SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (1982)6/8/2003 1:31:33 AM
From: Michelino  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793917
 
Nor will he be able to claim any moral highg round.....(after all he is the first president with a criminal record)

And then there is the absence of the years 1972-1974. Do you think he was off on a secret mission with Chuck Barris?

From talion.com

George W. Bush Military Record — and Misrepresentations Pertaining to Military Records

In these days of guys who never fought in Vietnam launching aggressive and destabilizing attacks on other countries, it is interesting to see what George W. Bush did in the military, how he misrepresented it, and what's been done recently to make sure no one notices. Mr. Bush, whose permission to fly was revoked by the military (he was suspended, assigned to a disciplinary unit and not allowed to fly military assignments again) liked to portray himself to voters as a “fighter pilot.” But his embellishments didn’t stop there:


Date: 08/19/88 Houston Chronicle article by R. G. Ratliffe
When running for governor, George W. Bush portrayed himself to voters as a great fighter pilot. "Asked how he got into the Air National Guard, Bush said, ‘They could sense I was going to be one of the great pilots of all time.’”

Date: 1999 autobiography A Charge to Keep by George W. Bush
Among the questionable claims in Mr. Bush's autobiography is that he tried to volunteer for service in Vietnam "to relieve active-duty pilots." He did not volunteer for service in Vietnam; in fact, he failed to report for duty in his Air National Guard Unit and skipped off to Alabama to work on a political campaign.

In his book, Mr. Bush offers a lovely-sounding (but bald-faced) lie to describe his F-102 fighter pilot experience: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years," he writes, but in fact he was suspended from flight duty in August 1972 and didn't fly at all for the last two years of his service. (He also didn't show up for duty.)

Further along in his autobiography, Mr. Bush says his military service "gave me respect for the chain of command." Well, that is an odd way to describe ignoring two direct orders to appear for duty. He was then assigned to a disciplinary unit in Denver, and he didn't show up for that either.

Here you will find photocopies of Bush military documents. Other unusual records have been uncovered; the Washington Post wrote of obtaining the supposed military record for the younger George Bush, but noted that the last name was torn off, with only the "W" proclaiming that it was the record belonging to George W. Bush (or was that Mortimer W. Snerd?)

"What distinguishes the New Right from
other American reactionary movements
and what it shares with the early phase
of German fascism, is its incorporation of
conservative impulses into a system of representation
consisting largely of media techniques and media images.
— Philip Bishop: "The New Right and the Media"


In fact, George W. Bush evaded military duties during wartime, while thousands of Americans — more patriotic and less privileged than George W. Bush — were dying in Vietnam.

Senator Daniel Inouye: "'During my service, if I missed training for two years, at the least, I would have been court-martialed.' Senator Inouye (Hawaii) has demanded that George W. Bush account for missing two years of National Guard Service. (see transcript).


Senator Bob Kerrey Senator Bob Kerrey: Governor Bush made a six-year commitment...Well, if he's going to do what's right, he ought to release his military records, as John McCain did and let us know where he was during that six year period of time..." (see transcript)

Where's Waldo George?
News Release: Help George W. Bush find 1972, 1973
George Bush has lost a year of his youth and needs your help to find it. Between May 1972 and October 1974 George W. Bush seems to have lost:

1) A year of his service in the Air National Guard (ANG)
2) His eligibility to fly F-102 jet fighters (See photocopy, footnote 1)
3) The directions to his military doctor's office
4) The means to travel to his punishment detail (2) to which he apparently never reported, although he claims to have served the final months of his enlistment there.

Lots of people didn't see George Bush, including retired General William Turnipseed (3) to whom young 1st Lt. Bush was ordered to report, and the commanders of the Texas Air National Guard Unit (4) in which he was supposedly serving. You can imagine how disturbing this must be to our unelected Commander-in-Chief — to have so thoroughly lost a year of his own military service (5) when he plans to ask young Americans to stick to the terms of their military enlistments so he can send them to Iraq.

In October, 2000 two different Vietnam veterans groups put up a total of $2000 in rewards for anyone who could find George W. Bush's missing year of National Guard service. (6) So far no one has claimed the reward.

