Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet

Why do the terms "hawkish" and "Barak Obama" not belong in the same sentence?

------------------------

Paul Richter
LA Times


Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.

Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

Clinton, who was Obama's chief opponent during the Democratic presidential primaries, appears to be the top candidate for secretary of State in his administration. Speculation about Clinton has dismayed some liberal activists but has cheered some conservatives such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and editor William Kristol of the Weekly Standard.

Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, and despite pressure, she never said during the primary campaign that she regretted that vote. She also favored legislation last year to support the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, another decision that pleased conservatives.

In a move to advance her candidacy, Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, has agreed to take steps to avoid conflicts of interest posed by his far-flung financial dealings, Democrats close to the discussions said Wednesday.

Bill Clinton has agreed to check with the Obama administration before giving a paid speech. He also has agreed to disclose the sources of new contributions to his charitable enterprise, the William J. Clinton Foundation, those close to the matter said on condition of anonymity.

He also is trying to devise a way to share the identity of past donors, a touchy matter because some contributors do not want their identities divulged, said one Democrat.

Knowledgeable Democrats say that Gates is under consideration to remain in his post for at least several months even though he frequently has said he wants to return to private life when the Bush administration leaves office.

Activists note that Vice President-elect Joe Biden, also expected to be a leading voice in the new administration's foreign policy, voted for the 2002 war resolution.

Another possible contender for the diplomatic post, former U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke, also backed the Iraq invasion.

Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."

"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."

Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

Peace Action urged in a letter for its members to speak up because "we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq."

Despite concerns, some groups are trying to remain conciliatory.

Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton's views "very troubling," Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

"I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he's going to assemble a team that's committed to that goal," Andrews said.

Obama campaigned on a promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, or roughly one brigade a month.

Since winning the White House, Obama has affirmed his pledge to remove the troops but has left himself some flexibility on the withdrawal timetable.

In an appearance on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Obama promised a troop pullback but described it in broad terms.

"I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops," the president-elect said.

America's Best Leaders: U.S. Junior Officers, Military

It's good to see the MSM publish such a positive story about the US Military!

-------------------------------------

Anna Mulrine 

US News & World Report

While he was gearing up for the long trek through the high desert plains of southern Afghanistan, Capt. Sean Dynan made the rounds among his marines to make sure their sacks were pared to the bare minimum. How much heavy ammunition his infantry company would bring along on its journey was his call as well. If the soldiers brought too little, they could easily run out in the middle of their mission to rout entrenched Taliban forces. Too much and his marines were risking the injury that comes with carrying 120-plus-pound packs in 120-plus-degree heat.

Upon their arrival and in the midst of battle, Dynan was both warrior and diplomat, negotiating with local tribesmen and hearing grievances that spanned from security concerns to when businesses at the local bazaar would be up and running. After 10 years in the Marine Corps, Dynan is an old hand. This is his fourth tour to a war zone, including a stint in the onetime Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, Iraq, during the most violent part of the conflict.

Dynan's experience is typical of junior officers throughout the U.S. military. They have been called upon to serve in bloody and complicated wars on two fronts, many for more than half of their short careers. As a result, lieutenants and captains often have more combat experience than the generals who command them. "They are wise beyond their years," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about junior officers in an address this year to the Army War College. "We owe them our attention and our time." He urged their superiors to listen to them and called upon junior officers to question their superiors as well.

And they have. Indeed, the experience of junior officers has occasionally created strained relationships with senior leadership. Many have been frustrated by what they view as a lack of accountability at the highest levels of leadership. "It has created some tension," says Nathaniel Fick, author of One Bullet Away: the Making of a Marine Officer and a platoon leader in Iraq in the spring of 2003. "A private who loses a rifle gets into more trouble than a general who loses a war."

This stress has been compounded by the demands of repeated deployments on young troops and their families and made the accomplishments of those who have chosen to stay in the military all the more remarkable. Gen. David Petraeus, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, expressed admiration for the captains in the services, as well as concern about losing them, in congressional testimony earlier this year. In 2003, junior officers were leaving the military at a rate of 5.7 percent per year. In 2005, that level was 8.5 percent. Today, it is back down as a result of cash bonuses and education packages, but the Pentagon estimates it is still short roughly half the senior captains it needs.

The chief selling point that has kept many young officers in the military is the belief that they can make a sizable mark in the areas they command. Indeed, in two wars fought with too few troops, junior officers are often given great responsibility. Fick recalls that for a young platoon leader in a tough Baghdad neighborhood, it was a six-hour drive from the northern to the southernmost position of his area of operations. "We haven't seen that before in the military to quite that same extent. A young leader in the U.S. military can have an outsize impact today the way that a junior commander in Napoleon's army couldn't."

Fighter-leader. Being successful under such conditions often requires upending some old rules of leadership for young officers. The notion of the fighter-leader on the front lines, attacking beside troops, "is something I never saw anyone have a hard time with—never," says Fick, now retired and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington, D.C., think tank. The problem is that in such a large area of operations, leading alongside one's soldiers isn't always possible or advisable. "It's pretty easy to look another human in the eyes and say, 'This is going to suck, but I'm going to be there with you,' " Fick says. "It's harder saying, 'I need you to do this, and while you do, I'm going to be sitting in the [command center] tent with a cup of coffee."

To say that, Fick adds, he had two litmus tests. He had to know that whatever he asked his troops to do was morally right. "Not the justice of the Iraq war, but our big slice of the pie had to be morally justifiable." Second, he had to know that if any of his troops were killed, he "would be able to stand in their parents' living room and explain to them honestly why their son died working for me and why I thought it was worth it. That raises the bar very, very high," he adds. "But we cleared it every day."

Hitler really did only have ONE testicle, confirms German WWI medic who saved his life

At last, an article of real importance...

---------------------------------

London Daily Mail


An almost lost account from a German army medic who treated Adolf Hitler during World War I may have finally proved the Nazi leader did have just one testicle.

