Lawmakers seek justification for closing Joint Forces Command

The House Armed Services Committee will not provide any financial or legislative support for several Defense Department cost savings initiatives, including the closure of the Virginia-based Joint Forces Command, unless the Pentagon turns over details justifying its recommendations, according to the panel's chairman.

In a letter sent last week to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and released publicly on Wednesday, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said the department failed to turn over relevant documents explaining its decisions to disestablish JFCOM, as well as the Business Transformation Agency and the Office of Network and Information Integration.

Skelton said without the information the committee would be "unable to evaluate the rationale for the decisions. ... Previous recommendations of this magnitude included significant documentation to support decisions made by the secretary of Defense."


The Oct. 7 letter was written at the request of Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va., and was prompted by a contentious Sept. 29 committee hearing on the efficiency initiatives.

Lawmakers from both parties grilled senior Defense Department officials on the plan to close JFCOM, and expressed frustration when witnesses could not provide any written justification for the decision, the plan's estimated cost savings, or any successor organization. The command provides roughly 6,000 jobs in Virginia.

The chairman noted that prior to the hearing, the committee requested Defense share any business case analysis justifying the closure, as well as any guidance related to the decision. While the committee ultimately received a package of documents, it did not include, or even address the existence, of the requested guidance and analysis.

Skelton suggested in the letter that the department has not been forthcoming in responding to his request and it could still be formulating its analysis. On the day of the hearing, for example, the committee obtained from sources outside the department a memo to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of cost assessment and program evaluation on the subject of the Joint Forces Command Disestablishment Working Group.

"Needless to say, the committee is deeply disappointed that it had to obtain this document from sources outside the department," Skelton wrote.

Following the hearing, most of the committee members signed a letter requesting Skelton subpoena Gates to appear before the panel. But Skelton took a different approach, urging the department to comply with the information request or risk losing funding for the plan.

"It is important to note that a number of elements of the efficiency initiative will require changes to statute, the creation of or modification of legal authorities, and funding," he wrote. "The committee will be unable to support any request for legislation or funding resulting from the efficiency initiative until the committee's requests for information have been satisfied."

The closures, announced on Aug. 9, are part of a larger departmentwide effort to reduce overhead spending and redirect $100 billion to needed troops and equipment. A Defense Department spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on the letter.

GEN Stanley McChrystal’s Retirement Remarks

23 July 2010, Fort McNair, Washington D.C.














This is frustrating. I spent a career waiting to give a retirement speech and lie about what a great soldier I was. Then people show up who were actually there. It proves what Doug Brown taught me long ago; nothing ruins a good war story like an eyewitness.

To show you how bad it is, I can't even tell you I was the best player in my little league because the kid who was the best player is here tonight. In case you're looking around, he's not a kid anymore.

But to those here tonight who feel the need to contradict my memories with the truth, remember I was there too. I have stories on all of you, photos on many, and I know a Rolling Stone reporter. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

Look, this has the potential to be an awkward or even a sad occasion. With my resignation, I left a mission I feel strongly about. I ended a career I loved that began over 38 years ago. And I left unfulfilled commitments I made to many comrades in the fight, commitments I hold sacred.

My service did not end as I would have wished, and there are misperceptions about the loyalty and service of some dedicated professionals that will likely take some time but I believe will be corrected.

Still, Annie and I aren't approaching the future with sadness but with hope and iPhones. And my feelings for more than 34 years I spent as an Army officer are a combination of surprise that any experience could have been as rich and fulfilling as mine was and gratitude for the comrades and friends we were blessed with.

That's what I feel. And if I fail to communicate that effectively tonight, I'll simply remind you that Secretary Gates once told me I was a modern Patton of strategic communications. (Laughter.) Fair point.

So if we laugh tonight, it doesn't mean all these years have not been important to me. It means the opposite; that every day and every friend were gifts I treasure and I need to celebrate.

But first, I need to address two questions that we've been asked often lately. The first is: What are you going to do? Actually, Annie is the one who's asking me that. I'm thinking I'd be a good fashion consultant and spokesman for Gucci -- (laughter) -- but they haven't called.

The other question is always asked a bit tentatively. How are you and Annie doing? We did spend some years apart, but we're doing well. And I am carrying some of what I learned into retirement.

First, Annie and I are reconnecting. And now, we're up on Skype with each other. Of course, we never did that all the years I was 10,000 miles away, but now we can connect by video link when we're 15 feet apart. And I think she really likes that. (Laughter.)

I was so enthused I tried using Skype for a daily family VTC -- (laughter) -- where I could get updates and pass out guidance, but there's some resistance to flatter and faster in the McChrystal household. The same is true for the tactical directive I issued soon after my return. It's reasonable guidance: One meal a day, early-morning PT, the basics of a good family life. (Laughter.)

But I've gotten a few night letters, and Annie's stocking up on ammonium nitrate fertilizer -- (laughter) -- which is strange since our new yard is smaller than this podium. Although the insurgency is relatively small -- one woman -- she's uninterested in reintegration. (Laughter.) I assess the situation as serious and, in many ways, deteriorating. (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, look at her. I'm thinking at least 40,000 troops. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

Let me thank everyone for being here. This turnout is truly humbling. Here tonight are my wife and son, my four brothers, two nephews, mentors, comrades from countless phases of my career, and some special guests whose service and sacrifice are impossible to describe with words.
But because this crowd is pretty big, for good order and discipline, I've divided you all into four groups. Please remember your group number. (Laughter.)

Group 1 are all the people who accepted responsibility for making this ceremony work from the planners to the soldiers on the field. My apologies for all the time you spend in the heat. You're special people. And in my mind, you also represent soldiers all over the world. You have my sincere appreciation.

The second group -- (applause). The second group is distinguished servants of all nations who have taken time from your often-crushing schedules to be here. And thanks for your years of support and friendship. I got you out of the office early on Friday.