But this was a long time ago. Any recent misbehavior?
— In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mr. Bush leaned on his self-described experience as a fighter pilot to get himself elected governor of Texas. See archives for Austin Statesman and Houston Chronicle to read his embellishments about his service as a fighter pilot.

— In 1999, just prior to Mr. Bush's announcement that he planned to run for president, a record-scrubbing detail was dispatched to Camp Mabry to make sure records in the archives matched those in the autobiography published in 1999.
— In 1999, during his presidential campaign, Mr. Bush produced an autobiography (7) containing several untruths about his military service. He bragged about volunteering to go to Vietnam (not true), tried to impress voters saying he was a fighter pilot and "continued to fly for several years" after training (not true), and asserted that his military training taught him to respect the chain of command.

— In 2000, reporters unearthed the facts and published them in the Washington Post, Boston Globe, AP wire service and other print media outlets — to howls from Bush's people that it was unfair and "unethical" to reveal facts just before the election. No television news programs covered the story until nearly a year after the election.

— In May 2003, George Bush showed up wearing a military pilot suit, for photo ops with real military pilots. Talking points distributed by Bush PR people encouraged national TV news to highlight his experience as a military pilot, without mentioning that Bush never flew a military mission and was absent without leave for many months.

Bill Clinton Dodged the draft. But he didn't don a military uniform and send talking points to the press encouraging them talk about his prowess as a former military pilot.

Clinton never referred to himself, during campaigns, as "one of the best fighter pilots of all time."

Clinton dodged. Bush was suspended.

It's frustrating: At least when you're looking for Waldo, you know he'll be somewhere in the picture. George Bush didn't seem to have been anywhere during his military years, but he seemed to be everywhere when photocopies of his military record appeared around election time. And in war time, he's in front of the camera, wearing a pilot suit.

James Earl Carter spent more time on active military duty (7 years) than any other president in the last 103 years - with the exception of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower


Scrubbing the Records
"As the State Plans Officer for the Texas National Guard, I was on full-time duty at Camp Mabry when Dan Bartlett was cleansing the George W Bush file prior to GW's Presidential announcement. For most soldiers at Camp Mabry, this was a generally known event.

The archives were closely scrutinized to make sure that the Bush autobiography plans and the record did not directly contradict each other. In essence it was the script of the autobiography which Dan Bartlett and his small team used to scrub a file to be released. This effort was further involved by General Daniel James and Chief of Staff William W. Goodwin at Camp Mabry.

— Bill Burkett — contact: (915-673-0429)


The facts about George W. Bush military record:

1) On September 29, 1972 Air National Guard orders "suspending 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status are confirmed...Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical exam." (10)

2) Bush's initial temporary transfer to Alabama was denied because "An obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only. (11) Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron". Nonetheless, Bush reapplied, was accepted by the commander of the mail unit in Alabama, and moved to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign, instead of completing his military duties. He claims no one exerted any influence.

3) According to a Boston Globe Story on May 23, 2000. "In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for (12) For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen...From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there."

4) The tattered piece of attendance record (which lists no months, years, or last name) which the Bush campaign presented as evidence of attending Air National Guard training is not even from the Air National Guard. This incomplete scrap of paper is from the Air Force Reserve punishment unit, not the Air National Guard. (13) Note the ARF (Air Reserve Force) listing at the top, rather than the ANG designator, which would indicate it was from the Air National Guard.

5) In the fall of 1973, as an automatic disciplinary action, Bush was reassigned to the Obligated Reserve Section in Denver, because he disobeyed orders to show up for a mandatory flight physical and therefore was unable to fulfill the last two years of his six-year obligation as an Air National Guard jet fighter pilot.

Boston Globe 11/5/2000 — "APPARENTLY, BUSH BELIEVES THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO HIM" By Thomas Oliphant:

"WASHINGTON — IMAGINE YOU WANTED to be George W. Bush's running mate back in July — One of the very first questions on the disclosure form presidential campaigns supply is always a simple, "Have you ever been arrested?" And another demands from those with military records the places and dates of every chunk of that service. In fact, an accounting for every month of your life (as with any job carrying a Top Secret clearance) would be required.

"— you tell Bush that you and your advisers had made a conscious decision to withhold the fact of a drunken-driving conviction when you were 30 from the public. You say you had only acknowledged a heavy drinking problem in the past, and that while continuing to booze for a decade after the arrest you had quit completely 14 years ago. You add that you had decided to dodge all details because you didn't want your twins to do what you did.