Johan Jambor made the revelation to a priest in the 1960s because he felt guilty for saving the future tyrant’s life after he was injured at the Battle of the Somme.

Father Franciszek Pawlar noted down the admission in confidence - but only now has the document been made public 23 years after Mr Jambor died.

The story that Hitler may have been monorchic – the medical term for having one testicle - has been mocked for years in a British song.

But until now there was very little proof the dictator had a missing testicle.

The claim had been written off by many historians as Allied propaganda – despite an alleged Soviet autopsy backing it up.

Records show Hitler, who was twice decorated for bravery as he faced enemy fire on a daily basis in his role as a runner, did suffer a groin injury in the Somme.

Johan’s friend Blassius Hanczuch confirmed the priest’s account of how the medic saved Hitler’s life.

He told the Sun: ‘In 1916 they had their hardest fight in the Battle of the Somme.

‘For several hours, Johan and his friends picked up injured soldiers. He remembers Hitler.

‘They called him the ‘screamer”. He was very noisy. Hitler was screaming “help, help”.

‘His abdomen and legs were all in blood. Hitler was injured in the abdomen and lost one testicle.

‘His first question to the doctor was: “Will I be able to have children?”.’
Mr Hanczuch said that when the Nazis swept to power Mr Jambor began to suffer nightmares and blame himself for saving its leader.

Dr Martin Farr, senior lecturer at Newcastle University School of Historical Studies, said last night: ‘This genuinely new twist is fascinating.’

Australia's navy is awarded a two-month Christmas holiday... on full pay

And we thought the US military had issues!

-------------------------

London Daily Mail


While Britain's military is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Australia's navy has just been awarded a big Christmas gift this year: two months paid vacation.

The move is designed to ease the effects of a recruiting slump but critics claimed it made the service Down Under look something like a part-time operation.

The navy hopes that by making life on the sea more family-friendly, it will attract the extra 2,000 sailors it needs achieve its target strength of 15,000.

Critics say the so-called shut down, which inspired a front page newspaper headline Tuesday: 'Navy Closes For Christmas,' will worry Australia's major defence ally, the United States.

'Mothballing your ships for two months sends totally the wrong message to our region and to our allies,' opposition defense spokesman David Johnston said. 'I've never heard of anything like this. I'm flabbergasted.'

All 55 navy ships and submarines that are not on operational deployments have been ordered home for Christmas, and the number of sailors who stay aboard docked ships as sentries will be reduced to skeleton crews.

It is not clear how many how many sailors will take extra time off.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio that the two months break for sailors, which begins December 3, is 'just a way of saying thank you and encouraging them to stay in the service.'

Fitzgibbon said a shortage of troops was the biggest challenge facing the Australian Defense Force and making their jobs more family friendly was part of the solution.

'The family-work balance is a very, very important part of the equation,' Fitzgibbon said.
Navy Deputy Chief Rear Adm. Davyd Thomas said that the break will not adversely impact national security.

An Australian navy frigate would remain in the Middle East guarding oil wells over Christmas and seven patrol boats would guard Australia's northern waters from illegal fishers and smugglers, he said.

Two ships would also be on standby, one on the east and the other on the west coast, to respond to any emergency at sea, he said.

Thomas said the navy always had a shutdown period over the southern summer, although this one was longer.

'We're trying to become an employer of choice. We want people to want to be in the navy and want to serve here,' Thomas told reporters.

Thomas said he expected most naval personnel would take the time off.

Neil James, executive director of the independent security think-tank Australian Defence Association, agreed the shutdown was not radically different from previous years, although it was a few weeks longer and would involve more ships remaining in dock.

He said the length of vacation would vary depending on the individual and some could expect to be recalled at short notice.

He said military chiefs had been considering longer Christmas vacations for years because the navy has the worst retention rate of Australia's three military services.

'The bottom line driving this is the retention problem,' James said.

'If you look at the exit surveys of people serving in the defense force, the biggest single cause of dissatisfaction is family-work life balance,' he said.

Iraq's government approves security pact with US

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's Cabinet overwhelmingly approved a security pact with the United States on Sunday, ending prolonged negotiations to allow American forces to remain for three more years in the country they first occupied in 2003.

The deal detailing the conditions of the U.S. presence still needs parliamentary approval, and lawmakers could vote as soon as Nov. 24. For Iraqis, the breakthrough was bittersweet because they won concessions from the Americans but must accept the presence of U.S. troops until 2012.

"It's the best possible, available option," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. He was referring to the conflict between Iraq's desire for full sovereignty and control over security and its need for American support and cooperation to achieve that goal.

Al-Dabbagh described the pact - intended to supplant the U.N. mandate expiring Dec. 31 - as an "agreement on the withdrawal of U.S. troops," and Washington welcomed the Cabinet's approval.

"While the process is not yet complete, we remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council.

There is a good chance parliament will pass the agreement with a large majority, since the parties that make up Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government dominate the legislature.

The pact was due to be completed by the end of July, but negotiations stumbled over parts pertaining to Iraqi sovereignty and judicial oversight.

Al-Dabbagh said Iraq's government has received U.S. assurances that the President-elect Barack Obama would honor the agreement, and pointed out that each side has the right to repeal it after giving one year's notice. Obama, who takes office in January, has said he would pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of moving into the White House - or May 2010.

Iraq's neighbors and U.S. adversaries, Iran and Syria, oppose the pact, arguing that the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces offered the best option for Iraq.

The Iraqi government sought to allay their fears, amending the document to prohibit the Americans from using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring nations.

The Cabinet's decision was made amid violence, despite a dramatic improvement in security over the past year. Fresh attacks underlined doubts about whether Iraq's nascent security forces can stand without U.S. military support and training.

Hours after the Cabinet vote, seven people died and seven were wounded in a suicide car bombing at a police checkpoint inDiyala, a turbulent province northeast of Baghdad, according to police Col. Ahmed Khalifa, chief of Jalula police station.