Group 3 are warriors of all ranks, and that includes many who don't wear a uniform but defend our nation with whom I have shared aircraft, VTCs, remote outposts, frustrations, triumphs, laughs and a common cause for many years. You are not all here. Some of you are deployed and in the fight. Others rest across river in Arlington. Most of the credit I've received actually belongs to you. It has been your comradeship that I have considered the greatest honor of my career.

Finally, Group 4 is all those who've heard we're having two kegs of beer in the backyard after my ceremony. This group includes a number of my classmates from West Point, old friends, most of the warriors from Group 3, and some others who defy accurate description. Anyone already carrying a plastic cup might be considered the vanguard of Group 4. (Laughter.) Everyone here today is invited to join.
To Secretary Gates, I want to express my personal thanks, certainly, for your generous remarks but more for your wisdom and leadership which I experienced firsthand in each of my last three jobs. Your contribution to the nation and to the force is nothing short of historic.

Similarly, I want to thank the many leaders, civilian and military, of our nation beginning with President Obama for whom and with whom I was honored to serve. Whether elected, appointed or commissioned, the common denominator of selfless service has been inspiring.
As COM ISAF, I was provided a unique opportunity to serve alongside the professionals of 46 nations under the leadership of NATO. We were stronger for the diversity of our force, and I'm better for the experience.
My thanks, also, to the leadership and people of Afghanistan for their partnership, hospitality and friendship. For those who are tempted to simplify their view of Afghanistan and focus on the challenges ahead, I counter with my belief that Afghans have courage, strength and resiliency that will prove equal to the task.
My career included some amazing moments and memories, but it is the people I'll remember. It was always about the people. It was about the soldiers who are well-trained but, at the end of the day, act out of faith in their leaders and each other; about the young sergeants who emerge from the ranks with strength, discipline, commitment and courage.

As I grew older, the soldiers and sergeants of my youth grew older as well. They became the old sergeants, long-service professionals whose wisdom and incredible sense of responsibility for the mission and for our soldiers is extraordinary.

And the sergeants major -- they were a national treasure. They mold and maintain the force and leaders like me. They have been my comrade, confidante, constructive critic, mentor and best friend.

A little more than a year ago on a single e-mail, Command Sergeant Major Mike Hall came out of retirement, leaving a job, his son and his amazing wife Brenda to join me in Afghanistan. To Mike, I could never express my thanks. To Brenda, I know after all these years, I owe you. I also love you.

To true professionals like Sergeants Major Rudy Valentine, Jody Nacy, Steve Cuffie, CW Thompson, Chris Craven, Jeff Mellinger and Chris Farris, your presence here today is proof that, when something is truly important, like this ceremony, you're on hand to make sure I don't screw it up.

I've been blessed with the presence of old friends throughout my career, friendships that began long ago at West Point, Forts Benning, Bragg, Lewis or countless other locations and shared years of Army life, moving vans, kids, laughs, disappointments, and each other's successes which grew into bonds that became critical on the battlefield.

I treasure a note I received during a particularly tough time in Afghanistan in 2007 from fellow commander, Dave Rodriguez, that quoted Sherman's confidence that, if he ever needed support, he knew his friend Grant would come to his aid if alive. Serving with people who say and mean such words is extraordinary.
I served with many. Many of you are here tonight. And not all the heroes are comrades are in uniform. In the back of a darkened helicopter over Kunar, Afghanistan, in 2004, a comrade in blue jeans whose friendship I cherish to this day passed me a note. Scribbled on a page torn from a pocket notebook, the note said, "I don't know the Ranger Creed, but you can count on me to always be there." He lived up to his promise many times over.

To have shared so much with and been so dependent on people of such courage, physical and moral, integrity and selflessness taught me to believe.

Annie's here tonight. No doubt she walked the 50 feet from our front door in cute little Italian shoes of which we have an extensive collection. (Laughter.)

In Afghanistan, I once considered using Annie's shoe purchases as an argument to get Italy to send additional forces. (Laughter.) But truth be known, I have no control over that part of the McChrystal economy. (Laughter.)

But she's here like she's always been there when it mattered. Always gorgeous. For three and a half years, she was my girlfriend then fiancée and, for over 33 years, she's been my wife.

For many years, I've joked, sometimes publicly, about her lousy cooking, terrifying closets, demolition derby driving and addiction to M&M candy, which is all true. But as we conclude a career together, it's important for you to know she was there.

She was there when my father commissioned me a second lieutenant of infantry and was waiting some months later when I emerged from Ranger School. Together, we moved all we owned in my used Chevrolet Vega to our first apartment at Fort Bragg. The move, with our first days in our $180-a-month apartment, was the only honeymoon I was able to give her, a fact she has mentioned a few times since.

Annie always knew what to do. She was gracious when she answered the door at midnight in her nightgown to fight Sergeant Emo Holtz, a huge mortarman, carrying a grocery bag of cheap liquor for a platoon party I'd hastily coordinated that evening and not told Annie about following a Friday night jump. I got home not long after to find Annie making food for assembling paratroopers. Intuitively, Annie knew what was right and quietly did it.

With 9/11, she saw us off to war and patiently supported the families of our fallen with stoic grace. As the years passed and the fight grew ever more difficult and deadly, Annie's quiet courage gave me strength I would never otherwise have found.

It's an axiom in the Army that soldiers write the checks but families pay the bills. And war increases both the accuracy of that statement and the cost families pay.

In a novel based on history, Steven Pressfield captured poignantly just how important families were and, I believe, are today. Facing an invading Persian army under King Xerxes, a coalition of Greek states sent a small force to buy time by defending the pass at Thermopylae and were led by 300 special, selected Spartans. The mission was desperate and death for the 300 certain.

Before he left to lead them, the Spartan king, Leonidas, explained to one of the Spartan wives how he had selected the 300 from an entire army famed for its professionalism, courage and dedication to duty.

"I chose them not for their valor, lady, but for that of their women. Greece stands now upon her most perilous hour. If she saves herself, it will not be at the gates. Death alone awaits us and our allies there but later in battles yet to come by land and sea."

