To all those who were hit hard by NEMO, the 2013 Blizzard I pray
you have full power restored soon and came through the storm with little or no
damage and/or injuries.
Today's POW/MIA Weekly newsletter is done and can be read from the
following link:
Thanks!
Gypsy
Panetta: US Risks Being Second-Rate Power
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Richard Lardner and Donna Cassata
WASHINGTON -- The United States is at risk of becoming a second-rate power if automatic budget cuts go into effect, plunging the U.S. armed forces into the most significant readiness crisis they've faced in more than a decade, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday.
Panetta, who is retiring soon from his post, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the reductions are allowed to stand he would have to throw the country's national defense strategy "out the window." But Panetta also assured lawmakers the Pentagon would take the steps necessary to deal with possible threats in the Persian Gulf region after he approved the Navy's request to halve its aircraft carrier presence in the area.
Anticipating the Defense Department will have less money to spend, Panetta said the Pentagon has already imposed a freeze on hiring and cut back on maintenance at bases and facilities. Those moves are reversible, he said, as long as Congress acts quickly to head off the cuts, known as sequestration, and approves a 2013 military budget.
The potential for the cuts to kick in on March 1 is the result of Congress' failure to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade. The Pentagon faces a $42.7 billion budget trim in the seven months starting in March and ending in September. The automatic cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next ten years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
Further complicating the military's fiscal picture is the lack of a new defense budget. Congress hasn't approved one. Lawmakers have instead been passing bills called continuing resolutions, which keep spending levels at the same rate as the year before. That means the Pentagon is operating on less money than it planned for, and that compounds the problem, Panetta said.
Panetta said that the department understood that it needed to do its part to help bring down the federal deficit and has been adjusting its plans to deal with the lower spending levels. But adding sequestration on top of that creates an untenable situation, he said.
The result of the sequestration cuts, Panetta said, is that "instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power." He added that it would be irresponsible for Congress to allow the cuts to take place. A "sequester was not designed as a mechanism that was supposed to happen," Panetta said. "It was designed to be so nuts that everybody would do everything possible to make sure it didn't happen."
Panetta has been vocal about stopping sequestration because it would leave the military "hollow," meaning the armed forces would look good on paper but actually lack the training and equipment they need to handle their missions.
As part of that campaign, the Defense Department has been providing greater details on the effect of the reductions. The department on Wednesday said it is cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one, a move that represents one of the most significant effects of sequestration. The U.S. has maintained two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf for much of the last two years.
The deployments of the USS Harry S Truman and the USS Gettysburg, a guided-missile cruiser, are being delayed as part of the Navy's plan to deal with the budget uncertainty.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates decided in 2010 to keep two carrier groups in the Gulf region as tensions with Iran escalated. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil supply passes, in retaliation for increased Western-led sanctions.
"We're going to do everything we can to make sure that we are prepared to deal with the threat from Iran," Panetta said. "We will have one carrier there and we will deploy other forces there so that we can hopefully fill the gap."
A group of Republican lawmakers from the House and Senate have offered a plan to cut the size of the federal workforce and use the savings to replace the cuts to the Pentagon and to domestic programs, which also are affected by sequestration. Similar legislation offered last year did not pass.
Each of the military branches has described in detailed memos to Congress widespread civilian furloughs, layoffs and hiring freezes that will hit workers all around the country. Overall, the Pentagon will furlough 800,000 civilian workers for 22 days, spread across more than five months, and will lay off as many as 46,000 temporary and contract employees, according to the correspondence.
The Navy said it will cease deployments to South America and the Caribbean and limit deployments to Europe. The Air Force warned that it would cut operations at various missile defense radar sites from 24 hours to eight hours. The Army said it would cancel training center rotations for four brigades and cancel repairs for thousands of vehicles, radios and weapons.
There is also concern that the readiness levels of the U.S. nuclear force could be degraded. The Air Force general responsible for maintaining the nation's fleet of nuclear-capable bombers said Wednesday that the possibility of sequestration and smaller defense budgets has led his command to make a 10 percent cut in flying hours for the B-52 bomber, a long-range aircraft that has been in operation since the 1950s.
"At the wing and the squadron level, they can probably manage that for a little while, and then we'll have to see what the impact of that is," said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of the Global Strike Command at Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
The B-52, which is the bomber fleet's workhorse, is already flying 20 percent fewer training missions than it did in 2001, according to Kowalski.
Kowalski also said discussions among senior national security officials are underway to determine whether missions handled by the nation's nuclear forces should get priority budget status in the event of sequestration. Global Strike Command also is responsible for B-2 stealth bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
=====
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/02/debate-swirls-over-female-navy-seals.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=2
Debate Swirls over Female Navy SEALs
Feb 02, 2013
The Virginian-Pilot| by Mike Hixenbaugh
A bruised and bloodied female recruit pulls herself to her feet, spits out a mouthful of blood and shouts an unladylike insult at an abusive master chief, instantly earning respect from her male teammates as she becomes the nation's first female commando.
The dramatic scene from "G.I. Jane" suggests that integrating women into a special operations unit is as simple as finding a physically fit woman willing to shave her head and put up with misogynistic jerks.
That was just a movie. This is real life.
Special operations chief Adm. Bill McRaven told a Washington audience this week that he supports allowing women into elite military units, including the SEALs. The comments, made days after defense officials ended the ban on women serving in ground combat, ignited fresh debate among the ranks over whether women could -- or should -- serve alongside America's elite warriors.
There's long been skepticism over whether women can meet the grueling physical standards of special operations. Of those fit enough to make it to Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training -- an achievement in its own right -- only about 1 in 3 of them become Navy commandos.
McRaven, a former SEAL commander, said it's crucial that women be held to the same high standards as men and that he believes some "will do a phenomenal job."
McRaven has until 2016 to report back to the secretary of defense with a plan to integrate his forces or apply for an exception to continue to restrict women.
His comments drew mixed reactions among former SEALs reached by a reporter this week. Several flatly rejected the idea of bringing women into the force; others said they were open to the idea as long as standards were not lowered.
Even those who oppose allowing women to join the teams concede that a select few would probably make the cut.
"I'm confident there are women who can pass the physical standards; there are women I'm sure that can pass the mental standards," former SEAL officer Cade Courtley said. "But why would you add an element into the most elite special forces that could cause it to be less effective?"