The U.S. military said the attack in Jalula occurred at a police station and that four police and six civilians died. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy in the reports.

Earlier Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three people and wounded seven in northern Baghdad, Iraqi authorities said.

Al-Dabbagh said all but one of 28 Cabinet ministers present in Sunday's meeting, in addition to al-Maliki, voted for the pact. The sole vote of dissent came from Minister of Women's Affairs Nawal al-Samaraie, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni Arab party.

She said she voted against the pact because she preferred that it be put to a nationwide referendum. She also wanted the U.S. military to free Sunni security detainees not charged with specific crimes, rather than hand them to Iraqi authorities as provided by the agreement.

The Cabinet vote followed Washington's decision last week to grant a request by al-Maliki for final amendments.

Khalid al-Attiyah, parliament's deputy speaker, said the changes removed ambiguous language that could have allowed U.S. forces to ignore a timeline for their withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and from the country by Jan. 1, 2012. The changes also tightened Iraq's control over security raids and the arrest of Iraqis.

The agreement is believed to have met Iraqi concerns over its sovereignty and its security needs as it continues to grapple with a diminished but persistent insurgency. It gives Iraq the right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base.

Al-Attiyah said he expected parliament to vote on the agreement by Nov. 24. If parliament approves the deal, President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies must ratify it.

Iraq's parliament is due to go into recess at the end of the month or in early December because of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday, when many lawmakers travel to Saudi Arabia on the annual pilgrimage.

Parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani canceled all leave for lawmakers and suspended foreign and out-of-town visits to ensure a quorum for the security pact vote, al-Attiyah said.

"I'm optimistic that this agreement will be passed through the Council of Representatives (parliament)," spokesman al-Dabbagh told Associated Press Television News. But he added: "You cannot guarantee 100 percent approval of anything."

Barring unforeseen developments, the document should receive the support of the 85 lawmakers of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, the 54 Kurdish lawmakers and most of the 44 lawmakers in the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab bloc.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands the loyalty of 30 lawmakers, urged parliament in a statement Sunday to reject the agreement "without the least hesitation." The statement was read by a top al-Sadr aide on Iraq's al-Sharqiya Television.

Al-Sadr, whose militiamen battled U.S. forces in the past, has threatened to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they don't immediately withdraw from Iraq. He called for a mass prayer and protest in a central Baghdad square on Friday.

The Cabinet vote came a day after Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, indicated he would not object to the pact if it passes by a comfortable majority in parliament.

Dunwoody becomes first female four-star general

WASHINGTON (AP) - Call it breaking the brass ceiling. Ann E. Dunwoody, after 33 years in the Army, ascended Friday to a peak never before reached by a woman in the U.S. military: four-star general.

At an emotional promotion ceremony, Dunwoody looked back on her years in uniform, said it was a credit to the Army—and a great surprise to her—that she would make history in a male-dominated military.

"Thirty-three years after I took the oath as a second lieutenant, I have to tell you this is not exactly how I envisioned my life unfolding," she told a standing-room-only auditorium. "Even as a young kid, all I ever wanted to do was teach physical education and raise a family.

"It was clear to me that my Army experience was just going to be a two-year detour en route to my fitness profession," she added. "So when asked, `Ann, did you ever think you were going to be a general officer, to say nothing about a four-star?' I say, `Not in my wildest dreams.'

"There is no one more surprised than I—except, of course, my husband. You know what they say, `Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man.' "

Dunwoody hails from a family of military men dating back to the 1800s. Her father, 89-year-old Hal Dunwoody—a decorated veteran of World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam—was in the audience, along with the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, plus the Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen.

Dunwoody, whose husband, Craig Brotchie, served for 26 years in the Air Force, choked up at times during a speech in which she said she only recently realized how much her accomplishment means to others.

"This promotion has taken me back in time like no other event in my entire life," she said. "And I didn't appreciate the enormity of the events until tidal waves of cards, letters, and e-mails started coming my way.

"And I've heard from men and women, from every branch of service, from every region of our country, and every corner of the world. I've heard from moms and dads who see this promotion as a beacon of home for their own daughters and after affirmation that anything is possible through hard work and commitment.

"And I've heard from women veterans of all wars, many who just wanted to say congratulations; some who just wanted to say thanks; and still other who just wanted to say they were so happy this day had finally come."

Later Friday, at Fort Belvoir, Va.—her birthplace—Dunwoody was being sworn in as commander of the Army Materiel Command, responsible for equipping, outfitting and arming all soldiers. Just five months ago, she became the first female deputy commander there.

Dunwoody, 55, has made it clear that she feels no need for special acclaim for her historic achievement.

"The recognition makes her a little bit uncomfortable from the standpoint of the gender aspect—that we're making a big deal (that) she is the first female general officer," Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday in announcing that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would attend her promotion ceremony.

When she was nominated by President George W. Bush in June for promotion to four-star rank, Dunwoody issued a statement saying she was humbled.

"I grew up in a family that didn't know what glass ceilings were," she said. "This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career—that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform."

Her nomination was confirmed by the Senate in July.

There are 21 female general officers in the Army—all but four at the one-star rank of brigadier. It was not until 1970 that the Army had its first one-star: Anna Mae Hays, chief of the Army Nurse Corps.

Women now make up about 14 percent of the active-duty Army and are allowed to serve in a wide variety of assignments. They are still excluded from units designed primarily to engage in direct combat, such as infantry and tank units, but their opportunities have expanded over the past two decades.

Dunwoody received her Army commission after graduating from the State University of New York in 1975.

Her first assignment was to Fort Sill, as supply platoon leader in June 1976, and she remained at Sill in various positions until she was sent to quartermaster officer school at Fort Lee, Va., in July 1980.

She later served in Germany and Saudi Arabia.

After graduating from the Command and General Staff College in 1987, she was assigned to Fort Bragg, N.C., where she became the 82nd Airborne Division's first female battalion commander.