"Then Greece, if the gods will it, will preserve herself. Do you understand this, lady? Well, now, listen, when the battle is over, when the 300 have gone to death, then all Greece will look to the Spartans to see how they bear it. But who, lady, will the Spartans look to? To you. To you and the other wives and mothers, sisters and daughters of the fallen."

"If they behold your hearts riven and broken with grief, they too will break and Greece will break with them. But if you bear up, dry eyed, not alone enduring your loss but seizing it with contempt for its agony and embracing it as the honor that it is in truth, then Sparta will stand and all Greece will stand behind her.

"Why have I nominated you, lady, to bear up beneath this most terrible of trials, you and your sisters of the 300? Because you can."

To all who wear no uniform but give so much, sacrifice so willingly and serve as such an example to our nation and each other, my thanks.
As I leave the Army, to those with responsibility to carry on, I'd say, service in this business is tough and often dangerous. It extracts a price for participation, and that price can be high.

It is tempting to protect yourself from the personal or professional costs of loss by limiting how much you commit, how much of belief and trust in people, and how deeply you care. Caution and cynicism are safe, but soldiers don't want to follow cautious cynics. They follow leaders who believe enough to risk failure or disappointment for a worthy cause.

If I had it to do over again, I'd do some things in my career differently but not many. I believed in people, and I still believe in them. I trusted and I still trust. I cared and I still care. I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Winston Churchill said we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. To the young leaders of today and tomorrow, it's a great life. Thank you. (Applause.)

U.S. Says Settling South China Sea Disputes ‘Pivotal’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said resolving territorial disputes off China’s southern coast is “a leading diplomatic priority,” signaling her intention to intercede in a region claimed in full by the Chinese government.

Ending disagreements in the South China Sea “is pivotal to regional stability” and ensuring “unimpeded commerce,” Clinton told the 27-member Asean Regional Forum in Hanoi today, according to a State Department transcript. She later met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.

Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said there were “very, very open, sometimes heated discussion” during the forum on issues including the South China Sea and the Korean peninsula.

The Chinese government considers the entire South China Sea as its own, dismissing rival claims to islands such as the Spratlys, and is building a blue-water fleet to project power beyond its own borders.

“China’s assertiveness has caused anxieties in the region,” said Carlyle A. Thayer, professor of politics at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra. Countries around Asia “are quite happy the U.S. is doing the heavy lifting.”

‘Core Interest’ Status

Raising the South China Sea to the level of a “core interest” would put it on the same standing as Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province to be reunited by force, if necessary. China cut military links with the U.S. in January in protest at arms sales to Taiwan, a move Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “makes little sense” and threatens regional stability.

China doesn’t see U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as “normal,” General Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, said in Singapore last month.

China has also protested at military exercises by the U.S. off the coast of Korea that Gates said are aimed at deterring further acts of aggression by North Korea after the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

In a show of the U.S.’ strategic commitment to the region, Clinton and Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior defense officials met in Seoul on June 21 on the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War.

U.S. Naval Force

The 97,000-ton USS George Washington and three destroyers arrived in the country the same day, ahead of military exercises due next week that will involve F-22 stealth fighter-bombers and hundreds of other aircraft, ships and thousands of U.S. and Korean personnel.

The U.S. drills mask a hidden aim to “pressurize and contain other big powers by force of arms in the region,” the state-run Korea Central News Agency said July 21. North Korea denies any involvement in the sinking and today accused the U.S. of “gunboat diplomacy” in sending the Washington to the region.

“There will be physical response against the steps imposed by the United States militarily,” Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Security Forum, told reporters in Hanoi today.

China, North Korea’s main ally and source of economic support, is “firmly opposed” to any threatening foreign military activities in waters off its shores, the foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website. It has so far refused to join international condemnation of North Korea for the ship sinking.

Claims Disputed

The Chinese government formally disputed the claims of Vietnam and Malaysia to part of the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands when it submitted a map to the United Nations last year asserting ownership over most of the sea. Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan also lay claim to all or part of the island chain, which may contain oil and gas reserves.

China has beefed up its military over the past decade, enhancing the capability to deter U.S. ships and enforce territorial claims off its shores. Last year, Chinese fishing boats harassed two U.S. naval vessels in the South China Sea, where American forces have patrolled since World War II.

Chinese officials told U.S. counterparts in March they consider the sea a “core interest” on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Kyodo News reported on July 3, citing unidentified officials.

U.S.-Vietnam Cooperation

Clinton yesterday discussed military cooperation with Vietnam and Defense Secretary Robert Gates restored ties with special forces in Indonesia. The two countries border the South China Sea, which contains sea corridors vital to world trade.

“The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion,” Clinton said. “We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant.”

Asean foreign ministers are negotiating an agreement with China on a code of conduct in the sea to build on a 2002 accord that called for disputes to be resolved peacefully. Ministers hope the deal can be concluded by year’s end, Asean’s Surin said yesterday. Open shipping lanes in the sea are “really the lifeline of our commerce, of our transport for all of us,” Surin told reporters in Hanoi. China, Japan and South Korea “recognize that 85 to 90 percent of their energy source comes either from or through Southeast Asia,” he said.

U.S. Special Operations Command Chief : Counterinsurgency Ops Should 'Involve Countering the Insurgents'

The U.S. military's counterinsurgency tactics increasingly place too much emphasis on protecting local peoples and not enough on fighting enemy forces, said U.S. Special Operations Command chief Adm. Eric Olson.

While the U.S. military has adopted a population-focused strategy in Afghanistan, Olson said, he "fears counterinsurgency has become a euphemism for nonkinetic activities."

The term is now to often used to describe efforts aimed at "protecting populations," Olson said during a conference in Arlington, Va.

The military's top special operator, in a shot across the bow of modern-day counterinsurgency doctrine proponents, then added: "Counterinsurgency should involve countering the insurgents."

Olson also made clear he thinks U.S. laws give him the authority to craft and implement doctrine for America's special operators.

Olson said doctrine is important for fighting wars, and "should be carefully written - but we should not fall in love with it."

In a blunt statement, Olson called "COIN doctrine an oxymoron."

That's because "almost none" of what the doctrine contains is "actually applied" during military operations, he said.