"Now imagine further...the relentless Bush lawyers had picked apart your military record (in the National Guard) like crows on road kill, exposing white lies and big gaps like whether you did a lick of anything for the last year-and-a-half of your obligation. As for the untruths and gaps in your National Guard record and even your resume and autobiography, you tell Bush that you've said all you're going to say before the election on this subject, that the records and your memory are hazy, but that you're certain your obligation had been fulfilled properly."

Sunday Times London (11/05/2000): "The Bush camp was equally dismissive of a claim by Bill Burkett, a former lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, that the governor's aides had doctored his military record.

"Burkett said Bush aides had visited the National Guard headquarters at Camp Mabry 'on numerous occasions' to make sure that records available to the public about his military service would tally with his autobiography's version of his time as a reserve pilot during the Vietnam war."


Air National Guard Commanding Officer Alleges Bush Military Records Cleansing
SUBJ: Military Records of George W. Bush — Clarification Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret)

Within the morning press reports in the London Sunday Times and other publications, I am stated to have alleged that the staff of George W. Bush doctored [the key term] the military files of George W. Bush in whatever attempt to cover his military record.

Let me answer questions about my responses within a chronological pattern:

Was this politically motivated and coordinated with the Gore Campaign?

No. Not whatsoever. In no way did any member of the Gore Campaign or any election official, Republican or Democrat know my comments. My observations were responses to questions of how the file was developed; disseminated under the Freedom of information Act (FOIA) and what was missing within the files which would resolve the question of satisfactory participation. These were my personal responses to the asked questions that were not sanctioned by anyone, nor shared with anyone. They were made on the basis of my 28 year career, my working experience within the senior staff at the Texas National Guard headquarters and my knowledge of the operational procedures of the US military including the subject of personnel files of retired or discharged soldiers and airmen.

Why, do you believe, you were contacted?

Question 3 will background how this occurred which should be self-explanatory. The context of the DUI story indicated the mishandling or failure to fully disclose a past criminal record of Governor Bush. I believe that the military record and the irregularities that point to a possible extended period of nonperformance and early release may have also indicated a pattern of lack of full disclosure by the Governor and his campaign. This issue of military records had been highly visible on at least two previous occasions within the campaign, however, Senator Kerrey as an honored and decorated SEAL most recently focused on this issue within the last ten days I would guess that within the eleventh hour and following the revelation of the DUI story, the media and voters were waiting for the next shoe to drop. This issue may have been viewed as the next shoe.

In June of 1998 and with the full and personal knowledge of Dan Bartlett and the Governor, I reported problems of force structure, readiness operational efficiency personnel and procedures within the Texas National Guard. At that time, and periodically thereafter, I have been in contact with various [audio, video and print]news writers and publishers. In 1998, I provided sufficient detailed information including documentation of severe irregularities within the Governors own chain of command in an effort to correct those deficiencies which I believe undermined the Texas National Guard and in some cases broke the law.

How did your reference in this story develop?

I contacted a website that outlined the Governor's personal military career irregularities and suggested that there were two official documents that would resolve the issue of satisfactory and honorable service. Suddenly on Friday afternoon, my telephone became barraged with media calls and messages including those who had known of my previous whistleblowing but had failed report it. I explained my background and personal observations to each of them in minute detail, often repeating the entire process for clarity. I was extremely careful not to point an accusing finger, but rather shape a question which could resolve this allegation of integrity that had clouded the Bush campaign since June of 1999 — the issue of his personal military service.

Did you allege that the governor's staff doctored the records?

No, instead I stated that the way this had been handled by the Bush staff including knowledgeable military officials at the Texas national guard, that it left the implication that the Bush staff had first incompetently provided an incomplete military file for the Governor which was consistent with his autobiography. I further observed that they probably did not anticipate that the file would be scrutinized to the level that it was. Whenever someone determined holes is service big enough to drive a Mack truck through additional information [all of which was unofficial and some in pencil notations] were then submitted to the press to answer questions. I further observed this "Trust me, I'm the Governor" approach had worked throughout Texas for George W. Bush within his tenure and the media had give the Governor a free pass without the same scrutiny as the Vice President until the eleventh hour revelation of the DUI. But this still left the basic question — Why didn't Governor Bush simply release his military pay files and retirement points accounting records, which are the only OFFICIAL records that will show that he satisfactorily and honorably completed his service commitment?