Courtley, who spun his military experience into a reality show and book about survival tactics, imagined what would happen if a woman had been on the team of Virginia Beach-based SEALs tapped to take out Osama bin Laden and learned she was pregnant days before the raid.
"I'm not saying SEALs can't adapt," he said, "but why mess with something that's working?"
Courtley also questioned whether women should train alongside men in humbling circumstances. He described pushing through "hell week," a brutal five days of continuous training during the initial phase of BUD/S.
"At about night number four, when we're lying on metal grates in nothing but our swim shorts, I'm spooning this guy next to me, shivering to death and just hoping that he has to pee because I'll at least get a couple seconds of warmth," said Courtley, who became a SEAL in 1995 and left the service in 2001. "That's how far down we go. Are we really going to add women to that?"
Retired SEAL Don Shipley runs Extreme SEAL Experience in rural Chesapeake, a weeklong program for young men who aspire to join special operations forces. He has refused to open the course to women, despite several requests, because he fears it would deter men from signing up.
He expects the same would happen if women were integrated into SEAL training.
"You cannot even get the majority of the strongest guys in the nation to get through the training," Shipley said. "You're going to deter some those guys from coming out, and for what?"
Larry Bailey, a former SEAL commander who retired in 1990 after 27 years, said even if a woman meets the rigorous physical and mental requirements, she would not be suited for the job "by virtue of her anatomy." The 73-year-old described a scenario in which a female SEAL and her team are swimming toward a target through shark-infested Caribbean waters.
"What happens if her female menstrual cycle starts?" Bailey said. "The sharks will be swarming. That sounds ridiculous, but I use that to make a point. Men and women aren't built the same."
Bailey's hard-line stance doesn't necessarily reflect the views among younger special operations troops, many of whom have served alongside women during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kevin Maurer, a journalist and Virginia Beach native who has embedded numerous times with special operations units over the past decade, said he has seen commandos come to respect women who often join them on dangerous missions as helicopter pilots or with cultural support teams.
"With special operations guys, everyone earns their place," said Maurer, who co-wrote "No Easy Day" with an ex-SEAL who participated in the bin Laden raid. "It's about earning the green beret, earning the trident. If you can earn it, and if you're held to the same standards, then you will earn that respect."
Lisa Barbarics, a retired Navy chief, worked with SEAL teams as a communications specialist during the late-1990s. She said she felt like she was welcomed as part of the Naval Special Warfare community, but she has doubts about whether a woman would be accepted as a SEAL. She questioned whether many women could make it to that point.
"Having worked with those guys, there may be a few women out there who are capable of meeting those standards," Barbarics said. "I doubt there are very many of them."
One recently retired SEAL who served on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan said gender shouldn't matter. He shared his views with a reporter on the condition that his name not be published.
Women can be "as ruthless and driven as dudes," the ex-SEAL said in an email, "and once they have proven that they can pass the minimum standard, they should be allowed to roll with us."
He acknowledged that his views are not typical of most of his former teammates. But as long as standards aren't lowered, he said the training could be amended to allow women to participate without needlessly being forced into provocative situations. The change wouldn't be unprecedented.
"When I went through training, we did every run in jungle boots, and we lost 25 percent of the class to shin-splints or leg fractures," the retired SEAL said.
Now, SEALs do some training in running shoes -- and no one accuses them of being soft.
Budget Cut Woes Lead to Deployment Uncertainty
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Brock Vergakis
NORFOLK, Va. - With family members waving from a pier, sailors aboard a Navy destroyer left for an overseas mission with more uncertainty than ever about their homecoming as potentially massive budget cuts reshape military plans.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry headed for what was supposed to be a six-month deployment in Europe on Thursday as part of a NATO plan to provide a ballistic-missile shield for the continent. The Navy has warned that tours like this one could be extended for unspecified periods after billions of dollars in automatic spending cuts known as sequestration take place March 1, unless Congress acts to avert them.
Among the military impacts, the Navy has said the cuts will mean there's less money for training and maintenance and that it could take longer to prepare crews to deploy as a result. The Navy has said that it would also deploy fewer ships to fewer places and that those that are sent out could spend longer stints at sea with fewer port calls to boost morale.
The possibility of extended deployments adds to the uncertainty that already accompanies military families.
"Even before the budget cuts and everything, you never have a set time that they're going to be home. I mean, they have a date, but that can always change so you always have that little bit of a worry that it's going to be longer than you think," said Robin Lunsford, whose husband Robert is an electronics technician aboard the Barry.
It's not just a concern for sailors, but for Marines, soldiers and airmen who continually deploy around the globe.
"If the military because of budget issues downsizes too much, does that mean that the fewer people who are left are going to have to deploy more?" asked Joyce Raezer, executive director at the National Military Family Association. "That's a real concern in the military community."
The toll that extended and repeated deployments can take on sailors and their families isn't lost on Navy leaders. They created an expansive wellness campaign last year that targets alcohol abuse, among other problems, that they were concerned after a decade of war.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the campaign during an all-hands call aboard the USS Bataan. The amphibious transports Marines that had recently completed the longest deployment for a Navy ship in nearly 40 years - at more than 10 months. At the time, he noted that the operational pace for the Navy and the Marines wasn't expected to slow down as the military shifted its focus to the Pacific.
There's also concern in the military community about how the cuts could affect programs meant to assist military families.
"I think a lot of our worry is access to some of the support services, whether it is counseling programs for kids, or programs to help families who are dealing with deployments, or programs that help military spouses find jobs when they move to a new community," Raezer said.
She said the services and programs that families depend on are staffed by federal employees who work for the military services, who have already been told to expect furloughs starting in March.
"Who is going to be there to support the family when they need that support service?" she said.
The Barry deployed a day after another ship's tour was canceled because of the looming cuts. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta indefinitely halted the USS Harry S. Truman from heading to the Middle East, leaving just one carrier in the region. A Navy document says that when the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower deploys there in a few weeks that its tour could be extended indefinitely.
USS Barry Cmdr. Thomas J. Dickinson said part of being in the Navy is the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
"Anytime you go on a deployment you tell the crew, `This is what we're scheduled for and if requirements change you have to be flexible.' And we talk to the families about that as well because that's who it's really hard on because they're holding down the fort while we're away doing our job," said Dickinson, the ship's commanding officer.