Olson pointed to parts of the current counterinsurgency doctrine that is based on U.S. military efforts in certain provinces of Iraq. Those tactics rarely apply anywhere in Afghanistan, he said.

"It is an imperfect template from which we must deviate," Olson said to a silent room.

His comments came 24 hours after Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combat terrorism, told the conference that Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the entire military to adopt counterinsurgency standards "in line" with those applied in Afghanistan by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces there.

Gates on May 24 signed a directive ordering the services and military components to "take McChrystal's COIN training and proficiency standards ... and adapt those or the whole force," Reid said.

The idea is to take the kinds of COIN training and "proficiency" standards McChrystal implemented there with his "AfPak Hands" program. The "Hands" effort was formally launched last fall.

A Joint Staff fact sheet calls it a language and cultural immersion effort under which U.S. forces gain skills to help them carry out counterinsurgency missions. Military officials have made gaining the trust and support of local populations in Afghanistan a cornerstone of the ongoing allied mission there - AfPak Hands is aimed at bolstering that.

Olson told Defense News the secretary's guidance must be implemented in a way that incorporates "a SOF flavor."

"There is a special operations flavor of COIN that is up to us to adjust to within the context of Gen. McChrystal and the secretary of defense's guidance," he said.

Olson also made clear whom he feels should write doctrine for the military's specops forces.

"Frankly," he said, "it is a legislative requirement for the commander of Special Operations Command to craft doctrine for special operations forces."

China suspends military exchanges with US

China suspended military exchanges with the United States, threatened unprecedented sanctions against American defense companies and warned Saturday that cooperation would suffer after Washington announced $6.4 billion in planned arms sales to Taiwan.

The response to Friday's U.S. announcement, while not entirely unexpected, was swift and indicated that China plans to put up a greater challenge than usual as it deals with the most sensitive topic in U.S.-China relations.

"This is the strongest reaction we've seen so far in recent years," said Stephanie T. Kleine-Ahlbrandt, northeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group. "China is really looking to see what kind of reaction it's going to receive from Obama on this."

China's Defense Ministry said the arms sales to self-governing Taiwan, which the mainland claims as its own, cause "severe harm" to overall U.S.-China cooperation, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. Vice ministerial-level talks on arms control and strategic security were postponed.

The warning comes as the U.S. seeks Beijing's help on issues including the global financial crisis and nuclear standoffs in North Korea and Iran. Tensions were already high after recent U.S. comments on Internet freedom and a dispute between Google and China, as well as President Barack Obama's plan to meet with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama this year.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei told U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman that the sales of Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and other weapons to Taiwan would "cause consequences that both sides are unwilling to see," a ministry statement said.

The Foreign Ministry also threatened sanctions against U.S. companies involved in the arms sales, which hasn't happened in past sales to Taiwan.

"Our action regarding Taiwan reinforces our commitment to stability in the region," U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Saturday. "We know China has a different view. Given our broad relationship with China, we will manage this issue as we have in the past."

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier, and it's bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

China responds angrily to any proposed arms sales, however, and it also cut off military ties with the U.S. in 2008 after the former Bush administration announced a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.

A similar cutoff of military ties was expected this time, but it comes as Washington and Beijing wanted to improve normally frosty relations between their armed forces. The U.S. has tried to use military visits to build trust with Beijing and learn more about the aims of its massive military buildup.

"In the past, these kinds of suspensions have lasted for three to six months, with some parts of the military-to-military relationship suspended beyond that," said Phillip Saunders, a distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University in Washington. "I expect something similar this time."

It's not known whether the arms sale will affect President Hu Jintao's expected visit to the U.S. this year or a summit on nuclear safety in the U.S. this spring.

Experts on China warned Beijing could take further steps to punish the United States to show its newfound power and confidence in world affairs.

Jin Canrong, a professor of international studies at China's Renmin University, said the sale would give Beijing a "fair and proper reason" to accelerate weapons testing. China test-fired rockets in recent weeks for an anti-missile defense system in what security experts said was a display of anger at the pending arms sale.

"The U.S. will pay a price for this. Starting now, China will make some substantial retaliation, such as reducing cooperation on the North Korea and Iran nuclear issues and anti-terrorism work," Jin added.

The latest suspension of military ties should affect planned visits to China by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. A visit to the U.S. by the Chinese military's chief of the general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde, could also be called off.

The U.S. Congress has 30 days to comment on the newest arms sales before the plan goes forward. Lawmakers traditionally have supported such sales.

Though Taiwan's ties with China have warmed considerably since Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took office 20 months ago, Beijing has threatened to invade if the island ever formalizes its de facto independence. China has more than 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

China often argues that arms sales to Taiwan hurt their relations, but Saunders said that despite the latest announcement and the one in 2008, "cross-Strait relations have never been better."

The arms package announced Friday dodged a thorny issue: The more advanced F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The Pentagon's decision not to include the fighters and a design plan for diesel submarines - two items Taiwan wants most - "shows that the Obama administration is deeply concerned about China's response," said Wang Kao-cheng, a defense expert at Taipei's Tamkang University.

Taiwan's Ma told reporters Saturday that the deal should not anger the mainland because the weapons are defensive, not offensive.

Army modernization project faces uncertain future

If the Army must be ready for both high-intensity combat and low-intensity counterinsurgency, what is to become of the service's main modernization program, the awkwardly named and hugely expensive Future Combat Systems?

With a new administration and a worsening economy, there is unprecedented pressure to trim the complex program -- originally envisioned as an integrated set of armored vehicles and aerial and ground robots, plus a mobile computer network with 95 million lines of code to coordinate their operations.

The idea was first outlined by then-Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki in 1999. The problem then to be solved was how the Army could deploy heavy forces in time to stop, say, Iraqi aggression in Kuwait in 1990 or Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999, both situations in which hostile nation-states with Soviet-built tanks were able to move faster than the Pentagon could.

Gen. Shinseki sold the FCS as a rapidly deployable replacement for the Army's main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, which was too heavy to be flown in large numbers to a crisis spot.