Were there other issues that you discussed?

Yes. In each call, I, in essence scolded media representatives for not doing their homework and reviewing this information before the eleventh hour. When asked if I would go on record, I said, yes, I have nothing to hide even though I knew that the mention of my name with the Bush campaign would immediately strike a personal response because of my whistleblowing in 1998.

Again, was this a Democratic ploy as stated by Karen Hughes of the Bush staff?

No. Absolutely not.

Karen Hughes has again skirted the real issue and question. Dan Bartlett and the Governor have also refused to answer the basic question and furnish the OFFICIAL files that will resolve this issue. I am in no way linked to the Democratic Party. I am simply an energized citizen and retired soldier who would like to have the issues of each possible commander-in-chief resolved prior to the election, in order that we can escape holding another American Presidency hostage to actions and allegations by the opposing party in Congress. We have suffered from this partisanship for the past eight years. George W. Bush says that he is the only candidate who can bridge this impasse. This is his opportunity to start that process. This is what I believe other Americans share with me — a sincere belief that they have the right and capacity to make educated decisions; but that candidates have the responsibility for full and complete disclosure.

If you would like to speak with me personally — on the record — I can be reached at (915) 673-0429 in Abilene, Texas.

Please call in order to verify my signature.

Bill L. Burkett
LTC (Ret)

Go to users.cis.net to view Bush military documents released under the Freedom of Information Act which show the conflicting information that produced requests to release his private military records. Voluntary release of personal military records for the period of his enlistment from 1968 through 1974 will provide information to assess the following events:

1. A September 29, 1972 Air National Guard confirming orders “suspending 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status are confirmed...Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical exam.”

2. Bush’s initial temporary transfer to Alabama was denied because “An obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron". Nonetheless, Bush reapplied, was accepted by the commander of the mail unit in Alabama, and moved to Alabama where, instead of fulfilling his military duties, he worked on a Senate campaign. users.cis.net

3. According to a Boston Globe Story on May 23, 2000: “In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.

“Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a spokesman that he has ''some recollection'' of attending drills that year, but maybe not consistently.

“From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there.”

4. In Fall 1973, as an automatic disciplinary action, Bush was reassigned to the Obligated Reserve Section in Denver, because he disobeyed orders to show up for a mandatory flight physical and therefore was unable to fulfill the last two years of his six-year obligation as an Air National Guard jet fighter pilot.

View Document photocopies:

First: Document about George W. Bush, redacted for "administrative reasons"

Second: Document: Agreement signed by George W. Bush to accept military flying assignments after training (reneged on after disobeying orders)

Third: Document: Order to suspend George Bush from flying for failing to obey an order

Fourth: Document: Evidence that George W. Bush was allowed to substitute civilian duties (working on a senate campaign) for flying duties following his refusal to take physical and drug test

Fifth: Document: Statement specifying disciplinary measures, signed by George W. Bush

Sixth: Document: Assignment of George W. Bush to disciplinary unit in Denver

Footnotes
1 George W. Bush suspended by military order. Official document

2 Enlistment papers specifying punishments for not fulfilling Air National Guard obligations

3 Boston Globe Article Oct 31 2000

4 Two Texas Commanders statements: they never saw him during the 5/72-5/73 period. He was assigned, perhaps through political influence, to a civilian unit (during the war; his civilian duties consisted of helping with a political campaign) after disobeying an order.

5 May 2000 Boston Globe article One Year Gap In Bush's Guard Duty

6 Vets Want Proof of Bush Service, Birmingham News October 2000 [article has been archived or removed from web]

7 New York Observer: George W.'s Troubling Flights of Fancy

8 Bush's Service Record, go to archives for Oct. 24, 2000 in the Arizona Daily Star

9 Lots more document photocopies: To look at 30 pages of Bush's FOIA records go here

10 Order suspending Bush from flying.

11 Order Bush was not eligible for transfer, tried again, perhaps with political influence, and left for civilian duties before his term was completed.