"Everybody reads the news and we talk about it, but one thing I don't do with the crew is give them any kind of speculation. That just kind of jerks them around a little bit. So I give them the facts, I give them what I know, when I know it."
For other sailors, being flexible means unexpectedly staying in port when they had already canceled apartment leases, cellphone contracts and put items into storage
Seaman William Neild had already given up his apartment ahead of Friday's planned departure for the Truman. His wife had also already made plans to move to Illinois for the duration of his expected six- to eight-month deployment. He now plans to spend his nights aboard the Truman until it is finally given orders to deploy again.
"It's just a lot of frustration," he said.
The potential for the cuts to kick in is the result of Congress' failure to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade. The Pentagon faces a $42.7 billion budget cut in the seven months starting in March and ending in September. The automatic cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/09/panettas-arrivederci-to-pentagon.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1
Panetta's Arrivederci To Pentagon
Feb 09, 2013
Military.com| by Ricahrd Sisk
This time he really is going home to stay, Leon Panetta said Friday as he took leave of his post as Defense Secretary with a pass in review from the troops and a salute from President Obama.
"It's been for me one helluva' ride," Panetta said, bringing to a close nearly 50 years of public service that he began as a moderate Republican and ended as a moderate Democrat.
The 74-year-old Panetta, who retired before to his California walnut farm only to be called back to Washington as CIA Director and then the Pentagon's top civilian, stepped down praising the troops.
"I've witnessed a new generation of Americans ask themselves what they could do for their country," Panetta said, and through more than a decade of war "they have done everything the nation asked them to do, and more."
At the indoor farewell ceremony at Joint Base Fort Myer-Henderson Hall next to the Pentagon, Obama told Panetta that "you've led with heart and you've led with humor," a reference to Panetta's liberal use of salty language and jokes that sometimes ruffled feathers overseas.
Panetta was leaving while the Senate confirmation of his likely successor, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was still on hold as Republicans demanded that he turn over more past speeches and other documents.
But Obama expressed confidence that the nomination of Hagel, who served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam, would be approved to allow him to bring "the experience, judgment and vision that our troops deserve" to the Pentagon.
Panetta was going home after presiding as CIA Director over "perhaps, what was the greatest intelligence success in American history – delivering justice to Osama Bin Laden," Obama said.
At the Pentagon, Panetta was in charge of ‘welcoming more of our civilians to military service" by allowing gays to serve openly in uniform and ending the combat exclusion rule for women, Obama said.
On his watch as Defense Secretary, Panetta also saw a deadly uptick in attacks by Afghan trainees on U.s. forces, the onset of a "pivot toward Asia" by the military, a rise in violence across the Middle East and challenges to the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Obama also made reference to the huge problem that Panetta tried to resolve but was leaving behind – the budget and spending impasse with Congress called "sequester" that could lead to $500 billion in cuts for defense on March 1. Obama urged lawmakers to follow Panetta's example by "solving problems, not trying to score points."
"I have truly lived the American dream," said Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants, Carmelo and Carmelina Panetta, who settled in Monterrey, Calif., and began the walnut farm that has sustained the extended family.
During his time in Washington, "we have shown the world that nobody attacks the United States of America and gets away with it," Panetta said.
Panetta also paid tribute to his wife, Sylvia, who brought along their golden retriever "Bravo" for the ceremony. She led Bravo from the stands and handed the leash to her husband as the troops passed in review. "Her Valentine's gift is that we're both going home together," Panetta said.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Panetta that his greatest asset was "you've always believed in governing well."
Dempsey, who has a master's degree in literature, called Panetta the "Prospero of Public Service," referring to the master magician and main character of Shakespeare's "The Tempest."
Dempsey quoted from Prospero's last line in the play: "Let your indulgence set me free."
=====
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/08/lawmakers-may-seek-drone-strike-safeguards.html?comp=700001075741&rank=6
Lawmakers May Seek Safeguards for Drone Strikes
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Kimberly Dozier
WASHINGTON - CIA Director-designate John Brennan's vigorous defense of drone strikes to kill terror suspects - even American citizens - overseas is causing key lawmakers to consider lifting secrecy from what has become an important weapon in the fight against al-Qaida.
Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterror adviser, was grilled for more than three hours Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the drone program he leads, as well as on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques during the Bush administration, which he denounced, and on leaks of classified information to the media, which Brennan vehemently denied being a part of.
Despite Brennan's wide-ranging testimony and the White House's release of a top secret memo explaining its legal rationale for the strikes just hours before the confirmation hearing began, some senators said afterward it was time to bring the drone program into the open.
In a hearing that was interrupted by anti-drone protests that brought it to a brief halt and forced Capitol Hill security to empty the room of all but credentialed staff and media, Brennan told the committee that missile strikes by the unmanned drones are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he declared.
Referring to one American citizen killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011, he said Anwar al-Awlaki had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out on U.S. soil. They included the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that claimed 13 lives in 2009, a failed attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner the same year and a thwarted plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010.
"He was intimately involved in activities to kill innocent men, women and children, mostly Americans," Brennan said.
The committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she wanted to open more of the program to the public so U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.
Feinstein said she and other senators were considering legislation to set up a special court system to regulate drone strikes, similar to the one that signs off on government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases.
Speaking with uncharacteristic openness about the classified program, Feinstein said that the CIA had allowed her staff to make more than 30 visits to the agency's northern Virginia headquarters to monitor strikes but that such transparency needed to be increased. Her comments came after the White House, under pressure from the committee, gave senators on the panel a Justice Department memo outlining the legal justification for drone strikes. But senators complained that aides weren't allowed to see it.
"I think the process set up internally is a solid process," Feinstein said of the methods used to decide when to launch drones and against whom, but added: "I think there's an absence of knowing exactly who is responsible for what decision. So I think we need to look at this whole process and figure a way to make it transparent and identifiable."
Feinstein said other senators including Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., have all indicated "concern and interest" over how to regulate drones.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said some members of his panel also had been looking at establishing a "court-like entity" to review the strikes.
"I think the House and Senate ought to put their heads together and come up with some way to require, either initially or after the fact, a review of an operation when it takes the life of an American citizen," Schiff said.