The FCS would use advanced technology to cram all of the firepower and protection of 70-ton heavy tanks into 20-ton vehicles light enough to be airlifted en masse to trouble spots worldwide.

Slow, grinding wars against elusive guerrillas were not on the FCS agenda.

But the original vision got one critical part of the future right: Watching urban sprawl envelop the planet, Army planners predicted that the FCS would have to fight its battles in cities. So they outlined an FCS brigade structure that incorporated not only long-range precision weapons to kill enemy tanks but also additional foot soldiers to fight house-to-house, armored personnel carriers to get them to the target under fire, and abundant unmanned systems -- flying drones, crawling robots, and static sensors -- to scope out hidden enemies, with a computerized communications network to coordinate it all.

Those same four components -- armor, infantry, drones, and networks -- have proved vital in city fighting in Iraq. So it might seem that the FCS would be perfect for hybrid warriors.

The problem, however, is that for years the Army has played chicken with Congress over the $160 billion -- some say $200 billion -- FCS program. Capitol Hill chafed at the Army's insistence on treating the array as a single program: a single line item in its budget with a single contract. Lawmakers were also unhappy that the FCS was aimed not at modernizing existing Army units but at creating "FCS brigades" equipped for the most part with Future Combat Systems hardware.

The Army argued that the program's 17 components were too interdependent for legislators to pick and choose and that because the FCS made up so much of the Army's modernization budget, the service had no alternative plan. To put the Army's argument bluntly: Future Combat Systems is too big to fail and too tightly integrated to pick apart, so let us do what we want.

"If FCS were canceled, the Army does not really have a plan for the future, and it was so thoroughly integrated you couldn't kill any one piece of it because the whole thing would collapse," said Loren Thompson, a Lexington Institute analyst and a consultant for major defense firms. "That approach has turned from a form of protection to a liability. It simply isn't executable. I suspect the service will have to disentangle those elements."

Congress has proved increasingly willing to call the Army's bluff. In 2007, legislators forced the service to list one of the eight planned variants of the FCS's armored vehicles as a separate line item in its budget. Last year, the Army on its own announced it would accelerate some of the less ambitious robotics and buy them for existing light infantry units. In recent months, under pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to control costs, the Army has hinted that it will cherry-pick the most promising of the eight FCS manned vehicles and use them to modernize existing heavy armored units. Instead of a "pure" FCS brigade, one congressional staffer said, "it sounds like they're headed for a future heavy brigade with a mix of FCS vehicles, current vehicles, and Strykers," an armored vehicle with huge tires that has been effective in Iraq.

As for the sprawling FCS program, it should be divided into three parts, like Gaul, the staffer said, voicing a sentiment not uncommon around Washington. "You could pursue the vehicle variants under one R&D program because you have a common chassis," he argued. "The [computer] network, I think, just needs to be a separate program. [And] the robots and such, those could be separate programs. If they end up being useful, great, buy them for the entire Army. I think they could stand or fail on their own."

As for the FCS's brigade design, applying it to current armored units would give them almost 20 percent more foot soldiers -- the truly decisive weapon in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The Army's program makes sense in both the organization and the equipment," Frank Hoffman, a retired marine with no dog in the Army's fight, said of the Future Combat Systems. "I think the Army's right for the wrong reasons. They may have thought this thing was designed for high-end warfare, but it turns out to be the best posture for the medium."

Panel finds erosion of nuclear deterrence mission widespread at Defense

A special task force reviewing nuclear weapons management across the Defense Department found a "distressing degree of inattention" to the nuclear deterrence mission among senior military and civilian officials, said James Schlesinger, a former Defense secretary and chairman of the panel.

In a briefing at the Pentagon on Thursday, Schlesinger and other panel members released the Phase II Review of the DoD Nuclear Mission, the final report of the Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management.

An earlier report released in September 2008 (here here here) focused on shortcomings in Air Force nuclear stewardship.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates created the panel in June 2008 to uncover systemic problems in the handling of nuclear weapons and materiel after highly publicized failures in which Air Force pilots unwittingly flew nuclear bombs across the country and the Defense Logistics Agency erroneously shipped nuclear-related components to Taiwan.

U.S. allies have been especially concerned about the erosion of nuclear capability, Schlesinger said. Without confidence in U.S. capability, some of those allies could develop their own nuclear weapons, which raises the risk of nuclear proliferation, he added.

Leadership on nuclear deterrence must come from the White House and senior officials at Defense and the Energy Department, Schlesinger said. The task force recommended that the Obama administration "develop a strategic framework defining the unique role of nuclear weapons in deterring threats to the United States, our key interests and our allies." Such a framework could provide a foundation for the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review.

According to the report, "The decline in management attention to nuclear matters is evidenced by a dramatically reduced workforce, fragmentation of nuclear policy and guidance responsibility across the office, dilution of organizational focus because of proliferating missions, and relegation of nuclear-focused organizations to positions of lower authority."

"The remaining workforce lacks both depth and breadth of nuclear experience," the panel reported.

Among other things, the task force recommended that Gates establish an assistant secretary of Defense for deterrence in the policy office to consolidate nuclear oversight, which is now spread among dozens of Defense offices.

While Gates has not yet made any decisions regarding the recommendations, Schlesinger said, "I think that is very likely to happen and that there will be a concentration of authority in that office."

The task force also recommended that Gates review the mission portfolio of U.S. Strategic Command, the joint military organization that has responsibility for the nuclear mission. The command has nine major program areas, which limits the organization's ability to maintain a focus on nuclear deterrence.

The panel didn't prescribe how the command's mission portfolio should be restructured, but it did recommend that the command retain the nuclear deterrence, global strike and space missions, suggesting that other responsibilities could be moved elsewhere.

In its report on the Air Force, the task force pointed out that after the Cold War, the service reorganized in such a way that degraded the deterrence mission by shifting nuclear assets away from a single command organization. Within the new components the nuclear mission was diluted and lacked high-level advocates. The erosion of capabilities and expertise followed. A similar degradation of nuclear capability occurred Defensewide during the last decade, the panel noted.

