, you know, kind of coming into the modern age that newspaper is probably not the best way that we communicate any longer." However, it is not clear if the newspaper will be replaced by some other information source. No doubt some officials would like to see a propaganda outlet replace a respected independent news source but others may be content with there being no replacement.

Stars and Stripes

As described by Wikipedia Stars and Stripes is a US military newspaper that concentrates on issues that concern members of the US Armed Forces. It operates from inside the Department of Defense but is editorially separate from it. It has First Amendment protection that is protected by the US Congress to whom an independent ombudsman who serves the readers' interests regularly reports. Stars and Stripes is obviously not some official propaganda outlet but designed to provide information to its readers and serve their interests.

Stars and Stripes appeared first during the US Civil War and has been published continuously since the second World War. The news organization not only provided daily newspapers around the world but also operates a website that is updated 24 hours a day.

Stars and Stripes gains praise from official while he cuts funding

Logan acknowledged that Stars and Stripes had been of great value during its long seven decades of service to the US military community. Logan said: "Their hard work and dedication in reporting on issues that matter the most to the military community continues to be of value. However, as we look forward to the current budget proposal and beyond, the DOD must prioritize spending to support our war-fighters in the most critical areas of need. Therefore, the department has made the difficult decision that, beginning in fiscal year 2021, it will no longer provide appropriated funds to Stars and Stripes." Apparently it is not a critical need that the US military be informed about what is going on in the military and the rest of the world. This shows a disrespect for the military community.

Ernie Gates, the ombudsman for the Stars and Stripes noted that the newspaper provided independent , free-flowing information that they needed and was their right to receive as Americans. He said the paper also provided a little bit of home or a welcome diversion from tough missions..

Pushback against cuts

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPI) called on Esper to rethink his cuts in funding for the paper saying that the cut to the subsidy would be a huge disservice to the men and women who served the USA. He noted that service people especially relied on the newspaper in areas where there was no Internet. SPI president Patricia Newberry said that the Stars and Stripes had been a balanced and objective source of information. She said that the paper's ability to inform US troops about issues that were important to them should not be unhindered. Perhaps the balance and objectivity of the paper is what makes it a target of the funding cut. The paper provides some information to the military that authorities would rather remained under wraps.

Representative Ruben Gallego a Democrat from California who is himself a Marine veteran said that the paper was a link to home when he was in Iraq and Okinawa and said: "It's an A+ indie take on everyday DoD news, f*** ups, and Administration & General Officer BS. No wonder this President wants to cut it. He's got a fight on his hands." No doubt this critical aspect of the paper that could lead authorities to cut its funding.

Representative Gil Cisneros a navy veteran wrote that the paper provide a crucial voice on the Dept. of Defense and Veteran's Affairs and other military matters. He said its reporting was needed.

Another former official praised the Stars and Stripes. James Stavridis, who served both as EUCOM Chief and NATO Supreme Allied Commander from 2009 to 2013 said: "Every day in my office as commander [of] U.S. European Command, I would read Stars and Stripes..It was an invaluable, unbiased, and highly professional source of information which was critical to me in my role overseeing U.S. military throughout Europe."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon asks for more than $705 billion in 2021 military budget

(February 11) For 2021 the US Pentagon has requested $705.4 billion. This includes a 3 percent pay raise for military personnel and also $15.4 billion of the new Space Force.

Breakdown of budget request

$21.3 billion is budgeted for munitions and that includes $11.3 billion for tactical missiles. A recent article breaks down the munitions expenditure: "The DoD has requested $21.3 billion in munitions, including $6 billion for conventional ammunition, $4 billion for strategic missiles and $11.3 billion for tactical missiles. Munitions and missiles make up 8.8 percent of overall procurement in the budget request."

The Trump administration is also requesting $46 billion to be spent on nuclear weapons. For the nuclear triad, the Defense Department' budget request asks for $1.5 billion to develop new intercontinental ballistic missiles to replace the Minuteman III nuclear missiles plus another $2.3 billion on new early warning satellites.

Most areas see little or no reduction except for a substantial budget cut for the paper the Stars and Stripes that often carries quite useful information.

Less money appropriated for the Afghan War

There is $14 billion appropriated to finance the Afghan War during 2021. This may sound large but it is the lowest amount requested for the 18-year old war for nearly a decade. The request is part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) part of the budget for Operation Freedom Sentinel as the Afghan War is euphemistically named. The lower figure assumes there will be a drawdown of US forces.