12 Another Boston Globe article Oct 30 2000

13 Purported proof of Bush's military service for 1972-73. Document is nearly blank and does not identify who it belongs to. Note that most of the dates and Bush's name (except for the "W") have been torn off.

Other sites with information, some more partisan than others...

Washington Post article, Nov 3, 2000

"The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of the dates and Bush's name except for the "W" have been torn off..." The article goes on to say that the torn sheet of paper is shown as evidence by the Bush people that he satisfied his requirements, but that is contradicted by a written report signed by two superiors.

Martin Heldt's Home Page on Bush's Missing Years

Martin Heldt's Chronology

Background

Veterans that have requested proof of Governor Bush’s service during the years of 1972 to 1973 include the Alabama Vietnam Veterans and Viet Vets for the Real Truth, and Senators Inouye and Kerrey. In addition the Arizona Daily Star, TomPaine.com and The New York Observer have questioned whether Bush actually served his required time during the last half of 1972 and into late May 1973.

More Background: George W. Bush served five years of his six-year Air National Guard obligation between 1968 and 1973. However, 1972-1973 records were redacted "for administrative reasons" and have not been released. After undergoing two years of expensive jet fighter training at taxpayer expense, in April 1972, during the Viet Nam War, George Bush simply quit flying. He did not show up to take his required annual flight physical, and the penalty he received was automatic suspension of his right to fly and a final 15 months of disciplinary action, for which he was demoted to the Obligated Reserve Section in Denver.

Connecting the dots:

— In April 1972, random drug testing was implemented in the military.

— Bush has previously stated that he had not used drugs “since 1974.”

— Official verbal answer from Bush campaign: Governor Bush “decided to not fly any longer” so he did not take the required military flight physical. However, as anyone in the military knows, one does not simply “decide” to give up a military assignment.

What difference does it make? Depending on the nature of what’s in those records, significant problems could result if certain kinds of information surface, including congressional investigations of misconduct or influence peddling, or problems enforcing disciplinary measures with soldiers who commit infractions that may surface in the records. But maybe there is nothing there. The only way to find out is for Governor Bush to voluntarily authorize the release of his private military records.

What kind of records and procedures can be released? Under ordinary military circumstances, the suspension of a pilot is directed through a military board of inquiry. In Bush’s case, if such a body was convened, the records of its findings are not in the public record. However, Governor Bush’s private records, which include disciplinary actions and other relevant commentary, would provide clear answers to the persistent questions.



To: unclewest who wrote (1982)6/9/2003 5:55:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793917
 
New Bases Reflect Shift in Military
Smaller Facilities Sought for Quick Strikes

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer

Note the paragraph on Germany. The Washington Post is doing the best job of covering the Defense Department, IMO, with the LA Times and the Washington Times right behind. If I was editing the NYT, I would be asking my DC Bureau Chief why.

In the most extensive global realignment of U.S. military forces since the end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is creating a network of far-flung military bases designed for the rapid projection of American military power against terrorists, hostile states and other potential adversaries.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, announced Thursday, and the recent removal of most U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia are the opening moves in a complex shift that should replace most large, permanent U.S. bases overseas with smaller facilities that can be used as needed, defense officials said.

The bases are being built or expanded in countries such as Qatar, Bulgaria and Kyrgyzstan, and the U.S. territory of Guam. While existing U.S. bases in Germany and South Korea, in place for more than 50 years, were designed to deter major communist adversaries, the new bases will become key nodes in the implementation of the administration's doctrine of preemptive attack against terrorists and hostile states believed to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Their location is based on the premise that U.S. forces must be able to strike rapidly adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction before they can attack the United States or its allies. The basing strategy is also predicated on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's oft-stated belief that the United States cannot predict who its adversaries are going to be.

"The strategic issue that is big and profound is the unprecedented destructive power of terrorism and what that means," said Andy Hoehn, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, the architect of the realignment. "You just can't ignore it, and you can't deal with it regionally. This is running across regions, across continents. If you're going to deal with this, you're going to deal with it on a global scale."

The new network of bases corresponds to what defense officials call an "arc of instability" that runs from the Andean region in the Southern Hemisphere through North Africa to the Middle East and into Southeast Asia.

"When you overlay our footprint onto that, we don't look particularly well-positioned to deal with the problems we're now going to confront," Hoehn said.