Only in the Navy, where the nuclear mission remained focused within a single organization, has the commitment held relatively steady, Schlesinger said.

Even so, there has been "some fraying around the edges" of Navy capability, he said. "With all remaining nuclear weapons concentrated in the fleet ballistic-missile submarine force, a significant future challenge for the Navy will be an inevitable decline in nuclear weapons and policy expertise at the flag officer level among officers from other branches," the task force found. It made a number of recommendations aimed at compensating for the service's shrinking experience base.

Schlesinger and retired Air Force Gen. Michael P.C. Carns, a panel member, both made a point of praising Air Force leaders for taking significant steps to improve the service's nuclear capability.

"The value of our deterrent is not primarily a function of the number of our warheads, but rather of the credibility of our nuclear capabilities in the minds of those we seek to deter, dissuade or assure," the report said.

SecDef outlines commitment to military reform

Anyone looking for a clue as to how Defense Secretary Robert Gates may pursue his responsibilities under the Obama administration should pick up the January issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. In an article titled "A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age," Gates spells out his thinking on issues from the war in Iraq to modernization plans.

"To fail -- or to be seen to fail -- in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to U.S. credibility, both among friends and allies and among potential adversaries," Gates writes, dispelling any notion that he might support a speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq if such reductions mean worsening security there.

"In Iraq, the number of U.S. combat units there will decline over time -- as it was going to do no matter who was elected president in November," he writes. "Still, there will continue to be some kind of a U.S. advisory and counterterrorism effort in Iraq for years to come."

With the Pentagon gearing up to conduct its next Quadrennial Defense Review -- a broad examination of how the services are structured and equipped to meet emerging challenges -- Gates' essay provides a sense of the direction the review is likely to take.

The bulk of Gates' concerns center on military modernization. He notes that higher defense spending will not eliminate national security risks, and says entrenched support for conventional modernization programs at the Pentagon, in industry and Congress is problematic.

"My fundamental concern is there is no commensurate institutional support -- including in the Pentagon -- for the capabilities needed to win today's wars and some of their likely successors," he said.

While maintaining a robust array of conventional weapons and planning for warfare against similarly equipped military forces remains important, Gates called for keeping the conventional threat in perspective: "As much as the Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined -- and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."

"It is true that the United States would be hard-pressed to fight a major conventional ground war elsewhere on short notice, but as I have asked before, where on earth would we do that?" he writes. "U.S. air and sea forces have ample untapped striking power should the need arise to deter or punish aggression -- whether on the Korean Peninsula, in the Persian Gulf, or across the Taiwan Strait."

While the United States is unlikely to embark on another forced regime change anytime soon, Gates writes, "that does not mean it may not face similar challenges in a variety of locales." The military, he says, must do a better job of building capacity in allied foreign governments and their security forces to prevent festering problems in weak states from ballooning into crises requiring U.S. military intervention.

"The United States does not have the luxury of opting out because these scenarios do not conform to preferred notions of the American way of war," he warns.

Gates is concerned that the institutional military -- mainly the bureaucratic organizations and systems for promoting personnel and buying weapons -- is out of sync with the needs of the nation. For example, he says, military promotion systems must reward the importance of advising, training and equipping foreign troops -- something still not considered a career-enhancing path for the best and brightest officers.

Gates is especially critical of military acquisition and procurement operations. He asks why it was necessary to go outside the normal processes to develop technologies to counter roadside bombs, build mine-resistant vehicles, and expand the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Defense Department's conventional modernization programs seek a 99 percent solution over a period of years. Stability and counterinsurgency missions require 75 percent solutions over a period of months. The challenge is whether these two different paradigms can be made to coexist in the U.S. military's mind-set and bureaucracy," Gates writes.

It is essential that strategy and risk drive procurement and not the other way around, he says: "I want to see a defense establishment that can make and implement decisions quickly in support of those on the battlefield."

SecDef stresses nuclear responsibility of U.S. Air Force

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Monday urged Air Force personnel at a troubled military base to step up their care over the installation's nuclear weapons.

He spoke on the day that President-elect Barack Obama announced that Gates would remain in his job when the new administration takes office in January.

"I wanted to tell you in person that, as stewards of America's nuclear arsenal, your work is vital to the security of our nation. Handling nuclear weapons -- the most powerful and destructive instruments in the arsenal of freedom -- is a tremendous responsibility," Gates said in a speech at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

In August 2007, Minot air crews mistakenly loaded six nuclear-armed cruise missiles onto a B-52 bomber that then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. The weapons were not identified as missing for about 36 hours, when Barksdale personnel unloaded the cruise missiles from the bomber.

The mishandling spurred an extensive investigation that ultimately resulted in scores of disciplinary actions and the resignations of the Air Force's top officials.

"The serious lapses of last year were unacceptable, and resulted in severe consequences starting at the unit level and reaching up to the senior leadership of the Air Force," Gates said Monday. "The problems were the result of a long-standing slide in the Service's nuclear stewardship, where this critical mission -- and the career field associated with it -- did not receive the attention, funding, or personnel it deserved."

"We owe you the attention, the people, and the resources you need to do the job right," he added. "For your part, you must never take your duties lightly. There is simply no room for error. Yours is the most sensitive mission in the entire U.S. military."

"Abolishing nuclear weapons once and for all is a worthy long-term goal," he said, but there is a "grim reality that, as long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves: to deter potential adversaries and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security -- making it unnecessary for them to develop their own."

Air Force to begin shaping new nuclear command

The Air Force plans to select a provisional location and interim leadership for a new Global Strike Command by the end of the year, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Wednesday.

The Air Force will not officially launch the command -- one of several efforts to correct deficiencies affecting the service's nuclear weapons arsenal -- until September.

A defense source said Louisiana's Barksdale Air Force Base is among the most likely candidates to become home to at least the provisional command.