In a long afternoon in the witness chair, Brennan was questioned on other issues, such as the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques during the George W. Bush administration. He declined to say whether he believes waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture, but he said firmly it was "something that is reprehensible and should never be done again."
Brennan, 57, is a veteran of more than three decades in intelligence work. He withdrew his name from nomination to head the CIA four years ago amid questions about the role he played at the CIA when the Bush administration approved waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists.
On the question of waterboarding, Brennan said that while serving as a deputy manager at the CIA during the Bush administration, he was told such interrogation methods produced "valuable information." Now, after reading a 300-page summary of a 6,000-page report on CIA interrogation and detention policies, he said he does "not know what the truth is."
Brennan bristled once during the day, when he was questioned about leaks to the media about an al-Qaida plot to detonate a new type of underwear bomb on a Western airline.
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, accused him of having leaked classified information in a telephone call with former government officials who were preparing to make television appearances to explain the plot.
"I disagree with that vehemently," the nominee shot back.
On May 7 of last year, The Associated Press reported that the CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner, using a bomb with a sophisticated new design. The bombing would have taken place near the anniversary of the killing by U.S. Navy SEALs of Osama bin Laden. The next day, the Los Angeles Times was the first to report that the would-be bomber was cooperating with U.S. authorities.
Risch and Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., were among those who contended Brennan inadvertently had revealed that the U.S. had a spy inside Yemen's al-Qaida branch when, hours after the first AP report appeared, he told a group of media consultants that "there was no active threat during the bin Laden anniversary because ... we had inside control of the plot."
Brennan won praise from several members of the committee as the day's proceedings drew to a close.
"I think you're the guy for the job, and the only guy for the job," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
The panel will meet in closed session next week to discuss classified material.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/08/gw-may-be-only-carrier-ready-to-respond-to-crisis.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=3
GW May Be Only Carrier Ready to Respond to Crisis
Feb 08, 2013
Stars and Stripes | by Erik Slavin
YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- The USS George Washington may be the Navy’s only aircraft carrier that will be ready to respond to a crisis later this year if Congress does not cancel billions of dollars of automatic spending cuts set to take effect next month.
The Navy has canceled ship maintenance and other projects to make up for a $4.6 billion funding shortfall it faces in 2013 because it is operating under a temporary congressional resolution limiting the Pentagon to 2012 spending levels.
Most of the immediate cuts are concentrated on larger bases in the United States and spare Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
However, Navy documents show that if the Pentagon is forced to cut $55 billion from its planned budget for 2013 -- as the congressional spending straitjacket known as sequestration would require -- Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific would slow considerably.
There are usually at least three crisis-ready carriers -- one for the Atlantic and two for Pacific, one based in Japan, and one in California or Washington state.
A Jan. 25 document on sequestration, requested by Stars and Stripes from Navy officials, calls for only one carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group, both of which would be Japan-based, to be crisis-ready by Oct. 13. So there wouldn’t be a carrier available to help in the event of an Atlantic-based crisis, and there would be no additional carrier group available if multiple incidents occur in the Pacific.
Deployed carrier operations in the Middle East, which differ from crisis operations, are already being reduced because of budget concerns. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta canceled USS Harry Truman’s Persian Gulf deployment Wednesday, effectively ending the department’s two-carrier policy in the region.
During the past few years, Navy ships have been tasked with semi-regular disaster relief missions in Asia, as well as patrolling in the midst of increasingly bitter squabbles over territory claimed by U.S. allies in the Western Pacific. Carriers based along the U.S. Pacific coast have repeatedly ventured to the Western Pacific.
“There could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot,” Adm. James Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a U.S. Naval Institute convention in San Diego on Tuesday.
If sequestration cuts aren’t averted, the Navy also plans to cut deployed operations in the Western Pacific by 35 percent, according to Navy documents. Nondeployed ships would lose 40 percent of their time at sea, port visits would be curtailed and multinational exercises would be canceled.
The Navy’s plans add pressure on the George Washington to keep to its maintenance schedule. The carrier returned to Yokosuka in November after a six-month patrol of the Western Pacific, and it needs repairs.
The ship is scheduled for a maintenance period called a selective restricted availability, or SRA, in about a week, Japan-based 7th Fleet officials confirmed Friday.
Carriers often spend nine months or more in an SRA maintenance period, but the George Washington has been scheduled for only six months.
U.S. Navy bases in the Asia-Pacific region could also face cuts to installation operating budgets. Navy documents call for a 10 percent servicewide cut in base operating expenses and a 50 percent cut in funds for building renovations and maintenance. Those are immediate cuts to make up for the current operating shortfall, though Navy documents refer to those cuts as reversible if Congress passes a spending bill.
Navy officials in Washington and Japan told Stars and Stripes on Thursday that it remained unclear how those fleetwide goals would affect Western Pacific base operations. Japan pays for a portion of base maintenance expenses under its host nation support agreement with the United States.
Without sequestration, the Pentagon had planned to cut about $500 billion over 10 years. Long-term sequestration would double that figure over nine years.
It would also require that about $500 billion be cut from non-defense discretionary programs, a sector encompassing 15 percent of the federal budget that includes housing assistance, health spending, NASA, foreign embassies, justice administration and more.
Congress established a committee to find $1 trillion in targeted spending cuts under the 2011 Budget Control Act. The bill included a clause calling for the across-the-board spending cuts included in sequestration -- which few in Congress ever wanted -- as an incentive to come up with a better plan. The sequestration cuts were scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, but Congress passed a bill postponing them until March while it considers other options.
Gypsy
Semper
Fi
Betsy E "Gypsy" Lister
Essex County Detachment #127 http://
Adjutant
Web Sergeant
Betsy E "Gypsy" Lister
Essex County Detachment #127 http://
Adjutant
Web Sergeant
Have you thanked a
Veteran for the Freedoms you enjoy Today?
Thank you to all of you for your service to our
country, for signing that check that devoted life, limb, well being....
May you all have many things to be thankful for
and may each day bring bountiful blessings to you and yours!
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Richard Lardner and Donna Cassata
WASHINGTON -- The United States is at risk of becoming a second-rate power if automatic budget cuts go into effect, plunging the U.S. armed forces into the most significant readiness crisis they've faced in more than a decade, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday.