Hoehn said the new basing concept would require fundamental changes in the way U.S. forces are structured and transported by air and sea. They would need to be deployed around the world in smaller units more much rapidly, often falling in on equipment already in place.

"If there is a terrorist training camp somewhere and we come to understand that there is something we can do militarily, we don't have a month to do it," Hoehn said. "We certainly don't have six months to do it. We may only have hours to do it."

The United States would still maintain a ring of permanent military "hubs" on U.S. territory, such as Guam, and in closely allied countries, such as Britain and possibly Japan. But many of the major bases on which it had relied, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany and South Korea, will be replaced by dozens of spartan "forward operating bases" in southern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, maintained only by small, permanent support units, Hoehn and other defense officials said.

Beyond the hubs and forward operating bases would lie a ring of "forward operating locations," or prearranged but unmaintained staging areas that U.S. forces would be allowed by host nations to occupy quickly in the event of a conflict. Officials said these forward facilities would be augmented by greater reliance on basing forces and equipment aboard ships at sea, and on pre-positioning forces and heavy combat equipment at staging areas along major shipping routes, the officials said.

Defense officials cited a series of basing agreements developed in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of the Iraq war as a prototype for those they want in other parts of the world. Although U.S. forces have vacated two large permanent air bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey used to patrol the northern and southern "no-fly" zones over Iraq for more than a decade, they have established forward operating bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Military personnel are stationed in all of those countries, with 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, a major Air Force operations center in Qatar and two huge Army bases in Kuwait. But there are no combat units permanently based in any of those countries, as there are in Germany, home to the Army's 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions.

The continued basing of 60,000 Army troops in Germany, where they have been since the end of World War II, is under review. Defense officials want to continue using Ramstein Air Base in southern Germany, and view it as a critical hub facility for supporting deployments to more distant forward operating bases and locations.

One scenario under consideration, Hoehn and other defense officials said, calls for the troops in Germany to be brought home and based in the United States. They could then be rotated on six-month assignments in countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, which are closer to the Balkans and Central Asia and less restrictive than Germany as training sites.

Defense officials are also interested in operating locations along southern European shipping routes in Italy, Spain and Portugal. Farther east, in Central Asia, defense officials plan on maintaining bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which were established in 2001 to support the war in Afghanistan.

In Asia, the relocation of 18,000 Army troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea to areas 75 miles south is designed to make them more mobile, freeing them up to respond to other emergencies in the region. Ultimately, Hoehn said, some of those troops might be brought to the United States and deployed to South Korea on six-month rotations.

Defense officials said there is no plan for moving all 20,000 Marines out of Okinawa. But they said they are looking at ways of repositioning the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force from its current locations in Okinawa, Hawaii and Guam. The Pentagon is hoping to possibly reestablish bases or locations in the Philippines, although it is not clear how receptive the Philippine government will be, officials said.

The Pentagon is also considering bases or staging areas in northeast Australia, where the U.S. military has close ties and excellent training relationships with the Australian military. But one official said he doubted that any forthcoming agreements would call for U.S. Marines to be permanently based there.

Harlan Ullman, who taught at the National War College and now is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), lauded the realignment and said he only wished Rumsfeld had proceeded even faster.

"I think this is long overdue," said Ullman, a Naval Academy graduate and Vietnam veteran. "Rearrangement of American forces is absolutely essential. We've been based in Europe since 1944. The changes are strategically very sound, as the axis of interests shift south and east."

But Kurt Campbell, a senior defense official in the Clinton administration who is now senior vice president at CSIS, a Washington think tank, said he thinks the Pentagon is moving too quickly.

"Some of the changes make an enormous amount of sense," he said. "But what they don't recognize is forward bases and presence are extraordinarily sensitive diplomatically. You just can't throw the dice like this without an enormous amount of pre-planning, most of which has not been done."
washingtonpost.com



To: unclewest who wrote (1982)6/9/2003 8:46:24 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793917
 
Nation & World 6/16/03
We have met the enemy. . .Why the Army's big win in Iraq could mean trouble inside the Pentagon

By Mark Mazzetti - US NEWS

If the victors are meant to reap the spoils of war--not to mention the bragging rights--then someone needs to tell the U.S. Army. Troops from the nation's largest military service dashed hundreds of miles through the Iraqi desert, reaching Baghdad in just three weeks. Vice President Cheney called it "one of the most extraordinary military campaigns ever conducted." But not many Army generals are in the mood for chest thumping. Quite the opposite, in fact: Army officials insist that the Iraqi military was a hollow shell and that the outcome was never in doubt.