The US has had off and on peace talks for some time with the Taliban, but at present they seem to be bogged down over the issue of a cease fire and reduction of violence. Mark Esper, the US Secretary of Defense, claims the US is considering reducing its footprint in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 whether there is a peace deal with the Taliban or not. Ultimately, there needs to be a deal with the Afghan government or its members and other Afghans as well. The Taliban will not negotiate officially with the Afghan government because it considers it a puppet of the US.

Trump has indicated he wants to cut Afghan troop levels before the 2020 elections. However, other drawdown plans have been reversed. We will just have to wait and see what Trump decides to do.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon to spend up to $125 billion on submarine program

Frank Kendall, Pentagon Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, signed off on a $125 billion purchase of twelve sophisticated, nuclear-capable submarines. Kendall said he hoped to have the project done before he left.

In late 2016, a continuing resolution authorized the use of $773 million to be spent on the program. The Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines are to begin construction in 2021. The submarines use several propulsion mechanisms, that include nuclear power, turbo-electric drive and a pump-jet. They can be equipped with 16 Trident DS submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The missiles are said to be able to achieve nuclear deterrence with fewer submarines and are almost as accurate as land-based missiles. Submarines are a vital part of the top-priority US Navy weapons program.

US Representatie Joe Courtney, ranking member of the US House subcommittee on seapower and projection forces said: "Without that $773 million, we’d still be twiddling our thumbs. " $30 billion of the program is set aside for reasearch and development of the next-generation Columbia-class nuclear submarines. As the project is competed the US Navy will phase out its Ohio-class submarines.

Ashton Carter, outgoing US Defense Secretary, had criticized the US Congress for failing to pass a full-year budget which in 2013 caused a temporary government shutdown. He claimed that the continuing rersolution put commanders in a straight jacket. He said that these types of arrangements prevent the Pentagon's capacity to "keep pace with complex national security challenges". A Bloomberg report puts the cost of the project at $128 billion.

The submarine project is just part of a trillion-dollar program designed to modernize US sea-air-land nuclear capability over the next 30 years and includes maintenance and support. Obama has backed the project and on this issue president-elect Donald Trump appears supportive. Trump tweeted recently: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes." In spite of Trump's apparent friendliness towards Putin and an expressed desire for better relationship with Russia, Trump has even welcomed a renewed arms race with Russia. The future of nuclear disarmanent seems bleak and the possibility of nucear clashes appears more likely under Trump. William Perry a former US Defense Secretary William Perry has pointed out the increasing dangers of nuclear conflict coming not just from North Korea but relations between the US and Russia.

The submarine program is still far behind the cost of the $379 billion F-35 aircraft program and the $153 billion multiservice ballistic-missile defense network. The new administration appears unlikely to skimp on funding projects to feed corporations that are part of the military-industrial complex and are hungry for profits.

US sending 250 more troops to Syria but no mission creep

Although the Pentagon admits it is sending 250 more troops to Syria, it denies that this represents any mission creep in the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The deployment is said to be needed simply to meet current requirements.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said:

“These are specific capabilities ... specific needs right now as we talk to our partners. And including our assessment, talking to local leaders on the ground in Syria, these are decisions that we think makes sense to accelerate this campaign and to further enable those local forces.This is not a question of putting in thousands of American forces to wage this fight. We are looking to others to carry this fight out but to do what we can to support them.”Before sending these troops there were only 50 special operations troops said to be in Syria.

Last week the Pentagon announced it was sending 200 troops to Iraq as well. Some members in both parties criticized the incremental increases in troops numbers being sent to the region. Some Republican hawks say that the number of troops being sent are too few. On the other hand, some Democrats describe the increases as mission creep that will draw the U.S. deeper into conflicts.

As usual, the authorities deny that the new troops represent "boots on the ground." Cook said those sent to Syria will not be on the front lines. Their role will be to train and assist local forces, as well as provide intelligence on the ground. There will also be medical and logistical personnel included in the group. Military commanders had recommended that 250 troops be sent. Cook explained:“Force multipliers is the best way to look at this. A small number of Americans with these kinds of capabilities can bring an enormous weight to bear in this fight and in support of these forces. And those forces who have come into contact and worked with U.S. forces, I think would attest to that.”