Panetta, who is retiring soon from his post, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the reductions are allowed to stand he would have to throw the country's national defense strategy "out the window." But Panetta also assured lawmakers the Pentagon would take the steps necessary to deal with possible threats in the Persian Gulf region after he approved the Navy's request to halve its aircraft carrier presence in the area.
Anticipating the Defense Department will have less money to spend, Panetta said the Pentagon has already imposed a freeze on hiring and cut back on maintenance at bases and facilities. Those moves are reversible, he said, as long as Congress acts quickly to head off the cuts, known as sequestration, and approves a 2013 military budget.
The potential for the cuts to kick in on March 1 is the result of Congress' failure to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade. The Pentagon faces a $42.7 billion budget trim in the seven months starting in March and ending in September. The automatic cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next ten years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
Further complicating the military's fiscal picture is the lack of a new defense budget. Congress hasn't approved one. Lawmakers have instead been passing bills called continuing resolutions, which keep spending levels at the same rate as the year before. That means the Pentagon is operating on less money than it planned for, and that compounds the problem, Panetta said.
Panetta said that the department understood that it needed to do its part to help bring down the federal deficit and has been adjusting its plans to deal with the lower spending levels. But adding sequestration on top of that creates an untenable situation, he said.
The result of the sequestration cuts, Panetta said, is that "instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power." He added that it would be irresponsible for Congress to allow the cuts to take place. A "sequester was not designed as a mechanism that was supposed to happen," Panetta said. "It was designed to be so nuts that everybody would do everything possible to make sure it didn't happen."
Panetta has been vocal about stopping sequestration because it would leave the military "hollow," meaning the armed forces would look good on paper but actually lack the training and equipment they need to handle their missions.
As part of that campaign, the Defense Department has been providing greater details on the effect of the reductions. The department on Wednesday said it is cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one, a move that represents one of the most significant effects of sequestration. The U.S. has maintained two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf for much of the last two years.
The deployments of the USS Harry S Truman and the USS Gettysburg, a guided-missile cruiser, are being delayed as part of the Navy's plan to deal with the budget uncertainty.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates decided in 2010 to keep two carrier groups in the Gulf region as tensions with Iran escalated. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil supply passes, in retaliation for increased Western-led sanctions.
"We're going to do everything we can to make sure that we are prepared to deal with the threat from Iran," Panetta said. "We will have one carrier there and we will deploy other forces there so that we can hopefully fill the gap."
A group of Republican lawmakers from the House and Senate have offered a plan to cut the size of the federal workforce and use the savings to replace the cuts to the Pentagon and to domestic programs, which also are affected by sequestration. Similar legislation offered last year did not pass.
Each of the military branches has described in detailed memos to Congress widespread civilian furloughs, layoffs and hiring freezes that will hit workers all around the country. Overall, the Pentagon will furlough 800,000 civilian workers for 22 days, spread across more than five months, and will lay off as many as 46,000 temporary and contract employees, according to the correspondence.
The Navy said it will cease deployments to South America and the Caribbean and limit deployments to Europe. The Air Force warned that it would cut operations at various missile defense radar sites from 24 hours to eight hours. The Army said it would cancel training center rotations for four brigades and cancel repairs for thousands of vehicles, radios and weapons.
There is also concern that the readiness levels of the U.S. nuclear force could be degraded. The Air Force general responsible for maintaining the nation's fleet of nuclear-capable bombers said Wednesday that the possibility of sequestration and smaller defense budgets has led his command to make a 10 percent cut in flying hours for the B-52 bomber, a long-range aircraft that has been in operation since the 1950s.
"At the wing and the squadron level, they can probably manage that for a little while, and then we'll have to see what the impact of that is," said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of the Global Strike Command at Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
The B-52, which is the bomber fleet's workhorse, is already flying 20 percent fewer training missions than it did in 2001, according to Kowalski.
Kowalski also said discussions among senior national security officials are underway to determine whether missions handled by the nation's nuclear forces should get priority budget status in the event of sequestration. Global Strike Command also is responsible for B-2 stealth bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/02/debate-swirls-over-female-navy-seals.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=2
Debate Swirls over Female Navy SEALs
Feb 02, 2013
The Virginian-Pilot| by Mike Hixenbaugh
A bruised and bloodied female recruit pulls herself to her feet, spits out a mouthful of blood and shouts an unladylike insult at an abusive master chief, instantly earning respect from her male teammates as she becomes the nation's first female commando.
The dramatic scene from "G.I. Jane" suggests that integrating women into a special operations unit is as simple as finding a physically fit woman willing to shave her head and put up with misogynistic jerks.
That was just a movie. This is real life.
Special operations chief Adm. Bill McRaven told a Washington audience this week that he supports allowing women into elite military units, including the SEALs. The comments, made days after defense officials ended the ban on women serving in ground combat, ignited fresh debate among the ranks over whether women could -- or should -- serve alongside America's elite warriors.
There's long been skepticism over whether women can meet the grueling physical standards of special operations. Of those fit enough to make it to Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training -- an achievement in its own right -- only about 1 in 3 of them become Navy commandos.
McRaven, a former SEAL commander, said it's crucial that women be held to the same high standards as men and that he believes some "will do a phenomenal job."
McRaven has until 2016 to report back to the secretary of defense with a plan to integrate his forces or apply for an exception to continue to restrict women.
His comments drew mixed reactions among former SEALs reached by a reporter this week. Several flatly rejected the idea of bringing women into the force; others said they were open to the idea as long as standards were not lowered.
Even those who oppose allowing women to join the teams concede that a select few would probably make the cut.
"I'm confident there are women who can pass the physical standards; there are women I'm sure that can pass the mental standards," former SEAL officer Cade Courtley said. "But why would you add an element into the most elite special forces that could cause it to be less effective?"
Courtley, who spun his military experience into a reality show and book about survival tactics, imagined what would happen if a woman had been on the team of Virginia Beach-based SEALs tapped to take out Osama bin Laden and learned she was pregnant days before the raid.
"I'm not saying SEALs can't adapt," he said, "but why mess with something that's working?"
Courtley also questioned whether women should train alongside men in humbling circumstances. He described pushing through "hell week," a brutal five days of continuous training during the initial phase of BUD/S.