She has numerous decorations, including the Distinguished Service Medal and Defense Superior Service Medal. 

Russia accused of cover-up over gassing of 20 sailors on nuclear submarine

Further proof of the sorry state of the Russian military...

--------------------------
Will Stewart
London Daily Mail


Fears of a Russian cover-up over the gassing to death of 20 sailors aboard a nuclear submarine emerged tonight after naval chiefs blamed a junior crew member for the tragedy. 

The submariner, named as Dmitry Grobov was taken away for interrogation on Tuesday -  three days after the incident - and has not been seen since.

There was concern tonight that he was being made a scapegoat instead of blaming senior naval officers who let Nerpa begin its sea trial in an unfit state.

Doubts rose as investigators claimed he has already confessed to setting off the submarine’s fire alarm which released waves of deadly Freon gas that killed the 20 sailors and technicians on board.

However engineers who built the boat immediately said the fire prevention system was too complex to have been turned on by a crew member by mistake.

The new nuclear submarine was in the Sea of Japan undergoing tests when the gas leak occurred on Saturday.

Claiming a culprit had been found, investigator Vladimir Markin claimed: ‘The inquiry has established that a member of the crew, a sailor, set off the anti-fire system without authorisation and for no reason.

‘This sailor has already admitted his error.

‘In connection with this, the suspect faces charges of negligence leading to death.’ The sailor could face up to seven years in prison for his role in the incident, which killed 20 and led to 21 others being hospitalised.

But questions have been raised whether the fire prevention system could have been turned on by a simple sailor.

Experts on the Nerpa said the system was ‘very complicated,’ and ‘too hard for someone who doesn’t know what they are doing to activate it.’ 

And a fellow officer on board the submarine said: ‘We don’t believe he is guilty. We worry that he might have given his confession under pressure.

‘He was taken to interrogation yesterday and he is not back yet. Who knows what he said or didn’t say or why he said it?’ 

Defence expert Alexander Golts said: ‘It will be absolutely unfair if this sailor is designated the sole person to be guilty of what happened.

Another, Pavel Felgenhauer, added: ‘In Russia there is always a tendency to look for a scapegoat.

‘The critical lack of qualified personnel in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union is the cause of most disasters.’ 

Astonishingly, despite the accident, the Nerpa has already been passed to be used by the Russian Navy, said Nikolai Makarov, head of the military’s general staff.

As officials tried to draw a line under the incident, sailors on-board the Nerpa, told how men died instantly as the deadly Freon gas passed through the ship.

They said the dead literally froze to death as they inhaled the fumes which reduce oxygen and lower temperatures in burning areas.

Even survivors suffered severe frostbite after scrambling to put on oxygen masks in the gas-filled compartments of the submarine.

In one of the most poignant stories to emerge, it was revealed that a 25-year-old working on the submarine with his father forced his own gas mask on his father so he would live. 

Vladimir Nezhura and his son Alexander were on-board of the submarine together - Alexander’s first assignment, in which he perished saving his father.

After US goes, Iraqi city faces vacuum

HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press 


ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq – The two sides squared off in a brightly patterned tent big enough to hold about 100 angry Sunni Muslim clan chiefs, the Shiite Muslim police chief, two Shiite government officials and — overseeing all — one frustrated seniorU.S. Army officer.

In the Arab world, such tents are put up for weddings, wakes or tribal gatherings where the local sheik hears grievances. The "sheik" in this case is Lt. Col. Michael Getchell, and the tent is the new battleground for American troops given the job of nation-building, city by city, in an Iraq battered by five years of violence.

It's uncharted territory for U.S. commanders. Instead of going into battle, they are dishing out cash to businesses to generate jobs, listening to pleas to free relatives in American custody and trying to settle bitter rivalries between Shiites and Sunnis — as Getchell was doing in that tent on the edge of Iskandariyah, a mixed-population city with a complex tribal structure.

"Four or five years ago, we did not know any of this," said Capt. Michael Penney, 34, a soft-spoken Texan under Getchell's command who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's challenging to adjust. Last time I was here, it was strictly security, chasing the enemy, but the way things are now, I had to adjust or risk failure."

To see how the U.S. military is handling its new duties, The Associated Press embedded this reporter three times in recent months with a unit that shared a downtown post with Iraqi police in this city of 150,000 people along a busy highway 30 miles south ofBaghdad.

Iskandariyah was once one of the country's bloodiest warfronts. But the violence began to wane in mid-2007 after the U.S. troop surge and the decision by some tribal leaders and insurgents to cooperate with the Americans. For the past year, Getchell's troops from Fort Campbell, Ky., have struggled to hold the fragile peace together.

So far it's working, despite occasional flare-ups. But American involvement in almost every aspect of daily life has expanded the vacuum to be filled when U.S. forces leave.

Most of the American troops based here have moved to the edge of the city, and the last soldiers will leave Iskandariyah to head home next month. Some U.S. officers express confidence the calm will survive their departure, but the city's Sunni and Shiite sheiks are far more nervous. 

The opposite views are no surprise. While the Iraqis and Americans speak of each other as friends, and exchange hugs and kisses in Arab fashion, they often seem to be talking past each other. The U.S. officers are all about team spirit and getting down to business, while the Iraqis take tribal perspectives, tend to wander around the subject, and can be loose with the truth to smear a rival or gain advantage for their clan.

The 120 men of Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division arrived in Iskandariyah last November. The city is a dusty place of tall date palms and long-slung buildings, home to a state-owned industrial complex that once had 36,000 workers making buses, trucks and agricultural machinery.

Nearly 70 percent of the population is Shiite, and the rest is Sunni. Part of Babil province, the city is the gateway to the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq and a main crossroad between Baghdad and the Shiite shrine city of Karbala, with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims passing through.

Barely a year ago, Iskandariyah was a stronghold of militants on both sides. Residents say sectarian violence was so ferocious that hardly anyone showed up for work at the factories, and streets emptied by early afternoon.