The troop deployment came less than 24 hours after Obama said on the BBC that he ruled out sending more ground troops to Syria. He said that military efforts alone could not solve Syria's problem: "It would be a mistake for the United States, or Great Britain... to send in ground troops and overthrow the [Bashar al-] Assad regime. We can slowly shrink the environment in which they operate."Obama is constantly trying to assure Americans that he will not involve the U.S. in extensive combat operations like those earlier in Iraq and Afghanistan. These more extensive actions result in casualties that are politically damaging. Obama prefers actions such as the drone program, proxy wars, and use of special forces, that involve almost no casualties and are not noticeable to many in the general public.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes the strong YPG militia of the Kurds, is the main partner of the U.S. fighting the Islamic State in Syria. It welcomed the plans of the U.S. but claimed it needed more support, including guided anti-armor missiles. Spokesperson Talal Sito said: "Any support they offer is positive but we hope there will be greater support. So far we have been supplied only with ammunition, and we were hoping to be supplied with military hardware, and this is something we were promised." The alliance was formed last October and has been successful at wresting territory away from the control of the Islamic State. However, Turkey opposes the YPG and worries that a Kurdish enclave is being formed on its border.

Military puts robot pack dogs in long-term storage

The Legged Squad Support System (LS3) was a project of the Pentagon's research division known as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

 

The original idea was to develop a legged robot that could function as a packhorse for a squad of soldiers or marines. The whole idea invited spoofs as in this YouTube video that was posted in 2008 and has over 5 million views. This is supposed to be a test version of Big Dog, the name sometimes given to the LS3 from the first stage of the project.

The real robot Big Dog took years to develop and was called Cujo by the marines, or sometimes referred to as the robotic mule for its carrying functions. The project was jointly operated by DARPA and Google's Boston Dynamics. Big Dog could speed along at 4 miles per hour, climb slopes up to 35 degrees, walk across rubble, walk in snow or water, and carry a load of 340 lbs or more. The first contract was for two-and-a-half years at a cost of $32 million.The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab was also involved in the project. A second contract for $10 million was awarded in 2013 that would involve demonstrating how Cujo would operate in rugged terrain carrying a load and carry out verbal and visual commands. Testing is shown in the video below.

As can be heard on the video, Cujo is noisy. Marines were concerned that the loud noise would give away their position. There were other problems. If the robot broke down, there was no easy way to have it repaired in the field. To solve the noise problem a smaller version of the robot was built with an electric motor. This version was nicknamed Spot.

While Spot was quiet it was not very useful for carrying equipment, as the maximum weight it could carry was about 40 pounds. It also had a limited range before it needed to be recharged. Spot, weighs about 160 pounds. Spot's operator has wireless controls that work up to a distance of about a third of a mile, using a laptop with a radio transmitter and controller. Spot could possibly serve as a ground reconnaissance asset according to Capt. James Pineiro, of the Warfighting Lab. However, as presently developed Spot did not have enough autonomy to even do that well. While the appended video shows several of the robots hooked up to a Santa's sleigh, so far the Pentagon has put out the robots to pasture and has not offered Boston Dynamics or DARPA any Christmas present of an additional contract to develop the program further.

US intelligence analysts complain that negative reports altered by superiors

Washington - Dozens of US Central Command (CENTCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency analysts have complained that their superiors suppressed negative assessments they had made on the year-long fight against the Islamic State. An early report by the Daily Beast said: More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, As a result of the complaints the Pentagon inspector general opened an investigation into the issue. In July two senior analysts signed a written complaint that their reports had been changed by CENTCOM higher officials to conform with the Obama administration's line that the US was winning the battle against the Islamic State and Al Nusra the Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria. The reports were altered to make both groups appear weaker than they are according to their intelligence.

This type of manipulation of intelligence is not new. In 2002 and 2003 in Iraq, senior US officials deliberately "cherry picked" intelligence on Hussein's alleged weapons program. The US House of Representatives investigative committee now wants in on the investigation and has asked Pentagon officials for a briefing on the analysts' charges. As the Guardian reports: Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ron DeSantis, who chairs its national-security subcommittee, asked the defense secretary, Ashton Carter, and inspector general, Jon Rymer, on Friday for information about an ongoing investigation into charges from dozens of US Central Command and Defense Intelligence Agency analysts that their superiors suppressed negative assessments of the year-old war against Isis. The lawmakers want briefings no later than the 18th of this month. Both Chaffetz and DeSantis, the latter a retired naval officer and Iraq veteran, expressed deep concern about the allegations and wanted to make certain that any intelligence provided to key decision makers should reflect the analysis of experts in the intelligence community. The two warned Carter and Rymer that they were "troubled" to find out that acrimony within CENTCOM was causing some analysts simply to leave their positions.

