NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label JCCS Mike Mullen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JCCS Mike Mullen. Show all posts

05 February 2011

Egypt Unrest: Didn't U.S. Intelligence See It Coming? 5FEB11

Billions of dollars for what????

U.S. intelligence officials are trying to assess what the protests in Egypt will mean for the partnership between the two countries.
The United States and Egypt work closely on a range of intelligence issues — especially terrorism.
Before it can look ahead, though, the spy community is being asked some hard questions about whether it missed the signals that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime was in jeopardy.
Secrets And Mysteries
There's a sense in Washington that the Egyptian uprising just came out of nowhere.
"It has taken not just us but many people by surprise," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on The Daily Show.
Some senators on Capitol Hill have started looking around for someone to blame. During an intelligence committee hearing this week, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein questioned whether the U.S. intelligence community should have been able to predict the Egyptian revolt.
The broad movement of Egyptian society isn't a secret that was hidden in somebody's safe that somebody should have expected us to purloin. This is far more difficult to understand.
The witness at the hearing was Stephanie O'Sullivan, who has been tapped to be the country's No. 2 intelligence officer.
At one point, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon asked her a direction question: "When did the intelligence community first alert the president and policymakers that protesters were likely to threaten President Mubarak's hold on power?"
"We have warned of instability," O'Sullivan answered. "We didn't know what the triggering mechanism would be."
Predicting the "triggering mechanism" is often the problem, says Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA. Hayden says political volatility in Egypt has been tracked for years. But there are limits to what spies can know.
To explain this, he borrows from what a CIA colleague, John McLaughlin, likes to say: There's a difference between secrets and mysteries.
"He said you can't hold intelligence services accountable in the same way for mysteries," Hayden says. "The broad movement of Egyptian society isn't a secret that was hidden in somebody's safe that somebody should have expected us to purloin. This is far more difficult to understand."
Cooperation In The Future?
What's also difficult to understand at this point is how the Egyptian uprising will affect the way U.S. and Egyptian spy agencies will continue to work together.
Omar Suleiman, Egypt's former intelligence chief and now its vice president, has been one of America's closest partners.
"We have a saying at the agency when we have a very good friend: 'We have a lot of time for him.' We always had a lot of time for Director Suleiman," Hayden says.
The relationship between the two spy agencies has been close. But it hasn't been without controversy. For example, there's the CIA program known as extraordinary rendition, in which suspects with links to al-Qaida were apprehended and flown to third-party countries, like Egypt.
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch has studied extraordinary rendition. "Obviously, the Americans knew what was going to happen to people who were rendered to Egypt," he says. "Why send someone to Egypt if not for the purpose of having them interrogated in the Egyptian manner?"
U.S. officials have denied sending any detainees to countries where they may have been tortured.
Former U.S. intelligence officials say the Mubarak regime has been a key ally on Iran, Israel and the Palestinians, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Hayden says Egypt and the U.S. will always find ways to cooperate on intelligence matters when it's in their interests. But, he says, "to the degree the new government adopts policies that might be different than the policies of the Mubarak government, that could make the intelligence relationship less productive for both nations."
And as for who leads Egypt next? That may be another one of those mysteries the CIA can't solve.

More From This Series


 

18 December 2010

Senate Votes To Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 18DDEZ10

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted 65-31 to overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as "don't ask, don't tell." The measure now goes to President Obama for his signature.
The vote came after a test vote passed 63-33 earlier in the day. The House passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week.
Obama was expected to sign the bill next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.
Repeal means that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for President Barack Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old policy a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,"' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Some have predicted the process could take as long as a year before the Bill Clinton-era policy is repealed.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. Speaking on the Senate floor minutes before the test vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, enough GOP senators broke with their party and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [Naval Medical Center] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
Senate votes to overturn military gay ban

By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 18, 2010; 3:32 PM


WASHINGTON -- In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.
"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."
The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday.
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for Obama, who made repeal a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,'" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. The Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill and he blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party on the procedural vote to let the bill move ahead and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
---
Online:
Pentagon study:http://tinyurl.com/23lxc49
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:http://www.sldn.org/
Information on the bill, H.R. 2965, can be found athttp://thomas.loc.gov

04 December 2010

Right-Wing Vets Torn on DADT from MOJO 3DEZ10

I haven't had much to say on DADT...I have not served in the military, but I do feel DADT should be repealed just as a civil rights issue. I do think there is a lot of hypocrisy on the issue, and that some of those opposed to the repeal are doing so for political reasons, and others are just squealing little pin heads who need to stop flattering themselves by thinking gays and / or lesbians are interested in them sexually....sorry to dismiss your ego, but for the vast, great majority of you that just aint the case.....But on to this post from Mother Jones offering some conservatives views on the issue.....and check out the video from JCCS Mike Mullen.....