"My predecessor was killed on his way to work here and he only lived one kilometer away," said Raad Bahloul Moussa, director of the city's truck factory. "I used to change cars every month, always buying a different color to escape detection. Now I drive to work in a car with the words 'Ministry of Industry' written on its side."

These days, shoppers throng outdoor food markets, stores remain open well after dark and children go to school regularly. Enrollment in the city's sole vocational school — partly supported with U.S. funds — swelled from 30 a year ago to 1,270 this summer.

"We do not only offer training but we also contribute to security because some of the students who enrolled here would have otherwise planted roadside bombs or joined militias," said the school's director, Naseer Abdul-Jabar.

In preparation for their departure, the American officers are trying to get people to take their problems to the municipal council and provincial government instead. And with less money for business grants and salaries for private security forces, they're urging the Iraqis to find other sources of cash.

"My goal is that there will be no more need for coalition forces here when I and my unit leave," Penney told community leaders in July.

Penney, a native of Jacksboro, Texas, met Sheik Zaher al-Shafaie soon after arriving in Iskandariyah. Al-Shafaie has an English degree from Baghdad University and an extensive vocabulary of American profanities. The Shiite sheik's family sided with the Americans early in the war, inviting danger.

The two men act friendly, but their relationship seems based mostly on mutual need.

Penney sought al-Shafaie's help to secure Iskandariyah and help reconcile Shiite and Sunni clans. Al-Shafaie wanted some reward to bolster his standing in his clan — money for a showcase project, say, or a bigger contract to supply the Americans with armed security men.

"We have been friends with the coalition forces from the very beginning, but we got nothing in return," al-Shafaie told Penney during one conversation in May.

"Al-Shafaie always wants to make you feel that you owe him," Penney said later.

Penney brought together al-Shafaie and Sunni sheiks with whom he has a long-running blood feud to explore whether they could jointly set up a farmers' cooperative.

"Sheik Zaher," Penney told the sheik during the May meeting, "you always give me so many suggestions. I want to make just one suggestion to you: Complete the reconciliation."

But Al-Shafaie says he's survived two assassination attempts by Sunni militants, and claims the rival sheiks facilitated the murder of two of his brothers and nine cousins. He demanded the Sunni suspects be brought to justice. The Sunnis replied that they would try to find the suspects and hand them over to police if al-Shafaie could identify them.

Al-Shafaie was not convinced. He sent a younger brother in his place to further meetings on the cooperative, which was finally set up in late summer but has done little to foster reconciliation.

"It's a start," Penney said. "I think it is more of a power struggle than an issue of reconciliation."

One night, as he sat in his cramped quarters before a picture of his two young boys, Michael Ezekiel and Samuel Christian, Penney mused on his family and his mission in this dusty corner of Iraq.

"Personally, I feel good about what we have accomplished here," he said.

And does he think the calm in the city can last? "Our experience tells us that as fragile as reconciliation is in Iskandariyah, it will take something really big to break it down," he said.

Sheik Abdul-Ameer al-Wajid and 1st Lt. Eric Zellers hugged and kissed before the Iraqi complained that the 24-year-old West Point graduate had not been to see him in three weeks.

"How could a friend do that to a friend?" said the sheik, assuming a hurt expression and peering from behind tinted glasses.

Al-Wajid, 65, and his son Wissam run a group of 200 Shiite fighters who have joined the Americans in Iskandariyah to fight Sunni and Shiite militants.

The sheik is typical of community leaders who have offered the Americans loyalty and inside knowledge of the region in exchange for wages for themselves and their armed neighborhood guards. Such communities with guards to support U.S. troops across Iraq received more than $200 million through July.

Zellers, an engineer, is among hundreds of young American officers in Iraq implementing a new strategy that focuses on financing small projects such as fish and poultry farms to generate jobs and win goodwill for the U.S.

"Iraq is so complex. It is not easy to work here or get things done," Zellers said before he heard a lengthy list of complaints about problems the sheik faces running U.S.-backed armed checkpoints.

Zellers, who is from Battle Creek, Mich., wanted to weed out some lazy or incompetent men on the sheik's neighborhood guard.

"Obviously, we must start firing people. I will do it. Just put together a list of names and I will take care of it," Zellers said. "I am tired of talking."

The sheik was afraid of losing face with his clan.

"Give me the power and I will have them beaten up or jailed," he suggested.

Zellers nixed that idea. Then came the announcement that dinner was ready, and Iraqis and Americans dug into rice, lamb and chicken served on communal platters, ending any discussion of firing the sheik's clansmen.

Getchell, a 42-year-old from Bridgewater, Mass., is a large man, but his military bearing is undercut by an Arab habit he's adopted: fingering a string of worry beads.

"I am spending way too much time with the sheiks" is his excuse. Getchell has become their financier, protector, employer and peacekeeper.

He said there is still friction between tribes over killings that took place in 2005 and 2006, and his men keep uncovering arms caches, mostly of rifles and bullets.

Getchell organizes reconciliation conferences at which various sheiks and officials make command performances, such as the meeting in a tent outside a Sunni sheik's home on an unbearably hot August morning.

City Police Chief Col. Ali al-Zahawi and two officials of the Shiite-dominated provincial government were invited to hear Sunni complaints after a suicide bombing killed 26 people, wounded 75 and set off the arrests of dozens of Sunnis during police raids on homes and mosques.

Al-Zahawi, in a dark blue uniform, stared sullenly at the Sunni sheiks sitting opposite in their flowing robes. The provincial officials, members of the Iranian-backed Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Iraq's largest Shiite party, were in Western-style suits. Getchell's Arab interpreter struggled to keep up with the heated discussion and a long lecture on the dangers of terrorism by one of the provincial officials.

The Sunnis' spokesman, Sheik Mohammed al-Khonfosi, pointedly noted that the suicide bomber's victims included Sunnis.