Analysts in CENTCOM say that Army Major General Steven Grove and deputy Greg Ryckman, revise, suppress or even reject analysts' negative assessments of the war's progress or evaluations that show IS to still be quite strong. Grove faces almost daily questioning by the top US intelligence official, James Clapper. Sources told the Guardian that the suppression began as long ago as October 2014 just two months after the air war began against the Islamic State. Similar concerns are surfacing within the Defense Intelligence Agency which provides intelligence analyses for both military commanders and civilian leaders.

 The former director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, Lt. General Michael Flynn, perhaps summed the situation up: "The phrase I use is the politicization of the intelligence community." Flynn said he was not surprised by the investigation and noted that Obama administration officials had often been too optimistic in assessing the situation with respect to the battle against the Islamic state.

Pentagon rule book claims journalists can be legitimate targets

A new Pentagon rule book on the "laws of war" detailing legitimate warfare practices, as approved by the U.S. military, claims that journalists may be legitimate targets.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

According to the new rule book:Now, the American 1,176-page “Department of Defense Law of War Manual” says that it is perfectly legitimate to shoot, explode, bomb, stab, or cut journalists they deem “belligerent". They seem to want to make sure they cover all the ways they will kill enemy reporters. They clarify that poison and asphyxiating gases are still no-nos that will not be employed in the war against journalists.

While still allowing that in general journalists are civilians, the rule book also says that journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.

The term "unprivileged belligerent" is not defined. The account given in Wikipedia would not seem to allow journalists as unprivileged belligerents: An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a combatant who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights.[1]Journalists would not be engaged in armed conflict at all in most situations.

Chris Chambers, a journalism professor at Georgetown university said that he did not know what "unprivileged belligerents" means and said “the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side.” Chambers notes that as the law is now even embedded journalists are regarded as protected under international law. There is no clarification of when a journalist could be an unprivileged belligerent.

The new law could be considered simply a codification of past practice. Journalists have often been targeted it appears not because they were on the "other side" but because they were critical of the side that targets them. In the early days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney administration considered bombing the main studio and office building of Al Jazeera in Qatar. While it was decided not to go ahead with the plan there was a rocket and machine gun attack on the Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau on April 8, 2002. The US claims the attack was "inadvertent" although Al Jazeera had given the US the coordinates of the site. Another attack by a tank firing an artillery shell on the Palestine hotel where almost the entire foreign press stayed killed a Reuters cameraman and a Spanish TV worker.

If the journalists work for the other side, present practice appears to provide them no protection at all. NATO attacked the Radio, Television, of Serbia(RTS) headquarters in Sarajevo. Sixteen employees of RTS died when a NATO missile hit the building. Amnesty International called the bombing a war crime while Noam Chomsky said it was an act of terrorism. However, many defended the attack:Tony Blair, in Washington for Nato's 50th anniversary summit, insisted that bombing television stations was 'entirely justified' since they were part of the 'apparatus of dictatorship and power of Milosevic'. He added: 'The responsibility for every single part of this action lies with the man who has engaged in this policy of ethnic cleansing and must be stopped.'

What is allowed for NATO and the US is surely legitimate for Israel. In an attack in Gaza, Israel fired several missiles directly at a building housing Al-Aksa TV station, but it also housed offices of a number of foreign journalists. Two Al-Aksa cameramen were killed in the strike. Israel admits targeting the journalists killed claiming that since they worked for the Hamas-owned stations they were terrorists.

Despite thaw with Cuba, US will retain possession of Guantanamo Bay

A sure sign that Guantanamo Bay will remain in American hands for the foreseeable future is the continued investment in the facility. The most recent investment is a very expensive school.

Guantanamo Bay has the most expensive prison on the globe. Now it will have one of the most expensive schools as well. Although the cost of running the prison is huge it needs large continuing investments just to keep the facilities in decent shape as parts of the prison need repair in the worst way. An article from the New Republic sums up the situation: At a cost of $2.8 million per prisoner per year, Guantánamo is the most expensive prison in the world. (The costliest prison in the U.S., the Colorado Supermax, at $78,000 per prisoner per year.) And the costs will continue to rise as facilities that were built to be temporary, like the Camp America Dining Facility, deteriorate. In addition to the dining facility repairs, the 2015 defense budget also calls for $11.8 million to upgrade a medical clinic that was never built to serve an aging population of prisoners. Congress earmarked another $69 million to renovate Camp 7, the top-secret facility that holds the 15-high value detainees who were tortured in CIA black sites prior to their transfer to Guantánamo. In March, The Miami Herald reported that the ground below the facility had shifted, causing the floors and walls of the building to crack.