"This stand up is significant not only because it restores our focus on the nuclear mission and culture, but because it demonstrates our clear commitment to restoring excellence in nuclear matters," Donley said during an appearance Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The new command is one of many changes the Air Force is making in an attempt to correct flaws outlined in a report this summer that uncovered widespread problems with the service's handling of its most dangerous weapons. The investigation, sparked by the mistaken delivery of ballistic missile fuses to Taiwan in 2006 that was not discovered until March, led to the firings in June of then-Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Michael Moseley. In addition, the Air Force mistakenly and unknowingly flew nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale in August 2007.

The point of the new command, Donley said, is to place a single commander in charge of all Air Force nuclear operations, including training and equipping for all B-2 stealth bombers, B-52 bombers and intercontinental ballistic missile missions.

Essentially, the 8th Air Force, which falls under Air Combat Command, and 20th Air Force, part of Air Force Space Command, would report to the new Global Strike Command.

The B-1 bomber fleet will remain under Air Combat Command, reflecting the Air Force's use of the B-1 only for conventional missions, Donley said.

"This approach restores the necessary focus on the nuclear mission [and] provides a clear chain of command for all Air Force nuclear forces," Donley said.

Meanwhile, Donley said the Air Force -- and the Defense Department as a whole -- has spent months preparing for the transition to the next administration.

"Today, we're involved in two shooting wars as well as 24/7 international efforts to track down terrorists, so it's tremendously important that we make this transition as smooth as possible," Donley said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked the department's political appointees to "consider staying on as long as possible to assist the transition teams," Donley added. "His hope is to avoid the bathtub [drain] in leadership that typically accompanies changes in administrations, especially as we remain a nation at war."

Advisers to President-elect Obama have not ruled out the possibility of Gates staying at the helm of the Pentagon into the next administration.

Back to the Future

Hat Tip to Katherine McIntire Peters
Any day now, senior Air Force leaders will announce the details of their plan to establish a major command to manage nuclear and deterrence missions. The far-reaching restructuring is aimed at restoring global confidence in U.S. nuclear stewardship following a string of security lapses and unacceptable mistakes that led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sack the service's senior civilian and military leaders in June.

As service leaders iron out the critical details inherent in establishing a new command structure, it's worth remembering that the Air Force used to have an organization that did exactly what it now needs to do. The Strategic Air Command was once the pride of Cold War airmen, for whom the nuclear mission was synonymous with national preservation. The service's decision to dismantle the command in 1991 following Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, the first major post-Cold War military engagement, is a cautionary tale in the unintended consequences that can result from a major reorganization.

There's no question that the nuclear mission today and its deterrence role have evolved considerably from Cold War days. But as James Schlesinger, chairman of the Task Force for Nuclear Weapons Management, said during a September briefing at the Pentagon, the mission remains vital to national security.

When it reorganized its command structure in the 1990s, Air Force leaders allowed the mission to atrophy through inattention and budget cuts. Bomber forces lost their focus on nuclear expertise, concentrating on conventional operations instead. It was an understandable shift -- those forces had not been prepared intellectually or logistically for the first Gulf War. But it proved to be an overreaction, as seen through the service's mistakes over the last few years.

Today in the nuclear arena, "There is a shortage of security personnel. There is a shortage of maintenance people. There is a shortage of those who supervise the nuclear establishment and there has been a noticeable lack of nuclear expertise," Schlesinger said.

How did the pride of the Air Force turn into a cause for alarm in less than two decades? The Schlesinger task force issued a report in September citing several causes. Among them, "The makeup of senior Air Force leadership gradually began to shift: the nuclear weapons-focused, bomber-experienced officers who had previously monopolized senior positions became a minority, and those remaining had to adapt to the ascendant group drawn from conventional weapons-focused fighter pilots. As a result, the special culture that had surrounded the nuclear enterprise dissipated."

That dissipation had concrete results. The service scaled back, consolidated and eventually eliminated training programs focused on the nuclear mission. By 2006, bomber crews commonly reported for duty with only conventional combat certification. The Air Force slashed nuclear deterrence resources by 65 percent between 1990 and 2005 -- cutting them far more sharply than other areas of the budget. Where general officers and members of the Senior Executive Service previously held oversight positions, now colonels and mid-level civilians hold sway. Not surprisingly for an institution that no longer valued its nuclear mission, promotion rates for those with nuclear expertise were as much as 14 percent lower than for those with conventional expertise.

"This decline took place gradually as changes were made to organizations, personnel, policies, procedures and processes. Many of these changes were done as independent actions and seemed unremarkable at the time. The overall impact on the nuclear mission, however, has been more pronounced than realized and is too extreme to be acceptable," the task force found.

As Schlesinger observed and Air Force leaders now seem to understand, the nuclear mission is no less important today than it was during the Cold War.

More than 30 nations stake their security on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, Schlesinger said. "The confidence that they have in that umbrella will determine whether or not they themselves may seek to acquire nuclear weapons," he noted. "Some have expressed increasing misgivings about whether or not they feel comfortable under the umbrella. Part of the task of the Air Force and the Department of Defense will be to resuscitate their confidence in the credibility of the nuclear mission."

Air Force disciplines 15 officers in nuclear mishap

Air Force leaders on Thursday announced they had taken administrative action against 15 officers for their role in the shipment of four intercontinental ballistic missile nose-cone fuse assemblies to Taiwan in August 2006.

The mistaken shipment, which was only discovered earlier this year, was sent in response to an order for helicopter batteries, raising serious questions about how well the military is tracking and handling sensitive nuclear-related materiel.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates initiated an investigation into the matter, which led him to fire the top civilian and military Air Force leaders. He later named Michael Donley as acting secretary and Gen. Norton Schwartz as chief of staff, and in July ordered the two leaders to review the investigation to determine appropriate disciplinary actions against officers implicated in the report.

At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday afternoon, Donley and Schwartz said the punishments were necessary to restore accountability to the service's nuclear mission. Some officers have been removed from command or reassigned to other duties, essentially ending their careers. Air Force leaders asked other officers to remain in service to "be part of the solution," Donley said.

"These actions are administrative in nature but can carry with them substantial consequences for the careers of these officers, including their potential to command, to be promoted, or to retire in their current grade," he said. "We recognize the years of dedicated service that these officers have given, but we cannot ignore the breaches of trust that have occurred on their watch."