"At about night number four, when we're lying on metal grates in nothing but our swim shorts, I'm spooning this guy next to me, shivering to death and just hoping that he has to pee because I'll at least get a couple seconds of warmth," said Courtley, who became a SEAL in 1995 and left the service in 2001. "That's how far down we go. Are we really going to add women to that?"
Retired SEAL Don Shipley runs Extreme SEAL Experience in rural Chesapeake, a weeklong program for young men who aspire to join special operations forces. He has refused to open the course to women, despite several requests, because he fears it would deter men from signing up.
He expects the same would happen if women were integrated into SEAL training.
"You cannot even get the majority of the strongest guys in the nation to get through the training," Shipley said. "You're going to deter some those guys from coming out, and for what?"
Larry Bailey, a former SEAL commander who retired in 1990 after 27 years, said even if a woman meets the rigorous physical and mental requirements, she would not be suited for the job "by virtue of her anatomy." The 73-year-old described a scenario in which a female SEAL and her team are swimming toward a target through shark-infested Caribbean waters.
"What happens if her female menstrual cycle starts?" Bailey said. "The sharks will be swarming. That sounds ridiculous, but I use that to make a point. Men and women aren't built the same."
Bailey's hard-line stance doesn't necessarily reflect the views among younger special operations troops, many of whom have served alongside women during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kevin Maurer, a journalist and Virginia Beach native who has embedded numerous times with special operations units over the past decade, said he has seen commandos come to respect women who often join them on dangerous missions as helicopter pilots or with cultural support teams.
"With special operations guys, everyone earns their place," said Maurer, who co-wrote "No Easy Day" with an ex-SEAL who participated in the bin Laden raid. "It's about earning the green beret, earning the trident. If you can earn it, and if you're held to the same standards, then you will earn that respect."
Lisa Barbarics, a retired Navy chief, worked with SEAL teams as a communications specialist during the late-1990s. She said she felt like she was welcomed as part of the Naval Special Warfare community, but she has doubts about whether a woman would be accepted as a SEAL. She questioned whether many women could make it to that point.
"Having worked with those guys, there may be a few women out there who are capable of meeting those standards," Barbarics said. "I doubt there are very many of them."
One recently retired SEAL who served on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan said gender shouldn't matter. He shared his views with a reporter on the condition that his name not be published.
Women can be "as ruthless and driven as dudes," the ex-SEAL said in an email, "and once they have proven that they can pass the minimum standard, they should be allowed to roll with us."
He acknowledged that his views are not typical of most of his former teammates. But as long as standards aren't lowered, he said the training could be amended to allow women to participate without needlessly being forced into provocative situations. The change wouldn't be unprecedented.
"When I went through training, we did every run in jungle boots, and we lost 25 percent of the class to shin-splints or leg fractures," the retired SEAL said.
Now, SEALs do some training in running shoes -- and no one accuses them of being soft.
=====
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Brock Vergakis
NORFOLK, Va. - With family members waving from a pier, sailors aboard a Navy destroyer left for an overseas mission with more uncertainty than ever about their homecoming as potentially massive budget cuts reshape military plans.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry headed for what was supposed to be a six-month deployment in Europe on Thursday as part of a NATO plan to provide a ballistic-missile shield for the continent. The Navy has warned that tours like this one could be extended for unspecified periods after billions of dollars in automatic spending cuts known as sequestration take place March 1, unless Congress acts to avert them.
Among the military impacts, the Navy has said the cuts will mean there's less money for training and maintenance and that it could take longer to prepare crews to deploy as a result. The Navy has said that it would also deploy fewer ships to fewer places and that those that are sent out could spend longer stints at sea with fewer port calls to boost morale.
The possibility of extended deployments adds to the uncertainty that already accompanies military families.
"Even before the budget cuts and everything, you never have a set time that they're going to be home. I mean, they have a date, but that can always change so you always have that little bit of a worry that it's going to be longer than you think," said Robin Lunsford, whose husband Robert is an electronics technician aboard the Barry.
It's not just a concern for sailors, but for Marines, soldiers and airmen who continually deploy around the globe.
"If the military because of budget issues downsizes too much, does that mean that the fewer people who are left are going to have to deploy more?" asked Joyce Raezer, executive director at the National Military Family Association. "That's a real concern in the military community."
The toll that extended and repeated deployments can take on sailors and their families isn't lost on Navy leaders. They created an expansive wellness campaign last year that targets alcohol abuse, among other problems, that they were concerned after a decade of war.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the campaign during an all-hands call aboard the USS Bataan. The amphibious transports Marines that had recently completed the longest deployment for a Navy ship in nearly 40 years - at more than 10 months. At the time, he noted that the operational pace for the Navy and the Marines wasn't expected to slow down as the military shifted its focus to the Pacific.
There's also concern in the military community about how the cuts could affect programs meant to assist military families.
"I think a lot of our worry is access to some of the support services, whether it is counseling programs for kids, or programs to help families who are dealing with deployments, or programs that help military spouses find jobs when they move to a new community," Raezer said.
She said the services and programs that families depend on are staffed by federal employees who work for the military services, who have already been told to expect furloughs starting in March.
"Who is going to be there to support the family when they need that support service?" she said.
The Barry deployed a day after another ship's tour was canceled because of the looming cuts. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta indefinitely halted the USS Harry S. Truman from heading to the Middle East, leaving just one carrier in the region. A Navy document says that when the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower deploys there in a few weeks that its tour could be extended indefinitely.
USS Barry Cmdr. Thomas J. Dickinson said part of being in the Navy is the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
"Anytime you go on a deployment you tell the crew, `This is what we're scheduled for and if requirements change you have to be flexible.' And we talk to the families about that as well because that's who it's really hard on because they're holding down the fort while we're away doing our job," said Dickinson, the ship's commanding officer.
"Everybody reads the news and we talk about it, but one thing I don't do with the crew is give them any kind of speculation. That just kind of jerks them around a little bit. So I give them the facts, I give them what I know, when I know it."
For other sailors, being flexible means unexpectedly staying in port when they had already canceled apartment leases, cellphone contracts and put items into storage
Seaman William Neild had already given up his apartment ahead of Friday's planned departure for the Truman. His wife had also already made plans to move to Illinois for the duration of his expected six- to eight-month deployment. He now plans to spend his nights aboard the Truman until it is finally given orders to deploy again.