 The new school at the base will cost $65 million but will house at most 275 children from kindergarten to high school. The cost works out to around a quarter-million dollars per student. In Miami-Dade county in contrast a new school would cost around $30,000 a student. There are about 6,000 residents in Guantanamo Bay. In all, there are 243 students at Guantanamo at present. The prison is run by 2,000 plus temporary troops and private contractors. As part of expenditures meant to bring the base up to par with other government agencies the Pentagon announced that it would install a $40 million fiber optic cable between the U.S. mainland and Guantanamo.

 While legally Guantanamo Bay is still part of Cuba, it has been leased by the U.S. since 1903. The annual cost of the least is just over $4,000 a year but since the Castro revolution of 1959 the Cuban government refuses to cash any of the checks issued in payment by the US. The Cuban government does not recognize the legitimacy of the contract which is in perpetuity and can only be terminated by the agreement of both parties. One reason the prison was built at Guantanamo is that it is not US territory and hence U.S. laws regarding prisoners held in the US would not apply. 

 As part of the recent negotiations to establish diplomatic relations, Cuba apparently asked for the return of Guantanamo but the U.S. declined. According to McClatchy DC the White House said that the status of Guantanamo Bay will not be affected by re-engagement of the U.S. with Cuba.

 This year the pace of prisoner releases from Guantanamo has picked up with 28 being released so far this year, the largest number since 2009. More than half of the remaining prisoners are from Yemen but the U.S. refuses to release any there in spite of the demands of the Yemeni president who is a firm ally of the U.S. Six prisoners were recently released to Uruguay and even more recently five to Kazakhstan. However, given the investment that is being made both on the base and the prison, as well as the restrictions placed by Congress on the transfer of prisoners, it seems unlikely that either the prison let alone the base will be closed in the near future.

More troops in Iraq means more private contractors

As more and more US troops are sent to Iraq as part of Operation Inherent Resolve private contractors follow to provide various services for the troops and the Iraq government. At present, there are already around 1,800 private contractors in Iraq who work for the US State Department. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently ordered another 1300 but this is likely only a fraction of the ultimate total.

 During the peak of the earlier US deployment to Iraq there were more than 163,000 private contractors in the country. The use of many private contractors often masks the total US involvement. In the earlier deployment there were frequent criticisms of the costs involved and lack of proper oversight of spending. As pointed out in an earlier article, the Pentagon has already been asking for contractors to sign up for long-term deployment to Iraq. A senior US official said that the number of contractors sent will depend on the number of US troops present and their dispersion within Iraq. Sending more contractors shows that Obama is planning on an extended war and a lengthy deployment of troops to Iraq not that long after withdrawing all US troops.

 Contractors can be responsible for a large range of services from guarding facilities and diplomats, to servicing vehicles and providing food for staff. While Obama has promised that there will be no boots on the ground in Iraq, there are already 3,100 all of whom he claims are in non-combat roles.

When Hagel recently visited Iraq, he flew over Baghdad in helicopters that were operated by private contractors paid for by the State Department. Private contractor numbers have been declining in iraq ever since 2011 but lately are rising again but by less than 5 percent according to the US State Department. After the offensive of the Islamic State into Iraq, the State Department upped the number of guards protecting the US consul in Erbil from 39 to 57 as the threat of being attacked increased. The guards are provided by a company called Triple Canopy part of the Constellis Group. Constellis did not respond to inquiries.

After US troops left Iraq in 2011, many private contractors were left to provide protection for diplomats and other services to the diplomatic community. Almost all the private contractors work for the US State Department. Even in late 2013 there were still 6,000 private contractors in Iraq working for the Pentagon, most of them supporting arms sales and delivery to the the Iraqi government, according to Pentagon spokesperson Mark Wright. However, in August the Pentagon asked for contractors to help provide advice to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Counter Terrorism. Service.

US Special Forces participated in Yemen raid that freed 8 hostages of Al Qaeda

Yemen security officials announced that eight hostages had been freed from the custody of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula(AQAP). The operation was in Hadrawmut province.