OK, the next sentence will probably make you laugh. Just promise me you'll keep reading beyond that.
I want to contrast the reactions of two conservative military commentators on yesterday's Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings: Bruce "McQ" McQuain at the prominent milblog Blackfive, and Oliver North.
No, seriously. Both put out some really interesting commentary yesterday. One represents a sober but crisp arch-conservativism that you may rarely agree with, but can quickly appreciate. The other represents the inchoate ramblings of an addled, sycophantic manipulator who has no business intoning on anyone's morality. Taken together, they show why repealing DADT should be a priority for Democrats—not only because it's morally just and strategically sound, but because it has the political potential to implode the right wing of the right wing.
Here's what McQ wrote today:
I think it should be obvious—even to Sen. McCain—that DADT is going to be repealed at some point whether anyone likes it or not. That repeal can be a purposeful one, implemented in a way in which the military can decide on a timeline and methodology by which to do so, or it can be by a court order that will end it immediately and not allow the military any control of the transition.
The Pentagon's DADT study was recently published and it essentially concluded that most troops really don't care about gays serving openly. That sentiment mirrors what most of the country feels as well. The Pentagon report concluded that the threat to the force of repeal is "low".
As I've said for years, when the dominant culture concludes sexual orientation isn't relevant to job performance, that would eventually filter into the military. If the Pentagon's study is to be believed, that's happened.
This is classic conservatism at its best: Adopt a set of principles and be willing to follow them consistently, wherever they may lead. In this case, though McQ sounds a bit skeptical of gays and putting civil rights before military preparedness, he's ready to accept the dictates of the Pentagon leadership—and the public at large. Like all the writers at Blackfive, he's outspoken and ready for a clash when it comes to politics. Sometimes they've cooperated with me on stories; at other times they've called me "MOTHER. SOCIALIST RAG. JONES." Sure, they're "Love it or leave it" red-meat types, while I'm a progressive who lives by the reformist words of that early famous conservative, Edmund Burke: "For us to love our country, our country must be lovely." But the Blackfive guys understand that gay equality in the military isn't the downfall of civilization; it's the groundwork for a newer, broader sense of civic virtue in America.
And then there's Ollie North. Here's what he wrote yesterday:
Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo tried and failed. Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh couldn't do it. But commander in chief Barack Obama may well succeed where others could not. If he has his way, he will demolish the finest force for good in the history of mankind—the U.S. armed forces. And he wants to make it all happen before the end of the year...
Notably, military chaplains—from all denominations—overwhelmingly oppose changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...
In his testimony Dec. 2, while urging the Senate Armed Services Committee to act immediately on changing the law, [Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike] Mullen told the solons that service in the military is a "meritocracy" based on "what you do, not who you are." That, of course, is the very argument many of us have been making against allowing active homosexuals into the ranks.
Ah, yes! The obvious Nazi-commie-baiting. The "Obama wants to destroy morality, the military, and America!" trope. The zeroing in on what military chaplains think—chaplains who are conservative evangelical Protestants out of all proportion to the US military and civilian populations. The insistence that it's not gays that conservatives are after, but their bad behavior—you know, that gay lifestyle.
And here's a guy who knows about bad behavior, right? Oliver North's career as a Marine officer started with a suicide attempt with his service pistol in a Quantico parking lot, and it ended with his flouting of congressional and constitutional authority, his illegal sales of arms in Latin America and Iran, his alleged drug dealing, his shredding of White House records, and his questionable money practices with a self-run nonprofit. Oliver North, whom even his Iran-Contra co-conspirator and fellow Marine Robert MacFarlane called "deceitful, mendacious, and traitorous" and "devious, self-serving, self-aggrandizing and true first and foremost to himself." He now deigns to preach to us on morality, government propriety, and civil-military relations.*
One of these conservatives offers a considered opinion and a fundamental belief in the American political process. The other parrots conservatism as we most often see it today, in fire-eating congressmen, in grassroots right-wing movements, in Fox News bites: radical, rejectionist, morally hypocritical.
Which, on the whole, should be encouraging: The Obama administration should push DADT repeal loudly, clearly, and unapologetically. To do so will force individual conservatives to choose either the path of reason...or the Ollie North way. If they opt for the former, they'll rejoin the majority of Americans and make conservatism relevant again; if they choose the latter, they'll only marginalize themselves further out of the process.
Of course, scoring political points isn't a compelling reason to repeal DADT. We should do it to advance the very American cause of equality of opportunity before the law. And we should do it so that the military can avail itself of a new, untapped recruiting pool. If one conservative military blogger can understand that, why can't we all?
* For a devastating true account of Ollie North's crimes, proven and alleged, read The Nightingale's Song by his fellow Naval Academy graduate and Marine, Robert Timberg.
Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' copy editor. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.

Mullen on DADT: Shut Your Trap, McCain (VIDEO)

| Thu Dec. 2, 2010 1:24 PM PST
[For a recap of today's Capitol Hill DADT drama, also read editorial intern Siddhartha Mahanta's take here.]
Honor. Courage. Commitment. These are the Navy core values. And today, discussing his support for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Joint Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen exhibited them all, while dressing down one subordinate, Capt. John S. McCain (USN-Retired). Defense Secretary Bob Gates locked sights on the Arizona senator, too. The video:


In 2006, McCain—whose political career is based on his mythos as a war hero—said this:
I understand the opposition to it, and I've had these debates and discussions. But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, "Senator, we ought to change the policy," then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it, because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.
Yet today, he refused to acknowledge Mullens' and Gates' leadership. And the military men were having none of it. As Armchair Generalist blogger Jason Sigger put it:
SHORTER ADM Mullen: "Listen, old man, don't ever fucking tell me about how to command troops. I've been there, done that, and you never made flag rank in your Navy career."