"It's just a lot of frustration," he said.
The potential for the cuts to kick in is the result of Congress' failure to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade. The Pentagon faces a $42.7 billion budget cut in the seven months starting in March and ending in September. The automatic cuts would be in addition to a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
MENTAL DISORDERS
AMONG RECENTLY DISCHARGED
VETERANS FROM MIDDLE EAST
WARS
The number of Veterans
accessing care at VA
facilities who reported
mental disorders, including
PTSD, bipolar, depression,
etc, according to report
linked below is much lower
DOD estimates of the actual
occurrence of these
problems. See
report from the
Congressional Research
Service:
Mental Disorders Among OEF/OIF
Veterans Using VA Health
Care: Facts and Figures,
dated February 4, 2013
This raises serious
questions about Veterans'
access to care and indicates
that the VA's need to insure
Vets know can access
services without
jeopardizing their jobs,
family, etc. We
should ask anyone in govt
who will listen what the
hell is going on.
There are 1.6 million people
involved in this, according
to the report. They deserve
better, and so do the
families and communities
that they are returning to.
Let's not have more Vets
losing it and harming
themselves or others,
because the govt isn't
helping them get beyond
their war experiences so
that they can live a good
life back home. I read
yesterday that 22 commit
suicide every day, and that
is so far beyond sad.
WASHINGTON DC:
Panetta's Arrivederci To Pentagon
Feb 09, 2013
Military.com| by Ricahrd Sisk
This time he really is going home to stay, Leon Panetta said Friday as he took leave of his post as Defense Secretary with a pass in review from the troops and a salute from President Obama.
"It's been for me one helluva' ride," Panetta said, bringing to a close nearly 50 years of public service that he began as a moderate Republican and ended as a moderate Democrat.
The 74-year-old Panetta, who retired before to his California walnut farm only to be called back to Washington as CIA Director and then the Pentagon's top civilian, stepped down praising the troops.
"I've witnessed a new generation of Americans ask themselves what they could do for their country," Panetta said, and through more than a decade of war "they have done everything the nation asked them to do, and more."
At the indoor farewell ceremony at Joint Base Fort Myer-Henderson Hall next to the Pentagon, Obama told Panetta that "you've led with heart and you've led with humor," a reference to Panetta's liberal use of salty language and jokes that sometimes ruffled feathers overseas.
Panetta was leaving while the Senate confirmation of his likely successor, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was still on hold as Republicans demanded that he turn over more past speeches and other documents.
But Obama expressed confidence that the nomination of Hagel, who served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam, would be approved to allow him to bring "the experience, judgment and vision that our troops deserve" to the Pentagon.
Panetta was going home after presiding as CIA Director over "perhaps, what was the greatest intelligence success in American history – delivering justice to Osama Bin Laden," Obama said.
At the Pentagon, Panetta was in charge of ‘welcoming more of our civilians to military service" by allowing gays to serve openly in uniform and ending the combat exclusion rule for women, Obama said.
On his watch as Defense Secretary, Panetta also saw a deadly uptick in attacks by Afghan trainees on U.s. forces, the onset of a "pivot toward Asia" by the military, a rise in violence across the Middle East and challenges to the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Obama also made reference to the huge problem that Panetta tried to resolve but was leaving behind – the budget and spending impasse with Congress called "sequester" that could lead to $500 billion in cuts for defense on March 1. Obama urged lawmakers to follow Panetta's example by "solving problems, not trying to score points."
"I have truly lived the American dream," said Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants, Carmelo and Carmelina Panetta, who settled in Monterrey, Calif., and began the walnut farm that has sustained the extended family.
During his time in Washington, "we have shown the world that nobody attacks the United States of America and gets away with it," Panetta said.
Panetta also paid tribute to his wife, Sylvia, who brought along their golden retriever "Bravo" for the ceremony. She led Bravo from the stands and handed the leash to her husband as the troops passed in review. "Her Valentine's gift is that we're both going home together," Panetta said.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Panetta that his greatest asset was "you've always believed in governing well."
Dempsey, who has a master's degree in literature, called Panetta the "Prospero of Public Service," referring to the master magician and main character of Shakespeare's "The Tempest."
Dempsey quoted from Prospero's last line in the play: "Let your indulgence set me free."
=====
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/08/lawmakers-may-seek-drone-strike-safeguards.html?comp=700001075741&rank=6
Lawmakers May Seek Safeguards for Drone Strikes
Feb 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Kimberly Dozier
WASHINGTON - CIA Director-designate John Brennan's vigorous defense of drone strikes to kill terror suspects - even American citizens - overseas is causing key lawmakers to consider lifting secrecy from what has become an important weapon in the fight against al-Qaida.
Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterror adviser, was grilled for more than three hours Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the drone program he leads, as well as on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques during the Bush administration, which he denounced, and on leaks of classified information to the media, which Brennan vehemently denied being a part of.
Despite Brennan's wide-ranging testimony and the White House's release of a top secret memo explaining its legal rationale for the strikes just hours before the confirmation hearing began, some senators said afterward it was time to bring the drone program into the open.
In a hearing that was interrupted by anti-drone protests that brought it to a brief halt and forced Capitol Hill security to empty the room of all but credentialed staff and media, Brennan told the committee that missile strikes by the unmanned drones are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he declared.
Referring to one American citizen killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011, he said Anwar al-Awlaki had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out on U.S. soil. They included the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that claimed 13 lives in 2009, a failed attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner the same year and a thwarted plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010.
"He was intimately involved in activities to kill innocent men, women and children, mostly Americans," Brennan said.
The committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she wanted to open more of the program to the public so U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.
Feinstein said she and other senators were considering legislation to set up a special court system to regulate drone strikes, similar to the one that signs off on government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases.
Speaking with uncharacteristic openness about the classified program, Feinstein said that the CIA had allowed her staff to make more than 30 visits to the agency's northern Virginia headquarters to monitor strikes but that such transparency needed to be increased. Her comments came after the White House, under pressure from the committee, gave senators on the panel a Justice Department memo outlining the legal justification for drone strikes. But senators complained that aides weren't allowed to see it.