Among the generals sanctioned, Lt. Gen. Kevin Sullivan, deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support, received the most serious punishment -- a letter of reprimand. The letter said he failed to adequately address logistics policy deficiencies and take action to correct previously identified systemic problems in ICBM logistics. Sullivan also was cited for poor oversight while serving as commander of Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

Letters of reprimand are typically career-ending events. According to the Air Force, Sullivan has requested retirement.

Five other generals received letters of admonishment:

Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel, for failing to effectively exercise responsibility for ICBM system sustainment and for not correcting recurring deficiencies in engineering support of ICBM components while serving as commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center. Hamel had previously requested retirement.

Maj. Gen. Roger Burg, commander of 20th Air Force, for failing to exercise effective oversight of ICBM sustainment-related activities and for not identifying and correcting deficiencies in shipping and receiving sensitive components. Burg will remain in command to continue corrective actions he started.

Maj. Gen. Kathleen Close, commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center, for not exercising effective command oversight of depot maintenance, engineering activities and materiel control of sensitive components; for not recognizing systemic weaknesses in supply chain management; and for failing to correct previously identified deficiencies. She also will remain in command.

Brig. Gen. Francis Bruno, for failure to identify and correct weaknesses in logistics management and maintenance support for ICBM components and for not correcting previously identified problems at the service's air logistics centers when he served as director of logistics for Air Force Materiel Command. He will retire Oct. 1.

Brig. Gen. Arthur Cameron III was admonished for not identifying and correcting problems in depot maintenance operations involving sensitive components, and for failing to correct previously identified discrepancies in materiel control and maintenance when he served as commander of the 309th Maintenance Wing at Ogden Air Logistics Center. He received a routine reassignment before any personnel actions were initiated.

In addition, five colonels received letters of reprimand for poor command oversight. All were commanders of units that contributed to the improper shipment to Taiwan, or units with deficient performance. Two have been removed from command, one of whom is retiring. The three other officers, who left their commands earlier, will remain in their current positions.

Three colonels, all commanders, received letters of admonishment. One was removed from command. Another was allowed to continue in command. The third was reassigned in a normal tour rotation and will remain in his new assignment.

The final colonel to be disciplined received a letter of counseling for failing to exercise effective command oversight in a unit not involved in the Taiwan incident.

"In holding these officers accountable we considered the needs of the Air Force," said Donley. Because some had vital knowledge and because "their ability to serve has not been compromised," they were asked to stay on and help restore accountability in the nuclear mission, he said.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "The disciplinary actions announced today are regrettable, but are necessary to address recent leadership failures. The Air Force must now focus on improving its security culture to ensure that such incidents do not happen again."

USAF to strengthen inspections and expand training for nuclear mission

USAF say thank,
But, NO WAY !

USAF goofing up again !

For background see:
Five Generals To Be Disciplined Over Nukes

Air Force leaders have delayed making commitments to far-reaching organizational changes recommended by a task force on nuclear weapons management, but have agreed to a number of narrower reforms.

During a Sept. 18 summit at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, key leaders from the Air Force, other Defense Department agencies, the National Security Council, the Energy Department and RAND Corp., discussed ways to improve stewardship of nuclear weapons. Air Force officials agreed to consider a proposal for a significant reorganization at a meeting of senior service leaders in early October.

In a report earlier this month, the Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, urged the Air Force to replace its Space Command with a Strategic Command, vested with authority and accountability for the nuclear mission. In addition, the report recommended all bomber aircraft be consolidated into a single force assigned to the Strategic Command.

As the single major command responsible for the nuclear mission, Strategic Command would advocate for resources, provide clear lines of authority and accountability, and ensure appropriate staffing and expertise at all levels of the nuclear mission, Schlesinger said at a Pentagon briefing earlier this month. The bomber force assigned to the command would provide trained forces for conventional missions as well as manage the nuclear deterrent mission.

USAF Capt. Michael Andrews said service leaders would talk about those changes during a three-day October conference at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio that will include the service's four-star generals and acting secretary Michael Donley.

But, in a statement released over the weekend, the Air Force outlined four reforms agreed upon at last week's summit:

The Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., will be expanded and given responsibility for all nuclear sustainment activities, including those at weapons storage areas in the continental United States. This change is intended to clarify ambiguity in the chain of command.

The nuclear inspection process will be strengthened and centralized, built upon common policies and procedures integrated with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Service leaders will consolidate and expand training within the Air Education and Training Command for security personnel assigned to nuclear duties.

A new headquarters office will provide singular focus on nuclear matters within the service.

The Schlesinger task force was highly critical of the Air Force nuclear inspection program. "Processes are not standardized across major commands, inspectors are not appropriately trained, and inspections are not sufficiently comprehensive and frequent," the report noted.

The task force was especially critical of the fact that inspections were pre-announced, creating little incentive for personnel to remain vigilant around the clock.

As a result of that criticism, the Air Force inspector general now is rewriting regulations to require all commands to conduct no-notice nuclear inspections," Andrews said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates created the Schlesinger task force in June to review Air Force lapses in nuclear weapons management, as well as the other military services' nuclear inventory control procedures.

The review was sparked by the discovery earlier this year that forward-section assemblies used on Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles were erroneously shipped to Taiwan in October and November 2006. That discovery followed another serious incident in which an Air Force bomber crew mistakenly flew nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in August 2007.

The Schlesinger task force found, "There has been an unambiguous, dramatic and unacceptable decline in the Air Force's commitment to perform the nuclear mission and, until very recently, little has been done to reverse it."

That erosion of capability and apparent disinterest in addressing it led Gates to fire the Air Force chief of staff and secretary in June. Current Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and acting Secretary Michael Donley have repeatedly said their top priority is to rebuild the service's nuclear expertise and accountability.

In July, the Air Force established its own nuclear task force, made up of about 30 subject matter specialists from across the service's nuclear enterprise. That task force is currently tracking more than 180 corrective actions and analyzing causes of the problems.