"It was not an attack on Shiites. It was on all Iraqis," he said.

Earlier, with Getchell in a room full of fellow Sunnis, al-Khonfosi had accused the security forces and the Shiite-led government of bias, and argued the entire country was being run by Shiite-majority Iran, not Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's U.S.-backed government.

"All of us here have arrived at the conclusion that only the U.S. Army can solve our problems. We have no representation in the government," al-Khonfosi said.

Getchell said nothing. He later confided that the Iskandariyah police were hardly free of bias, but the Sunni sheiks also were spinning "hearsay and rumors."

Publicly, the American commander had this to say to the Sunni sheiks: "If you guys sit on your backsides all day, nothing will happen. There are things that you can do to help things. Get the Sunnis recognition by persuading your people to register as voters."

General bucks culture of silence on mental health

PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press 


WASHINGTON – It takes a brave soldier to do what Army Maj. Gen. David Blackledge did in Iraq.

It takes as much bravery to do what he did when he got home.

Blackledge got psychiatric counseling to deal with wartime trauma, and now he is defying the military's culture of silence on the subject of mental health problems and treatment.

"It's part of our profession ... nobody wants to admit that they've got a weakness in this area," Blackledge said of mental health problems among troops returning from America's two wars.

"I have dealt with it. I'm dealing with it now," said Blackledge, who came home with post-traumatic stress. "We need to be able to talk about it."

As the nation marks Veterans Day on Tuesday, thousands of troops are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with anxiety, depression and other emotional problems.

As many as one-fifth of the more than 1.7 million who have served in the wars are estimated to have symptoms. In a sign of how tough it may be to change attitudes, roughly half of those who need help are not seeking it, studies have found.

Despite efforts to reduce the stigma of getting treatment, officials say they fear generals and other senior leaders remain unwilling to go for help, much less talk about it, partly because they fear it will hurt chances for promotion.

That reluctance is also worrisome because it sends the wrong signal to younger officers and perpetuates the problem leaders are working to reverse.

"Stigma is a challenge," Army Secretary Pete Geren said Friday at a Pentagon news conference on troop health care. "It's a challenge in society in general. It's certainly a challenge in the culture of the Army, where we have a premium on strength, physically, mentally, emotionally."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked leaders this year to set an example for all soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines: "You can't expect a private or a specialist to be willing to seek counseling when his or her captain or colonel or general won't do it."

Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, an Army psychiatrist heading the defense center for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, is developing a campaign in which people will tell their personal stories. Troops, their families and others also will share concerns and ideas through Web links and other programs. Blackledge volunteered to help, and next week he and his wife, Iwona, an Air Force nurse, will speak on the subject at a medical conference.

A two-star Army Reserve general, 54-year-old Blackledge commanded a civil affairs unit on two tours to Iraq, and now works in the Pentagon as Army assistant deputy chief of staff for mobilization and reserve issues.

His convoy was ambushed in February 2004, during his first deployment. In the event that he since has relived in flashbacks and recurring nightmares, Blackledge's interpreter was shot through the head, his vehicle rolled over several times and Blackledge crawled out of it with a crushed vertebrae and broken ribs. He found himself in the middle of a firefight, and he and other survivors took cover in a ditch.

He said he was visited by a psychiatrist within days after arriving at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. He had several sessions with the doctor over his 11 months of recovery and physical therapy for his injuries.

"He really helped me," Blackledge said. And that's his message to troops.

"I tell them that I've learned to deal with it," he said. "It's become part of who I am."

He still has bad dreams about once a week but no longer wakes from them in a sweat, and they are no longer as unsettling.

On his second tour to Iraq, Blackledge traveled to neighboring Jordan to work with local officials on Iraq border issues, and he was in an Amman hotel in November 2005 when suicide bombers attacked, killing some 60 and wounding hundreds.

Blackledge got a whiplash injury that took months to heal. The experience, including a harrowing escape from the chaotic scene, rekindled his post-traumatic stress symptoms, though they weren't as strong as those he'd suffered after the 2004 ambush.

Officials across the service branches have taken steps over the last year to make getting help easier and more discreet, such as embedding mental health teams into units.

They see signs that stigma has been slowly easing. But it's likely a change that will take generations.

Russian navy: sub accident kills more than 20

This is a reminder of how inept the Russians are.  After the Georgian invasion everyone started to get worried that the Russians are back - everyone be afraid!  We now know that even at the height of their power, the Soviet Union was a paper tiger except for their nuclear capability.  If that's the case, then they are even worse now!  I just want to remind everyone that Russian conventional forces are still only capable of beating up the weak kid with glasses on the playground.

----------------------------------------

STEVE GUTTERMAN

Associated Press 

MOSCOW – An accident aboard a nuclear-powered Russian navy submarine doing a test run in the Pacific Ocean on Saturday killed more than 20 people, the navy said.

The nuclear reactor aboard the submarine was operating normally and radiation levels were normal, navy spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said on Sunday.

The accident occurred when a fire-extinguishing system went into operation in error aboard the submarine, Dygalo said. He said the dead included sailors and shipbuilders.

The submarine was heading back to shore on its own power, and 21 people injured in the accident were evacuated to a ship that was escorting the sub. There were 208 people aboard the vessel.

The state-run RIA-Novosti news agency cited an unnamed official in Russia's Pacific Fleet as saying the accident occurred toward the bow of the submarine and that there was no threat to the nuclear reactor, closer to the center.

Dygalo would not name the submarine or say exactly where the accident took place.

RIA-Novosti cited an unnamed official at the Amur Shipbuilding Factory as saying the sub was built there, is called the Nerpa and was on a test run in the Sea of Japan when the accident occurred.

The official said the sub was heading for a base in the Primorye region, which includes the port city of Vladivostok.

According to RIA-Novosti, testing on the submarine began last month and it submerged for the first time last week.