"I think the process set up internally is a solid process," Feinstein said of the methods used to decide when to launch drones and against whom, but added: "I think there's an absence of knowing exactly who is responsible for what decision. So I think we need to look at this whole process and figure a way to make it transparent and identifiable."
Feinstein said other senators including Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., have all indicated "concern and interest" over how to regulate drones.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said some members of his panel also had been looking at establishing a "court-like entity" to review the strikes.
"I think the House and Senate ought to put their heads together and come up with some way to require, either initially or after the fact, a review of an operation when it takes the life of an American citizen," Schiff said.
In a long afternoon in the witness chair, Brennan was questioned on other issues, such as the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques during the George W. Bush administration. He declined to say whether he believes waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture, but he said firmly it was "something that is reprehensible and should never be done again."
Brennan, 57, is a veteran of more than three decades in intelligence work. He withdrew his name from nomination to head the CIA four years ago amid questions about the role he played at the CIA when the Bush administration approved waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists.
On the question of waterboarding, Brennan said that while serving as a deputy manager at the CIA during the Bush administration, he was told such interrogation methods produced "valuable information." Now, after reading a 300-page summary of a 6,000-page report on CIA interrogation and detention policies, he said he does "not know what the truth is."
Brennan bristled once during the day, when he was questioned about leaks to the media about an al-Qaida plot to detonate a new type of underwear bomb on a Western airline.
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, accused him of having leaked classified information in a telephone call with former government officials who were preparing to make television appearances to explain the plot.
"I disagree with that vehemently," the nominee shot back.
On May 7 of last year, The Associated Press reported that the CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner, using a bomb with a sophisticated new design. The bombing would have taken place near the anniversary of the killing by U.S. Navy SEALs of Osama bin Laden. The next day, the Los Angeles Times was the first to report that the would-be bomber was cooperating with U.S. authorities.
Risch and Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., were among those who contended Brennan inadvertently had revealed that the U.S. had a spy inside Yemen's al-Qaida branch when, hours after the first AP report appeared, he told a group of media consultants that "there was no active threat during the bin Laden anniversary because ... we had inside control of the plot."
Brennan won praise from several members of the committee as the day's proceedings drew to a close.
"I think you're the guy for the job, and the only guy for the job," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
The panel will meet in closed session next week to discuss classified material.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/08/gw-may-be-only-carrier-ready-to-respond-to-crisis.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=3
GW May Be Only Carrier Ready to Respond to Crisis
Feb 08, 2013
Stars and Stripes | by Erik Slavin
YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- The USS George Washington may be the Navy’s only aircraft carrier that will be ready to respond to a crisis later this year if Congress does not cancel billions of dollars of automatic spending cuts set to take effect next month.
The Navy has canceled ship maintenance and other projects to make up for a $4.6 billion funding shortfall it faces in 2013 because it is operating under a temporary congressional resolution limiting the Pentagon to 2012 spending levels.
Most of the immediate cuts are concentrated on larger bases in the United States and spare Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
However, Navy documents show that if the Pentagon is forced to cut $55 billion from its planned budget for 2013 -- as the congressional spending straitjacket known as sequestration would require -- Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific would slow considerably.
There are usually at least three crisis-ready carriers -- one for the Atlantic and two for Pacific, one based in Japan, and one in California or Washington state.
A Jan. 25 document on sequestration, requested by Stars and Stripes from Navy officials, calls for only one carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group, both of which would be Japan-based, to be crisis-ready by Oct. 13. So there wouldn’t be a carrier available to help in the event of an Atlantic-based crisis, and there would be no additional carrier group available if multiple incidents occur in the Pacific.
Deployed carrier operations in the Middle East, which differ from crisis operations, are already being reduced because of budget concerns. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta canceled USS Harry Truman’s Persian Gulf deployment Wednesday, effectively ending the department’s two-carrier policy in the region.
During the past few years, Navy ships have been tasked with semi-regular disaster relief missions in Asia, as well as patrolling in the midst of increasingly bitter squabbles over territory claimed by U.S. allies in the Western Pacific. Carriers based along the U.S. Pacific coast have repeatedly ventured to the Western Pacific.
“There could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot,” Adm. James Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a U.S. Naval Institute convention in San Diego on Tuesday.
If sequestration cuts aren’t averted, the Navy also plans to cut deployed operations in the Western Pacific by 35 percent, according to Navy documents. Nondeployed ships would lose 40 percent of their time at sea, port visits would be curtailed and multinational exercises would be canceled.
The Navy’s plans add pressure on the George Washington to keep to its maintenance schedule. The carrier returned to Yokosuka in November after a six-month patrol of the Western Pacific, and it needs repairs.
The ship is scheduled for a maintenance period called a selective restricted availability, or SRA, in about a week, Japan-based 7th Fleet officials confirmed Friday.
Carriers often spend nine months or more in an SRA maintenance period, but the George Washington has been scheduled for only six months.
U.S. Navy bases in the Asia-Pacific region could also face cuts to installation operating budgets. Navy documents call for a 10 percent servicewide cut in base operating expenses and a 50 percent cut in funds for building renovations and maintenance. Those are immediate cuts to make up for the current operating shortfall, though Navy documents refer to those cuts as reversible if Congress passes a spending bill.
Navy officials in Washington and Japan told Stars and Stripes on Thursday that it remained unclear how those fleetwide goals would affect Western Pacific base operations. Japan pays for a portion of base maintenance expenses under its host nation support agreement with the United States.
Without sequestration, the Pentagon had planned to cut about $500 billion over 10 years. Long-term sequestration would double that figure over nine years.
It would also require that about $500 billion be cut from non-defense discretionary programs, a sector encompassing 15 percent of the federal budget that includes housing assistance, health spending, NASA, foreign embassies, justice administration and more.
Congress established a committee to find $1 trillion in targeted spending cuts under the 2011 Budget Control Act. The bill included a clause calling for the across-the-board spending cuts included in sequestration -- which few in Congress ever wanted -- as an incentive to come up with a better plan. The sequestration cuts were scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, but Congress passed a bill postponing them until March while it considers other options.
Bumper
Sticker
If you can read this, thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, thank a Veteran!
If you can read this, thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, thank a Veteran!