The generals are not being modest. With the war over, the Army's mission has shifted from pummeling enemy troops in Iraq to protecting its flank from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Billions of dollars are at stake. Rumsfeld is already hard at work on an official review of the war, and the generals suspect that he will use the exercise to tear down the Army they built. They fear that the service could end up a victim of its own success: It took only one of the Army's heavy divisions to take down Saddam Hussein's regime, and Rumsfeld's blueprint for future wars might demand they do it that way again. "Rumsfeld is like the football coach who is so confident of victory that he puts only 10 players on the field to prove a point," says one Army official. "Our fear is that he's going to play the whole season like this."

Since taking the helm at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld has preached the gospel of military "transformation," which, translated from bureaucratese, means the use of precision-guided weaponry, special operations forces, and long-range air power to defeat enemy forces. That, however, used to be the mission assigned to hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground forces. The question, then, is what to do with all that infantry and armor. As the Pentagon studies the lessons learned from Iraq, many defense experts believe Rumsfeld finally has the clout to remake a military still organized as it was during the Cold War. "All of the dynamics are pushing the Army towards real change," says one joint strategic planner for the Pentagon. "Rumsfeld's going to take on the Army first."

Army officials see Iraq as the exception, not the rule. The dash to Baghdad stretched supply lines to their breaking point. Despite the wholesale dismantling of Saddam's military, generals still argue that Rumsfeld's determination to keep the invasion force small put U.S. troops at unnecessary risk in the event something went wrong. And, they add, a larger force would have allowed the United States to bring order to the chaos of Iraq after Saddam's regime toppled. "It should come as no surprise to anyone," says Thomas White, who was recently ousted by Rumsfeld as Army secretary, "that it takes far more people to win the peace than it does to win the war."

Cleanup crew? What's at stake, potentially, is the Army's historic mission as a combat force. Most observers doubt that Rumsfeld will make drastic cuts in the Army's size, currently at 490,000 troops. That's because the force is already straining to meet a range of war-fighting and peacekeeping commitments around the globe. Ever since Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the Army has kept busy, primarily with peacekeeping operations such as those in Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq. Familiar threats remain: Washington still relies on 37,000 troops to defend South Korea from North Korea's million-member military, though last week the Pentagon announced it would redeploy those now in the demilitarized zone.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, however, the Pentagon relied more than ever on air power to dispatch third-rate militaries. Thousands of Army troops were used in the post-conflict phase. Rumsfeld may now push to transform large parts of the Army into a glorified constabulary force, which defense expert Andrew Krepinevich defines as "unglamorous troops called in to clean up after the party's over." Such troops might deploy to war zones at the same time as combat troops, so peacekeeping operations might begin right away to avoid a repeat of the disorder in postwar Baghdad.

The war in Iraq also bolstered the case for remaking the way the Army is structured. The 3rd Infantry Division, the lead attack element in the ground war, took on Iraqi troops not as a single division but as three smaller combat teams. Firepower typically controlled at the division level, such as heavy artillery, was integrated into the smaller units. Based on that experience, the Pentagon may try to reorganize the U.S. Army into smaller, brigade-size groups of about 3,000 soldiers, rather than massive 15,000-person divisions. The leaner units would be modeled on Marine Expeditionary Units and would be expected to deploy more quickly to global hot spots. Doing away with cumbersome headquarters staff and pre-positioning equipment close to the battlefield would make the units more agile.

That strategy dovetails with Pentagon plans to overhaul the basing of American troops around the globe. Rumsfeld intends to take forces from large permanent bases in Germany and South Korea and move them into smaller "hub" bases closer to emerging threats.

Incoming. As he remakes the Army, Rumsfeld may also try to cash in some big-ticket weapons, including the troubled Comanche helicopter and four Stryker Brigades, the mobile units of wheeled vehicles the Army sees as an alternative to heavy armor. But after some heavy Abrams tanks were disabled by rocket-propelled grenades in Iraq, some Rumsfeld allies say the Stryker vehicles are too vulnerable. "It's too heavy to be an airborne system, and it's too light to be a heavy combat system," says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a member of the Defense Policy Board, a civilian panel that advises Rumsfeld.