Russia's navy has been plagued by deadly accidents, including the explosions that sank the nuclear-powered submarine Kursk in 2000, killing all 118 seamen aboard.

Saturday's accident came as the Kremlin seeks to restore Russia's naval reputation. A naval squadron is headed to Venezuela for joint exercises this month in a show of force near U.S. waters.

Russian president Medvedev announces plan to move missiles to Baltic borders

London Daily Mail


Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said that Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defence plans.

President Medvedev also announced plans to deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defence facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

In his first major speech to the Kremlin, Medvedev also proposed extending the presidential term to six years from four years on Wednesday, a step he said was needed to deal with massive challenges facing the country.

He said he wanted to increase the powers of parliament over the executive and helping smaller parties win better representation in parliament.

He said the government would have explain its policies every year to parliament.

"(I propose) an increase of the constitutional terms of the president and State Duma (lower house of parliament) to 6 years and 5 years respectively.'

Medvedev, who took over as president in May from Vladimir Putin, did not say when the changes would be implemented. But analysts said the decision would give future presidents the chance to rule for two six year terms.

Medvedev, a former corporate lawyer and close Putin ally, took over as president in May. Putin, now prime minister, served two four year terms as president.

Before Putin endorsed Medvedev to succeed him, there had been speculation the presidential term could be extended to allow the former KGB spy to stay in office.

Medvedev said challenges such as the global financial crisis, modernising the armed forces and preserving stability meant the changes to the presidential term were needed.

'I am convinced that our movement towards freedom and democracy will be successful and steadfast only if the authority of the president and the State Duma will be high,' Medvedev said.

Fantasist Army interpreter is found guilty of spying for Iran

London Daily Mail


An Army interpreter who worked for Britain's top general in Afghanistan was today found guilty of spying for Iran.

Daniel James, who had access to the highest echelons of the Nato mission in Kabul, was caught betraying his country in a series of coded e-mails.

The Iranian-born corporal, 45, a flamboyant fantasist who styled himself 'General James', believed he had been denied promotion because of racism and jealousy, the Old Bailey heard.

He told one colleague: 'They will have their comeuppance.'

James also needed money. He was £25,000 in debt and had four mortgages on flats in Brighton - although he later claimed he would not give away secrets for a million pounds.

On his 2006 tour of duty in Afghanistan, he started to work alongside Lt-General David Richards, commander of the international forces in Afghanistan.

James made contact with the Iranian Embassy in Kabul and used his 'unique and privileged position' to pass highly sensitive secrets to a colonel there.

He told Colonel Mohammad Hossein Heydari by e-mail: 'I am at your service.'
His treachery could have cost the lives of British soldiers, the court was told.

'Something of a Walter Mitty character', he 'would no doubt find his new clandestine role something exciting and special', the jury heard.
Prosecutor Mark Dennis QC said his actions were 'the height of betrayal'.

Today James, a Territorial Army soldier who moved to Britain as a teenager and became a salsa dance instructor and club owner, was found guilty of one count under the Official Secrets Act.

The charge related to sending e-mails to his Iranian contact.

Jurors were still deliberating on a second charge under the Act relating to a USB memory stick containing secret documents that was found in his possession, as well as a third count of misconduct in public office.

Judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans told the jury he would accept majority verdicts on the outstanding charges.

The case continues.

Japan air force chief fired for WWII views

TOKYO (AP) - Japan's defense minister dismissed his air force chief on Friday for writing an essay that claimed the country was not an "aggressor" in World War II and was trapped into getting involved in the conflict by the United States.

Toshio Tamogami's essay will likely upset relations with China and South Korea, who remain bitter about Japan's wartime occupation and contend that Tokyo has failed to properly atone for its invasion of the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan and parts of China.

"His views are different from the government's. It is not desirable for him to stay in the job," Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada told reporters soon after the essay was made public Friday.

Mr. Tamogami was not available for comment late Friday and a Defense Ministry spokesman said the former air force chief had not released a statement. He spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

In the essay, titled "Was Japan an Aggressor Nation?" Mr. Tamogami said it was "certainly a false accusation" to say Japan was "an aggressor nation" during World War II.

"The current Chinese government obstinately insists that there was a 'Japanese invasion,' but Japan obtained its interests in the Chinese mainland legally under international law through the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War and so on, and it placed its troops there based on treaties in order to protect those interests," he wrote.

He also asserted that life under Japanese occupation was "very moderate" and cited a rise in the population on the Korean Peninsula during Japan's 1910-1945 occupation as "proof that Korea under Japanese rule was also prosperous and safe."

Mr. Tamogami also said that Japan was tricked into attacking Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Japan was "snared in a trap that was very carefully laid by the United States in order to draw Japan into a war," he wrote.

"Roosevelt had become president on his public pledge not to go to war, so in order to start a war between the United States and Japan, it had to appear that Japan took the first shot. Japan was caught in Roosevelt's trap and carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor," he wrote.

Mr. Tamogami ended his essay by saying Japan should reclaim its glorious history and warning that a country that denies its own history is destined to fall.

Japan renounced its right to wage war in its 1947 U.S.-drafted constitution, and Tokyo has repeatedly expressed remorse to its neighbors for its colonial rule and wartime aggression, including in a 1995 statement by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the war's end.

But Japan has struggled to convince Asian critics - and victims - of its contrition because of a strong nationalist presence in the Japanese government. Last year, a group of nationalist lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party angered China by saying the generally accepted death toll in the "Rape of Nanking" massacre was grossly inflated.

Mr. Tamogami's essay won a writing competition organized by a hotel and condominium developer, Apa Group, which published the prize-winning article on Friday.

FCS, “Transformation” Wrong Path: Top Army Brain

Greg Grant 
DoD Buzz.com 


Two distinct groups are emerging in the Army with quite different views on the nature of future wars the U.S. is likely to fight and the decisions the service should make about future force structure and weapons. The first group is the Title 10 side that urges the Army to embrace the troubled Future Combat Systems program and new operational concepts built around dominant battlefield intelligence. The other side is represented by officers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who think future wars will resemble the messy reality of the current ones. 