The hostages had been seized just north of Aden, a port city, but moved inland into Hadrawmut province. The first reports from the Yemeni government claimed that a US military instructor was among the eight rescued. The Pentagon, while applauding the rescue, denied that any US personnel were rescued. The US embassy in Sanaa refused to even comment on the operation at all. The Yemen government report did not mention US involvement.
  Pentagon officials later privately confirmed that there were actually US ground troops involved in the rescue raid to the tune of two dozen Special Forces. The US does not admit to having "boots on the ground" in Yemen. Those freed were six Yemenis, a Saudi, and an Ethiopian. Officials say that the raid was aimed at freeing a US journalist and a UK citizen. Both are thought to have been moved prior to the raid. The Yemen supreme security committee said that 7 AQAP kidnappers were also killed during the raid with just one member of the security forces wounded.
 The Pentagon resumed military training in Yemen in 2012. Kidnapping is carried out not only by AQAP but by tribes wanting leverage to bargain with the central government and some simply by independent entrepreneurs who sell them to others. Recently a water engineer from Sierra Leone was freed after being seized and held for more than a year by unidentified armed men.
The Stars and Stripes reports a Yemeni official as saying that there were five others the raid expected to liberate and this included the US journalist and a Briton. The hostages had been chained in a cave and covered with blankets. They were being held in a vast desert area in the eastern province of Hawdramut. Tribes in the area near the Saudi border give protection to militants and there is said to be a large Al Qaeda training camp in the area. The raid will increase the tension between tribes in the area and the central government.
 A Yemen Special Forces member identified as Abu Marouf described the raid: "We found the eight hostages chained. We found al-Qaida cellphones and documents," he said, adding that the hostages said five of their companions had been moved out to an unknown location. He listed nationalities of the other hostages as an American journalist, one Briton, one South African, a Yemeni and a fifth believed to be Turkish. He did not identify them.

One thousand special forces and an army of private contractors in Iraq are "boots on the ground"

Obama wants to avoid having many boots on the ground in Iraq. However, he does not count special forces and advisers as boots on the ground nor will he count the thousands of private military contractors as such either.

Whenever Obama announces further involvement in Iraq, he always at the same time notes that there are no plans for boots on the ground. He continues to claim this even as there are now over a thousand US troops in Iraq and as evidence mounts that at least some of them are involved in battle as shown in the appended video. As in the earlier US participation in warfare in Iraq the US will depend on a large number of private contractors to carry out many tasks that in earlier times would have been largely performed by members of the armed forces.
This type of arrangement is lucrative for defense contractors, who in turn may reward the government who gave them contracts with donations to their campaigns but no doubt they will also hedge their bets by donating to the opposition as well. During the last Iraq war the US had at times as many as 100,000 military contractors hard at work. The Pentagon has already posted a notice indicating that they are seeking contractors willing to work over the long term in Iraq. There would be a minimum initial contract of one year which could be extended.
 As of now there are still more than 100,000 private contractors in Afghanistan and many of these could remain even after the military leave. In March there were many more private contractors in Afghanistan than troops: "..according to a Congressional Research Service report, the number of contractors in Afghanistan ballooned to 108,000 last March at a time when 65,700 U.S. troops were there." All of this represents a huge burden on the US taxpayer at a time when US cities are going bankrupt for lack of funds and US infrastructure such as roads and bridges requires billions just for repair.
 Even as this new war in Iraq begins some estimates are that there are more than 10,000 contractors already at work. The new posting by the US Army Contracting Command sought contractors who should be "cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shias". The notice contains a long list of tasks to be carried out by the contractors: "They would focus on administration, force development, procurement and acquisition, contracting, training management, public affairs, logistics, personnel management, professional development, communications, planning and operations, infrastructure management, intelligence and executive development.."
 The deployment of private contractors instead of troops is a political plus in that they are not counted as "boots on the ground" and may be cheaper than troops. In an email Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute wrote: “As the political premium seems always to be placed on how many troops we have abroad, the pressure to have contractors do as much as possible only grows." The Iraqi government already has not only been buying US weapons, but has now hired its own "army" of private contractors who had previously been on the payroll of the US Defense Department: According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 5,000 specialists have been contracted by the Iraqi government. They are currently working in the country as analysts, military trainers, security guards, translators and even cooks. Some 2,000 of them are Americans. Rather than being paid by Washington, contractors in Iraq are paid by the Iraqi government. Private companies such as Triple Canopy and Dyncorp International have multibillion-dollar contracts with Iraq lasting for many years.
With increased US involvement many new contractors will be paid by the US. The US is also considering training elite Iraqi military forces in Jordan. Baghdad is buying $6 billion in US military equipment including many Apache attack helicopters and 500 Hellfire missiles. War is a form of that creative destruction that is often said to be a characteristic of capitalism. It destroys property and people but creates profits for corporations that are part of the military-industrial complex.