The Army must face these challenges without a soldier at the top, since no successor has yet been named to Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who retires this week. Shinseki and Rumsfeld have had a famously frosty relationship, and several Army officials say that with Rumsfeld at the helm, the post of chief of staff is not exactly coveted. As one Army officer puts it: "Anyone who steps into the job is going to have to be pretty damn thick skinned."

usnews.com



To: unclewest who wrote (1982)6/10/2003 5:09:06 PM
From: NickSE  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793917
 
Rumsfeld Chooses Retired Former Special Operations Commander to Be Next Army Chief
ap.tbo.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached into the ranks of retired officers to pick a successor to departing Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, officials said Tuesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Rumsfeld chose Peter J. Schoomaker, who retired from the Army after commanding the U.S. Special Operations Command from 1997-2000.



To: unclewest who wrote (1982)6/10/2003 6:37:24 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793917
 
war stories
Rumsfeld's New Man
The latest move to radically remake the Army.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 2:02 PM PT

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's reputed choice to be the new Army chief of staff, retired Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, may be his most intriguing appointment to date, and confirms beyond any doubt Rummy's determination to foment a radical restructuring of the Army.

The first unusual thing about Schoomaker, and I should caution here that it has not yet been confirmed whether he'll take the job, is that he is a retired general. He left the military three years ago. Usually, chiefs of staff are named from the ranks of active-duty generals.

The second, and most telling, point is that, from the early 1980s on, Schoomaker served with the "shadow soldiers," rising in 1994 to be head of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command and then, from 1997 till his retirement, commander in chief of the Army's Special Operations Forces.

He also had experience with tanks (with the 8th Army in Korea in the mid '70s; as assistant commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in the early '90s) and inside the bureaucracy (a mid '90s stint as deputy director of Army operations). But Rumsfeld clearly hired Schoomaker (pronounced "Shoemaker") for embodying the vision of what he wants the Army to become?a smaller, lighter, more agile force.

In fact, Schoomaker appears to have played a major, behind-the-scenes role in creating that vision. He has long been good friends with Gen. Tommy Franks, the Rumsfeld favorite who, as head of U.S. Central Command, led the battle for Afghanistan and Gulf War II. According to a Chicago Tribune story last March, Franks was having trouble coming up with a good war plan for Afghanistan?Rumsfeld thought his initial ideas were too bulky and time-consuming?until he had a crucial lunch in Tampa, Fla., with Schoomaker.

That lunch strongly influenced Franks' subsequent thinking on how to plan that war. Schoomaker wouldn't tell the Tribune what was discussed, but two things can be noted. First, he did describe Franks as "a quick study" who "understands joint warfare." Second, the key and quite novel ingredient in Afghanistan was the use of Army special-operations forces in the lead role?their ability to get to a war zone very quickly, their standard practice of operating in small teams, and finally the potent image of the special-ops soldier riding horseback and zapping targeting data from the laptop in his backpack to an unmanned video drone in the sky.

Schoomaker once wrote , "There will be fewer wars in the future, but there will be more conflict." As a result, conventional Army forces must "become more like" special-ops forces. "A unique feature of Special Operations Forces ... ," he wrote elsewhere , "is that they routinely deploy in small teams," which allows them "to conduct their missions with a low profile"?a trait "that often appeals to U.S. diplomatic and military teams overseas, our theater commander-in-chiefs, and, in many cases, host nations."

It's a trait that appeals to Donald Rumsfeld and others who seek a "transformation" in the Army's organization, as well.

Schoomaker has also talked of the need to train soldiers to be combat-ready "warrior-diplomats ," which is what special-ops forces often are. Certainly in Iraq?before, during, and after Gulf War II?the special forces have played both roles very well. Regular Army soldiers, on the other hand, have been great as warriors, not so great as diplomats (meaning, in this context, cops or nation-builders). Perhaps Rumsfeld wants to pluck Schoomaker from retirement because he knows that, in this new world, they need to learn how to be both.

Article URL: slate.msn.com