In a new paper, Army Col. H.R. McMaster, definitely a member of the messy war group, calls for abandoning so-called transformation, which is intellectually rooted in the idea of a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). McMaster, of 73 Easting and Tal Afar fame, is a highly influential soldier-scholar who is currently putting together a brain trust for Gen. David Petraeus to review U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

McMaster says the widely held vision of a revolution in warfare, of light, agile high-tech forces destroying an adversary with pin-point precision weapons fired from stand-off distances, ran headlong into reality in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a superlative stretch of reality to describe the brutal fighting in those wars as anything remotely revolutionary. Both have featured much less high-tech and much more high-firepower in fierce firefights, not at the stand off ranges preferred by U.S. soldiers but in engagements where combatants were separated by only a few feet. 

He says the U.S. will fight future wars “against armed groups that employ tactics and strategies similar to those it is facing in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The Army’s “legacy” formations have figured prominently in the current fight and will again in future wars. He criticizes analysts and officers - calling out Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap and Lt. Gen. David Deptula - who “advocate a return to 1990s thinking” where high-tech surveillance, air power and precision weaponry deliver “effects” against the enemy from long range in an effort to avoid costly and protracted “boots on the ground” efforts. Those who have bought into the RMA orthodoxy make the mistake of defining future conflict “as we might prefer it to be,” McMaster says.

McMaster really lets it fly at both Air Force leaders who have been very vocal in pushing the notion that airpower is America’s true asymmetric advantage. “Deptula and Dunlap fail to consider the enemy’s ability to react and adopt countermeasures that complicate our ability to remotely deliver effects. One wonders what kind of remotely delivered capability might secure people from terrorists living in their midst, reconstitute a police force, or interdict concealed vehicle bombs aimed at crowded marketplaces.” Moreover, McMaster says, future adversaries, such as China, are developing weapons designed specifically to take out U.S. surveillance and IT assets

McMaster takes a big swipe at his own service and the $200 billion Future Combat Systems program that was originally intended to supply the Army with a new family of lightweight armored vehicles but has since dissolved into a collection of some promising and many not so promising technologies. McMaster says recent combat experience shows, “we should reject the notion that lightness, ease of deployment, and reduced logistical infrastructure are virtues in and of themselves. What a force is expected to achieve once it is deployed is far more important than how quickly it can be moved and how easily it can be sustained.” 

The FCS program likes to show a briefing slide that illustrates the long line of fuel tankers required to support the gas guzzling Abrams tank and the much fewer needed to support the future FCS vehicle. McMaster points out the weakness of that pitch. Sure, a 30 ton FCS vehicle with new, more efficient engine technologies will cut down on the logistical tail compared to Abrams tanks. But what do you get at the end of that long line of fuel tankers? With the Abrams, arguably the world’s best main battle tank with an impenetrable frontal arc and unmatched firepower. With FCS, you get a vehicle, with armor no thicker than that of a Bradley, that depends on situational awareness to survive an engagement. 

McMaster says that despite six years of combat experience, the Army continues to embrace the “flawed doctrinal concepts and a continued fixation on futuristic experiments” that say FCS equipped soldiers will have near perfect situational awareness and will be able to promptly dispatch enemies without engaging in close combat. That’s a dangerous road to go down, he warns, that could end up costing soldiers lives. The gulf between the Army’s new warfighting concepts and the lessons coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan “demands a thorough review of Army organization.” 

McMaster says theory continues to triumph over practice because of the tangled web of relationships between defense contractors, the DoD, Congress, and think tanks that often lend legitimacy to flawed concepts. He says the military should stop outsourcing its intellectual responsibilities, and defense contractors “should not produce and test operational concepts that can later be used to justify the purchase of their systems or products.” 

Air Force: Nuke missile silo fire went undetected

DENVER (AP) - A fire caused $1 million worth of damage at an unmanned underground nuclear launch site last spring, but the Air Force didn't find out about it until five days later, an Air Force official said Thursday.

The May 23 fire burned itself out after an hour or two, and multiple safety systems prevented any threat of an accidental launch of the Minuteman III missile, Maj. Laurie Arellano said. She said she was not allowed to say whether the missile was armed with a nuclear warhead at the time of the fire. 

Arellano said the Air Force didn't know a fire had occurred until May 28, when a repair crew went to the launch site—about 40 miles east of Cheyenne, Wyo., and 100 miles northeast of Denver—because a trouble signal indicated a wiring problem. 

She said the flames never entered the launch tube where the missile stood and there was no danger of a radiation release. 

The fire, blamed on a faulty battery charger, burned a box of shotgun shells, a shotgun and a shotgun case that were kept in the room, Arellano said. A shotgun is a standard security weapon at missile silos. 

Arellano said the battery chargers at all U.S. missile launch site have been replaced. 

She said the incident wasn't reported sooner because of the complexity of the investigation. 

The damage from the fire was estimated at $1 million, including the cost of replacing damaged equipment and cleanup. 

An Air Force report of the incident released Thursday found flaws in the technical orders for assembling battery charger parts, inspection procedures and modifications of the launch complex ventilation system. It was also critical of the presence of flammable materials. 

Cheyenne Mayor Jack Spiker, who said he learned of the incident when contacted by a reporter Thursday, said the fire doesn't undermine his confidence in the safety of the missile operations. 

"It's rare that they have an accident, and the accidents have never really, that I know of, amounted to much because of the safety devices that are built into the system," he said. 

The revelation was the latest in a string of embarrassing missteps involving the nation's nuclear arsenal. In 2006, four electrical fuses for ballistic missile warheads were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan, and in 2007, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped missiles when it flew betweenAir Force bases in North Dakota and Louisiana. 

The Air Force announced last week it was setting up a new Global Strike Command to better manage its nuclear-capable bombers and missiles.